Forget the Obituary

A lot of media, driven by liberal wishful thinkers, have been busy writing an obituary for the Republican Party. They would have you believe that the party has boxed itself into a corner of the Deep South and today only appeals to a handful of intolerant, vindictive, religious, anti-immigrant, anti-intellectual, women-hating, gun-toting elderly nuts.

But to paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of the party's death have been greatly exaggerated -- as has the death mask the Democrats have tried to plaster on Republicans.

We were at a rally this weekend in which a Republican announced his candidacy for governor of Virginia. What was amazing was who was at the Saturday morning rally. Yes, there were white guys -- and women -- and plenty of retired military. There also were Hispanics, African Americans, Vietnamese, Chinese, South Koreans and Philippinos. There were little kids, teenagers, college students, yuppies, families, "middlers" and retirees. There were people whose roots went back to the founding of the country and those who had recently arrived here. There were blue-collar workers, housewives, homeschoolers, lawyers, small business owners, scientists and other professionals.

The talk that morning wasn't hateful or spiteful. Instead, it was full of hope, of bringing back fiscal responsibility, of restoring faith in the future for all Virginians, of honoring life, of recognizing personal responsibility. The energy and promise in that room was testimony that conservatism is very much alive and well in America.

World Court

A magistrate in Spain (the same one who issued the arrest warrant for former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998) handed prosecutors there a 98-page report and ordered them to investigate former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and five other Bush officials in connection with U.S. actions at Guantanamo. The prosecutors are expected to decide this week whether charges should be filed in Spain against the officials who gave legal advice to the administration. The report was assembled by the Association for the Rights of Prisoners on the grounds that some of the Guantanamo prisoners have Spanish citizenship.

This action raises several quesstions. Gonzales, who was Bush's legal counsel when the detention center was opened, and the other five were not policymakers -- they were legal advisers. Is trying to force them into Spanish court the first step at getting Bush himself into an international court? In this country, attorney-client discussion is privileged (it can't be divulged) -- as is the decisionmaking process in the White House. Is the Spanish action a way to sidestep the constitutional protections we have in place in this country?

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Bush, this action should set off alarms across the country -- and in other nations. If leaders worldwide are afraid to act because some judge in some court in some other country could prosecute them, we might as well hand all of our governments over to anarchists.

Meanwhile, in this country, we still have some congressmen pushing for a "truth commission" to pin some crime on Bush. Do we really want to go there? This is basically pay back for the Clinton impeachment, and it would set the stage for another pay back once the tables are reversed and the Republicans are back in control of Congress. Our country has far more important issues to deal with than to continue indulging in this petty schoolyard fight.

Personal Accountability

Perhaps the biggest challenge facing our nation today is the lack of personal accountability. Through the media, through our entertainment, through our schools, through the courts and through our local, state and national government, we are buying wholesale into the idea that everything is someone else's fault and that government is the solution to every problem.

This morning I was watching an interview on CNN with Marc Morial, CEO of the Urban League and former mayor of New Orleans. Morial was discussing the latest State of Black America report that showed a widening divide between blacks and whites in terms of education, unemployment and poverty. (Hello, unemployment and poverty usually stem from lack of education.)

Morial pointed out that the situation had improved in the '90s, but it began to go from bad to worse beginning in 2001. Although he didn't mention names, his meaning was clear. There had been progress under Clinton and decline under Bush. Of course, what everyone forgets is that we had a Congress with a huge Republican majority under Clinton and a nearly evenly split Congress or a Congress controlled by Democrats under Bush. It is Congress -- not the president -- that passes laws, sets the budget, etc.

But back to accountability. Morial was blaming government, business -- the kitchen sink -- for lack of progress. When the interviewer asked him what role personal responsibility plays, Morial said, "It ranks up there with government."

I swear I could hear every Founding Father (and Mother) turning over in their graves. As long as personal responsibility "ranks up there" with government responsibility, we're in a nation of hurt.

Science-Based Evidence

One of the new buzz phrases for all things liberal is "science-based evidence." It's a term being used to justify restrictive government policies, promote biased agendas, usurp parental authority and obstruct open dialogue.

The federal judge who ordered the FDA to make the morning-after pill available over-the-counter to teenagers without parental consent used that phrase. He claimed the federal agency ignored science-based evidence when it originally restricted sales to teenagers -- in other words, there was no science-based evidence to deny the drug to teenage girls.

The administration will use that phrase a lot when it pushes for more and more environmental controls, but that's a subject for a blog of its own.

"Science-based evidence" also is at the heart of a debate that's raging this week in Texas. The Texas Board of Education has been holding hearings and will take a final vote tomorrow on science standards that critics say seek to cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

The board in January voted to replace language that called on science teachers to focus on the "strengths and weaknesses" in all scientific theories with language urging students to use "empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing" to "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations." In addition to this change, the board will be voting on an amendment that calls for the analysis and evaluation of "the sufficiency or insufficiency" of the common ancestry idea to explain the fossil record as well as amendments that question ideas in the earth and space sciences -- plate tectonics, radioactive decay and how the solar system developed.

More than 50 scientific societies sent a letter to the board urging it to support "accurate science education." Calling evolution the foundation of modern biology, the scientists say, "We oppose any efforts to undermine the teaching of biological evolution and related topics in the earth and space sciences, whether by misrepresenting those subjects, or by inaccurately and misleadingly describing them as controversial and in need of special scrutiny."

Recognizing that the theory of evolution has itself evolved over time, other scientists recognize that conventional scientific theory must always be subject to question and analysis. After all, that is what science is all about. Galileo questioned the geocentric thinking of his day and started what became a scientific revolution. Einstein challenged the thinking of many noted scientists of the 19th and early 20th centuries and got us thinking relatively about light, quantum physics, black holes and so many new possibilities.

To establish any theory, opinion or agenda as "science-based evidence" -- to discourage students from questioning any scientific theory logically and empirically -- is to refute the very basis of scientific study.

Change We Don't Need

Obama the candidate promised change. And Obama the president has delivered on that promise.

Under Bush, we were fighting a global war on terror. Under Obama, we are engaged in an “Overseas Contingency Operation.” (Washington Post)

Under Bush, hundreds of suspected terrorists, including some of the masterminds of 9/11, were detained on an isolated island prison 90 miles from Florida. Obama is considering moving many of them to Manhattan and the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., in a neighborhood brimming with residents, thousands of federal employees and a booming business district 190 feet from the courthouse door. Alexandria officials and some legislators say that terror trials would take years, shut down roads and cost millions of dollars and could invite attacks from terrorist sympathizers. Business owners in the area surrounding the courthouse -- newly filled with hotels, restaurants and luxury apartments -- fear disruptions amid a declining economy. (Washington Post)

Under Bush, we had hard-core partisanship. Obama won the election partly on his appeal to bipartisanship and unity. But his idea of bipartisanship is not a meeting of the minds, of meaningful dialogue that results in compromise. Unity to him is unifying around his preordained agenda. Any disagreement is not PC. That’s why New Hampshire’s Republican Sen. Gregg withdrew his name from nomination as the Commerce Secretary.

Bush believed in trickle-down economics. Obama is practicing trickle-down government.

In the aftermath of 9/11, Katrina and two final years of a Congress controlled by spend-happy Democrats, Bush left us with a $1 trillion-plus deficit. In the aftermath of unprecedented bailouts, government takeovers of private businesses, stimulus packages and a Congress controlled by spend-happy Democrats, Obama promises to leave us with a deficit that could grow by $1 trillion every year he’s in office.

Bush was blamed for harming the global reputation of the United States. Consider what the world is saying after just two months of Obama change:

--In China – which is our largest creditor, having bought more than $1 trillion of our debt – Premier Wen Jiabao is expressing concerns about Obama's economic plan. “To be honest, I'm a little bit worried,” Wen said at a recent news conference. “I would like for you [a western reporter] to call on the United States to honor its word and stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets." (CNN)

--The head of the EU called Obama's recovery plan "the road to hell" that European governments must avoid. The comments by Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek to the European Parliament today highlighted European differences with Washington on how to fix the world economy. (AP)

--And of course, the Ayatollah scoffed at Obama’s Iranian New Year greeting.

This kind of change we could live without.

For more on the contrasts of where we’ve been and where we’re headed, check out http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/25/castellanos.obama/index.html.

Trust Me

Tim Geithner, Obama's choice for Treasury secretary -- yea, the one who couldn't figure out he owed income taxes until he was nominated -- lobbied in Congress today, asking a House committee to trust him with unprecedented new regulatory powers to seize financial institutions whose failure would pose serious risks to the U.S. financial system.

There was some media coverage of this, but it quickly got drowned out by Obama's appeal to the masses tonight to support his massive budget. But here's what you probably didn't hear about Geithner:

Companies that had their hands out for the first go-round of taxpayer handouts had to sign a contract certifying that they didn't owe any back taxes. Geithner and the gang at Treasury were supposed to check out those statements, but they just took them at face value. Even though the IRS is part of Treasury, no one thought to check out the records.

As it would turn out, according to an Associated Press story, several of those companies lied. In a small sampling of the companies receiving the most money, at least 13 companies owe a total of more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., chairman of a House subcommittee overseeing the bailout, said two companies owe more than $100 million apiece.

The House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight discovered the unpaid taxes in a review of tax records from 23 companies receiving the most money -- nearly 500 companies have received bailout funds. One company had almost $113 million in unpaid federal income taxes from 2005 and 2006. A second one owed almost $102 million dating to before 2004 -- before the bubble burst. And a third was behind $1.1 million in federal income taxes and $223,000 in employment taxes.

The committee asked someone from Treasury to testify on the matter in a private hearing last week, but the committee was told that no one was available.

Yet here we are today with Geithner saying "trust me." I don't think so.

Wall of Shame

I have to make up for lost time these last few days as our router was down, and I had to suffer through days of no connectivity. We got reconnected today, so here goes.

I'm instituting a Wall of Shame -- an amorphous memorial of infamy for public officials, and countries, who disgrace themselves by abusing the public trust, usually for self-profit or to further a sell-out agenda. If this were a physical memorial, I'm sure it would dwarf all the other monuments in D.C., and it would be inscribed with the names of both Republicans and Democrats who have shamed themselves. Rather than focusing on past offenders, I think we need to "memorilize" those who are still actively abusing our trust.

Inductee #1: U.S. District Judge Edward Korman of New York who today ordered the FDA to rethink its position on Plan B, the "morning-after" pill. Korman has decided that there's no scientific reason for the FDA to prohibit 17-year-old girls from buying this drug over the counter. And, given Obama's orders on abortion, pharmacists who don't agree with this will be forced to sell the drug to underage girls or be shut down. If this is changed, girls will not be carded, which means girls of all ages, without parental consent, could buy this drug, which can have some serious side effects. Check out http://www.optionline.org/map.html?gclid=CJqBq9y6upkCFQw9Ggodrl7G6A for a list of some of its complications.

Inductee #2: The South African government, which denied a visa to the Dalai Lama who had been invited to attend a big peace shindig to coincide with the 2010 World Cup soccer match in South Africa. The conference also was to feature South Africa's surviving Nobel Peace Prize winners -- Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former Presidents Nelson Mandela and FW De Klerk. The government claimed it denied the Dalai Lama's visa because his presence would detract from the soccer tournament. However, Thabo Masebe, spokesman for President Kgalema Motlanthe, told AFP, "We in the South African government have not invited the Dalai Lama to visit South Africa, because it would not be in the interests of South Africa."

A spoksman for the Tibetan-government-in-exile said, "African states are vulnerable to Chinese pressure because of huge Chinese investments there and so this is a case of business winning over human rights and good behaviour."

As a result of the government's action, Tutu and De Klerk have said they will not attend the conference. And "the Norwegian Nobel Committee will in no way participate in the conference alongside Nobel peace prize laureates if South African authorities do not revise their refusal to give the Dalai Lama a visa," Geir Lundestad, the head of the Nobel Institute, told AFP.

Inductee #3: Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., longtime chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee. More than a decade ago, Murtha created the Electro-Optics Center under the auspices of Pennsylvania State University supposedly to spur a new high-tech industry and create jobs in economically depressed western Pennsylvania. Every budget cycle, Murtha has directed millions of earmarks to the center and then allegedly, through staff members and lobbyists, told the center which defense companies it had to award contracts to. Coincidentally, the contractors that got hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts donated millions of dollars to Murtha's campaign and PACs. After 35 years of dirty dealings in Congress, Murtha is now under federal investigation. (Source: Washington Post)

Inductee #4: Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn. Yes, he's the guy who lied about ensuring that the AIG bonuses were protected in the stimulus bill, and when he finally came clean about it, he said he protected the bonuses at the bidding of the Obama administration. He, like Obama, also got a sweetheart deal on his home mortgage. But what lands him on the Wall of Shame is a cottage deal in Ireland that recently came to light. He apparently co-owns an Irish cottage. The other owner was in business with someone who had been convicted of some serious tax charges. Dodd arranged a full pardon under President Clinton.

I'm sure you have nominees for the Wall of Shame. Feel free to share.

Journalism 101

It's easy to blame the amorphous media for spinning the facts and burying the truth. And, a lot of times, they deserve the blame. However, we have to share some of the blame as we tend to be passive media feeders rather than interactive thinkers who question what we hear and form our own opinions instead of relying on others to shape our views.

One of the topics we discussed in my introductory journalism classes -- yes, as a matter of full disclosure, I must admit that I am a journalist and, perhaps worse yet, I have taught university journalism courses -- was whether the media reflect society or shape it. Throughout the course of American history, it has done both. For much of the 20th century, journalists at least gave lip service to trying to be objective or fair (they're not one and the same). But today, "community" or "citizen" journalism rules. With the advent of the Internet, the idea of balance and fairness in reporting has become antiquated. From CNN's iReports to local media on-the-spot viewer reports to YouTube, everyone has a chance to spin his or her personal view of the world.

My advice to all of my students: Don't be a passive news junkie. If you're not arguing with the news anchors and commentators -- be they Anderson Cooper, Campbell Brown, Katie Couric Brian Williams or Bill O'Reilly -- you're not using your God-given brain. Don't let someone else form your opinion for you. Do the research, and make up your own mind. And then let yourself be heard -- through comments on blogs, other social media, letters or comments to the media, letters or email to your elected officials, community organizations, etc.

We can't change our world if we don't first influence it. And we can't influence it if we keep our mouths shut. Speak up.

Too Opinionated!

Mom and I have been doing this blog for a month and a half now, and I've found the two biggest problems are trying to get other people to share their opinions -- yea, you -- and focusing on just one thing to write about each time. There's so much out there that it's hard to choose THE topic for the day. Of course, it doesn't help that we have opinions to spare!

Take today, for instance. I could write about:

• The conflicts of interest of some of President Obama's trusted advisers -- not the ones who need Senate confirmation, but the ones who have his ear in the White House. Two of them shaping his policy on embryonic stem cell research stand to profit from a lifting of the funding ban.
• State efforts to limit embryonic stem cell research.
• Protests in Spain against efforts to ease that country's abortion restrictions.
• A North Carolina judge who says he knows better than a mother what's best for her homeschooled kids -- whom he's never met. Even though they are testing above their grade level and are involved in community sports and academic programs, he thinks the kids need to go to public school so what their mother has taught them can be challenged.
• China's demand that the rest of the world pay for its manufacturing pollution because, hey, we use the stuff. Meanwhile, China is spending all the money it's making through its cheap, polluting manufacturing business to buy influence worldwide and to secure oil and other resources in Australia, Brazil, France, Russia, Venezuela, etc. It made an $11 billion loan to Russia, for instance, to secure long-term oil rights there and a $4 billion loan to Venezuela for the same thing.
• Liberal media efforts to appoint the spokesperson for the conservatives. By saddling us, in the public eye, with anyone who comes across as hateful, vindictive and intolerant, they can paint all of us with the same brush and ensure that we will not have the strength of numbers to defeat them in future elections.
• Suppression of freedom of the press -- not from the right, but from the left. Politico ran a piece recently in which it revealed that a small group of liberals headed by an old Clintonite has organized to dictate the daily media agenda and to target -- through intimidation, threats, etc. -- those who are critical of their pet projects. While the White House doesn't participate in the daily conference call this group has, it apparently is involved with setting the agenda.
• The administration's payback to labor unions by pushing for all kinds of concessions. These range from government contract preferences for union shops to efforts to do away with the necessity of secret ballots for a union vote. Their plan is to allow a simple majority of workers to sign a card and, voila!, the workplace is unionized. Of course, there would be no intimidiation or dirty tricks to get workers to sign those cards!
• The fuzzy math being used to calculate all the "new" jobs the stimulus bill is creating. My brother-in-law, for instance, may get one of those new jobs in Virginia. But in chalking up the "new" jobs added to the economy, the White House will ignore the fact that he lost his old job because Sen. Harry Reid killed the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada.

Yep, with Obama in the White House, Pelosi holding court in the other House and Reid setting up shop in the Senate, Mom and I will always have plenty to write about. But we'll try not to bore you with too many opinions. Meanwhile, we'd love to hear some of your opinions.

Fooling with the clock

Here we go again! Congress, with their usual bumbling idiocy, declared that Daylight Savings Time would begin on March 8 this year, "to add more hours of daylight to conserve energy." How's that again?

Is it simply a coincidence that DST, April Fool's Day, and the IRS tax deadline all fall in the spring of the year? Or is there a connection in there someplace?

The practice of fooling around on April 1 began under King Charles IX in 1564. Throughout France in the early sixteenth century, New Year's Day was celebrated on March 25, the advent of spring. The weeklong festivities ended with dinners and parties on April 1. When King Charles adopted the Gregorian calendar, New Year's Day was moved back to January 1, much to the chagrin of the party-loving French. When the Frenchmen continued partying and exchanging gifts on April 1, political jokers (yes, they had them even in the 16th Century!) ridiculed the conservatives' steadfast attachment to the old New Year's date by sending prank gifts and invitations to nonexistent parties.

They enjoyed the April pranks so much, the French made April Fool's Day a custom in its own right, no longer protesting the calendar change that had given it birth. The jesting and fooling took about 200 years to reach merry old England, where it also took root, and then traveled to the New World with early settlers.

The custom quickly caught on here in America, and nowhere is it practiced more tenaciously than in the hallowed halls of Congress. Like King Charles of old, who fooled around with the calendar, our erstwhile congressmen decided to tinker with the clock. The dates for DST has bounced around from Congress to Congress, and in 2007 they fooled around again with God's time keeping, making it even longer. So every year they spend millions of tax money, confuse  all the computers, Blackberries, cell phones, and foul up our entire transportation system. How does shaving an hour off the morning and sticking it on the evening save us anything? I think they use the same rationale for that as they do balancing the budget.

One of the dictionary definitions of a fool is "one who lacks judgment." In that context, I wonder if those fools in Congress ever had to put up with a baby who is preset to go off at a certain time, without regard to the Uniform Time Act? Try telling an infant that because it's Daylight Saving Time, he can't wake up yet. 

And when they started fooling around with the clock, did they even give one iota of consideration to those of us without engineering degrees who have to reset umpteen dozen quartz and windup clocks, digital watches, and car clocks? Not to mention resetting and rescheduling the remote controls on our televisions, VCR's, and the time clock on our computers. If you factor in all the time it takes to reset everything twice a year, you'll soon figure out Congress hasn't saved us any time at all....we've gone in the hole, timely speaking.

An old proverb says, "Who loses an hour loses life; you may as well borrow a person's money as his time." When Congress decided to fool around with our time, they took that adage to heart. The figured since they already have most our money, they might as well "borrow" our time as well!

The only clock in our house that doesn't get changed is my hourglass figure, and that's because all the sand has already drifted to the bottom! Now if Congress could figure out a way to work on that, they might have something.

Time for Congress to Hit the Books

Doctors do it. Lawyers do it. Congress should do it too. Hit the books, that is, for Continuing Consitutional Education.

Doctors and lawyers are required to take x number of continuing legal or medical education courses every year to keep their knowledge and their licenses up-to-date. Teachers have to attend in-service meetings for the latest in educational requirements and trends. Since Congress is no longer a stent of public service but a professional career, senators and representatives should be required to take annual ethics courses and a refresher course in the Constitution -- at their own expense.

The first lecture in that course should be on the role of Congress and the separation of powers between our three branches of government. I have the perfect case study for them -- one starring Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), chair of Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The stated purpose of this committee is to have oversight of government agencies that fall under "Energy and Commerce."

A seasoned congressman elected in 1992, Bart has turned his subcommittee into his own "cops and robbers" show. With no regard for the limited powers the Constitution gives Congress, Bart has set his subcommittee up to act as investigator, prosecutor, grand jury and judge all rolled into one. And it's not just federal agencies he's investigating. He's set his sights on private businesses and individuals.

Recently, Detective Bart instructed the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which answers solely to Congress, to set up an elaborate, unprecedented, undercover sting operation with sham medical clinical trials to trip up the private review boards that manage such trials. Now, Prosecutor Bart and his gumshoes are hauling these boards into congressional court to face -- you guessed it -- Judge Bart on charges along the line of abuse of public trust. (I think he should have to recuse himself on this one!)

Bart and the gang are trying to keep this quiet. When a reporter asked Bart's office when the PUBLIC hearings are supposed to be held, staff wouldn't say, implying that a date hadn't been set yet. The subcommittee's schedule wasn't much help either. All it shows is a Feb. 11 hearing on the salmonella outbreak. However, GAO staff informed the reporter that the hearing would be held March 26.

Bart definitely needs a lesson on the limits of Congress. And while he's hitting the books, he should read up on the definition of "PUBLIC hearings."

Perhaps we should create a whole curriculum for this course. Any suggestions?

To Life!

Twenty-seven years ago today, I gave birth to my first child. It was an exhausting, exhilirating experience that I wouldn't trade for anything in the world. It followed two years of trying to conceive and nine months of having to be on medication that I knew risked the health of my baby. I gave up my job as senior reporter at a newspaper -- and much needed income -- to avoid a miscarriage. And when I held my beautiful daughter for the first time, all the sacrifice, all the worry, all the pain was worth it.

From the moment I even suspected I might be pregnant, my daughter was a human being whom I had to protect at all cost. She was not a matter of choice or conscience. She was not a "woman's issue." She was not a political argument -- although she can argue politics with the best of them today. Her worth was not determined simply because she was "wanted" or because it was a "convenient" time for me to have a child.

My daughter was a living human being who let her opinions be known even in the womb. When I ate something she didn't like, she let me know. When I was in a position that was uncomfortable for her, I got a huge kick in the ribs. And one day, probably about six months into my pregnancy, I had the most amazing experience. My daughter reached her hand up, slowly spread her fingers and pushed. It was not a reaction to anything I had done -- I had just been sitting there. I am convinced that she was already exploring her world.

Although abortion was legal when Maridee was born, there were a lot of laws that protected the lives of unborn children. For instance, in several states at the time, if a drunken driver killed a pregnant woman, he or she could be charged with two counts of manslaughter as the unborn child was recognized as a life. In some states, a pregnant woman who smoked, drank or did illegal drugs could be charged with child neglect or abuse for the damage she was doing to her unborn child. Recognizing the dangerous contradictions such laws posed for abortion "rights," the abortionists led a pretty successful effort to get most of these laws revoked.

But one thing hasn't changed. Expectant parents still are encouraged -- from the moment they know a child is forming in the womb -- to read to that child, to talk to him or her, to sing lullabies, to physically bond with the child. Scientists have acknowledged that these so-called "lumps of human tissue" respond -- and remember. And any woman who has had more than one child can testify that each child is unique in the womb, each unborn baby expresses his or her own personality, each brings into the world a unique bundle of possibilities.

It is our duty, as the adults in the room, to give all children the opportunity to realize those possibilities.

Coming Back to Bite Us

A few days ago, President Obama surrounded himself with grinning "scientists" and activists flashing gestures of victory as he signed away Bush's ban on spending our money to pay for research using the stem cells of aborted babies.

Compare that image to his signing today of the earmark-littered omnibus bill that will put us another $410 billion into debt. There were no cameras, no adoring throngs, no signs of victory. Instead, the president was basically in hiding -- perhaps a bit shamefaced at his inability to deliver on his campaign promises to do away with earmarks, to control a Democratic Congress and to bring real change to Washington. He admitted it was an imperfect bill, basically saying that he's still trying to clean up after Bush.

It's time for the truth brigade. The economic crisis we find ourselves in began -- not with the Iraq War -- but when the housing industry collapsed like a house of cards. And the roots of that crisis pre-date Bush.

"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. ... Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stockholders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits," according to a Sept. 30, 1999, New York Times article.

That's right -- 1999. Ten years ago when Bill Clinton was focusing on crafting his presidential legacy.

"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times," the article says. "But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."

A bit of an understatement given the hundreds of billions Congress is shelling out in bailouts and stimulus. In this instance, it took 10 years for an ill-advised policy to come back to bite us. I wonder how long it will be before we start feeling the bite of Washington's current over-the-top deficit spending spree?

Separation of Church & State

I'm sure you've heard by now that President Obama, on his 51st day in office, will OK spending another $410 billion of our money. And, if you've been watching Fox, you've seen that Nancy Pelosi is throwing a temper tantrum because she can't have a specific military plane for her little Memorial Day party. Someone ought to file an FOIA request to see how much she's costing us just in her personal travels and vacations.

Because the omnibus spending bill is all you're going to be hearing about on the news tomorrow, I wanted to point out something else. With Obama lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research and providing more public money for abortions, there's growing concern about whether doctors who view abortion as murder will be forced to do them. Saying public health trumps a person's right to stand by his or her convictions, a number of federal lawmakers want to force doctors -- and pharmacists -- to do abortions and dispense morning-after pills. Oh yeah, those misguided lawmakers also cite separation of church and state.

Now that argument gets me. The First Amednment says nothing about separation of church and state. What it does is forbid Congress from establishing a church. To understand the intent of our Founding Fathers on this issue, we must think about the context.

Before the birth of our country, many of the colonies had an established church paid for by the colonial government -- i.e., the taxpayers of that colony. Take Virginia, for instance. Colonial Virginians were forced to pay a tithe to the Church of England. That meant my Swiss Mennonite and staunch Scottish Covenanter ancestors who settled in Virginia in the 1600s and 1700s had to pay money to the Church of England in addition to supporting their own churches, which did not receive public money. Robert Ewing, one of my first ancestors in this country, wrote a letter to the Virginia legislators that he sent along with his tithe, thanking them for allowing the Ewings and others in Peaks of Otter, Va., to worship at a Presbyterian church.

This was what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he wrote his famous letter describing his OPINION about the "wall" he perceived between church and state. None of our Founding Fathers would have denied anyone the strength of his or her personal convictions. In fact, it was because of their personal convictions that the likes of George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Francis Marion, etc., stood up and told King George what he could do with his misplaced power. Our Founding Fathers were willing to sacrifice their lives to establish a country where people would be free to worship and follow their convictions in every aspect of their lives.

The question we now face is: What are we willing to do to protect that freedom?

The Agenda of 'Science'

In what's being hailed as a victory for "science," President Obame today put another nail in the coffin of unborn children and widened the divide that separates much of this nation.

"Our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values," Obama said as he signed documents changing Bush's policy against embryonic stem cell research. "It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

Some researchers have said that lifting the ban removed the shackles from their work. What everyone is ignoring is that science itself is divided on the effectiveness of embryonic stem cells. Many respected scientists have demonstrated that cord stem cells and a person's own stem cells may be more therapeutic and safer than embryonic cells. And they don't require the sacrifice of a premature life.

The researchers who downplay these facts and the media who ignore them have as much of an agenda as those of us who are pro-life. It's just that they won't admit it. Cloaking their agenda in the jargon of "science" and claiming that their stance is the only enlightened one, they try to portray anyone who disagrees with them as idealogues who ignore facts and put politics before the welfare of others. Does anyone else see the irony in this?

Rough Road Part II

With all the talk about healthcare reform, I can't help but think back to our last dinner with Fay Boozman (the brother of U.S. Rep. John Boozman, R-Ark.). An eye doctor turned public servant, Fay served under Gov. Huckabee as the director of Arkansas' Department of Health.

In his well-measured, quiet way, Fay spent that evening with Job and me discussing the health problems challenging the state and the nation. He saw healthcare as the biggest danger facing the nation as the aging population outlived our ability -- our willingness -- to fund medical care. Another part of the problem was access to the growth in expensive technology and medical advances and the question of paying for that access.

"You know, I've always lived my life asking what Jesus would do in a given situation," Fay said. "But I have to be honest, I've encountered situations lately in which I really don't know what Jesus would do." Those words made me better understand why it is so important to hold our leaders up in prayer.

In the years since Fay went home to be with the Lord -- he was killed in a freak farm accident -- I have missed his honesty, his dedication to doing what was best , what was right for the country.

And with all the political bluster these days about reforming our healthcare system, I would feel a lot more confident if Fay were at the table.

No Driver on a Rough Road

Tomorrow (March 5), the president is revving up the engine on his much talked-about healthcare reform summit. Has anyone noticed that we don't have any drivers yet?

Obama's second nomination for HHS secretary has yet to be confirmed. (The first one ran out of gas before he got started because of a tax issue.) We also don't have anyone nominated to head up the FDA, NIH, CMS, CDC -- all that alphabet soup that regulates and dictates our national health issues. Hmmmm, I wonder who's going to do the driving on this one.

We definitely need healthcare reform. Mom spoke to that a bit yesterday in her blog. But we don't need any more excuses for Congress to jump into the driver's seat. And we don't need another reform that's an accident waiting to happen. Remember the Clinton healthcare plan that never got off the starting line?

We do need to keep our leaders in prayer. They're bumping along on some rough roads without a reliable GPS system and not much in the way of emergency equipment.

Old age and other traumas

Are you as tired as I am of the "politics as usual" bull we get hit with every time we turn on the TV? Now that I'm looking at menopause through a rear view mirror,  I figured it was time to gripe about something else—my age, for instance. Having just celebrated another birthday, I'm probably a little more hyper about my age than normal. Which is why,  when I read in Genesis 24:1 that Abraham was "old and well stricken with age," I gasped. Well-stricken with age?

Looking that up in the dictionary wasn't very encouraging. It means "struck  or wounded; afflicted by something painful." Everybody tells me that old  age is simply a state of mind, not a disease.  But if the Good Book says it's an affliction, I'm ready to believe it. Painful affliction I can relate to.  This year I have survived the symptoms my body's deployed....and kept 26 doctors  gainfully employed! One doctor told me my cells are breaking down and forming a hard exterior crust. Naturally, I asked him if that means I'm a "crusty old broad."

"You're not so broad anymore," he said with a laugh."But you are weird!"

He explained that because the crusty layer keeps nutrients and oxygen from getting into my basic cells and prohibits toxins and waste products from getting out of them, nothing in my body works like it's  supposed to. Hence, the diagnosis of "weird." I've had so many infusions and enzymes lately, I feel like a walking agriculture lab. The  doc prescribed still another medicine and said, "I'm afraid you'll have to take this the rest of your life.

"Oh, yeah?" I asked. "Then why does it say in big letters, "NO REFILLS?"

Actually my life these days is sort of like visiting an all-you-can-eat buffet. What should  be hot is cold, what  should be firm is limp, and the buns are the biggest thing on the menu. Likewise everything that should be moist is dry, and what should be dry leaks.

For  awhile,  I went overboard on the healthy eating kick and ate only natural foods. Then I discovered that most people die  of natural causes. Don't you  think all those health nuts are going to feel really stupid, lying in hospitals dying of nothing?

While  it's true my body can no longer take a  direct hit from all those fats and calories, all is not lost. Going downhill, I'm picking up speed....I'm yawning  faster!