What protesting really looks like - Iran

When we think of protestors in the U.S., we think of the 60's and 70's drug puffing hippies and sticking flowers in rifles. We think of WTO and the punks who terrorized business men and women, destroyed property, and were arrested by the hundred for assulting people walking around and police officers trying to keep the peace.

We're allowed to peacefully assemble in the U.S. It's a right we take for granted and a right that most other people don't have. Think back to the male and female students who were run over by tanks in China. 21-years ago. Google or Wiki "Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989" if you need a refresher. Now, the latest breed of REAL protestors are dying once again, this time fighting for basic rights in Iran. It began in the summer and now more people are dying.

The great thing of this computer dominated age is that we are getting reports, blogs, twitter postings, and YouTube videos of it all right after it happens.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/12/iran-more-video-footage-from-protests-surface-2.html

"Meanwhile, chants of anti-government slogans continue to be heard throughout many parts of Tehran. In the video below, protesters are shouting a well-known anti-government slogan, which translates to: "Artillery, tanks and Basijis no longer have an effect.""

Iran! Some of us long for freedom FOR you! And we wait anxiously to see if our government will do anything to help or if we'll be forced to watch you struggle alone. We hope for you. We pray for you.

You May Be A Fundamentalist Atheist If...

If you haven't read this, you need to. It's tongue in cheek and yet, I've seen a LOT of these come into play in my conversations with atheists in my life. I will just say as a disclaimer:

I LOVE THEM, GOD LOVES THEM, even though the majority are mean, bitter, angry, and foolish people. I do love them because God said so. Which is a sample of the irony of life!

"

Although you've memorized a half a dozen proofs that He doesn't exist, you still think you're God's gift to the ignorant masses.

You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.

You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" and, "Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect examples of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God's omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.

You are a person who absolutely believes that life came from nonlife, yet absolutely deny the possibility of anyone rising from the dead.

You won't bet $10 on the football game because a 50/50 chance isn't good enough, but you have no problem gambling with your life on the nearly impossible odds of a cell randomly generating from nothing.

Engaging the "slippery slope" fallacy, you think you can invalidate the whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since 'the whole bible either stands together or falls apart'. However, when a Creationist tries to invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this point as 'irrelevant'.

You think the movie “Inherit the Wind” best describes the eternal struggle of how an evolutionist is being treated by creationists in this religious society. And you can personally relate your life to the Scopes Monkey Trial.

You ignore “Time Magazine’s” poll, which states that only 28% of Americans believe in evolution. But of course, “Time Magazine” must been run by creationists.

You teach a belief only held by 28% of a nation, as truth beyond any shadow of a doubt because only educated people believe in evolution. Yet of course, you ignore that fully educated scientists in most other nations have proven against Darwinian theory. Like the Chinese paleontologist who reportedly says: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."

http://englishatheist.org/fundyath.shtml

It goes on and on and on and on! It is an excellent read! :)

Dear Mr President

Obama retreat on war: The return to pre-2001 criminal law mind-set
By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

The war on terror is over. The decision to prosecute the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, along with his al Qaeda cohorts, in federal court marks a political watershed. President Obama seeks to return America to a pre-Sept. 11, 2001, mind-set. Terrorism is to be treated - as in the 1990s - as a criminal law enforcement matter.

The administration's decision to hold Mohammed's trial in a New York City civilian court, just a few blocks away from ground zero, is irresponsible and grotesque. Foreign terrorists who commit atrocities against American civilians will be given full constitutional and legal protections. They are to be treated like any common murderer or rapist. This will embolden jihadists to wage more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/22/obama-retreat-on-war/

-----------------------

Wow. Do you ever think things can't get worse? I think Conservatives and those who identify as part of the Grand Ole Party have given up on that whole "Well, at least things can't get worse" idea with the current administration. Age old saying "When it rains, it pours" couldn't be more true.


WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?

Unless Obama is hoping that there will be rioting and the bad guys will be taken and executed by a mob, moving terrorists to be tried in a regular court makes no sense.

P.S. Mr President
-- Unemployment is still rising. Confusion abounds, wasn't that what this whole "stimulus" thing of invisible money pumped back into the economy was supposed to do? It was just as dumb when Bush did it, so you figured you'd try again?
-- You need to decide what you're going to do on Afghanistan. We all know the BS you campaigned on isn't going to work, so we're just waiting for your latest ideas. And if you're going to say "I'll ask my generals on the ground" um yes, we've heard from them, and you're still not doing anything.
-- Sorry about that whole not getting the Olympics in Chicago thing.
-- I think the deep bow you did to the emperor or whatever is the least of your problems.
-- How's attacking Fox News going for you?
-- Are you afraid of Sarah Palin? That's not making you look good.
-- Is it bothering you how quickly those who supported you are now joining in on the "complaining" and questioning of your policies? Did you REALLY think you'd get the messianic treatment forever? We're selfish beings and you've got a very small window to please everyone and you missed it.
-- Health care? Seriously? You're seriously adding THIS gargantuan disgusting bill to what is already going wrong?
-- All I can hope is that hope and change come in 2012!

Sincerely, Conservative Minority

Sarah Palin on Oprah - Pt II

I thought the interview went well. Granted, while I do like Sarah Palin and I have no significant affection for Oprah,I thought Oprah was pushing her agenda and was generally snarky in tone with S.P, who I thought took questions in stride and did well in answering them.

It didn't feel like particularly new information was shared but I just appreciated seeing her at her home, with Trig, and seeing more of who she is as a person. I was on Twitter a bunch during and after the interview and I did liked someone's comment that asked if Oprah was intimidated by Sarah Palin. Could be! Oprah doesn't hold any power of Sarah, and they both know it. Oprah's bad opinion of Sarah Palin (which is already fairly obvious, especially on a political level) hasn't hurt her yet, and the continued attitude doesn't make conservatives like her (S.P.) less.

Sarah Palin kept things civil, even in talking about how annoying Katie Couric was and ended the interview in a complimentry way to Oprah, which I thought was sweet.

Here's my deal with Sarah Palin right now. As a person (as much as people CAN know 'as a person' people in politics) I like her. I think she's smart. I'm excited to see what's next for her. I still don't like and don't know all the facts about her dropping out of being Alaska's governor. I wish she'd finished that out.

Are people out to get her? Sure. A) She's a woman and B) she's conservative. And like being a black conservative, as a female conservative you'll be called any number of things from a traitor to a b****...

Newsweek's cover of S.P. was more of the same. Sexism and bias.

Not to mention it's a picture Newsweek basically stole from a running magazine (photographer illegally allowed a second magazine to use this picture while under contract with another).
And finally, MSNBC used a FAKE picture of Sarah Palin in a stars and stripes bikini holding a semi-automatic rifle. Gimme a BREAK!

Good luck getting to a day where this kind of sexism (on both sides) is not allowed when half the country's women are buying into this and spewing their own hatred for Sarah Palin. Why? Because she has too many kids? Because she didn't abort the child with down syndrome? Because she hates other women? (That's code for being anti-abortion).

Sarah Palin on Oprah!

Or, she will be, where I can watch it anyway, in about 15 minutes. You should tune in, as I will, and then I will post an update on it!

We're all still people right?

I've thought about something recently, maybe because I'm trudging through this history book and I am reminded that during the Civil War, we were anything BUT civil. Families and friends turned against each other almost overnight, killing each other over ideology (right?). Well, we're a very happening and sophisticated people now, looking at the wars in Africa as if we're above tribal wars and arguments over land, etc.

The difference is, we don't shoot each other, yet. And the war between the Democrats and the Republicans is definately brutal, as a conservative I'm thinking how Sarah Palin and family were trashed and George W. Bush got disrespected on policy (often rightly) but the way he spoke and other non-policy related things that were just rude and completely ignorant and unnecessary. I'm sure Democrats can think of their own champions and they way they see THEM portrayed unfairly (some would say Obama and I can agree on a FEW of the ways he's been portrayed).

Example, why comparing any American politician to Hilter is the cool thing for the not-in-power-party to do is BEYOND ME. If they've killed 18 million people, yes, get back to me. SHEESH.

So we hate each other really. Twitter conservatives and liberals bash each other back and forth, and I join in. And then I stop for a few days and don't miss it much. Then I log back in and get back into the swing of things. But in the end, it's fruitless, it's pointless. No one changes anyone's mind, we all get frustrated, and further dislike each other.

But if I passed a person trapped on the side of the road in a burning car/bleeding and I found out he/she was a liberal, would I NOT get help or help myself?! NEVER. Obviously. My co-workers, neighbors, people in my church, and my friends whom I love have been liberals and I love them dearly, enjoy their company, and would do a LOT for them (for most, I believe I'd give my life).

But it's easy to forget they are real people, with small children, the majority of whom probably DO want what's best for the U.S. even if we've all got very different ideas of what that is. It's easy to forget especially when we just hear their idiotic statements on TV or see the latest laws or scandals. It's too easy to forget. But we need to remember:

We're all still people right?

Thanks for the Free Advertising Mr President! - Fox News

Obama drives record Fox News ratings, bumps MSNBC by CNN
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/obama-fox-news-msnbc-cnn-.html

Bad move Mr. President. First, it doesn't look good that you, or White House cronies, continually think that bashing Fox News will prevent any of their viewers from watching it. In addition, you've bumped their ratings a whooping 34%. That means you're helping Fox to DOUBLE CNN's viewership and TRIPLE MSNBC (who both ironically, had mishaps this last week with their highly trained and professional, unbiased I'm sure, reporters basically lying about Rush Limbaugh.)

As a fan of FNC myself, I hope you continue Mr. President. Direct every American to one of the few sources of news and political commentary that actually challenges anything you do. We'll all be better for it.

- Conservative Minority

Facebook Political Quiz

This is what is says if you are determined to be a lefty (a friend of mine on Facebook got that apparently).

"Are you liberal or conservative?" and got the result: You are a solid left-winger!

You desire equality of results and believe that when somebody is knocked down by life, the government should step in and help them out.... Taxes do not concern you much as only the rich will be paying them and you believe they do not pay their fair share. You do not have a strong grasp of economics but believe that those in government do and should be trusted with running most things as long as those in power are not republicans. You distrust many things to do with the military and big business. You believe in personal freedoms but understand when certain ones (like the right to bear arms) need to be curtailed.

HOW SCARY IS THAT PARAGRAPH?!!? Hahaha, I can't get over it. I took it to see what I'd get...ooh the anticipation!
And here were my results:

Solid right-winger

You believe in the use of government's power for the common good such as national defense but are wary of government intrusion into your personal life. You believe individual liberties should not be curbed when possible and that America should have a strong defense. You believe that people should succeed and others fail based on their actions and not because government helped one group or another. You believe in equality of opportunity not results. If you do not already, you should vote republican in the next election.

Hey Peeps, it's called the Voter's Pamphlet!

I was talking to one of my female Conservative friends (few and far between) about the upcoming election (Nov 3 in our state) and how she should vote YES on I-1033. I said something to the extent of "Once I get my voter's guide, I'll know what other initiatives are up." And she said she'd already got hers! I frantically ran downstairs and dug through our previously received mail. NOTHING. Where is my guide? How am I supposed to know what is going on?

I just know some liberal higher power decided not to mail ME my guide because I'm conservative. Not that conservative votes are even counted in WA. They just recount until they get the outcome they like. (The last few sentances were in jest. Well, the first sentence was anyway.)

Fortunately, I found it online (that's nifty, saves paper!) here: http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/pc/abtus/ourorg/aud/elections/archives/gen09/vps.htm

I skipped through some of the initial information, like the "traditional sample ballot" they include to try and help the not-so-smart among us make sure their vote counts. We don't want hanging chads or anything. 5 Steps to make sure your vote count:

1. Bring identification when voting at a polling place. (Liberals don't care if other liberals don't bring identification...like the homeless people they shipped into the polls in Ohio)
2. Mark your ballot correctly. (Duh.)
3. Sign your ballot envelope when voting by mail.
4. Mail your ballot prior to election day. (Wait, you don't count the ones you receive 3 weeks later?)
5. Keep your registration up to date. (See my comment on #1)

Ok, my commentary on what's up to vote in WA:

• Vote NO on "Proposed Amendment Charter #1" - Reason? Why should we extend the term limits for WA politicians from 2 terms to 3? I say we shouldn't because given the state of WA politics, we need new people more often than not. Let people only screw up our state government and economy 2 times.
• Vote NO on "Proposed Amendment Charter #2" - It proposes moving certain elections to "off years". Both sides of the argument said "If you voted yes on #1, vote yes on this one too" or "If you voted no on #1, vote no for this too!" I think it's a dumb idea. Why do they need to move elections around? So we can be in a constant state of running for office?
• Vote NO on "Proposed Amendment Charter #3" to eliminate Run Off Voting - Run off voting means that voters can select their FIRST choice for an office and then two the lesser of the remaining evils for your second, third choices. I've liked that idea ever since I learned about it.
• Auditor: Jan Shabro (she's done a good job)
• Port of Tacoma Commissioner Position #1: Connie Bacon (the other guy wants to widen the Panama Canal...)
  
• Port of Tacoma Commissioner Position #2: Dick Marzano
  
• Port of Tacoma Commissioner Position #4: Don Meyer
• Lakewood Council Position #1: Darrel Shiley
• Lakewood " " #2: Connie Colman Lacadie
• Lakewood #3 : Jason Whalen

Dah, there is way more, but I don't even know who all we get to vote for in the area I live. I'll have to wait until I get my ballot in the mail.

Oh yes and:
WA Initiative 1033 – Limit growth of government revenue YES
WA Referendum Measure 71 – Don’t undermine Marriage REJECT

What Youth Can Do to be More Informed

• While the left constantly trashes the Fox News Network, they don't have a problem with where the majority of teenagers/young adults are getting their political know-how (or lack thereof): "Comedy Central" or MTV. If the people in the 18-29 age group actually subscribed to a variety of news (Yes, variety, including the Associated Press, where a lot of internet sources steal their news word-for-word anyway) and used all the different biases (it's impossible to write without the influence of one's personal opinion) to even it all out, maybe we'd be better off.
• Understand that the world isn't like highschool. Popularity doesn't mean a person is good, it doesn't mean a person is smart, it doesn't mean ANYTHING. Popularity in politics is about as long-lasting as SNL skit and usually far more entertaining to follow. Just because your neighbor believes something is true or is going to vote for a Presidential candidate is not good enough reason for another person to do it. Every choice should be evaluated personality, the logic of both sides of the argument evaluated, and the actual facts discovered.
• Resist the urge to name call or insult in other ways, those you disagree with. Try sticking to disagreeing on policy and avoid the personal attacks.
• Care about it to begin with. I've found my age-group in two MAIN categories. Those who don't care and those who don't have any clue. In the don't care group, that's almost more sad. At least I don't have to cancel out their votes, but if you can't care enough even to vote about things that WILL affect us in the future, what incentive do you have to know more about it. My own knowledge is woefully inadequate, but for many of my peers, their lack of interest in knowledge in our system is disheartening. If you think that issues like property rights don't matter to you now, picture when you own property! If you think foreign policy doesn't affect you, look at the nations that were destroyed within a generation by attempts at socialism and communism, dictatorships, and the restriction or complete destruction of speech, gun, and religious freedoms. It will all come to bear in our lives at some point...take an interest while you actually get a voice about it.
  

Is it any wonder no one takes our age group seriously in politics? They know getting our vote is as easy as a good marketing campaign with "catchy slogans", lofty oration, and a slick candidate. No substance or facts are needed to get the "youth vote". Inform them about whatever you want them to know, and they will do as they are told.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm ashamed that our peer-group is so easily manipulated by commercial whim and the not-to-wholesome desires of some of our political elite.

Rush interview with MSNBC

Kudos to MSNBC for a fairly evenhanded handling of their interview with Rush Limbaugh. If you hate the guy, you're the one who should read it. It might give you some actual perspective instead of just listening to left-winged rhetoric about him.

"Rush Limbaugh realizes you don’t become America’s most popular radio talk-show host without having the hide of an elephant. And he’s long subscribed to a theory: His 21 million listeners know him and love him, and the other 280 million Americans, well, they don’t pay the bills.

“My objective is to satisfy [my] audience so they come back the next day,” Limbaugh told TODAY national correspondent Jamie Gangel in a wide-ranging, three-hour interview, excerpts of which air on TODAY Monday and Tuesday.

“Most of my critics don’t even listen to me; they are clueless,” Limbaugh said. “They just go to Web sites that report what I say out of context. I’m amazed at the Democrats and the media who do not know what’s going on in my world. I know what’s going on in theirs. I study ’em. I watch ’em every day.”"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33244211/ns/today-today_people/

Just when you thought humanity couldn't get much more deprived...

Kathleen Parker wrote a great article about a businesswoman/blogger who had a miscarriage in her office meeting and chose to flippantly update her Twitter page on that regard.

The woman tweeted "I'm in a board meeting. Having a miscarriage. Thank goodness, because there's a (expletive) 3-week hoop-jump to have an abortion in Wisconsin."

Wow. Just when you thought people couldn't get more calloused about human life.

http://www.winonadailynews.com/news/opinion/article_e98ae874-b449-11de-9430-001cc4c002e0.html

One of my favorite points Kathleen Parker had: "Women certainly needn't feel shame for a miscarriage. Abortion, which is in an entirely different category, deserves a different conversation. It's worth noting for the sake of irony, that the principal argument for abortion was privacy."

It's good to be Conservative.

I hope I can get my feelings into something somewhat meaningful. I just had a rather inspirational time at the Evergreen Leadership Conference. It reminded me what I see in conservatives that makes me identify as one myself, even though that doesn't always make me popular among my facebook connections, friends/acquaintances, and/or schoolmates.

• First, I love this country. The history book I'm reading "A History of the American People" by Paul Johnson spans the period from the first boats on the sand of the new world to near the end of Clinton's presidency in 1997. I'm not far into it yet, but even at page 231 I can see that the United States was started differently than any other nation before or since. The men were going off of what they disliked about the Kings, Parliament, and European life in general and trying to make things DIFFERENT in the new world. Conservatives respect that the U.S. is different. They want to love and respect what this country is and the ideals it was founded on and stands for. They want to CONSERVE what our founding fathers wrote and what millions of men and woman have fought and died for.

• Next, I want us to be strong and respected in the world. We accomplish that not only by giving our aid when people are in need of medications, food, clean water, clothing, or refuge, but often by stepping in to stop oppression. This gets us called "the world's police" by those on the Left or by those who don't like being stopped from doing what they are doing...but ultimately, is it not the job of good people to preserve the human rights of others? Think playground and 1st grade...it's really being "the playground police" when a big strong teenager stops another teenager from beating up a 1st grader? Should we really just look away when injustices are happening around the world? Or does our involvement stop at being the world's doctors, food/water providers, and sending American relief workers into the mess to do their best to help? We are also strong and respected when we stand up for what is right and in our best interests, even if it means that other big nations aren't going to like it. It means we protect our people and our allies and don't let nations bully us and don't sit by as they threaten and lie. Respected doesn't mean LIKED/LOVED. Conservatives understand that better than the opposition, I believe.
  

• We should conduct our business, our personal lives, and our politics with morality and according to what is best for the country (not government). Perhaps this is where conservatives (or the Republican Party specifically) has lost its way. We've fallen into the same horrible business planning (over spending and waste), the moral depravity (sexual scandals or lying), and meaningless personal attacks as the opposition. We used to be a party that did not think religion was something to be feared and removed.

• We occasionally have clarity, good ideas, and progression instead of just opposition! We just need to get good plans and be able to share those openly with people. We need to go to the youth, minorities and just lay it out. We don't have to sugar coat it, we don't need to dumb it down. We just need strategy and a way to share it with people so they can think about it.

~ Conservative Minority

Attending the Evergreen Leadership Conference

The list of speakers is quite impressive and exciting. Some people I recognize, and some I don't but I'm equally impressed about. The keynote is Pat Toomey who is set to run against Arlen Specter for the PA Senate seat in 2010. (As much as I learn and keep informed with breaking news, and especially where Obama is concerned, but there is so much I have yet to learn!)

Three more speakers I'm excited for are:

Luncheon Keynote Speaker Steve Beren Candidate for Congress 7th Congressional District link

John Carlson Co-Host, KOMO Radio "The Commentators" Founder, Washington Policy Center link

Tim Eyman Voters Want More Choices Permanent-Offense.org link

Ok, I don't know many people in WA who wouldn't recognize Eyman, even if it's just by name! I had to look up Steve Beren, but was fascinated by what I learned! Anyone who goes from Democrat to Republican and atheist to Christian is someone I want to hear from. And John Carlson of course, for anyone who's listened to WA talk radio, we know John Carlson. I think I remember supporting him in his bid for governor of WA. I believe he lost to Locke.

That's the just the top of the list, there are many more interesting looking bloggers, directors of conservative websites or organizations, and former politicians who will be speaking tomorrow.

Here was my political background: I grew up home schooled in a Christian, Republican Conservative home. I know, liberals everywhere are already shrieking and holding up whatever they use for protection (since they can't use guns or crosses). I joke that I've been listening to Rush Limbaugh even the in the womb. Seriously, I don't know if my mom had the headphones on her stomach, but the political commentary from Rush, Michael Medved, Kirby Wilbur, and a host of other hosts were an expected and natural part of my everyday life. I don't really remember much that was said until I started getting older and actually following the news. I remember watching a debate before Clinton was elected and sensing my parents' dislike (and therefore disliking him myself) and later on, watching a Jennifer Dunn interview or debate for her election.

I think I really got a good taste for politics from my community college political classes (and every other class at community college really). Every teacher found a way to bring politics up in class, sometimes it applied. But my first political science class, as the only outspoken conservative against my teacher and 30+ students when I was 16-years-old was the first time I was completely outnumbered, often under-informed, and loved it. (My teacher was a pretty fair and nice guy.)

From there, my passion just grew and I hope is growing. I want to be more firmly grounded in the fundamentals of our government, our country's history, and our current political leaders. Tomorrow is just a step to meet people and learn from some of the greats.

Looks like Snowe.....

I didn't know exactly what to think about this woman, so I had to do some research. In fact, I should do research on every congress man and woman. Now that is the undertaking for someone who desires political prowess!

Her introduction on Wikipedia.org had this to say of her:
"Olympia Jean Snowe McKernan (born February 21, 1947), née Bouchles, is the senior U.S. Senator from Maine. She is a Republican and a leading moderate within the party.

Snowe has become widely known for her ability to influence the outcome of close votes and Senatorial filibusters.

In 2006, she was named one of America's Top Ten Senators by Time Magazine. Her political popularity in her home state is the highest of any current U.S. Senator; as of November 22, 2006, she enjoyed a 79 percent approval rating in her home state of Maine."

Being popular as a senator is a huge deal, I believe as a whole, congress has a 26.8% approval rating from an RCP poll on Foxnews.com (I know, if you are a liberal reading this, you may shudder that I just cited FoxNews).

Further information from Wikipedia (yes, the bastion of truth and knowledge, weren't you ever in college?) includes her going soft on Bill Clinton's lying under oath, and "breaks from the Bush Administration"

"Her occasional breaks with the Bush administration drew attacks from other conservative Republicans; the Club for Growth and Concerned Women for America label her as a 'Republican in Name Only' (RINO)."

She also appears dedicated to her work, the only one of 8 senators who haven't missed any votes! (What exactly are the rest of them doing? Jet-setting on private planes, sipping tax payer dollars?)

Democrats have been on her to be the only Republican "turn coat" on the bloated health care bill (that most of congress probably hasn't read). An article from The Washington Post said:

"After weeks of courtship of Snowe by the White House, Democracy Corps -- a Democratic-aligned polling operation -- released polling data this afternoon that argues that the Maine Senator's willingness to cooperate with the Administration on health care is directly tied to her re-election prospects in 2012

The survey, which was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, argues that while Snowe is extremely popular at the moment -- 70 percent job approval, 60 percent saying they would vote for her again in 2012 -- those numbers "should not be mistaken for blind allegiance to her," according to a polling memo released with the data.

As evidence, the memo notes that when the same sample is asked to imagine Snowe voting against Obama's health care plan, her numbers drop precipitously -- with 44 percent saying they would definitely vote to re-elect her and 44 percent saying they would entertain the prospect of voting for someone else. That drop includes a 33-percent tumble among independents, a critically important part of Snowe's winning calculus in past elections....

This memo is rightly understood as a shot across Snowe's political bow, a not-so-subtle hint that she should support the President's health care plan or else...

Snowe has been through this sort of intense lobbying effort before and, for an incumbent whose lowest re-election percentage is 60 percent, the prospect of electoral peril is less intimidating than it might be for some Senators.

Given that, the full-court press being put on Snowe by Democratic interest groups has the real possibility of back-firing -- turning her against compromise to show that she will not be bullied into backing the legislation."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/democrats-ratchet-up-pressure.html?wprss=thefix

USA Today blurbed about her as well:

"Sen. Olympia Snowe, a critical Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, called today for slowing down the work on crafting a health care bill.

She spoke as the committee -- the only key panel that has not offered a health reform bill -- began work as a full committee on legislation proposed by chairman Max Baucus of Montana.

Snowe said it was critical to find a solution to health care issues, but called for putting "thoughtful deliberation ahead of an arbitrary deadline."

'We simply cannot address one-sixth of our economy on matters of such personal and financial significance to every American on a legislative fast-track,' she said.

Snowe said that 'significant work remains to be done that is critical to the outcome of this legislation.'"

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/09/sen-snowe-calls-for-slowing-down-work-on-health-care.html

My cynical side wants to shout "BE A REPUBLICAN" and vote party line on the issue. My intelligent side wants to know the line between voting against something because it's a stupid bill and voting as a representative of the people. That's actually the whole point of being a representative government, right? Doesn't it somewhat make sense that a congressman/woman would be swayed by the will of the people they represent? But at some point, a person has to say "Common sense tells me this is stupid. The other side is saying I should do it, maybe a few of the people that would have voted for me will no longer, but is that enough to outweigh my common sense?"

One thing is for sure, kudos Senator Snowe for asking that people actually slow down, read the bill, and try to get something that actually works and makes sense. Obama attempting to rush this is part of a political agenda and needing something under the belt for re-election and a rise in the polls, it's not about people or healthcare.

- Conservative Minority

Kids in school and abortion funding

Supposedly, people who support "choice" (aka, a woman's right to abort a baby) still do not LIKE abortion. Everyone claims they they do not like abortion. We'll exclude the businesses that make billions of dollars off of abortion procedures and referrals (like abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood). If that is true, and we can give all people the benefit of the doubt for this post, why are there arguments on issues we should all agree on?

A person that disagrees with the abortion procedure on logical, moral, and/or scientific grounds should in NO WAY have to fund it with money they unwillingly give up through taxation. The Hyde Law "prohibits federal Medicaid and Medicare money from being spent on most types of abortion, including pregnancies that threaten the woman’s health or involve fetal anomalies. Federal money can only be used to pay for an abortion when the pregnancy threatens the life of the woman or results from rape or incest". But this has to be renewed every year. Why then is there an debate about making the language concerning abortion in the (horrendous) proposed health care bill abundantly clear? Has clarity every hurt a politician or a lawmaker? Why the desire for ambiguity on this issue? (Especially when these are the people that are constantly demanding more laws and more "clarity" on gun control, registering, ownership, etc etc etc.)

And on another topic, Obama did one thing right (not that he has any credit really for this at all) in a plan to have public schoolers in school longer during the day and longer during the year. Maybe this will bump American students into a better place compared to our national neighbors. Of course, this would only really help if a child was in a safe learning environment (protected from their bullying peers and by teachers flooding students with their personal political beliefs as opposed to not being allowed to play tag or dodgeball) with properly regulated class sizes and materials they need.

Some people are saying we don't have enough money for this...well, maybe cut the cash for clunkers and try some tort reform for medical costs instead of the giant health bill. Beck and Limbaugh say this is more time for teachers to indoctrinate kids, unfortunately, true. That's why the parental influence has to be strong when the kids are HOME! Whoopie Goldberg on The View was against it because parents have so little time with their kids as it is! So NOW you want to argue spending time as a family? The whole public school thing is being socialized without your family influence, we can see the effects of this country-wide.

Hey, when in doubt, put them in a good private school or homeschool. Cheap, small class sizes, education that is molded to accommodate individuals instead of the majority, and learning in a variety of ways, not just sitting at a desk for 9 hours. And if, like most people who know nothing about homeschooling, you are worried about socialization, your child can still take individual classes at the local public school, play sports, be involved in extra-cirricular activities at the school or *GASP* outside of a school.

~Conservative Minority

Newsweek and the Taliban

Don't ask me why an American news magazine is giving legitimacy to this terrorist indoctrination but here we have it. Latest issue of Newsweek highlights an interview with the head of the Taliban resisting the "American insurgency" in Afghanistan.

"Newsweek hand-delievered a list of questions for Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar to a senior Taliban source." Within days, they asked for an e-mail copy of the questions. A few weeks later, there was an e-mail response, snippets of which Newsweek wrote in an article.

They asked the Taliban hard hitting questions like (paraphrase) "How do you think the American troops are holding up in Afghanistan?" "Are you experiencing a lot of losses?" and other softballs allowing whoever is making their garbage up to respond with variations of "We're strong and Americans are weak" blah blah propaganda. If you can read it for free, pick it up, don't buy Newsweek because it's not worth it. I'd post a link if I could find it online but alas, I cannot. Did find this though: http://www.newsweek.com/id/216235 . "Taliban in their Own Words".

"After eight long years of war in Afghanistan, however, America and its allies can ill afford not to understand who the enemy is and why they fight. To put together this remarkable oral history, told through the words of the Taliban themselves, NEWSWEEK turned to contributing correspondent Sami Yousafzai, who has been covering the conflict for the magazine since 2001. Over that time he has developed and maintained contact with dozens of Afghan insurgents, including the six whose stories are told here." Oh, so it's because Newsweek cares about defeating our enemies!!! Woah, never would have guessed.

~CM

Why Liberals are Cool

This is what the Urban Outfitter T-shirts, Seattle bumper stickers, magazines and newspapers, and my friends tell me:

• Only liberals want to help the poor. This is obvious. Conservatives, like their Republican parents, are all white, old men who support "big business" and "hate the little guy". Big businesses obviously hate the poor, I mean, look at the tabacco companies! It's their fault people are dying of lung disease from smoking! (Well, no, poor people aren't forced to buy or smoke cigarettes that we've known for YEARS AND YEARS will poison and blacken your lungs but...um...) YA BIG BUSINESS = EVIL! Don't forget that only liberals create any non-profit organizations (not that anyone could think of one) to help the poor and they are the only politicians who want any funding for the homeless or needy...
• Only liberals believe women should be able to do "what they want with their own bodies". As opposed to conservatives, who think women should be chained barefoot in the kitchen, liberals think women should be able to do anything they want. Women have the right to go bra-less, be drafted, and abort babies and no MEN can say anything about it! (Again, painting conservatives as exclusively white, old men.) This ignores the other side of the argument that while going bra-less might--well, we'll leave that discussion to the kitchen tables...ok, abortion is more than a woman's body. It's a second body, half the time another woman's body, involved. It's interesting that women only have rights to their body after they're outside the womb. You can be of an age where you CAN SURVIVE outside the womb (in an incubator or something) and many people still argue that you still do not constitute a life. One of my most extreme liberal friends argues that you need to be ON YOUR OWN completely to be considered alive. Her logic eliminates anyone using a breathing machine or an artificial heart I suppose.
• Only liberals care about the environment. This is demonstrated by bumper stickers, t-shirts, and driving hybrid cars. It also involves throwing rocks at police at G-20 and WTO conferences to punish, again, big business and anyone who is abusing the environment. Liberals don't create any garbage, they recycle everything, and if they could eliminate unnecessary conservatives the polar bears would still be living and global warming wouldn't kill everyone by 2012!
• Only liberals deserve free speech, because only they are completely tolerant of every other view. Like Al Franken "I think some people hold [G.W.Bush] in high esteem because they watch Fox. And they get their news from Rush Limbaugh. And they are fooled." Fox News and Rush Limbaugh don't deserve free speech, we don't agree with them! “The irony upon irony of this lawsuit was great. First, Fox having the trademark 'fair and balanced' -- a network which is anything but fair and balanced. Then there's the irony of a news organization trying to suppress free speech." You'll note that no liberal has any issue with any other news organization but Fox News. Or Michael Moore, "I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a 'deserter.' What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar, and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants." Remember, only conservatives are disrespectful of presidents..."These bastards who run our country are a bunch of conniving, thieving, smug pricks who need to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control.” Hey Michael, any intelligent words on any ISSUES?

Is it any wonder so many people my age, who aren't informed on any real issues, want to be liberals? Geeze, if I wasn't indoctrinated by CNN and MSNBC and every other news source added together and divided by the number of sources for one particular story, I wouldn't know anything!

I mean: Find one story from every perspective (CNN - yuck, MSNBC - THey admit they love Obama, Fox News (oh my gosh, so like, biased), BBC (YEAH, the BRITISH) and then take the average of information you get from them all. And you're probably somewhere near the truth. Well, here's hoping.

I'm just saying, I'd be a liberal if I didn't know any better.

~CM

Nuke Free World . . . it's ILLOGICAL.

Obama, I admire your lofty oration and naivety in believing we're all basically good. It's childish, yes, but really a sort of childish faith in the goodness of humanity that probably endears you to the people who already think you can do no wrong.

Granted, that's only if you ACTUALLY believe what you are doing is right. That's giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a heartless, master-mind determined to destroy the country.

I will break it down in simple terms. Honestly, I did this with my (hopelessly uninformed) liberal friend on the issue of gun control/ownership.

Hypothetical: Guns are illegal. People who follow the laws no longer have guns. People who do not follow the laws, HAVE GUNS. This is the failure that is "gun control" and "I would make guns illegal and stop all gun violence" theory. Only GOOD PEOPLE OBEY THE LAWS. In the liberal's ideal world, only criminals would have guns! Why does that actually make sense to them?

Hypothetical: Nukes are bad, all countries will get rid of their nukes. Except, obviously, countries that a) harm, imprison, torture, starve, and murder their own people mindlessly b) hate Israel and deny that the German to Jew Holocaust ever occurred (Seriously? You want to deny it and be taken seriously on a global stage) and c) hate the United States, as spoken again and again in their own media, in our media, in U.N. speeches, in celebrations when thousands of U.S. civilians die in a terrorist attack. Because really, what's the point of NOT keeping your nukes if America, Israel, and any other semi-intelligent and realistic ally gives theirs up?

I would argue that countries who are SANE and lawful should retain their nuclear weapons and deny countries that are INSANE and unlawful (denying basic human rights for example), and threatening toward the SANE countries, nuclear weapons.

~Conservative Minority

Obama and I Everyday

We have a standing appointment. Multiple times a day, I type "Obama" into my google search bar at the top of my browser. Then I select the news feed to avoid any edited images of him (for good or for bad) and his "Change We Need" personal website. I'm sure it has a lot of information...how truthful it is is anyone's guess.

Today's news stories include:

• Obama and Gov. Paterson's interaction and the confusion of most people on why exactly the President is now exerting his influence over the Governor race of New York.
• Obama is considering a strategy shift in the war in Afghanistan...oh really? It's about time. When our president was a lowly candidate, he seemed to give the impression that he knew exactly what needed to be done in both Iraq and Afghanistan, while criticizing the troop surge that was WORKING under President Bush's administration.
• Oh, ever so important, Obama's appearance on Letterman gave him the edge in the ratings!
• "Obama pushes peace in extraordinary meeting between Israel and Palestine..." Um really? Name a president living or dead who hasn't met with both sides of that eternal issue?
• This looks promising: Wall Street Journal opinion page "Obama and the Politics of Concession: Iran and Russia put Obama to the test last week, and he blinked twice." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574426880110463194.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And then I blog or FB note it or just open window after window and take it all in! I love it. Obama, you give me something to search the news for! If only because I want to be overly informed on your every move when I talk to your supporters. Because they don't have much to say in reply.

~ CM

We're a Lot Like You - A Little Different

Conservatives and Liberals, at the heart of issues are really quite the same. There are decent people and not so decent people. You'll find, as the news shows, the rude, adulterers, molesters, pornography addicts, thieves, and liars in every existing party and within all the offices. You also find the family men and women, the honest, the truthful, the hard working, and the good hearted in all of the parties and in every elected office throughout history.

Our fundamental differences are the way in which the decent people want to help others and improve/protect the United States. Somewhere along the way, the Democrat Party, the donkey with the stars and stripes got credited with being the only part that cares about "African Americans", immigrants, people of Latin decent, the poor, and the environment. This is not because they (politicians in the Democratic Party) actually do anything personally to help or improve life for any of these people or the Earth...it's because they TALK about it the most and come up with the most ways to spend other people's money to "help", often making programs that other people pay for that probably do help a little bit.

Let's look at the people who really help other people . . . well you have the people who believe in a higher power, whose religious text' encourage or expect "Loving Thy Neighbor as Yourself" (including Mormons, Christians, Jews...ironically enough probably because they are rooted in the writing of the Old Testament and Yahweh, or the God of the Jews). These people subscribe to many different political parties, but they don't care for others as a result of that decision, it's faith and love for others.

I personally am a walking contradiction, even hearing "I would have thought you were a Democrat" (to my horror), because I endorse caring for the enviroment and the poor. I think that's insulting. I can want to help the poor and not subscribe to the liberal "Give them fish" mentality. Someone wiser than me said "TEACH them to fish". World Vision, and other non-profit, non-governmental programs are far more successful than government is/could be, and they work hard, and they work. They take donations, they don't take tax dollars whether people agree or not. That's where the difference lies...some people want to help others with their OWN money and time...not their neighbors.

~ Conservative Minority

Twitter...you know you want to.

If you have a Twitter (why in the heck would you do that?) and you so desire, you can follow CM at http://twitter.com/GOPMinority .

What This Is

I would like to write a book, but I'm settling for a blog. As we all know, even the most insane, unskilled, and/or average person can write a blog and you don't have to skip through hoops of publishers and the like. Ideally, this will be my thoughtful take on American Politics. This perspective comes from a 22-year-old, female, Caucasian, and (what makes me a minority) a registered Republican Conservative.

While teenagers and young adults in the U.S. are extremely likely to have sex, get pregnant or an STD, and drop out of public high school, they are unlikely to vote or have any clue what is going on in American politics much less anything else in any other country.

My frustration with my peers was made complete in the most recent election of President Obama. I disagree with a significant portion of his policies and in debating with my friends/peers that supported him unceasingly, I could never get a reason to support him or any policy beyond "Well, he's black" or repeated talking point from one of his "amazing" speeches. Any deeper conversation ended up in frustration on their part or mine, no real talking about any issues and not a lot of actual information being exchanged. I'm not saying that because I have all the answers, I'm saying that at the confession of many I speak to that they have no clue what's going on in the world and frankly "don't care".

I do care. And I have something to say, so this will be my medium, for better or worse. I do hope this isn't recorded/saved and used against me at some future date, for imprisonment or a destruction of an otherwise lucrative political career. Here's hoping!

- Conservative Minority