While You Were Sleeping is one of the holiday movie favorites of the younger female set in my family. While we were all sleeping last night, Congress was doing another vote to set us all up with health care. I hear the botox tax is out (perhaps the concession to the Speaker of the House?); tanning tax is in. Neither one would affect me. If I want to get skin cancer, I'll do it the old-fashioned way and get some fresh air with it.

 

Please watch this minute-and-a-half clip on youtube. There's nothing like revisionist history from the President. He claims the national debt doubled under the previous administration. I have this irritating little characteristic. In Biblical terms, we call it being Berean. I went looking for the facts.

 

With this handy-dandy application on the Treasury website, you can deal with actual figures. From January 21, 2001 to January 21, 2009, the national debt increased just over 81%. From January 21, 2009 to December 21, 2009 it increased approximately 13.8%. Not even allowing for the fact that there's a month left in Obama's first year, if he gets eight years (God forbid!), the national debt will increase 110%! And we're talking about more than doubling a larger number than that evil George Bush actually didn't double.

 

Robert Samuelson has some great articles on Real Clear Politics.

 

Michelle Malkin delineates the bribes used to get the votes here.

 

Read here what they're saying in China about buying our debt.

 

Americans for Prosperity and Huckabee were having a rally in Omaha today to put pressure on Ben Nelson to withdraw his support from the healthcare legislation. I would have liked to have gone, but I needed to go to the doctor. I told him I was trying to get all my healthcare done before the government takes it over.

 

I have a great doctor. He's smart and caring. Usually he has a joke of the day.

 

Not today. I suspect he's as down as I am about what's going on in Washington.

 

Another doctor, Sen. Tom Coburn, said on the floor of the Senate that we need to be praying for divine intervention. I agree.

 

UPDATE: I just discovered that the Omaha rally was yesterday. The email was mailed early Sunday morning and said "tomorrow." It's a good thing I didn't go! You can sign a petition to Sen. Ben Nelson here.

If you're a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim employer, you might be interested to learn about one of President Obama's pending nominees to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It's Chai Felblum, an extremely out lesbian from, according to the Wikipedia entry about her, an Orthodox Jewish family. To muddle matters even further, her partner (who's also on the faculty at Georgetown Law, a Catholic and Jesuit University) comes from a Southern Baptist background.

 

Ms. Feldblum has a trail that goes a long ways back. A Dec. 7, 1992 Washington Post articles identifies her as a liberal "former American Civil Liberties Union attorney" (I know--that's redundant) appointed by the Clinton Administration to an agency audit team.

 

She was involved with the Campaign for Military Service which pushed for homosexuals in the military. She was "legal counsel for the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual-rights group" (Washington Times, Oct. 22, 1996). She helped write the Americans with Disabilities Act. When a New York federal judge ruled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" unconstitutional in 1997, a Baltimore Sun article quoted Feldblum as saying, "This will be critical in forcing courts to see gay people as full human beings, as individuals whose sexual conduct is no different in quality from that of heterosexuals" and "The ruling does not mean that morality is thrown out the window, not at all. It simply means that morality is to be applied equally."

 

Feldblum was a founding member of the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) a group that opposed the Solomon Amendment that requires colleges that receive federal monies to allow the military on campus to recruit in spite of the fact that the military isn't as open to blatant homosexuality as the campuses are.

 

Feldblum started the Moral Values Project which can be seen here. Many of her writings can be seen here. In her chapter "Moral Conflict and Conflicting Liberties," she identifies three views of gay sex: 1. "It is morally harmful (and/or sinful) both for the individual and for the community." 2. "Gay sexual activity is not good, but is also not inherently harmful." 3. "Gay sexual activity has the same moral valence as heterosexual activity and that gay people are basically similar to straight people."

 

Other quotes from the chapter: "...I believe it is more appropriate in any event to analyze these belief claims as liberty claims and not to elevate religious beliefs over other deeply held beliefs derived from nonreligious sources." "The government is taking a position on the moral question when it fails to extend access to civil marriage to same-sex couples." "I believe that heterosexuality and homosexuality are morally neutral characteristics (similar to having red hair or brown hair), and I believe that acting consistently with one's sexual orientation is a morally good act." "I believe it is essential that we not privilege moral beliefs that are religiously based over other sincerely held core moral beliefs."

 

Her partner's blog says the most important part of Feldblum’s appointment is that she’ll be there to set the regulations if ENDA passes because “the EEOC will be the agency responsible for issuing regulations for its enforcement.” Feldblum helped write the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

 

Her nomination made it out of the Senate committee last week. If you're an employer that holds to traditional moral values, you have my permission to be concerned.

 

See quotes from Feldblum as well as another Obama cohort, Cass Sunstein, in this New York Times column, "Will Same-Sex Marriage Collide with Religious Liberty?"

I finally just now got around to watching President Obama's speech to the cadets at West Point Tuesday evening. According to this on Spiegel, the cadets were told to respond enthusiastically to the President's speech. Up until the last five minutes or so, they didn't appear to be much more responsive than mannikins. At least one took the opportunity for a catnap; another caught up on his reading while he waited for the speech to start. Kill Bin Laden was the title of the book.

 

The cadets saved their applause for talk of such things as freedom and opportunity in the last five minutes. Obama would have been done quicker if he'd left out all the pauses. I had the feeling that he was expecting standing o's for every sentence he said like he's used to getting from friendlier audiences. Which reminds me of what Chris Matthews said about Obama being in the enemy camp. I must say that's a strange thing to say about those who have dedicated their lives to protecting our freedom. That says more about the present occupant of the White House than it says about West Point.

 

As this LA Times blog post headline says: 4,582 words and not one of them was "Victory." It was a deficiency that I had already noticed. The word "win" wasn't in there, either. The blog post also quoted David Gergen who said, "The cavalry is coming. But not for long" in response to the advertised date of July, 2011 to start withdrawal from Afghanistan.

 

The "good news" was made available to our enemies via translation on the White House's web site.

The President mentioned that the Afghanistan election "produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan's laws and constitution." You might, therefore, be interested in what the Afghanistan consitution looks like. It's very odd. I couldn't get links to work for this page. You'll have to go to www.mfa.gov.af/ and search with "constitution." Choose the html version. Chapter 1, Article 3 is very telling: "No law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan." This is the 2004 version of their constitution.

 

This article in the Washington Post, written nearly two years after their new consitution, shows that free speech did not extend to saying anything that went against Islamic teaching.

 

Check out this 2007 Wall Street oped by a former terrorist for a better understanding of Islam and shariah law.

 

This 2008 Washington Post article tells of a journalism student sentenced to death for handing out literature questioning Islam's limiting of women's rights.

 

Here are some other reactions to Obama's Tuesday night speech that you might have heard about and want to see for yourself:

 

Bob Schieffer: "defining moment of the Obama Presidency"; "don't understand the logic"

Ralph Peters' editorial: Setting up our military to fail (Peters is a retired LTC)

David Brooks: says it's good policy but doesn't know how Obama intends to fight the war; "good but puzzling speech"

 

Last of all, how do you fight a war with these rules of engagement? No night or surprise searches. Don't fire until the enemy prepares to fire. Don't engage the enemy if civilians are around. U.S. military has to be accompanied on searches by Afghan police or military.

 

 

Remember Rashid Khalidi? He was a former frequent dinner companion of the Chicago Obamas according to this April, 2008 LA Times article. Guess who was on the board with Salahi?

 

If you check Michaele’s facebook page (assuming it’s still available), it’s apparent that she thought she was invited to the wingding. She was hardly a wallflower. She snagged pictures with Katie Couric and even the Rahm himself.

 

Her mother told the New York Post that Michaele was “informally” invited by a woman a few weeks ago.

I've been reading that the Salahis could be charged with lying to a federal agent. Really? What I'd like to know is when the members of the House, the Senate, and the Obama administration are going to be held responsible for lying to the whole country.

If you live in Texas, you might be interested to know that one of your Democratic candidates for governor is also a member of the ATFP board. That would be Farouk Shami. Here’s a speech he gave when he received an award from the group. (“We are for love. We are for peace.” My goodness! Is he a hippie?) I just noticed a change was made on this page of the ATFP website on November 28, 2009 to a report about the 2007 Gala. I'm sure that is just what we know as a co-inky-dink.

 

Addendum: Since things seem to have a habit of disappearing on the Internet, I'm adding a link to the current page for ATFP board members, showing Farouk Shami.

Fox News reported this afternoon that the Navy Seals captured Ahmed Hashim Abed, a most-wanted terrorist, in Iraq in September and three of them are now going to be court-martialed because somehow he got a bloody lip. The defense attorney of one of the "offenders" said in the Navy Times that the offense was "a punch in the gut."

 

What did poor little Abed do to make those big, bad Navy Seals want to capture him? Well, if Fox News is right about his identity and intelligence is right about his offense, it's believed that he planned the attack in which four contractors were ambushed and killed in Fallujah before their bodies were burned and dragged through town. For an encore, two of the bodies were strung up from a bridge for photo ops for the press.

 

Anyone know how recruitment is going for the military under the Obama Administration?

 

It would seem to me that the only thing that would help it would be the current crummy employment situation. This McClatchy article from November 6 states, "When discouraged workers and underemployed workers are factored in, the unemployment rate stands around 17.5 percent."

I heard Chris Stigall, a local radio host, say that Jon Stewart is continuing his rants against Obama that he began in July. You can't prove it by me. (Remember, no cable.) He also said that Saturday Night Live had a skit against him this weekend. Again, I didn't watch it. Now that I'm older, my bedtime is way before Saturday Night Live. But I did find that Saturday Night Live skit on youtube.

 

It's pretty interesting when you think about it. Just a little over a year ago, both shows were on the Obama bandwagon, and we can probably give them at least partial credit for the election of a phenomenally under-qualified Presidential candidate since they're probably the only "news" information that some Obama voters got.

 

I'd heard the talk about Lindsey Graham's spanking of Eric Holder in Senate discussions about the terrorist trials coming to New York City. I found that on youtube also. It's good. You can watch it here.

 

And my favorite uncle--Uncle Jay of unclejayexplains.com gives his weekly review of the past week's news in three minutes here.

 

If you're in need of a mood lifter after the latest Saturday night massacre in Washington, how about this youtube video of Anita Renfro's video of everything a mother says in a day, sung to the William Tell Overture?

 

Now, go out and have a good day!

 

 

 A little over 200 years ago, the United States purchased more than 800,000 square miles of territory from France for $15 million in an exchange we know as “The Louisiana Purchase.” Last week, in what is being referred to as the New Louisiana Purchase, the leader of the Senate bought a single vote from a Louisiana senator, and it cost him (well, actually, us) way more than that. What was originally reported as a $100 million dollar deal was revealed by the “good” senator from Louisiana to be $300 million.

 

Senator Landrieu, originally concerned about the cost of the bill, was made less concerned after language was added which provides for additional federal subsidies from the federal government specifically for states that have had a major disaster within the past seven years. Can we all say, “Hurricane Katrina”?

 

Both Landrieu and Lincoln of Arkansas, who pass for conservatives in the Democrat party, say they'll vote against the public option in the final vote. By then, it might not matter. Fox reported in October  that the House set things up so that the nuclear option, also called reconciliation, could be used, requiring a simple majority in the Senate. The way I understand it, that will allow the likes of Landrieu and Lincoln to say they voted against the bill when, by voting for debate to go forward, they're allowing it to be passed by as few as 51 senators.

 

Here’s your updated Obama approval data from Gallup. And here’s Congress’s most recent ratings. In August 2007, Congress had an approval rating of 18%--the Gallup headline attributed it to “Perceived Inaction.” No one’s accusing them of that anymore!

What do you get when you combine a 1990-page bill and a 2074-page bill? Something wonderful, I'm sure. Ha!

 

This post on Rep. John Boehner's web site tells you a lot. There's abortion in the Senate bill--anyone on the government-run plan will be forced to pay a premium specifically for abortions. (If you're interested in some more good information, including the stimulus misinformation being put out by the government's $18-million dollar recovery website and the decision to try foreign terrorists in a civilian court, check out his main page here.)

 

On a lighter note, if you've been toying with the idea of elective cosmetic surgery, you'd better get on the phone to your doctor right now. If they somehow get this through, not only will they destroy the country (in-my-never-to-be-humble opinion), they'll put a 5% tax on such procedures starting January 1st.  Well, it will be good to see the Speaker of the House doing her part.

 

Speaking of the third in line to the Presidency, Pelosi said at a press conference following the House vote that she and her colleagues were "very, very proud" of their success. Maybe we need to start some sort of office pool on when they'll get over being proud of what they've accomplished if this travesty goes through.

 

In the meantime, I've been adding to my library of home remedies. So far I haven't found one for governmental stupidity. It appears to be terminal.

 

 

Note: I'm bad. Pelosi is second in line. I was counting the current occupant.

 

Addendum: Here's the link to the taxes in the Senate bill. These are just the ones that Glenn Beck and his crew were able to find in the first 12 hours that the bill was available. Read it and weep.

 

Addendum 2: This article by a doctor on unintended consequences was brought to my attention by a reader on another blog.

If you've somehow missed the photograph of the President of the United States making a nearly 90-degree bow to the Japanese emperor,  look here on Politico and also read what his administration is saying about it.

 

According to this article, White House aides say everything he's doing is deliberate and is an effort to "(give) America a less belligerent posture abroad." Puh-lease. I think that bow was a little overkill. My mother thought I had bad posture!

 

He told students in Shanghai that "we have to have some modesty about our attitudes towards other countries." I'd like to see a little of that deference offered towards the electorate in his own country, like the majority of us that don't want the kind of healthcare reform that the Dems are offering.

 

Our President seems to believe that his very handshake has the ability to transform oppressive leaders. (See page 2.)

There's a new bumpersticker out. "Pray for Obama, Psalm 109:8." I love it.

 

What are the chances of impeachment before they destroy the country?

 

A CIO of a hedge fund, Damon Vickers, recently talked about the possibilities of a global currency and global government on CNBC. Watch a short clip and read a short Motley Fool column about it here. I think Vickers is going to be on Glenn Beck's TV show this afternoon. (Glenn Beck--one of the few reasons I wish we'd spring for cable.)

 

Addendum: WARNING--THIS IS WAY LONGER THAN THE ORIGINAL POST WHICH REMAINS IN ITS ENTIRETY)

 

A Christian brother pointed out to me that Psalm 109:8, which I found an appropriate prayer for the present administration, is followed by verse 9 which isn’t. Although I tried to separate the two verses—by linking only to the first one and addressing impeachment as a way out of the craziness in Washington, I’d like to make myself clearer on the subject.

I never ever support any kind of murder (which some might suggest that verse 9 could lead to)—not of bad drivers, bad parents, bad spouses, bad children, and, no, not even of abortionists and bad politicians. (I do, however, think that it might be time for tarring and feathering to make a comeback.)

Psalm 109 was one of the many psalms written by David, the second king of Israel. He was the ultimate cool guy—killer of lions, and giants, and bears and winner of many battles. Although known as a man after God’s own heart, he led a less than stellar life. In other words, the story of David gives me a lot of hope!

He had a lot of enemies. In fact, he apparently wasn’t even that popular at family gatherings, as his own father-in-law (King Saul) and, later, his own son (Absalom) wanted to kill him. In Psalm 109, he’s talking to God about his enemies, something I’ve done a time or two myself.

I think it’s called an imprecatory prayer. He was asking God to take revenge on his behalf.

At the time of the 2008 election, I was doing a lot of reading in the Old Testament. In I Samuel 8, the Israelites were tired of having judges (long story—Samuel, like Eli before him, hadn’t done a very good job of raising his sons.). They demanded a king like everyone else had. Samuel warned them that a king would take their children as servants, their property, and a tenth of what they produced. (Huh. Sounds like they’d be paying a lot less in taxes than we do!)

It was I Samuel 12:14 that really set me back on my heels: “If you will fear the Lord and serve Him and obey His voice and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, then shall both you and also the king that reigns over you continue following the Lord your God.”

That, combined with II Chronicles 7:14 (“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”) and a lot of other verses (He removes kings and sets up kings…Daniel 2:21; the most High rules in the kingdom of men and gives it to whomsoever he will and sets up over it the basest of men…Daniel 4:17; the king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water. He turns it whithersoever He will. Proverbs 21:1) tells me that this President has been put in this position, at this time, for God’s reason.

I believe President Obama could learn a thing or two about humility from the story of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4. If at some time we learn what we were supposed to from this presidency, God will be just the One to teach him.

No, I have no plans to get a “Pray for Obama, Psalm 109:8” bumper sticker. There's not enough room for the fine print to explain my feelings on the situation.

 

 

 

Remember President Obama talking about how he'd listen to his commanders on the ground? For a little refresher on the subject, check here at one of his own websites. But as they say, that was then (campaign mode) and this is now (real life, something the current occupant of the White House is a little short on experience in).

 

But of course he was talking about Iraq (which he was going to get us out of) and not Afghanistan (what he told us was his main priority). Obama appointed his own man to head up the war in Afghanistan and then talked to him once in 70 days. Since Gen. McChrystal asked for 40,000 troops, Obama has dragged his feet.

 

An article in today's New York Times reveals what we've long suspected. It's the money, honey. I've heard it suggested by several that he doesn't want to do anything about troops until he's passed his pet project--health care for all! (Whether you want it or not.)

 

It seems the Spender-in-Chief has suddenly turned thrifty. This Reuter's headline says it well: After spending binge, White House says it will focus on deficits. That's right, folks. It's already been revealed that the Teleprompter-in-Chief will be telling the President to work on cutting the federal deficit when he gives the State of the Union address in January. Although it's being reported that agencies have been told to figure out budgets based on freezing or even reducing current levels of spending, we all know the Dems favorite way of cutting deficits. In other words, we'd probably be well-advised to plan on getting involuntary cuts to our own budgets via smaller paychecks.

 

Pardon my faux Irish, but methinks someone has kissed the blarney stone a wee too many times. When complimented by Sen. Reid about a speech, then-senator Obama said, "I have a gift." 

 

Hopefully my fellow Americans are getting wise to the fact that the gift of gab doesn't translate into good leadership.

Only 40 shopping days until Christmas. Are you ready? Me neither.

 

We are so lucky, though. The Speaker of the House, head granny of the nanny state, is taking care of Christmas, too! Watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiBaMPdQvLw

 

The latest Rasmussen poll results I found (November 7-8) show that a majority of Americans don't want the Dem's gift by a 52 to 45 margin. Forty-two percent are strongly opposed and only 25 strongly approve. (See the poll here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform)

 

Okay, I've gotten Christmas gifts I didn't want before. I remember one year in particular. I wanted Levis for Christmas; my maiden aunt got me a pair of nasty stretch-denim jeans with a side zipper. I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I cried.

 

Most Christmas presents can be returned if they are the wrong size or color or just plain the wrong gift.

 

What's the return policy if the Dems give us health care?

 

 

 

According to this on Yahoo Finance (yahoo.com/news/Fed-officials-warn-weak-apf-3879922712.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=),Federal Reserve officials are now saying publicly that unemployment will remain high for several years. Remember back in July when Obama said  in his July 11 radio address that the stimulus plan was working as intended? (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=86398)

Yesterday's shooting at Fort Hood isn't the first time that a Muslim member of the U.S. military has killed fellow servicemembers. Read Michelle Malkin's March, 2003 column here: http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2003/03/26/mswa_muslim_soldiers_with_attitude?page=full&comments=true

 

I find it troubling that the U.S. military provides Muslim chaplains.Here is an article from 10 years ago at islamfortoday.com celebrating the first Marine Muslim chaplain: http://www.islamfortoday.com/america10.htm. The Army is more enlightened--they've had them since 1993.

 

"A dedicated prayer room is available during normal business hours for daily prayers" for Muslims at one of the Fort Hood chapels. Don't believe me? See it here: http://fthoodhomes.com/template.php?name=chaplain 

 

You'll notice that Fort Hood also provides for Wiccan open circles.

 

As Michelle said in that 2003 column: Ain't diversity grand?

 

Michele Bachmann was on lots of conservative talk radio shows yesterday asking people to come to Washington on Thursday at noon to visit their representatives and senators.

 

If you can't make that, you might want to visit their local office. Find it here: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt?action=myreps_form

 

Make your own house call and let your representative know that August may be over, but we still don't want the Democrats' healthcare plan.

 

Americans for Prosperity has some organized plans for noon gatherings at the local offices of senators and representatives. Find more information here: http://www.americansforprosperity.org/102209-make-house-call-november-5th

Ever have the feeling that you're more aware than the average Democrat of what's going on in the world? It's a no-brainer if you've ever listened to Sean Hannity's "Man on the Street" segment. Just about any time that the questioner is responded to by answers that make you wonder if the interviewee is able to dress himself, when he's presented with the final question: "Who did you vote for?" you already know the answer. Obama!

 

Pew Research came out last month with a political IQ quiz that proved what we already knew. You can take the test yourself here: http://pewresearch.org/politicalquiz/quiz/

 

My husband did himself proud by scoring 11 out of 12. My college-age daughter, who spends more time on Facebook than on current events and considers her best day of the summer the day I proclaimed a talk-radio fast and didn't turn it on all day, scored 8 out of 12. Even she way out-scored the average Republican.

 

There wasn't quite as large a gap between the Dems and the Repubs as I would have liked to have seen. You can read the summary of the results here: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1378/political-news-iq-quiz