While many wonder what Obama has done in the Senate, not enough are questioning what is he trying to do now.

Right now he is trying to force The Global Poverty Act on the people of the United States.

In perhaps one of the clearest indications of Obama's belief that the U.S. should be subject to U.N. influence, the bill includes the expectation that the U.S. would contribute 0.7% of GNP to the United Nations "Millennium Project" and also support the United Nations Millennium Declaration.

This Act would result in the U.S. Taxpayer paying hundreds of billions of dollars to some UN entity to fight poverty around the world (Click here to read AIM article) and implement other UN policies that are likely contrary to the interests of the United States.

The Global Poverty Act would be a foreign policy disaster for the United States. It may pass the Senate with a whimper if citizens don't encourage their Senators to oppose the bill.

Ending poverty is a noble goal. People around the world should identify programs they believe help the billions of people in poverty around the world and should then feel free to send as much of their private wealth to those organizations as they see fit. Micro loans are a great example of a way people can help others around the world.

The people of the United States are having an increasingly difficult time providing for their own families and communities. The United States government should refrain from committing U.S. taxpayers to providing for people around the world- especially as many around the world who live in poverty live in conditions imposed upon them by governments that aren't really interested in an increasing access to economic freedom, which is the real solution to poverty.

As President Obama would clearly lead us down a path towards a stronger UN and a weaker United States, his views on the UN should raise concerns for voters.

For people in Minnesota interested in health care, Craig Westover published a great piece yesterday on the "Health Care Home" and the Health Care Access Fund.

While Minnesota has one of the best health care systems in the country, and therefore the world, the liberal left can not be satisfied with our success using the private sector and free markets. They have decided that Minnesota should not expand upon its success by increasing the ability of the market to improve access to and the quality of health care.

No- good liberals seem to question why Minnesotans get better health care than others and then do all they can to undermine the very aspects of the system that lead to quality care.

So rather than building on our successes, the Democrats in Minnesota are seeking to increase government control over all health care decisions.

This is a complicated issue and few in the fray have attempted to educate Minnesotans about the legislation that could have drastic consequences for consumers of health care. The citizens of Minnesota must depend upon Governor Pawlenty to veto legislation that transfers decision-making power to government gatekeepers.

Let us all hope the Governor stands firm with the people of Minnesota and vetoes any and every bill that undermines the right of the people to maintain control over their health care information and treatment.

As we conservatives sit back eating popcorn and watch the Democrats seem to disintegrate before our eyes, we should be careful not to choke on premature laughter.

As Clinton prepares to use the memory of Bush v. Gore to rally the Super Delegates to her cause, it is easy to cheer her on. Operation Chaos has been funny, but now we should begin to exercise caution.

Clinton will effectively argue, more convincingly after the big win in Pennsylvania, that she does in fact have a lead in the popular vote if all votes are counted. (click here for running total on Real Clear Politics)

Clinton will warn the SDs to look at the bigger picture- that Obama has spent 3 times the money and still couldn't win- even though he is the MSM's presumptive winner. He can not win the big states. She will warn them that he has alienated many outside the base and those independents that voted for him in Iowa might not look at him the same way now as they did then, when he was totally unknown and novel.

She will tell them they should wait to endorse to be sure they don't flock too soon. She will encourage them to not be fooled by slick talk.

She knows that if given time, Obama will sink his own ship. She knows that he fooled people with his phony "Audacity of Hope" rhetoric in the beginning but the story is getting boring. He has one good speech and people will get tired of hearing it again, and again and again. She knows that arrogance does not sit well with those in Middle America and Obama radiates arrogance.

She will assure them that she will work to bring the party together in a way that Obama can not because he is increasingly losing credibility with the working people. The elitist label is being used more often and it is starting to stick.

She will hammer the point that, like Bush in 2000, Obama wants to ignore the votes of the people. He wants to ignore the will of Florida AND Michigan. She will play on the bitter taste that still remains in the mouth of the base and encourage the Super Delegates to be the Court that gets it right. They will have the power to close the gap for one of them. She will argue that the Super Delegates should vote the way their constituencies vote. The Super Delegates from the critical states of California, Florida, Massachusetts, New York and Texas should follow the will of their people and vote for her.

And ultimately, she will say that all of the Super Delegates from the Obama states should think about whether or not the people of their state would vote the same way today as they did in the early primaries. She will remind them that she is a known entity and that her skeletons have all been out of the closet for years. If Super Delegates pledged their vote to Obama they should reconsider in June, based on the information that has since become available. She will challenge them to think about the consequences of an Obama loss that will likely follow the months of scrutiny he will now face. She will tell them that once all the primaries are finished, she will suspend her campaign if Obama has the lead.

And in private she will assure them that she will reach out to Obama to rehab his image and coach him to future success- she will help to prepare him to lead. If it is necessary, she will even offer him the VP slot to appease them.

Her warnings will be clear and they will be on the money.

Obama is an elitist and who seems to be turning Hillary Clinton into the woman of the people. Obama's far left politics help Clinton seems like a moderate.

Clinton and Obama are both beatable in November, but Obama is an easier target. While conservatives hope that Clinton does the dirty work of digging up the truth of Obama's extremism, they should also fear her success if she destroys him.

Life could be worse- you could live in Chicago (click here for article)

6 people were killed, 32 people shot- in less than 72 hours.

At least one of the victims is not cooperating with the police- now that is shocking...

Some police blamed warmer temperatures for the violence- it actually hit 75 degrees on Saturday- and the police project they will be having a very busy summer. If this is true, maybe they should be evacuating the city before June when the temperature might be what- 80 degrees.

I wonder if the many people who went on these shooting sprees are the people Obama thinks cling to their guns?

No, actually the people Obama criticized usually register their weapons and use them primarily for hunting animals. And they tend to vote more center-right on the political spectrum.

I would guess that Obama does pretty well with the voters of Chicago. Maybe he should think about who the bitter people are and what he could do to actually help them- or at least their victims.

Rather than pretend the temperature is the actual cause of violence in the city, maybe the voters of Chicago should think about how and why their city has disintegrated into such a "hot" bed of violence...

Apparently there was a lack of material available for children whose mothers rely on plastic surgery to make themselves beautiful.

In response to this pressing need, a "renowned" plastic surgeon has filled the void with his tale of a woman who needed a nose job and a tummy tuck to feel better about herself. (click here for Newsweek article on book)

Luckily, the mom ends up more beautiful than ever after her surgery and the child in the story is very happy with the new and improved mommy.

There is no end to the insanity. Maybe kids need a book to tell the tale of an emotionally needy woman who, rather than getting psychotherapy to determine why can't accept herself and see her inner beauty or why she is so afraid of aging, relies on plastic surgery.

The book, My Beautiful Mommy, will hit bookstores on Mother's Day. Sadly, expect it to hit the New York Times best seller list.

I only know that if my husband buys this book, there will be consequences...

Also interesting- the flap about the flag pin and his answer.

Obama chooses not to wear the pin that virtually all politicians wear. This is an outward expression of support for the United States that Obama chooses not to offer.

This is fair game. ABC allowed a woman to ask Obama about how he feels about the flag.

Media elite Jake Tapper (ABC News' Senior National Correspondent in DC) is shocked a woman who, he thinks, should be very upset about all that America has done to fail her, chose to raise the issue of the flag pin. (click here for his comments)

Unlike Tapper, this woman understands that no matter how bad any American has it individually, we are all so much better off than those around the world who suffer at the hands of governments that abhor freedom.

Obama didn't really answer her question about wearing the flag but said he revered the flag and America and regaled us, again, with his story about being born to a teenage mom, raised by a single mom and having grandparents from small towns in Kansas...

Not to be nit picky about his efforts to play on the struggle of teen moms across this country but the real story (click here for Chicago Trib article):

• Stanley Ann (his mom) was nearly 19 and a college student when she married a graduate student and became a mom.
• She got divorced from Obama's father when he abandoned her to go to HARVARD.
• Barack Obama was a toddler when they divorced and his mother remarried two years later.
• Her years as a single mom were limited to two.
• And she had the full support of her parents, also something many single parents lack...

Obama sure likes to play on stereotypes when he thinks they benefit him.

and was Obama flipping Hillary off in this post debate talk? (Click here) You decide...

The "debate" fallout continues for Clinton and Obama.

Anyone who watched the debate and then has listened to Obama whine about the questions should recognize the real reason Obama is not ready for prime time. The questions Obama didn't like are questions that raise concerns about his judgement. And there are clearly questions about his judgement.

ABC could have hit both of the candidates much harder. Clearly, Obama doesn't like to be put on the spot without prepared comments. This is why he, and the rest of his party, refused to participate in a debate organized by Fox News. They feared the possible questions Brit Hume or Chris Wallace might ask. The Democrats decided to participate in a debate moderated by ABC because they thought they were in friendly territory.

In the end, even friendly ABC wasn't nice enough for Obama. Now his poor performance is their fault not his. Stephanopoulos and Gibson are on the hot seat for their choice of questions. They, at least, seem willing to answer the questions about their performance. (click here for article)

We should all realize that when Obama says he is about CHANGE, he really just means he is changing which special interest group will have influence in Washington. He is just as much a political opportunist as those he rails against. The real difference between Obama and his political opponents are who they choose to cozy up to: Obama has used the networking of people who very vocally denounce the United States and despise "White culture" and White people (Wright), people who committed acts against our country (Ayers). Obama took their help but now wants people to accept that he doesn't agree with their positions and shouldn't be tainted by their actions.

There are countless politicians whose careers have been derailed by the taint of supporters who would like to have been held to the same lack of standards Obama demands.

I hoped the American people would, en masse, watch the Democratic Presidential Debate Wednesday night. It was a tough call- the future of the United States vs. Which 6 will remain on American Idol...

And the winner was....

American Idol with over 22 million viewers. The Debate: Almost 11 million viewers.

It is no wonder our country is in trouble...

Maybe we should consider running our primary season like Idol. Each party could hold tryouts around the country and then put out the summary shows during which the best and the worst would be highlighted. Can you see James Carville and Karl Rove telling candidates: You're going to Iowa, baby!

We would have a few weeks of "Hollywood" during which candidates would be coached by the "experts" on policy, how to talk like a preacher or a Midwesterner and how to look into the camera and appear sincere. The judges could each ask one or 2 questions of each candidate each week. The American people would vote on Tuesdays and then the next night we would get to watch the candidates sweat as some moderate moderator tells him or her "You're safe" or "The people have voted and you________ are going home."

Then, when we narrowed the search for America's next President down to two, they would each have to introduce their VP choice. We could have a couple of weeks of debates and then- we vote.

No exit polls, no around the clock analysis of how the counts are rolling in. America would vote one night and then the answer would be broadcast the next night.

I can hear it now: America voted and our next President is...

Unbeknownst to many, privacy rights in relation to personal health information are being increasingly threatened.

Minnesotans are fortunate to have the the Citizen's Council on Health Care, run by the very well-informed Twila Brase, alerting us to the many threats on both health care and our privacy rights related to health care. (click here for CCHC link)

There is an assault on privacy at all levels of government as public health officials begin to collect and store data on newborns- often via newborn screening to identify metabolic and genetic disorders and others subject to their reach. Congress has recently passed a bill to allow a national "DNA warehouse" to store genetic information on individuals. (click here for link to bill S. 1858) If George Bush signs this bill, Americans will have lost at least some of their right to genetic privacy. I wonder if those in support of this bill actually read it...

And then we have individuals around the country looking for ways to store their medical information so it is more accessible to them. This has become increasingly important as people often need to frequently change providers and then face barriers in transferring records in a timely and coordinated fashion.

In response to consumer demand, Google and Microsoft have begun to enter into the business of health record storage.

Now, the NY Times has published an article outlining potential privacy issues for people who use these services. (click here for article)

So, while Congress passes bills that sound nice, but actually undermine our rights, it ignores some very real problems that need addressing. Health care information often contains the most personal details of our lives. People with access to this information must know that they will be held accountable for any efforts to undermine or violate any person's privacy rights. Companies whose policies don't protect privacy should know they will be held accountable.

I am no fan of government paternalism, but do recognize that there should be safeguards protecting the rights of individuals.

Government exists to protect our rights, not usurp them...

I can not imagine why any women would agree to live a polygamist lifestyle.

Without question, if a 16 year old girl's parents forced her to marry an adult and then to become pregnant, the state would have reason to get involved in protecting that particular girl and in prosecuting the adult male involved.

That being said, the situation in Texas should be raising red flags for all Americans. (click here for article and here)

There are over 400 children ranging from infants to adolescents who have been taken from their parents- all based on two phone calls from a single young woman who expressed concerns about her own situation. It seems the state of Texas remains unable to locate this woman or determine if she in fact exists. It does not seem that there were allegations about every parent of the children removed from their homes.

It does not seem clear that all of the women were forced to marry against their will, or even that they were all minors at marriage or when their children were born. It does not seem clear that all of the children are being abused, even if in fact some of them are.

The state of Texas has assured the public that it is acting in the best interests of the children. Really...

Many of these children have been subjected to invasive medical exams, questioning about issues they may likely know nothing about, taken from their mother(s) and the only environment they have ever known. There does not seem to be clear evidence that all of these children were being abused by their parents. There can be no doubt the situation the state has created is traumatizing them.

The state asserts how concerned they are that some of the children don't know who their parents are and some seem to think they have multiple mothers. Many children in our society have multiple mothers- there are books in many schools about having "two mommies" and no dad- is it better to have two moms and no dad than it is to have two moms and a dad? Or two dads and no mom versus two dads and a mom. Increasingly homosexual couples are partnering to have children- those kids have two dads and two moms. Does the state of Texas intend to remove these children from their parents? Are spiritual marriages legal marriages in Texas? Is it okay for people in non-marital situations to co-habitate with as many others as they want but those who attempt to contractually provide for their families through marital relationships pose the real problem? What about kids whose parents have been divorced, sometimes repeatedly- are they in jeopardy?

When does the majority culture get to take children away from people whose lifestyles differ, just because?

This is an incredibly messy situation in which there is a bit of clarity- these people were targeted because the state- or at least some people who work for the state- find the religious practices of the sect immoral.

The state has assured citizens that each child will be represented by an attorney. Well- who decides which attorney? Does the attorney represent the child? Attorneys for children are put in a difficult position- they are not generally psychologists trained to evaluate what is in the child's best interest. They are not guardian ad litums, who also make recommendations based on the best interest standard. Attorneys represent their client. If the child is the client, then the attorney, whether they like it or not, should represent what the child wants to the court.

Because there is at least a reasonable chance that many of the attorneys volunteering to represent the children are in fact children's rights attorneys who may have a bias against the polygamist parents, the court should be careful to avoid future charges of attorney malpractice.

Texas authorities are separating children from parents under the guise of ensuring the children feel free to tell the truth. In Minnesota we dealt with a sex abuse scandal in the 1980s that ultimately led to the very public disgrace of the prosecutor involved. Children, scared and away from familiar people did in fact embellish facts. Texas authorities should be very wary of any actions that would prejudice whatever legitimate concerns they may have.

It is hard to believe the State of Texas has not seriously overreached in this situation. Now, to avoid admitting the mistake, the state appears to be digging in its heals.

A polygamist sect is a fairly easy target in that most educated people do not support polygamy. This sect is a group of fringe Christians with few supporters.

I live not far from the city of Minneapolis and as a foster parent know that there are hundreds if not thousands of children born to teenage moms every year. Go to larger cities like Chicago and New York and there are many, many more teenagers in this situation. Many of these young women were impregnated by adult men who abandoned them either before or after the baby was born. Who knows how many young teenagers took the morning after pill or had abortions to address a pregnancy by an adult male. These teenagers are of every race and religion- it is a problem exacerbated by socioeconomics.

Complicate the situation in the inner cities with drugs, gangs, single parents, illiteracy etc.

No one could tell me with a straight face that a baby born to a teen mom who has no support system is any better off, from a health and wellness standpoint, than the children in Texas. In fact, many attorneys could and would argue that the child in the sect is better off.

What would happen if Child Protective Services invaded a part of the city that is not totally unlike the compound in Texas. There may not be a fence around some of the neighborhoods in Minneapolis, but there are clear areas in which everyone knows kids are being harmed. The truth is there are not enough places to put all of the kids who are in fact being abused and neglected. If CPS took over 400 kids into protective custody in one day from a targeted neighborhood, every ACLU chapter in the country would be volunteering to help the parents.

If we really care about the children, we should apply the same standard of removal to all children. In the end, the system targets those it wants to, not always those it needs to.

Again, I think polygamy is wrong and that teenage girls should be preparing for college, not marriage and parenthood.

I think good parents ensure their children have the ability to avail themselves of all that society has to offer.

I also know that what I think should be the ideal is not the standard that CPS can impose on all parents in its efforts to remove children from their parental home.

Texas has taken actions that should be, and will be, heavily scrutinized. Over time, the truth will shake out.

We all should hope that the rights of the parents and children were not usurped on the basis of religious discrimination or personal feelings.

As a person who feels strongly that the state should intervene on behalf of children being abused and neglected more quickly than it often does, I fear that this situation will set back the children's rights movement and discourage other prosecutors from acting on legitimate reports in the future.

If the prosecutor has acted improperly, the sanctions, and the apologies, should be swift and public...

In the midst of all that is happening in the world right now, I was just blessed with the opportunity to stop and remember the short life of a miraculous little girl, Amber Rose Kimlinger.

For those touched by the gift of her spirit, there is so much that never needs to be said. This child demonstrated grace with every breath she took. (click here to read a Star Tribune article about Amber and her family)

Amber was born with a rare syndrome that most assumed would limit her life to only a few short days. With love and care, this child fought to live. She endured much but fought on. If she had lacked will, she would surely not have survived the many times her life flirted with death.

Amber grew to love her parents, her sister, her grandparents, Elmo, the many people who entered the circle of her life and life itself. Amber was so much more than most people could ever see. Amber gave so much more to her community and the world than many do in their healthy lives that span decades.

For those who never had the opportunity to know her or her family, it would be difficult for mere words to convey the many reasons why they all deserve our respect, love and gratitude.

Amber's parents, Tom and Lisa, are the sort of people that we should all strive to be like. No matter what challenges they have had to face (and as an outsider I feel able to say that they have faced more than most of us could ever imagine) they turned to each other and to their faith and plunged into living.

I have several children with disabilities and hope that I am the parent, and the advocate, they deserve. When I struggle with decisions about my kids and our lives, I often think of Tom and Lisa- of their spirit and their faith.

I am sure that they have their moments of "Why?" They are just as human as the rest of us. But in the end, they seem to have so much more than many of us.

Where did and do they find their strength? Their commitment to each other and their beautiful daughters? The confidence to challenge the doctors and the medical system that often understandably didn't know what to do to help ease their daughter's pain but also didn't seem interested in figuring it out? How did they develop the ability to find joy in every accomplishment and every milestone and also in the many seemingly sorrowful experiences, as well?

I know they find their strength through their faith and this faith carries them full steam ahead through long tunnels and up steep hills.

When my faith wavers and my hopes dim, when I have tough days and the kids aren't doing as well as I hope, I pray "Thy will be done." I also pray for the strength to live like Lisa and Tom.

My prayers are with Amber and Lisa and Tom and their family. I ask that yours be as well.

In loving memory of Amber Rose Kimlinger...

The University of St. Thomas, in Minneapolis/St. Paul has engaged in what it must see as a justified battle to save its undergrad students from the evils of the influence of the Young America's Foundation.


This foundation provides financial support to student groups around the country that seek to provide students with information that liberal, elitist professors often deny them.The YAF is an amazing resource that is necessary to counter the messages of academia that routinely belittle conservatives and the often ideology that was at the core of this country's founding.


It's tool, the denial of speaking space to Star Parker, a brilliant woman who speaks of her personal experiences as a woman on welfare. She was invited to speak to students about the consequences of abortion in minority communities. The YAF agreed to pay a portion of her speaking fee.

One might think the University would welcome opportunity to encourage students to challenge their beliefs by listening, respectfully, to those who might challenge their views. (Although one should stop to ponder how it came to be that a pro-life speaker might upset the powers-that-be at a Catholic University.)

Why would a Catholic University close it's doors to a pro-life speaker?


As a graduate of the law school at the University of St. Thomas, I am amazed at the short sightedness of the woman at the center of this fire storm. The Vice President of Student Affairs, Jane Canney told Katie Kieffer, the young woman behind this effort to educate students, "As long as I'm a vice president at St. Thomas, we will not deal with Young America's Foundation."


That being said, there is clearly more than one solution to the problem at hand...


Kathy Kersten, a columnist at the Star Tribune, wrote about this PR disaster and educational travesty on Monday. Her column (click here to read column) unleashed a firestorm and now the University must decide how to remedy this situation and also how to prevent this sort of ignorant, or perhaps arrogant, decision from being made in the future.

According to Kersten's column, Parker plans to speak whether or not the University offers her space.

I hope she comes and delivers a message of truth from Summit Avenue.

I plan to be there and I am sure I will not be alone...