My son is a wee bit over 18-months old and he’s hitting that wonderful stage mankind has aptly named “The Terrible Twos”; aptly labeled because our daily routine has very rapidly become increasingly trying and somewhat "terrible". Nap and bed times are a fight, finding an acceptable meal to feed him is impossible, and he’s begun throwing temper tantrums over the slightest perceived grievances.

The thing about it is this: as awful as his tantrums are, they’re also mildly amusing in that he will point his finger at me accusingly after receiving discipline, as if I were the one who was misbehaving. It’s kind of funny actually. And the one thing you absolutely cannot do EVER is laugh at your child when he’s in trouble. It reinforces the bad behavior, as your child will think the situation is funny if you’re laughing at it. So you have to stifle the chuckle and put on your serious face when you correct him.

Images of my son’s tantrums come to mind while watching the Obama camp’s flailing attempts to point the finger at McCain for the current financial crisis.

McCain’s recent ads (here and here) are scathing and, unfortunately for Obama, incredibly accurate. Also harmful is the fact that in his short time as a U.S. Senator, Obama has received the second highest amount in "donations" from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (amounts were totaled for a period of NINE years). Also in trouble are his Democratic cohorts for not only being at the top of the Fannie and Freddie dole but for also blocking a 2005 bill (sponsored by none other than the Maverick McCain himself) that would have endeavored to correct the problem well before it reached the point we’re at today.

What’s the Obama camp's response, you ask? He’s spent his time pointing the finger at McCain/Bush/Republicans for “deregulation” that led to the Fannie and Freddie failures.  Let’s be clear: the free market is not the problem here. If the housing and loan markets hadn’t been tampered with by Clinton and company in the 1990s, opening the door for and actually ENCOURAGING mortgage companies and the like to give out high risk loans to those who were “less fortunate” (ie, less capable of actually paying back the money they borrowed) we wouldn’t be in this mess right now.

When we forbid businesses to follow good business practices and require them to run as charities, this is the kind of garbage we’re gonna get.

Instead of trying to pass the buck to McCain, Obama’s cause would be better served by laying the blame at the real culprits and standing up to his own party on this issue. Doing so would reflect a true spirit of accountability and reform and would back up his to-date unfounded claims of being a “post- partisan agent of change”. As usual, the only one willing to buck his party when they need a good bucking is John McCain. And we see very clearly yet another example of what’s wrong with today’s political climate: law makers towing the party line at all costs and, in the process, sticking it to the rest of us.

No matter how hard Obama and company stamp their little feet and point their fingers in defiance, it doesn’t change the fact that they’re wrong and need correction. Hopefully the American people will enact that correction appropriately in November.

One of the best zingers Rudy Giuliani got off last Wednesday night at the RNC convention was in re: Obama's continuously shifting position on the conflict between Russia and Georgia. After he and his 300+ policy advisors went flailing about for several days looking for the right response, Obama ultimately looked at McCain and went, "Uh, yeah. What he said!" Rudy's observation was that Obama should start asking John McCain first.

Well, it turns out that Rudy was right on more than one count. As the Wallstreet Journal points out, Obama has now changed his mind about the raising taxes on "the rich". Apparently he's realized that if we go into a recession it may be bad for the economy to raise taxes on the people who are actually providing jobs and signing paychecks. Too bad he didn't consult McCain before he sent out his tax plan.

If you will recall, originally McCain wasn't in favor of the Bush tax cuts. McCain, who has always been a HUGE proponent of reducing government waste an reigning in federal spending, felt at the time that we hadn't made enough cuts on our federal tab to justify a cut in rates. However when it turned out that the tax cuts stimulated the economy and the government actually started taking in more revenue than it had previously, McCain was man enough to admit his initial misgivings turned out to be incorrect and made the decision to support keeping the tax cuts. You see this is what's called "the ability to exercise good judgment".

Obama, on the other hand, has apparently only recently gotten the memo that the tax cuts worked (possibly included in the same memo telling him about the success of the troop surge, to which he has FINALLY admitted) and is now staking out a contingency plan to keep taxes low "just in case". Unfortunately the same miracle worker who managed to convince Obama that raising taxes on "the rich" during a recession would just make things worse has yet to convince him that the same logic carries over into non-volatile economic times. Apparently, Obama believes taking money that would otherwise go into production (ie, corporate expansion, jobs, and wages) will magically create wealth and opportunity in good times, even though the same policy is a disaster in poor times. Excellent reasoning and judgment, Barry!

Seriously, man: take Rudy's advice, dump the 300+ useless "advisors" and start consulting John. You'll have a much better chance at being right.

http://www.youtube.com/user/weneedmccain

I stumbled upon this Youtube user on Beldar's blog. Excellent stuff!

Over here at
http://mccainpalin2008.blogspot.com/
they're talking about organizing a nation wide protest against the rampant display of media bias we've all been privy to as of late. Keep an eye on this blog for updates. If a protest is underway, you can bet I'll be there!

Moms for McCain

A friend of mine runs this blog and she has some really fantastic insider sources. This is a great blog and I recommend everyone check it out!

A lot of attention has been given on both sides of the aisle to the issue of taxes. The Democrats think imposing heavy taxes on “big business” and “the rich” will solve all our problems- after all, they can “afford it”. On the other hand, the Republicans (and the Libertarians for that matter) think that cutting taxes is the way to go. So who’s right?

When one ignores all the political jargon the answer is a lot simpler than it may initially seem.

Imagine that you own a home. You’ve been working really hard for quite some time and have managed to amass a nice bit of savings that you intend to use to make upgrades to your home. Sounds great so far, right?

Your next door neighbor also owns a home. His house isn’t quite as nice as yours, and for whatever reason he can’t afford to make any changes to his home. Said neighbor is angry because you have a nicer home than he does and can afford to add some luxuries to it. Your neighbor doesn’t care that in improving YOUR home, you’re also adding to the value of the neighborhood in general. He doesn’t care that you’ve worked hard and saved long to be able to afford your home and the improvements you’re planning. Your neighbor says it’s not “fair” that he can’t afford to live in a home as nice as yours.

So one day this envious neighbor manages to convince the city council that he is justified in his plight and that the only solution is to impose a massive property tax on YOU and give the money to your neighbor in order to “equalize” things between the two of you. Suddenly, you can no longer afford those home improvements. But it’s not enough that you can’t afford to improve your home, because you still live in a nicer house than your neighbor. So the city council continues to hike your taxes until you find that you can no longer afford your home. You eventually have to sell and move into a small apartment.

Now, this example is a very simplified one. But I purposely put it into terms we every day Americans can understand. And I think we can all agree that it’s a serious injustice that the government would take the fruit of your labor (ie, your earnings) and give it to someone else.

There is an anecdote/urban myth that I’m particularly fond of which serves as a good illustration of the same concept. As the story goes, a young woman comes home from college and immediately begins decrying how unfair the world is and that we should be taxing the rich to give to the poor. Her horrified father asks her if she thinks it would be fair for her professors to lower her grades to Cs in order to boost the grades of her friends. The girl is immediately incredulous, noting that she’d worked hard for those grades and her friends didn’t deserve to reap her rewards. The father then tells her “Welcome to the Republican party.”

Again, a simplification of the issue, but the example is in terms we can understand. Regardless of whether it’s your home or your grades or some other tangible concept the moral is the same. Justice is meted out when we concede and abide by the fact that you deserve what you earn and your neighbor has no claim on it. The only portion of your earnings that should be given to others is the portion you CHOOSE to donate.

We’re all very aware of how the left loves to portray conservatives as being “in the pocket” of some business or another. And I will acknowledge that there have been times when this assessment has been dead on. But I ask the following. So what?
The bottom line is that businesses, big and small, are the backbone of our economy. I know it’s really easy for us to fall into the trap of populist rhetoric about the evil rich getting richer on the backs of the poor; but let’s see if we can take off our green-eyed-monster glasses for a few minutes and look at this rationally.

FACT: Businesses- whether they make toys, groceries, clothes or oil; whether they’re in the business of transporting goods and services or offer labor services- are in business to MAKE MONEY. That’s kinda the point.

What qualifies a business as successful? The ability to make money. A business MUST make money to produce its product or service and to provide wages and benefits for its employees. If a business fails to generate a profit, it is a failure and cannot remain in business for long.

So, what happens when the government, via taxes, starts dipping into the profits of a business in order to play Robin Hood? Let’s think it through together, shall we?

1.    Business makes money
2.    Government takes money
3.    Business has less money to cover its overhead (ie, the minimum it must spend on its product  and processes as well as its monetary obligations to its employees)

At this point the business owners/operators must make a decision to either (a) absorb the loss or (b) recoup the loss by passing the cost onto the consumer. Let’s examine the results of both options.

(a)    Absorb the loss

If the owners/operators choose to absorb the loss, it means they no longer have as much money to work with in regards to operating costs. If they can’t make their overhead, they will have to cut back on production and/or employees. Employees are usually the FIRST ones to suffer in this scenario, as it’s easier to scale down your workforce than to scale down your production, especially if you’re mass producing something that’s a hot commodity.

So the workers are the first ones to suffer via cuts in wages and benefits, fewer promotions and hours, and maybe even layoffs- this is a huge factor in negative company morale. If the company is forced to cut too much production could suffer, which in turn cuts into how many units/services are sold, consumer confidence in the company, etc.; hence, additional profit loss at the Point of Sale (ie, the cash register). The company may eventually be forced to close its doors.

Granted potential closing may seem a bit extreme, but when we’re dealing with smaller businesses, especially Mom-and-Pop types, it’s much more likely to occur under this kind of scenario.

(b)    Recoup the loss by passing the cost onto the consumers

Cost of the product goes up, which may bolster profits initially. However if it’s not an essential item (and sometimes even if it is), the cost can only go up so much before it backlashes and the public either cuts back or stops buying the product altogether. The recent gas crisis is proof enough of this. Once the price went higher than most Americans could rationalize as reasonable, we started cutting back. This year we have millions more cars on the road than any year previously, yet we’re also using less gasoline. The correlation between the reduction in fuel consumption and price is hard to miss.

So what happens when consumers are no longer willing to buy the product due to increase in cost? The bottom line is that a business can only pass its costs onto the consumer for so long before we’re back to scenario (a), where the cost to run the business is higher than profits can justify. Workers lose jobs, production slows and in some cases stops. Businesses close.

As my man Fred Thompson correctly noted two nights ago in his address before the RNC, “Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax "businesses"! So unless you buy something from a "business", like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business", don't worry ... it's not going to affect you.”

The ultimate result of this brand of economics is that in the process of robbing the rich to feed the poor, we unintentionally (hopefully anyway) create more of the poor; hence creating the need for higher revenue to “assistance” programs; hence creating the need for even higher taxes; and on and on and on.

It’s an endless cycle that ultimately results in less production and independence and more reliance on an already bloated government machine; a machine that can’t even be trusted to get you in and out of the DMV in a timely manner; a machine that may or may not get your bills to their destination on time; a machine that is too busy to notice when children under its care go missing (as those of us in FL are amply aware); a machine that is so vast and complex it is rendered incapable of meeting any needs outside of their predetermined check boxes.

Let’s face it folks, the government isn’t exactly known for its efficient and friendly service and it never will be. To quote the famous (and TRUE) words of The Gipper, “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

So why do those on the left insist on instituting this brand of economics, when logically it’s a self-defeating system?

Dear reader, I am beginning to believe that the cycle itself- creating greater dependence upon the government and thereby need for expansion of government programs and POWER- is the reason. It has been said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Should we trust our lives and our livelihood to people who claim to want to help us, all while increasing their own power and public dependence on them, and in the process cinching their hold on Washington and the American people forever?

This election season, every voter should take a few minutes to remove their green-eyed-monster glasses in order to logically and honestly examine that question. The stakes are high and it is our freedom that we stand to lose.

When a political candidate is openly attacked by the media in the disgusting manner in which the drive-bys are crucifying Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and her family, one has to wonder at the motivation. Consider that these organizations, such as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, the NY Times, TIME Magazine, Newsweek, etc. all believe themselves to be credible journalists (whether or not that is the case is no longer even debatable…but I digress). So, why then would these so-called bastions of journalistic integrity be gleefully diving head first into the mud pits of yellow journalism?

I propose the answer, dear reader, is comprised of the following: Ideological Sexism.

What is that, you may ask? Ideological Sexism is bias against a person for their ideological views expressed in a sexist manner. Sarah Palin and family is currently the victim of these despicable types of attacks.

Case in point:

CBS Interview by Katie Couric with McCain camp spokesman Steve Schmidt

“SCHMIDT: Well, let's talk about what’s coming out. The fact that her husband had a DWI 24 years ago when he was 22 years old. Senator McCain thinks that’s nonsense, that’s not a disqualifier for a Vice President of the United States. We knew that her daughter was going to have a child. Senator McCain offered his love and support for their family. That doesn't disqualify this exceptional leader, and the American people, I think, will angrily reject it. Today, Katie, I’ve been asked questions that are outrageous by the national media. I’ve been asked questions about when her amniotic fluid started to leak with regard to her last birth. I was asked whether we would make the genetic tests available because she had a Down's Syndrome child. Members of this campaign went to off-the-record lunches with reporters today, and they were asked if she would do paternity tests to prove paternity for her last child. Smear after smear after smear, and it’s disgraceful, and it’s wrong, and the American people are going to reject it overwhelmingly when they see her tomorrow.”

Questions like these should immediately clue you in to which way the interviewer leans politically. Unfortunately, this isn't the only example of this type of gutter-bias by the MSM.

Now, imagine the fury of the left if someone had the audacity to ask these same questions about Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama. Or if someone had inquired as to whether or not Barack Obama would be able to effectively parent his two young daughters while being President. Or if his wife could handle his absence while he serves in Washington, work her own job AND effectively raise their two daughters. The person who even dared to hint at these things would have been (and should be) publicly crucified.

Point Two:

Panel Discussion on CBS. Topic: “Can a mother of five children be an effective vice president?”

Hang on a second. Isn’t that what the feminists have been telling us for so long? “You can have a family and a career. You can be successful if you want to be. You can have it all!” So here comes a woman who actually has it all and because she doesn’t share all of their ideological views they add the caveat: “But only if you’re a liberal!”

Add that in and it’s suddenly OK to skewer a woman for her feminine attributes.

What’s causing this most recent display of sexism, you ask? The answer is simple: FEAR.

The left has spent the past forty years portraying the Republican party specifically, and Conservatives in general, as a group of Neanderthals entirely devoted to suppressing minorities, especially women. The narrative is that we’re all Bible-thumping nutcases who expect our women to be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Our women aren’t allowed to think or have opinions. We’re completely dominated by our men, whose sole interest is to exploit anyone who comes across their path for money or power.

Sarah Palin has completely shattered that narrative. She is an extremely successful and respected conservative woman with a career and family. She has single-handedly re-energized the conservative base (Neanderthals and all!). And once those of us who live in fly-over country find out about this marvelous woman, the liberals know their lame old lines and arguments about conservatives being backwater, sexist bigots will no longer hold water.

So you see, dear reader, a woman who has the audacity to enter politics with an (R) behind her name is no woman at all, she is THE ENEMY.

Sarah Palin is a real, middle-American kind-of lady. She believes that human life is sacred; that the topic of sex should be introduced by one’s parents instead of government-run schools; that the Second Amendment means what it says; that the government can’t solve all our problems; that there’s nothing wrong with having a family and loving them and having a career, too.

Sarah Palin is JUST LIKE US. She’s NORMAL. She has a family whom she loves. She pays her bills and her taxes. She has children who make bad choices, but she loves and supports them anyway. She understands us because she’s one of us. As Glenn Beck says, Sarah Palin is “MRS. Smith Goes to Washington”.

Like many of you, I will be anxiously awaiting Governor Palin’s convention address tonight. As she said to one of McCain’s vetters during her interview: “Do you know the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick.” The drive-bys would serve themselves well by remembering that.

Go get ‘em Sarah!

Democrats are in full-blown panic mode after the brilliant pick of Sarah Palin for McCain’s running mate. In the past 72 hours, I have seem more sexism, character assassination attempts, and general grasping at smear straws from the left in order to belittle McCain’s choice. Case in point:

Liberal Nonsense Example #1

“McCain only chose her because she’s a woman! If she weren’t female she would never have been picked.”

I first saw this bit of garbage suggested by none other than the former Carter administration surrogate and architect of Walter Mondale’s campaign, Democratic Strategist Bob Beckel. If that isn’t sexist, I don’t know what is. And while I guess it should be surprising coming from the party of the FemiNazis, I’m not exactly shocked at the hypocrisy.

Imagine if a conservative had suggested that Hillary Clinton’s supporters were only backing her because she was a woman, as if she had zero in the way of qualifications outside of her gender. The liberals would all be foaming at the mouth and calling for a public lynching of any conservative who would dare to suggest such a thing.

But, of course, it’s OK when the female target in question happens to have an (R) behind her name. Ironically enough, when you compare the resumes of the two women prior to seeking national office there’s a pretty stark difference. First, you have Mrs. Clinton, whose main achievements before she ran for the Senate entail being the spouse of a President and a failed attempt to author a Universal Healthcare bill. Prior to Mrs. Palin’s VP run, she’d managed a city and a state, fought corruption within her own party, took on the oil companies, and got more accomplished in two years of her governorship than her predecessors had combined over several decades.

So, we must assume from their arguments (as well as their choice in Presidential candidates) that the liberals don’t consider actual executive and legislative accomplishments as crucial criteria for seeking one of the two highest offices in the land.

Liberal Nonsense Example #2

“Governor Palin’s new baby son, Trig, can’t be hers since she didn’t ‘look pregnant’ at six months. It must be her daughters and the Palin family is living a lie.”

Outside of this just being an unsubstantiated assumption that is beyond ridiculous, it’s flat-out insulting. Now, remember that we’re not supposed to criticize Michelle Obama or anyone in the Obama family. They’re “off limits”, even if they do choose to inject themselves onto the political stage. However, it’s suddenly OK to smear not only the Republican candidate herself, but also her teenage daughter, based on some cockamamie theory contrived by the folks from the Daily Kossack. Wow. This just beats all.

Again, imagine if a conservative had made this same suggestion about some famous liberal woman, based on absolutely no evidence other than one’s opinion about what a six-month-pregnant woman should look like. This hypothetical conservative would quickly find droves of angry people on their lawn with pitchforks and torches.

I find that this argument, surprisingly enough, defeats itself in terms of the attempt at making Governor Palin’s character seem questionable. Say hypothetically that this is a true story. What does it say of a woman’s character who takes in her own grandchild and chooses to love him and raise him as her own? It says a lot about the capacity she and her family have for love. So this argument, ridiculous as it is, pretty much backfires upon any close examination. Although that in itself isn’t surprising coming from the left.

The truth is far less sensational. Pictures of Palin showing her to be very pregnant are surfacing. That combined with the statistics on women over 40 giving birth to children with Down's Syndrome (1in 100 vs 1 in several thousand at her daughter's age) show this non-story for the contrived left-wing garbage it is. 

Liberal Nonsense Example #3

“That woman has four kids plus a baby with Down’s Syndrome. Her place is at home taking care of her family.”

This one just takes the cake. Every woman with any feminist sensibilities should be outraged at the suggestion that a woman’s “place” is in the home fawning over their husband and children. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy when the same people that rallied around Hillary Clinton when she belittled those who are homemakers with her demeaning comments about “stay[ing] home and bak[ing] cookies and hav[ing] tea” are now suggesting that another woman should just give up all her hopes and dreams and stay home to look after her family.

As a stay-at-home mom myself, I obviously have no problem with anyone who chooses to make her family her profession. But I also have no problem with women who choose to have a career as well. And after all, wasn’t that a major point in the feminist movement? Isn’t this what women have been fighting against: the idea that a woman is somehow incapable of having a family and a career simultaneously?

Yes, dear reader, hypocrisy abounds on the left. It always has, but with the nomination of Sarah Palin it’s becoming more and more apparent as the left scrambles to regain the footing that was lost after the choice of this phenomenal woman as potential Vice President has rallied the conservative base and captured the public’s attention.

So, my rallying cry to all conservatives is to let the liberals have their pity party. Let them try to run Governor Palin’s name through the mud. Because the more they try and sully her good name with the likes of the garbage above, the more apparent their hypocrisy will become to the women and men in the middle. In the end, Independents and Reagan Democrats will see them for what they are and they will run in the other direction. And McCain-Palin and company will be waiting with open arms.

Don't fight the smears.

Democrats caught on tape laughing about Hurricane Gustav

Democrats caught on camera laughing about Hurricane Gustav being projected to hit New Orleans early next week. This shows you just what they are all about. They spew all their socialist jargon and pump the vulnerable full of their brand of fascism all in the name of hope and change and everyone loving each other and singing "Kumbaya" around the camp fires together and all the other crap the hippies love to do. But underneath it all, they don't care about us. They care about our votes and it  becomes apparent that's ALL they care about when they laugh gleefully at the possibility of a Category 4-5 storm decimating an entire region of the country because it may help them politically.

Well, I've got news for them. They won't be laughing when CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN Governor Bobby Jindal schools the nation on how the worthless Democrat idiots that were running Louisianna three years ago SHOULD have been conducting themselves last time around.

I am so proud of my chosen political party today. John McCain, who I will admit I was not thrilled with initially, has done a wonderful thing by choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential Nominee. He has not only catapulted her political career, he has done America a great service by introducing us to this remarkable woman who, unlike most of our current examples of femininity in the political and cultural landscape, is truly a class act.
 
Governor Palin started out in a small town and has never forgotten her roots. She and her husband are both from middle class/working class families and have had to RECENTLY worry about the problems facing common Americans. Her life story sounds strikingly similar to the “everyman’s”.

Palin hunts, fishes, and plays sports. She entered and won a beauty contest in order to use the accompanying scholarship to help her get through college. She married her high school sweetheart (a fisherman and oil rig worker), with whom she has 5-count them!- children, one of whom was diagnosed before birth as having Down’s syndrome, and whom she chose to love and cherish regardless of his disability. She pays a mortgage and is not a bazillionaire or a lifetime politician. She’s simply a concerned citizen trying to help others; which is what politicians are SUPPOSED to be.

Her political career began not in some egotistical desire for power, fame, or fortune, but in recognition that her government was not working for the people it was supposed to be representing. In the spirit of TRUE change, Palin went from PTA mom to City Council member. Then on to Mayor and ultimately, after being displeased at the shady dealings of the political establishment in Alaska, she moved on to the office of Governor where she has huge bipartisan support and an over 80% approval rating, both of which are virtually unheard of, and has been a champion of reform.

Unlike the parade of feminist radicals that have shown open scorn for the occupation of housewives and stay at home mothers and contempt at the idea of participating in any form of domesticity-such as Hillary Clinton’s remarks about the demeaning nature of baking cookies- Sarah Palin is a wife, mother, and stateswoman. For Sarah, the latter does not negate the former. For her, being a feminine and a mother-even to those with special needs-is a blessing, not a burden. And she’s working hard not only at home but also in our government for the future of our children.
 
Governor Palin is living proof that the American Dream is still alive and well for those who work hard and live honestly. She is a woman that we should be proud for our daughters AND our sons to see on a national stage. I will proudly pull the lever for McCain/Palin in 2008. And hopefully one day I will have the privilege of voting for Palin for President in 2012 or 2016.

I know that with my choice of title, I will have readers who are wondering "What on earth could she possibly have against saving babies?" The answer in short is nothing. On the contrary, saving babies is what we should be doing, and in my humble opinion, the BAIPA doesn't go far enough.

For those who are not aware, BAIPA stands for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. It was passed  and signed it into law by President Bush in late 2002. In a nutshell, what it said was that if a woman has an abortion, and for whatever reason the child happens to survive the procedure after it has been extracted from the womb, the attending physician is required by law to provide medical attention in an attempt to save the baby.

Pretty straightforward, right? Apparently not.

In case you are not already aware, it has been brought to light that Barack Obama opposed a similar measure when it came up in the Illinois State Legislature. He voted against the bill not once but three times, expressing his discomfort with the bill's potential implications to Roe vs Wade.

Now, let's side-step the specific Illinois bill and the fact that it was ultimately altered to identically match the federal bill (which Obama says wasn't harmful to Roe and he would have voted for) and he STILL voted against it, and move on to the meat of the issue. While I am obviously appalled that Obama would vote against saving babies, the one thing I can say in his favor is that at least he's consistent.

The BAIPA, in all its forms, is pure hypocrisy on the part of the government. In essence, we're saying it's OK to kill babies when they're inside the womb, but once they've made it out...well, that's a BIG no-no! What exactly, pray tell, is the difference between a baby at 23 weeks gestation inside its mother's womb and a baby at 23 weeks gestation that is outside of the womb, aside from location? The answer, my dear reader, is nothing.

A baby is a baby is a baby regardless of where it happens to be currently residing.

Which leads me to the issue of abortion in general. While some may think it's "above [their] pay grade" to define when life begins and when a child's life is constitutionally protected, the reality is that if you're not qualified to decipher that, you're not qualified to have an opinion on the issue of abortion to begin with.

"But wait!" you say. " It's not that simple. What about the life of the mother, or rape, or incest, or .." insert the plethora of excuses as to why legalized abortion is necessary. What form of inconvenience the baby is to its mother is not the issue. It's pretty much universally agreed that intentionally killing an innocent human being is wrong; therefore morality of abortion really boils down to the following two questions:

1. When is the baby actually alive?

2. When does the baby qualify as a live human being?

The answers to these two questions are actually startlingly simple.

1. When is the baby alive? What distinguishes a living organism from a non-living one, is growth, reproduction, and reaction to stimuli. The question then becomes: when does the baby start growing and reproducing? As soon as egg and sperm meet, the membrane of the egg immediately begins changing to repel all other sperm, the newly formed cell begins growing and dividing to produce more cells (reproduction).

The easy answer to when life begins is at conception. This one's a no-brainer. But life itself is not the only qualifier here. Plants, animals, even bacteria are alive. But some of those things we wouldn't flinch at extinguishing their existence, if need be. So there's got to be another element in the mix.

2. When does the baby qualify as a live human being? This one's a little tougher to answer, but bare with me here. We've already established that the new cell created when egg and sperm meet is alive, but it can't possibly qualify as a human being, right? To that I must ask you, dear reader, to consider the following question:

If it's not a human being, what else could it possibly be?

That's really the question. I mean, we're not exactly giving birth to cats and dogs. A woman doesn't get pregnant and expect to have a baby dandelion to bring home. Pregnant human women expect to have human babies. So, if it's alive at conception, and we know it's going to come out as a human being, what could it possibly be prior to birth? Was there a chapter in biology that we missed? Is there some sort of fairy dust that's sprinkled onto the baby during its trip down the birth canal that magically transforms the living whatever-it-is into a human being?

Obviously not. It's entirely logical to assume that since the baby's alive and it's going to be born a human being that it IS a human being. And if it is a human being, then it is afforded certain rights under the Constitution, the right to life being one of them. Following this bit of reasoning to its logical conclusion, abortion is wrong because (say it with me here) it is killing a human being.

"But what about viability?"  you ask. Viability of a baby during gestation is whether or not the baby can survive without relying on the mother. Obviously a baby at 12 weeks gestation can't survive outside the mother's body. But what of it? Can a baby at a week post birth survive without another human being (mother or father) to care for it? Of course not. But what would happen if we put our 12-week-old baby out on the side of the road? Would it survive? Obviously not. But what about my one-year-old? What if we dumped him in the woods and left him to his own defenses? Would he survive? No way.

You see, if we follow the viability argument to its logical conclusion, we end up giving the thumbs up to killing our children regardless of whether or not they've made it out of the womb. At what point do we find "viability" in the life of a child when most children, especially those who are very young, could not survive without the care of their parents?

So, let's repeat it once again: Abortion is wrong because you're killing a human being.

Which brings me back to my original point. We apparently have people that believe killing babies is OK but only so long as they're still inside their mothers. That, my friends, is hypocrisy at its finest. While I understand that the intentions behind BAIPA were to protect against doctors arbitrarily flushing aborted infants who managed to survive down the toilet, it still does not go far enough. And until we correct the monstrosity that is Roe vs Wade, we continue to live in a society where the killing of live, innocent human beings is sanctioned.

Jesus said in Matthew 25 "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these...you did for me." It would serve us well to remember that.

Hi. I'm Mr. Flibble. And I'm not a mister. I'm actually a Mrs.

My real name is Mandy and I'm a late-20s stay-at-home-mother, which, by the way, is the best job in the world. And yes, it IS a job. You spend all day trying to keep your house from looking like a tornado just passed through inside, keep the laundry and dishes done, keep up with the yard, and get dinner on the table by six all while doing your best to entertain a toddler and simultaneously keep him from inadvertently killing himself. And then, of course, there is always the business of keeping your relationship with your spouse on the up and up; that is, when time permits.

Trust me, it's a job. An incredibly rewarding one (although NOT monetarily), but a job nonetheless.

So, why the Mr. Flibble thing? To be honest, it's been my internet handle for longer than I can remember. And that's the long and short of that. If you still have a burning need to know why I picked such a screenname, you may need to see a doctor because I think they make a cream for that....no, no I'm kidding. Go watch the British Sci-fi Comedy Red Dwarf, in its entirety. Not only will you get hours and hours of good laughs, you may unravel the mystery behind the Flibble and why it is that he's so darn angry.

So, now that's out of the way, we can move forward.

I'm a Christian first, a conservative, and an ardent admirer of Randian philosophy, if not a strict adherent. I'm also a staunch Federalist, which sadly, is no longer apparent when one espouses to be a conservative, hence the need for the additional label. I tell you this so that you can understand my worldview. I'm not a liberal or a progressive (or whatever it is that the lefties are calling themselves nowadays) and I do not write from that perspective. Please don't read my blog and expect me to espouse those points of view. I do not hold them and will not endorse them.

I tend to vote Republican, although my ideas are probably more closely aligned with the Libertarian and Constitution parties. Where I often part ways with them is on issues pertaining to morality and war. It probably doesn't help that the candidates they pick generally either look or sound like fruitcakes (and sometimes both) or that they all seem to have a very wink-wink nudge-nudge relationship with the tin-foil-hatters. Hence, the Republican vote.

Every decision I've made or opinion I hold is based on reason as much as humanly possible. I do my best to use logic in every situation. I am a very straightforward, bottom line kinda gal and I'm not one to base my opinions on feelings. I find that people who base their opinions on how they feel about something more often than not end up trying to twist the facts to support their viewpoint; which, it seems to me, is the exact opposite of how one should go about forming an opinion in the first place.

I recently had a conversation with someone who said that the average person isn't smart enough to understand the issues facing us today. I wholeheartedly disagree. I believe the problem is that between the politicians and the "intellectuals" the issues have been so obscured that they are too convoluted for people to try and sort through. The average person simply doesn't have the time or the inclination to undertake a task of that nature. I believe that if we were to give people the basics, the actual "meat" of each issue, even those who aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer are able to get the gist and make an informed decision.

So here is my endeavor: I plan to use this blog to deconstruct the issues for you, my dear readers. I will give them to you in as concise a manner as possible. Of course, as I said earlier, you can expect to see my opinions here. After all, what are blogs for? But I want to try and frame the issues facing us today in as simple terms as possible so that we can examine them and form educated opinions instead of blindly accepting the last bit of bloviating we heard on CNN as gospel before quickly flipping back to this week's American Idol.

So, that's all she wrote, folks. At least for the moment.