Day Old Infant Found in Shoebox

According to the New York Post, a newborn girl was found alive in a shoe box which was left at the entrance to an apartment building in Long Island. A breathing hold had been cut in the box for the baby and the umbilical cord had been tied with dental floss. Local authorities say that the baby girl, weighing 5-pounds, 7-ounces, is doing well. At the bottom of the article, the disclaimer states that police are asking for information regarding the parents of the child. My question is simple: Why? Are they going to go after the biological parents for abandonment? neglect? endangerment? All I can say is that I hope they never find out who her parents were.

The key word here is were. This baby was not murdered. Someone took the time to cut an air hold in the box, to tie off the umbilical cord so that she did not bleed to death, and placed her in a place where they had good reason to believe someone would find her and take her to safety. The mother obviously does not want to mother the child. But she made the CHOICE to still give her life. I do not blame the mother for doing what she did. I wouldn’t have made the same choice, but as a choice-preaching society, we must acknowledge that this mother made the right one. If she truly did not feel that she could care for her child, she should not be caring for her.  This mother decided that she did not want to be a mother, so she placed her child in a public doorway where someone could get her to safety and she could eventually find new parents.

So many argue that abortion is a viable alternative for mothers like this one simply because…and I quote…”giving the baby up for adoption and the baby finding out later that he wasn’t wanted, that would be hard.” Well yeah, but life is hard. It’s hard to choose which school to attend, it’s hard to find a job, it’s hard to wake up in the morning when the alarm goes off. This mother made a hard choice. She may have done so in a fashion other than what we deem to be “ideal.” But had the same mother gone to Kansas and had her 5lb 7oz daughter aborted by the likes of the late Dr. Tiller for the purpose of avoiding mental or emotional distress, many people wouldn’t even bat an eye. The police certainly wouldn’t be asking for people to call a TIPS line to help identify her. They would respect her “choice.”

I think it’s high time that we stop criminalizing people for having a conscience. Maybe some of us would have preferred that this mother take her child to a hospital or fire station “or other safe place” but I would argue that this is what her intention was. Even with the so-called “safe-haven” laws, mothers who choose this option are viewed as irresponsible and cruel. So a mother decides to drop her unwanted newborn off at a fire station and do “the right thing” only to see the story on the news the next day and hear stories and commits about how much of a low-life she is. She may not be prosecuted under the law, but she is prosecuted by the public eye. As the argument goes for the pro-choice community, no one just decides to abort their child in the blink of an eye. They supposedly do a lot of soul-searching before coming to that decision. I think that the argument actually holds water when you are speaking of a mother who does not want her child, but chooses to give him life anyway. After she has made such a hard decision, why would we try to give her a sort of scarlet letter and brand her a bad person? Why do we not applaud her for not killing the child or leaving him in a bathroom toilet somewhere?  The Bible tells of the story of baby Moses.  His mother, in a last-ditch attempt to save his life, placed him in a basket to float down the river, in hopes that he would be rescued.  There was always the possibility that he would drown, but that was not the intention of his mother.  She made a heart-wrenching decision so that he would have a small chance at life.  How do we know that this mother was not watching the baby from afar, as Moses’ mother instructed his sister to do? 

Baby Moses floating in the river.

There are comments at the bottom of the story on the New York post calling this woman a monster and stating that she should be left in a pine box. Why do we have our priorities so backward in our society? Why is it that when a mother chooses life, yet makes the difficult decision not to raise her child, we demonize her. Why is it that if she chooses death for the child that we praise her “tough choice?” I want to issue a public THANK YOU to the birth mother of this baby girl. You may not be ready or willing to care for your daughter, but you did give her life, and for that you will always be a hero. You did not take the path that so many take when their children are unwanted. I am not surprised that you don’t want to make your identity known with the way society treats women who give up their children. I do not wish for anyone to raise a child they are not capable of raising, or even that they do not want to raise, but none of us has the God-given right to snuff out that life. You did the right thing. Your baby is safe and has a chance at a peaceful, healthy life.

The Letter

Originally read aloud on Glenn Beck’s show and subsequently posted on his website for the world to see.  I think it is such an amazing collection of the thoughts of so many of us, that it must be shared.  Glenn will air the letter tonight, June 18th, at 5:00p.m. on FOX.

Please note that these are not my words, although they easily could have been written by any number of us, as many share the same sentiments.

GLENN BECK: I got a letter from a woman in Arizona. She writes an open letter to our nation’s leadership:

I’m a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you’re willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

 

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I’m not a racist. This isn’t to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three, Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don’t you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don’t you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don’t trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we’ll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let’s have it. Let’s say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let’s just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I’m busy. I’m busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don’t want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we’re morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we’re so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn’t ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us [who] will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don’t care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

[Janet Contreras] Author’s name later revealed when Glenn had her on to interview her and find out more about her.

To My Angel…On Our Anniversary

June 18, 2004

My Dearest Chet,

I am the most blessed woman on this planet. Most women dreamt of their Prince Charming when they were little girls, and then grew up and decided that he didn’t exist. I am not one of those women. I am fortunate enough to wake up to my Prince Charming every morning.

Your first Father's Day--you never looked more handsome in my eyes.

You have shown me, for 5 glorious years, what it is like to be loved, and in turn how to truly love someone. You have provided a foundation for our children to use in forming their relationships down the road. You’ve given our daughter, Etta, a sort of model that shows her what to expect from the men in her life. I have no doubt that she will take your example and use it to guide her heart.  And you have shown our boys what being a good man is all about.  You are forever the voice of reason, calm, reassurance, security, honor and integrity.  You are understanding, forgiving and unashamedly loving.

Daddy and Etta

 

I didn’t daydream about you when I was a little girl. I dreamt of someone who could never hold a candle to you. I never realized that men like you existed, and I certainly never knew that I was deserving of a love like yours.

Prince Charming, My Angel

Your smile melts my heart. You have a way of expressing the most heartfelt sentiments in the oddest of times. When my hair is a mess and I am completely exhausted, you’ll say something lovely and completely unexpected.  I know that those words aren’t planned, and your sincerity is overwhelming. You have made me feel like a princess from day one. On those rare occasions when we are not both pulling “parent-duty” and are able to just bask in each other’s company, anyone would swear that we were in that “honeymoon” stage of love. The cynics out there don’t believe that these feelings can continue for this long and beyond, but you and I are proof that they are wrong.

I want to shout it from the rooftop what a wonderful man you are. When I hear of women who are in less than ideal relationships, it saddens me to know that they are missing out on the kind of love that you have blessed me with. Even sadder still is the fact that so many of them have given up on finding someone of your caliber. You are that fabled “knight in shining armor,” only you are as real as the sky is blue.  You are my best friend and the love of a lifetime.  You encourage me in every crazy venture that I take.  You honestly want me to be happy even when my whims change like the wind.  You push me when I need pushing.  I always know that if I should stumble and fall, you will be there to catch me.  I feel so proud to call you my husband, and honored to be the mother of your children.   Your mom and dad did such a great service to me when they instilled in you the values that you have.  I could never have thanked your mother enough for doing such an awesome job in helping you to become the man that you are.    I know that she looks down on you and adoration and pride well up in her heart.

Soul Mates

You promised to “show [me] a whole new world,” and boy did you ever. You’ve opened my eyes to unconditional love, and love of myself, and for that I am forever grateful. We are not perfect. We disagree sometimes and we have spirited debates. Even in those moments, your love shines through, and makes me want to be a better person. You have so much good in your heart that you bring out the best in those around you. You can take a volatile situation and with your words, diffuse it. I am constantly in awe of you–whether I constantly show it or not.

A "Match" made in Heaven.

I never thought that I would look forward to getting older, but I do. I get tears in my eyes when I see a loving, elderly couple because I long for the day that we ARE that couple. I want nothing more than to sit on the porch with you and marvel at a beautiful sunset and what a beautiful life we’ve shared together. We may have found each other later in life than I would have liked, but we did find each other. As corny as it may sound…in our case, I swear that Match.com created a match that was made in heaven. I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are the one creature that was put on this planet solely for me. I know in the depths of my soul that God intended for you to love me, and for me to love you. I am overcome with emotion when I think of what a beautiful union He formed with our hearts, so much so that it is hard to swallow at this very moment.

Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for allowing me to love you. Here’s to a lifetime of anniversaries, Angel.

With all of my love…today, forever, and always,

Natalie

Statistical Proof of Left-Wing Media Bias: The Case of Pvt. Long

I am the “opinion” girl, and my husband is the “numbers” guy, it always has been and always will be.  So I was not surprised when my husband emailed his statistical analysis of the Left-Wing media bias.  He has laid out a great case and I find it hard to believe that even those most staunch left-wingers would be able to argue with his findings.  His article and data are below:

I am not a blogger, I don’t sit around and write articles about politics and other current events, as I leave that to my wife.  I have a family that consist of a wife and four children, I work, I pay my bills, I go to church and I spend as much time with my family as possible, and I AM A UNITED STATES VETERAN!  However, I do take the time to pay close attention to the news, on a daily basis, both thru radio and TV.  I watch and listen to all the news outlets such as NBC, CNN, Fox and various radio stations.  I do my best to keep an open mind about what is being reported, and do my best to form an accurate opinion about what is going on.

For awhile, I have heard a lot about media bias.  If you pay attention, you cannot escape hearing about it.  However, in the past, it may have been difficult to tell who is being biased and in what regard.  It used to be somewhat of a challenge to be able to tell who is telling the truth and who is putting their own “spin” on any given situation.  In addition, it has been difficult to tell who is just “overlooking” issues that will go against their biased agenda.

Today, we no longer live in a society in which media bias is difficult to detect.  The past election was the most telling, and the recent reporting of Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad and James Von Brunn will put an end to the debate.

Never heard of Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad?  Well, that is not surprising.  Unless you have been listening to or reading articles from Fox News, then the name is probably foreign to you.

Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad is the Muslin convert who shot and killed Pvt. William Long, 24, of Conway, Arkansas.    He said in a telephone interview that he did not consider killing Pvt. Long murder because “U.S. military action in the Middle East made the killing justified.”  As ludicrous as that sounds, keep in mind that Pvt. Long was never in the Middle East.

Enter James Von Brunn who has been described as “the man responsible for the death of an African American…”  While this is completely true, I have yet to find a source in the Main Stream Media (MSM) that states Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad as anything related to “a man who killed a White American”.  To take it further, the MSM has been jumping all over this as being connected to “Right-Wing Extremists”.  Have you heard anyone at CNN, MSNBC, CBS, or ABC connecting Abdul Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad to “Left-Wing Extremists”, or any group for that matter?  Probably not.  It is blatantly obvious that if they cannot tie despicable acts, as both of these are, to right-wingers, they pretty much let them fly under the radar.

Depending on your views, you might be thinking that this is just one person’s opinion, no hard statistical data to prove this.  Fine, if statistical data is what you want, then that is what you will get.

Today, June 11, 2009, around 12:00 pm, I decided to put my theory to test.  I decided to conduct an experiment using Google, to see if I could validate my suspicions.  I did an individual search with each man’s name, and each time I tied in a different news outlet in the search engine to see the number of hits it would generate.  For example, I conducted a Google search for “James Von Brunn CNN”, then I did one for “Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad CNN”.  I did the same for MSNBC, NBC, NBC News, ABC, ABC News, CBS, and CBS News.  The results were shocking.  When you look at this, keep in mind that the Arkansas shooting has been running for about 9 days more than the National Holocaust Museum shooting has.

The numbers do not lie.  These were taken directly from the results section when conducting a search in Google’s search engine.  This was completed on the same day, within a 2 minute time span.

To break it down, on a daily basis, the MSM (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS) generated 203,970 hits for James Von Brunn and only 42,270 hits for Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, despite having a 9 day lead.  As a result, James Von Brunn had an average hit per day of 101,985 while Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad had an average hit per day of 3842.  It boils down to an average daily hit ratio of 27 to 1, based on the number of days since the incidents had occurred.  On a daily basis, James Von Brunn received 27 more times the coverage that Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad.  While CNN was the least biased of the four, NBC lead the pack by covering James Von Brunn 35 more times on a daily average than Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad.  INSANE!!!!!!!!!!

The question you must be asking yourself is…WHY?  Why has James Von Brunn had so much more coverage than Abdul Muhammad?  They both committed despicable acts, they both acted on their own accord, they both had a history of violence (by the way, Abdul Muhammad had already been investigated by the FBI, but you won’t find the MSM reporting that).  The differences are, one is white and one is black, one is a converted Muslim and one a white-supremacist, one hated Jews and one hated American servicemen.

The reason is simple.  James Von Brunn’s motives SEEM to push the left-wing agenda.  The MSM have over and over claimed him to be a right-wing extremist.  They see his actions as ammo to use against the right and in particular conservative talk show radio.  But they are wrong.  As Rush pointed out on June 11, 2009, many of James Von Brunn’s ideology adheres to the left, not the far right ideologies.  In addition, it turns out FBI agents found that James Von Brunn was carrying the address of the conservative magazine “Weekly Standard” on him at the time of the shooting.  Politico writer Ben Smith wrote that James Von Brunn may have been planning on attacking “The Weekly Standard”, and that “Von Brunn’s published rants included attacks on “neocons,” and the Standard has been at the heart of the neoconservative movement”.    If this turns out to be true, this should surely back-fire on the MSM, and it will be interesting to see how they spin it, or bury it in their usual manner.

The logical reason for the lack of Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad ‘s coverage by the MSM is because it would severally tarnish the left’s agenda.  Democrats, in particular Nancy Pelosi, have been pushing for the release of pictures of Gitmo detainees.  The Republicans have overwhelmingly supported NOT publishing the photos as it would fuel violence against American soldiers.  Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad ‘s statement regarding his reasoning for killing Pvt. Long, would certainly give credence to the Republican stance.  Not to mention, it would go against everything that President Obama’s Middle East tour was based on.

In conclusion, left-wing supporters can try and debunk my reasoning for the reporting bias that is the subject of this article.  What they cannot deny is its accuracy.  Again, the numbers do not lie and it is hard to justify a 27 to 1 ratio, no matter how they try to spin it.

Chet Nichols
USAF 92-97

House Republicans Unveil American Energy Act

Last summer, 11 members of American Energy Solutions group traveled to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado and flew up to ANWR to come up with what they termed an “all of the above” strategy to meet our nation’s energy demands. Their ideas have come to fruition and have just been unveiled as the House Republicans’ alternative energy bill.

• House Republicans recognize that as gas prices and home utility bills rise, American families are dealt an even greater economic hardship.
• The Democrats’ answer to the worst recession in decades is a national energy tax that will lead to higher energy prices and further job losses.
• Thousands of dollars in extra energy costs and millions of jobs lost is a high price to pay for an energy policy that will do very little to clean up our environment.
• The American people deserve better. The American Energy Act is an all of the above plan that will provide energy independence, more jobs here at home, and a cleaner environment.
• The American Energy Act increases our domestic supply of energy by lifting restrictions on ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf, and oil shale in the Mountain West.
• The House Republican plan renews America’s commitment to clean and emissions-free nuclear energy.  The Department of Energy has stated the best way for utility companies to reduce carbon emissions is to increase their supply of nuclear energy.
• Despite the enormous success of nuclear energy, no new nuclear reactor has been ordered since the presidency of Jimmy Carter.  The House Republican plan builds on the success of nuclear energy by laying down a national goal of ordering 100 new nuclear reactors over the next twenty years.
• Revenue generated by the sale of leases will be invested in renewable and alternative sources of energy.  The House Republican plan also encourages conservation through proven tax incentives.
• The American people don’t want a national energy tax; they want energy independence.  The House Republican plan is the comprehensive energy solution this country desperately needs.

   

Wednesday, June 10th, Representatives Robert Latta (R-OH) and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) were gracious enough to host a conference call for bloggers and energy reporters.

Rep. Robert "Bob" Latta (R-OH)

Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)

 

Rep. Latta informed bloggers that right now in North Western and North Central Ohio, they are approximately 25 cents above the national gas price average due to the fact that over 80% of all of the gas being brought into the state is currently being trucked in. His constituents are concerned, as is he. Rep. Latta says that this is but one of the reasons why we have such a need for the “all of the above” approach: nuclear energy, clean coal energy, oil, natural gas, hydro, geothermal, wind, sun, biothermal, etc. The last nuclear power plant started in the U.S. was in 1977. Rep. Latta is concerned with the fact that we have so many renewable resources that we essentially are not allowing to be accessed. He states that if we can keep our money at home we will be less dependant on foreign countries and generally be more safe.

Representative Lummis is dissatisfied with the national energy tax, which is the Democratic Energy Policy. She states that we need to rely on solar, wind, and especially nuclear energy, as well as bio-fuels, in addition to oil, natural gas and coal. Wyoming is the #1 producing state of hydrocarbons, a leader in wind energy, and acording to Rep. Lummis it is the #1 producer of uranium. Rep. Lummis attended a meeting in California to learn more about solar energy projects.

Both Representatives stress the importance of relying on new technologies to power our country and lessen our dependence on foreign nations. Representative Latta’s plan will be sensitive to the environment, create jobs, and provide security to our country. President Obama says that Iran can move forward with nuclear power, but here at home he wants us to focus on wind and solar only. The Republican solution strongly supports an “all of the above” approach, which is a stark contrast to that which the Democrats are proposing.

No nuclear reactor has been ordered since the Presidency of Jimmy Carter, according to Rep. Lummis. The Republican plan has a goal of ordering 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years, in addition to accessing an array of other types of alternative energy.

During the question and answer portion of the call, Representative Lummis was asked whether she would be interested in having a nuclear plant built in her home state of Wyoming. Rep. Lummis stated that it was probably impractical to have a nuclear plant built in Wyoming because of the demands for water and the importance of having the electrical generating capabilities near the user, however because Wyoming is the #1 uranium producing state, there are processes that lead up to nuclear reactors that may be completed in Wyoming. Her follow up question was whether or not Wyoming would have any interest in storing waste from a reactor. Representative Lummis stated that she was interested in recycling spent fuel in the manner which France recycles its spent fuel–a topic she says is covered in the bill presented by Rep. Latta. She says that there are abilities to recycle spent fuel rods that are in use in France, which we do not use simply because of policies that were enacted during the Carter administration. She has a desire to revisit those strategies in an effort to get as much energy out of the rods as possible, and with an end result of rendering the rods much more benign as a finished product.

The next question asked what provisions in the bill would enable the 100 nuclear facilities over the next 20 years. Rep. Latta stated that when writing the bill, those involved had to look at what the future would bring. In doing so, they looked to China, Russia, and others, and noted that the United States is way behind those countries on this front. The bill includes oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The 100 nuclear facilities proposed would include sites that are already licensed, being submitted by an operator in good standing, and have demonstrated the financial commitment for the long term. Lots of the components will have to come from overseas until we can catch back up with the rest of the world. Canada can get nuclear reactors built in a much shorter time period than we can, currently. These Representatives aim to change that. Offshore drilling sites would be leased, dollars would flow back from the money the bill would produce. The Democratic option picks winners and losers. The Republican version looks to stop that process because the Representatives feel that it will take everything we’ve got. The Democrats propose the cap and taxes. These taxes affect everyone from the manufacturers right down to the end users who turn on the switch every morning. Americans are taxed enough already and according to Rep. Latta, “just can’t take that hit…The Heritage Foundation has projected that to be about $4800 per family.” Everyone is a winner under this bill, the Republicans are not picking winners and losers, unlike the Democratic plan.

Representative Lummis states that the bill takes a very comprehensive approach, in particular with the trust fund which would cover recovery all the way down to research. She also stated that the 100 nuclear reactors is a proposal, which could include their megawatt equivalent. There is no short-circuiting of the process, applicants would have to comply with all safety precautions in place.

Another questioner wanted to find out the way the Republicans define their policy. Rep. Latta went back to when Speaker Pelosi turned the lights out on the floor and the representatives discussed energy. The Republicans are considering what is a base load capacity, which Latta says the Democrats are not concerned with. The “all of the above” approach, including traditional and alternative energy sources, is what the Republicans are going for. The Democrats are all into everyone having electric cars and are mutually against coal. Representative Latta asked the question, “If you’re going to have all of these electric cars, where are you going to plug them into?” What the Republicans are looking at is a broad-based, across the board, “all of the above” policy.

“There are no caps in this bill, and in their heart of hearts most of the Democrats will tell you that the caps in their bill cannot be met by 2012,” stated Rep. Lummis. The Republicans do not choose to place artificial caps in the bill. With regard to oil shale, this bill requires that the secretary will release shale within 120 days of the bill taking effect, according to Lummis. The bill is very specific and provides the final oil shale management rules.

Representative Latta concluded by providing details about specific types of diagonal drilling which would assist us in recovering the resources from places such as ANWR, while at the same time leaving the areas as pristine as possible. Once again, as the Representatives stated in their presentation, everyone wins with the House Republican Alternative Energy bill.

For more information, including the full text of the bill, please visit www.gop.gov/energy.

For your convenience, I have provided links to the literature that can be found on the GOP’s website regarding this bill. Please educate yourself on the alternative that is being presented and how it contrasts from the Democrat option that is before your Representatives. The media would have you believe that the GOP is “the party of no,” simply because they want to distract you from the alternatives that the GOP provides. Pass this information on to your friends and family members and by all means, contact your elected officials and give them your opinions on the matter.

Full Text of the American Energy Act bill

2 page Summary of the AEA bill

Full Summary of the AEA bill

Talking Points (also listed previously in the bulleted section of this article)

Energy Related Videos

Energy Related Documents

Energy Summits

The truth about why some women hate Palin

Obviously there are many reasons for various women to dislike Sarah Palin.  She is a proud Conservative, she is a working mother, she is religious, and she is a Republican.  Those are all valid reasons for those with differing views not to like Palin.  But one look at the news on any given day, and it is clear to see that her outward appearance is of equal importance to many who hate her.  Many women never gave Sarah Palin a chance because, in essence, they think she doesn’t “look the part of a leader.”  What exactly does a leader look like?  A man? 

We’ve all heard the phrase glass ceiling, but I’m here to tell you that it doesn’t exist. The proverbial glass ceiling is nothing but a myth. It is an excuse for the behaviors that women exhibit that set our entire sex up for failure.  We, and we alone, are responsible for this notion that a beautiful woman cannot be politically successful and effective.  We think that a woman can be beautiful or she can be powerful, but rarely both.

It is not men who insist that a woman cannot be both beautiful and respected at the same time. Certainly men take part in this ideology, but it is only because women initiate it. If we want to be taken seriously, we feel that we must emasculate ourselves. We think to ourselves, “how dare she” if another woman attempts to keep her femininity and be successful at the same time. Sarah Palin is the epitome of this phenomenon. When a woman dares to succeed, and not lose herself in the process, we take that as an assault on our own chances. We feel we have no other recourse but to nip it in the butt. We don’t wait for men or for society to pull her back down. We will rip her to shreds ourselves…just in case.

Take Katie Couric for example. Katie was a beautiful woman, adored by many while she was co-anchor of The Today Show. Mrs. Couric was loved for her quick wit and even her stylish appeal. She was offered the opportunity to anchor CBS’s Evening News, and for some reason, she changed her “look.” Whether it was of her own doing, or on the advice of others, Katie went from looking fresh and vibrant, to a matronly, school marm version of her old self. She changed both her makeup and wardrobe. Eventually, with the drastic change, she cut off her hair. Oddly enough, other women commented that this new look appeared “more professional” than the “old Katie.” This is something I will never understand. Was Katie Couric given the spot because of something she might become, or because of who she already was? Why did she not feel comfortable enough in her skin to stay true to herself? The answer is simple. Because it is ingrained into women that they cannot be feminine and be respected simultaneously.

Women are told from the time that we are young that men will never allow us to achieve this or that. The truth is that women, as a sex, are akin to crabs. You can catch one crab, place it in a bucket, and soon it will claw its way out to freedom. But if you catch two crabs and place them in the bucket together, you are golden. Crabs, like women, do not allow one another to advance in life. All of the crabs may wish to escape the bucket, but at the same time, if they see one smart enough to be close to escape, they will reach up and pull the almost successful crab back down. They would rather wallow in sorrow together, than to watch one of their own succeed.

Women have been doing this to each other for years. We use language that masks the true intention, like empowerment. But we are not empowering women by our current actions. Instead of giving other women a boost and being proud of their successes on their way up the ladder, we hover around in an angry mob, ready to grab them by their heels. The only way we can allow women any bit of success is if we strip them of their femininity. Are we naive enough to think that a woman is only a woman if she is cloaked in femininity? Are we so shallow that we only wish the best for and respect women who attempt to masculinize their appearance?

Agree with her or not, Janet Reno was taken seriously as an authority figure because she did not appear feminine. Madeline Albright was accepted because of her appearance. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that these women were ONLY accepted because of their appearances, but we as a gender, gave them the benefit of the doubt because of their appearance. MSN’s Encarta lists the 10 Most Powerful American women. Nancy Pelosi is there as Speaker of the House. Condoleezza Rice is shown, with one of her more masculine hairstyles.

This is saddening because Condie is a beautiful woman, as shown in the following photo from BET, and she should be free to embrace that.

Hillary Clinton, Sandra Day O’Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anne Sweeney all have something in common besides making Encarta’s list. They share similar tastes in hairstyles.

Hillary Clinton was allowed to champion the feminist cause because she wore pantsuits and had short hair. If a woman feels beautiful with short hair, I applaud her. But I get a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach when a woman styles her hair or her clothing a certain way simply to be accepted in what they perceive as “a man’s world.”

I am guilty of falling prey to this mentality myself. Before Sarah Palin entered the picture, I secretly hoped that Hillary would succeed in her quest simply because I wanted to see another woman achieve something great. I thought to myself…Self…”They” will let this woman achieve greatness because she is not seen as a feminine woman. How ignorant was I? When I saw Sarah Palin come out on the scene, here was a beautiful woman, a mother, and a politician who shared my principals. I should have known that women would be her worst enemy.

Ladies, wake up, WE ARE BEAUTIFUL! And we can be smart and powerful and kind and strong all in the same package. We do not have to trade one for the other. Women are the only ones who have allowed it to be a man’s world for this long. And women are the only ones who can put an end to it, once and for all. The next time you hear a woman speak, it is up to you to embrace her for the feminine creature that she is. She is not competing with you or dragging you down. You are doing that to yourself. A beautiful woman with intelligence and something to say is not a threat, she is the embodiment of YOU. Listen to what she has to say, appreciate her words and take her at them. Do not delude yourself into thinking that the likes of David Letterman, who joked about Sarah Palin’s teenaged daughter getting knocked up by A-rod at a Yankee’s game and claimed that Palin bought makeup to go along with her “slutty flight attendant look,” gets to dictate social policy. A woman is allowed to be feminine without fearing that she will be demeaned or viewed as a sexual object and nothing more. Yes, we have reproductive organs, but we are more than that, although rapper Eminem may have missed that day in class. We, as a gender are allowing the likes of Playboy to list the powerful conservative women they would like to “hate f—.” If we don’t agree with the woman’s views, we’re ok with her being on that list. Instead we should be outraged.

Let’s not lie any longer to ourselves. We do not empower one another by aborting our children, or fighting for the rights of others to do so. Most of us don’t know anything about Planned Parenthood other than what we’ve been told to think. Someone tells us they are empowering women, so we think that they must be. We do not empower one another, or ourselves, by picking apart other women simply for being women. I can’t count the number of times I have heard another woman speak of someone as “a blonde bimbo,” even if that blonde woman was a political commentator who really knew her stuff. Ann Coulter is one who comes to mind who has been branded with this negative image simply based on her looks.  Why do we insist on selling ourselves short in that manner?

We can only empower ourselves by opening our eyes and coming out of the shadows. We can’t be afraid to get behind a woman who stands for everything that we stand for, simply because she is also beautiful. It is as if we look at certain women, like Sarah Palin, and say that we wish we could find someone who believed the things that she did, but who didn’t look as pretty. The sad truth is that we don’t even realize we are insulting ourselves and our daughters with this mentality. Soccer moms, strong women, beautiful women, and women who feel comfortable in a skirt and heels are out there. Their ideas and opinions are just as valuable as any man’s, or any woman who wears only pants and has short hair, for that matter.  Why do we allow someone like David Letterman to insult another beautiful woman the way he does, simply for being viewed as beautiful?

This photo (at Left) shows a beautiful mother with her beautiful daughter.  How is it that we hate ourselves, as a whole, so much that we would allow someone to call her a “slutty flight attendant?”  I would like to think that we are more enlightened than that.  This issue is larger than Sarah Palin.  Self-loathing, as a gender, is a problem that has been plaguing us, young and old, for quite some time.  We do not have to be someone else to succeed.  We do not have to hide behind the image of a man to make a difference in this world.  If you are a woman and you have strong ideas about something, STAND UP, but by all means do not feel that you have to make a run to the hair salon for a chop job just to prove your worth.  Women today give the slogan, “Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful” a whole new life.  In closing, let’s not forget that Ronald Reagan didn’t “look the part” either.  He was “just some actor from Hollywood” but boy did he do a world of good for this great nation.  Ladies, let’s not rob ourselves of that same opportunity based on some archaic notion of what a leader should look like.