Childhood obesity is, well, not a good thing. First Lady Michelle Obama is championing a good issue, on the surface. Encouraging families to be more active, eat better and in general be conscious of their health is a good thing. What would be better, though, is putting the issue in perspective and actually dealing with the real issue at hand-the destruction of families.

The modern family, which is a family where both parents work outside of the home, is considered to be progress. Even more modern it is to be single, several times divorced and remarried, but for this article’s purposes, two working parent families will suffice. Working at home as a full time mother, or father, isn’t really working according to today’s “progressives.” Raising a family can happen in the background while mom and dad pursue their careers. Being a homemaker, especially for a woman, is considered oppressive and a step backward in the eyes of the left.

Years ago when the majority of women were working at home as homemakers (I choose not to give in and call it “Staying at home” as that implies raising a family is something secondary and not a valid and noble first choice) children’s food intake was monitored, and more or less controlled, by a mother who saw to it that they were fed breakfast, a good lunch and even, you guessed it, a family dinner. Children played at school during recess and then when they came home until dark. The first problem, what children are eating, is negated by a mother who’s taking care of what the child eats, within reason. The second issue, some would argue, is in large part because of fears that children aren’t as safe as they used to be.

Children aren’t as safe as they used to be. Is that because there are more bad people in the world than in years past? Maybe. Could it also be because people are having less children, families don’t know their neighbors and generations of children are not being raised? Probably. Children are no longer being raised by their parents. Remember when Hilary Clinton used the old saying, “it takes a village.” The village she was talking about, wasn’t the village that old saying meant. What the left really wants is for the government to do the “child-rearing.” Child-rearing is hard, takes sacrifices and who really wants to do that? Just have the children and let the government do the rest. In many children’s cases, that’s exactly what’s happening and the repressions don’t end when childhood does.

Michelle Obama is championing childhood obesity at a time when the CDC claims that childhood obesity rates have tripled in the past 30 years. What else coincides with the past thirty years? Why it’s the modern family and the modern woman who can have it all without anyone having to suffer. The problem is it’s the children that suffer, in more ways than just childhood obesity. Michelle Obama is most likely going to use this platform to tell parents the obvious, ensure that their children eat better and get more active. Unfortunately, Michelle Obama will most likely, like most other people, gloss over the real issue at hand and that is the destruction of the family.

http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/obesity

Sarah Palin, a.k.a. the woman that the mainstream fears more than global warming, I mean, climate change, wrote some notes on her hand for her speech at the recent Tea Party Convention. Not only does the mainstream media feel that this shows that she is the “r” word, the administrations’ press secretary Robert Gibbs felt the need to make his own joke about it, publicly. Gibbs scrawled a few notes on his hand, a few grocery items, you know to make him seem like one of the people, and then the magic words, hope and change. Class apparently isn’t required in this administration.

Apparently the mainstream media thinks that having notes is a problem, but having an entire script scrolling in front of your face on a teleprompter and being virtually unable to speak without it, is perfectly fine. No one finds it problematic that the President of the United States has to use a teleprompter to speak to a group of elementary school students but a former president gets a few C’s and incorrectly pronounces a few words and there’s outrage that our leader is stupid. If it’s okay to even remember President Bush without blaming everything on him, it’s interesting to note that he often spoke off the cuff and with, at best, notes in front of him. Did he ever get credit for being a good speaker? Did he ever get credit for knowing the issues well enough to pull that off while giving speeches that were concise, on topic and engaging? No, apparently President Teleprompter is the greatest gift to speeches since Jesus.

While Sarah Palin prefers to speak to people, President Teleprompter prefers to lecture. No matter what anyone thinks of Sarah Palin, the blatant double standard by the left is blinding. Sarah Palin is dumb, George Bush is dumb, but Barack Obama is the greatest speaker to ever grace the White House. The propping up of the President is enough to make one wonder that is really pulling the strings? Are those behind the President so afraid that he’s going to make a mistake that they have to have him constantly on a script? While that may seem farfetched, if President Bush would have used the teleprompter like Barack Obama he would have never heard the end of it.

The mainstream media was quick to criticize Sarah Palin, who is currently not in an elected office, for having scant notes on the palm of her hand, yet little to nothing is said about the leader of the free world holding onto the teleprompter crutch. Out of all of the television news outlets, the only one that keeps the President accountable is Fox News, or as the left affectionately calls them “Faux News.” That’s the trick of those who are caught red handed, defame the messenger.

Remember folks, this is the President who wants to woo the world with his golden tongue, that is as long as he can have a teleprompter. Can they put a mini-teleprompter on the Iphone? If so you can bet President Obama will bring peace to the Middle East, convince all terrorists to hug it out and cure cancer. Just make sure that hope and change are on the prompter.

The current debate over government run healthcare gives me hope that not everyone wants to be under the thumb of Washington politicians. What doesn’t give me hope, though, is the amount of people in this country that would gladly give over their rights, the rights this country was founded upon, to Uncle Sam. Obama promised hope and change, not unlike Kennedy before him and in fact FDR.  Obama clearly wants to expand upon his predecessors.  As the saying goes, those who don’t know history are bound to repeat it.  Yet another generation gets enticed by daddy government coming in and fixing all your problems taking away another bastion of personal responsibility.

Today in America we take compulsory education to be a given.  Aside from some questioning of the NEA and anger over lackluster education, there’s little questioning of why the government is allowed to tell parents what, when and how their children are supposed to learn.  Many of us were shepherded through the public school system largely because our parents couldn’t afford, after the taxes imposed upon them, to send us anywhere else.  Even private schooling and homeschooling are largely mandated by the government.

For example, during my years in the public school system, I was required to spend x amount of days in class in order to pass.  The reason given to my parents was that part of the school experience is the social aspect.  The government, of course, knows the best way to socialize our children, not parents.  The government also knows the benchmarks that students need to reach each year in order to be well rounded citizens, right?

Not quite.  The public school system is about making money, plain and simple.  I recall on Wednesdays once a month students were gently prodded to show up in order to be counted.  Why is that? Each student that shows up on said Wednesday is a good chunk of money for the school system, even though the odds are good students don’t ever see the benefit of that money. Mandatory drug education programs teach students how to say no to drugs so that parents don’t have to be bothered with doing it themselves.  Yearly curricula are tailored to certain state tests, such as the MEAP in Michigan.  Does this help students get into college, like say preparing for the arbitrary ACT or SAT tests? No, but it does give school systems more money, and eventually that’ll trickle down to the students for more mandatory drug education, maybe even a brand new sex ed program.

What then does healthcare have to do with the public school system? Something as basic as education when taken over by the government becomes, in scientific terms, a colossal mess.  I’m sure no one will dispute that an educated populace, one that can read and write, among other things, is crucial (unless you can play basketball of course). A government that sets standards to make sure that young people meet these requirements is of course a necessary evil. Setting up a public school system that is at the whim of the now painfully politically correct system gives us the current subpar, uncompetitive school system we currently operate under-one in which public employees are allowed to unionize and receive year long pay for eight months of work. Now in regards to healthcare, it would make perfect sense if the government were to step in and say, enact price checks (yes price checks, I’m not under the ultimate free market delusion-the market will throw you under the bus just as quickly as government will) on doctors and hospitals.

Of course though, the AMA is in the bag of big government, just like the NEA, so to them it makes more sense to enact national healthcare.  Obama supporters decry, free healthcare for all! Except, it’s not free, massive tax increases will pay for it whether they, or I, want it or not.  If I choose not to have healthcare I will be penalized for it. Obama seems to think this is a great idea and even likens our bodies to cars.

We hear over and over again by Obama and his media that healthcare is a basic human right and that everyone deserves healthcare.  We’re led to believe that everyone is going to get quality healthcare if daddy government steps in.  The thing is, history shows us exactly what happens when the government steps in.  Within the public school system, you know the system set up so that everyone can get “quality education,” you have two different types of school systems: ones in rich-upper middle class neighborhoods and then the rest of them.  So once again, regardless of whether or not the government steps in, those with money still get better “human rights” than the rest of us.  I don’t think we need the government to step in and orchestrate that.

What happened to personal responsibility? Healthcare is just another move to a socialized nanny state.  The government knows what’s best for you.  You certainly can’t be left to your own devices; the government needs to make sure you don’t burn your hand on the stove. I think I’ll take my chances and say no thanks Obamalosi, I’ll take care of myself.

“Fort Hood shows that there’s still political correctness in the US Army,” writes Stephanie Gutmann in The Daily Telegraph. I’ll cut her some slack because she is in fact British; however, her article echoes much of the discourse here in the States. Frankly, most of the pieces on the Fort Hood tragedy simply miss the mark. Everyone from commentators to high ranking officials are either surprised by the political correctness that allowed this tragedy to happen or they fail to acknowledge it at all. Either way for anyone that has withstood the political correct system of brainwashing, i.e. media and the school system, is not at all surprised by what has occurred. America is a place where fine print means everything and free speech is no different. Free speech, unless that speech is gasp, hate speech. If anything you say could even be remotely considered racist, that is against everyone except Caucasians, men or Christians, (honkies are fair game, its okay I can say it), say it at your own peril.

If this sounds alarmist, think about all the things you can’t say because they might be considered “hate speech.” In this country, certain groups of people are protected as if they’re too fragile to handle themselves. Affirmative action affirmatively tells certain groups of people that they can’t compete on their own. You can make fun of this group of people, but not that group of people. How about hate crimes? It seems logical that since we already have laws on the books for assault, battery, etc., that if a crime as such was committed against anyone it would, well, be booked as such. No no, that’s not good enough. Now the motivation behind the crime matters. It’s not good enough that you assaulted a human being, no, if that human being is one of the protected groups it matters that much more.

While the Fort Hood tragedy is just that, a tragedy, it’s far from surprising. The climate we live in is one of absurdity, ultra sensitivity and chaos that are a breeding ground for this type of behavior. Shortly after the story hit the national airwaves a second thread surfaced, one in which Muslim groups’ feared retribution. Of course entire groups of Muslims should not be targeted with any type of cruelty, that should be a given. That said, I don’t think it’s cruel to question a religion’s adherents when attacks are made in the name of their god. If there were modern day crusaders killing people in the name of Jesus I’m pretty sure I’d make it clear that that’s not the Jesus I worship, thanks for playing though.

Once again, a simple issue becomes a complex one because of the ridiculous nature of political correctness. Instead of looking at an issue through rational eyes, political correctness clouds and distorts it. Instead of calling this man what he is, a murderer, we sit back and wonder what provoked him. We ask, gee did we do anything wrong? Like a lovelorn victim of domestic abuse, instead of pointing the finger at the perpetrator, we point it at ourselves. Yes, in fact we did do something wrong, we didn’t stop him when he exhibited signs of being a murderous terrorist.

I don’t think it’s strange to wonder how something like this could go unnoticed in the United States military. How a man could rise through the ranks like he did and harbor these types of feelings towards the country he was supposed to be serving. The left needs to wake up and get a clue, political correctness is not only an enemy of our free speech, it is now an enemy of the state.

Edit 11-11-09: From “Still Standing,”

“Our bodies are temples of the Lord. We should earn respect and admiration for our hearts, not for showing skin to look sexy.”

Quote from Carrie Prejean in response to Meredith Viera, “I’m a model. I was in a beauty pageant. If people want to call me a hypocrite, that’s their prerogative. But I’ve learned from my mistakes. No one is perfect.”

Has she said that the beauty pageants and modeling were a mistake? It’s okay to show skin to look “sexy” if you’re a model, but not for regular people?

The hypocrisy doesn’t lie in her opposition of gay marriage, as my article clearly points out, it’s in her statements and in the statements by prominent Conservative figures/organizations.

Her free speech has not been violated.  Our first amendment rights do not shield us from criticism.  The media is overwhelmingly liberal, Miss USA is obviously liberal. If she had been in favor of gay marriage, as again I state in my piece below, she would not have been attacked.  However, the first amendment doesn’t say that no one is allowed to criticize you.  She was attacked with things she has done.  If she didn’t want them to come out, she shouldnt’ have done them.  I applaud her for standing up to the criticism, but she is not a victim. She has been scrutinized for her opinion the way I have, to a lesser extent, been highly scrutinized here.

In response to the comments, I’ll no longer be commenting back as I’ve learned that commenting to those who show such great disrespect and intolerance to diverging opinions is not only a waste of time, but indulging poor behavior.

I am Conservative, however, I am not lock step and do have an open mind.  I’d encourage you all to think for yourselves and not parrot the views of others.  For example, take a look at this clip by Keith Olbermann.  I rarely ever agree with the man, but like it or not, he’s right here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPgNwLL_Fes

I’m surprised this is such a hot button issue.  I find it an interesting cultural issue, which is why I wrote about it.  You’ll notice that Redstate.com has a section for culture pieces, and as Prejean is being touted as  a “Great Conservative Woman,” by CBLPI, it is a political issue.

__________________________________________________________________

I am a rock, I am an island, I am a Christian, Conservative Feminist. That’s right I said it, a Christian, Conservative Feminist. I am a woman who realizes that it hasn’t been long since women have been able to vote. I am a woman who realizes that I still don’t make the same amount of money as my male counterpart. I am a woman who realizes that I have the right to be a full time mother even if liberal feminists mock me for doing so. I am a woman that realizes that being a mother is a full time job and that if I choose to become a mother it is my duty to be the best one I can be, and that cannot be done part time. I am a woman that realizes that if I so choose I can work in the professional world and that I have the same right to be there as a man. I am a woman who believes that I am more than what I look like, that I do not have to sexualize myself to get where I want to go. That said, I’ve been very disappointed that Conservatives have chosen to champion former Miss California Carrie Prejean. Regnery Publishing, a Conservative book publisher, is even publishing a book by her called “Still Standing”.

Back in April when the story came out that a Miss USA contestant was asked about her opinion on gay marriage to which she voiced her belief that marriage is between a man and a woman I was surprised and even thought, “good for her.” When I heard the names Perez Hilton had called her I was disgusted and, well, not surprised. Unlike Ms. Prejean, who says that “being a 22-year-old college student not really into politics, or I wasn’t at the time. But now I have a new outlook. I am disgusted at the way some people can be so intolerant,” I am a 21 year old college student who follows politics closely and has been to bat time and time again in my personal life for my beliefs. I am not at all surprised by the backlash. I would never have assumed something like Miss USA or pageantry in general to be something that a Conservative would champion. Apparently I was wrong.

I as a conservative woman, applaud Ms. Prejean for stating her beliefs. I do not applaud her for objectifying herself and being rewarded for how she looks. Conservatives, and Conservative Christians especially, that hold her up as a representative for family values are actually doing a disservice to the Conservative movement. I cannot be the only Conservative, Christian female that sees the hypocrisy in Ms. Prejeans’ answer and subsequent championing by the Conservative movement. The following is the actual question and answer that took place at the 2009 Miss USA pageant.

Perez Hilton: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

Carrie Prejean: “Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I think I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.”

First of all, the answer Ms. Prejean gave was not a very eloquent one. Her opinion in fact was not necessary to the question. Even if she wanted to make it known that same-sex marriage is wrong, which I applaud, she could have also been diplomatic that it is an issue that each state should have the right to decide. She is after all called as Miss USA to be a representative right? Second, Ms. Prejean is competing in a pageant that requires her to walk on stage in a bikini that in no way can be called modest. I don’t think anyone would think that this would be a very Christian thing to do, call me old fashioned. If I say that though, I get labeled a hypocrite, a prude, etc. I make no claims to be perfect, but I think it’s problematic that Ms. Prejean is touting family values whilst competing in a pageant that overtly sexualizes the contestants. I think it’s also hypocritical when she has modeling photos taken that are overtly sexual yet claims, not that they were wrong, but that, “I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos.” I don’t know about other women, but I don’t believe that lingerie modeling is targeted to us.

Conservative Christians should have taken issue with the fact that Perez Hilton, a judge at the event, called Prejean a “dumb b****” on Youtube.com following the event and subsequently on an appearance on Larry King said the following, “Yes. I do expect Miss USA to be politically correct.” If Ms. Prejean had lost because of the poor way she gave her answer, or because she wasn’t as diplomatic as she should have been, fine, but it is clear that at least according to one judge, had she said she believed in same-sex marriage, she would have won. Granted, Miss USA is a private organization and has every right to not want a Conservative to represent them, we all know that if a Conservative organization did the same thing there would be uproar.

Nowhere in this equation do Conservatives need to hold her up as the poster woman for family values. Nowhere in this equation do Conservatives need to reward her for being part of a pageant, and modeling career, that is anathema to the things she says she stands for. The issue should have been that this is another case of Liberal intolerance towards Conservatives.

Parading Ms. Prejean around not only makes conservatives look like hypocrites it reinforces the stereotype of the chauvinistic Conservative male. Here’s an excerpt from the book, “Still Standing,”

“I knew immediately that I would lose the competition because of my answer…. I didn’t want to offend anyone but it was more important to me to be biblically correct than politically correct.”

It sounds to me that while she was biblically correct that homosexuality, and it would follow, homosexual unions, are wrong, she missed the part in the Bible about modesty. I do not mean that antagonistically, however, I do feel that the hypocrisy is astounding.

In the months that followed I’ve watched the Conservative movement champion Ms. Prejean. I watched Liberty University offer her a scholarship and Clare Booth Luce policy institute honor her as a “Great Conservative Woman.” I’ve since sent emails to both organizations displaying my frustration, with no response. The release of her book today is the tip of the iceberg. I cannot be the only Conservative Christian woman that feels like an island. If I mention my frustration with the hypocrisy I’m deemed a Pharisee. If I mention that Ms. Prejeans’ chosen path as a model and pageant queen is less than morally sound I’m put aside by Conservatives, of which I am one, as a feminist (as if Conservative women cannot be femists as I have shown clearly at the beginning of this piece as false), as bitter, as jealous. Not as someone who believes that women should respect themselves and not take the easy way out by objectifying themselves and participating in activities that the world deems okay.

Ms. Prejean is allowed to have one foot in the world, and one foot in championing Christianity. The only way that she should be even remotely allowed to champion family values is if she were to come out and say that her previous actions as a model and pageant winner were in fact immoral. I myself have done things I’m not proud of, but I do not try and defend them as if they are okay.

In my 21 years on this earth I have had to defend my beliefs. Since I became legally able to vote I made it a part of my life to understand, follow and participate in politics. While I have not been on a national stage being applauded for my genetics, I have written, campaigned and debated my beliefs. I recognize full that our culture champions women’s rights and at the same time calls women objectifying themselves sexually as their “right” and as “liberating.” I wouldn’t expect Conservatives to buy into this and I’m painfully disappointed that Christians do. Prominent female Conservative Ann Coulter even skirted the issue in her article, “Liberal Taliban Issues Fatwa Against Miss California.” Coulter wrote the following, “Liberals believe abortion is a sacrament, but smoking, wearing short skirts and modeling lingerie are mortal sins.” While she makes a valid point, she too misses the hypocrisy. Not the hypocrisy claimed by the liberals that Christians aren’t allowed to make mistakes, but that Christians shouldn’t call the sin they commit okay, but another sin wrong. That is in fact hypocrisy. Coulter also wrote this, “Christians aren’t people who believe they are without sin; they’re people who know they’re sinners and are awestruck by God’s grace in sending his only Son to take the punishment they deserve.” Christians also have to acknowledge their sins and ask for forgiveness, not claim that it’s no big deal.

If I’m the only Conservative woman who feels alienated, fine, but I sincerely believe that I’m not alone. I am a Christian Conservative woman, and Carrie Prejean, you do not represent me.

On October 23rd Rachel Maddow took to the air explaining why, according to her, Fox News isn’t news.  She steered clear of the stereotypical reasoning, the reasoning espoused by President Obama, that Fox News is right leaning.  Recall that President Obama quipped that Fox News was operating as “talk radio,” a thinly veiled swipe at conservative discourse. Ms. Maddow took the position that Fox News is not news because of it’s supposed promotion of the “Tea Parties.”

After hearing her argument, I searched through my memory of the events.  As someone who watches Fox News (the channel most of the cable news audience chooses), I didn’t recall Fox News “promoting” the Tea Parties.  What I do recall were the outlets that Maddow still considers news choosing not to cover the Tea Parties and when they did the reports were obviously biased and deragatory.  Let’s not forget Janeane Garafolo’s tasteful label of anyone who disagrees with the President as “Teabaggers.”CNN’s Anderson Cooper apparently thought teabagging references were appropriate terms to use while covering the event.  That’s just good objective journalism.

Media Matters and the Huffington Post were quick to accuse Fox News of promoting the protests.  Looking back at the coverage, it seems that Fox News promoted their coverage of the events, not the Tea Parties themselves.  Media Matters declared that Fox News Contributor’s were listed as sponsors on TaxDayTeaParty.com.  The operative word here is contributor.  Not Fox News as a network, Fox News contributor. The only misstep that I could see was Glenn Beck’s call for Fox News viewers to join in and celebrate with Fox News.  Considering that Glenn Beck is on Fox News, and Fox News cameras would be there, it seems like at best Beck, who never claims to be a journalist (unlike Keith Olbermann), committed a simple slip of the tongue. Of course though, that can’t be the case, this is an example of evil right wing Fox News.

By this standard, is MSNBC to be held accountable for the antics of Keith Olbermann? Are they to be held accountable for Janeane Garofalo’s deplorable comments? What about MSNBC’s deep connections to GE? That doesn’t bode very well for responsible journalism. Why doesn’t President Obama compare MSNBC to left wing talk radio? Considering both Fox News and right wing talk radio have stellar ratings, MSNBC and left wing talk radio is the next logical comparison.

The Tea Parties were major events and large scale examples of Americans exercising their first amendment rights.  Shouldn’t this be covered by American media outlets? I would think that even Columbia J-School grads would concede that their job is to cover the news, even if the people involved are, gasp, right leaning.  Then again Sean Hannity was involved, and as we’ve learned from Columbia J-school students, Hannity and Fox News are crazy.

It seems that Ms. Maddow almost had it right.  If she would have chosen better sources than the Huffington Post, or maybe if she had actually watched the Fox News promotions, as well as her own stations’ coverage, she would have found that Fox News is in fact news.  News stations cover major events.  News stations don’t allow “comedians” to so crudely mock people who exercise a fundemental American right. It looks like Fox News is standing alone in a sea of media outlets that no longer have the benefit of the false consensus effect. The MSM now has to compete with a news organization that covers news that center right America wants to see.  When the left couldn’t compete in talk radio, they cried to the government.  Now that the MSM can’t compete with Fox News, they cry to the government and attempt to discredit Fox News for doing what they should be doing, covering the news.