Same-Sex Marriage on the Ballot

We are less than a week away until election day. Of course, my mind is constantly preoccupied with "Mittmentum" and getting that guy moved into the White House for the next four years. But there are some state races here in Washington that are turning into quite a fight. Or maybe not so much of a fight but more of a game-changer. 

R-74: Allowing same-sex couples to marry.

This is a society game-changer.

I found this WONDERFUL article today. I may be a little "out of the loop" but I haven't even heard of Dennis Prager until I stumbled upon this article. He is a conservative commentator and syndicated radio talk-show host. So, who knew? Not me? But I may look for him from now on! Here are three amazing take-aways from his article:

(1) Prager provided the best view on the other "side" (aka the pro side) that I've seen to date on this issue. He talks about the "fairness" idea within the same-sex marriage argument. All the Pro-R-74 commercials are nice people who love each other and/or family members and want them to be able to marry and be happy. And not allowing them to marry and be happy is unfair. And Prager points out that is true. It is unfair. But when standards are created, they WILL always be unfair to some. He's right. Traditional marriage is not fair for some people and that made me feel more compassion on the issue than before. Simply recognizing this fact was good for me...and maybe I felt a twinge of self-guilt that I lacked more compassion on the issue before. But even though it may be unfair, it's not enough to swing the pendulum in favor of same-sex marriage (...keep reading). 

(2) He also does a VERY FINE job debunking the myth that denying marriage to same-sex couples is equivalent to racism. When I hear this argument, the hairs on my neck literally stand on end. I am not a racist. And I am not a hater. I am moral and I have a right to an opinion on a MORAL argument. Please read his full article if you think opposition to same-sex marriage is somehow equivalent to racism. No matter where you stand on same-sex marriage, it is easy to see how this issue is anything akin to racism. 

(3) His main point is so clear; I just loved it. He essentially states gender is important - vital, in fact to our society. Allowing same-sex marriage will erase gender identifications. My own religious doctrine also coincides with the idea that gender is not an accident: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Prager goes on to state a society that allows same-sex marriage essentially nullifies gender. Forget "motherhood", "fatherhood", mom/dad, male/female. Just watch...litigation over such titles will overflow in our judicial system (it already has...as Prager points to specific examples). He goes on to point out why this will be so destructive. 

My point is...just read this article...wherever you stand on R-74 or same-sex marriage. It is worth 5 minutes of your time. 

Full article click here.

Sources: The Family: A Proclamation to the World

Debate #3 - A Surprise Result

The foreign policy-focused, third and final debate caught me a little off guard last night. I could not figure out why Romney, at the outset, did not zing Obama on Libya. And other times I thought, "Why is he giving the President a pass?" But it all became clear as the debate went forward and I kept thinking, "Man, is Romney calm," and "Why is Obama so snarky?" And as reports are coming out today, we are learning Romney's strategy was calculated and executed to perfection. [Smile] That is why THIS guy is qualified to be President. He knows how to look at the big picture and I thought his entire debate performance showed he has the capacity to lead this country.

Here is a brief rundown of my thoughts:

Obama: The media thinks he won it. I think he may have earned "points" during the debate, but I was frustrated at his outright lies (sequestration, status of forces agreement, Romney on auto bankruptcy, Romney's tuition scholarships, etc.), but I believe he again appealed to his base, so of course they will be happy. I also thought he seemed like he knew what was going on around the world - he should since he's been briefed daily since he was sworn in. I think he maintained his position with voters - probably not too many voters won or lost on this one. I also continue to be baffled at his lack of strategy for his second term...because hiring teachers and making our schools "Number one in the world...in math and science," does not give me enough detail to vote you a second term. I appreciated Romney's calculated response, "Attacking me is not an agenda." Indeed.

Romney: I have been a Romney supporter for a while (towards the end of the primaries), but this debate made me REALLY LIKE him...and see him as a class-act, a leader and a Commander-in-Chief. He was well-versed and knowledgeable about world issues. He was relaxed, cool and calm. Where the President seemed snarky and childish (with a few of his low-blows and personal attacks at Romney), Mitt took the high road...figuratively and literally. He didn't even try to go back and defend Obama's remark about "bayonets and horses", which evidently some military members are a little miffed about today because they still use bayonets and horses...a lot. Despite Mitt not taking Obama to task on the Benghazi attacks, I was glad he talked about the "apology" tour, and Obama's discussion with Medvedev (Russia's President) and how Obama will have more flexibility after this election. I especially liked Romney bringing the focus back to the economy and our national debt. I hope most Americans can see he's completely correct: our debt will undermine us as a nation - prevent us from funding our military as needed, keeping our nation safe, and helping with peace-keeping and humanitarian efforts across the world. America will not be a nation of liberty and freedom and a beacon for the world if we don't have cash.

In Summary: Again, both sides are going to say they won. To suggest votes will be won or lost, I'm not so sure. But folks who still don't know Mitt, could certainly see him as the leader he will be: calm, calculating, smart, and above the fray. Charles Krauthammer said it best, "Romney went large, Obama went very, very small, shockingly small." I want a President who can focus on the big picture. I want a president who does not get wrapped up in petty accusations, snide remarks and childish asides. Personally, Obama turned me off...I just don't see what people "adore" about him. I have a hard time understanding how he can demand respect and validation from the American people when he treats his challenger with such disrespect. I also think Obama's attitude can be enlarged to a global scale: as he mistreats our allies and friends around the world and demeans our own nation, how can our country demand respect from the global community? I just don't see it. Romney can lead - and he WILL lead successfully. He has a thoughtful, calculated plan and Obama, as usual, has words, rhetoric and attacks Romney's plan. I hope the American people are smart enough to see content. Substance is what really matters. 

I hope the next two weeks aren't too unbearable for us all. Expect the claws to come out! The polls are so tight. And here in my own state, the polls for governor are so close. I am on pins and needles. So much excitement! Whatever your political leaning, just make sure you vote!! VOTE VOTE VOTE! Get 'er done!!

Town Hall Debate - My Take

The much anticipated second presidential debate - with much talk about how the President will be more aggressive - did not disappoint in that regard. It was a pretty intense debate. Here's what I thought of each of the candidates:

President Obama: He clearly came out ready to fight. He was more aggressive and showed that he wants the job, but he didn't give many specifics about how he plans to manage the country for the next four years. He took the jabs his followers wanted: Planned Parenthood, Big Bird, 47%, Mitt's wealth, etc. But it takes far more than attacking your opponent to run a country - you have to actually be able to DO it - and I still don't think he made a case for that. Case in point: one participant's question (paraphrasing), "I voted for you in 2008 but I'm disappointed. Why should I vote for you again?" was met with an attack on Mitt Romney. Obama cannot state clearly what he wants to do other than give people a "fair shake, a fair shot," which I am sick of hearing, by the way. 

Governor Romney: I thought his performance was similarly steady to the last debate. What we continue to see is the real Mitt. After his previous debate performance, people exclaimed, "Wow! Mitt did the best I've seen!" but in reality they just hadn't seen all of Mitt before. He is always clear, concise, knowledgeable about his OWN plan and can make a good case for it. I was disappointed he asked Obama direct questions, which opens a door I don't think he should open. I also wished he would have SLAMMED the President on Libya after he deliberately lied about calling it a terrorist attack the day following the tragedy. I felt like it was a missed opportunity. In all, Romney was able to highlight the President's failed promises and shift the focus to Obama's record, not his rhetoric.

Candy Crowley: Yes, the moderator gets her own review because she became a clear-sided participant in this debate. First, the questions, which were obviously very left-leaning. I'm wondering why the question about George W. Bush was brought up. I feel bad for GWB because he hasn't been in office for four years and yet the poor guy is dragged into this presidential debate as if he is a big player. It completely panders to the Left and their argument that somehow Obama's failings are tainted by what Bush did. And I'm sorry, FOUR years. OBAMA has had FOUR years. The question on equal pay for women was an obvious answer to the Left's claim of a Republican "War on Women", and as a woman myself I'm a little ticked the Left doesn't think I care and can understand the economy, taxes, jobs and energy. Give women a little credit. And the AK47 question....what was that?!?! And lastly, Candy gets a big "X" because she swooped in to save the President on the Libya question, almost "fact-checking" for him, and she was wrong. Everyone can go back and see the President did NOT call the Benghazi attack an act of "terror" for over two weeks. She was citing something he said on a more high-level and gave Obama a pass. And I was mad.

Who won?

I think each side will claim they won. I don't think anyone will be on quite the "high" that came as a result of Romney's clear domination last debate. Romney's performance was great as before, but because the President did a better job than last time, the results seem pretty even. But each candidate catered to their base, which will please their followers. What's yet to be seen is if the President's outright lies will come back to haunt him, because he was wrong on his licenses and permits for drilling and completely lied about Libya.

What did you think?? 

VP Debate - My take

My expectations were high for this debate. Ryan had a lot to live up to after the Romney-dominated debate last week, and Biden, clearly with more experience, had the burden to win over what was lost last week. Honestly, upon the conclusion of the VP debate I didn't feel much. I wasn't super excited or on a "high" as was the case last week. Romney's clear win last week made life a little better and the world seemed brighter. 

With that being said, here is my take:

VP Joe Biden:

On substance I thought Biden did well verbalizing specifics and giving a clear view of the Obama/Biden plan going forward. He was clear and authoritative...at times I felt like he was shouting at Martha, but nonetheless I felt he seemed prepared and knowledgeable. I was disappointed in his Libya answers...that whole thing is so scandalous. I'm sure the left will be happy he hammered the 47% issue...although I thought Ryan was pretty good at "defending" it. But aside from Biden's content, his body language really irked me. His smugness, laughing, snide remarks, and constant disrespect of his opponent was distracting and rude. He came off arrogant and childish. At times I just thought, "You are a big jerk with the whitest veneers I've ever seen." He constantly called Paul Ryan "my friend", which is hardly a term of endearment when it comes from Biden. Whatever he won on content, I felt he lost in his treatment of his debate partner.

Congressman Paul Ryan:

Personally, I have to say I really like Ryan. He is so polished and polite and really seemed comfortable talking through issues. Even with Martha Raddatz giving what I considered Biden a bit of "help", Ryan held his own. And while he didn't blow it out of the park, he gave specifics that mattered. I especially liked his answer on abortion (although I'm not sure I like it taking center stage in a Presidential/VP debate). I think he was able to hold the ground Mitt gained last week. He didn't back down. I'm happy with the things he said on Libya, and thought he was clear to bring it back to Obama/Biden's record and slamming this administration for their poor foreign policy. His closing statement seemed to target the right issues whereas Biden's seemed a bit disjointed.

The winner?

I think I'm calling this a tie. Maybe the liberals will call this a win, but I don't know how you win over people with the body language Biden had last night. His total disrespect of Ryan just doesn't seem like a way to win people to your ticket. 

Only a few days to wait before the next Presidential debate. I'm sure Obama is going to come out swinging on the 47% issue...but Mitt is going to slam this administration on Libya. How can you not? The Libya scandal is so indicative of what I despise about this administration: lack of transparency, all-out lies from the President, and a ton of "passing the buck". A U.S. Ambassador was killed...let's not forget about that. See you Tuesday!

Debate #1 - My take

Debate season means the Presidential race is coming to a close, and with how the numbers are looking right now, it's a tight race, which makes the debates all the more important...and exciting! I LOVE the debates!!

Here is my take:

President Obama - Does anyone else get distracted by how LONG it takes for him to actually say something? There is so much talking, pausing, and mumbling I almost forget where he's going. But that personal distraction aside, I thought he put forth a pretty good view of his plan. If Obama is re-elected, he will double down on his current policies for the next four years. We will have more of the same. He didn't say he would handle anything differently, nor should the American people expect something grand and new. I'm not saying that's not good...I'm just saying it's not what I want personally. 

Governor Romney - I thought other than Romney continually starting his talking points with a numbered list "First off...second...etc.", because sometimes that's distracting to me...again a personal thing, I really thought he clearly shared how things will be DIFFERENT. He believes our country needs change. For me and many other Americans, that's where I sit. I do not like the direction this country has gone for the last four years. I believe the budget and economic situation requires desperate attention and change. I particularly liked Romney's nod to specifics in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I believe my government should live and breathe according to these documents. 

***

Call me biased, but I truly thought Romney was the clear winner here. He didn't come off as a bully, but he was strong. He commanded leadership, his head was up the whole time, he was respectful, concise and clear. He made the case for a chance at the Presidency. Obama promised more of the same and with growing entitlements, no plans for reform, unemployment continually on the rise, our budget crisis and spending binge, I just don't think our great nation can survive what he's selling. 

What did you think??

P.S. Is anyone else sooo excited for the Biden - Ryan debate?? I think I'm more excited for that than the next Presidential debate. I have such anticipation for the awesomeness that Biden will spew. He gives me so much comic relief...and he will be on stage SOLO! 

This is NOT Democracy

A major story today. Our President is literally out there altering the landscape of this country, bypassing the legislative process, and making executive orders that affect you and me and this great nation. 

Today, our President and Secretary Janet Napolitano announced a "temporary stop-gap measure...and degree of relief" to over 800,000 illegals. The Department of Homeland Security is no longer allowed to deport young illegals. Instead, these people will be granted work authorizations, which can be renewed indefinitely. Call it what you will, but this is our President giving a free pass to illegals in exchange for their vote.

The President says it's the "right thing to do." Says who? That's not what I learned in school about how the legislative process works. If it's the right thing to do, the legislature will debate the issue, vote and THEN the President can sign his name in approval. 

No one likes political gridlock. It's frustrating when agreement cannot be achieved. But at the same time, political gridlock is a product of a divided country. And our President, rather than help our legislature unite under compromise, refuses to accept the gridlock and believes it gives him some sort of "right" to act alone. It is his excuse to step in and help a group of illegals. I wish he would step in and help our struggling economy and sky-rocketing debt. I wish he would step in to help ME and the regular, every day citizens of this country who sit in fear at the current state of this great nation. 

See the video of President's Speech here and make your own call: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/15/obama-administration-to-offer-immunity-to-younger-immigrants/  - SIDENOTE: I am disgusted at the way Obama belittles and talks to the reporter that is trying to ask him a question (see video). Yes, the reporter interrupts him, but there is a better way to handle it. I wish he would show some class, but every time I see this rudeness it's more evidence to me that behind his charm and smile, Obama's probably not a very nice guy. This is NOT how a leader operates.

Walker Recall Election: A Boost for Conservatives

For those following the Wisconsin recall, the result is a resounding success to conservatives across the nation. It renews a sense of hope that is so often dashed by the mainstream media. Do you know what happened in Wisconsin??  Two years into his term as Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker was making big changes, taking on the labor unions, which have strapped their state economy (not unlike my home state of Washington). Do you remember hearing how the state democrat legislatures fled to Illinois to avoid votes on cutting pensions and requiring unions to contribute a very moderate (and totally reasonable) amount to their benefits? (Sidenote: I think they should have all been fired. How many people who face tough choices at work can choose to just avoid it altogether and NOT show up, yet are still employed after they decide to return? It's completely ridiculous and shameful.) Walker stood up despite the critics and forced real change in his home state, he created results, his opponents (hello Big Labor) came back and forced a recall, which out of the THREE recalls ever to occur in our history, he was the first to remain in his seat.  

For a great summary article from The Heritage Foundation, click HERE.

I've highlighted a few great points below:

"...Reformers who come armed with the strength of their convictions can carry the day - even against the mobs, labor unions, Hollywood, the media, academia and everything else the left throws up these days. All reformers need to do is lead." 

"It was a historic recall election that focused nationwide attention on what has become an existential threat to state governments - the problem of public-sector employee pensions and benefits running states into the red. Walker unabashedly confronted the threat without straddling a fence or tiptoeing around Big Labor's Maginot Line.

"One of Governor Walker's reforms included giving government workers the option to choose whether they wanted to pay union dues. When given the option, tens of thousands of members chose to leave the union. And according to exit polls, a third of union households backed Walker.

"Since Walker took office, the state unemployment rate has fallen from 7.7 percent to 6.8 percent - well below the nation average of 8.2 percent. And last year, Wisconsin employers actually created 23,000 jobs.

"Walker's victory will send shockwaves across the county...[He] stood for reforms that curbed spending and got the state's budget under control - without raising taxes. Despite facing a recall election, Walker was ultimately rewarded for a job well done.

This amps me up for the elections this fall. Think twice about what you hear in the media, it is most likely tweaked to the max. All we were hearing was Walker was in trouble, and yet he won by a wide margin. To my conservative friends, don't think you are so far in the minority...most people out there care about the same things you do. We must come together to elect officials who will bring about REAL CHANGE this fall. Without change, the next four years may prove to be disastrous and bring our nation to the brink of failure. Stand up like Walker! Keep your chin up and your voice heard. Don't be discouraged, Walker just gave us a great boost.

Source: The Heritage Foundation, 06.06.12 http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/06/morning-bell-a-historic-win-for-reform-in-wisconsin/