Watch this video and tell me what’s missing from this hearing about child prostitution and sex trafficking in the Senate Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law.

That’s right, the Senate Subcommittee is missing! I saw this on the news last night and thought it was just the wrong footage. No, that wasn’t the case. In fact, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) was the only guy there listening… and that’s probably only because Alvarez is from his state.

So just who is (or at least ‘is supposed to be’) on this committee?

Well, Dick Durbin is the chairman of the committee… so it’s probably good that he was there.

Other Democrats on the committee include Russ Feingold (WI), Ben Cardin (MD), Ted Kaufman (DE),
Arlen Specter (PA), and Al Franken (MN).

Al Franken’s (empty) seat on this committee is all the proof we should need that this issue is a joke for the US Senate.

The absent Republicans are Tom Coburn (OK), Lindsey Graham (SC), and John Cornyn (TX).

Well, Lindsey Graham is busy serving as John McCain’s loyal lapdog and John Cornyn is pre-occupied with using the NRSC to screw over conservatives in every state of the Union with Senate election in 2010. I’m not sure what Coburn’s excuse is.

Look, I know everyone in Washington is busy watching the Obamacare Bill die its slow, painful and humiliating death – but is it so much to ask that a group of 9 Senators charged with investigating Human Rights violations around the world pay just a little bit of attention to a growing, gut wrenching violation taking place against children right here in our own country?

All 8 of the Senators absent from Wednesday’s hearing should be utterly ashamed of themselves and thrown out of office the when they’re up for re-election. Regardless of whether or not Durbin was required to be there as Subcommittee chairman or whatever his motives were, he at least deserves some credit for sitting in the room and letting the hearing take place at all so that media attention could be placed on the horrific atrocity taking place within our own borders.

To begin with, please, if you haven’t read the original piece (or even if you have and don’t remember it exactly) read it here: Working Vs. Stay at Home Moms

Ok, now that our memories are refreshed, let me address something that I had THOUGHT was clear in the original article. If you’re individual life situation doesn’t allow you to be a stay at home mom, then THAT’S FINE. I stressed countless times in the article this exact point, but unfortunately some people either don’t know how to read or choose not to. Regardless, the main reason that I decided to dredge this wonderful topic back up is because apparently I have a hate group regarding my articles. This doesn’t really bother me. Most ignorant people don’t like me, and that’s fine. The feeling is mutual. However, since this comment in particular (via a facebook conversation) about this particular article came up, I thought that I would ask you all, loyal readers, your input. Here it goes:

“Somebody needs to tell that fool that instead of spending time writing idiotic blogs and posting crap on facebook he should spend it with his kid (side note: Gage is almost always sleeping when I’m doing my extracurricular activities. Also, you will all be happy to know that Gage’s first word is “Daddy”. It must be from all that darn neglect.) and act like a grown up!!! He’s an idiot…”  There are some other things regarding peoples personal information and names that I won’t publish, but you all get the gist.

My question is this: what exactly did I write that was so offensive? Was my own personal thoughts, that a mother, if GIVEN THE CHOICE, should choose to stay at home with her child so that he/she is receiving the care and guidance that that child deserves? I went out of the way, in several parts of this article, to be sure to articulate that working mothers who juggle a career (ESPECIALLY single mothers) deserve a special place in heaven. I don’t understand, people. I really don’t. By the way, thanks to all of you readers, my “idiotic blogging” has made it’s way into the local college newspaper several times, has been featured in the Post-Tribune (a local paper) and I now occasionally write for the Northwest Indiana Times. Thank you again, loyal readers, for reading my useless opinions. At least I’m stimulating some peoples brains. Or rather, those that care to have their brains stimulated at all.

I know I promised not to bombard you with local news about my campaign, but we’re getting things started with our first fundraiser tonight and we’re going to stream live video to the internet. We solved a lot of the problems we had a few weeks ago by switching to a new streaming video service.

You can watch the fundraiser live from my campaign’s donation page.

https://secure.piryx.com/donate/IFP10jaM/support-kevin/virtual

If you please, and I hope you do, make a donation while you’re there. The primary is coming up quick on May 4th and we need all the help we can get from friends and family across the country in order to get our message out there. If you want to join us in person, we’re meeting at Gelsosomo’s in Chesterton, IN at 6:30 (Central). It’s just $15 a person, although you are certainly welcome to donate more, and you’re getting some of the best pizza in the region out of it.

I hope to see you there, but if not, feel free to watch us online.

By the way, today is my birthday and I’ve been endorsed by the Can-Do Conservatives. How great is that?

WATCH THE EVENT LIVE!

 

CPAC, for all of you out there that don’t know what it is, is the Conservative Political Action Conference, and is a conservative staple. This years list of speakers included Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, etc. etc. Over the years Republican candidates have used CPAC to gauge the audience response as to whether or not he/she would take a Presidential stab. The ”straw poll” is a poll that indicates each individuals popularity.   

Here are the numbers and large number of people that ran in this “straw poll”.

Haley Barbour: 1%

Mitch Daniels: 2%

Newt Gingrich: 4%

Mike Huckabee: 4%

Sarah Palin: 7%

Ron Paul: 31%

Tim Pawlenty: 6%

Mike Pence: 5%

Mitt Romney: 22%

Rick Santorum: 2%

John Thune: 2%

It is important to note that only 2,395 votes were cast while the estimates of how many people showed up was well over 10,000. Of course, I’m sure this won’t stop hard-core Paul followers from proclaiming this a victory for their man.

However, if less than a fourth of those that attended voted for this, what are the odds that this poll is accurate enough to make that judgement? Also, let’s do some math. The Ron Paul section has really only two guys on this list that are in that libertarian vein: Pence and Paul. Add those two numbers up, it’s only 36%, which would mean only 36% of conservatives are of the RLC type. That leaves 64%, which is split amongst all of the other candidates, and as we all know everyone has their “pet” politicians. I’m sure most of the other 64% would be more than willing to vote for a different person if the name came up on the ballet, but the odds are most of the conservatives that  are in that 64% would not vote for Paul. Why? Most conservatives at that rally were probably “neo-cons”: which would clash quite a bit with Paul’s isolationism (OH that dreaded word again! I’m sorry, I’m sorry…non-interventionism which would force us into isolationism. My bad.) Pence, I actually like quite a bit, however he isn’t nearly as extreme about certain things like Paul is, and most other thinking people of the remaining 64% would probably still cast a vote for him.

The point of this post? The straw man poll means nothing, thank God.

That mean’s he’s either running for Governor in 2012 back in Indiana or he’ll be replacing Joe Biden on the Presidential Ticket that same year. To be honest, I think Evan Bayh was feeling a bit too dirty for what the far left majority in the US Senate was forcing upon him. Bayh may not have voted like it, but he was actually a pretty conservative governor considering the letter after his name. If that’s the case, the VP slot isn’t very likely since it was Obama spearheading the far left agenda. Of course, people often times say I give too much credit to Democrats and I shouldn’t give them a soul or conscience when there’s no evidence of either. You could possibly argue then that Obama and Bayh are already staging their message for 2012 – that politics has gotten dirty and Bayh’s presence on the national ticket is evidence that Obama is the best one to fight dirty Washington.

And while I was too busy in the hospital, sending out press releases, and cracking away like a mad man at a website for my first campaign for public office (www.votetracy.com) to pay attention to the news; I’m sure SOMEBODY in the news media noticed that Bayh announced all of this on PRESIDENT’S Day.

There’s something else to consider here… the brilliant lobbyists and their pet Senators at the NRSC helm took their dear, sweet time spending money against Senator Bayh. What if they found something? The reason I suggest that is because Bayh has been a potential contender for President and he keeps pulling his name out of the running before getting anywhere. Additionally, he has been passed over consistently for the Vice Presidential candidacy. Although I think Obama-Biden was a good match considering Obama’s lack of foreign policy background, Evan Bayh might have carried several more states for the Obama ticket. Likewise, Hillary Clinton could have easy named him her VP pick in 2008 in order to coast to much easier wins in states like Indiana, Ohio, and Texas, possibly giving her the ability to campaign more effectively in other states she ended up losing.

Evan Bayh, being slightly more conservative, probably would have carried Ohio for Senator Kerry in 2004, thus granting him a Presidential win over George W. Bush. Okay, Democrats might not know the first thing about Supply and Demand, Polar Bears, or why people watch professional football… but they DO know a thing or two about politics and, at face value, Senator Bayh seems like Running Mate Gold. At face value.

Here’s something I bet the analysts didn’t consider on television. Why would Obama want Bayh now? Bayh is literally only half of Biden. Seriously, sound it out. Maybe he’s only half as bad?

There’s a tough primary taking place in Indiana’s 9th Congressional District, but the candidate who lost the seat in the national 2006 massacre, Mike Sodrel, just landed an enormous endorsement that could permanently shift the tide of the primary in his favor. That’s right, Indiana’s own Mike Pence came out in support of his former colleague in the House of Representatives. While we haven’t endorsed anyone in this race or any other race yet, I would be lying if I said that I didn’t like Mike Sodrel. Not as a politician – as an ordinary guy. He’s the kind of person you just want to be around. Coincidentally, that’s what makes him a good public servant.

This was from a campaign e-mail blast tonight:

To a packed room full of supporters young, old, and in between, Congressman Mike Pence endorsed Mike Sodrel in the Ninth District U.S. Congressional Campaign at the Clark County Republican Headquarters on Saturday. In front of the backdrop of a new campaign logo and in front of supporters waving signs “Mike Pence. Mike Sodrel. 2010,” Pence enthusiastically put his full support behind Mike Sodrel and the Sodrel family citing them as not only friends but a family “standing in the gap” for citizens whose voices aren’t being heard on Capitol Hill.

The topic of focus at the press conference was not only Mike Pence’s endorsement but what this election means for the nation. Mike Pence said, “The cliché in politics is that ‘this is the most important election in our lifetime.’ This isn’t the most important election in our lifetime. I think this is one of the most important elections in the life of this nation.”

Congressman Pence said he supported Mike Sodrel “before it was cool.” Sodrel and Pence shook hands at the press conference and were off to a luncheon at The Grand in New Albany.

At the Grand, Mike Sodrel introduced Congressman Pence but before doing so, recognized that Congressman Pence wouldn’t endorse him just on the basis of their friendship. “If he didn’t think I were good for this country, if he didn’t think I were good for the economy, for his children and his grandchildren, he wouldn’t have endorsed me. That’s why his endorsement is so important.”

Pence delivered a signature knockout speech to a room full of Sodrel supporters who were at the luncheon. Pence’s first words were “Mike Sodrel is going to be the next congressman from this Congressional District,” and the audience erupted with a resounding applause. While Pence recognized the Sodrel family for rising up for “Rocky V,” the point of his speech was to challenge Americans hungry for freedom, traditional values, and individual responsibility that their duty was to “rise up.” The Sodrels cannot win this election with “all the money in the world and all the tea in China” on their own. The Sodrels need Ninth Congressional District residents to “rise up” and do everything in their power to get them elected to make the next century an “American century built on American ideals and freedom. This is our calling. Now is the time. Let your voice be heard” Pence compellingly said.

Pence’s endorsement definitely pulls sway toward Mike Sodrel’s campaign in the four-way race for the Republican nomination to face Baron Hill in November. Congressman Pence’s job, as the third ranking Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives, is to get fellow conservative Republicans elected to the House. The Pence endorsement was fully welcomed by the Sodrel campaign and comes as an important turning point in the acceleration of a campaign that is promising to be different this year.

You can get more updates about the exciting campaign for Mike Sodrel by going to www.mikesodrel.com.

…and the winner is…Debra Medina!

On the Glenn Beck show, Debra Medina made a statement regarding the 9/11 “Truth” Movement that should be crippling to her campaign (and if it isn’t, then I’ve lost all faith in Texas). Here is the quote, taken from an Associated Press article:

‘[C]omments made by Debra Medina on the Glenn Beck Show that there were “some very good arguments” that the U.S. was involved in bringing down the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

“I don’t have all of the evidence there, Glenn,” Medina said. “I think some very good questions have been raised. In that regard there’s some very good arguments and I think the American people have not seen all the evidence there.”‘

Wow.

Well, needless to say (and very very unsurprisingly) her two rivals in the race couldn’t wait to assert that THEY weren’t retarded.

“Perry said Medina’s remarks “were an insult to the thousands of Americans who lost loved ones.” He countered that anyone “should be ashamed” for suggesting involvement by former President George W. Bush’s administration. Bush was Perry’s predecessor as Texas governor.

Hutchison stressed that it was “al-Qaida terrorists who declared war on America. To suggest otherwise is an affront to the men and women who are sacrificing their lives to root out the terrorists in Afghanistan and around the globe.”"

Perhaps a bit more diplomatic than I think I could have been able to stay, but they both made their points quite clear. Of course, after the cat was out of the bag, Medina still tried to get that mangy feline back in with this statement, pulled from her campaign website and printed in it’s entirety (with some occasional interruptions by me, of course).

I know, I know…just leave this one alone Travis. But you all know that I can’t do that! It’s some kind of mental illness I have. When something absurd is talked about I NEED to write about it.

The Associated Press printed a story today about First Lady Obama’s decision to take on child obesity. First, before I go all critical on her, I want to talk about the couple of things that I don’t have a problem with.

Major elements of Mrs. Obama’s campaign include:

“The Food and Drug Administration working with food manufacturers and retailers to make food labels more “customer-friendly.” The nonalcoholic beverage industry said Tuesday it will start putting calorie information on the front of its products.”

I have no problem with people being more aware of what they are putting into their bodies. Of course it won’t make me think twice about demolishing that wonderful McDouble and that large fry, but some people may, and that’s fine. Good for them. I’ll think about them while I lick the grease off my fingers.

“Offering $400 million in tax breaks to encourage grocery stores to move into “food deserts,” areas with limited supplies of nutritious food, and spending $5 million more to establish and promote farmers’ markets. Both steps would require congressional action.”

Tax breaks=good. As long as it is a tax break to ENCOURAGE, not DEMAND grocery stores to move in one direction or another, I’m fine with it. The 5 mil to promote farmers’ markets? Well, at first thought I was against, but considering 5 mil isn’t anywhere near the trillions that we need to stop spending, I’ll bite the bullet on that one.

“Encouraging children to exercise more; an hour a day is recommended.”

Encourage away.

“Setting up a Web site, http://www.letsmove.gov, with shopping tips, a recipe finder and other resources”

No problemo with that one either.

Now, let’s get critical.

“The American Academy of Pediatrics is encouraging doctors to monitor children’s body mass index or BMI, which is a calculation of height and weight used to measure body fat.”

In one paper or magazine you’ll read about children having issues about their weight, in the next you’ll read that the American Academy of Pediatrics is going to start encouraging doctors to monitoring kid’s weight. Which should we be concerned about again? Should little Susie Bingeandpurge really have her body fat measured? I say leave this part out of it. Fat children have enough of a complex as it is, thank you very much.

“Serving healthier food in schools. Congress is due to rewrite the Child Nutrition Act this year, and the administration is asking lawmakers to spend $10 billion over the next decade to give schools more money to make needed changes. More than 31 million children get meals through the federal school lunch program, and many kids eat up to half their daily calorie total at school.”

Here we go again. More cradle to grave crap. More money allocated to public schools to fix the problem (which never seems to fix it, so therefore more money gets thrown at it). As I recall from my own hot lunches in school, it was a pretty healthy lunch anyways (except for pizza on Friday! God forbid!!) Not only that, reread the above paragraph. Did you see the kicker? “[K]ids eat up to half their daily calorie total at school.” So, while we have an issue with child obesity from pretty damn balanced public school lunches, we also have an issue where children aren’t getting enough food while at home? Then, shouldn’t we, in theory, make the lunch foods have MORE calories and MORE fat since the kids aren’t eating as much at home?

Maybe I’m out of line here, but I think the whole idea is ludicrous. In one speech you can hear a politician piss and moan about needing more food stamp services because people are starving (which is crap, because a good portion of those people just sell the stamps for cash anyways) and then we hear about “needed changes” regarding childhood obesity.

Here’s a thinker. Don’t worry if my kid is fat! If he’s fat then that means he has enough to eat at home then doesn’t it? Why is that liberals (and to be fair a good many conservatives) feel the need to worry about stuff like this? I know the other side of the argument: if we can thin down these kids we won’t have to pay for their health care in the future. Well, I have a solution for that too! Don’t pay for their health care!

I don’t mean to rant and rave about such a mundane topic here, but good Lord, there’s only so much stupidity a man can take. Now excuse me. I believe my 4 meat pizza is almost finished cooking.

Let’s pretend for a moment that the NRSC wasn’t led by a corrupt Senator with too much time on his hands that he has to mess around in other states’ primaries. 

Okay, are you pretending?  So Dan Coats announced he was going to run for US Senate here in Indiana.  Before he even returns home to Indiana, the National Democratic Senatorial Committee launches a series of negative attacks bashing Coats relentlessly for clients he represented, where he’s been registered to vote (Virginia) and where he said he wants to retire (North Carolina).

Now, undoubtedly, Coats is going to have to answer these attacks in the very near future, but why have the Democrats been so quick to go on such a ferocious campaign against the guy? Well, there are two possible explanations and the truth can be either.

1. Democrats are afraid of Dan Coats.
2. Democrats are see Dan Coats as an easy target of opportunity.

If these explanations seem familiar, it’s because we’ve used them before when talking about Sarah Palin. In Palin’s case, I honestly believe that she’s too incompetent to pose a serious threat to President Obama in 2012, that they’re just taking shots at an easy target of opportunity who really is her own worst enemy.

Dan Coats and Sarah Palin are in different boats, however. First of all, Dan Coats is probably intelligent enough to be able to tell Katie Couric what he reads. Secondly, and more importantly, Dan Coats isn’t the only challenger of Evan Bayh in Indiana. Richard Behney, who has no experience to speak of, is among the Republican contenders in this primary and if Democrats were looking to embarrass Indiana Republicans, they would have been lambasting this guy months ago. Likewise, they’ve mostly stayed out of the hair of Marlin Stutzman, John Hostettler, and Don Bates, as well.

Of these four, I personally think Stutzman and Hostettler are the best candidates to give Republicans a chance at ousting Evan Bayh. So if this was an instance of Democrats being afraid of Coats, why in the world haven’t they attacking Stutzman and Hostettler with the same vigor? The answer to that is simple: money. Dan Coats has been a lobbyist for quite some time and has acquired some very powerful and very rich friends. Although Stutzman and Hostettler are amazing candidates, they haven’t been able to raise the funds necessary to get their message out to the voters. This is why I was upset last year when the corrupt politicians in the NRSC said they wouldn’t send any money or support to Indiana’s Republican candidate for US Senate in 2010. Granted, Coats has NRSC support, but we’re pretending that hasn’t happened because I want us to look at Coats objectively.

The other thing to remember is that money alone doesn’t make the candidate, unless you’re giving that money to the NRSC… in which case money is all that matters. Yes, Dan Coats has money in his corner, but the other thing Democrats have to be afraid of is his message. If Dan Coats were a liberal Republican and campaigning on a liberal record, the Republican primary voters here in Indiana will reject him regardless of how much money he spends. Dan Coats may be a lobbyist and arguably a carpetbagger with loyalties to states other than Indiana… but he’s probably a conservative lobbyist and carpetbagger and it certainly seems as if Evan Bayh and the Democratic Party at the State and National level are afraid of this guy and that means he could be very good for us.

Look, I’m not endorsing anybody in this race yet. I do have my favorite, but I’m holding off on endorsing him until I hear what Dan Coats can bring to the table. I’m also not saying we should give Dan Coats a free pass. I have serious problems with him as our candidate and the Democratic Party has done a very good job of summarizing them. But he’s still a candidate and until we see where he stands on the issues, I think we’d be doing a disservice to the State of Indiana not to consider the guy at all.

With that said, Dan Coats needs to hit the ground running when he gets back to Indiana tomorrow. Indiana Republicans (including myself) are a lot more skeptical of Coats than are the people he’s been playing paddy-cake with inside the I-495 Beltway since he left Indiana more than a decade ago.