Veronica Estrada, citizen scholar

Nevermind Glenn’s referring to Michelle Malkin as Michelle Obama (“Gosh, why am I even saying this?” @ 9:08).

Glenn’s got a worser problem than Freudian slips of the tongue.

The video’s here, via The Right Scoop.

Eric Massa will be gracing Glenn Beck with his Democratic presence tonight, and although Michelle warns Glenn profusely by telling him Massa’s

a sick, desperate pol looking to save his hide and distract from his smelly ethics problems and personal problems. This is not a hero, not a bona fide champion of reform and integrity in government. He’s the jerk who gave the figurative middle finger to his own constituents as he proclaimed last year that he would ram single-payer down their throats no matter what they thought..

.. Glenn insists on playing the consumate libertarian, 3rd party (divide the vote) hero.

But then, I wonder.

He’ll be giving considerable air time to another “ram the damn thing, Mr. President. Ram it!” entranced surrogate. How much time should you give your typical Ram-It guy?

And rather than restrict Messa to the standard 15-minute, “let’s consider the opposition” segment, Messa will bless Glenn’s entire show while Glenn gets high on “fascination” (@ around 10:00):

I think it’s faaaaascinating.  No body’s seen the show. You don’t know what i’m going to do tonight. You don’t know what he’s going to do tonight. You have no idea. And the controversey is now. I think that’s faaaascinating.

What does this say about Glenn’s integrity?

For all I know, he may be exploiting the conservative movement because the “controversy is now.”

Crossposted at RedCounty, The Next Right & The Patriot Room.

Fascinating day today.

I’m happily off to a “political meeting,” but before I do, I couple of things I came across as I hung around the Twitterverse today:

First thanks to Clyde Middleton over at The Patriot Room for piqueing my interest with “Here We Go: ICC About to Grab Power; Interpol Next In Line.”

Then Heritage’s David Erhlich put up a great article in The Foundry, entitlted “The ICC: International Justice or Global Government?”

It’s an excellent primer on how, should the Obama Administration decide to become a signatory of the Rome Statute, the ICC’s authority usurps our American rights under the Constitition.

There is also an excellent Online Symposium from the Yale Journal of International Law, put on by Opinio Juris. The Volokh Conspiracy’s Kenneth Anderson participates in it. At his blog, he’s referenced a paper he wrote addressing some of Paul Kennedy’s arguments on collective security, multipolarity and global governance.

Fascinating reads, folks.  

I will blog more on it later, but for now, I’m very glad to be re-entering the fray.

This is the time.

God bless our spouses, our families, and those rallying for freedom and liberty.

Clyde Middleton posted an article in the Patriot Room commenting on Michael Lennon’s piece
“The Blank-Prose Crime of Aggression.”

Simply, the UN is polishing up Charters to define generic, all-encompasing, blanketing (you name it) Crimes of Aggression.

This will basically shackle America from any and all defensible military posturing in the future.

It’ll strip our sovereignty, as we’d have to ask for permission to defend ourselves militarily, for example.

It’s much deeper than this .. and I’ve been lured out from beneath my rock.

Thanks, Clyde.

I’ll be restructuring my blog -yet again- (as is the perogative of any woman), to include my past research, links and references on the UN.

Let’s get the info out, guys, and bring it out in to the open:

Obama is not loyal to America’s best interests.

Ah, the story.

Not now.

I gave up the internet for lent, remember?

The deal is this: I’ve gotten off the internet and we have put boots to the ground to enact Change.

Yeah, I’ve hijacked the term, the same way those damn dems have tried to hijack freedom and liberty.

More later, but the cliffnotes are this: Codebreaker and I caputured the Precinct Chairman and Precinct Secretary positions in our Precinct, after I had worked the Primary at another precinct.

I’m not happy with what I saw. We’re starting a collective effort in our Precinct and will help make sure there’s a network in place when conservatives have decided to put their atomic forces behind a Republicn candidate to challenge the Despotic One in Power.

It begins with establishing our Precinct Blog and helping the conservative message spread like wildfire.

God, Country, Constitition.

God bless America.

It snowed here in Austin yesterday. Not just a brief flurry-fall but an all-day miracle that prompted the entire community to find the highest hill in town to slide down from.

We had people using anything and everything from laundry baskets, kitty litter boxes, storage bin lids and floppy cardboard boxes and kayaks to experience the exhilaration of a slow ‘n easy, Texas-style snow storm.

It was beautiful. And a blessing from God.

Here in Texas, this is a generic wish of every kid. “I want to see snow.”

This was something my husband and I have always wish for own children – being able to play in snow all day.  But, this would entail a.) traveling in dangerous conditions to see a snowstorm in North Texas or b.) a bit of a vacay in nearby Colorado, something we can’t do in this economy.

So, the snow came to us.

We thanked God for His blessing .. and, in return, the hubby and I went to confession, as Roman Catholics do.

During our Lent season, it’s customary for Catholics to “give up” something during the 40 days leading up to Easter. This entails more than just curbing the will, like say, during a diet. Giving up something during lent ties the physical denial to the spiritual disclipline of the person. It can be rough, as we’re called to remember the 40 days of Christ in the desert, and imitate Him in our fight against temptation.

In the end, we’re meant to emerge spiritually stronger and renewed, just what Easter is meant to symbolize. This is how we come to renew our baptismal vows each year at the end of Lent on Easter.

I didn’t want this year to be any different for me.

Typically, I choose something I love to indulge in or “reward” myself with. I love coffee. I like movies. I love time with my husband. I love conversation. But I did the sneaky thing and decided to give up chocoloate and sweets, which I happen to not care so much about.

I was a sneaky sidewinder.

Yesterday, though, while I knelt in prayer — which is something I need to do more of, btw — I realized the internet was what I needed to move away from during this time of spiritual focus.

A bit over a month ago, a post of mine got stripped off a public website without an explanation and it disturbed my fervor, my rhythm, my gusto for the injustice and wrongs I perceived in politics, against America, against people. It was a profound experience that rooted itself deep, deep within me.

Things like this happen for a reason, I know .. but you have to understand, that for an entire year, I had been systematically watching and commenting on the world in general, speaking as fervently as I wished, and in a matter of a few days, my voice was stripped. My mojo went missing. I have been unable to gain it back.

My focus has been misdirected. When I read and surf, I feel disjointed. Sometimes lost.

Is this downturn coinciding with what I perceive as America safely having turned a corner because now the majority of us understand the gravity of the situation in Washington and because the WH and the dems have officially been put on notice? Perhaps ..  

But my drive for research hit a wall .. and now, after about 6 weeks of struggling to find a new groove, I find it’s time to step away and re-evaluate and distract myself with other things besides the body politic.

I have a screenplay to write, prayer methods to research with a friend, and a book to get off the ground and continue editing. And a family to love and care for, a husband to make love to, and a God to worship. Plenty to do.

And unless something profound happens and I do not hear of a strong, well-articulated alternate view, I’ll be back on or about April 5th.

Until then, buh-bye Twitter and all you sites, blogs and people I love to watch. It’ll be rough..

My friends — I will check email on Mondays and Wednesdays. And some of you have my phone number.. You know I’m always up for dinner, coffee and conversation.

I will see you.

God bless you all.

God bless America.

Thanks to WBisBil’s Why Am I A Fan of Mark Levin? hubpage.

Listen to Mark Levin. He’s a constitutional lawyer and President of the Landmark Legal Foundation.

Inspiring during these times.

The shortest political stint ever.

You don’t have to go far to take a look at a falling star.

Angela McGlowan, the Fox News analyst who recently launched her bid for the House of Representatives, was the first speaker to showcase the rise of the Tea Party Movement at this past weekend’s National Tea Party Convention in Nashville.

It didn’t take long for someone to discover her disdain for gun owners who .. “collect.”

Skip to 7:30 for her to explain what she really means: 

Angela McGlowan is a racist.

Who just accused everyone who stockpilesweapons to be a racist gearing up for a race war. Black v. white.

Angela McGlowan is black.

Who do you think she wants to protect from “danger” via gun registration? What sort of “aggresors” is she targeting by supporting a government-run inventory of privately-owned, legally purchased firearms?

Let’s take a closer look at her comments:

MCGLOWAN: I believe that you should be able to have weapons. I belive in the 2nd Amendment. I believe that you should be able to protect yourself.

But when you have crazies out there that are stockpiling guns because they believe that we are gonna have some type of race war, I think that that’s a problem.

HOST: What would be the reason that the government would want to know?

McGLOWAN: .. You’ve had conservative talk show radio [shows] where I’ve heard .. people who want to overthrow the government, people who don’t like the fact that we have a black president .. they believe that there’s going to be a big race war.”

Call her what she is, folks: racist.

And she thinks I’ve racist intentions because I might have 35 pistols in the house, 16 semi automatics, 7 ARs and 10,000 rounds of ammo.

And that I must therefore dislike my president because he’s black.

She sure works on a hell of a lot of assumptions about people who own guns. And I can guarantee you she has NOT ONE credible source who has told tell her, “yes, I hate my president because he is black, so I am stockpilling weapons in preparation of a race war.”

This woman just rammed her career into the ground.

First — there’s no way for her to escape this racist, anti-gun platform. It’s been brought to light the day after her announcement for the House.

Second — there’s no way she can neither deny — to people who believe whites stockpile, as she does —  nor affirm  this racist, anti-gun platform – to conservative gun-clingers.

Third — this is the last time she’ll be speaking at any Tea Party gathering.

She’s tainted goods.

Woman, we love our guns. And we’re hell-bent on protecting our right to privacy.

If you don’t like it, take that issue up with the homosexual community first. Tell them to reveal to the government what goes on in their bedroom .. then we’ll talk about how many guns I own.

I want to feel what you feel.

I want to get under your skin.

I want to co-exist in you.

This is my love for you.

Look. You and I have studied the media. You can smell a lead-up a mile away.

It lurks beneath the surface and compels you to keep reading to the end, just to confirm your suspicion that something is amiss.

Something’s  just not right with this article, you tell yourself.

You’ll only find what you’re looking for in those last two paragraphs. Usually paragraph 50. And it’ll completely flip the entire tone of the article.

Had they served this tidbit of information straight-up, it would have worked as a disclaimer and turned the entire article on its head .. but no, they wait until the end.

Among us non-journalist denizens, we call this deceptive honesty.

FOX is guilty of this too.

FOX’s Jessica Ryen Doyle references Dr. Manny Alvarez —  managing health editor of FoxNews.com, Dr. Keith Ablow —  a psychiatrist and Fox News contributor, and Dr. Abdulla Al-Khan – a leading high-risk obstetrician, in her full-length write-up about an 11-year old girl who gave birth to a baby boy in a Northeast Hospital.

They go on to list the medical risks to mom, including:

• the effects of her short stature
• chest development of the mother for breast tissue
• lack of complete bone fusing for the mother
• exposure of copious amounts of progesterone and estrogen
• the possibility pregnancy that could halt her growth
• lack of pelvis development
• vaginal damage
• high risk for preeclampsia
• higher risk of pre-term labor and delivery, compromising the baby’s size and “leaving the baby at risk for developmental issues, fetal growth restriction and chromosomal abnormalities” (an abnormal baby)
• higher incidence of stillbirth;
• higher incidence of cholestasis of pregnancy which can lead to stillbirth and placenta issues
• chance of developing fatty liver, which can be fatal
• aches, pains, the sleep deprivation
• affected mental capacities of the mother who “can’t possibly wrap themselves around what it means to be a mother”
• psychological minefields including guilt and “wanting to nurture another human being”

Only in the end do they finally say what we know they were getting at all along:

[I]t was likely that the possibility of terminating the baby would have come up in this case, because as sensitive a subject as it is, going through with the pregnancy would be a greater risk than having an abortion

Greater risk? But she had the baby. The baby was healthy. And mom was “fine.”

Okay?

But absolutely no opposing viewpoints on this article that would include:

• protective officials questioning how this girl’s mother failed to protect her child from statutory rape
• interviews wwith ob/gyns of girls this young having a successful birth (like this one) or
• an interview with this girl’s ob-gyn to note abnormalities of this pregnancy and help explain the success of this beautiful, healthy baby boy:

• an interview with the girl for the public to evaluate her mental health
• an interview with the girl’s social advocate (she should have one) or psychologist to give us an indication of her mental health
• an interview with social advocates or psychologists who can vouch for the mental health of young mothers who give birth and can note successful adoptions
• a pediatrician who can comment on the increased health and size of young people over the years
• an interview with an ob/gyn showing comparable risk to any woman of any age giving birth to a child
• asking Dr. Abdulla Al-Khan about his high-risk experiences with the successful births of high-risk pregnancies of petite women and women entering a pregnancy with known medical issues such as diabetes and previous cases of cardiomyopathy, previous abortions, c-sections, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, etc.

This is a completely lopsided article — severely deficient at best.

Where is the concern for the sexual activity of this 11 year-old?

Doyle’s entire article is nothing more than a litany of risks Baby Boy posed to this 11-year-old mother during her pregnancy.

No where is there a mention of other risks related to the sexual activity she engaged in – prior to adulthood, prior to the age of consent and marriage — that leads to other risk factors that are farther reaching, longer lasting and could far outweigh the risks listed above and are far more common to the typical sexually active teen.

Those include, are associated with and are not limited to:

• rape
• sexual abuse
• sexual exploitation
• physical, emotional, mental scarring
• associated drug-use and drug abuse
• becoming a school drop-out and the lowering of future prospects & opportunities
• related socio-economic issues — ostracism from family, friends and society and resulting poverty and depedence on government welfare
• the transmission of sexual diseases, some of which are incurable or deadly

The only true solution to all this would be to advocate abstinence until the age of consent, maturity or marriage. Anything else is a false sense of security, which contributes to these sort of problems to begin with.

The real danger is in advocating “safe sex.” Only abstinence is 100% effective.

Nowhere in this article is there a mention of adoption or the abstinence that would have saved this 11-year-old and girls like her from “this problem,” NOT EVEN in light of the study that was released this week.

What we have here is a case of ”professionals” encouraging a roll of the dice when it comes to the lives and well-being of these young people. They’re simply promoting their views to use abortion as yet another form of birth control.

Doyle, Alvarez, Ablow, and Al-Khan are guilty of this by their omission of proposing alternative views in this article.

As sad as this is — and it is sad. No one wants an 11-year-old to become a mother — I thank God this young mother decided not have an abortion and that her mother supported her during her pregnancy.

I’ve had experience with young pregnant mothers. Of the over 100 young girls I dealt with over a 2-year period in a 5A school district, none of them ended up with baby abnormalities and only 1 had preeclampsia. They were healthy, normal girls. You’re getting this from a person who intimately observed teenage pregnancy as young as 11 and 12. 

Doyle should have provided such a viewpoint.

She and those who participated in this interview should all be severely chided for not admiting that an abortion would have been a greater risk to the baby’s health than anypotential birth defect and failing to appropriately comment on the health of this 11-year old mother.

Take a look at this baby’s pic again.

You tell me.

3 to 6 months of “risk” v. a 75-year life.

Which would you pick?

When you’re done evaluating that, compare FOX’s reporting of this pregnancy with another high-risk pregnancy.

You tell me if there’s a bias.