False Titles for Articles

July 13th, 2007 You know, it just makes me grumpy when I see the title of an article, think that the article is going to say one thing, and then when I click on it to read it, I end up finding something else completely different. It tends to make me a bit…testy, to say the least.

That happened today when I saw the article title, "Massachusetts GOP Rebuffs Mitt on Delegate Policy." I clicked on the article and found out that the Republican party in Massachusetts used to delegate the votes in the primary based on the percentage of votes that the candidate won (so if Mitt gets 40% of the votes of Republicans in Mass., then he would get 40% of the delegate votes). Then in 1995, they changed that to a winner-takes-all method, and now they have finally changed it back to proportional voting again.

Why does this relate to Mitt? Well, you finally find out this, five paragraphs in:

"While several Romney supporters on the committee pushed for the winner-take-all policy, Torkildsen said that the Romney campaign did not press for the winner-take-all vote, and that at least two members backing Romney voted against it."

So you have several Romney supporters for the winner-take-all policy, several against, and the Romney campaign neutral on the subject. And yet when the winner-take-all policy was rolled back, somehow this was a defeat (or "rebuff") of Mitt Romney?

How do these journalists sleep at night, honestly? I just don't get it.

Havs

[?] Share This Posted in Republican Committee, Massachusetts, spin by newspapers, Presidential candidate, Republican party, Mitt Romney, Election 2008 | No Comments »

Democratic Smear Video on YouTube

July 13th, 2007 At lunch today, I was going through a feeder with 10 articles in it from different newspapers. Four out of those ten were about a montage of videos put together by the Democratic National Committee. I checked out the video myself, and decided that this deserved a rebuttal, something I enjoy doing. First, here's the video:

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video Let's take it one thing at a time, shall we? All of the following quotes are from Romney:

"I'm not convinced a state would be better off with all Republicans. As a matter of fact, I've been in a state like that for the last three years. It's not a good thing."

I also live in a state with all Republicans. Idaho is just as conservative as Utah in every aspect you can think of. If you're trying to name the top five most conservative states in the Union, Utah and Idaho would head that list. And I'm telling you right now: I agree with Mitt Romney. He isn't saying that Republicans are bad. He's saying that having a state with no balance, that is strictly one-sided, isn't a good thing. I completely and utterly agree. In the last election, I did something I had never done before: I voted for a Democrat, who happened to be running for governor of Idaho. I had gotten sick of the way that the Republican party in Idaho seemed to be taking the voters for granted. I didn't like the Republican candidate, and I was disgusted by the fact that even though he wasn't the best man for the job, everyone just assumed that he would win, because he had that little R behind his name. I wanted to send a message to the politicians in Idaho that you cannot take the voters for granted by putting up some idiot for election who doesn't actually stand for any of the values that Idahoans stand for, and still expect us to swallow the candidate hook, line, and sinker because he has that R there.

Unfortunately, there weren't enough Republicans who revolted against the system, and we did in fact end up with the Republican as our governor. But at least I tried.

I can tell you right now though, that living in a fiercely Republican state isn't all that you would imagine it would be. The politicians take you for granted and think you're a herd of lemmings that will jump off the cliff because the Republican party tells you to. There is no balance or debate when bills are brought up, because there is only one side. The pendulum in national politics always seem to swing one way or the other. We go from Democratic to Republican presidents with stunning regularity. That's because there is debate between sides, and the American people choose a Republican president because the last president, a Democrat, had really screwed things up, and they want to see America cleaned up. Then the Republican president screws things up *cough BUSH cough* and a Democrat gets elected (let's all hope and pray that this election cycle bucks the system and we don't end up with Billary in the White House). There is a balance between parties at the national level. In Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming, there really isn't a balance. And after a while, even though I am a staunch Republican, I still get sick of it, and vote Demmie. I'm completely with Romney here: Living in a one party state isn't a good thing.

And before I forget: Mitt Romney is one of those people who loves debate. He doesn't ever want to hear one side of the story - he wants to hear both sides, so he can make the right decision. I can really see how living in a one-party state would be difficult for him.

Okay, next:

"I've made it very clear to people across the Commonwealth that my R didn't stand so much for Republican as it did for reform."

Hallelujah! I'm sick of politicians maintaining the status quo. I want a Republican or a Democrat or whoever to come in and clean things out, put reforms in place. I would rather have a Democrat who would reform Washington than a Republican who would maintain the status quo. Luckily with Romney, we're getting a Republican who will also reform Washington. The best of both worlds.

Is this honestly the best the DNC can come up with?

"I'm not running as the Republican view, or a continuation of Republican values. That's not what brings me to the race."

No, it's not, and I'm glad for it. As I said above, he is trying to shake things up, break the status quo, clean out Washington. Republicans were given that chance in the 1994 election, and they accomplished almost nothing. If I wanted the "normal Republican" I would be backing McCain or Thompson. I want a Republican who is going to be able to bring something new to the table.

"I lived in a place that had a one party state, primarily Republican. I thought, 'Well, won't that be nice.' The answer is no."

This is almost exactly what was said above, so I'm going to move on.

"It's always a burden for someone to run with R for Republican after their name."

If you look at the bottom of the YouTube screen, you'll see that he was a candidate for governor of Massachusetts when he said that. In Massachusetts, it IS always a burden to run as a Republican for office, just like it's always hard to run as a Democrat in Idaho. Massachusetts is just as liberal as Idaho is conservative. He was speaking the truth here, and I find it hard to believe that anyone would doubt that statement. If you want to take it out of context and say that he meant nationwide that it was harder to run as a Republican than Democrat, no matter where in the nation you are or what office you're running for, then I would have to say that you've got quite the imagination. Romney is a smart guy. He wouldn't say that it is hard to run as a Republican in Utah, but that's what you would get if you were assuming that Romney meant anywhere, any office. He was talking to a reporter in Massachusetts about the race he was in. If you keep it in context, that sentence makes complete sense.

Of course, this is the Democratic National Committee we're talking about. They're not interested in context or even truth, but just smearing.

"I have many friends who are Republicans or Republicans voters."

Taken by itself, it doesn't make any sense why the DNC would put this quote in here, except then it cuts to that crazy liberal mayor of Salt Lake City, Rocky Anderson, who says:

"So take it from this liberal Democrat, if you want an amazing leader, vote for Mitt Romney."

Rocky Anderson and Mitt Romney became good friends during the 2002 Winter Olympics because they worked closely together. Romney has since released a statement saying that him and Rocky are good friends, but do not hold the same political values or ideas. Quite frankly, I think it's a great thing that Mitt could reach across the aisle like that, as long as he doesn't endorse the same ideas that Rocky does. And nowhere in that statement is Rocky saying that Mitt is liberal or Democrat, but just that he is an "amazing leader." Rocky is crazy and has more than one screw loose, but in this case, he is completely correct.

And that's the end of the montage. All I have to say is: If this is the worst that the Democratic National Committee can come up with, Romney might as well start practicing his acceptance speech now.

Havs

PS If you enjoyed this blog, check out my rebuttal of the anti-Mitt piece to end all anti-Mitt pieces. I think you'll enjoy it!

[?] Share This Posted in National Politics, Idaho, Rocky Anderson, 2002 Salt Lake Olympics, Massachusetts, Presidential candidate, Republican party, Democratic Party, Mitt Romney, Election 2008 | No Comments »

Why We Are In Iraq

July 1st, 2007 Several weeks ago, I tried to give my own thoughts on why we are in Iraq, but I will freely admit that my blog didn't do justice to my thoughts on the conflict, or the true reasons to be there.

So I will try again. But this time, I am going to cheat, and send you to another blog to find the answer. This blog is run by Michael Yon, a writer who is completely independent from any news organization - magazine, radio, television, or online organization. He is his own man without any strings attached to anyone, and he has done this at great harm to his own financial health. He has been offered numerous writing and correspondence jobs, along with book deals and TV shows. He has turned them all down, because he believes very strongly that he must be independent, not beholden to anyone or any company, free to tell the truth and not spin it or sugarcoat it based on how the execs would want him to.

Right now, he is in Iraq, covering the Iraqi War. In his latest dispatch, just released yesterday, he talks about going along with an Army division into a village that had been small, sleepy, and peaceful, until al Qaeda came in. Michael is a photographer along with being a writer, and his pictures truly are worth a 1000 words. This dispatch is heartbreaking, and so very, very real. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we must stay in Iraq. This is why we cannot just pull out, tuck our tail between our legs, and run. al Qaeda is evil, more evil than I can truly even grasp. The tactics that they use in their war against the Iraqi people and against us are stunning in their depravity. Michael Yon talks al Qaeda's willingness to do anything to hurt others, that they will kill animals and children, and then plant bombs in their bodies so that if a soldier or family member comes over to pick up the body, they die too. I cannot imagine what kind of black soulless horrible, evil being (I almost doubt them being human) that someone would have to be, to do something like that.

But, Michael can say all of this much better than I can, so I strongly suggest you reading Bless the Beasts and Children to find out for yourself how things truly are in Iraq, and who the true enemy is. The MSM and crazy liberals like Rosie O Donnell like to say that the true enemy is the American soldiers and the leaders of our government. After reading this article, such statements make me sick to my stomach. You cannot read this blog and look at these photos, and then say that our American troops are the "real terrorists" as Rosie tried to say. This shows who the true enemy is, and helps remind all of us just how important this war is.

While you're over there, check out the "How This Project is Funded" page - hint, it isn't through big book deals or multi-million dollar contracts. If you found his blog to be inspired, and exactly what this country needs right now, then I suggest dropping a couple of dollars in his PayPal account to help encourage him and keep him funded. Because I write for a living too, I notice the small things, like the fact that he has no Google AdSense ads anywhere on his site. He doesn't have any corporate sponsors. He doesn't have any Text-Link-Ads. He doesn't even have the Donate Now! PayPal button displayed prominently on his blog (which is why I linked directly to the page - to make it easier for you to find). For someone who is entirely self-funded, he isn't doing any of the "normal" things a writer usually does. As far as I can tell, his only income is the sales of his book, the sales of his pictures (you should see them - absolutely amazing!) and then donations from people like you and I. This is one project that I think almost anyone could feel good about donating to, because he doesn't write his stories to the left or to the right, but instead does what the mainstream media is supposed to do - he just reports the facts.

Check out his blog, and then make a donation if you can. This unvarnished honesty is just we need in America today.

God bless you, Michael, and keep you safe.

Hava

[?] Share This Posted in spin by newspapers, al Qaeda, terrorists, Iraqi War, President Bush, America, terrorism | 10 Comments »

An Anti-Mitt Piece to End All Anti-Mitt Pieces

June 28th, 2007 Last night, I was reading through articles about Mitt Romney that had been posted on the Internet, and I came across one that I knew wasn't going to be pretty, "Scoop: Bishop Romney's Sadistic Anti-Abortion Counseling." I debated whether I should read it or not (I usually try not to read stuff that I know beforehand will make me mad and upset, because I figure there's enough stress in the world without voluntarily adding to it). I finally decided I oughta read it, (need to keep track of the enemy's writings and all that), and so I read through the whole thing. The very first line was a quote from a book whose title was, "Polygamy or the Mysteries and Crimes of Mormonism." That almost made me change my mind because I knew it was about to get downright mean and nasty.

Which it promptly did.

In mainstream media, the authors of AP pieces at least try to put up an appearance of "I'm completely unbiased - nothing but the facts, ma'am!" but with this article, it did not even attempt that, nor (based on the other articles posted on this site) is that something that they strive for on this website in the slightest. The name is "Scoop," and their tagline is, "Independent News." After reading this article and the small bio posted at the end of it about the author, I would have to change that tagline to, "Extreme obsession and hatred towards the LDS Church, polygamy, Mitt Romney, and conservatives."

Now, in case y'all missed my previous posts on this subject, I am LDS. In fact, I'm a very active LDS member. Although the world seems to be obsessed with the LDS Church's ties with polygamy, I have to say: I am not related to, nor do I know - even in passing - a single person who has been involved in polygamy, at all. I go to church each Sunday. I can count. I would notice if there were two wives and one husband, I assure you. It just isn't happening. In the article, the woman being interviewed (who claims to be Mormon but based on the various statements she made during the interview, I would have to strongly, strongly question that claim,) said, "I’m also bothered by the fact that the church has said it excommunicates people who practice polygamy, but the fact is that only a small percentage have been excommunicated. Some practice it right under the nose of the church and no one investigates that."

Absolutely not true. A bishop can count. A stake president can count. A ward member can count. I guarantee you that if a guy started showing up to church with a lady on each arm, some serious cain would be raised. If it was found that they were married together in one happy triage (and not just some old buddies getting together after a class reunion or something), they would all be excommunicated as quickly as humanly possible. I would be willing to stake everything I own on that statement. The Church is absolutely in no way "looking the other way" when it comes to polygamy. It has been renounced, and all Church members found practicing it are excommunicated, no ifs, ands, or buts whatsoever.

You'll find that if you look at polygamy stories unfolding in the news today, every story is talking about people who are members of a branch off of the LDS Church - the Reformed LDS Church or whatever else they want to call themselves (there are multiple small breaks off from the LDS Church operating under different names.) They are not recognized by the Church, and they definitely don't have anything to do with the Church in any capacity - it is the equivalent of the members of the Baptist Church and the Catholic Church being mixed up and labeled as belonging to the same church. I think members of both congregations would strenuously argue against that if it happened. That's exactly how I feel about being mixed up or compared to members of break away Mormon churches. They are not members of my church, and I do not believe the same things they do. End of story.

Speaking of stories, this is where the Mitt Romney tie comes in - a real whopper of a story was told, and I'm about to show what a pot of bull it really was. The lady being interviewed, Judy Dushku, says that she is feminist Democrat who is a member of the LDS Church. She says that in the '70s, Mitt Romney was not her bishop (the bishop is basically the pastor of the congregation) but was a bishop of a nearby congregation. She says that Mitt gave "sadistic" counsel to a pregnant woman. Talk about writing with a slant. Sheesh. You can read the story in full, then see my comments below:

Judy Dushku: It was in the late 1970s. She was a woman about 40 years old, 3 ½ to 4 months into her sixth pregnancy. We’ll call her woman “Xâ€. She was an active member of the ward where Romney was bishop in Massachusetts, at that time in a neighboring community where I was not a member. The stake president was a doctor named Gordon and was an old friend of X.

X and her husband went to the hospital because she had an aching in her leg. Her doctor was alarmed after examining her, telling her she had developed blood clots and could not carry the pregnancy to full term. He said they’d have to give her blood thinners in order to get rid of the clots and that they would endanger the baby.

X had lost her first baby; the child was born with many physical problems and died at two or three weeks old. X was already the mother of four teenage children. This would have been her sixth.

Suzan Mazur: And X and her husband decided they would abort the child because her life was in danger.

Judy Dushku: Yes.

Suzan Mazur: And she advised her bishop – Mitt Romney – that she was going to terminate the pregnancy for medical reasons. And what did he say?

Judy Dushku: First of all the stake president – Gordon – came by to see X with a friend and said well it looks like you have to do this – terminate the pregnancy. He was perfectly comfortable with X’s decision, since both she and the child were in peril. And Gordon was technically higher in the LDS church hierarchy than Mitt was as bishop.

So then Mitt came in to the hospital. X thought Mitt had come to be comforting because that’s what bishops do. They have a pastoral role. But she said that instead he was critical.

He said – What do you think you’re doing?

She said – Well, we have to abort the baby because I have these blood clots.

And he said something to the effect of – Well, why do you get off easy when other women have their babies?

And she said – What are you talking about? This is a life threatening situation.

And he said – Well what about the life of the baby?

And she said – I have four other children and I think it would be really irresponsible to continue the pregnancy.

X said she found herself arguing with Romney about her medical crisis, said he was very unsympathetic, very critical, and said that under the circumstances in no way did he condone her aborting the child. And he left.

She was extremely distraught. Talked it over with her husband. They decided to go ahead with the abortion. After that she left the church.

Suzan Mazur: She’s okay now?

Judy Dushku: Yes.

Suzan Mazur: And you then confronted Romney over the matter.

Judy Dushku: In the early 90s, our feminist newspaper Exponent II, did a theme issue about Mormonism and abortion. X said she’d like to write a piece describing her experience. We agreed to publish her story anonymously because we knew her and knew about the ordeal.

It goes on from there, but that was the important part. First off, look at the dates: Late 1970's. That was 30 years ago. You cannot possibly convince me now or ever that someone's remembrance of an event in 30 years wouldn't have changed at all. It's not like this story was broken to the press days after it happened - this is 30 years later. Memories change, develop, fade, etc, a whole lot happens in 30 years.

Leaving that aside for a moment, let's consider the fact that this is sheer and complete heresy. We don't have the woman's statements. We don't even have the woman's name. We have "Woman X" who went through something, then 15 years later told the story to Judy who published it in a magazine, and then 15 years after that, Judy is telling the story to the interviewer without the use of notes or anything else (she said to the interviewer, "And he said something to the effect of" which means she was paraphrasing - remembering - which means she didn't have her article in front of her to be able to quote exactly) and then we've got the interviewer herself who is actually telling you and I the story that Judy told her that Woman X told Judy.

Incredible.

For all we know, the lady got the sniffles and went to the hospital over it, and Mitt Romney came and gave her a bouquet of flowers.

Has anyone ever played "Telephone" where something is whispered to a person on one side of the room and then it is passed from person to person until they get to the end, and you find out that "A silly monkey ate bananas" became "The courthouse caught on fire last week"? There is a sound logical reason for heresy not to be admissible in court: Because it is not accurate. You cannot question the person who originally made the statement, to make sure they were telling the truth. Not only can we not question the lady, we don't even get to know the lady's name. Judy could be making this up out of thin air. We have no way of knowing.

But let's pretend, just for a moment, that this story is actually true, that what the interviewer says Judy says Woman X says Mitt said really was said. Just for kicks and grins. If it was, then Woman X would have gone to the stake president and said, "After you left, Bishop Romney came in, and he was horrible to me! He said this and this and this." The stake president would have pulled Romney into his office and confirmed the veracity of the story. Supposedly the husband is on all of this, so he too would be able to confirm what The Horrible Mitt said. At that point, Mitt would have been under a lot of condemnation for his treatment of this member of his ward. He might have even gotten released as bishop of the ward over it. This caused a lady, her husband, and their four children to forever drop away from the Church. It would not have been glossed over or taken lightly.

Instead, let's look at what really happened. Instead of being released from office of bishop or being put on some sort of probation from the Church (which if he had been, you can bet your bottom dollar, Judy, who had a very large axe to grind with Mitt, would have pointed that out with great glee in this article) he was instead released as bishop of the ward so that he could be called to serve as stake president, which as Judy pointed out, is over the bishop - the stake president is basically over (or the boss of) all of the bishops in an area. He's the pastor's boss. You don't get called and sustained to the position of a stake president if you're under suspension or if your conduct as a bishop had been highly contended and railed against. In layman's terms, he got promoted, not demoted.

What she's saying happened just doesn't make any sense, and IMHO, simply couldn't have happened. The Church has a very simple and direct view on abortion: It should not happen unless it was caused by rape or incest, or unless the life of the mother is at stake. If one of these three simple reasons is at play in a pregnancy, the Church not only allows or approves for an abortion to take place, but if the circumstances warrant it (financially) the Church will even help pay for that abortion to happen. Mitt is a smart guy. I don't think even the people who hate his guts and would spit in his face if they met him would contest that. He can read. He knew the Church's policy on abortion. He never would have said something as stupid as, "Why do you get off easy when other women have their babies?" when the woman could have died from having the baby. That simply makes no sense.

And when it all comes down to it, that sums this article up in a nutshell: It makes no sense. There were other glaring inaccuracies in the interview (check out the link for the whole article), like when the interviewer said, "What’s your feeling about LDS church scripture still advocating polygamy, specifically the Book of Mormon Doctrine & Covenants, section 132?"

Umm…Note to interviewer: In case you didn't know (and considering the fact that you were quoting so many other "facts" about the LDS Church and setting yourself up as a Mormon expert, you really ought to have known this) the Book of Mormon is a completely separate book from the Doctrine & Convenants. It's the equivalent of saying, "Matthew 1 Corinthians 7:5." Matthew is a book. 1 Corinthians is a book. They are not the same book. The fact that the author doesn't even know that the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants aren't the same book makes me really question her knowledge of the LDS religion, and the veracity of the other statements she made about the Church.

Speaking of questioning, not only does she misquote the reference to the scripture and combine two books into one, she also says that LDS scripture is still advocating polygamy, then proceeds to quote the scripture. That's bull, plain and simple. Just like the Christian faith does not go through the Bible and say, "Sacrifice of animals no longer needs to be done, so we're going to strip out every reference to sacrifices made by Adam on down," the LDS Church is not going to go through the scriptures and pull out the very few references that are in it to polygamy. The revelation was given then, it was applicable then, it isn't applicable now, but the revelation was still a revelation back then, so it needs to stay. I know that many of my readers may not agree that it was a revelation - if you're not LDS, I'm not saying you have to agree that it was a revelation. We can agree to disagree on that point. BUT! Do understand that just because doctrine changes and grows throughout time, doesn't mean that all old doctrine must deleted and pulled out completely. David in the Old Testament had many wives. I don't see anyone calling for that to be removed from the Bible. We no longer believe in "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" philosophy either, but that doesn't mean anyone is rearranging the Old Testament.

On so many levels, this article is wrong, it lies, and it is misleading. The reason I took so much time to write all of this out was because I think that this is just a harbinger of what is to come. We may not see this extreme or open of a bias from the mainstream media, but in many small ways, it is still there. It is easier to see the bias when the author seems to openly admit to it without reserve, but this actually makes it easier to fight against. It's when the articles are twisted just slightly, the tone just a little off, the quotes not being taken equally from both sides, that the fight gets harder to win. We've got another year and a half of this kind of crap to survive through, and if we succeed and Mitt wins, then we have at least another four years on top of that to survive through. It's gonna be tough, but I think very, very worth it.

Mitt is the best leader we could ask for, for the crisis that we are living through right now. America needs Mitt - the world needs Mitt. I know that he will do so much for America, and I'm excited - horrible journalism in the offing or not - to see it happen.

Leave your thoughts below - I would love to hear them.

Hava

[?] Share This Posted in Mitt Romney, polygamy, religious persecution, spin by newspapers, anti-Mormonism, Mormon, LDS Church, God, America, Election 2008, abortion, religion | 11 Comments »

Immigration Bill Receives Cloture

June 26th, 2007 Well, it happened. The monster got revived. It seems like no matter how the American public feels about this bill, it just won't die.

The vote was taken on the Senate floor this afternoon, and it was voted to receive cloture (meaning it was voted to be brought back to the Senate floor and debated again) 64 - 35. It needed 60 votes, and barely got it. (For anyone who doesn't know, cloture only means that it is brought back to the floor and debated, it does NOT mean that it is passed into legislation. That will be done in another vote, although it is assumed that if the senator voted for cloture, they will vote for the bill to be passed.)

As I was reading the roll call for the Senate vote, a name that stuck out at me: Senator Larry Craig. He is one of Idaho's senators, and he actually voted for cloture!!! I could not believe it! I live in Idaho, the senators are both Republican, I could trust them to do the right thing, life was good.

But apparently not.

Although Senator Craig voted for cloture, our other Idaho senator, Mike Crapo, voted against it (thank you Crapo!!) So I did something I have never done before: I actually called a senator's office to complain. I told Senator Craig's staffer that I wouldn't vote for Craig again (I voted for him in the last election) if he voted to pass this bill. I told them that I am very strongly against it. It was, to be honest, a liberating feeling! So this is what it's like to be an American! LOL!

So in case I have any readers from Idaho and they want to feel like an American too, here is the information for Larry Craig's offices:

Boise office: 208-342-7985 DC office: 202-224-2752 If you want to e-mail him, go to http://craig.senate.gov/webform.cfm where there is a web form.

The great part of this was, when I called the DC office, the lines were ringing off the hook!!!!! They put me on hold about four times to answer other lines, and I could tell the staffers were really stressed. That's wonderful!!! That means that people are rising up against this and against Senator Craig for doing this, which hopefully means that we'll be able to keep this bill from passing. If we can get Craig, and even part of the other 24 Republican senators to switch their vote to against the bill (yes, you read that right - 24 Republican Senators voted for cloture - unbelievable!!!) we can kill this bill once and for all.

Well, after I got off the phone with the DC office, I started to worry. They were so busy, they didn't even take my name or number, so I figured I should call another office too and tell them how I felt. So I called Boise, Idaho. The atmosphere was much more relaxed there, and the lady took down my name and address, which hopefully gives my complaint more ummph. We'll see.

I hung up feeling pretty darn proud of myself. Not only had I called the Senator, I had called him at two different offices! This American stuff was starting to go to my head. ;-) Then I realized: I should call Crapo and tell him thank you for voting against cloture! What if he doesn't receive any phone calls, and doesn't think that anyone cares, and changes his vote before the final vote, and ends up voting FOR the bill??! So I called his office and told the very nice staffer in DC (who, btw, didn't sound harried or stressed out in the slightest, LOL!) that I greatly appreciated Crapo's vote, and that I wanted him to know that he had done the right thing. So in case any of you Idaho readers are so inclined, his info is thus:

DC office: (202) 224-6142 Boise office: (208) 334-1776 E-mail form on the web - scroll down just a bit to find it: http://crapo.senate...ov/contact/email.cfm

For anyone who lives outside of Idaho but doesn't know their Senator's information, go to Google and type in "Senator ____ (name) _____ (state)" so if you were looking for Senator Crapo from Idaho you would type in "Senator Crapo Idaho" and you'll find the info just fine. That's how I found both Crapo and Craig's websites, and then from there you just have to poke around a bit on the website to find the contact info.

To find out if you need to call/write/e-mail your senator, check out the following information and scan for your senators (notice that I bolded the names of all presidential candidates, and italicized the names of my two senators from Idaho - the names are in alphabetical order):

Voting "yes" were 39 Democrats, 24 Republicans and 1 independent.

Voting "no" were 9 Democrats, 25 Republicans and 1 independent.

*Democrats Yes:

Akaka, Hawaii; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Brown, Ohio; Cantwell, Wash.; Cardin, Md.; Carper, Del.; Casey, Pa.; Clinton, N.Y.; Conrad, N.D.; Dodd, Conn.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Harkin, Iowa; Inouye, Hawaii; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerry, Mass.; Klobuchar, Minn.; Kohl, Wis.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lincoln, Ark.; Menendez, N.J.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Obama, Ill.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Salazar, Colo.; Schumer, N.Y.; Webb, Va.; Whitehouse, R.I.; Wyden, Ore.

*Democrats No:

Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Byrd, W.Va.; Dorgan, N.D.; Landrieu, La.; McCaskill, Mo.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Stabenow, Mich.; Tester, Mont.

*Democrats Not Voting:

Johnson, S.D.

*Republicans Yes:

Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Burr, N.C.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Craig, Idaho; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Graham, S.C.; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

*Republicans No:

Alexander, Tenn.; Allard, Colo.; Barrasso, Wy.; Bunning, Ky.; Chambliss, Ga.; Coburn, Okla.; Cochran, Miss.; Corker, Tenn.; Cornyn, Texas; Crapo, Idaho; DeMint, S.C.; Dole, N.C.; Enzi, Wyo.; Grassley, Iowa; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Roberts, Kan.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Sununu, N.H.; Thune, S.D.; Vitter, La.

*Others Yes:

Lieberman, Conn.

*Others No:

Sanders, Vt.

Mitt has not released a press release on this vote yet, but when he does, I'll make sure to post it on here. For anyone interested, his stance on illegal immigration and his thoughts on the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill are neatly laid out on this page; here are the important highlights:

In December 2006, Governor Romney Signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Federal Government to Allow State Troopers to Enforce Federal Immigration Laws. "Governor Mitt Romney…announced the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Massachusetts and ICE, which will give specially trained Massachusetts State Troopers the authority to administer and enforce federal immigration laws in the Commonwealth. "

Let's compare this to McCain's stance on illegal immigration (let's write up a horrible bill that almost everyone is against - except the politicians in Washington - that gives amnesty to millions of illegal aliens!) and Rudy Giuliani, who actually declared New York City a "sanctuary city" where illegal aliens could go and know that they would not be arrested or deported back home. These two are the antithesis of Mitt Romney, who not only right now supports dealing with illegal immigration fairly and justly by not giving law breakers a jump to the head of the line, but who also supported and helped in this fight even back when he was governor of a state, by commissioning his state troopers to help in this battle. Who do we want to be our next president, truly - a man who has fought this issue all along, or two men who have only made this issue worse?

One last excerpt from the site, although there's more there that you might be interested in:

IN-STATE TUITION: Governor Romney Vetoed In-State Tuition For Illegal Immigrants. "Romney also vetoed a number of outside sections of the budget, including:…A plan that would have permitted illegal aliens to pay the same in-state tuition rate at our public colleges and universities as Massachusetts citizens."

I cannot believe that this was even in the budget. Illegal aliens come into our country, break our laws, and then the legislature wants to reward them for doing that by giving them in-state tuition at the colleges??? This would have meant that their tuition would have been cut between in half or even in third - there is a HUGE difference between in-state vs out-of-state tuition, as any college student would tell you. The fact that this was even in the budget tells you how extremely liberal Massachusetts really is (as if you needed another reminder…)

The fact that Mitt Romney was able to do everything in that state that he was, is amazing. He was able to hold the line on Roe vs Wade - legislation came up that would have made it easier for abortions to be done and he vetoed it! He promised in his campaign that he would not change the abortion laws on the books, and he did exactly that. He also fought against gay marriage and when he lost that fight, he then found a loophole in the state laws that kept people coming in from other states to get married in Massachusetts as gay couples, which because Massachusetts is the only state in the nation that allows gay marriage, that was not only a distinct possibility, it was absolutely guaranteed to happen. He prevented that. He did all of this despite the fact that the legislature was a whopping 85% Democratic! He did so much for that bluest-of-blue states, and I cannot WAIT to see what he does for America!

Hava

[?] Share This Posted in Obama, Larry Craig, Mike Crapo, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Illegal Immigration, John McCain, Election 2008 | 1 Comment »

Our Presence in Iraq

June 15th, 2007 I just read an amazing op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal by Joe Lieberman. It says everything that I have been thinking about the Iraqi War, and our presence there. It is a fantastic piece, because it comes from someone who just came home from Iraq, so he knows exactly what is happening there, and it's also fantastic because it lays out so clearly where we were before, and where we're going now. If you do nothing else today, go read that article. When you're done, come back here though - I have some of my own thoughts to share on the subject. ;-)

Those thoughts being: A while back, I had someone approach me through the Contact Page on this blog, a person who was a Libertarian who didn't support Mitt Romney, Republicans, or the war. Not being nearly as eloquent as Joe is in the above piece, I tried to explain in my own clumsy way that we cannot withdraw from Iraq now because if we do, we turn those vast oil fields in Iraq over to terrorists. He took that to mean that I thought we were fighting this war so we could have cheap gas, and he complimented me for at least being willing to admit that.

I replied and clarified my position, namely that oil is a precious commodity and no one believes that the price for it is going to go anywhere but up. If we withdraw from Iraq and allow the terrorists to come in and control that oil, then we basically writing a blank check to Al-Qaeda and telling them, "Here's your funding for all terrorist activities for the next 25 years. Please, make sure to target America first as a "thanks" to us for giving you this. We'd appreciate it. Have a great day."

All sarcasm aside, in order for a terrorist operation to succeed, it needs money, people, and plans. If they have the money, then they can buy the people and the plans, but without any funding, they will not be able to carry out their plans, and they won't be able to recruit any people. We must cut off the funding if we are going to succeed in this war against terror. We do NOT cut off funding by withdrawing our troops and leaving the oil fields behind for the terrorists to control.

America should not control those oil fields. The Iraqi people need to control those oil fields. The most important thing though, is that the terrorists do not control those oil fields. I literally do not care what the price of gas is. You want to know why? I work from home. My husband's "commute" is less than a mile. We use very little gas. On top of all that, we get all of our gas paid for as a perk of my husband's job. It's completely free, so I don't care what the price is. Why on earth would I would support a plan where Americans die so that we can have cheap gas? I already get free gas. It simply doesn't make any sense.

So I say to all Democrats and Libertarians who think we should withdraw right away: I believe very strongly that we went into Iraq, we overthrew the Saddam regime, and now it is our duty to help build a country that will not be run by terrorists. We made our bed, now we have to lie in it. Whether you believe that we should have gone in there or not is inconsequential at this point. There are no time machines. We cannot go back and undo that invasion.

Right now, America needs to help Iraq build a republic where the person with the most bombs or guns doesn't win, but instead the best person for the job. We owe it to ourselves, for stability and freedom in our country, but we also owe it to the Iraqi people. We went in there. We caused Saddam's regime to fall. We now have to help another government to rise, or we will have failed. Failed not only the Iraqi people, but the future generations of Americans. For the security of our nation, we must stick it out, we must win.

There is no other option.

Hava

[?] Share This Posted in terrorists, Mitt Romney, spin by newspapers, Democratic Party, Republican party, President Bush, America, Iraqi War, terrorism | 2 Comments »

The Searches Used to Find my Blog

June 14th, 2007 I love to check my stats page (anyone else out there obsessed with their stats?) and a fun part of that page is where it lists the searches that are done using Google/Yahoo!/AOL to find my blog. It's fun because some of the searches are pretty wild. I've gotten hits for strange phrases like "yearly income for talk show hosts" (say what?) and then classics like "Mitt Romney's hair." Ah yes, the beautiful hair that everyone is ever so jealous of. Including me, of course. :P

Every once in a while, I get disturbing searches like "Mormons going to Hell" or "I want Mitt Romney to die." That last one is the search that popped up on my stats screen just this morning. It is so sad to me that people would actually do a search for something like that. Am I the only one who finds that a little disturbing, a little sad? I know, I'm caring too much about something that really doesn't matter, but it was on my mind, so I wrote about it. It's my random post for the day. What? Oh, you're most welcome. No, you don't have to throw flowers and gifts at me. No really. Oh all right, but only if you have a really spiffy bumper sticker supporting Mitt Romney. I'm in the market for one right now…

:-P

Hava

[?] Share This Posted in anti-Mormonism, Mitt Romney, Mormon | No Comments »

Getting Paid to Blog

June 13th, 2007 As I said yesterday on my personal blog, I have decided to advertise on blogs by posting reviews on here and my personal blog about different companies or websites. I am a freelance writer, and as much as I love Mitt, I've still got to pay my bills. I've tried convincing my mortgage company to be excited about my support of Mitt Romney and to just let that be my house payment, but so far no luck. If I do have some luck with that endeavor, y'all will be the first to know, I promise. ;-)

So anyway, last night, I could not sleep - I took two Excedrin about 8:30 pm to help take care of a nasty headache, and since I do not drink any coffee or soda, this is the equivalent of a normal person downing an entire pot of coffee. I actually get the caffeine shakes from taking Excedrin. I would love to take something else, but Excedrin works the best out of all of the medicine I've ever tried, darn it. :-P So I went to bed about 11:15, headacheless, but completely awake. I just laid there and stared at the ceiling, thinking about all of the projects I needed to do the next day (today). I finally decided to get up and write the list down so I could stop worrying about forgetting one of the items.

Finished about midnight, I crawled back into bed and laid there. Stared at the ceiling some more.

Wide awake.

I finally got up again, because I figured if I was going to be awake, I might as well be doing something worthwhile, right? So I went to work. I started applying for companies to get started with getting paid to blog, and ran through a long list of companies. One of the companies I applied with was Smorty. As of right now, Smorty is the only company who has responded to my application, and has allowed me to get started. In the FAQs, it says, "It can take up to 72 hours to have your blog approved/declined. We will generally try to process Blogs as soon as they are received." I was pleasantly surprised to find that they really meant this. I had the acceptance e-mail in my inbox this morning. The layout of the website is simple to navigate, and so far I've been very pleased with the company.

As I get more experience with advertising on blogs like this, I'm sure I'll have lots of helpful info to pass along to any of my readers who might be interested in getting started in the blog advertising business. For now, I'm just excited to be paid for such an easy job. :-)

Thanks for reading - I'll be back later today with a great video I found at YouTube that I haven't seen posted on any other Mitt blogs. I think y'all will enjoy it as much as I did!

Hava

[?] Share This Posted in Paid to Blog Posts | No Comments »

Cleaned Out My Blogroll

June 12th, 2007 When I first started this site, I added quite a few pro-Romney blogs to my blogroll, even though I noticed some of them hadn't been active in a while. I figured that I would put them up, and then check them later and see if they had become active. Today seemed like a good spring cleaning day, so I went through the links and cleaned them out. The only one I left up that isn't active is the Idahoans for Mitt, just because I couldn't bring myself to delete that blog. Being an Idahoan myself, of course, I wish that there was more activity on that blog. Perhaps an e-mail to the blog owners there would stir up some interest…

Anyway, along with culling out the dead sites, I have also been adding some sites to my blogroll recently, like UltiMitt of course (if you missed my blog about them earlier in the week, check that out here.) I also added a great site by a guy who (surprisingly enough) attended Ricks the same time I did - the world is small and getting smaller by the moment I think. ;-) I just barely added The Mitt Report, which I know that site has been around for a while, but I just haven't ever made it over there. I finally made it there yesterday, and was very impressed by what I found. Lots of great info packed in over there. :-)

I think that's it for changes to the Blogroll this week. There are a lot of wonderful Mitt sites out there, and I love how supportive the Mitt blogosphere is. I am in great company. :-)

Hava

UPDATE: I wanted to give an update and tell everyone that I did receive a response to the e-mail I sent to the owners of the Idaho Mitt site.  Jason responded and seemed to be very enthusiastic about me blogging over there - it sounds like he's strapped for time and that he would love to have some help keeping his blog updated. :-)  So pretty soon yours truly will be both here and at the Idaho blog.  I am very excited about that, and will make sure to post on here when my first blog over there appears.  I know that many bloggers write one blog and post it on two sites, and although I'm not saying that's wrong for them to do, I just don't think that it's right for me.  The blogs I post here will be different than the blogs I post there, although I may post a quickie occasionally saying that a blog has gone up over there, just to alert any readers who might want to go check it out.

Well, anyway, it's late at night and I've got to get some sleep, but I'll catch y'all on the flip side!

[?] Share This Posted in Other Great Blogs, Mitt Romney | No Comments »