96 Year Old Man Writes Love Song for His Wife of 75 Years

28 Aug

Grab the Kleenex because you’ll need them for this one.  Shortly after his wife of 75 years passed, Fred wrote a love song for her. Then, this amazing record studio took his song and made it a reality.

DISCLAIMER: The following will make you feel things, lots and lots of things. Will probably restore your faith in humanity too.

Major props to Green Shoe Studio for telling Fred’s story.

UPDATE: PJ Media Responds to RNC Denial

28 Jul

Following this post I wrote Friday, J. Christian Adams wrote a lengthy post providing a much needed explanation of the PJ Media/RNC spat regarding alleged RNC collusion with the DOJ. Full disclosure: I’m personal friends with Mr. Adams and have tremendous respect for him, his work and his sacrifice on both a personal and professional level. I know him to be honest, forthright, tenacious and able to evidentially back up his claims. I do not believe he would report anything based on baseless presumption or as a knee-jerk reaction; his track record speaks otherwise. I’ve contacted the RNC and will report any response they provide as well. The RNC is on the record denying these accusations, and can be judged accordingly. But until then, please read what Mr. Adams wrote concerning the matter. It provides context not included in the original PJ Media post and subsequent RNC statement:

On a July day in 2006, the entire Republican caucus was invited to hear a private debate in a meeting room in the Capitol.  Scores of GOP members attended, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert.  At issue was whether the federal government should continue to have control over every election-law change in sixteen states, including Texas, California, Florida, and South Carolina.  Federal power over the states was set to expire.  On one side of the debate was lawyer Mike Carvin, who argued that federal oversight should end.

Carvin’s opponent arguing for continued federal power to review election changes like voter ID wasn’t a Democrat, or even a zealot from the NAACP.

Instead, opposing Carvin’s constitutionalist viewpoint and advocating for federal oversight of state elections was the former chief counsel to the Republican National Committee (RNC).  Also on that side was a group of RNC consultants and lawyers who remained active in RNC policy advancing this viewpoint in the following years.

Top Republicans in Congress listened to the two sides – Carvin arguing for an end to federal oversight of state elections, and the RNC side arguing for continued oversight with even tougher new burdenson states.  House Republicans eventually sided with the RNC point of view, and passed the 2006 reauthorization of federal preclearance power a few days after the debate.

In June 2013, the Supreme Court at last settled the issue in theShelby County decision by striking down the triggers which placed fifteen states under federal receivership for election-law changes as an unconstitutionally outdated infringement of state sovereignty.

That the RNC continued to support federal oversight one way or another over the past few years was no surprise to me or anyone else who has closely followed the issue — or spoken with the parties involved in the 2006 debate.  As recently as last year, one of the RNC-affiliated lawyers remained bitter toward PJ Media contributor Hans von Spakovsky for helping to organize the 2006 debate on Capitol Hill.

This might explain the peculiar reaction of the RNC to the PJ Tatler posting of last Friday (see, “RNC Operatives Join Holder’s Campaign Against Texas, Several Other States“).

A frantic (and ungrammatical) response was posted in the comments to the PJ Tatler posting by an RNC official, and the same response was picked up by a handful of lesser read blogs. Oddly, the RNC response included my name, saying I was on the wrong side of the debate in 2006.  Factually, this was inaccurate as I was at the Justice Department at the time and had no role, pro or con.

Late Friday night, an RNC communications operative carpet-bombed conservative bloggers with this response and included an attack on PJ Media for good measure. Obviously I have extraordinary relations with many of the bloggers, so they alerted me and wondered whether the RNC had lost it.

Saturday, the RNC sent me an apology, noting they were in error to name me.  Given their stand-up retraction, the matter is now closed to me.

Whether the federal government continues to possess power to approve or reject state election-law changes is an issue that has exposed divisions within the Republican Party between partisan election lawyers and those who believe the Constitution is more important than racial gerrymandering.

Last week, PJ Tatler reported that RNC consultants and staff were searching for ways to reactivate and preserve this federal power over states like Texas despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, just as Attorney General Eric Holder has vowed to do.

To anyone following these issues for the last decade, the PJ Tatler post was neither surprising nor unexpected.  A small group of lawyers and consultants either working for the RNC or consulting with them has long advocated for federal preclearance power over state elections.

Whether this RNC activity ended after the PJ Tatler story was released on Friday, or when the Supreme Court ruled in June, or sometime before is unclear.

Yes, the RNC really did support federal preclearance oversight of state elections, just as Eric Holder does now.  When this support ended is an unanswered question after the RNC on Friday unequivocally stated it opposes any fix to Section 4 that would place states such as Texas, South Carolina, and Virginia back under a federal boot.  That’s good news.

But before the announcement last week, the self-serving RNC collusion with the racialist left was well-known and obvious. After all, the GOP used Section 5 federal oversight to racially gerrymander safe Republican districts and herd blacks into electoral enclaves for the last 23 years.

That this well-known collusion and support of federal oversight surprised anyone last Friday was the only surprise.

UPDATE****

I received the following comment from Spicer this afternoon regarding the above listed post:

My comments from Friday remain intact – we are not nor have we been supporting the DoJ in any way, shape or form.   Instead of hiding behind an anonymous byline using anonymous sources, the person spreading these lies should back up their false rumors with real evidence.

UPDATE: No, RNC Operatives are NOT Working With Holder to Circumvent SCOTUS and Return Texas to Federal Oversight

26 Jul

This article from the PJ Tatler caught my attention because it alleged RNC collusion with Holder to bring Texas and other states back under federal oversight.  This rumor follows Holder’s announcement yesterday that despite the recent Supreme Court ruling, he would be seeking application the Voting Rights Act section 5 provisions.

I’m not the RNC’s biggest fan, but this accusation sounded way too outlandish. So, I asked the RNC.

“It’s 100% false. There is literally not one piece of it that is in any way even close to being factual or true,” said RNC Communications Director, Sean Spicer.

The RNC is demanding full retraction and apology.

UPDATE****

I’ve been asked for more concise information from many who weren’t satisfied with the “100% false” denial. Sean Spicer, RNC Communications Director, provided the following moments ago:

Here are the facts:

1.       There is no RNC effort what so ever to influence litigation or legislation dealing with the effects of the Shelby County decision.

2.       There is no RNC efforts to create any new criteria to replace section 4 which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

3.       No RNC staff or funding have used to for this purpose.

4.       There is  no RNC effort nor has there been any involvement  in devising criteria that amends “the Voting Rights Act to grab states and force them to obtain Washington, D.C. approval.”

5.       There is no RNC effort nor has there been any attempts to use Hofeller’s “RNC-generated ideas to accomplish this goal.”

6.       On this matter there are NO “RNC generated ideas” – period!

7.       Of the so -called Republicans in Congress that are “cool to this idea” PJ Media cannot name one (see number 6 – there is no plan to be cool to).

The RNC demands a full retraction and apology.   Legal action against the source will be pursued.

So for those who are in the, “ZOMG, OF COURSE THEY’D DENY IT CAMP!!!!11!!!,” this should allay your concerns of any vast RNC-Holder conspiracy. If not, I may have some extra tin foil I can spare.

Please Stop Misquoting Ben Franklin

24 Jul

Context matters, kids. Facts, context, history – they all matter. Yes, Ben Franklin wrote, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”  But, I do not think it means what you think it means. Benjamin Wittes explains:

Very few people who quote these words, however, have any idea where they come from or what Franklin was really saying when he wrote them. That’s not altogether surprising, since they are far more often quoted than explained, and the context in which they arose was a political battle of limited resonance to modern readers. Many of Franklin’s biographers don’t quote them at all, and no text I have found attempts seriously to explain them in context. The result is to get to the bottom of what they meant to Franklin, one has to dig into sources from the 1750s, with the secondary biographical literature giving only a framework guide to the dispute. I’m still nailing down the details, but I can say with certainty at this stage that Franklin was not saying anything like what we quote his words to suggest.

The words appear originally in a 1755 letter that Franklin is presumed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor during the French and Indian War. The letter was a salvo in a power struggle between the governor and the Assembly over funding for security on the frontier, one in which the Assembly wished to tax the lands of the Penn family, which ruled Pennsylvania from afar, to raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks. The governor kept vetoing the Assembly’s efforts at the behest of the family, which had appointed him. So to start matters, Franklin was writing not as a subject being asked to cede his liberty to government, but in his capacity as a legislator being asked to renounce his power to tax lands notionally under his jurisdiction. In other words, the “essential liberty” to which Franklin referred was thus not what we would think of today as civil liberties but, rather, the right of self-governance of a legislature in the interests of collective security.

What’s more the “purchase [of] a little temporary safety” of which Franklin complains was not the ceding of power to a government Leviathan in exchange for some promise of protection from external threat; for in Franklin’s letter, the word “purchase” does not appear to have been a metaphor. The governor was accusing the Assembly of stalling on appropriating money for frontier defense by insisting on including the Penn lands in its taxes–and thus triggering his intervention. And the Penn family later offered cash to fund defense of the frontier–as long as the Assembly would acknowledge that it lacked the power to tax the family’s lands. Franklin was thus complaining of the choice facing the legislature between being able to make funds available for frontier defense and maintaining its right of self-governance–and he was criticizing the governor for suggesting it should be willing to give up the latter to ensure the former.

In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade. Notwithstanding the way the quotation has come down to us, Franklin saw the liberty and security interests of Pennsylvanians as aligned.

Knowledge is power, so now you know. Also, read this. It’s a great exposition on the relationship of liberty and security; enlightening and not exactly what you’d think. And please, please stop misquoting Ben Franklin.

Gaining Perspective One Step At A Time

9 Jul

Run. Me. These two little words juxtaposed can only mean imminent torture. At least that’s what I always thought until last week. Lord only knows why, but over the past few weeks I kept waking up wanting to run.  Now, if you know anything about me you’d know that not only do I not have the attention span or patience for repetitious activity, but I would rather scrub 100 toilets before lacing up a pair of Nikes. I’m a yoga and pilates kinda gal – I’m down with anything I can do in the comfort of yoga pants on my pink sticky mat.

Finally, after three weeks of this nagging running thing, inclination, or whatever it was, I decided to go with it.  So I laced up my Nikes, grabbed my headphones and set off for my very first voluntary run. That was almost a week ago and I’m still reeling at the fact that I, me, Kemberlee, am actually choosing to run and even crazier – enjoying it.

I have this annoying habit of having to find the meaning of things, the reasons things are the way they are and why. So during my runs, I’ve tried to figure out why I’m looking forward to something that only a month ago I loathed to the fullest extent of the word; je detestais.

Aside from the awesome endorphin rush, I love the challenge of the run. But even more than the physical challenge (not an intentional Double Dare reference), running is a timely reminder to appreciate the small victories in life. Day one, I was hoping I could make it to the first block without slowing down. Day two, I passed the first block and was pushing for the street lamp midway down the street and well, you get it. But each time I make it to the next landmark, I’ve won. I’ve proved to myself that I can do what I once believed was impossible.

At least in my world, an awful lot of my attention, time and effort go into the big scores, political landscape altering news stories and all that type of thing. I love it, but with that comes a distinct vantage point that makes it all too easy to lose perspective on the nuances that make life such a beautiful place.  The large victories are few and far between; they have their place in the journey and there’s no disputing that, but it’s everything in the middle that makes the journey worthwhile. That running helped remind me of this is wild. But I’m sure stranger things have happend… or not.

Because sometimes we need a reminder

16 Nov

Senator Grassley has been known to send odd little tweets.  This afternoon his pocket, whomever manages his Twitter account or the Senator himself sent a tweet with one word, “if.” Which reminded me of this poem. And somehow it just seems to fit today.

If

by Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too:
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:.
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build’em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings,
And never breathe a word about your loss:
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much:
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

Can the Phony Richard Mourdock Outrage, We’re Not Buying It

24 Oct

First, let me start by saying Richard Mourdock is one of the most thoughtful, genuine candidates I’ve met.  Watching the phony outrage from pro-infanticiders is gag inducing.  Last night during an Indiana Senate debate, an emotional Mourdock had this to say regarding abortion:

This is that issue that every candidate for federal or even state office faces and I, too, certainly stand for life. I know there are some that disagree and I respect their point of view, but I believe that life begins at conception.  The only exception I have for, uh, to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God and even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it something that God intended to happen. 

Not surprisingly, leftists desperate to make this election cycle about their contrived “war on women,” and anything other than the failure that is the Obama presidency, wasted no time lauching a misleading assault. “God intended rape to happen,” they quoted him, clearly a distortion of what Mourdock said.

In a press conference following the debate, Think Progress, an inappropriately named organization and leftist “think” tank, posted a video of a reporter who asked Mourdock, “When it comes to rape, it sounded like you said something, to the effect of, “if you have a child because you were raped, it was God’s intention to still have that,” is that what you said?” Mourdock clarified his remarks saying:

What I said was, in answering your question from my position of faith, I said that I believe God creates life. I believe that as wholely and fully as I can believe it. God creates life.

Immediately following Mourdock’s remarks, the Indiana Right for Life PAC who previously endorsed Mourdock, released a powerful statement and personal story of a woman conceived in rape:

Tonight, Richard Mourdock showed Hoosiers that he will stand up for all innocent, human life once elected to the U.S. Senate. Richard recognizes what our Founding Fathers wisely proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. They declared that we are endowed by our Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Rape is a vile act, committed in evil.  When a pregnancy results out of this horrific crime, every bit of care and love must be shown to the victim.  We believe that life begins at fertilization and with fertilization comes the right to life as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence.

While the senate debate in New Albany, Ind. was going on tonight, in West Lafayette, Ind., Rebecca Kiessling was addressing a Tippecanoe County Right to Life event. Rebecca was conceived in rape. Even though her mother attempted to abort her on two occasions, Rebecca was born and she gives a face to someone conceived in rape. Only God can know the purpose for all human life whether conceived in rape, an unplanned pregnancy or planned circumstances.

We find it reprehensible that Joe Donnelly would try to make rape a political issue.  That type of rhetoric is disrespectful in and of itself to rape victims and invididuals conceived in rape.

Richard Mourdock is our pro-life choice for U.S. Senate and we look forward to him representing Hoosier values in Washington.

Every left leaning publication immediately slopped together posts attempting to malign Mourdock for standing firmly by the sanctity of life. They hoped to dishonestly connect Mourdock’s consistently pro-life record with the gaffes of other candidates (*cough* Akin) and manufacture phony outrage over an issue only controversial to themselves.

What they won’t report is that Joe Donnelly, Mourdock’s challenger, along with the disgraced Rep. Akin, co-sponsored a bill in 2011 to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions. The bill made an exception for abortions as a result of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is at risk. Coincidentally, this is the same bill the same media used to attack Paul Ryan because it includes the now famous, “forcible rape” language.  But don’t count on seeing that in a Washington Post headline.

Heaven forbid someone 1) mention GOD while simultaneously 2) promoting pro-life values held by the vast majority of the country. No, no. That might upset someone’s secular, selfish sensibilities. Even more concerning are those on the right whose response to the left-leaning media is still “thank you sir, may I have another.”  Lookin’ at you Mike Pence. Turn coat, capitulation to the media is even more deplorable than the liberal attack dogs masquerading as non-partisans. So, let the record show that I, along with Michelle Malkin, Dana LoeschSenator John Cornyn and many, many more, stand with Richard Mourdock and the unborn, regardless of how they’re conceived.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 14,005 other followers