About Me

Name: Blogging...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Universal Voter Registration--There's More Than One Way to Steal an Election

Posted by Blogging Conservative Granny on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 9:08:56 PM
 

I’ve been perplexed by the Democrats’ continued “cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face” approach to politics. They seem hell-bent on destroying their political careers, apparently unconcerned that the majority of the population doesn’t agree with what they’re doing.

What? They’re not running for re-election in the next 9 months to 5 ¾ years? It does make one wonder.

John Fund from the Wall Street Journal told a crowd in November that Sen. Schumer and Rep. Frank were working on a universal voter registration bill. You can watch a short clip here.

“Not me!” said Barney Frank.

Well, that’s true. Fund should have said John Conyers. There’s an article here at World Net Daily.

One line in the WND article says: “Numerous left-leaning groups and publications have been openly calling for universal-voter registration in recent years.”

Well, actually, it goes back further than “recent years.”

President Carter proposed universal voter registration for federal elections back in March of 1977 (Walsh, Edward. The Washington Post. March 23, 1977.) The article pointed out that Republicans believed it would benefit Democrats and “invite widespread fraud.” VP Mondale said, “There is no evidence that this operates to one party’s advantage over the others.”

Someone—there seems to be some confusion about who it was—once said, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Who doesn’t believe that the Democrats are the ones that benefit from focusing on registering those who receive government money? When he voted, my son witnessed an older woman accompany a younger, obviously mentally-handicapped one and instruct her how to vote for Obama. The women were different races so it wasn’t mother and daughter. It made us wonder. Was the older woman a government-paid caregiver?

Another Washington Post article (March 24, 1977) pointed out that organized labor supported universal voter registration, and I think we’ve all seen how much the current administration likes organized labor.

Carter also favored same-day voter registration. Wow! I wonder how many places I could vote in one day if I put my mind to it.

Sen. Alan Cranston (Democrat) made another effort at it in 1988. An editorial in the April 10, 1988 Miami Herald said, “The bill would provide grants for door-to-door registration campaigns and for registration desks at welfare and driver-licensing offices.”

An article in the Fresno Bee (May 12, 1988) quoted a county registrar of voters who said the proposal would “create a nightmare of administrative problems” and a county elections-activities coordinator who said same-day registration would be an “open door” to increased fraud.

Then there was the attempt at the National Voter Registration Act of 1990. In an article by Jesse Jackson (need I say, Democrat) that appeared in the Press of Atlantic City (August 12,1990), he said “Such a bill should include same-day (or near same-day) registration, mail-in, agency-based and motor-voter registration….” and “should also include a prohibition on purging from registration rolls the names of those who fail to vote.” (Would that mean the dead could vote for eternity?)

In 1993, the Motor Voter Act was passed—thank you, Cloward and Piven and Pres. Clinton (Democrat)—allowing drivers’ license and social services offices registrations, mail-in registrations, and registration drives by groups.

The voting machines had barely cooled in 2008 when this article appeared in USA Today which said Democrats were hoping to reduce “impediments to vote.” Changes said to be under consideration included not only universal registration but also pre-registration of teens when they get their driver’s licenses.

An article in the Alameda Times-Star (Dec. 19, 2008) reported on a trip by a local election official to Washington for a national conference on voting. Apparently one of the suggestions was that the pre-registration would take place at birth. Saturday voting was suggested as well as “a property tax credit, say $70, as an incentive to pitch in on Election Day.”

This Washington Times editorial from January, 2010 says: “The proposal is to register everyone on every welfare list, everyone getting unemployment insurance, everyone with a driver's license, everyone who has had run-ins with the legal system, everyone owning any property - basically everyone on every list the government keeps. People will be registered to vote whether or not they want to be registered. If individuals are on any public record, they will be automatically registered.” (I know. They have Barney Frank down erroneously as one of the sponsors.)

Let’s see, those receiving government largesse are on the list, everyone that owns any property (how about those with multiple homes?), those with run-ins with the law. According to this 2004 Washington Post opinion column, inmates in 48 states, parolees in 33, probationers in 29, and a large number of people who have fully served their time are not allowed to vote.

The aforementioned Washington Times editorial pointed out that a survey of felons who had their voting rights restored in Washington State showed they were 36% more likely to have voted for Kerry than Bush in 2004 and 37% more likely to be registered as a Democrat. (As Rush would say, for those in Rio Linda and Port St. Lucie, that means the Democrats are the ones that would benefit from cons and ex-cons voting.)

If the Democrats succeed at getting universal voting registration through, I guess we’ll have to console ourselves with this: while the Census Bureau reported that 86% of registered voters voted in 2000, a 1996 AP article in the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that a “hotly contested governor’s race” in Kentucky in 1995 brought out only 19% of the motor-voter registrants.

Do you suppose any of those registered voters could get drawn to the polls by a pack of cigarettes?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Everything you ever wanted to know about Cloward and Piven but were afraid to ask

Posted by Blogging Conservative Granny on Friday, January 15, 2010 12:54:01 PM
Glenn Beck continues to talk about Cloward and Piven. When I mention them to others, I get the blank look and a "Who?" Even the ebullient local talk show queen Darla Jaye doesn't seem conversant on the subject, so I spent all day yesterday researching the elusive pair and their going-on-44-years-old strategy.
 
It turns out Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were a married couple. I say "were" because Cloward is no longer with us. His August, 2001 obituary authored by the New York Times Service identified him as "a sociologist and social activist who was an architect of the welfare-rights movement and the co-author of a groundbreaking critique of the welfare state as a tool for containing social unrest." Cloward was on the faculty of the Columbia University School of Social Work.
 
I'm not exactly sure when they got married. According to a May 18, 1982 Boston Globe article, when Piven left Boston University to go to the poli sci department at the City University of New York, BU's president idenified Cloward as the man Piven lived with.
 
In a June 13, 1982 Washington Post article, Juan Williams (then a metropolitan staff writer for the Post) wrote that Piven and Cloward were predicting large-scale protests in the streets against then-President Ronald Reagan because of the state of the economy and social service budget cuts. (Williams suggested that the white liberals could do the rioting this time and recommended that they do it either in their own neighborhoods or--preferably--near the beach for the convenience of black reporters covering it.)
 
A December 26, 1983 Boston Globe article told about the Human Service Employees Registration and Voter Education Campaign--"the brainchild of Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven"--whose goal was to use social service workers "to register their clients and beneficiaries in food-stamp offices, unemployment lines, hospital waiting rooms, battered women's centers, schools and the like."
 
A New York Times article (March 25, 1986) reported that all state agencies in Texas, Ohio, New York, and Montana were directed by their governors to provide registration assistance; only public welfare offices participated in West Virginia and New Mexico. A David Broder op-ed in the Washington Post (Aug. 18, 1985) reported that a Republican counter-registration drive netted more than the Democratic one.
 
An opinion piece by Cloward and Piven in the June 22, 1992 Press-Telegram chastised President Bush for his threatened veto of the Motor Voter bill, saying "Why would a Republican president veto a fraud-free, cost-effective measure to expand democracy?" When President Clinton later signed such a bill, Cloward and Piven were on hand. A commentary by Reed Irvine, published in the November 15, 1998 Washington Times exposited on the 60 Minutes report on illegal voting that had aired the Sunday before the '98 election.
 
One paragraph in particular reminds me of a group called ACORN:
 
 "Steve Kroft noted that the Los Angeles district attorney recently launched a criminal investigation into registrations collected by two groups closely tied to the Democratic Party. Of the 40,000 applications they submitted, 40 percent of them appear to be fraudulent. A big part of the problem in California is that bounty hunters are paid to collect names of people who want to register to vote. They are paid $5 to $10 for each name, and this encourages fraud. Karen Saranita says one trick the bounty hunters use is to submit names of people who rent mail boxes, giving their box number as their address. They may also submit applications for the same person under two or more different names, using the same address. Since it is illegal for the election officials to ask applicants for identification, this fraud is very hard to stop."
 
It sounds to me like the Republican President had it right!
 
Discover the Networks has a page devoted to the Cloward-Piven Strategy, including a link to the original article that laid it out and links to more recent articles about it.
 
The Cloward-Piven duo wasn't shy about putting their strategy out there in that May 2, 1966 article in The Nation. Some quotes for those who don't have time to read the whole thing:
 
"It is our purpose to advance a strategy which affords the basis for a convergence of civil rights organizations, militant anti-poverty groups and the poor. If this strategy were implemented, a political crisis would result that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty."
 
"This gulf (between what people are entitled to and what they actually receive) is not recognized in a society that is wholly and self-righteously oriented toward getting people off the welfare rolls."
 
"...it is an integral feature of the welfare system which, if challenged, would precipitate a profound financial and political crisis. The force for that challenge, and the strategy we propose, is a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls."
 
""...many of today's poor cannot secure a redistribution of income by organizaing within the institution of private enterprise. A federal program of income redistribution has become necessary to elevate the poor en masse from poverty." (Anyone remember an aspiring plumber named Joe who was out tossing a ball with his son the month before the '08 election when "The One" walked by?)
 
"People have been coerced into attending literacy classes or participating in medical or vocational rehabilitation regimes, on pain of having their benefits terminated.... One can prize literacy, health and work, while still vigorously opposing the right of government to compel compliance with these values."
 
"If new systems of income distribution continue to permit the professional bureaucracies to choose when to give and when to withhold financial relief, the poor will once again be surrendered to an arrangement in which their rights are diminished in the name of overcoming their vices."
 
Cloward and Piven called for a massive educational campaign and threats of legal action, saying "in cities like New York (lawyers) can be recruited on a voluntary basis, especially under the banner of a movement to end poverty by a strategy of asserting legal rights" and went on to say "Advocacy must be supplemented by organized demonstrations to create a climate of militancy that will overcome the invidious and immobilizing attitudes which many potential recipients hold toward being 'on welfare.'"
 
"If the system reacts by making the proof of eligibility more difficult, the demand should be made that the Department of Health, Education and Welfare dispatch 'eligibility registrars' to enforce federal statutes governing local programs. And throughout the crisis, the mass media should be used to advance arguments for a new federal income distribution program."
 
"To generate an expressly political movement, cadres of aggressive organizers would have to come from the civil rights movement and the curches, from militant low-income organizations like those formed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (that is, by Saul Alinsky) and from other groups on the Left."
 
"Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely."
 
"The ultimate aim of this strategy is a new program for direct income distribution."
 
"By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention." ("Don't let a crisis go to waste." Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff.)
 
"In the thirties, Democrats began to put forward measures to circumvent the states in order to reach the big-city elements in the New Deal coalititon; now it is becoming expedient to put forward measures to circumvent the weakened big-city mayors in order to reach the new minority poor."
 
And the close of the final paragraph: "If organizers can deliver millions of dollars in cash benefits to the ghetto masses, it seems reasonable to expect that the masses will deliver their loyalties to their benefactors. At least, they have always done so in the past." (Well, it certainly paid off for the current President!)
 
Some other quotes by one or both:
 
"Because policy is shaped by half the electorate, we have the meanest, stingiest set of social welfare policies in the world." (Boston Globe editorial on July 17, 1988)
 
"(Work, Not Welfare) is barbaric." (Galloway, Jennifer A. "The Politics of Welfare Reform." Capital Times, May 7, 1994.)
 
"This sort of obsessive concern with out-of-wedlock births and the single-parent family is very potent stuff. We want to try to explain this preoccupation with family values, with sex, and also with race." (Marbin, Carol A. "Welfare Experts to Explore Backlash." St. Petersburg Times, Jan. 22, 1996.)
 
"...a Democratic Party that...does not champion the have-nots has no hope of building an enduring majority base." (an op-ed by the couple in Newsday on Oct. 19, 1988.)
 
In my research, I discovered that Ms. Piven is an honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. You can check out their website here. Another honorary chair, Barbara Ehrenreich, described the organization this way in an interview (Longscope, Kay. "Preaching the Gospel of Social Revolution." Boston Globe, Dec. 7, 1986.): "It's the largest Democratic socialist organization in the United States, a continuation of the New Left from the '60s and a continuation of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas' Socialist Party of America. We support candidates to influence the Democratic Party, trying to keep it from becoming another Republican Party."
 
Looking at what's going on in Washington, D.C. today, it would appear there's no danger of that!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama and the terrorist (FKA man-made disaster)

Posted by Blogging Conservative Granny on Friday, January 08, 2010 12:47:45 PM
If you missed it, here's President Obama's January 7 address on the Christmas terrorist attempt by the Undie Bomber. Watching it, I finally realized why the President believes his exercise regimen is so crucial--he has to keep his strength up for all the hand motions and his neck in good shape for looking back and forth between his teleprompters. I've also figured out what his speech pattern reminds me of--he sounds a lot like my father-in-law without his dentures.
 
What follows are a few of my responses to the President's comments:
 
"That's why we took swift action in the immediate days following Christmas...." Uhhh. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it take him three days to even come out and say something to the public? CIA director Leon Panetta didn't bother to go back to work until after the first of the year. The director of the National Counter Terrorism Center went on a ski vacation the day after the Christmas event. (He's a holdover from the Bush administration. He probably should be thinking about looking for another job. He'd probably be a good candidate for a head roll if Obama decides to fire someone.)
 
Obama's four "I'm directing" and "I'm ordering" comments. OK, directing and ordering are great, but if you're a parent, you probably know they're not always successful. We'll wait and see if his orders have any teeth.
 
"At the Amsterdam airport, Abdulmutallab was subjected to the same screening as other passengers.  He was required to show his documents -- including a valid U.S. visa." Have you heard about the attorney who claims that another man tried to get the Panty Bomber on the flight without using a passport? Here's his wife's blog. (And, guess what? They're not even conservatives!)
 
"The next generation of screening technologies." Have you heard the talk of whole-body scans that will reveal you in your alltogether to some poor schmuck ogling the screen? With two-thirds of American adults now obese, he might get more than he bargained for. Obama may have just stumbled on a way to really reduce the cost of health care. We'd probably all be on diets tomorrow if we thought an airport body scan was in our future. (On the other hand, he might just have come up with a way to kill off the airline industry.)
 
"To advance that progress, we've sought new beginnings with Muslim communities around the world, one in which we engage on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect, and work together to fulfill the aspirations that all people share -- to get an education, to work with dignity, to live in peace and security.  That's what America believes in.  That's the vision that is far more powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists." President Obama needs to read this Newsweek article about the CIA bomber of December 30--he was a doctor, for Pete's sake. He didn't do the deed because of his poverty and lack of education. Ditto for the Undie Bomber. He lived in an expensive London apartment; his dad was a Nigerian banker. (I think I may have received a few emails from him.)
 
The biggest surprise of the speech was that Obama managed to bring himself to use the word "terrorist" nine times. Perhaps he's finally figured out that the American public isn't buying "man-made disaster" any more than it's going for man-made global warming. (The temperature at my house this morning was -1.3.)

Here's an AP article which includes talk about the possible use of mindreading security systems at airports.
 
Remember Richard Reid? He's the so-called Shoe Bomber who brought you the necessity to take your shoes off when going through airport security. If you have to start taking your underwear off to board the plane, you'll know who to thank for that.
 
Oh, you might also be interested to know that, while you were doing your Christmas shopping, Obama signed an executive order that many conservatives think might present a threat to constitutional liberties. Read what the New York Times says about it here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberal hypocrisy

Posted by Blogging Conservative Granny on Tuesday, January 05, 2010 6:42:40 PM
It's been a couple of weeks since I've been on here. In that time I've acquired a lot of snow on my roof due, no doubt, to global warming run amok.
 
In this youtube video, Sen. Max Bacus chastised his Republican colleagues for their lack of courage in the healthcare debate. Some have suggested that Baucus's own bravado may have originated in an amber-colored bottle.
 
Remember those promises of the most ethical and most honest Congress in history? It was made in this lip-smacking speech  by the now Speaker of the House in 2006. (Perhaps Sen. Pelosi had some new flavored lipstick?) Remember those promises of transparency from our current President? Now C-Span's promising they'll cover all negotiations live and in their entirety if Congress cooperates. (Wanta bet how that one comes out?)
 
I don't know what legislation Harry Reid was discussing in this Feb. '06 video but, in what is commonly known as hypocrisy, he's condemning the Republicans for doing what his party is doing now. (I'm not sure what legislation could be more important than government taking over 1/6 of the economy and my personal healthcare decisions.)
 
Hypocrisy is not an unknown commodity with liberals. I have an extremely liberal cousin. (I could do a great alliteration with his name, but I won't.) It's hard to believe we share a common set of grandparents. In this year's Christmas letter, he was going for a smaller carbon footprint with his RV and taking his granddaughters on an Alaskan cruise for their 13th birthdays. He ended his letter with an admonition to "Spend less; give more."
 
No doubt we'll be giving more all right--to the pocket-picking government, thus forcing us to spend less.
 
That should be great for the economy.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

As usual, the devil's in the details, and there's hell to pay in the Senate healthcare bill

Posted by Blogging Conservative Granny on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 2:37:26 PM
Normally I love to read: fiction, how-to, self-help, the Bible, cereal boxes; but these crazy 2000+-page bills originating from Congress are ridiculous. I did print off 54 pages of the current Senate bill (full text of bill here if you suffer from insomnia). Section 3403 (found on pages 1000-1053) relates to the Independent Medicare Advisory Board. Might we refer to it as the death panel?
 
They are tasked with reducing "the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending" and making "recommendations to reduce the Medicare per capita growth rate to the extent required by this section." (p. 1001)
 
Page 1004 says "The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums...increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing...or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria." Can anyone tell me how the heck this thing is supposed to work?
 
 "...proposals submitted prior to December 31, 2018...shall not include any recommendation that would reduce payment rates for items and services furnished, prior to December 31, 2019... Does that mean the reductions will start with a vengeance in 2020?
 
Just recently the Baby Boomers started filling the ranks of the Medicare covered. How do you cover way more people and reduce costs? It's ridiculous to suggest that such a thing is even possible.
 
There's some particularly scary language on pages 1019-1020. It sounds to me like it takes 60% of the Senate to overrule any decision made by the Medicare Advisory Board. (Any lawyers out there to tell me where I'm wrong about that?)
 
Pages 1021-1028 deal with the expedited procedure in place for this legislation--one hour debate on amendments, debate not to exceed 30 hours, a motion to further limit debate not debatable, consideration on conference report limited to 10 hours, debate on a Presidential veto limited to one hour. (Not that they're likely to need that one!)
 
It takes a joint resolution to disband the aforementioned board. That resolution has to be introduced in January, 2017, receive a certain title, and be passed by 60% of both houses. (p. 1032-1036).
 
Who's going to be on that board? Fifteen members appointed by the President and approved by the Senate (p. 1037). The President is to consult with the majority leader of the Senate about 3 appointments, the Speaker of the House about 3, the minority leader of the Senate about 3, and the minority leader of the House of Representatives about 3 (p. 1040).
 
If you read what kind of qualifications are required on the board (pp. 1038-1039), you see that it will be necessary for some members to qualify on more than one account.
 
On page 1045, lines 8-14), it details the travel expenses for board members "while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Board."
 
That's interesting, especially since the first paragraph of page 1040 says: "CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.--No individual may serve as an appointed member if that individual engages in any other business, vocation, or employment."
 
Do these people even read the stuff they write?
 
I didn't think so.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dems continuing to ram healthcare through--whether we want it or not

Posted by Blogging Conservative Granny on Monday, December 21, 2009 4:48:47 PM
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.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nominee with gay agenda headed towards the EEOC

Posted by Blogging Conservative Granny on Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:36:11 AM
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?"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's speech on Afghanistan--Do you call that a plan?

Posted by Blogging Conservative Granny on Thursday, December 03, 2009 2:00:00 PM
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.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tareq and Michaele Salahi--Gatecrashers? Really?

Posted by Blogging Conservative Granny on Monday, November 30, 2009 1:47:40 PM
Until Friday morning, I was blissfully ignorant of the Salahi invasion of the White House at the Obama’s first State Dinner. “The name sounds like it could belong to a Muslim,” I thought.

When I got home that evening, I did a search on a library research tool. Close, but no cigars. The name is Arabic. Tareq Salahi’s father was a Palestinian who immigrated here in the 1940s (Washington Post, May 12, 2007). Tareq and Michaele’s abbreviated wedding video is on youtube, and the ceremony took place in an obviously Catholic church, so I can’t make any claim about Mr. Salahi’s religion.

Saturday morning I had an email from an acquaintance who clued me in that Tareq was a member of the board of directors for American Task Force on Palestine. Being of a careful nature, although I’ve found this person trustworthy, I went looking for more. That morning I was able to retrieve this that showed at least he had been on the board in 2008. Strangely, it is now impossible to view his bio—you get a message that you have to log in when you search from Yahoo for his name.

The MSM has been feeding us the line about the Bravo show and the very blonde Michaele auditioning for “Real Housewives.” There has been no mention of the ATFP connection.

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.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Navy SEALS and the Poor Little Terrorist

Posted by Blogging Conservative Granny on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 6:13:18 PM
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."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Even Saturday Night Live is Waking Up!

Posted by Blogging Conservative Granny on Monday, November 23, 2009 10:22:24 AM
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!
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How About a Little Inaction from Congress?

Posted by Blogging Conservative Granny on Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:26:54 PM
 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!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Governmental Stupidity on Parade

Posted by Blogging Conservative Granny on Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:59:23 PM
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.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is there a global currency and global government in your future?

Posted by Blogging Conservative Granny on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:16:44 PM
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.

 

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Going Parsimonious?

Posted by Blogging Conservative Granny on Sunday, November 15, 2009 8:42:11 PM
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.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »