My Annual Tribute To Myself...

If I don't, nobody else will.

"My friend, I have just realized that we are both fools, but mine is the greater folly, for I am an older fool." ~ Cyrano de Bergerac

Famous people born on this day, December 5th:

Martin Van Buren, George Armstrong Custer, Walt Disney, Strom Thurmond, Little Richard, Jim Messina, Morgan Brittany, Art Monk, Frankie Muniz.






Not so famous: Me

I've been perusing Facebook this morning. I have received several "Happy Birthday" messages from my Facebook friends.

Because of Facebook, I now have more friends than I've ever had at any given time during my 60 years on this planet.

I don't even know many of them

Puts things in it's proper perspective now, doesn't it?

Not Born That Way

"The happiness of a man in this life does not consist in the absence but in the mastery of his passions." ~ Alfred Lord Tennyson

Recently, on Facebook, I asked this question: Do you think Lady Gaga was really "Born this way"?



The song the above album title cut references is referring to people who have deviant sexual behaviors, and insists they are "born that way".

As an answer to my own question, I am re-posting a blog post that I wrote back in 2006:

Those who keep insisting that homosexuals are born homosexuals (as in naturally, not created that way by environment) forget one very important thing.

Common sense.

No one can honestly say they really believe that. Not even homosexuals. They know they were abused by some one when they were children, or molested, or maybe there just wasn't a powerful enough father figure in the home. Who knows?

But they won't admit it and they won't tell you. And I suppose some have been denying the truth for so long they have begun to totally believe their own delusion. They are too busy defending their perversion instead of working on the issues that have influenced then to become that way.

It is so much easier to convince people who would rather let so-called experts tell them what to think whether it is logical or not, isn't it?

I don't hate homosexuals, nor do I fear them as some have insinuated. I hate the act of homosexuality. (It is possible.) My whole argument concerning the subject is that I categorically reject the notion that anyone has ever been born a homosexual. They choose to be that way for the reasons that I mentioned. And more. In the last couple of decades, I believe another reason for "turning gay" is that it has become fashionable.

I have had many homosexual friends, (I've mentioned this before) and I like all of them personally. But every one of them that I ever spoke with on the subject has suffered some kind of trauma in their formative years such as molestation, at the extreme end of the spectrum, to simply not having a strong enough father figure influence at the mild end.

Every one.

Just the other day, I talked to a woman who got all defensive when I mentioned my belief that environment creates queers, not nature. Why defensive? Because her son admitted to her at the age of 14 that he was gay.

She went on to explain that, instead of trying to explain to him that homosexual behavior is unacceptable, she simply accepted it. Then she explained that he didn't have a father until she married when he was 7.

Thus proving my point.

Right there in that short exchange is two textbook examples of childhood experiences creating a homosexual. A mother who does not accept the responsibilty of guiding her son in the right direction, and no father figure. In that case, I believe the two elements combined to create a homosexual tendency, which in itself, is not necessarily deviant. It is when the individual gives in to the urge to explore deviant fantasies that it becomes unnatural.

I created a post about a scientific study back on June 3, 2005. Scientists genetically altered a female fruit fly by placing a male gene in it. It did what male fruit flies do. It made sexual advances on another female fruit fly.

A similar, more recent experiment was done with mice, if I remember correctly. Then, the article I was referencing (from who else? The New York Times) drew the conclusion that homosexuality was genetic. The more recent study drew the same conclusion.

But, the research didn't prove that homosexuality was genetic at all. In fact, it proved precisely the opposite.

The fruit flies would have never behaved in that manner if they had not been artificially altered. In their natural unaltered state, they would have behaved heterosexually.

An opposite sex gene never occurs in nature. It can only happen if it is artificially altered in some way.

So, if not genetic, what then?

Environment. As I said.

I've said this before. If you want to be gay, go ahead. Whatever floats your boat.

I don't really care.

But stop trying to convince others that it wasn't a choice, and that you were born that way. You weren't, and subconsciously at least, you know it.

The only thing you are doing when you insist it's natural is encouraging more confused young people to deny the fact that they are suffering from childhood traumas instead of dealing with them and expunging those particular deviations.

Sometimes you just has to use the sense the good Lord gave you.

11-11-11

"It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it." ~ Robert E. Lee (1807 - 1870), Statement at the Battle of Fredericksburg (13th December 1862)



Veteran's Day, once known as Armistice day, began as a commemoration of the signing of the armistice to end the first World War. At the time, it was known as "The Great War", and "A war to end all wars".

Oh, if that were so!

On November 11, 1918, at 11:00 A.M. a conditional surrender was signed by representatives of the German army and the allies in a box car in Compiègne, France.

Remember in reverence all our troops who fought in all wars, and those who still fight today.

FYI

I've added Sifting Reality by John Barron and Rosie on the Right by Rosie Johnson to my blogroll. I am thinking of adding more, but I don't want to make it too long, because I primarily only list them so I can visit their sites every day, and I don't want so many that I don't have time to read them every day.

Just Had To Share

"There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you." ~ Will Rogers


Today was election day here. When I came home from the polls, I logged on to Facebook, and posted the following status report:

"Just came home from voting. All Republicans, of course."

Which garnered several interesting and humorous comments. One of my friends, Margrett, who is a Liberal Democrat, but an unusually inoffensive one, responded, "Really Mark, if all the candidates were womanizers, pedophiles, or crooks with IQ's of 60, would you still vote a straight ticket?"

To which I responded, "That's why I don't vote for Democrats, Margrett."

I know I'm tooting my own horn here, but I'd rate that as one of the top comebacks of the year.

Honorable mention: My old blogger buddy, Tug, wrote, "If Democrats are to be believed, Womanizers (Bill Clinton), pedophiles (Rep. Mel Reynolds), and crooks with an IQ of 60 (Joe Biden) make really good leaders."

A Message to Liberals

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" ~ Matthew 7:3



To all you Liberals who are jumping on the "attack Herman Cain" bandwagon, I am hereby serving notice:

When (or if) Herman Cain's alleged sexual indiscretions rise (or sink, depending on your perspective) to the level of Democrats Brock Adams, Fred Richmond, John Young, Mel Reynolds, Gary Studds, Barney Frank, Elliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, Jesse Jackson, and especially Bill (BJ) Clinton's, you may smirk and make all manner of offensive derogatory comments.

But, until such time as the allegations are given status of "proven beyond a doubt", by reputable, unbiased news outlets, kindly keep your asinine opinions and comments to yourself.

If you are willing to give all of the above miscreants a pass, but stoop to condemning Herman Cain without a shred of evidence beyond some anonymous source's word, you are doing nothing but demonstrating your hypocrisy.

Or, have you forgotten about BJ's affair with Gennifer Flowers, exposing himself to Paula Jones, raping Juanita Broaderick, receiving fellatio from Monica Lewinsky, groping Kathleen Willey, and the more recent revelations that he habitually sexually harassed numerous female White House staffers?

If you attack Herman Cain on the basis of unfounded, unsourced, suspect, and overblown innuendo and rumors, while continuing to defend your favorite Liberal Democrats, I will call you a hypocrite.

And, taking a page from the Democrat's own playbook, if you attack him for anything else, I will call you a racist.

Two can play that game.

The Dogs Are Out

"The history of our race, and each individual's experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal." ~ Mark Twain

The Democrat attack machine, otherwise known as the National Media, have begun their attack on another Republican Presidential candidate. This time, it's Herman Cain.

It was, of course, inevitable.

Anytime a Republican hopeful begins to pull away from the pack, the attack machine goes into full attack mode.

In my humble opinion, it is simply more evidence that the Democrats have so little faith in their own candidates ability to win an election on their own merits that they have to resort to shameful, underhanded, despicable tactics.

I might add, also, that this is the way Obama got his opponent to drop out of the campaign when he was running for Illinois State Senate. By attacking the man's moral character.

I knew this would happen.

As Cain's spokesman said, so far, these allegations are "thinly sourced", however, Cain and his campaign are not denying that charges of sexual harassment were brought against him.

On page three of the Politico report, some insight into the details of the allegations is mentioned. One of the women who made these as yet unsubstantiated allegations was fired shortly before she made the accusation, which, simply because of that fact, makes her allegation extremely suspect.

It is important for us to remember that Herman Cain was never officially charged with any kind of sexual harassment, and that all the Democrat attack machine has to back up their allegation is the word of two possibly bitter, vindictive, former employees of the National Restaurant Association.

It is basic human nature to wish for retribution against bosses who terminate employees. I myself have been fired a few times, and I can remember entertaining thoughts of revenge against my former employer. It is, therefore, no leap of logic to reach the conclusion that sour grapes may have motivated these women to make these charges, if indeed, charges were even brought.

As a Manager, I was once accused of sexual discrimination by a disgruntled former employee, an allegation that was ultimately proven false.

I know how vindictive some people can be firsthand.

One has to read all the way to page four to see any support being voiced for Cain by people who worked with him.

I don't know if these allegations have any merit to them or not. It's still early. We will have the opportunity to observe follow up stories in the next several weeks, and I'm sure more facts will eventually emerge.

Will they vindicate or destroy Herman Cain?

Who knows?

But I will tell you one thing:

True or not, his candidacy has been irreparably damaged.

Update:

Herman Cain responds. I like the way he answers direct questions directly. Politicians would do well to emulate his style.

Imagine

"Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man." ~ Bertrand Russell

Over at fellow blogger Marshall Art's place, a comment thread is steadily growing over what would seem to most reasonable, logical people to be a logical, common sense measure that would insure only eligible, legally registered voters would, in fact, be able to vote in elections.

Art (and I agree) has posited that a simple and nearly effortless requirement of presenting a legal photo ID would help prevent voter fraud.

Apparently, some of Art's resident Liberal's argument against this is a rather illogical supposition that the requirement of Photo ID's would somehow intimidate and/or discourage those legal voters who want to vote from doing so.

I say "apparently" because the whole thing seems rather cut and dried to me. I fail to see any logic in allowing just anyone who wants to show up and vote to do so without asking any proof beyond their word, that they are legally registered and eligible.

Incidentally, recently I noticed a television ad for Wal-Mart which states that shoppers are no longer required to show proof that some other retail outlet in town is offering items at lower prices than Walmart in order to get Wal-Mart to "match the price". Formerly, if a shopper wanted Wal-Mart to match the price of some other retail outlet, they were required to bring in an advertisement which proved the other outlet was indeed selling the item at a lower price.

Now, all they have to do is state that the item is being offered at a lower price than Wal-Mart to get a lower price.

No proof is required.

Apparently, Wal-Mart doesn't consider the possibility that some unscrupulous shoppers might actually lie about lower prices just to get a lower price from Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart employees are expected to simply take the shopper's word for it. If one doesn't see a potential disaster in that practice, one would have to be incredibly naive.

This is the exact same reason that not requiring proof of eligibility to vote is a horrifically bad idea.

Perhaps, in the 1950's we could be safe in assuming we could trust someone's word, but that era has long since passed.

Admittedly, it's unfortunate that we have regressed to the point that we can no longer trust our neighbors, and I wish it were not so, but the fact is, we can't. And, that is why we need to require proof of eligibility.

My own resident Liberal, Jim, according to his comments, doesn't seem to believe any ineligible people would even consider trying to commit voter fraud. I find this thinking naive at best, and dangerous at worst. The idea that you can trust people, especially people who have a vested interest in pivotal issues that directly affect election outcomes, to refrain from attempting voter fraud, is unbelievably naive.

So, I offer this example of why requiring proof of voter eligibility is crucial to preventing voter fraud:

Hey, we're eligible. I promise!

Imagine I'm an illegal alien, and imagine I have been following the "illegal immigration debate" and I want full amnesty for my 1,000 or so brothers, sisters, mothers, mothers-in-law, fathers, fathers-in-law, uncles, aunts, cousins, and my friends and their friends so they can enter this country and take advantage of all those free hand-outs that the legal U.S. Citizens pay for with their taxes extracted from their hard earned money.

And, imagine me (as an illegal alien) being able to vote for every politician who has promised to grant amnesty to anyone who wants to immigrate to this country regardless of criminal history and/or highly contagious medical conditions, etc, because there is no way to ascertain whether or not I am legally eligible to vote.

So now, with no requirement to insure ineligible people don't vote, I and my 1000's of illegal alien relatives and friends, who share the same vested interest in the outcome of the election as I do, have effectively defeated the candidate who would have enforced the immigration laws, and installed a pro-illegal alien candidate in office.

Is this what the Liberals really want for our country?

It is my opinion that unbridled and unchecked amnesty for illegal aliens would quickly cause the degeneration of this country into third world status. Not to mention the drug cartels and Islamic Jihad terrorists flowing unstopped into our country, and wreaking their own brand of havoc.

All because of simply removing all requirements to show proof of eligibility to vote.

Can anyone think of an easier way to accomplish this task?

Of Poverty And Class Envy

"It is pretty hard to tell what does bring happiness; poverty and wealth have both failed." ~ Kin Hubbard

I haven't posted anything for a while. I've been on vacation for the last week with a couple of regular days off sandwiched between two half days, so it isn't as if I haven't had time to blog. I have no excuse. So, I guess it's time I wrote something.

The problem is, I don't have any fresh ideas. I don't like to write the same thoughts everyone else does. Anyone can do that, and just about everyone can write more eloquently than I, so it seems rather pointless to me to simply repeat what has already been said.

As I have often said, I prefer to offer a unique point of view. If I can't, I don't write anything.

So perhaps that explains my lack of attention to my blog, although my computer didn't forget my password. Other than that, as I said, I have no excuse.

I still don't have a subject for today's post. I guess I'll just wing it, and write whatever comes to mind.

I'll start off with some facts about me.

I doubt that either of my regular readers know this, but I am not a rich man. In fact, I am poor.

Rich and poor, of course, are relative terms. What is wealthy to me may in fact, be poor to others.

Roseanne Barr (who recently said she thinks anyone who is worth over 100 million should be re-educated or beheaded) is worth 80 million. Apparently, to her, 100 million is considered rich and 80 million is considered middle class or lower.

I read somewhere that she recently inked a contract for her own television show. I wonder -- if she earns more than 20 million more than she has now, will she behead herself?

One can only hope, I guess.

To me, $100,000.00 is wealthy. To Bill Gates, it is pocket change. As I said. Relative.

Since wealth is a relative term, allow me to define what "poor" means to me.

I recently got my annual forty cent per hour raise. At 40 hours a week (which I rarely get because my company cuts my hours to keep their profits up), and no unpaid time off due to illness etc, my recent raise takes my annual income to over $20,000, but just barely over.

I have no other income. My wife has too many medical problems to work. We exist solely on my income. My work tires me out too much for me to work another job part time. I am close to retirement age now, but, at this point, I don't see how I will ever be able to retire.

Be that as it may, It could be worse. I am grateful just to have a job at all.

I lay awake at nights worrying about how I am going to make even the most basic payments on my bills. If I suddenly disappear off the internet it (probably) won't be because I died (knock wood). It will be because I couldn't pay my cable bill and got it cut off. That could well happen any day now.

We use fuel oil for heat and hot water in this house. The fuel oil company will not even show up to pump more fuel oil into our tank if we can't pay for at least 150 gallons. At today's prices, that's about $600.00. We don't have it. Not even close. In fact, just to have enough fuel to heat our water, I've been pouring diesel fuel (Fuel oil and diesel fuel are the same thing) into our tank every two weeks. If I splurge, I can buy as much as 10 gallons diesel fuel at a time. That's about 40 dollars worth. I can't really afford that much, but we need hot water.

I don't know what we're going to do when it gets cold this year.

If I lose my job, unlike others who lose jobs, we have no emergency funds on which to rely. We would be completely destitute within two weeks, possibly even within one week. We have no savings. I recently had to withdraw my 401K money to pay a down payment on a badly needed used car. It's gone now.

Please understand, I'm not looking for sympathy. I am simply describing what being poor means to me, and how it compares with others who say they are poor. I do not feel I deserve sympathy.

I have made my own bed. It is my responsibility to sleep in it.

So my readers will understand when I have absolutely no sympathy for those whiny bleeding heart Liberal sob sisters who are currently making fools of themselves protesting Wall Street bankers. I will ceaselessly attack them for being duplicitous and hypocritical.

Have you seen pictures of these idiots?

They are camping (incidentally, where do these poor unfortunates get the money to buy tents and sleeping bags? I can't afford them) on Wall street, and various other streets in various other cities across America, bleating about how unfair it is that the wealthy have more money than they do.

Well, wah, wah, wah.

Who said life was fair?

They also recruit other miscreants, derelicts, and ne'er-do-wells to join in their cause by texting them on their Apple iPhones, iPads, and various Android devices. All of these devices aren't donated to them, I assure you. Someone pays for them, and it's not simply a one time charge, either. They have to lock themselves into a two year contract, paying a minimum of $80.00 a month (excluding FCC fees and licenses and taxes) simply for the use of those devices. Where do they get the funds for those expenses? I pay $30.00 a month for my cheap little pre-paid flip phone. I can't afford those fancy cell phones.

Ironically, I sell cell phone contracts for a living, if you can call it a living.

They wear designer clothes. They dress in the height of fashion. Being fashionable takes money.

Last week, my wife wanted to buy me two pair of pants at Walmart to wear, so I wouldn't look so seedy on the job. I accepted one pair, not both. Just can't afford more. I really can't afford one pair, truth be told. But, since it's been over two years (yes, I said two years) since I've had a new pair of pants, I allowed myself this one luxury.

I've noticed the Occupy Wall Street protesters seem to have the time and the money that it costs to drive their new Prius's into the city (some from other states) so they can march past George Soro's apartment building to do their protesting in front of greedy Republican Billionaire's houses.

On my recent vacation, I wanted to drive up to Pennsylvania, making a quick stop at Gettysburg, through Pennsylvania Dutch Lancaster County (because my wife likes to shop for that kind of stuff, even if she can't actually buy any of it), and then to Phoenixville, to visit my older brother, who suffers from Multiple Sclerosis. But we couldn't. We didn't have enough money to make the trip after paying for our prescriptions and groceries.

Am I bitter? You bet I am.

Am I envious? Guilty as charged.

But, here's the difference between those bitter, envious, Liberal hippie type pinko fags and me:

I don't blame my poverty on anyone else.

I have only myself to blame for my poverty.

I went to college, but I didn't finish. Like the current crop of Liberals, I spent my college years engaging in protests against the "establishment" for the exact same reasons the protesters do now. Class envy. Thinking the government owed me a living without expecting anything in return. Expecting someone else to pay for my education.

Basically, expecting something for nothing.

I didn't finish college, but that's my fault. I don't have a good job because I didn't get a degree. I didn't get a degree because I was foolish.

That isn't anyone's fault but my own.

I've made mistakes, perhaps more than most, but my mistakes and the consequences of them are my sole responsibility. My poverty is a direct result of my own bad decisions and choices.

And, an unwillingness to take chances. That, again , is on me.

Sure, I've had some bad breaks in my lifetime. So what? Everyone does. The difference between me and "them", is, instead of whining about how life treats me and blaming others and refusing to take responsibility for the actions that (most of the time) contributed to my bad luck, I picked myself up, dusted myself off, and redoubled my efforts. And, I will continue to do that every time catastrophe strikes until I die.

I do complain. I have that right. But I complain while working.

These poor under-privileged protesters are complaining while begging for help from the very people they are protesting. Who do they think bankrolls their sloth?

Our boy-child President, Barry Hussein Sotero Obama, received more donations from the bankers on Wall Street than any President in history. And he says he supports the OWS protesters.

And, they support him.

How do the protesters explain this apparent dichotomy?

And Warren Buffet (Liberal) says he thinks his taxes should be raised. Well, who's stopping him from voluntarily giving whatever amount he thinks he should pay to the Government? Who's stopping any of these fat cat billionaire Liberal Obama supporters from volunteering their money to the government?

Yea, when it's their money, they are strangely Conservative.

Hey, Warren? If you want to give your money away, I could use a few bucks. (I'm not begging. I know there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that Warren Buffet would ever give anything away, certainly not to me.)

And speaking of taxes, let me explode a Conservative myth here and now:

I pay taxes. Regardless of what Rush or Hannity or all those other Conservative millionaires tell you, poor people like me pay taxes. Every paycheck I get has a healthy portion deducted for taxes, right off the top. At the first of the year, I fill out my tax return. This year, I didn't get a refund, I had to pay the government an additional $1300.00 over and above what they took directly out of my meager paycheck last year.

Even when I did get a refund, I have never - repeat - never - received more of a refund than I paid in during the course of the previous year.

So, don't give me that BS about how the poor don't pay taxes.

I am currently trying to improve my lot in life by working hard and driving my bosses crazy pushing them to promote me into the management training program. Management trainees in our company earn more than double the salary that I make now.

Class envy? Yep. But envy that is a good thing. Without envy, we have no incentive to try to attain the success of those whom we envy.

OK. That's enough of a rant for today. I'm sure I will have much more to say later.

Justice And Injustice

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." ~ Martin Luther King Jr.

A Facebook acquaintance of mine posted this link on his Facebook page. This, coupled with the recent news of the release of convicted murderess Amanda Knox, I find disturbing.

How is it we Americans celebrate the release of a murderer (Amanda Knox) but say nothing when a Christian Pastor (Yosef Nadarkhani) may be given the death sentence for nothing more than being a Christian?

It was American's outrage over the remote possibility that Amanda Knox "might" be innocent (despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary) that pressured an Italian Court to reverse her conviction.

Where is our outrage now?

We already know why Liberals are not outraged over this obvious dichotomy. Lone Ranger's Immutable truths about Liberals number 20: When given a moral choice, liberals always come down on the wrong side of the fence.

But why don't we hear more from the Conservative community?

Conservatives and Christians need to raise as much or more of a ruckus over this injustice as the uninformed American masses did in the Knox case.

The Boy President

"To be mature means to face, and not evade, every fresh crisis that comes." ~ Fritz Kunkel

My wife usually sleeps in, but today, she was already up when I awoke. She watches "Good Morning America" in the mornings, which helps explain why she is uninformed about a lot of the political issues that concern Conservatives.

So, when I walked into our computer room this morning, the first thing that assailed my ears was this:

The clip I saw started at about mark 1:38 on this clip.

Specifically, this:

"We don't believe in the kind of smallness that says it's okay for a stage full of political leaders -- one of whom could end up being the president of the United States -- being silent when an American soldier is booed. We don't believe in that," said Obama to loud cheers and a standing ovation.

OK. So, if you haven't yet heard the "boos" he's referring to, here is the actual clip:



I heard one, maybe two boos. Out of a crowd of over 5,000 people. And, if you didn't catch it yet, watch the clip again. It's blatantly obvious the (possibly) two people who booed didn't boo the soldier.

They booed his question.

The child President undoubtedly knows this. Yet, he stands at the Presidential podium, and perpetuates the Democrat attack machine's (AKA the Mainstream media) lies.

Obama's response to this non-issue is dishonest, irresponsible, and yes, childish.

Here are some other examples of Obama behaving--uh---slightly un-Presidential:

This one is photo shopped, but focus on the fact that he's throwing a snow ball, not on the child.

This one is particularly childish and dis-respectful.

And he has the unmitigated gall to call the Republican candidates un-Presidential!

Joe McGinness Does Palin A Favor

By now, most people have heard this story. Here's an excerpt:

Sarah Palin’s family attorney John Tiemessen has written a letter to Maya Mavjee, the publisher of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, that Palin may sue her, the company, and the book’s author Joe McGinniss “for knowingly publishing false statements” in his book released last week, “The Rogue,” ABC News has learned.

So now, it has come to this. Flat out lies.

Actually, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. This is just Liberals doing what they always do. They can't find any skeletons in Palin's closet by seeking the truth, so, they make things up.

When will they learn? They are fighting a battle they cannot win. Surely they are beginning to get the message by now.

Sarah Palin been investigated ad nauseum, she's had every moment of her life scrutinized under a microscope.

The media wolves descended on Wasilla, Alaska in packs during her 2008 Vice Presidential campaign, rabid in their eagerness to discover some tidbit of damaging charges about her. They found nothing but unsubstantiated gossip, which in the end, proved to be false.

She's had her private e-mails hacked. They found nothing.

They've combed through her public e-mails with a fine tooth comb. They found nothing.

They've invented full blown scandals out of rumors and gossip. All ultimately refuted.

Despite all their efforts, they've been unable to find any dirt on her at all. She is squeaky clean.

Sadly, this fact only feeds the frenzy. The total lack of any evidence of immorality or malfeasance makes her even more hated by the left.

Sarah Palin needs to run for President. This is why I say that:

The only campaign strategy the left ever uses to win elections is character assassination. Without that, the Democrat's political positions are weak and cannot withstand honest in-depth investigation. When faced with questions of integrity or morals, Liberals always come down on the wrong side of the fence.

Their only recourse is attack.

It's kind of sad, really. As Lone Ranger has penned, "[Liberals] are like house flies that criticize the air-worthiness of a Stealth fighter.'

She has continually demonstrated that her character is unassailable, so nothing the left can do or say can defeat her.

There is only one credible charge the left has against Palin:

She quit.

Yes, she quit. That charge is true.

I admit, I used to believe she had no chance of victory in a Presidential race solely because of that incontrovertible fact. But, as it turns out, even her resignation was a logical calculated move that was motivated solely by her dedication to the people of Alaska. Even in her resignation, the left can find little honest objection.

Not that they won't try to make her resignation a major issue, of course.

A drowning man will always reach out for anything that floats in an effort to stay above water. In the vain hope of creating a demon out of Sarah Palin, they will grasp at any straw.

But, that's not enough now.

Joe McGinnis has shot himself and his fellow leftists in the foot by publishing this latest pack of lies.

The only segment of the American people that the Democrats need to convince are the independents, and the independents are now going to have sympathy for Sarah Palin and only derision for anyone who would resort to lies to besmirch her.

She will have the sympathy vote.

The left's plan has backfired.

Only, they don't know it yet.

This should be interesting.

Liberals Protest Justice..Again

"There's a reason more than a dozen courts have looked at Davis' case and refused to overturn his death sentence. He is as innocent as every other executed man since at least 1950, which is to say, guilty as hell." ~ Ann Coulter

Troy Davis was executed by lethal injection yesterday amid protests from the typical bleeding heart Liberal sob sisters who deny eyewitness testimony. Thirty four eyewitnesses saw Troy Davis ruthlessly and callously gun down Savannah Police officer Mark McPhail, and yet, they insist there were only 9 witnesses and that 7 of them recanted their testimony.

As usual, Liberals utilize half truths, obfuscation, and outright lies to present their case.

Here are the facts: On the night of August 18, 1989, occupants of a passing car shouted obscenities at Davis and a friend as they left a party. Davis shot at the car, and a bullet struck one of the passengers in the face.

Later, Davis showed up at a local Burger King and involved himself in an argument between another man and a homeless man over a beer. Davis began pistol whipping the homeless man when Officer McPhail, moonlighting as a Restaurant Security guard, intervened. Davis ran, then wheeled around and shot the cop, walked over to his body and shot him again...

...smiling.

Davis was apparently afraid the police would connect him with the earlier shooting and thought that murdering a police officer would somehow get him off the hook.

These are the facts of the case, affirmed by the testimonies of 34 separate eyewitnesses, and supported by real physical evidence.

Thirty-four people in the busy Burger King parking lot witnessed this horrific event. One of them, an Air Force Airman, saw the events clearly enough to positively identify Davis as the shooter. He explained on cross-examination, "You don't forget someone that stands over and shoots someone."

His was not one of the testimonies that was supposedly recanted.

Only two of the seven alleged "recantations" actually recanted anything of value -- and those two affidavits were discounted by the court because Davis refused to allow the affiants to testify at the post-trial evidentiary hearing, even though one was seated right outside the courtroom, waiting to appear.

This would seem to indicate that the recantations could easily be destroyed upon cross-examination, and Davis knew it.

One of the other 5 "recantations", from the vagrant's girlfriend, wasn't a recantation at all, but rather reiterated all relevant parts of her trial testimony, which included a direct identification of Davis as the shooter.

But, you won't hear these facts from the media. They have already concluded, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, that Davis was an innocent man.

On what do the media base their assumptions of his innocence?

Troy Davis' word.

That is all the media and their Liberal lapdogs require to sanctimoniously proclaim Davis' innocence.

The word of a morally bankrupt man who was, at the time, desperately grasping at straws to prevent his just punishment.

Facts be damned.

This time, reason and logic won out over unreasonable emotion, but what about the next time? And the next? And the next?

Every time the media comes down on the wrong side of the moral fence, one more little piece of our collective common sense gets chipped away, demonstrating, once again, that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.

The Tea Party Debate

"Americans are tired of spending money we don't have on programs we don't want!" ~ Governor Rick Perry

Blog buddy Wintery Knight posted the recent Tea Party Republican debate in a series of videos on his blog. I didn't watch the debate live. In my experience, watching Presidential candidate debates is just a tad less exciting than watching paint dry.

But, as I am still undecided on who I would most like to see nominated, I decided to endure the pain and force myself to watch the videos.

I must admit I was pleasantly surprised. And fascinated.

Other than being somewhat disappointed that now and then the candidates failed to directly answer the questions posed to them, I found the whole debate enlightening, and helped me begin to form a more informed opinion of the candidates.

Wintery Knight thinks Michele Bachmann won the debate but he admits she is his favorite, so of course, he's biased.

Here is my opinion (as if anybody really cares what I think) of the candidates based on what I saw:

Jon Huntsman: I've heard little about him previously, but what I've heard about him thus far is negative. Conservatives seems to think he is a RINO. I saw no evidence of that charge in Monday's debate. Admittedly, he didn't say much that was controversial either way. I am still undecided on him, although, I tend to trust my Conservative friend's judgment, with qualifications.

Herman Cain: I like Herman Cain. What I've seen of him so far, I like, and I have learned more about him than I have several of the others. I like the fact that he responded to the questions asked of him directly. He didn't avoid the tough questions, but instead, met them head on. Obviously, he is not a politician, and that could work in his favor, but in the end will probably cost him the nomination.

Michele Bachmann: I also like Michele Bachmann a great deal. She espouses the Conservative idealism that I wholly support. However, it disturbed me that she (and some of the others hammered Rick Perry on the "forced Vaccination" issue which, by the way, he admitted was a mistake). Apparently she and the others didn't get the memo that the vaccinations had an "opt out" clause. Why Perry didn't explain that in plainer terms is beyond me. That little dust up will be blown completely out of proportion by the Democrat attack machine, otherwise known as the media.

Count on it.

That said, she is correct in making the bigger point; that government mandating any kind of personal choice is unconstitutional, and oversteps Government bounds.

Mitt Romney: As much as I want to dislike him, I have to admit he acquitted himself well. He gave good Conservative answers to the questions, and even defended his "Romneycare" program in the State of Massachusetts well. I was a bit chagrined that he often seems to dodge the direct questions with indirect responses, but he is a politician, after all. Probably more of a politician than the others. It also concerns me that, as a so-called Conservative Republican, he was elected Governor of a very Liberal state. If he somehow managed to convince Liberals to vote for him there, he must have used some very Democrat type tactics to do so.

I still don't trust him. Is he a flim-flam man, or is he legit?

I must remember to separate my personal feelings about Romney from the facts, and make up my mind based on the facts. It is difficult to leave my emotions out of the decision. Because if I can't, I'll have to vote Democrat. (snark)

Rick Perry: He was very impressive, considering I still don't know as much as I should about him. It bothers me that, although he says Texas created jobs and lowered taxes, the other candidates say the jobs created were mostly public sector jobs and he raised taxes in his state.

Also, he was once a Democrat, and even worked for Global Warming Con man Al Gore. I don't know. Can a Democrat switch parties without bringing Liberal baggage with him?

Can a stupid man suddenly become intelligent?

Ron Paul: A one issue candidate. Every answer he gave was tied to his belief that the current wars we are engaged in overseas are unnecessary. Even if true, can we really expect our enemies to stop attacking us? I think not. America's presence in the Middle East is at least helpful in keeping our enemies at bay. One of the candidates (I forgot which one) also brought up the highly publicized incident in the 2008 Presidential debates in which Paul blamed American foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.

I can't forgive him for that. That was just a stupid statement. I don't want that kind of man to be my President. That said, America could do much worse than to elect a Libertarian candidate.

God forbid, America could re-elect Obama.

Newt Gingrich: Again, as much as I'd like him to have done badly, he didn't. He was exceptional. If my opinion mattered outside of this particular forum, I would say the case could be made that he won the debate. I don't like to base my opinion of a candidate on the "electability" quotient, but the fact is, I don't believe he is electable, partially because the media did such a successful hit job on the man when he was Speaker of the House, and partially because there was truth behind their accusations. I have a problem with morally bankrupt candidates. Other than that, he would be an excellent Conservative candidate. Perhaps I was wrong about Romney being the most political of the candidates. Newt could certainly vie for that dubious honor.

Rick Santorum: Another of my favorites, I don't believe I've ever heard him say anything with which I disagree. He has strong Conservative values, and a common sense approach to our country's problems. He did not disappoint in this debate, although, he also didn't get equal time with the others. That's arguably excusable. He has an outside chance for the nomination at best. Even the Conservative media has already counted him out and thus, you won't hear much support for him from the likes of Hannity and Rush, although I'll bet Ann Coulter likes him.

I thought Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain had the most memorable lines.

When asked if he agreed with Perry that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme (a statement that CNN's Wolf Blitzer hammered with the typical leftist's predictable persistence) Herman Cain said, "I don't care what you call it, it's broken!"

Incidentally, in 2007, MSNBC's resident rabid Liberal Chris Matthews not only called Social Security a Ponzi Scheme, but "a bad Ponzi Sceme", but I guess it's OK if a Liberal says it.

Newt said, "I'm not particularly worried about Governor Perry and Governor Romney frightening the American people, when President Obama scares them every single day!"

I headed this post with Perry's great line: "Americans are tired of spending money we don't have on programs we don't want!"

While I don't believe anyone can say with any certainty any of the candidates won the debate, I'm sure everyone has their own opinion. Who really wins these things?

It depends on who you're asking.

My Prediction

"Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word." ~ Charles De Gaulle

Before Obama gives his "historic" speech tonight, I want to make this prediction about what he will say:

He will claim he has a plan, but will not give any details.

He will blame the problem on Bush and/or the Republicans and/or the tea party.

If I am wrong and he does give details, they will involve higher taxes, and/or "sacrifices".

The words "revenue" and "stimulus" will be inserted in his speech, probably more than once each.

He will claim Americans "want" his policies.

I will not watch his speech. I'd rather stick red hot needles in my eyes then listen to his B.S.

Y'all watch it for me.

Let's see if I'm right.

The Wrath Of Hurricane Irene

"Anger is a signal, and one worth listening to." ~ Harriet Lerner

I've been hearing quite a lot about the "wrath" of Hurricane Irene. The Television news, the radio, and the newspapers are all referring to the intensiveness storm as "wrath".

Let's get one thing straight.

Wrath is defined by the dictionary as:

1. strong, stern, or fierce anger; deeply resentful indignation; ire., and,
2. vengeance or punishment as the consequence of anger.

A hurricane is a storm. It is incapable of possessing anger, resentment, indigence, or vengeance.

Now, it's perfectly acceptable, although probably wrong, to describe a hurricane as a manifestation of the wrath of God, but a hurricane itself cannot be wrathful. It has no emotion.

It is only a storm.

Disasters, God, And Politics

"A God that can be understood is no God. Who can explain the Infinite in words?" ~ W. Somerset Maugham

OK, so it's been a while since I published a blog entry, but it's not because Hurricane Irene swept us out to sea or anything like that. It's just that nothing out of the ordinary has inspired me to write something.

For the record, we are fine here in Virginia. We suffered no damage to speak of in either the earthquake or the storm, other than a somewhat uncomfortable period of about 13 hours (total) of a power outage.

There is no shortage of subjects on which I could expound of course, but just nothing much that creates such passion in me that I feel compelled to express an opinion.

I will say this, however:

What the heck was Michele Bachmann thinking when she joked about the earthquake and the hurricane being some sort of judgment from God? Is she not aware that the Democrat attack machine (otherwise known as the Media) would be waiting with bated breath for any opportunity to ambush her? She had to know the attack would be inevitable if she made any mention at all of God in conjunction with the two natural disasters.

It's not her statement in itself that will end up haunting her. It's the fact that she even made the statement in the first place that will cast doubt upon her judgment.

I like Bachmann. I think she'd make a good President, but it's missteps like this that could cost her the nomination and/or the Presidency.

The deck is stacked against her already. She is a Conservative with outspoken views against all of the left's pet causes. That's more than enough for the Liberals in America to hate her.

Even after the Liberal media have admitted they realize her statement was a joke, there are still leftists out there pointing to that statement as proof of her fundamental nuttiness.

Perception becomes reality, especially when compounded by the tendency of the media to blow every little thing out of proportion (except where Obama is concerned).

Ms Bachmann would do well to learn from what others have endured from the Democrat attack machine.

Take Sarah Palin for example. The media and the Liberals have tried with all their might to besmirch Palin's reputation. They have, among other things, pored through all her e-mails, both private and public, searching for any and every morsel of malfeasance or immorality to use against her, to take her down, to destroy her reputation.

They found nothing. They filed multiple frivolous lawsuits, made multiple unfounded accusations against her, to no avail.

She is squeaky clean.

There are no skeletons in Sarah Palin's closet.

But there is this:

She quit.

It makes no difference why she quit. she could have been forced to resign under threat of her entire family being held at gunpoint. If the Libs had threatened to nuke Alaska, killing the entire population off if she didn't quit, the Liberal Democratic attack machine would still use the fact that she quit as evidence that she can't be trusted to handle the stress of a Presidency.

As far as these natural disasters being some kind of judgment or statement from God almighty:

If God wants to send a warning to America, I assure you, it will be far less subtle than these two little events. The idea that these two minor weather events could be a sign from God almighty is preposterous. If it's God sending a message, believe me, we will get the message in no uncertain terms. There will be no doubt of it's origin.

And, while I'm on the subject, why only America?

Why do Americans seem to assume the United States of America is somehow more important to God than--say--Israel? Or any other country for that matter?

Or, more blessed?

Or, more cursed?

How often have we heard, in an eschatological scenario, speculation that the Anti-Christ will be an American?

Are we not all His children? Are we not all His creation?

God is God of all Creation. Not just the U.S.A. If He decides to send us a message of warning in the form of great "earthquakes... in divers places, and famines, and pestilences", it will effect the entire world, not only a relatively small area of the United States.

And, politicians shouldn't attribute such minor inconveniences to God, even as a joke.

Well, Democrats should, so Republicans can attack them.

OK, so I do have some passion left, after all.

A Good Quote

"If Obama would leave DC and return to Chicago, he would raise the aggregate I.Q. of both locations." ~ Me

Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On

"Come on over, Baby. Whole lotta shakin' goin' on." ~ Jerry Lee Lewis

So, have you heard about the earthquake here in Virginia?

If you haven't, you must live in a cave with no contact with the outside world.

I have the dubious honor of being possibly one of a few bloggers who lives close to the epicenter of yesterday's earthquake. Already news media are calling it "The DC earthquake", but in reality it was closer to Richmond, although there are some who claim they felt it all the way to New York, Boston, and even Maine.

Our house is located within 40 miles of Mineral, Virginia, which, in turn, is about 9 miles from the reported center of the quake. My wife's dentist's office is located in Mineral.

Don't ask me why she drives that far to go to the dentist. She's never given me a satisfactory explanation, either.

I was actually browsing Facebook at the time the quake began. It started as a deep rumbling sound. I described it as like a freight train or a low flying aircraft. Immediately after that, the shaking started. My wife said she thought, at first, that the washer was out of balance, but then she quickly remembered the washer wasn't running.

Panicked, she ran out into the backyard, and I got up from my chair and started walking down the hallway, which by then had started rolling in a side-to-side motion. It was like surfing the floor. I stopped at the doorway between the utility room and the hallway where I could see my wife in the back yard through the back door, and stood there until the shaking stopped.

It lasted between 20 and 30 seconds, and then it was over. Kind of exciting for those of us who had never experienced an earthquake before, but nothing--dare I say?--earth shattering.

So, I walked back into our computer room (as we call it) and posted the experience on my Facebook status. Then I looked up the following videos on Youtube and posted them:







Then the other comments started appearing on Facebook. One friend wrote simply, "What's shakin'?"

I wrote, "It's God punishing us for electing Obama."

Comments that followed included, "Obama will blame Bush", "First an earthquake and a hurricane on the way. Well, Obama promised change", "Too bad a big azz crack didn't suck up a few of them in DC!", "It's Obama's new stimulus program to redistribute Earthquakes!", Our forefathers diggin their way out to show us how it's done probably", and, "The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves"

This morning, I signed onto Facebook and saw this:

BREAKING NEWS: President Obama has just confirmed that the DC earthquake occurred on a rare and obscure fault-line, apparently known as "Bush's Fault". Obama also announced that the Secret Service and Maxine Waters continue an investigation of the quake's suspicious ties to the TEA Party. Conservatives however have proven that it was caused by the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves.

All you readers who live outside the tremor zone, don't be fooled. What the media said and what actually happened are two very different things. As I observed later last evening, "20 seconds of event followed by 24 hours of news coverage"

I'm also wondering if some of those reports from New York and further about feeling the quake there aren't a bit overblown. I'm thinking either they are imagining the feeling or they want so badly to be a part of breaking news they simply say they felt it when they didn't.

I can remember more than one instance when a quake struck in a neighboring state, and reports started flowing in about how the tremors were felt in my state, and I never felt anything.

There was no mistaking what we experienced yesterday.

It couldn't have been anything else.

Blogger buddy Tug lives in North Carolina, and he says he felt nothing yesterday, while people in South Carolina claim they did.

Incidentally, We live in a 60 year old house less than 40 miles from the epicenter, yet we sustained no damage or injuries whatsoever.

Oh, a clock fell off out kitchen wall and the battery was dislodged. A portable mini-stereo fell off a cabinet, also in our kitchen, and the kitchen trash can fell over. That was all. An hour or so afterwards, I found a plastic tube of Mary Kay face cleanser floating in our toilet bowl, but my wife says that is my fault.

So, kids, what have we learned from all this?