Chelsea King is 17.  A senior in high school. Straight A student. A runner.  A world of possibilities on her doorstep.

And now she’s probably dead.

Last week she decided to go for a run after school.  So she parked her car at a park, locked the doors, and probably even stashed her purse in the trunk.  But she never came back.

Yesterday police arrested John Albert Gardner III, after physical evidence led them to believe that Gardner had raped and killed the still missing Chelsea.  This story sucks.  It is the sort of tragedy that is so vile that it’s almost unbearable to think about.  It makes my stomach hurt and my heart twist into a knot and my eyes well up when I think of my two precious daughters.

But it was a punch in the gut to read this part of the story:

Gardner is a registered sex offender convicted of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child younger than 14, the Union-Tribune said. Details of a 2000 criminal San Diego Superior Court case he was involved in were not available, the newspaper said.

What the heck was a man who committed a lewd or lascivious act on a child doing out of prison?  Child rapists give up their government protected rights when they decide to commit the most disgusting and perverted act known to man.  Lock them up and throw away the key.  What the heck good is requiring them to register and making their addresses known to anyone through sites like Megan’s Law?  A site with a disclaimer that specifically states: Anyone who uses this information to commit a crime or to harass an offender or his or her family is subject to criminal prosecution and civil liability.

I just looked up my neighboorhood, and there’s a man living a mile away from me that’s been charged four times with “lewd of lascivious acts with children under 14,” or “oral copulation with persons under 14 by force.”  Now what am I supposed to do with this information?  Skip his house at Halloween?  It’s not like I can stick a sign in his front yard that says, “Beware of Child Rapist!” That might hurt his feelings or something.

Something is wrong with our system when the sex offenders have more rights than Chelsea King did.  Because of all the protection awarded to convicted sex felons, her young life was unprotected.  A list of addresses is not enough.  Obviously.

Today the Supreme Court knocked out significant campaign finance laws, all of which had been unconstitutionally enacted in the name of “fairness.”  The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) attempted to restrict electioneering by wealthy corporations and labor unions by barring them from using general treasury funds to pay for advertisements or other broadcasts that mention a political candidate.  Just a little bit of unconstitutional censorship, that’s all.

In a 5-4 vote, the Court lifted those restrictions.  Which means that companies will be able to run ads for candidates they like.  You know what kinds of candidates companies like?  The ones that make it easier for them to actually run their businesses, instead of trying to bankrupt them with mandated health care requirements and cap and trade.  If they can successful run a company, they can expand operations… and create jobs!  Remember, it’s better to have a job and no health care than no job and no health care.

From the White House, President Obama called the ruling a “major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

This from Mr. Closed Door himself. Obama doesn’t care about everyday Americans.  We’re all just serfs to him, here only to fund his playground of policies and bailouts.  Well we’re done Mr. President.  We’re picking up our toys, packing up our trucks, and going home to the Constitution. Don’t let the sand hit you in the teeth.

Do you watch Fox News? It’s on quite a bit over here.  My six year old even said the other day, “Why is Glenn Beck always crying?” At that point, I flipped it off and laughed for ten minutes straight.

I choose Fox over MSNBC or CNN because I think it does a better job of reporting the news.  The anchors don’t call other Americans rude and vulgar names, talk about tingles up their leg, or fail to report on major world news like a stolen election in Iran.

Plus, we have Megyn Kelly and they have Rachel Maddow.  Do a quick Google image search if you don’t know what I’m talking about.

Maybe because we’re not filled with the bitterness of fighting a non-existent war with The Man (we already know we’re equals, and screw you if you don’t agree), but conservative women just seem to be prettier.  Happy.  Glowy.  Smiley.  I don’t think there’s one unfortunate looking babe female professional news anchor or contributor on Fox News. Well, except for Shep Smith, of course.

And today the news broke that one more intelligent and beautiful woman is joining the ranks: Sarah Palin.  Time will tell if this is a good move on her part, but I know one thing for sure.  This is going to make for some great TV.

Harry Reid is an out of touch dunderhead. This morning, the Senate Majority Leader apologized for his 2008 comments describing then-Senator Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

The more than a year old comments came to light just now because they are included in the book Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin.  The book details the 2008 race for the Presidency, and is set to be released Monday.

After excerpts from the book were released this morning, Senator Reid issued a statement:

I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments.

I was a proud and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama during the campaign and have worked as hard as I can to advance President Obama’s legislative agenda.

Moreover, throughout my career, from efforts to integrate the Las Vegas strip and the gaming industry to opposing radical judges and promoting diversity in the Senate, I have worked hard to advance issues important to African American community.

First off, I wouldn’t brag about advancing President Obama’s radical leftist agenda.  People aren’t liking that so much anymore.

Second, why brag about promoting issues important to only one group of people?  That’s rude to other demographics, and it’s demeaning to the group being “helped.”  Think of it this way: Black people, you need government assistance because you’re incapable of making it on your own like us smart white people.  Isn’t that the dumbest thing you’ve ever heard?  Yet liberals vote like that all the time, and Harry Reid just bragged about it.  Yet somehow conservative tea-partiers are the racists. Go figure on that one.

Third, I’m not sure who should should be the most offended by his comments, the darker skinned Americans he specifically apologized to, or everyday, average citizens that he gravely insulted by implying that we’re so small-minded that we could never elect a “truly black” man(whatever that means) to the White House.  I’m deeply offended by his implication that a black man would have to “act white” (again, whatever that means) in order to be elected.

As I was writing this post, I saw a tweet from BreakingNews saying:

Obama accepts Reid apology for racial remark saying ‘the book is closed’ on the issue – BNONews

I’m so glad the book is closed for the white guy in a black guy’s skin (at least according to Harry Reid), but I believe this issue deserves closer examination. Why do top liberals have so little faith in Americans to look past someones skin color? We don’t need programs that benefit one racial group over another. Our differences and diversities should be celebrated, not pitted against each other in a sick political game that no one ever wins.

When I look at someone, I see a person. White, black, or somewhere inbetween, young or old, male or female… we’re all people individually made by the hand and breath of God (yes, even Harry Reid). I wish liberals could see the same thing.

Well, it looks like the Senate has its 60 votes to pass the health care bill through.  A bill so fantastic that votes had to be bought by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), Rep. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), and Lord knows how many others.  There were a few whose votes couldn’t be bought.  So the Democratic leaders resorted to threatening their family members unless they supported the bill.

Not only is the health care bill so stellar that Senators had to be bribed and threatened into voting for it, but it’s going to be voted on at 1 o’clock in the morning, four days before Christmas.  Some perspective for you- no one will see any benefits from this bill until 2013 (if ever), yet it’s being rushed through in the middle of the night during a time when most Americans have turned off their TVs and put down their newspapers in the hopes of having a joyful holiday season with their friends and family.  I understand doing what we have to do, but this is NOT something that couldn’t easily wait until January.

During debate on the Senate floor today, Senator Tom Coburn made some excellent points and observations on why this health care bill is not a health care reform bill, but only an unsustainable health care coverage expansion.  Sen. Coburn is one of only two practicing physicians in the Senate (the other is Senator John Barrasso), so he speaks from the unique perspective of being both a doctor and a politician.

Sen. Coburn pointed out that there are zero guarantees that taxpayers won’t finance abortions, zero prohibitions on the rationing of health care, and zero Senators required to enroll in either Medicaid  or another government run option.  The Republicans proposed amendments to disallow the use of federal funds to finance abortions or the rationing of health care, but the Democrats voted down the measure.  Let me ask you this: If funding for abortions and rationing of care aren’t part of the plan for this bill, why wouldn’t the Democrats put those amendments in?  That’s like a bookie betting on a game to get others to bet as well, without actually putting any money into the pot.  The bookie ends up making money, and I’ve read enough crime dramas to be pretty sure that that’s highly illegal, not to mention immoral.

What does this health care bill do besides use tax payer money to provide abortions and limit care to those the government deems “unworthy” due to age or lifestyle or previous health?  It creates ten new taxes, and seventy-one new government programs.  There are 1,697 times that the Secretary of Health and Human Services will write regulations, and 15,000-20,000 new government jobs will be created to carry out this legislation.  That’s funny, I thought the idea was to create more DOCTORS to treat more patients at an affordable price, but I guess a job-is-a-job-is-a-job, right?  Maybe those four out of ten doctors that said they’d consider quitting the practice of medicine if this bill passes can apply for a job with the government.

Another thing in the bill is the word shall.  It’s in there a lot- 3,607 times at last count.  What’s significant about the word shall?  It takes away your options.  The bill does not say, “You may choose to purchase health care insurance in the event that you become ill or injured,” it says, “You shall purchase health care insurance, whether you want it or not!”

That’s the individual mandate that you’ve been hearing about.  It is the first tax in United States history that will tax you for simply existing.  It’s not based on your work or purchases or decision as to whether to take the toll road or surface streets.  It’s a tax that you can choose not to pay by choosing not to breathe.  And even though I’m not a doctor, I’m fairly certain that breathing is pretty important.

That’s not right! You may be saying to yourself.  No, it isn’t right. It’s completely unconstitutional. And more likely than not, it will be completely unenforceable in court.  Which means that no one will buy health insurance until they are sick or injured. And given that the bill will require health insurance companies to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, and place limits on how much they may charge their customers, they will inevitably go bankrupt.  Leaving the only option the government option.  That, my friends, is called socialized health care, and it has never worked well.

The government is not compassionate. We already see rationing in government run health care systems like Medicare and Medicaid.  The government already comes between elderly and/or underprivileged patients and their doctors, deciding what treatments and procedures may be done, regardless of the patient’s personal history or the doctor’s recommendation.  Why on Earth would it be a good idea to expand government control of health care, when Medicare and Medicaid are inarguablly broken and on the verge of bankruptcy?

People are compassionate. Doctors are compassionate. Neighbors and family and benefactors are compassionate.  Let’s focus on incentivizing the prevention and treatment of chronic disease, creating transparency so that we can choose and purchase our own health care insurance based on value and quality, and assisting those facing tough times that need some extra help.  That’s true reform.  This bill is nothing but smoke and mirrors to lead our once liberty-loving country into a single-payer health care system.

In the words of Ronald Reagan during a 1961 radio interview:

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

The government is not compassionate.

This says it all.  We Americans are entirely too politically correct.  Why was this man not required to purchase two seats (allegedly from American Airlines)?  Was the airline afraid to hurt his ginormous feelings?  Seriously people- have some common sense!  If you take up the space of two seats, then you need to purchase two seats.  It’s not discrimination, it’s common sense.  And if the fat guy’s feelings get a little bruised?  Well, maybe he would think twice before picking up that double bacon cheeseburger.

Terence McKay and Beth Humphrey were given quite a shock when they tried to get married by justice of the peace Keith Bardwell in Louisiana.  Mr. Bardwell refused to sign the license, saying in his experience, interracial marriages did not last long, and that he was concerned for any children the couple might have.

Mr. Bardwell needs to keep up with the times.  While it’s true that many “mixed-race” children suffered identity crises and were often tormented by peers and in their souls in the 1960s and 1970s, in 2009 it’s generally believed that multiracial children don’t fare any better or worse that children of other ethnic categories.  According to Time Magazine:

…a new paper in the Journal of Social Issues shows that multiracial adolescents who identify proudly as multiracial fare as well as — and, in many cases, better than — kids who identify with a single group, even if that group is considered high-status (like, say, Asians or whites).

Look no further than Tiger Woods, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Alicia Keys, Apolo Anton Ohno, or Barack Obama himself to see examples of highly successful multiracial individuals.  Heck, I found several sources online claiming that Winston Churchill was part Native American!  I’m glad that no one told those children they were born to a life of torment and suffering.

And as for the marriages not lasting?  I’d be willing to bet that two 18 year old kids that get married have a much higher chance of divorcing than an interracial couple, based on statistics alone.  It’s a fact that the divorce rate goes up for subsequent marriages, does Mr. Bardwell deny matrimony to couples that had previously been married?

I’m a proponent of individual rights, the rights of citizens to make their own choices, no matter how asinine or archaic they may be.  But if Mr. Bardwell wants to only marry the couples that he believes will “make it,” and who will raise well adjusted children together, he better start requiring premarital counseling before he agrees to marry anyone. It is impossible to determine whether or not two people will have a lifelong marriage or raise happy, healthy children based on outward appearances alone.

President Obama was on TV this morning (again), doing a wonderful job of reading off the teleprompter (again), encouraging all who were listening to have hope that things will change (again).  This time, he was addressing the UN (United Nations) and calling for a new world order.  The speech was so full of conundrums that I’m still not entirely sure what it was about.  Take this doozy for example: “Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone.”  What does that even mean? If nations didn’t like the way we acted in the world, why would they work together with us to solve the “world problems” of which Obama speaks?

Does our president still believe in world peace?  He seems to.  He even laid out a plan to achieve it.  We must rid the world of nuclear weapons and increase security from terrorists.  How can we possibly increase security from terrorists if we don’t have bigger and badder weapons than they do?  And since nukes are pretty high up there in terms of big, bad weapons, you can be sure that terrorists are going to do their best to get some.

Assuming that we do manage to get rid of all the terrorists and nuclear weapons; when we’re all getting along, singing kumbya and eating ice cream sandwiches, we can then tackle climate change and global economic opportunity and growth.  First problem with that- there is absolutely no evidence that climate change is a direct response to human behavior and actions.  None.  So how can we tackle an issue that we don’t fully (or even partially) understand?  Second problem- global economics.  Are we going to spread American jobs around the globe?  Haven’t people been complaining for years about jobs going overseas?  Now all of a sudden it’s a good thing?  I just can’t wrap my brain around it.  Or are we going to help other countries to achieve the same level of prosperity that we enjoy in America?  Wouldn’t that be elevating ourselves above other countries though?  Obama specifically said in this morning’s speech, “In an era where our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game…No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed.”

World peace is a myth.  So long as evil resides in the hearts of men, there will be jealousy, greed, entanglements, betrayals, WAR.  Humans are imperfect beings living in an imperfect world, and to believe otherwise is to indulge in childish fantasies.  If President Obama seriously believes that Utopia is possible here on Earth, I only have one question for him.

“Where can I buy my pet unicorn?”

Read Part 1 here

After the morning’s speakers and panels, and after my brush with fame lunch, Liz Cheney spoke to us about the importance of national security. Before she got into the topic at hand, she told us that she had asked her dad (former Vice President Dick Cheney) for some advice on speaking to us grass root activists. He told her, “They are the future of our country. Don’t screw it up.”  What a difference in thinking from some other politicians! This man actually understands the significance of the conservative brush fire sweeping through our country.

Ms. Cheney encouraged us to speak out against an administration that has diminished our ability to obtain information to save lives and prevent attacks.  Our unalienable, God given rights depend on our country having a Commander-in-Chief who will keep us safe. Which we are currently lacking.  Instead we have a Presidential Administration that would rather make the the brave men and women of the CIA the subject of a ridiculous witch hunt, rather than show them the gratitude and appreciation that they deserve.  Those CIA agents should have cookies baked for them, not have their pictures shown to terrorists who, under the Obama Administration, have a good chance of being released and planning more attacks on Americans. They hate us, you know. Really hate us. They believe it’s their mission to wipe us off the planet in the name of their god.  I’m sorry, why are we pandering to these slugs again?

There’s nothing wrong with walking softly, but as Teddy Roosevelt said, we need to carry a big stick. Freedom isn’t free, and America must negotiate from a position of strength.  I think that Ms. Cheney summed it up perfectly when she said, “America needs a Commander-in-Chief, not a global community organizer.”

Michelle Malkin then took the stage to talk about the significance of being an outspoken conservative woman, some of the challenges we will face, and the importance of not shutting up. She encouraged us moms to help our children embrace our history, not to be ashamed of it. We need to stay on top of what our children are learning in school, and make sure that they are not being educated to ensure a liberal majority in the next generation. It’s not the government’s role to tell us how to sneeze, and it’s certainly not the government’s role to tell us how to raise our kids.

Ms. Malkin explained that the thing that has heartened her the most about the recent and rapid rise of conservatism is that it’s from the ground up. “There’s this ENERGY,” she said.  Those in Washington keep moaning about re-branding the party, but all they need to do is come home and listen to their constituents.  The conservative movement is about holding our elected officials accountable. The accomplice to the crime of corruption is often our indifference, but one person can make a difference. Don’t be afraid to attend a protest, make a phone call, write a letter, or tell a friend what you think.

The last speaker of the day was Rep. Marsha Blackburn, who represents the 7th district of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives. She began by saying that she wanted to teach us to put to work all of the things we’d learned throughout the day about activism and leadership. A conservative woman leader needs to do is get over the myths surrounding it.

Myth #1- “I don’t have the pedigree for that.”  Mythbuster- The best pedigree is hard work & self confidence. Every person has life experience, and they can put those skills together and use them as a building block to achieve their goals. Leadership is an action word, and the only pedigree you need to lead is the gumption to start down that path and grab some others as you walk it.

Myth #2- “I don’t have the special knowledge to do that.”  Mythbuster- There is no special knowledge that is greater than a determined, resourceful soul. You will gain the knowledge and subsequently the confidence you need to keep moving forward as you go along.

Myth #3-  “If I do this, other people will tell my story for me.” Mythbuster- If you don’t define yourself, somebody else will define you. Don’t be silent about your accomplishments, your beliefs, and your goals. Don’t be self-conscious about sharing your successes; take Rep. Blackburn’s grandmother’s advice, “It ain’t braggin’ if you done done it!.”

Myth #4- “I’m too afraid of failing.”  Mythbuster- In politics, the worst thing someone can say is that they won’t vote for you. We can get over that! There is a risk that you will fail, but if you never try, you’ll never succeed either. If you fail, dust yourself off and try again. Remember that two steps forward and one step back is still one step forward.

It is scary to go out into the world and practice what we preach. At Smart Girl Summit, we got to bask in the goal of conservative principles and ideals. Now it’s up to us to go out into the world and share that light with others. It won’t be easy. There will be doubt. You may wonder what’s going to happen if we fail to stop liberalism. Well, what’s going to happen if we fail to TRY?

Thank you, Smart Girl Politics, and especial Teri and Stacy for putting together such a wonderful event.

Nancy Pelosi used to be a fan of disruptive protesters.  In 2006, she believed that nothing was more American than exercising your first amendment rights.  She said so herself.

Why the change of heart Ms. P?  Do you really think it’s reasonable for a different set of rules to apply to people that disagree with you?  Where’s the equality in that?