Candid Conservative Mom

• I've Moved!
  My writing can now be found at www.candidconservative.com
  
  
  
  
• Whew! What a Week!
  People are still protesting in Iran over the sham of an election. People like Neda are dying while protesting. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of Musavi. But people should have the right to vote for their leader, and they should not be killed for protesting.
  
  North Korea has nukes, and according to Japan, has plans to fire at Hawaii in early July. I don't think that those are the kind of fireworks we want on Independence Day.
  
  ABC will air an ObamaCare infomercial tomorrow night, and the Republicans or anyone with an opposing viewpoint is explicitly not invited. So much for unbiased media reporting. They aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
  
  California is bankrupt, and instead of cutting some massive pork projects, they're cutting tax exemptions and closing state parks.
  
  Several people were killed in a DC train crash.
  
  And Perez Hilton got punched in the face.
  
  At least one thing in the news this week made me smile!
  
  
  
  
• "It Won't Be Six Months In..."
  Remember that warning from gaffe-tastic VP Biden during the 2008 election?
  
  Can we safely say that the President is being tested, and he definitely made the cutoff. It's only been five months. Predictably and unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be passing at the moment.
  
  From Iran-
  
  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won re-election in a landslide, a feat which US officials say is, "not credible." The Iranian government tried to shut down communication between its citizens to prohibit them from organizing protests, but it didn't matter. The people are protesting, riots are erupting, and people are dying.
  
  Biden commented this morning-
  
  
  

  Vice President Joe Biden says he has doubts about whether Iran's presidential election was free and fair, as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims from his landslide victory.
  
  Biden says the U.S. and other countries need more time to analyze the results before making a better judgment about the vote. He says the administration's interests are the same as they were before the vote -- ending Iran's attempts to develop a nuclear weapon and its support for terrorism.
  
  The vice president says he's disturbed by the way the Iranian government seems to be suppressing speech and cracking down on crowds protesting Ahmadinejad's re-election.
  
  Biden says there are lots of questions about the election, but that the U.S. doesn't have enough facts to make a fair judgment. He wonders whether the outcome is an accurate response of the Iranian people.
  

  
  
  Well, I'm glad that the administration is "looking into" the obviously rigged election that kept in power a man that hates Americans, and to whom our President gave the go ahead to persue nuclear power. As long as, you know, they promised not to make weapons out of it. After his bogus re-election:
  
  
  

  Ahmadinejad consigned Iran's nuclear dispute to the past, signaling no nuclear policy change in his second term, and warned that any country that attacked his own would regret it.
  
  "Who dares to attack Iran? Who even dares to think about it?" he said at a news conference.

  
  

  
  So I guess the Iranian policy of developing nuclear weapons and lying about doing so won't be changing. I'm guessing that that the Obama Administration policy of pretending like it's not happening still stands as well. Ahmadinejad even mocks and dares us to try and stop him. This is some seriously scary stuff.
  
  
  Meanwhile over in North Korea-
  
  North Korean officials have announced that they are enriching uranium and building a nuclear bomb. They also "threatened war if its ships are stopped as part of new U.N. sanctions aimed at punishing the nation for its latest nuclear test." They added, "An attempted blockade of any kind by the U.S. and its followers will be regarded as an act of war and met with a decisive military response."
  
  How is the US responding to the news that North Korea has atomic weapons and enough materials to make at least one nuke? You'll all feel very safe to know that the State Department has firmly wagged it finger and said, "No, no, no!"
  
  
  
  I wonder when the apology tour for the US provoking these great and diverse nations into building devastating weapons will begin.
  
  
  
  
• Free Healthcare?
  There are two types of "free." Free as in freedom, and free as in beer.
  
  Some things are essentially free. Rainbows, wildflowers, hugs and kisses from loved ones, and sometimes, a beer from a friend who says, "Don't worry about it, I've got this one."
  
  As Americans, we are free citizens. It's right there in the Declaration of Independence, a document that laid out the reasons why it was important for the colonies to break away from Britain's "unwarrantable jurisdiction." The Constitution lays out our freedoms; we are free to chose our own religion, to speak our minds, to assemble and petition, to own firearms, to raise our children as we see fit, to vote for a representative government, and we are even free to drink that free beer.
  
  There has been a lot of discussion recently about socialized or "free" healthcare being introduced to the United States. Free healthcare? Where in the world are we going to find enough doctors (who, by the way, are trying to pay off an average of $140,000 in medical school debt each) willing to work for free in order to make sure that every American (or illegal immigrant pretending to be an American) has healthcare?
  
  As a stay-at-home-mom, I work my tail bone off everyday. I'm the maid, the nanny, the chef, the chauffeur, the counselor, the life coach, the activities director, the secretary, the referee, and sometimes if my husband is lucky, I'm other things as well. ;-) I do it all for free, without being paid, because of my unbreakable and unending love for my family. But as much as I love my family, it is hard to do it all for free. Really hard. So I have to ask myself, "If it's hard for me to work for free for my family, whom I love and cherish more than anything on the planet, how hard is it going to be for doctors to work for free for people they don't even know?"
  
  Free healthcare is an impossibility. There is no such thing as free beer. Your friend paid for it. Maybe he did it because it was his turn to buy, or maybe out of generosity or appreciation for your friendship. But he didn't do it because the bartender said, "Sir, you make twice as much money as this man, so it is only 'fair' that you buy his beer for him."
  
  That's what our government is trying to do regarding healthcare. It isn't going to be free, because someone is going to have to pay for it (estimated cost is 1-1.5 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.) Doctors and nurses need to be paid, along with the scientists that develop new drugs, the engineers that build medical equipment, the architects that design hospitals, and even the janitors that keep the toilets clean. Taxes are going to skyrocket. Everything will be taxed, from the CO2 we breath out (double tax if that breath included nicotine), to sodas, and of course, to incomes.
  
  It isn't going to be free either, with "legislation that would require all Americans to have health insurance, prohibit insurers from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions and place other restrictions on the industry."
  
  I'm a grown up. I like my freedom. I like choosing my doctor, and I like that doctors can refuse patients. I like being free to choose my car, my vocation, my religion, my food, and my home. I like that all Americans have those freedoms, even if they choose differently than me. It's precisely that freedom that makes our nation great. An entrepreneur is free to make or improve something, investors are free to fund it, and consumers are free to purchase it.
  
  Our government is sliding down the slippery slope of oppressive power. Obama wants to tell us what to eat, what to drive, how to run our companies, and what medical treatments we may receive. Oh sure, we'll still have a "choice," but the taxes will be so crippling that it will "necessarily bankrupt" us. As history has shown us over and over, everybody's a loser in a tyrannical state. The Cubans aren't driving 50 year old cars and dying of malnutrition because they like it that way.
  
  
  
  
• Comments
  I have decided to moderate my comments before they are posted to my site. I cannot tolerate disturbing and hate-filled comments posted by people that have nothing better to do than check my site several times daily in order to bash my beliefs and convictions based on nothing other than their disagreement with the topic.
  
  If you disagree with me, by all means, please comment, and I will approve your comments (and maybe even rebut them!), so long as they are sincere and mature. I will not allow a few nuts leaving "hate comments" to destroy any constructive dialogue with my readers about issues Americans are obviously passionate about.
  
  
  
  
• What's With All the Women Bashing?
  First, Playboy published an online article that pointed out ten beautiful, conservative women, and then the author described how he would like to "hate-f*ck" them. Playboy pulled the article after some public outrage that they were promoting rape. Playboy's statement said something along the lines of, "We have supported women's rights for the more than 55 years we've been in business, but only if they're naked and need an abortion." Ok, maybe I added that last part.
  
  Liberal reporter Bonnie Erbe was asked by Smart Girl Politics Mama Lion Teri Christoph to come to women's defense on this issue, because regardless of political conviction, we need to come together and stand up for our gender. Bonnie's response? Well, she thought it was distasteful, but one woman in particular, Michelle Malkin, invited and deserved the attack. Seriously? No one deserves to have others fantasize about raping them.
  
  Then, a few nights ago, Letterman made horrendously distasteful comments about Sarah and Willow Palin's trip to New York. He said that Governor Palin looked like a "slutty flight attendant," and then he took a shot at Palin's daughter, saying, "during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez." Willow is fourteen years old, by the way.
  
  The Palins of course shot back, saying the comments were inappropriate and despicable. Letterman responded by saying that he had meant to refer to Palin's elder daughter Bristol, who is 18 and a new mom. Oh yeah, that makes it better. Excuse me while I roll my eyes.
  
  And yesterday, Carrie Prejean was striped of her Miss California title yesterday, with the Miss Universe organization citing her inability to fulfill contract obligations as the reason for the firing. Prejean maintains that she did indeed fulfilled her obligations, was respectful to all parties involved (including sad, angry little semi-man Perez Hilton), and was shocked to learn of the firing. She even said the meanest thing I've ever heard her say, "They don't like me. From day one they wanted me out and they got what they wanted."
  
  Stories like these make my blood boil. They demean women, and they need to stop. I do not want my two daughters growing up in a world where hate-f*ck lists and tasteless "jokes" about 14 year olds getting knocked up by grown men are culturally acceptable.
  
  
  
  
• Cap and Trade Will Prohibit Innovation in Energy
  The 648 page American Clean Energy Security Act of 2009 is currently being considered by Congress as a way to usher in a new era of clean green energy, and a plethora of jobs along with it. This is the Cap & Trade program (scam) that Obama spoke of over a year ago that would "bankrupt the coal industry," and "necessarily cause energy prices to skyrocket."
  
  I'm confused. Seriously, head-scratching, slack-jawed, eyes-darting-through-space-as-if-trying-to-pull-comprehension-from-thin-air confused. How exactly is a government run program that will bankrupt the coal industry (why aren't they entitled to a bailout, by the way?) and cause energy prices to skyrocket going to be good for our economy? Talk about a bad time for Joe Sixpack. First, he gets fired from his job at the coal plant because his boss couldn't afford to pay him anymore, due to the new fees he must pay for the privilege of producing carbon emissions. Then, a few weeks later, Joe's electricity is shut off because, being unemployed and all, he can't afford to pay his electric bill that has doubled or even tripled in cost. His old boss had to make up the cost of the new government fees by laying off portions of the work force, and by raising his prices to the consumer.
  
  Where does that money go anyway? It will subsidize the green energy market, which will then ensure that green energy never becomes successful. Why feed and care for a cow when your neighbor is forced by the government to bring around a fresh pail of milk every morning?
  
  Do you know what's going to create green energy? People actually wanting it. Mother Necessity and all that. Here's a little reminder for you that will having you humming along all day:
  
  
  
  If people really wanted green energy, they would pay for it, even if it cost more. If enough people stopped purchasing *dirty* energy, it would no longer become profitable to produce it. It would then become necessary for the coal plants and oil refineries to step out of the way of the newer, cleaner form of energy production.
  
  Now some people might say that new methods of producing cleaner energy need a *gentle nudge* from the government through the American Clean Energy Security Act of 2009. They may say, "It's not fair that it costs more to produce green energy, and it's not fair that consumers have to pay for the extra cost. Therefore, the government must step in and regulate energy production, for our own good."
  
  Phooey. I don't think the energy industry needs any help from government. People will buy green energy when they want it, and if it's a better product than our current energy produced mainly from coal and oil, our country will slowly begin to make the transition to the newer forms of energy production. And guess what? As the new energy gained popularity, the price would begin to decline, making it affordable to the middle class.
  
  Before 1908, automobiles were playthings of the rich, costing upwards of $3,000 (average income was less than $500 per year). Thanks to the innovation and determination of one man, Henry Ford, the automobile ownership finally became achievable for the middle class in 1909, with the Model T, costing $850. By the 1920s, the price had fallen to $300. The government didn't step in and force production of automobiles. Cars were a better mode of transportation than a horse and buggy. The market demanded an affordable car. People like Henry Ford produced it. When the market demands clean energy, I promise you in the American spirit of ingenuity, an entrepreneur like Henry Ford will deliver us clean energy at an affordable price.
  
  Until then, I'm begging our representatives, senators, and President Obama to please get down off their elitist high horses and stop making decisions "in the best interest of the people." I'm not sure how much more of your help we can take.
  
  
  
  
• The Judicial Branch
  Today, the California Supreme Court met to discuss whether or not they would uphold the decision made by the electorate last November to constitutionally define marriage as between one man and one woman. Thankfully, the court decided to stick to the rules and not legislate from the bench.
  
  There's a reason that the court system is called the judicial branch, and not the legislative branch. Justices that sit on the California bench are appointed by the sitting Governor, not elected by the people as a representative. In California, voters are given the opportunity once every twelve years to vote if a particular justice should be retained, but if that justice is booted, the current Governor is the one that gets to make the nomination for the replacement.
  
  Needless to say, justices do not necessarily represent the will of the people they preside over. That's why we have representatives. Representatives run for office. They tell us why they think they'd represent us well. If they do a lousy job, we vote for the other guy the next time around (two years for the State Assembly, four years for the State Senate).
  
  The legislative branch is the one that represents the people and has the authority to propose amendments to the California Constitution. The Governor (also an elected official, I'd like to point out) also has the power to propose amendments, as well as individual citizens that may propose new legislation by popular petition.
  
  The judicial branch is there to make sure that the laws, as stated in the constitution, are upheld. That's it. They don't get to make up their own laws. They don't get to wake up one morning and decide to overturn a constitutional amendment that went through the proper legal channels and has become law. That's not their job.
  
  So the idea that the California Supreme Court even had a vote on whether or not to overturn the will of the people on the issue of homosexual marriage is ludicrous. Geez, this is stuff I learned in my junior high government class! California sure is nutty sometimes.
  
  At least our President (a Harvard Law School graduate) knows that the role of the judicial branch in policy is to uphold it, not to create or alter it. Or does he?
  
  
  

  I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract
  legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect
  the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and
  care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome
  in their own nation...I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and
  identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient
  for arriving at just decisions and outcomes. -President Obama, May 2009, on what he will look for in potential US Supreme Court Justice

  
  I want a Justice that follows the rules. Hasn't anyone in the government read The Lord of the Flies? Don't they know what happens when the supposed leaders start making their own rules? I don't want to ruin it for you, but I can ensure you that chaos ensues.
  
  Let's just hope that Sonia Sotomayor (Obama's pick to replace the retiring Justice Souter on the US Supreme Court) understands her job description, and rules with a firm and fair hand, giving no biased rulings based on things like gender or race.
  
  Somehow, I doubt it. Take a look at what she said in 2005:
  
  
  
  
  And as far as impartiality is concerned? Here's what she had to say about that:
  
  

  I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences
  would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t
  lived that life. -Sotomayor, 2001
  

  
  
  Like Ralph on the final pages of The Lord of the Flies I weep for, "The end of innocence, the darkness of man's heart, and the fall through the air of a true, wise friend." Ralph's friend was the bespectacled Piggy, who was chased off a cliff by bloodthirsty young boys in pursuit of his fire-starting glasses. My friend's name is Justice, and once our country has empathetic judges that legislate from the bench on the basis of race and gender, she too will be chased off a cliff and flung to her doom.
  
  
  
  
• Dear California Voters,
  I was planning on having an elaborate post for you all on why I plan to vote against all the propositions in the special election tomorrow. However, a teething baby has ruined my plans. Because my responsibility to be a good mother comes above my responsibility to be a good blogger, the post is not to be.
  
  For the record, this conservative chica is voting a big fat NO on all the props tomorrow.
  
  We don't need more of our tax dollars to be poured into the infrastructure, we just need it to be better spent.
  
  Please, can we let the sea lions go before we let the firemen go?
  
  The money is there already, it just needs to be better budgeted.
  
  Please vote NO tomorrow and force the CA legislature to reallocate bureaucracy bucks into bucks that will actually do some good for our bankrupt state.
  
  
  
  
• Nancy Pelosi- Liar or Lunatic?
  Maybe all that Botox has seeped into her brain. It would certainly explain the selective memory she seems to be suffering from.
  
  In case you haven't been keeping up with the news in the past few weeks, the issue of torture has become a hot button topic. It turns out that evil US soldiers were *gasp* pouring water over terrorists' head in Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp in order to gain information about our enemies.
  
  A few weeks ago, Speaker of the House Pelosi (aka The Wicked Witch of Washington), very firmly assured anyone that would listen that as of 2002, she had absolutely no idea that this enhanced interrogation method (or any other) was being used on terrorists detained at Gitmo.
  
  
  
  That is until the CIA released documents clearly stating that she had, in fact, been briefed on the situation. So what did the Speaker have to say about that? She backpedaled and said that she had not been briefed on the interrogation tactics until 2003.
  
  Rep. Jane Harmon (D-CA) was also briefed in 2003. Harmon didn't think it was right to throw water on America-hating terrorists heads, so she drafted a letter to the CIA’s general counsel to express “profound” concerns with waterboarding. (Side note- I also have profound concerns with waterboarding, particularly that it probably isn't as effective as pulling out fingernails or being repeatedly hit with a stun gun. These people hate America and want to see us all dead; why the heck wouldn't we do our best to get information from them about possible-and preventable-future attacks?)
  
  According to the Pelosi confidant, the newly elected minority leader was told about the briefing, and that Harman was drafting a protest letter. Pelosi told Sheehy (a Pelosi aide) to tell Harman that she agreed with the letter, the Pelosi insider said. But she did not ask to be listed as a signatory on the letter, the source said, and there is no reference to her in it (This somehow reminds me of junior high, when I told Jessica to tell Ben to tell Matt that I thought it he was cute).
  
  Since this information has come to light, the crazy Pelosi camp has stated that she didn't protest directly out of respect for "appropriate" legislative channels.
  
  
  I don't know about you, but if I come face to face with something atrociously misaligned with my morals, I say something. I write letters. I blog about it. I make my voice heard, and let people know that something is happening that I do not agree with. I don't glibly spout off whatever the political ideal of the moment is. Following 9/11, people were scared, and wanted to be kept safe, even if the cost was getting a few POW's a little bit wet. After more than seven years of safety, Americans are forgetting what it's like to be afraid, and pandering Pelosi has no problem saying what she thinks people want to hear in order to get re-elected.
  
  Nancy Pelosi is either A) A liar-how many times has she had to eat her words at this point? or B) A lunatic-and a raving one at that. My guess? A little from both column A and B.