Boo-Yah to ya! 

You may not know, but I’m well versed in Politics, Foreign Policy, and Economics. [And y’all thought I was just another pretty face!] Yep, I’m not just a fun gal, I’m a bon-a-fied intellectual. Amazing, if ya consider I should’ve lost all my gray matter due to the large volume of drugs I did in the past. Gee, if I’m this smart now, what if I hadn’t fried my brain? I’d give Sarah Palin [my hero] a run for her money! [You bet I’d race her for a grand … sorry, can’t keep a sharp wit down.]

I pray my reports help in some way. I pray reading the material presented gives y’all a clear picture of your options. I pray this information is something you feel confident passing on.

This may sound harsh, but if you don’t know how the economy works, what we face in dealing with other nations, how our system of government runs, then how can you make an educated decision on whom to vote for?

If the media tells ya to set yourself on fire, would you do it? [Pyromaniacs and masochists need not answer.] So, if the Media tells ya the country will be better off with Mr. Obama as president, do you vote for him? I dare y’all to follow my blog and educate yourself. I’ve always been up-front with you, and I always will be. Even if I make enemies; even if my view isn’t the popular one. I ask for your trust, and I ask for an open mind. [For you—mine is already open.]. You have my thanks for “listening.”

Ain’t No Towels Getting’ Thrown In Here… - by Kelly Mortimer

Don’t let the biased media convince you McCain has already lost. The polls are often flawed, and the polls are close with a decent percentage of “undecided.” Since I often call myself a Maverick, and I’m definitely an Underdog who came out ahead, I have faith  the outcome of the election will have Senator McCain and Governor Palin [my hero] in the White House. [Please, God!]

In the words of Senator McCain:
“Stand up and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We never give up. And we never quit. I have fought for you most of my life, and in places where defeat meant more than returning to the Senate. I’ve never been the kind to back down when the stakes are high.” [He reminds me of me. Sigh.]

On With the Alphabet:

[I’ve edited some of these articles to save space and give you the most vital information without overloading y’all.]

“F”

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

U.S. Broadcasting Policy – The Museum of Broadcasting Communications [I leave no stone unturned.]
The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the “Fairness Doctrine” is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were “public trustees,” and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the “Mayflower Doctrine,” which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station’s. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as “Ascertainment of Community Needs,” and was to be done systematically and by the station management.
The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer “equal opportunity” to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance–to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a “Christian Crusade” program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This “chilling effect” was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The “scarcity” argument which dictated the “public trustee” philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a “chilling effect” and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year. However, before the Commission’s action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law–a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming.
-Val E. Limburg
 

The Battle for Talk Radio: Powerful Foes Want to End the Gabfest

The 2008 election has yet to be decided, but one thing is clear: If the Democrats win the White House, expect an all-out attack on talk radio. Political talk, as we know it, could end.

If Obama wins [this is the second thing he’ll do], Rush, Imus, Savage, Beck, and dozens of other major hosts will be muzzled by using federal regulations to control political talk.

So, what’s their plan of attack?

As Newsmax magazine reveals in its special report, “The Battle for Talk Radio,” leading liberals in Congress, the Democratic presidential candidates, and even some Republicans speak openly of their plans to end conservative talk radio using federal regulations.

Their weapon: a revived Fairness Doctrine, which would once again require stations to air divergent points of view — a clever ruse that makes station owners leery of airing controversial talk-radio hosts fearing law suits and federal sanctions.
With a new Fairness Doctrine, you could see many top conservative radio hosts canned.

This Newsmax special report also features an exclusive interview with Fox News host Bill O’Reilly who tells Newsmax there is no question a plan is being hatched. “The far-left kooks will try, but they will fail,” O’Reilly says. [From your lips to God’s ear, Bill.]

FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE SYSTEM

You Votin’ for the Promise Breaker? by Kelly Mortimer

Ah, heck. Nothin’ to worry about. I’m sure Mr. Obama will keep all of his promises once he’s in the White house. [I hope he remains in character and breaks his promises if he gets in. Then I might not have to close my three small businesses, and, honestly, I have considered it.]

The federal campaign finance system gives each presidential nominee a dollar for every dollar they raise. There’s a catch. The system limits the amount the candidates can spend after their party convention to 84 million dollars.

Let’s revisit November of 2007. Mr. Obama promised to accept this financing to “work with Republicans to see both have the same opportunities within those limits.”

Last time I checked, the dude was flush with dead presidents. [No irreverence intended.] So, Obama broke his promise. His excuse? [Oh, I don’t like excuses either, especially bad ones.] Mr. Obama said our system is broken. He justified breaking his promise by saying he’d need those extra dollars to battle all those negative “527” ads that were gonna flood the airwaves. Hmm. I haven’t seen any. You? Nope. Mr. Obama has cash-cows forkin’ over major bales of hay. Right now, less than a week away from the election, he’s earned an unprecedented 600 million dollars. [Guess it is an advantage to have Oprah endorse ya.]

Say, why doesn’t he save the cheese for some of his programs? He could be the 600 Million Dollar Man … I can make the government bigger, stronger, fatter… [Sorry.]

The truth is—and even those voting for Obama know it—he broke his promise because it was to his financial advantage. Senator McCain made the same promise in November of 2008. Unfortunately, he kept his promise, to his detriment.

I’d expect nothing less from either of the candidates.

Here’s a quote for ya from the Washington Post:
“A hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue—who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. And that, it seems to me, is what we have here.” Yeah, I know. Probably a Rush Limbaugh quote. Nope. The author of the statement is Obama supporter, John Kerry.

To hear more, go to cnn.com and click on “Politics.” On the right-hand side, click on Commentary: Obama Breaks Promise [Sorry I’m not including a link, but I can’t chance it with “the blog from Hell!”]

FILIBUSTER– tactic used to delay or prevent action, especially in a legislative context

Busted! by Kelly Mortimer

Mr. Obama is an open book. He’s not hiding his Marxist/Socialist political views. [The Leftist Times—beg pardon—Los AngelesTimes is. More on that later.] We have more to fear than the obvious. Has anyone thought of what’s creeping around the corner? Busted! The Democrats have a working 51-vote majority, and it’s possible they can swing the moderate Republicans on major issues. [If there’s one thing that turns me purple, it’s “moderates” who are liberals masquerading as conservatives. Hey, guys, Halloween is on Oct. 31….]

If Mr. Obama wins with 56 Senate seats, we have a major problem. If Mr. Obama wins and gets 60 votes in the Senate, we have a Socialist-governed nation. We’ll have a one-party, filibuster-proof system. [I’m cringing in terror!]

Republican filibusters could be the only way to stop Democratic domination of Washington. We’ve had the power to filibuster for 30 years. If we lose it now, conservatives won’t be able to block anything the liberal agenda rams down our throats. Can any of you imagine a President Obama with no checks and balances? You’ve heard it before, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

If you believe marriage is between a man and a woman; that a fetus isn’t a “choice,” it’s a baby; if you don’t want the government in charge of your healthcare; if you think you should keep the money you earn, how can you, in good conscience, vote for Mr. Obama? There’s more at stake here than the economy, which as I reported under “E,” will not improve with Mr. Obama in the White House—unless you’re a fan of Carl Marx.

So, just a reminder. The presidential election isn’t the only issue of importance. Get the word out on the Senate seats possibly in jeopardy: Georgia, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Oregon. We can’t lose those seats. We can’t give the spend-happy Congress a blank check, and if Obama wins, give him absolute power.

FREE TRADE AGREEMENT – See previous post “C” for Columbian Free Trade Agreement

FUNDING

Obama’s loaded. So, what’s he gonna do with the cash? I’ll let Karl Rove answer…

Money alone won’t decide the contest. John Kerry and the Democrats outspent Mr. Bush and the GOP in 2004 by $121 million and still lost.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is to do all he can to look presidential, including using funding to purchase very expensive half-hour slots to address the country [tonight]. He wants to give a serious, Oval-Office type address. This is smart. People appreciate Mr. Obama’s empathy on the economy, but as they take a long look at what he wants to do about it, they will be less impressed, especially if Mr. McCain draws sharp contrasts with clear policy proposals.

Mr. Obama is trying to make the case that his lack of experience or record should not disqualify him. But in doing so, he seems to recognize that the U.S. is still a center-right country. His TV ads promise tax cuts and his radio ads savage Mr. McCain’s health-care plan as a tax increase. It’s a startling campaign conversion for the most liberal member of the Senate. We’ll know on Election Day if he is able to get away with it.

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations

by Matthew Mosk - Washington Post Staff Writer

Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.
In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama’s accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama’s finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.

The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.

The Obama campaign has shattered presidential fundraising records, in part by capitalizing on the ease of online giving. Of the $150 million the senator from Illinois raised in September, nearly $100 million came in over the Internet.
Case in point: The Washington Post noted the case of Mary T. Biskup, a retired insurance manager from Manchester, Mo., who turned up on Obama’s FEC reports as having donated $174,800 to the campaign. Contributors are limited to giving $2,300 for the general election.

Biskup, who had scores of Obama contributions attributed to her, said in an interview that she never donated to the candidate. “That’s an error,” she said. Moreover, she added, her credit card was never billed for the donations, meaning someone appropriated her name and made the contributions with another card.

Senator McCain’s campaign doesn’t accept prepaid cards. R. Rebecca Donatelli, who handles online contributions for the McCain operation and the RNC, said she was “flabbergasted” to learn that the Obama campaign accepts prepaid cards.

“H”

HEALTHCARE

Government-run healthcare. This alone is reason enough not to vote Obama. Think, people. As previously stated by moi, can anyone point out any program the government has taken over that now works better? Lemme think. Nope. The government making the decisions about my medical problems? No thanks! To add insult to injury, I’ll not only be payin’ for min through higher taxes, which I won’t have control over, but for someone else’s. Well, it works great in Canada….
 
“I”

IRAQ – That country my daughter went to to free the oppressed crushed under Sadam Hussein’s boot. [She doesn’t think setting those people free was wrong. Say, isn’t that was Jesus does? Sets people free?]

Sure-fire Way to Make Money! by Kelly Mortimer

Sellin’ white flags.

If Mr. Obama wins the election, he promises we’ll leave Iraq, tail between our legs. I’m flamin’. My kid sweat bullets over there, and for what? To slink away like cowards when we have victory in sight? No great shock that the military overwhelmingly supports Senator McCain.

Fact: The. Surge. Is. Working.
Fact: Mr. Obama said the surge wouldn’t work. So, he’s a wealth-spreader, a promise- breaker, and his take on the Iraqi war was incorrect.

Remember, we aren’t just votin’ for a man who’ll regenerate our economy [that would be Senator McCain] but also, the leader of our Armed Forces. How can anyone say they support the troops, and then vote for Obama knowing he has no clue how to win a war? Knowing the leaders of the Middle East want him to win the presidency?

Mr. Obama could be the nicest guy in the world with no ties to Marxist terrorists, a wife who’s been proud of her country her entire adult life, a pastor who loves the U.S., and HE STILL WOULDN’T BE QUALIFIED TO LEAD THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

IRAN – That other country over there that needs to get their butt kicked before they nuke someone.

Let’s see what Iranian and French officials think of Mr. Obama…

Iranian parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said Wednesday, 10/22, that Iran would prefer Democrat Barack Obama in the White House next year. [What a shock! Wonder why they don’t want McCain? Mayhap they feel Mr. Obama will be more globally friendly?]

‘Kozy Rips Bam on Iran
By Geoff Earle - October 29, 2008

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has ripped Barack Obama’s posture on Iran as “utterly immature,” according to a stunning report. Sarkozy, who gushed over Obama when they met this summer, has said in private meetings that Obama’s views were “formulations empty of all content,” according to Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper.

Sarkozy fears Obama would pursue direct, unconditional talks with Iran. [Wonder we he got that idea?] He reportedly told Obama in their meeting that it would be “very problematic” if US policy toward Iran changes, “arrogantly” ignoring ongoing efforts. [Well said, Frog.]

ILLEGAL ALIENS – People who come into our country ILLEGALLY

Mr. Obama has two moves to make, pronto, if he wins the election. Already mentioned one. Guess what? He wants to welcome illegal aliens with open arms, and a driver’s license in hand. Worse, Obama wants to give 12 million illegals citizenship. Failed in 2007, but what about 2009? Mayhap Democrat super-majorities in the Senate and the House?

Most of these new citizens will register as Democrats. They’ll vote for Democrats. I’m an optimist, but if that happens, we may never wrestle control back. One-party nation comin’ up!

Well, one thing is obvious to me. It’s true. Mr. Obama is smart. Scary smart.

ISRAEL – An ally of the U.S., and an enemy of Iran.

Is he or isn’t he? Mr. Obama declares he’s for Israel. In January, 2006…

“In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations [Iran] would openly call for the elimination of another member state [Israel]. But that is exactly what President Ahmadinejad  has done. Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric. We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza. When Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself.”

But in March of 2008, Obama had a slip-of-the-tongue [kinda like when he said, “My Muslim faith…”], stating compassion for Palestinians: “Nobody’s suffering more than the Palestinian people.”

From: Obama’s Israel Shuffle by Justin Elliot

The suspicion of pro-Israel advocates for Obama was most recently captured in a January 23 Jerusalem Post op-edin which Danny Ayalon, the former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., called the senator’s candidacy cause for “some degree of concern.” A memo by a top official at the American Jewish Committee, recently leaked to the Jewish Daily Forward, neatly outlined the roots of this concern: In the late 1990s Obama reportedly called for an even-handed approach to the conflict; his pastor had praised Louis Farrakhan; he has called for diplomacy with Iran; and, of course, he was once photographed breaking bread with the late Palestinian-American academic Edward Said.

Obama experienced a mini-version of the Dean treatment after his statement about Palestinian suffering in March. When David Adelman, a prominent Iowa Democrat and AIPAC member, shot off a letter to Obama calling the comment “deeply troubling,” a spokesman scrambled to run damage control, telling the AP that Obama believes “in the end, the Palestinian people are suffering from the Hamas-led government’s refusal to renounce terrorism.” Aides met personally with Adelman, who told the Des Moines Register he was “satisfied with their response.”

The campaign let the quote stand for six weeks. Then, in the first debate, before a televised audience of around two million, Brian Williams asked the senator if he stood by his comment. Obama bailed. “Well, keep in mind what the remark actually, if you had the whole thing, said.… [N]obody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel…”

For the candidate who is selling hope, it was a fairly cynical move. [end]

Lastly, consider what his advisor of foreign policy from 2005 until March (when she called Hillary “a monster”), Samantha Power, said about Israel and the pro-Israeli lobby in an interview a few years back on how she would advise the president on monitoring Israel:
 
“It may take putting something on the line in service of helping. Sacrificing or investing billions of dollars, not in servicing Israeli’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing billions of dollars to support a mammoth protection force … a meaningful military presence …” [go to hotair.com archives to hear the interview in it’s
entirety]

Note: Ms. Powers wasn’t dismissed because of her stance on Israel, but on her comment about Ms. Clinton. Also ties into Khalidi, under “K”….

“J”

JUDGES – Those who sit in judgment

Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Constitution  by Steven Calabresi

The courts are poised for a takeover by the judicial left.

One of the great unappreciated stories of the past eight years is how thoroughly Senate Democrats thwarted efforts by President Bush to appoint judges to the lower federal courts.

Consider the most important lower federal court in the country: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In his two terms as president, Ronald Reagan appointed eight judges, an average of one a year, to this court. They included Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Kenneth Starr, Larry Silberman, Stephen Williams, James Buckley, Douglas Ginsburg and David Sentelle. In his two terms, George W. Bush was able to name only four: John Roberts, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh.

Although two seats on this court are vacant, Bush nominee Peter Keisler has been denied even a committee vote for two years. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly fill those two vacant seats, the seats of two older Clinton appointees who will retire, and most likely the seats of four older Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees who may retire as well.

The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation’s most important regulatory court of appeals.

The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. Nine of the 13 will probably swing to the left if Mr. Obama is elected (not counting the Ninth Circuit, which the left solidly controls today). Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. That includes the federal appeals courts for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and virtually every other major center of finance in the country.

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on
January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

These numbers ought to raise serious concern because of Mr. Obama’s extreme left-wing views about the role of judges. He believes — and he is quite open about this — that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit.

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: “[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.
In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society,” and “to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

He also noted that the Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government — and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.
This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a “tax cut” to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” Mr. Obama’s emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.
Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation’s courtrooms.

(Mr. Calabresi is a co-founder of the Federalist Society and a professor of law at Northwestern University)

“K”

RASHID KHALIDI – Professor of Middle Eastern Studies at Columbia University [yeah, another professor], a known Palestinian Activist, and an alleged PLO spokesman

(CNN) — The Obama campaign said on its Web site that “ugly insinuations about Barack Obama’s relationship with a former neighbor [Oh! Another “guy from the neighborhood.” I’m sensing a pattern here…] and university colleague … are completely false.”

Governor Palin [my hero] said, “It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years.”

Khalidi was a contemporary of Obama’s while on faculty at the University of Chicago.

Khalidi has been a harsh critic of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel and has accused the country of “occupying” Palestinian territories. But he has denied acting as a PLO spokesman during a seven-year period in the 1970s and 1980s. Khalidi said Wednesday, “I am not speaking to the media at this time, and certainly not until this idiot wind passes.” [How convenient.]

In April, the Los Angeles Times published an article about a going-away dinner for Khalidi that Obama attended in Chicago, Illinois, in 2003.

The paper reported that a young Palestinian-American woman recited a poem at the farewell party that accused the Israeli government of terrorism for its treatment of Palestinians and was highly critical of U.S. support of Israel.
The McCain campaign accused the Los Angeles Times of “intentionally suppressing” a videotape it obtained from that dinner and demanded that it release the footage. [McCain ain’t the only one.]

“What we don’t know is how Barack Obama responded to these slurs on a country that he now professes to support, and the reason is the newspaper that has the tape, the Los Angeles Times, refuses to release it.” Palin said.
The Times said it won’t release the footage because a reporter promised a source that the video would not be made public.

McCain campaign accuses L.A. Times of ’suppressing’ Obama video
By a Times staff writer - 6:01 PM PDT, October 28, 2008

John McCain’s presidential campaign today accused the Los Angeles Times of “intentionally suppressing” a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist. The Times first reported on the videotape in an April 2008 story about Obama’s ties with Palestinians and Jews as he navigated the politics of Chicago.

The report included a detailed description of the tape, but the newspaper did not make the video public. “A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi,” said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb. ” . . . The election is one week away, and it’s unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job — make information public.”

The Times today issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape.

“The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,” said the newspaper’s editor, Russ Stanton. “The Times keeps its promises to sources.” [Hmm. But they No Problemo releasing a private tape of Arnold right before the gubernatorial election. Did they think we’d forget?]

What is the L.A. Times Hiding?
29 Oct 2008 01:01 pm

There’s a video out there of Obama saying kind things about Rashid Khalidi, and on the general principle that information in an open society shouldn’t be kept secret and that the voters should make up their own minds about whether or not they trust certain candidates, this video should be set free. But a pro-censorship organization called the Los Angeles Times, which has the tape in its possession, is hiding it, for reasons it won’t explain. And it’s looking more and more ridiculous each passing day.

I understand that the tape was leaked to the Times by a source or sources unknown, and that an agreement was struck with that source to keep the tape hidden, but the tape has been described in a Times story already, and it quite obviously contains no state secrets. I also suspect that the tape could be posted in such a way as to obscure its origins. The Times, however, won’t discuss in detail why it’s keeping the tape from its readers, and the newspaper’s “readers’ representative,” Jamie Gold, has lined up against the readers, and argued against the release of the tape.

There is another reason why the tape should be posted: It might actually create interest in the L.A. Times. From what I understand, the mainstream media is in a bit of trouble these days. Perhaps — this is just a thought here — the L.A. Times could better its position in the world by drawing readers to its website.

Like I said, just a thought. [Somehow lost who wrote this, but whoever he is, he’s absolutely right!]

“L”

LIBERAL – Someone who wishes to liberate us by making us more dependant on the government [No, I didn’t get that out of the dictionary. I made it up. Sue me.]

Liberals give child molesters light prison sentences. They believe in killing unborn babies. They want gay marriage legalized. They want more welfare programs. They want bigger government. They want to spend, and spend, and spend more money than they have … well, they don’t have it at first. They tax the people of the United States to get it.

Mr. Obama is the most liberal candidate running for president in our history. If you like the qualities listed above, he’s your man.

More on Friday. Thanks for making this entire day worth my time by reading the blog.

K.

Sorry for the formatting. Have a terrible system. I write in Word, then transfer. I hit edit and fix everything, and when I go back, it didn’t fix anything. Huge gaps, paragraphs run together. Ugh. Try to slog thru it.

[As always, my snarky comments or questions are in brackets in bold, so ya won’t confuse ’em with the facts.] 

 I got something I gotta say that’ll sound strange, dumb, whatever. [I’ll admit to bein’ strange, but I’m one smart sucker.] I’ve told ya before, I get feelings and see things most people don’t. I actually charted my “feelings” for about a month, just for fun. For those who didn’t see this yet, I’ve listed below:  Event Predicted  Prediction Date  Told B4 Event   Occurrence Date       FactsFire                               6/22/08              Hubby, Michaela       6/23/08                    Fire in Aguanga                                                                                                             6/24/08                    1,000 fires engulf CA

Flood                            7/12/08                       Hubby                7/12/08                     Freak storm/Flash-flood                                                                                                                                             (in So. Cal in JULY!)

Dread                            7/22/08                       Hubby                7/22/08                    Gina in bad car accident; Death of a friend

Motorcycle Accident                    7/27/08               Hubby, Michaela         7/28/08                     Friend’s Uncle  dies riding a motorcycle

Earthquake                                  7/28/08                       Michaela            7/29/08                     5.8 near Chino, CA   Yeah, I know. Weird. I am bipolar, and have mood swings, but I’ve never felt this incapacitated for so long before. I believe my present state in is conjunction with the upcoming presidential election. I admit it. I’m biased. I’m so far to the Right; I’ve almost circled back to the Left.

I make no bones about the Clintons. I don’t like ’em. A fly in my ointment. Obama is a different story. He scares me. And not much in this world does. If ya ever believe me on anything, believe me in this. He’s not the Messiah. He won’t save our country. He’s [and I wince to write this, but it permeates my being] evil. I pray you all make the time to read my blog. I’ve poured out my heart and soul into it (but I promise, it isn’t a rant), and it’s long at just over 3,600 words [but ya just read some of them].  My thanks for your patience and attention.              

 “C”  Below is the link for an interview with Mr. Obama from 2001 It takes a couple of minutes. If you’re voting for McCain, you’ll wanna forward it to others. If you’re voting for Obama, I’d think you’d love to hear your candidate speak on his views (in clear detail—no media spin); and if you’re undecided, it’s vital you listen to make an educated vote.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck  Don’t forget to come back and finish readin’ the blog! 

CARL MARX – Father of Marxism by Kelly Mortimer [Yeah, I know “Karl” starts with a “K,” but I took liberties. So sue me.]

Quote: “From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.”  This is exactly what Mr. Obama speaks of in the interview (You Tube link above). I thought Mr. Obama was a Socialist, as his “let-the-government-pay-for-your-healthcare” and other policies dictate. [Anyone out there live in

“The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game—with their readers, with the Constitution, and with their own fates. The media have covered this presidential campaign with a bias and that ultimately could lead to its downfall.The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling. And over the last few months, I’ve found myself slowly moving from shaking my head at the obvious one-sided reporting, to actually shouting at the screen of my television and my laptop computer. But worst of all, for the last couple weeks, I’ve begun — for the first time in my adult life — to be embarrassed to admit what I do for a living. A few days ago, when asked by a new acquaintance what I did for a living, I replied that I was “a writer,” because I couldn’t bring myself to admit to a stranger that I’m a journalist.”

More:

PHILADELPHIA:

“Barack Obama is now running at least four times as much advertising nationwide as his Republican rival, John McCain, according to CMAG, a service that monitors political advertising. That difference is even larger in several closely contested states.

The huge gap has been made possible by Obama’s decision to opt out of the federal campaign finance system, which gives presidential nominees a dollar for every dollar they raise, but limits to $84 million the amount they can spend between their party convention and Election Day.

McCain is participating in the system, as promised. Obama, at one point promised to participate. He changed his mind.”

CAPITAL GAINS –

by Kelly Mortimer

I’m not trying to be condescending, but I have a degree in finance, and wanted to point Capital Gains Taxes out in case some of my readers don’t know what it is.Definition: A capital gains tax (CGT) is a tax charged when someone nets a profit on an asset (non-inventory - usually stocks and bonds, property, gold, etc.) they bought at a lower price. It’s a proven fact. When there are lower CGT, the government’s revenues increase substantially. President Clinton lowered the CGT from 28% to 20%. President Bush lowered the CGT to 15%. Both infused the government with a windfall. Mr. Obama would like to increase the CGT back to 28%, yet he wants 800 billion dollars to have a Socialist, government-run healthcare system, to spend on infrastructure [he’ll need a lot of money for that, ’cause according to his running-mate, Joe Biden, terrorists are going to test Obama within the first six months of his supposed presidency, “Mark my words….”], etc.

Where is all this money gonna come from? HIGHER TAXES. He’s the most liberal democratic candidate in history. Liberal democrats want bigger government, meaning they think the government is responsible for everyone, that we need Big Brother [NOT the TV series] to take care of us. I’d rather let my husband [he’s such a sweet man] do it.

CHAVEZ – Leader of our enemy, Venezuela 

Laptop links Obama, Chavez, Colombian Revolutionaries Narco-rebels say Venezuela aiding them, more help coming from new “Democrat president”

Posted: March 05, 2008
8:40 am Eastern WASHINGTON – A laptop computer captured in the possession of a slain Colombian revolutionary provides tangible evidence Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is aiding the narco-rebels and that they see more help coming next year if Barack Obama becomes president.The laptop was seized Saturday after a raid by Colombian government forces on commandos of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. Some 23 rebels were killed in the raid, including Raul Reyes, their leader. The files on the computer provide details and context to what the Colombian government claims is Chavez’s effort to subvert the U.S. ally.The laptop made reference to the United States, and that it’s likely the new U.S. president will be Mr. Obama, and that he’ll help them.

COLUMBIAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT –

Obama Vows Opposition to

Colombia Trade Deal

By Nick Timiraos.

Sen. Barack Obama promised to stand firm in his opposition to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement on Wednesday.The Illinois senator said he would oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement “because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of greements.”Congress passed a similar free trade deal with

More: 

Obama Misleads on Colombia

The Fact Checker by Michael Dobbs

“The history in Colombia right now is that labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis and there have not been prosecutions.” –Barack Obama, Hofstra presidential debate, October 15, 2008.   In between all the controversy over “Joe the Plumber,” a foreign policy issue sidled its way into the final presidential debate earlier this week: should the United States conclude a free trade agreement with Colombia? John McCain calls the trade agreement “a no-brainer.” Barack Obama opposes such an agreement, at least for now, on the grounds that the Colombian government has done little to stop the “targeted assassinations” of hundreds of Colombian trade unionists.

The Facts:

Obama was correct in noting that Colombian labor leaders have been “targeted for assassination,” but he failed to note that the murder rate has dropped significantly over the last few years. While the vast majority of the murders have gone uninvestigated, it is untrue to say that “there have not been prosecutions.” The prosecution rate may still be unacceptably low, but it has risen over the last two years, thanks in part to measures taken by the Uribe government under pressure from the United States.

More:

Obama Undercuts America’s Relationship with Columbia

The Heritage Foundation

Free trade has been receiving a bad rap lately. Barack Obama’s campaign has come out in full force against free trade. In addition to saying he would unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA (much to the chagrin of Canada and

[I skipped a paragraph here that basically said what I already included above.] As John McCain pointed out, the United States already allows imports from Colombia. The agreement would open even more markets during strenuous economic times. In addition to snubbing the most staunch U.S. ally in the region, Obama asserted “there have been no prosecutions” of the murders of labor union members in 2006. Clearly, he is either badly informed about the facts, or pandering to the protectionist wing of his party.Many Latin American nations have implemented effective economic reforms and they should be encouraged with free trade agreements, not undercut by protectionist policies. One of the most significant ways to promote freer trade is to lower some of the world’s highest tariffs, especially those between developing countries — and most of Latin America fits that category. For the

Reopening NAFTA invites additional costs detrimental to the economies to all parties involved; each would demand many changes and the costs would invariably increase for everyone. But would it create new jobs and bring manufacturers back to the

CONFERENCES – (As in “Press,” not writing)

Obama Shuns Press Conferences [but still has time for the TV show Extra]

On Oct. 24, 2007,

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said that as president he’d hold regular press conferences and “not just call on my four favorite reporters.”But the Democratic presidential nominee hasn’t held a full press conference — submitting himself to more than a handful of questions from his whole press corps since Sept. 24, 2008, in Clearwater, Fla.

The candidate often bemoans the media asking silly and superficial questions. The media isn’t focused on the important issues facing the nation, he complains.Earlier this year, many in the media thought McCain’s reputation for access and openness would force Obama to follow suit; instead the opposite dynamic has played out. [He doesn’t need press conferences; he has “the Press.”] [I have a few questions for Mr. Obama I don’t think are silly and superficial… On Foreign Affairs:Looks like Iran might make a preemptive strike on Israel, our ally. Whatcha gonna do about it?

Looks like Russia’s gonna put missiles in Cuba, with no Kennedy in sight. Whatcha gonna do about it? (See “

Looks like Venezuela might attack Columbia, our ally. Whatcha gonna do about it?

Looks like (as Joe Biden says) we’ll face terrorist attacks within 6 months we elect Obama. (Say what ya wanna about President Bush, but he’s protected our country since 9/11.) Whatcha gonna do about it?

Looks like Russia may invade Ukraine. Whatcha gonna do about it?

That’s it. I can’t go on; I’m feeling ill. Seriously.]

CONSTITUTION –

 by Kelly Mortimer

Mr. Obama says our constitution has deep flaws that continue to this day. But don’t take my word for it [although everyone knows my word is good], listen to Mr. Obama say it. Go to You Tube (link below) for a soundbite. [Much shorter than the last one. How long does it take to say the Founding Fathers blew it? For the record, I happen to think they did a great job.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4  

CUBA –

Russia Military Offers

Cuba Air Defence Aid by Conor Sweeney, Reuters

Russia will offer to share its air defence expertise with Cuba when a military delegation visits the Caribbean island this week, Interfax news agency reported on Monday. “The Russian and Cuban military will exchange experience in organising tactical air defence and in training officers,” Interfax quoted Russian Land Forces spokesman Igor Konashenkov as saying.

The two sides will “discuss the prospect of training Cuban servicemen at the tactical air defence academies and training centres in Russia, using upgraded Russian-made military hardware,” Interfax quoted him as saying.The delegation, led by the chief of Russia’s tactical air defence headquarters, Lieutenant General Alexander Maslov, will also look at “ways to strengthen relations between the Russian armed forces and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Cuba,” Konashenkov was quoted as saying.

The delegation will be in Cuba from Monday until November 3, Konashenkov was quoted as saying. Reuters could not immediately reach Konashenkov for comment.In 1962, Cuba became the focus of the deepest crisis of the Cold War after the Soviet Union installed missiles there, prompting a standoff with Washington. The island’s government remains hostile to the

In the past few months, Moscow has stepped-up contacts with both Cuba and Venezuela, another South American critic [enemy] of the

DRIVERS LICENSE –

Obama wants to issue a driver’s license to EVERY illegal alien. (Not just the people from Mexico, but the people from the

EARNINGS –

by Kelly Mortimer

Wanna keep yours? I do. The government has no right to take money that doesn’t  belong to them and give it to someone else. That’s stealing. I’ll choose my charities.  I’ll start with three quotes…“It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they have a chance at success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Senator Barack Obama (Here’s the You Tube link in case ya think I messed up on that quote…) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZcEHLr4gBg

“Apparently, as my opponent sees it, there’s a strict limit to your earnings, and it’s for the politicians to decide. The proper amount of wealth is not what you can earn, but what government will let you keep.” Senator John McCain

“’Barack the Wealth Spreader.’ You have to really listen to our opponent’s words, because he’s hiding his real agenda of redistributing your hard-earned money.” Governor Sarah Palin (my hero)

Here’s an example for ya (I didn’t write this)…

So, I strolled to my local restaurant for lunch. A homeless person wearing an Obama T-shirt sat at the corner begging. I didn’t give him anything.  I sit in a booth, and the waiter comes over. He’s wearing an Obama button on his vest. I smile and give him my order. I eat and get the bill. I hand him the exact amount of money and tell him, “Sorry, bud, no tip. I’ve decided to give it to that homeless guy on the corner, as he needs it more than you do.” The waiter gets a cross look on his face, then marches away, fists clenched into balls.

I go outside and hand the homeless person the tip I would’ve given to the waiter. The homeless man was overjoyed someone gave him something he hadn’t earned, and the waiter was angry the money he’d worked hard for went to someone who hadn’t earned it….

Do any of you really want something that doesn’t belong to you? Wanna give away what you’ve earned to someone not of your choosing? I simply can’t grasp it, unless y’all have no self-respect. I don’t wanna believe that. Please, make me a believer.   

ECONOMY – by Kelly Mortimer I can’t fathom why so many think Obama, who is the most liberal candidate to date, will help our economy. These are the facts. Obama is not in favor of free trade, he wants to raise capital gains taxes, he wants to raise taxes to pay for his numerous welfare programs, and he penalizes the people he calls “wealthy” and small business owners, who employ 16 million people. Businesses then lay-off workers to compensate. Unemployment rises. We need to generate jobs, not generate welfare. We need to give people more of their money back to stimulate the economy. When people have lower taxes, they get more net per paycheck and spend accordingly. This pumps much-needed revenue into our economy. Consumer spending increases, creating more jobs, and more people with paychecks to spend. 

Taking money in the form of taxes puts more of your dollars into the hands of the government. They spend it on endless programs. We need to cut spending. President Bush went way overboard. Obama will be worse. Have any Obama supporters looked into his senate voting record? He’s voted to raise taxes on everyone, including the middle class. Start studying. 

I’d rather choose my daughter’s school. Competition breeds excellence. Obama is against vouchers. (Thus opposes private schools, private Christian schools, homeschooling, and charter programs.) Obama will keep your child in a sub-standard school if you live in a sub-standard area. McCain is for vouchers, giving parents a choice. 

McCain offers a higher tax credit per child, which gives parents more money to spend, which stimulates the economy. Obama doesn’t. I don’t want my money taken so the government can give me healthcare. I’d rather choose my own. McCain gives me the choice. McCain offers credit to get a health insurance policy of your choosing. Obama is for a government-run healthcare system, which will cost immeasurable dollars.

Anyone wanna give me a great example of any government-run anything, implemented by either a Republican or a Democrat, that does a bang-up job? Please? The Founding Fathers left oppressive government tyranny to establish a county where the government had less power, not more power. One sure way to screw something up is to let the government take it over. Brings the IRS to mind…. Oyi!  I could go on, but I can’t.  EXPERIENCE –  by Kelly Mortimer

Obama has less experience than any candidate in the nation’s history. Obama has been a senator for a few years. I don’t think “community organizer” [and one who helped ACORN] is a qualification to be the leader of the United States of America.  Here’s an example (Yes, I did write this one.) …

Let’s say you own a business, and you’re lookin’ to hire someone. You have two applicants.  One has three-years experience. The rest of his resume is weak, and he won’t disclose records that might give you more information, like his college transcripts, his drug habits, his medical records, etc. Although you aren’t allowed to discriminate against someone because of their religion, you know his reverend said (and this is on tape), “God, don’t bless their industry (America), F­­- - - their industry (America)!” It doesn’t really matter who his wife is, but she just said (and this is on tape), “This is the first time in my adult life I’ve been proud of my industry ( my

Your other applicant is mature, and has been in the industry since he was 17. He’s worked tirelessly, fighting his friends in some cases, to help your industry. He’s literally shed blood and endured torture so bad he can’t salute you, or the flag that waves outside your workplace. He had a chance to get out of the industry, but stayed in at great personal sacrifice to help other workers, and your industry. He plans to give your industry tax credits that will give your workers more money. Yes, even the night janitor, but for the hours the janitor worked, not for the hours the manager worked. His reverend doesn’t hate your industry, and his wife has always been proud of it. He associates with people who aren’t convicted Marxist terrorists, and feels your industry needs to expand.  WHO’D YA HIRE? Story over. EUROPE – A continent in which various countries don’t like America or Americans. [“Hate,” may be a more proper word.]Most European countries would rather have Mr. Obama win the presidency, than Mr. McCain. Ever ask yourself why?I’m spent.

K.

“A”

ACORN – Association of Community Organizations for Reforming New

·        Under investigation in 15 states (and counting) for violations of widespread voter registration fraud. [Most are crucial swing states.]

·        Obama represented ACORN in a voter registration case along with other plaintiffs in a case against the governor of Illinois, demanding that the state better enforce a new federal law known as “motor voter,” which allowed people to register to vote when they got their driver’s license. [Obama wants to give illegal aliens driver’s licenses. Hmm. Gotta give Obama snaps as a brave attorney if he defended ACORN in a voter registration case, but where was he when O.J. needed him?]

ABORTION: Murder, or Birth Control? Hey, y’all. I’m baaack. Had a guest last week, but I’m here to rant another day. We welcome all comments here, even dissenters. This is the

 Abortion. A touchy subject. Tough. I hope all mothers read this. Feel free to mention this blog to anyone you care to. Is conception the beginning of life? I believe God intended it to be. Interested in hearing from anyone who doesn’t think so, and why. 

Roe v. Wade never should’ve passed. It isn’t the job of the Supreme Court to legislate from the Bench. Abortion is an issue each state should decide via voters … us … the people. Yeah, old news. Here’s my twist. We fight for the right of the unborn baby. Has anyone thought about the expectant mother? “But, Kelly, the expectant mother is the one terminating the pregnancy. Since she obviously wants to rid herself of the child, what is there to consider?“ 

Plenty.  Some of the expectant moms are kids themselves, and don’t know what to do. They take the “logical,“ easy way out. Sometimes their parents agree, sometime they don’t. Doesn’t much matter anymore. A parent doesn’t always have the right to discuss their teen’s medical condition with the doctor. When those girls get older and want to start a family, might that unhappy memory they shoved down, resurface? 

Has anyone thought of the women who get abortions when they aren’t in the Jesus camp? What happens if they join after the fact? How do ya think they feel about their past actions? Their problem, right? What about all the women who ache to hold a baby, to rock a little one to sleep, yet are unable to conceive? Anyone ever thought that an aborted baby could fill those empty arms? How saddened is a mother with no child? Tough luck, I guess. 

“But, Kelly, if the choice is taken away, those pregnant gals will seek out the back-alley doctors with dirty coat-hangers!” A “choice” is which of the 31 flavors of ice cream ya wanna order. Only God has the right over life and death. Unrepentant killers are punished. That’s what prisons are for. (Yeah, and Hell too.) In all the examples above, women suffer—at least those with a conscience, those with a heart. Numerous females get abortions without really thinking about the long-term repercussions. Is there any way for such girls/women to recover? Any way to overcome the crippling guilt? My answer is … no. I’ve had two abortions, and I still harbor the horror. I can say I made mistakes. I can tell myself the Lord forgives me, so I should forgive myself. I can spout my anguish through five years of therapy. Forgive myself? Ain’t gonna happen. Ever. When I’m in Heaven, and I haveta stand before God, what the heck can I say in my defense?  

I do know I never would’ve gone to a “back-alley” doctor. I never would’ve done something illegal. Gee, Supreme Court, thanks for giving me a choice. I’ll never forget it. Yeah, I just revealed something about myself that damages my reputation. Yeah, I know the Internet is forever. Yeah, I know people are gonna call me a hypocrite. I’ve told y’all, my life is an open book. If I can help one person by layin’ myself bare, I’ll do it. Those who truly love me, still will. If I can live with killing two of my children, I guess I can live with those who think less of me—I’m on their side. 

So, and ya knew I wasn’t gonna end on that note, what I said above is my opinion. On to politics, as we have an election approaching. Here are the irrefutable facts.  Recently, Barack Obama addressed Planned Parenthood (even their name offends me). He stated, “My first act as President will be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) into law.“ Ever heard of it? Let me enlighten you.The ‘Freedom of Choice Act’ pretty much overturns all federal and state limitations on abortion, making partial-birth abortion legal again. It’ll repeal all parental notice laws on abortion, and provide unlimited tax funding of abortions. Who pays taxes? Most of us do. So, you wouldn’t have an abortion, but you’ll pay for someone else’s?What’s also reprehensible is that O-bortion is trying to disguise his liberal, radical views. Truth: He voted four times in the

Forget about the freakin’ economy for a minute. We’ll get to that in a few days. Those of you Christians voting for O-bortion, how can you justify your vote? Archbishop Charles Chaput labeled Barack Obama the “most committed” abortion-rights candidate from a major party in 35 years. (He’d be correct.) 

Yeah, I’m in your face. Yeah, I’m makin’ enemies. Yeah, I’m losin’ friends. Guess what? I betcha Jesus is givin’ me the thumbs up. I think I can survive if He’s my only friend.

K. [No Fear, for God is With Me] 

I’d be Published, But I’m too busy chasing trends (and getting dizzy)

Some of you worry about trying to set trends instead of simply writing from the heart. 

I’d like to stand up for the industry, at least the parts of it I’ve been involved in. So far I’ve never been censored in my content, and I’ve felt free to write about all sorts of things openly. I don’t feel my voice has been squelched. I’ve written for a wide variety of magazine and book publishers. Some of the things I’ve tackled include:

* Sexual abuse

* How sexual abuse affects the marriage bed

* Hypocrisy from the pulpit

* Moving from rules-based parenting to connecting-to-Jesus parenting

* Christians living more for their facades than being authentic

* Making peace with a difficult parent

My encouragement to you all is to do the hard work in finding and perfecting your voice. As you understand and know it, you will be less intimidated by rumors about the publishing industry (Oh, you can’t write that…That’s off limits, etc.) Instead, you’ll write what God has placed on your heart, trusting Him to place your words just where He wants them. If you have confidence in your voice, you’ll be less likely to be swayed by every trend,no-no, or topic-du-jour.

I fear sometimes we take someone’s strong opinion in the industry as gold, forgetting that it’s simply an opinion. And we also forget that trends are set by people who don’t necessarily listen to naysayers. I’ve written something along those lines.

Here’s an excerpt:

Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller is a trend, but before that book, (and similarly Girl Meets God), the edgy 20-something faith memoir was not cool. My biggest pet peeve, though is bandwagoning. Once someone does something innovative (which is really just an extension of the passion God has placed within them), then eighty-seven someones copy it ad infinitum.

When Donald Miller grappled in prayer about how to reach his campus, he and his friends decided to open a confession booth where THEY confessed the sins of the church. The idea was radical and an immediate hit, orchestrated by the Holy Spirit for their locale. Now, though, I am hearing about these exact confession booths springing up all over the place. I’m curious whether, in my strolls down the ICRS halls someday, if I will see confession booth k