And now for something different...

American Health Care and you!

Currently Innocence & Instinct By Red see related

The Palin situation

I was listening to Rush today while I was out and about and they were talking about the whole situation with Sarah Palin resigning and what she's gone through during her time in the public spotlight. Let me point out some things that she's had to endure:

-She's been critized on her dress just about as much as her stances on the issues.

-Her accent, home town, home state, love for things like guns and hunting are subjects of constant ridicule.

-Her teenage daughter's situation has been the subject of much discussion, her son is in the military and that's received significant attention, one of her kids was the butt of a really bad joke on the Letterman show, and one of her kids is a special needs child and that's been in the public eye (while Obama simply had to say his children were off limits and the press left them alone).

-Her apparent lack of experience was brought to the forefront of the election while she had more experience in an executive position than Obama, Biden, and McCain combined.

On Rush today, it was pointed out that there seems to be a special hate by the media and the left for Sarah Palin. I agree. I've never seen anyone attacking in the public view so much in my life. Bush never got it this bad. I challenge you to find someone who's been attacked in such a way in recent history.

The attacks are, in my opinion, a good reason for Palin to make the move that she did. The kids shouldn't go through what the media's doing to them. But then I've recently come to the conclusion that Palin is also now in a better position to serve the conservative movement than she ever was or could have been (outside actually being in the White House, but THAT would be a challenge).

The conservative movement's in trouble. I'll make no bones about and I won't dance around the issue. 8 years of a neo-con being president (and the GOP president before him was a far cry from Reagan), congress members who forgot what small government means, and the lack of anyone new on the scene has made us a dull and sad party. Really, the only difference between the GOP and the Dems in the past 15 years has been we like guns while they like killing babies. We engage in similiar government structures (more power in DC and even more power in the White House) and we're also an elitist group, ignoring the ideas of the average Joe. For the past 2 years, I haven't been proud to be a Republican. I've been a Republican by default because the Democratic party's just worse.

Palin's what we need to pull ourselves back to where the GOP desperately needs to be. She seems to stand for family values and that the mom and dad in a family are the ultimate authority in how their house should be run (which rubs liberals the wrong way because they want the state to raise kids). She's pro-gun, pro-life, pro small government. She seems to understand what federalism is AND believes in it! She has the message that can bring the conservative movement back to where it needs to be.

And that's why the left hates her so much and why she's attacked so much. The GOP is wounded and lost. She's the beacon that could bring it back to the powerhouse it was with Reagan or even in '94.

The best thing Palin can do is to fix the GOP from within, not in the public spotlight. Her name may never appear on a ballot again, but she could get more true conservative names on ballots than anyone else.

Let's face facts, Palin's a big name in the Republican party. She has more appeal than anyone else (outside maybe Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh). So if you're running for Senate or Governor and you want to do a fundraising event that's going to pack the house and let you charge a premium price for admission, who are you going to call? Limbaugh doesn't do such events. Romney? Please. Tom Tancredo? Brilliant guy, but too much of an unknown. Palin though will get you a packed house. So Palin can start supporting the true conservative candidates and help them raise money in the process. If this helps them beat their neo-con rivals in the primaries, so much the better.

On top of that, Palin's the type of person who would be great for the lecture circuit. Young America's Foundation is a program that I think she'd be great for. They help college groups book big name conservative speakers for their campus. As a member of Western Michigan University's College Republicans, I became very familiar with the organization. Through them, the group booked people like Ann Coulter, Roy Moore, and Ted Nugent. Joining this circuit would allow Sarah to go to various college campuses and make the case for true conservative ideas. She's someone that I'm sure every CR group in the nation would want to book. And these events pull in more than college students. Professors, community members, and local conservative politicians also attend them. Our state representative and state senator could be found at pretty much every event that we held. This means Palin would also give a chance to tell these sitting members of government about conservative values while drawing a crowd of one thousand and up students showing that there are people out there who value these ideas. This is all in addition to helping thousands of college students across the nation see the importance of conservative ideas. Plus Palin wouldn't go broke doing this. Some of the speakers for YAF get upwards of $20,000 for each appearance. Palin would be one of those who could get this kind of cash for each show.

Right now I'm hoping Palin takes full advantage of her new position to help the GOP. I don't think her role will be front lines anymore, but instead, a behind the scenes type of person. And the best part of it all, I'm thinking she could do more damage to the left in her new position than she could ever before.

Windows Mobile Twitter program

Alright, for those that haven't heard, I've been looking for a Twitter application for my Windows Mobile device (Samsung Omnia) because as good of a job as Twitter's done with their home page on mobile devices, I've been hoping for better. I've found one called "Twikini" (don't ask me how to pronounce that). From what I've seen of it, it looks like it has potential. I'll try to post thoughts once I give it a go. It apparently works on WinMo 5 and 6 as well (in case you're running an older device). If you're interested in checking it out, you can find more info at http://www.trinketsoftware.com/Twikini

Here's a shot of what it looks like:

The joke that is today's American legal system

Now I'll admit I'm not a lawyer, but being a political science major, I'm rather familiar with our legal system and what our founding fathers wanted. Let's just say that if they saw what we had today, they would probably shake their heads in sadness while thinking "At least we tried."

I begin with the recent court case in California. Recently the people of California passed an amendment to their state constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Well some people didn't like this amendment. So leftists do what they always do when they get upset over something and hope the liberals they put in the court are going to give them the ruling they want (more on why that's a joke later). Get this. The left and gay "rights" activists argued that the constitutional amendment was, wait for it, unconstitutional. How can a constitution be unconstitutional? Now I'm thankful the courts did the logical thing and shot the whole thing down, I think it's extremely sad that they even took up the case in the first place. What do you think the US Supreme Court would have done if someone from the South came to them declaring the 13th amendment unconstitutional and that he had a right to own slaves? They would have laughed at him. And for those reading this saying "Owning slaves in America is nothing like gays getting married in California," actually it's exactly the same. There's a ruling constitution that says it's illegal. It doesn't matter how bad you think one thing is and how good another thing is. The law is the law.

And that's a phrase we seem to have forgotten here in the United States. We can clearly see that it's not the policy of the White House. Let's take a look at Obama's pick for the Supreme Court and what his criteria was for the court nominee. First, let's be clear on one thing, Sonia Sotomayor is a racist and sexist. This is clearly seen when she said "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." If Chief Justice Roberts had said "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a hispanic woman who hasn't lived that life," prior to his approval, his nomination would have been removed so quickly, Washington DC would have set a record pace for doing something. Replace "hispanic" with "black" and it would probably be even quicker. But we in the general public aren't saying anything. All I can say is "And they shot down Bork?"

But then what appears to be her approach to law and what Obama was looking for in judicial nominees is downright wrong. Obama said "It is experience that can give a person a common touch of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of Justice we need on the Supreme Court." Really? I think Chief Justice Roberts got it right when he suggested justices are to be more like umpires, not players. Everything I read about Sotomayor leads me to believe she's going to rule with her heart, not her head.

And that creates a problem. We are a nation under the rule of law, not a nation under the rule of man. Our founders set up key protections to ensure that this would stay that way. First, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Article VI). That means that what is written in that document defines the laws of our land. It cannot be trumped by any state constitution, any wishes of Congress, the will of the President, the wants of the people on the courts, or the constantly changing public opinion. This ensures that people know what rights they have, what the limits of the US Government are, and that the majority or the strong cannot rob the minority or weak of their rights. And yet I constantly hear people (Obama being one) talk about how we have a living Constitution and how it needs to change with the times. Does anyone else realize how dangerous that is? Who determines this change? The President? The courts? Public opinion? There isn't a single answer that can be given that still protects our status as a nation under the rule of law and not man. The minority and weak are completely subject to the will of the majority and powerful. This is why the left's constant runs to the courts to get their way is so dangerous. Every time the courts hand down a decision that falls under judicial activism, we step away from a rule of law and more towards a rule of man.

"But Dan, sometimes the law just isn't fair!" Very true. That's why we have a Congress that can pass laws and a Constitutional amendment process (Article V). We have procedures for how the laws of this country are determined. No school child is taught that the courts make the laws of this country. But they seem to increasingly do so. I still can't find the right to privacy in the Constitution, yet the Supreme Court ruled it was there in the case of Roe v. Wade. Is it fair that a panel of judges got to determine if we could have this right and not us through the Constitutional amendment process? I'd say no. We don't even get to vote for these judges.

Sometimes people will cite intent as well when reading the law. What did the founders intend? This is also something that is dangerous. We can never know what someone thought when they suggested a portion of the Constitution. However the Constitutional Convention passed the document as it is written. Think of it this way. Let's say I go to buy a car and I finance it. I sign a document saying I'll pay $300 a month for 48 months, but while I'm signing it, I'm only intending to pay $3 a month for 10 months. It doesn't matter what I was thinking when I signed the document. The document I signed reads the way it does. I have to follow what I signed, not what I was thinking.

I hope people are paying attention to what's going on right now in this country. We need a court system that reads the law as it is written. Otherwise how can any of us honestly know what the law is?