Casting Pearls Before Swine

My Annual Tribute To Myself...

2011-12-05T08:21:00.003-05:00

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

2011-11-27T08:38:00.005-05:00

"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

2011-11-11T07:27:00.002-05:00

"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

2011-11-10T09:14:00.002-05:00

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

2011-11-08T12:58:00.002-05:00

"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

2011-11-01T13:44:00.006-04:00

"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

2011-10-31T08:32:00.006-04:00

"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

2011-10-26T15:29:00.004-04:00

"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

2011-10-20T10:51:00.005-04:00

"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

2011-10-04T10:48:00.002-04:00

"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

2011-10-02T08:01:00.006-04:00

"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

2011-09-27T08:50:00.006-04:00

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

2011-09-22T08:03:00.004-04:00

"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

2011-09-14T08:25:00.007-04:00

"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

2011-09-08T13:50:00.004-04:00

"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

2011-09-03T07:47:00.003-04:00

"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

2011-08-31T07:24:00.003-04:00

"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

2011-08-25T08:18:00.001-04:00

"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

2011-08-24T09:09:00.002-04:00

"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?

A Good Quote

2011-08-14T09:41:00.002-04:00

It's not that Conservatives aren't compassionate. We just don't let our compassion get in the way of rational thought. ~ Me

What Entitlement Spending Has Spawned

2011-08-03T09:18:00.004-04:00

"That's what we're creating" ~ Judge Judith Sheindlin

Monday was the first day of the month. The first day of the month is the day retired people get their Social Security checks. It is the day Welfare recipients get their Welfare checks.

On the first day of the month, those with the entitlement mentality go out and walk (and shop) among us.

I've seen the first of every month come and go for years, but this past Monday was the first time I really noticed how forcefully the addiction to entitlements has negatively affected our society.

I've mentioned this several times on this and other blogs. I've pointed out how lines of people park their cars in the fire lanes at retail stores instead of in the designated parking spaces. I've pointed out how this is a demonstration of the entitlement mentality at work. They park where they want because it's closer to the door. It's more convenient to walk a few feet than it is to walk a few dozen feet.

Unless they are stopping there momentarily to let some handicapped passenger off, I don't know what else to attribute this to other than they feel somehow entitled to park their cars illegally.

This past Monday, I witnessed an extension of this phenomena firsthand.

I was in WalMart talking to an electronics associate, questioning him on GPS devices. A man walked up and rudely interrupted our conversation to demand where the Virgin Mobile phone cards were located. The associate excused himself to me, and replied the store doesn't sell Virgin Mobile phone cards. The man gruffly retorted, "You sold 'em two weeks ago!" After some more contentious conversation the associate helped the man locate the Virgin Mobile broadband-to-go cards, and explained that since the store doesn't sell the phones, he couldn't say for certain whether the broadband cards would work with the phones.

Instead of thanking the associate for his help, honesty, and patience, the man stalked wordlessly and angrily out of the area.

As I was standing before the register preparing to purchase my selection, a family consisting of a man, a woman, and a daughter walked up and demanded to be checked out first and, partly because I was in no hurry, and partly because I wanted to alleviate any possible contention between the associate and his "customer", I courteously allowed the associate to take them ahead of me.

As the associate tried in vain to initiate a friendly short discussion, the family stood unresponsive to his pleasantries and scowling. Then, they started complaining about the price, which, incidentally, was already marked down below list price.

Meanwhile, the daughter occupied herself by picking up various items, looking at them briefly, and then dropping them wherever she happened to be standing, regardless of whether that's where the items belonged. Not once did her parents request that she keep her hands off things or reprimand her.

Irresponsibility begets irresponsibility.

After they left, I made the observance to the associate that there seemed to be an abundance of rude, classless customers in the store that day.

He replied, "It happens the first of every month."

The welfare checks go out that day, and the recipients descend upon the merchants in hordes, spending their checks on luxuries, entertainment, alcohol, cigarettes, and other items that do nothing to lessen their debt, or help pay their rent.

All the while pushing, demanding, insisting, they get everything they want at the absolute lowest prices, and if the items they want are not exactly what they expect, the merchants can count on them to raise a loud, boisterous objection.

This is what the Welfare state in this country has spawned.

And, it will only get worse. In fact, our Government encourages the addiction. In our altruistic hope to help poor people afford living expenses, as well as the expense of giving birth and providing for the children born as a result of their promiscuous behavior, we are creating the perception that it thus becomes a reward for breeding and multiplying.

Their progeny inherits this entitlement addiction from the equally addicted parents.

And so it goes.

Where will it end?

Will it end?

Who knows?

The Democrats insist that increasing entitlement spending will increase demand and decrease unemployment.

How is that possible?

The Government (We, the people) has not shown any inclination to put a stop to this self-destructive cycle.

If we the people don't, who will?

More Stupid Liberals

2011-07-27T08:07:00.004-04:00

"It is better to confess ignorance than provide it." ~ Homer Hickam

Newsbusters has published a video featuring George Lopez, comedian and talk show host under the headline, "George Lopez: If Sarah Palin Becomes President ‘I Will Move to Canada’.

While that, in itself, is a typically stupid statement by a typical wacko Hollywood Liberal, it isn't the first time one of these nuts has threatened to move out of the USA if certain Republicans get elected.

Robert Altman, big time Hollywood director, once famously said, "If George W. Bush is elected president, I'm leaving for France."

He didn't, by the way. He still lives in America.

Here's the video:

But, what astounds me even more than that statement about moving to Canada, is this statement: "I like my politicians to actually have a political background, to be politically -- to know politics, to actually have inherited something from working in the political world."

This completely amazes me.

This is from a guy that (presumably) voted for a community organizer over a career politician in 2008. And now, apparently he thinks that a background of being a Mayor and a Governor, not to mention a candidate for Vice President, somehow isn't political experience.

Then, he carried it even further by saying (You can't make this stuff up), "Or do we elect somebody by their smile instead of by their content?"

Just how does he think Obama got elected? My God, Obama is the poster boy of no content!

You know? I've been thinking lately that I've been wrong about Sarah Palin. I think she'd make a great President.

If, for no other reason, electing her President will make stupid Hollywood Celiberals move out of the country.

Who's Holding The Gun?

2011-07-19T13:32:00.006-04:00

"If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion." ~ George Bernard Shaw

Trader Rick has asked me to post another blog entry, and although I am not feeling particularly passionate at this time about anything other than Obama's ongoing destruction of America, the moral decline in our country, and the continual media love affair with Obama and all things Democrat, I have blogged on those things ad infinitum.

What more can I say?

The only thing everyone is talking about right now is the question of whether raising the debt ceiling would be beneficial in solving the economic crisis or economic suicide.

I don't know.

I consider myself woefully inadequately educated, economically speaking, to address this subject with any kind of expertise.

I try to be objective but, I've heard both sides of the issue explained, and they all sound feasible in different ways, so instead of clarifying the issue for me, I am left further confused than before.

I just watched this video:

I've always made it clear that I am no economist. I don't understand economics. I'm sure if I did, I'd have more money in my bank account.

All I can do is relate the economic crisis is this country to my own economic situation. Throughout 40+ years of having to balance my income against my outgo, I have some practical experience with which to draw some (what I consider to be ) common sense conclusions.

Coincidentally, America's economic problems appear to be remarkably similar to my own, to wit:

Too much debt, and not enough money to pay it off.

Obama says Republicans are "holding a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners."

(and, by the way, isn't he one of the ones who blamed Republicans for the incendiary rhetoric that resulted in the shooting of that Democratic Congresswoman in Tucson, Arizona? I guess when you're the President, or at least a Democratic President, you can be as insensitive as you want)

Personally, I don't see it that way. The way I see it, Obama is the one holding the gun. He has been suggesting the Republicans want to take away senior citizen's social security, medicare, and medicaid if they succeed in not allowing him to raise the debt ceiling.

I don't believe for one minute that would be the consequence.

But, I admit, I don't know.

What I do know is this:

Raising the debt ceiling would simply increase the amount of debt we owe. That makes it harder to pay off. (duh!)

Example: If I have reached my limit on my credit card, and the credit card company offers to raise my debt limit so I can continue to charge more purchases to my account, eventually, I am going to be expected to repay that money. If the credit card company continues to raise my debt ceiling over and over again, I will come to the point where I can no longer make those payments. Then, I will default.

It's inevitable.

The Democrats insist we will be in default if we don't raise the debt ceiling, but in my experience, we will reach default status if we do.

The more we borrow, the more we are expected to pay back.

If we raise our debt to the point where our income cannot keep up with the pace of the increasing interest on our debt, how will we ever pay the debt back?

Especially if Obama wants to continue his reckless spending (and there is no evidence that he intends to stop). As I said, I don't know economics, but it seems logical to me that one cannot spend his way out of debt.

If we want to reduce the debt, we must stop spending so much, stop borrowing, and start living within our means.

Just as it works in my personal life.

Responding To More Liberal Idiocy

2011-07-08T20:50:00.005-04:00

"False words are not evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." ~ Plato

In a comment at Joe's Blog, one particularly annoying, persistent Liberal posted this link (be patient, for some reason the web page loads painfully slow), ostensibly, I guess, to make some point. I have quite forgotten the point he was trying to make, as Liberals usually make such stupid points, they really aren't worth taking the time and effort to consider.

Even so, I tried to read the article he linked to--I really did-- but I couldn't get past the following exercise in absurdity:

"Take the enormous amount of misinformation that is taken for truth by Fox audiences: the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that he was in on 9/11, the belief that climate change isn't real and/or man-made, the belief that Barack Obama is Muslim and wasn't born in the United States, the insistence that all Arabs are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists, the inexplicable perceptions that immigrants are both too lazy to work and are about to steal your job."

I then responded to the Lib's comment by telling him I could easily refute the lies spouted by the author of the linked article but I highly doubt the aforementioned commenter really believed that tripe himself.

He responded by challenging me to "go to it".

I didn't (not there, anyway), because as Lone Ranger has noted, ad infinitum, "Liberals not only refuse to learn from their mistakes, they refuse to admit them."

However, I will now attempt to refute the false charges leveled against Fox news, one by one, right here, right now, on my blog:

First falsehood: "the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."

Saddam Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction, as Iraqis unfortunately found out the hard way when he used them against his own citizens. Not only did he have WMD, but even the Democrats admitted to that fact.

This is not opinion. It is historical fact. All one needs to do is look it up.

Second falsehood: "[H]e (Saddam Hussein) was in on 9/11."

This charge is probably the closest to the most accurate, but still way off base. There is no evidence that Hussein wasn't in on the conspiracy to attack the USA, but there is a suggestion that he may well have known about the impending attacks in advance. At any rate, if Hussein did not invite al Qaida to come to Iraq to conduct their terrorists training camps, he certainly didn't discourage them, or ask them to cease and desist, and he celebrated the terrorist attacks on 9/11 right along with bin Laden.

Also, I don't recall ever hearing Fox news make that particular charge, except in a speculative way, which is a far cry from deliberate misinformation. So, the statement that Fox misinformed their viewers in that regard is in itself, false.

Third: "the belief that climate change isn't real and/or man-made."

How can a theory that is unproven and unprovable be the subject of misinformation? Climate Change, or Global Warming, as it was originally called before real scientists (you know, the ones without an agenda) proved the earth was not warming but cooling, has never been proven, nor is there any evidence that it is any more than a theory, and a completely implausible theory at that.

Fourth: "T]he belief that Barack Obama is Muslim and wasn't born in the United States"

Fox news never made that claim. They did, however, report that others have made that claim, but they never made that claim themselves, and that usually in conjunction with a disclaimer that the opinions expressed by guests on their commentary programs are not necessarily the official opinions of Fox News. As any good news outlet should, they simply reported what others have said, and let the viewers decide.

In fact, it is the Liberal media outlets, such as MSNBC, CNN, and others who have propagated that misinformation under the guise of claiming Fox News is the culprit.

Fifth: "Arabs are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists"

No one--not Fox news--not anyone, has ever, EVER made such an obvious stupid generality about Muslims and Arabs. Some Arabs are Christians. Some are atheists, and some are probably other religions as well.

Likewise, no one--certainly not Fox News-- has ever said all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, they have always clearly stated that, although most terrorists are Muslims, all Muslims are not terrorists. This fifth charge against Fox news is patently false and quite frankly, created out of whole cloth. It's difficult (to say the least) to believe anyone, even a moronic Liberal, would make such a stupid and irresponsible accusation.

It's equally unbelievable to believe anyone, even a moronic, kool-aid drinking, dyed in the wool, lemming mentality, bleeding heart Liberal sob sister would believe such a ludicrous statement.

And last, but not least: "the inexplicable perceptions that immigrants are both too lazy to work and are about to steal your job."

The author of the article, as all Liberals continually do, conveniently left out the one word that defines the crux of the illegal immigration argument:

"Illegal".

But, to respond directly to the false allegation, Fox news has never created a perception that immigrants are lazy or "about to steal" anyone's job. Just the opposite, Fox news has repeatedly stated that, for the most part, legal immigrants are hard-working, responsible, upstanding, law abiding people, and that those who have become naturalized citizens usually love America as much, and sometimes even more than the average natural born citizen.

However, any perceptions about illegal aliens who have illegally entered our country, have mostly been the result of their own disregard for our nation's laws and sovereignty.

You know, I'm just an ordinary guy, but even I can easily refute these ridiculous, slanderous accusations. Imagine what Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh could do with them.

Not Guilty

2011-07-06T11:20:00.003-04:00

"The sword of justice has no scabbard." ~ Antione De Riveral

I admit I didn't watch the trial of Casey Anthony. I didn't hear the testimony. I didn't weigh the evidence. All I know is part of what the news outlets reported.

It seems the general opinion of the people who did watch the trial in it's entirety is that Casey Anthony is guilty as charged. And, from what I've heard, she probably is.

Despite the verdict handed down by the jury.

But, I have all I need to know to opine on the results.

I've heard the attorneys offer their points of view. I've heard journalist's analyses. We have all heard the opinions of the observers.

What I haven't heard is the juror's opinions. And, in the end, it's really only the jury's opinion that matters.

Perhaps many people don't understand the singular responsibility of a jury. Juries are charged to make a judgement on the facts of the case only.

Not on emotion. Not on feelings. Not on public opinion. Not on some sense of fairness.

Just the Facts, Ma'am.

But, above all, the judgement of the jury is dependent on whether or not guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Throughout any court trial, jury members are continuously charged by the Judge, in no uncertain terms, before, during, and after all testimony and evidence is presented:

There must be no doubt of guilt, or the defendant must be found "not guilty".

The States attorney has the burden of proof. If he cannot prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must reach a verdict of "not Guilty".

The Casey Anthony jury therefore have discharged their solemn and sacred duty in the way the American Justice system intended.

It could well be, and probably is, that the jury members believed in their hearts that Casey Anthony was guilty of murder in the first degree.

But, in their minds, the States attorney failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and they voted accordingly. And, I feel confident, when the interviews with the jury members are published, that is exactly what they'll say.

No doubt the state attorney wanted a guilty verdict, but unfortunately, he should have done a little more homework, sealed the evidence down more tightly, and done whatever was necessary to remove any semblance of doubt about the guilt of Casey Anthony.

Obviously, as far as the jury was concerned, he failed to accomplish that goal.

This is the way the American Justice system is intended to work.

Like it or not. The system works.

On Media Bias

2011-06-29T10:24:00.004-04:00

"All of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society. We can vulgarize that society. We can brutalize it. Or, we can help lift it onto a higher level." ~ William Bernbach

My newest Blogroll addition, Wintery Knight, has posted an interesting entry on media bias.

I copied his links and posted them, one by one, to my Facebook status in hopes that my Liberal Doctor nephew will see them, read them, and learn something about the media. He actually sees no bias in mainstream media reporting, except, of course, for FOX News, which he claims is basically the propaganda arm of the Republican party.

I find this interesting, to say the least, since he is a Professor of Media Studies at Eastern University in Pennsylvania. He has even earned a Doctorate in the field.

How can someone who is considered an expert in media not recognize obvious bias? It's not like it's subtle.

Giving my nephew the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he is too close. He can't see the forest for the trees. His blindness reminds me of Edgar Allen Poe's short story, "The Purloined Letter". The object of his search is in plain sight and in the open for all to see, if they merely open their eyes and look.

Of course, that would require objectivity, and being a Liberal, that isn't possible.

In any case, I believe posting some articles about anything concerning media should attract his attention, and perhaps even hold it long enough for him to learn something he may have previously dismissed.

We can only hope.

Father's Day 2011

2011-06-19T07:09:00.003-04:00

"And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." ~ Ephesians 6:4

When I was a teenager, I was convinced my father was the stupidest man in the world. When I was in my twenties, with kids of my own, I was surprised how much the old man had learned in only about 10 years.

He is in Heaven now.

Today, in my late 50's (very late. I'm 59), with my 5 kids all grown up and with kids of their own, I realize that I am much more like my father than I ever thought or wanted to be.

But, it's OK. I kind of like myself now.

And, I love my father.

Happy Father's Day to all of you fathers out there in Blogland.

Palin Is Vindicated

2011-06-13T08:55:00.005-04:00

"Though the vicious can sometimes pour affliction upon the good, their power is transient and their punishment certain; and that innocence, though oppressed by injustice, shall, supported by patience, finally triumph over misfortune!" ~ Ann Radcliffe

So, the Liberal Media hounds have pored through countless pages of Sarah Palin's e-mail documents ravenously looking for anything they could use to damage her reputation. Over 24,000 of them.

And what did they find?

The e-mails show that Sarah Palin is of stalwart character, a conscientious and effective Governor who actually did place the interests of her constituency and her state over her self interests. They showed a working mom who successfully balanced her time between her high pressure and highly scrutinized job with her personal time with her family.

A quote from this story: "Whether you like her or not is up to you, but the one big surprise coming out of an examination of 24,000 email messages is that there really is no surprise, no shocking inside story.

What you see with Palin is generally what you get."

What didn't they find?

No corruption. No dirt. No malfeasance. Not a smirch. Not one blot on her record out of 24,000 pages.

And, keep in mind this is only what the left wing Liberal media reported they found. What they said they found are simply snippets of the volumes of records they studiously and voraciously examined with a fine tooth comb. How many more records do you suppose they found that showed her to be even more intelligent and capable than anyone once thought?

Believe me, if there were any evidence at all of anything negative, you can be sure they would have gleefully announced it to the world, and by now, every single man woman and child in the world would know every detail.

In seeking to embarrass Palin, they have only managed to embarrass themselves. If it weren't so pathetic (and predictable)The Left wing Liberal State-run Media has egg on their faces, but I'll bet they won't apologize or even admit they are wrong about her. A perfect example of Liberal truth number 8:

Liberals cannot be embarrassed. They lack the gene to blush.

It surely must be a dark day in Liberal land today.

Moron Liberal Stupididty

2011-06-11T07:18:00.002-04:00

"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely stupid." ~ Heinrich Heine

(ol' Heinrich must know Chris Matthews personally)

Apparently, according to Chris "Obama sends a chill up my leg" Matthews, if you are outraged by Democrat Representative Anthony Wiener sending pictures of his namesake to young women through Twitter, you are "culturally backwards":

Obviously, Matthews is another one of the elite Liberal intelligentsia, who know better than us poor dumb Americans what's proper behavior.

This guy is shameless. So is Wiener. So is just about every Liberal.

Now, let's all sit back and enjoy as Jim and other psychotic Liberals try to defend this idiot.

More Liberal Stupidity, With A Twist

2011-06-09T04:12:00.007-04:00

"Deviant: Different from what is considered to be normal or morally correct." ~ Webster's Dictionary

In a Facebook discussion about the entrance of Rick Santorum into the 2012 Presidential race, I learned something new about Liberals. That is, how low Liberals will stoop to attack their ideological opponents.

Rick Santorum

One commenter in the thread said he wished Santorum would change his name, which prompted me to ask why. He responded that I should Google the name, "Santorum".

Well, I did as he suggested, and was appalled and sickened by what I found.

Is there a depth to which Liberals won't sink to disparage people?

From what I learned, an immoral, soulless, disgusting, perverted Sodomite named Dan Savage, feigned outrage at Former Senator Rick Santorum after he stood up for family values, and attacked the Senator by creating an alternative definition of the word, "santorum".

Disgusting little Pervert

As is typical of the Liberal mindset, Savage's hateful response to Santorum's somewhat innocuous statement was extremely disproportional to the alleged offense.

I use the words "alleged" and "feigned" purposely, because typically, these Liberals really know the truth but choose to deny the facts.

This is the sort of person who would have us accept his aberrant filthy, disgusting, immoral, deviant lifestyle as normal, and even worse, natural!

Do you think a mind capable of creating such a vile, disgusting, synonym for anyone's name is a natural, normal mind? Or is it a deviant mind?

A perverted mind-in-the gutter like that is the only sort of mind that could conceive such an absolutely revolting concept.

There is no love in this "man", and I use the term loosely. There is no honor. There is no respect. He is a vile, disgusting, little pervert. I cannot conceive the amount of self-loathing this deviant little creature possesses.

He is appropriately named.

Savage's entire biography reads like a litany of perversion.

He is nothing more than a savage. He is everything that is evil in the world and nothing that is good. He is evil incarnate.

And, like every other Liberal, he is unbelievably stupid.

Obama Is Stupid

2011-06-08T13:14:00.004-04:00

"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." ~ Frank Dane

The second of my posts about how the leftists treat Conservatives as opposed to how they treat their own:

If Sarah Palin was really wrong about Paul Revere, her gaffe would still be less of a stupid idiotic statement than this one:

And yet, no Liberal so-called journalists dare admit the obvious.

Paul Revere's famous ride occurred over 225 years ago, during a time when the media was limited to writing, by hand, about events that transpired, after the fact, and before witnesses, and rarely were the events actually witnessed first hand by those who reported them in the newspapers of the day.

What Sarah Palin said was in response to a reporter asking her what she had learned about history on her stop in Boston.

She already knew what all the rest of us did, that Revere rode through the towns, alerting the people that the regulars were coming, but she had learned something else that day. She learned he also warned the British soldiers that the American patriots were ready to defend themselves.

Now, after 225 years plus, Sarah Palin knows more about the events on that day than Barack Hussein Obama knew about the current geographical boundaries of the United States of America!

And the Libs say she's stupid!

Well, if she's stupid for knowing facts that the reporters don't know, how stupid does that make Obama?

I mean, she has an excuse for possibly being slightly mistaken about something that happened 225 years ago.

Obama has no excuse.

He's just an imbecile.

And so are the rest of the Liberals.

Taking Off The Gloves

2011-06-07T18:05:00.005-04:00

"Women should be obscene and not heard." ~ Groucho Marx

Since my last post, I am still fuming over the treatment of Sarah Palin by so-called journalists and their mindless Liberal drones.

And, it's not just Sarah Palin. It's anyone who espouses Conservative values.

These reporters follow Palin around like vultures, hoping their victim will accidentally drop a tiny tibit of meat they can jump on and devour.

The recent video taken of Sarah Palin on her bus tour is only the latest example of the feeding frenzy that dogs her every move. And frankly, every highly visible Conservative has the same problem. She stumbled over her words (something all of us have done from time to time, by the way) while talking about the role Paul Revere served in the days before the outbreak of the War of Independence. Within minutes after her unfortunate choice of words were uttered, the video went viral and every Liberal in America was labeling her stupid, incompetent, and uneducated.

But, she was not wrong. What she said was historically accurate. It just didn't come out the way she intended (this happens sometimes, particularly when she isn't reading the words verbatim off a teleprompter). But the reporters didn't care. It sounded wrong to them, and that was enough.

The hounds were loosed.

This is the same playbook that is always used by Liberals:

Attack the messenger and don't address the message.

I don't know when it started, but this is the treatment all high profile Conservatives have received for as long as I can remember. I can remember how Richard Nixon was attacked. During the famous debates between he and JFK, the press never talked about the merits of his argument. They were too focused on his physical appearance. As if physical appearance has anything to do with ability.

If physical appearance is synonymous with stupidity, then Helen Thomas must be the stupidest person on earth.
Wait...

Since then, every Republican President and Presidential candidate has been ridiculed by the left. All of them have been described as stupid, ignorant, moronic, etc. They called Gerald Ford, an all star college athlete, stupid and clumsy. Ronald Reagan was forgetful, senile, too old, and yes, stupid. George H. W. Bush was stupid and a liar. We are all too familiar with the insults leveled at George W Bush; Stupid, a war criminal, a chimpanzee.

Through it all, Republicans and Conservatives have borne it all with grace and aplomb. We haven't sunk to their level. We have been far too noble. For the most part, we have steadfastly defended our leaders without resorting to ad hominen, vitriolic, hateful, personal attacks.

Basically, the same tactics the left have always used against us.

Well, I've had it with them.

From now on, I'm going on the offensive. I can play this game, too. I'm fighting fire with fire. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

And, I'm starting with this following clip:

My God, Barbara Walters is an idiot! Listen to her stumble over her words (kind of like Sarah Plain did)and accidentally say, "If Sarah Palin can still ride around in her bus and be considered to the possible president, this man can override this, stay in Congress, and just hope there's another scandal..."

What? Hope there's another scandal? You think that will solve ol' Weiner boy's problems, you dumb broad? Boy, what a moron this BaBa WaWa is! What a waste of oxygen! She needs to just shut up, and let people think she's stupid instead of opening her mouth and removing all doubt!

Oh, and By the way, Anthony Wiener is a pervert.

But that's not a personal attack. It's a fact.

Family Feud?

2011-06-03T22:25:00.008-04:00

"I didn't leave the Democrat party. The Democrat party left me." ~ Ronald Reagan

Tonight, I went too far, it appears. On Facebook, my lovely niece, who unfortunately, is an avid Obama supporter and a "progressive", posted a link to the following video with the accompanying comment, "Um.....Haha???" on her brother's (my Liberal Doctor nephew) wall:

Afterward, her Liberal friends posted these comments:

"Her ignorance is astounding!! I feel dumber just hearing her jabber :-D" -- (This from a woman who is a "Christian minister". Real Christian, eh?)

Then another comment from my niece: "Haha...me too! She was just making it up as she went along...she should really not speak to people when she's in public."

The last comment came from my nephew: "Maybe she should have written the Paul Revere poem on her hand?"

(Note to myself: Maybe my learned nephew should study his history instead of simply taking what amounts to poetic license as fact)

I couldn't resist responding. I posted a comment (without even viewing the video first) pointing out that their hero, Barack Hussein Obama once remarked that the United States has 60 states. He said, and I'm sure my two readers will remember, he had been in 57 states with one left to go and that he wanted to go also to Alaska and Hawaii, but his people wouldn't let him. That makes 60 states in all. I then wrote something like "everyone makes mistakes, but the difference between Obama and Palin is that Obama hates his country, and Palin doesn't."

I say I said "something like" because later, when I checked back, I found my comment had been deleted.

I later posted a link to the article linked below, but that,too was deleted.

I guess I went too far. I don't want to anger my relatives, of course, but they drew first blood, so to speak. I must admit I was a bit surprised that no one attempted to argue with me, and instead, took the cowardly way out. It embarrasses me to admit that these are my blood relatives, with college degrees (My nephew even has a PhD), and they display this type of ignorance.

So, since I obviously wasn't going to be allowed to post further comments there, I posted my thoughts in my own status. But not until after I found this story.

After I watched the video she posted, I became angry, to say the least. This is what I wrote on my status, along with the above article:

"I get really sick of "progressives" launching hateful, vitriolic, ad-hominen attacks against Conservatives. These cowards can't refute the message so they attack the messenger. Sarah Palin is a patriot. Their "hero" is a Marxist. They can't deny either of these facts."

I had more, but I went over the word limit, so I added a couple of comments to my comment, to wit:

"Can they point to anything Sarah Palin has ever said that indicates she hates America? No, but we can point to quote after quote that indicates Obama does. Does this make "Progressives" anti-American? Not necessarily, but it certainly makes them look ignorant. Now, we have proof that Palin was historically correct, and the egg is on the "progressives" faces. Payback's a bitch, aint it?"

And, lastly:

"Is there anyone who can tell me what exactly is it about Sarah Palin that so frightens Liberals? Is it because she loves America? Is it because she believes in God? Or is it because she proudly speaks the truth about the Marxists who are trying to destroy our country? What is it? I really want to know."

Still feeling righteously indignant, I continued with another post, with another link to accentuate my point:

"More on the media's lies about Sarah Palin. Are the Liberal's embarrassed to be proven wrong yet again? No. They lack the gene to blush."

I fear I have created a rift in my family. I may never be invited to Christmas Dinner again.

But, I can't sit back and take it. And, I won't.

Thoughts From A Left Field Perspective

2011-05-31T07:59:00.010-04:00

"I'm not sure I want popular opinion on my side -- I've noticed those with the most opinions often have the fewest facts." ~ Bethania McKenstry

I've been busy/lazy lately. I have a day off today, so I've decided to offer my thoughts on a couple of things that have recently dominated the news, while I have time.

First, the Harold Camping "end of the world" fiasco. Of course, we all knew this was ridiculous. As soon as he decided on the exact day and hour the world would end, people who actually read the Bible (let alone understand it)automatically knew it wouldn't happen on May 21, 2011 at 6:00 P.M. EST.

It was a self defeating prediction.

If God had originally planned to end it all on that particular date and time, He would have simply changed His plans, right?

Perhaps not. The way I see it, even if Camping had been correct, it doesn't mean he knew when it was going to happen. It would have only meant he guessed right. One second after the event, all the world would have known that Camping's prediction was merely a coincidence.

Nevertheless, we quoted the verse in Mark 13:32, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.", but most of us left out the next verse, which reads, "Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come."

It is in that context that I submit Camping did us all a service if, as the Bible says, "we have ears to hear".

I don't know about my two readers, but I have a renewed faith as a result of the "end of the world" thing. It has made me more cognizant of my responsibility to live and share my faith. By heeding the warning to be ready, we make more of an effort to try to be Christlike.

Camping has reminded us, in a bizarre, backwards kind of way, that we should live our lives as if Jesus is coming today. because, He just might.

I wish I could put it more clearly, but hopefully, my two readers will get my point.

Now, the entrance of Herman Cain into the 2012 Presidential race:

In the end, he probably won't be nominated to be the Republican candidate, but from my perspective (which, as my two long time readers may attest, is from about four rows back in the bleacher seats waaaaay out in left field), Herman Cain would have the best chance of all of the Republican hopefuls of defeating Obama in 2012.

Mind you, I do not say he is the best candidate. That remains to be seen. But, barring some revelation of malfeasance or impropriety or some other negative, besides being labeled an "Uncle Tom", an "Oreo", or a "house nigger" or some other racially tinged insult (because you know, the Democrats will make those charges and more), he can defeat Obama.

At this point, I believe the defeat of Obama is more important than putting the best Republican in the oval office.

Let's save the country first, then worry about improving it.

Here is the reason I say Herman Cain can defeat Obama:

96% of black voters voted for Obama in 2008. I saw a poll a couple of months ago (which I can't seem to find now. Perhaps a reader can have more success locating it than I did), which indicated that 96% of black voters still intend to vote for Obama in 2012.

Now, 96% of the black vote in 2008 can be a coincidence. Other conclusions can possibly be drawn from those numbers. There could well be some other reasons that so many black voters voted for Obama other than race. Even a white Democrat traditionally gets somewhere over 80% of the black vote regardless of his stance on the issues.

But, two years later, even after it became clear to black voters that Obama will not pay their mortgage, or buy them gas for their cars as he promised, the staggering percentage of blacks who would still vote for Obama makes it as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer that blacks overwhelmingly support Obama simply because he is, like them, black.

So, obviously, it doesn't matter that Obama has consistently betrayed the black voters in America. It doesn't matter that he has failed to keep any of the promises he made to his black constituency. It doesn't matter that many of his policies have been harmful rather than helpful to black Americans.

They will vote according to race.

He could be as discriminatory against blacks as the Ku Klux Klan, but because he is black himself, an overwhelming majority of blacks would still vote for him.

It is estimated that blacks make up approximately 12 to 13% of the United States' population. In the 2008 election, blacks turned out to vote in record numbers. Those black voters swept Obama into office. Without the black vote, McCain would have probably won.

Enter Herman Cain. A black man.

If Cain is the Republican nominee facing off against Barack Hussein Obama in the 2012 election, black voters will suddenly face a choice they have never had to make before.

They will have to choose between two black men for president.

And therefore, a dilemma.

The way I see it, there are more than two choices for blacks under this scenario:

1. A Democrat black candidate.

2. A Republican black candidate.

3. To vote for a black man who offers empty promises of "hope and change" but has failed to deliver.

4. To vote for a black man who offers real common sense solutions to the problems facing all Americans, including black Americans, and not just "bumper sticker" slogans..

5. Vote for a third party candidate.

6. Vote for a write-in candidate, or

7. Don't vote at all.

Recent polls (that I did find) indicate blacks are disappointed in Obama. Some estimate that as many as 15-20% of those who voted for Obama in 2008 do not approve of the job he's done thus far.

This doesn't necessarily mean they won't vote for him again in 2012.

However, if that disappointment manifests itself in the polls on election day, many of the above choices will no doubt be made.

If black voters make any of the above choices besides the first and third choices, Herman Cain can win in 2012.

Cross posted at American Descent

Surprise! The Media Lies!

2011-05-20T12:48:00.007-04:00

“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” ~ George W. Bush

The AOL/Huffington Post says, the US has always supported the 1967 borders thing.

It is a lie.

Here's an article that says exactly opposite.

Obviously, Barack Hussein Obama hates Israel.

A Funny Video

2011-05-17T08:09:00.003-04:00

I love anything that's politically incorrect, except that horrible TV show of that name, which of course, was not politically incorrect at all.

Ladies, please understand. This is sarcastic comedy.

A Clever Video

2011-05-14T07:42:00.002-04:00

"Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky

A friend posted this on Facebook. I thought it was clever:

I don't need to comment. We all know, and have known for a long time that Obama is a Marxist.

Yet Another Question

2011-05-06T07:01:00.011-04:00

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." ~ William Shakespeare

Look at the above picture. Does anyone think Obama looks apprehensive? Worried? Uncertain? If you do, do you wonder why?

Here is another issue that has me puzzled:

Obama wants us all to believe he is the one responsible for getting bin Laden.

At first, the story was Osama resisted and was armed.

Then, the story was changed. Now, we are supposed to believe Osama was unarmed. For the record, I've never seen a picture of bin Laden that didn't show him either holding a gun or where a gun was not within his reach. (Well, at least, none other than a close up, such as the one I posted in an earlier post) With all the noise and commotion on the lower floors of his compound, why would Osama have been unarmed?

If it's true that he was unarmed when he was shot, then his death is murder.

If it's true that Obama was really calling the shots, that makes Obama a murderer.

Does he still want to take the credit for killing Osama bin Laden?

Why would he want to admit any complicity in the murder of an unarmed man?

What possible reason would he have to put his presidency at risk (which is something completely un-Obama-like) over something that could have been so easily avoided? All he would have had to do was stick to the original story. What was the point of changing it?

The "Paper Tiger" Has Teeth

2011-05-03T08:46:00.007-04:00

"America is a paper tiger" ~ Osama bin Laden

I've been too busy to comment on the termination of Osama bin Laden, and, as it turns out, that may have been a blessing.

Now that further information has surfaced, I can make a more informed comment.

Stop! Don't shoot!

Upon first hearing that Osama was dead, my first thought was, "Big deal. Someone else will just step in and take his place. It's not over." I still think that, except, his death is a big deal.

Then, I heard that Obama "authorized" the operation. He gave the "Kill" order.

Now, I admit I have little to no knowledge of military operations, and certainly less knowledge of covert military operations, but I seem to remember President George W. Bush authorized the military to capture and kill bin Laden a decade ago.

Was this authorization ever rescinded?

If not, Obama did not need to authorize the operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. Taking out bin Laden was the armed forces' mission, and has been their mission for the last ten years.

Mission accomplished.

Now, Obama is taking credit for this victory. This is the same man who campaigned on getting the U.S. out of the war by surrendering. He is also the same man who promised to close GITMO, and aggressively pushed for the prosecution of the CIA operatives who interrogated the Muslim terrorist detainees, calling our techniques "torture".

And yet, it was those very "techniques" that gave us the information that, in turn, led to Osama bin Laden's demise.

So, apparently, Obama gets the credit in spite of himself.

Two things bother me about the subsequent burial of Osama at sea:

I understand the stated reasons for burying him at sea, but they don't pass muster with me.

1. The first reason stated was they buried him at sea to prevent Osama's rabid followers from building a shrine at the site of Osama's grave. OK. So they have prevented Muslim extremists from creating a shrine to Osama on his gravesite. But, nevertheless, shrines can, and likely will, be created at his place of birth, place of death, and any of thousands of sites scattered in between.

So, what, if anything, did burial at sea accomplish, other than generate speculation that Osama might not really be dead? You know conspiracy theorists will have a field day with that one.

Remember the theories that Hitler was still alive somewhere and plotting his revenge?

At least there was never any doubt that Mussolini was dead.

2. The second stated reason for burial at sea was because Obama (apparently, since he had the responsibility of making such decisions) insisted we give bin Laden a proper Muslim send-off out of respect for the Islamic traditions and customs.

This offends me. How does this vermin deserve respect from us? From anyone? In my opinion, his body should have been placed in some very public place and left there with 24 hour video surveillance until his body decays into dust.

To hell with respect for Muslim tradition and customs. They are a false religion in the first place.

In my opinion, he shouldn't have been killed at all. Rather, he should have been captured and incarcerated for the rest of his life in a prison with no other inmates and no outside contact at all, ala Rudolph Hess in Spandau Prison. No newspapers. No TV. No DVD's, No computers. No visitors. At all. Until his lonely, anonymous death.

In this way, he becomes virtually ineffective as a leader of terrorists. He cannot be a martyr because he has not died a martyr's death. He becomes his own worst nightmare:

He becomes insignificant.

Osama bin Laden once famously said, "America is a paper tiger".

Evidently, this "paper tiger" has some pretty sharp teeth.

Cross posted at American Descent

Convincing Proof: Obama Is A Phony

2011-04-28T05:30:00.002-04:00

You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. ~ Abraham Lincoln

At long last, Barack Hussein Obama has released his birth certificate, and now the issue of his citizenship and subsequent eligibility to be President is finally put to rest, right?

Of course, who could argue with this solid proof?

Click to enlarge.

Seriously, folks. This astounds me. Who, besides the willfully ignorant, could accept this obvious forgery as legitimate?

I won't lie. I have thought this issue a mere distraction for a long time. There has been no question in my mind that Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States. Of that, I had no doubt. All the suppositions and assumptions and convincing arguments could not convince me that Obama is not a legal natural born citizen of the United States.

Now that he has released his "actual birth certificate", I'm no longer so sure. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see the obvious problems with this "document".

Look at the upper left hand corner. And then, compare the left border with the right border. See anything strange?

The so-called birth certificate was obviously and poorly cut and pasted onto a background with a nearly identical pattern. My God, the forger didn't even bother to trim the edges to complete the illusion of authenticity. He simply cut the forgery out and pasted it onto a nearly identical background pattern.

One would think in three years the forger could have perfected his art.

My 7-year old grandson could do a better, more convincing job.

Next, and probably most damning, look at the box labeled, "Race" beside his father's name.

African?

Since when is Africa a race?

There are white people native to Africa. I'll bet there are Asians who are native to Africa. Is the continent of birth their race?

Obama was presumably born in 1961. (I say "presumably", because after this fallacy, nothing about the origins of Obama is certain) No one has ever disputed that fact.

But, I digress. Does anyone want to venture a guess as to what the proper and accepted term for a black person was in 1961? I'll spoil the fun for you.

It was "Negro".

Or, if that box on the document were to be consistent with the mother's race (which is recorded to be, "Caucasian") the race should read, "Negroid". Regardless, it certainly wouldn't be "African".

See, back in 1961, there were three sub races within the all encompassing human race:

Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid, although the third was sometimes called Asian instead. I have never heard of a fourth race called "African".

I really don't know what to think about Obama's intent here.

I can't decide whether I think Obama is stupid or he thinks we are stupid, or if he is simply so arrogant and narcissistic, he doesn't really care if we buy his flim-flam or not.

At any rate, I am no longer convinced he is legitimate.

And, I know I am not alone.

Cross posted at American Descent

Potential Candidates I Like

2011-04-27T06:00:00.000-04:00

"Give no decision till both sides thou'st heard." ~ Phocylides

Now, for the promised post on potential Republican Presidential candidates that I like.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I like Rick Santorum. He has already declared his candidacy. Democrats and their puppets in the media have long attacked him for his strong family values. I don't see them lightening up. If he is to prevail, he'd better not have any skeletons in his closet, and he'd better not utter any word that could conceivably be misunderstood. He will need to be squeaky clean and above reproach.

Just advocating family values is enough to set the hounds loose on him.

Michele Bachmann. I admit, I didn't think anyone would suggest she couldn't be President because Republicans won't nominate a woman, but Commenter Glenn Chatfield offered exactly that opinion in the comments section of my previous post. Perhaps Glenn buys into the Democrat propaganda that Republicans are sexist. I'd hate to think that. Perhaps he will clarify. I believe, for true Conservatives, Ms. Bachmann is an ideal candidate. She espouses not only the family values Conservatives cherish, but she embraces sound fiscal policies as well.

I like her.

That said, the Democrat attack machine media would have a field day with her. She is a woman, and an attractive woman to boot, and that combination scares the heck out of the Liberals:

A woman with a mind.

To Liberals, that is something with which they are unfamiliar. Contrary to what Democrats say, they are secretly sexist. If Bachmann runs for president, the Democrats true colors will likely be revealed. They will say, as a woman, she can't be as strong and decisive as a man would. She will have to prove her strength and tenacity to win the necessary respect from the American voters. Remember what I pointed out previously:

The average American voter knows little, if anything other than what the leftist media tells them.

Again, like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann will have to be squeaky clean to avoid the media's character assassination tactics

My favorite candidate in the previous election was Duncan Hunter, U.S. Representative from California. I still like him, though it is highly doubtful he will even consider running. However, his son, Duncan Hunter Jr, has taken his father's place in the House of Representatives, and he is as Conservative as his father.

I would gladly vote for either if either of them chose to run.

Name recognition is a huge problem for the Hunters, though. Senior wasn't able to garner much of a following in the last election, but that's largely due to being nearly completely ignored by the most influential Republican pundits. Ann Coulter supported Hunter, and even scolded Sean Hannity for not giving Hunter equal support. He clearly represented my personal views better than any other candidate, and still does.

Probably the most viable potential candidate, in my humble opinion, is Herman Cain. This guy (along with Alan West) is the Democrat's worst nightmare:

A black man who is a Conservative.

And, not only is he a Conservative, but a man with real solutions to the problems created by the history making Barack Hussein Obama. A Herman Cain candidacy will almost certainly force the Democrat run media to fish or cut bait. Will they treat Cain with the respect he deserves as a black American (who they claim they revere)? Or will they spit out cleverly but thinly disguised racial epithets in their attacks on Cain?

I'm betting they will do the latter. Then, pretend they didn't really mean it the way it sounded.

He also may present something of a dilemma to the black voters. In 2008, 96% of black voters voted for Obama.

Two years later, after proving himself both incompetent and inept, a recent poll reported 96% of black voters said they would still vote for the liar-in-chief.

It is painfully clear blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama simply because he is black.

If Herman Cain, a black man with obvious superior intellect runs against Obama, the choice will be a difficult one for those who vote based strictly on skin color. Especially if Cain can convince black voters that his economic recovery plan is the better of the two. And, he also has the added advantage of offering something Obama promised but failed to deliver:

True hope and change.

Obama had his chance and failed. Hopefully, enough black voters will recognize that fact and vote accordingly to make a difference. Many black voters may well throw their support in Cain's direction.

Obama won on a promise.

So can Cain. And, unlike Obama, Cain can deliver.

Alan West. This freshman Republican Representative from Florida has impressed Conservatives in the short time he's been a Representative. A former Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel, he is skilled in military strategy which would be a great advantage while we are still engaged in three wars. Additionally, he is a brilliant man with brilliant ideas that could help alleviate the financial situation the nation now faces.

Also, like Herman Cain, West is a black man. And, being black, he has the same advantage Cain does. The only significant drawback is his relative inexperience in politics. Although, it could be argued that attaining the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Marine Corps requires the utilization of a certain amount of politics.

As we know, being inexperienced is not an issue for the media as their fawning love for Obama clearly indicates. Unless, of course, the candidate is a Republican. Then, it's open season.

Regardless, the Liberal media attack machine will find an easy target in Alan West. He will be derisively referred (as will Herman Cain, of course)to as an "Uncle Tom" or brainwashed by the White Republican rich man establishment. And, the obligatory attacks on West's lack of experience, thus demonstrating how low into the depths of hypocrisy the Democrats are willing to sink to champion their hero, Obama.

My dream ticket thus far? Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann.

I know there are others we can discuss, but I can't think of any more off hand.

If my two readers wish to add other potential candidates to this post, feel free.

I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Sometimes, No Choice Is Better Than Poor Choice

2011-04-25T13:50:00.004-04:00

"The more alternatives, the more difficult the choice." ~ Abbe' D'Allanival

Ive been thinking of what it will take to unseat Barack Hussein Obama in the next Presidential election, and, from where I sit, the prospect is not particularly rosy.

Short of some miraculous Devine intervention or Obama somehow self destructing, I don't think he will lose.

The current crop of Republican Presidential hopefuls fails to impress me.

Don't get me wrong. Many of them are very capable of leading this country out of the mess Obama has created, but between the Liberal state run media attack machine and the inability of Republicans to repel such attacks, in addition to the leading candidates lack of the necessary charisma, it appears those candidates have a long row to hoe. And, it's uphill all the way.

We have Donald Trump.

The Donald? Are you kidding me?

Trump may be a fiscal Conservative but he's no Conservative. His interest in running for President is a publicity stunt.

The only American that would benefit from a Trump presidency is Donald Trump.

We already have a Narcissist in the oval office. We don't need another one. He isn't serious and he shouldn't be seriously considered for president.

Chris Christie. I thought for a while that the New Jersey Governor would be a good choice, but now, after learning more about his more moderate positions on various social issues, I no longer support him. He isn't Conservative enough for me. We've had enough of these middle-of-the road Presidents. The last thing we need is another George H. W. Bush. Christie's a good man, but he's not Conservative enough.

Sarah Palin. I love Ms. Palin. I love her strong Conservatism. She has a Conservative fire in her belly that will never be quenched or watered down by compromise.

But, she is unelectable. She made one huge mistake:

She quit.

Yes, I know why she quit, and I understand she had very good solid reasons for resigning as Alaska's Governor. I don't fault her for that. At the time, it was probably the best decision she could have made, but it destroyed any presidential aspirations she may have had. If she runs for President on the Republican ticket, all you will hear from the Democrats and their supportive comrades in the media will be "Yes, but, she quit."

That's just too big a disadvantage considering most voters know little more than what the mainstream media tells them. She wouldn't stand a chance of being elected.

Tim Pawlenty. Remember the relatively uninformed American voters mentioned above? Pawlenty doesn't have name recognition. I don't know enough about him to have an opinion. And, unfortunately, neither does the average voter. If voters don't know about him, they won't vote for him.

Haley Barbour. I like him but, he has the same problem as Pawlenty's. Not enough name recognition.

Newt Gingrich. He's already been a victim of the Media attack machine. There's simply been too much negative press about him. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. He cannot overcome the negative stigma attached to him. He cannot win.

Mitt Romney. He couldn't even defeat half-Liberal John McCain in the Republican primaries of the previous election. How has he improved his status since then? By implementing his own version of Obamacare in Massachusetts? I think not.

Mike Huckabee. I can't figure this guy out. He's all over the board. I like his social Conservatism, but would he increase the taxes or decrease them? I get mixed messages from him depending on which interviewer interviews him. I just don't know what to think. And, if the average American voter gets the same vibe, he's unelectable.

I know I haven't covered all the potential candidates. Who have I missed? There's several more on whom I have opinions, but this post is already too long to hold my two readers attention.

There are some I like, but so far, the ones I like have indicated they will not seek the nomination at this time.

I will cover them in a future post.

But, tell me what you think so far. Am I reading these potentials wrong?

Who do you like? Who don't you like?

He's Alive!

2011-04-24T06:27:00.002-04:00

"Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." ~ Luke 24:1-7

The founder of Islam, Mohammed, is dead. The founder of Buddhism, Buddha, is dead. The founder of Confucianism, Confucius, is dead. All founders of all the world's religions are dead.

Long dead.

Dead and gone.

Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, is alive.

And that is the reason we celebrate this day.

Have a blessed Easter.

Good Friday

2011-04-22T18:33:00.003-04:00

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." ~ Isaiah 53: 4-5

The events that transpired on that day changed everything. Nothing has made more of an impact on the world and mankind as the death of this one solitary man.

And, nothing ever will.

Politics Explained

2011-04-17T14:53:00.001-04:00

One of the comments:

Water represents "the law". Banana represents God-given rights to pursue happiness, or your natural rights if you're atheist. These are rights you're born with, not "granted by government". We instituted our government (the constitution) to PROTECT our INDIVIDUAL rights - not "democratic rights" (majority rule). We're the monkeys. Evil men & women have turned it upside down and we've allowed it. Now, like the monkeys, we have been trained to think government is our master. Protest & get hosed.

Yep.

National Tartan Day

2011-04-06T10:00:00.005-04:00

"It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." ~ Excerpt from the Scottish Declaration of Independence, signed at Arbroath Abbey, April 6, 1320.

On April 4, 2008, President George W. Bush signed a Presidential Proclamation making April 6th National Tartan Day.

This is the day set aside to celebrate the contributions made to the world by Scots and people of Scottish descent. April 6th was selected as National Tartan Day because it is the anniversary of the day that Scotland declared their independence from Great Britain.

On this day, Scots are supposed to wear their clan's tartan plaid, so, if any of you happen to see someone wearing a kilt today, that is the reason.

I am a descendent of Clan Gunn from the Northern Highlands of Scotland in the area around Caithness, in Sutherland. As yet, I cannot afford a kilt (they are expensive!), but I have a clan Gunn tartan plaid tie. It's somewhere in my house but I can't find it, so, instead of wearing my tie today, I am posting this graphic, which is the clan Gunn tartan plaid:

The clan Gunn motto is "Aut Pax aut bellum" which means "Either peace or war".

This is a picture of me wearing my clan Gunn tartan tie:

Ladies, go out and kiss a Scotsman today. Men, go out and kiss a Scottish Lassie, but get her permission first.

Everyone is a Scot today.

Obama's Assault On The Second Amendment

2011-04-02T06:48:00.005-04:00

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." --Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

My friend from High School sent this to me in an e-mail. I am suspending my self imposed rule about not copying and pasting other commentaries so I can copy and paste this:

Project Gunrunner Backfires on the Left

Barack Hussein Obama and his Socialist cadre, in their enthusiasm to "fundamentally transform the United States of America," have redoubled efforts to do what all tyrannical governments must do to establish absolute state supremacy and usurp Rule of Law -- disarm the people.

Leftists accomplish this through incremental implementation of gun confiscation measures, most of which are overt political machinations. These include legislation written and promoted by Leftist groups such as the American Bar Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the Violence Policy Center, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and the Brady Campaign.

Current legislation under consideration includes H.R. 308 to limit rounds in magazines, S. 35 to lock in gun show registrations, S. 436 designed to "fix gun checks," and, most disturbing, the reauthorization of Section 215 of The Patriot Act, which permits the FBI to seize gun sale records (4473's) pursuant to "an authorized investigation." Regarding the latter, the Inspector General estimated that between 2003 and 2006, the FBI exceeded its authority under Section 215 in more than 6,000 instances.

The objective of most of this legislation is centralized registration, which provides the federal government with data on the owner of every gun in the U.S. Then, under the duress of, say, the collapse of our economy, Leftists will "justify" confiscation by way of such nefarious measures as an Executive Order -- just as they justified weapons confiscations after Hurricane Katrina.

"Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste," right?

The generation that witnessed the adulteration of our Constitution by Franklin Roosevelt and his Useful Idiots during the Great Depression know exactly what I mean. Fortunately, growing ranks of Patriots across our nation are awakening to this very real threat against our Second Amendment rights.

As FDR aptly demonstrated, the primary method in the Left's playbook for advancing its agenda is to convert tragedy into political capital. That is precisely what they did with the shooting of Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tucson in January of this year, and that is the rallying point for current gun control legislation.

Of course, claiming "gun violence" is the problem, rather than social entropy institutionalized by FDR's policies and those of his Socialist successors, is a better fit with the Left's agenda.

Another case in point, and one that is now backfiring on the Obama administration, is Project Gunrunner, a government program run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). As you may recall, ATF is an agency that exposed itself as a puppet for political agendas in the botched and bloody assaults at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 and Waco, Texas, in 1993.

The ATF implemented Project Gunrunner in 2006 as a strategy to track weapon distribution networks between the U.S. and Mexican drug cartels -- a worthy goal on the surface. Problem is, once the guns crossed into Mexico, ATF lost most of its tracking capability, which is to say that efforts to follow the distribution trail and stem the tide ended at the border.

Enter the Obama administration's gun control agenda, which breathed new life into Gunrunner and re-established the ATF leadership's standard ops tempo: SNAFU.

While Project Gunrunner failed in charting weapons distribution channels south of the border, Democrats saw its utility as a means to implement new gun regulations north of the border by asserting that all the violence in the region is the result of gun sales in the U.S.

The Obama administration hoped to make a case that Mexican organized crime syndicates depend on illegal U.S. sales of so-called "assault weapons." In doing so, they hoped to revitalize their political agenda to register and regulate the sale of those weapons -- a major Leftist goal for the last two decades.

With its mission transformed, in 2009 and 2010 the ATF expanded Project Gunrunner offices to McAllen, Texas, El Centro, California, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Sierra Vista, Arizona, and Brownsville, Texas, and added new Gunrunner teams in Tucson and in El Paso, Texas. Project Gunrunner's focus became exposing the illegal sale of guns in the U.S. in support of Obama's political objectives.

But the ATF's Gunrunner is now the subject of a political firefight.

On 28 December 2010, I was contacted by a career federal agent who, like many of his colleagues, honors his oath to "support and defend" our Constitution, whose support and defense is contingent on the Second Amendment's prohibition against government infringement on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The contacting agent, who has a good track record of identifying government agendas designed to thwart 2A rights, told me that he suspected the weapon used in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on 14 December was among those lost by the ATF during the Gunrunner operation a few months earlier. Senior career agents in Phoenix and Tucson confirmed that some of the weapons recovered at the scene of the murder of Agent Terry were, indeed, Project Gunrunner weapons, but because the ATF took control of the weapons, it could evade the establishment of any ballistic link between Project Gunrunner and the bullet that killed Terry.

Further, the agent I spoke with confirmed that the mission of Project Gunrunner was now purely political, an effort to "implement the registration of 'assault-type' rifles purchased anywhere in the United States." Obama's political appointees at ATF rejected numerous objections from field agents, including supervisory agents. Some objections were career terminators, including that of the ATF's attaché in Mexico City, Darren Gil, whose objections resulted in forced retirement on 31 December 2010, just two weeks after the murder of Brian Terry.

Now, in response to the ATF's stonewalling on ballistics related to Agent Terry's murder, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is demanding answers. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, is leading Senate inquiries into the connection between Gunrunner and Terry's murder.

Additionally, Grassley has also inquired about the murder of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata on 15 February, which may also involve weapons connected to Project Gunrunner.

For the record, a search of the ATF website, which prominently promotes Project Gunrunner, makes no mention of the murders of CBP Agent Terry or ICE Agent Zapata other than mentioning their names in off-the-shelf condolences.

For his part, Obama says of Gunrunner, "There may be a situation here which a serious mistake was made. If that's the case, then we'll find out and we'll hold someone accountable." He then asserted, "I did not authorize it; Eric Holder, the attorney general, did not authorize it. He's been very clear that our policy is to catch gunrunners and put them into jail."

(Note from the blog administrator: Obama is passing the buck as usual)

Obama and Holder may have enough cutouts to provide political insulation from Gunrunner fallout, but their politicization of its mission has not only been responsible for countless deaths in Mexico (more citizens were murdered in the city of Juarez in 2010 than in the nation of Afghanistan), but very likely the murder of two front-line U.S. agents trying to do their job in accordance with their oaths.

The attention focused on Project Gunrunner has been motivated primarily by politics: first, Obama's gun control agenda to politicize the operation, and now the Republicans' agenda to see how far up the chain of command knowledge of the operation went.

Upcoming testimony from Adam Price and Jeffrey Stirling, program managers for Gunrunner at ATF headquarters, may lead to appearances by Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, FBI Director Robert Mueller, DHS Director Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

All the political shenanigans aside, the Left's assault on the Second Amendment is a much bigger contest: Liberty versus Tyranny.

To that end, it's worth recalling the words of James Madison: "The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."

James Madison's appointee to the Supreme Court, Justice Joseph Story, wrote in his 1833 "Commentaries on the Constitution," "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

(Footnote: It is no small irony that as Obama endeavors to disarm the American people, he is contemplating how to arm "freedom fighters" (who are revealed, more each day, to be al-Qa'ida operatives or their useful idiots) in Libya. "I'm not ruling it out," says Obama. "If we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could.")

Indeed, just call the ATF!

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

Note from me, the blog administrator: While I agree with the overall theme of the article, I believe there must be some regulation of guns in the United States. Records of ownership should be available for purposes of identifying perpetrators of violent crimes. Although probably most violent crimes are committed with stolen or unregistered weapons, some such crimes have been solved primarily because the weapons used in the commission of them were traced back to the owner. And, obviously, individuals with a criminal record should not be allowed to own guns.

Trying To Make Up. Really

2011-03-29T10:34:00.005-04:00

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." ~ Attributed to many, including Winston Churchill

A former high school classmate of mine posted the following on Facebook this morning. He said he received it in an e-mail from a friend of his who lives in Grosse Pointe, Michigan:

My neighbor is a progressive Marxist of sorts (gung-ho for Socialized Medicine, "All guns should be banned", distribution of Wealth from the Working People to those who do not want to work, etc.).

So this spring I put this sign up in my yard after one of his Anti-Gun rants at a neighborhood party:

Click to enlarge

My sign wasn't up more than an hour before he called the police and wanted them to make me take down the sign. The officer politely informed him that it was not their job to take such action without a court order and that my neighbor had to file a complaint first, which would be reviewed by the city attorney.

If there was a violation, a judge would issue a court order to be served on the offending party (me) to "remove the sign” within seven days.

Several weeks after my neighbor filed the complaint, he was informed that the sign was legal and there was nothing for the city to do.

I then tried to smooth things over by inviting him to go shooting with me and my friends but that seemed to anger him.

I then asked him if he wanted to go to a Tea Party Rally, but, again he declined my outreach efforts to bring about a better understanding between opposing political ideologies.

I could ask him if he wants to go deer hunting, you know, just a bunch of guys running through the woods chasing Bambi, then sitting around the campfire roasting marshmallows and singing our favorite patriotic & country songs. But, he declined because he hates the Killing of animals...except those in the Super Market Meat Department.

He also said that he doesn't like to leave to go anywhere during the week; because he will miss OPRAH!!!

I am at a loss as to how to reconcile our relationship and any suggestions would be welcome!

Who's The Cowboy Now?

2011-03-23T09:01:00.003-04:00

"For they are yet ear-kissing arguments." ~ William Shakespeare

Remember when the Liberals called George W. Bush a "cowboy" because he so recklessly got our country involved in an "illegal war"? Remember how they complained that he only invaded Iraq to avenge his daddy?

Never mind the 16 UN resolutions at which Saddam Hussein repeatedly thumbed his nose.

Forget that intelligence sources reported the existence of evidence for WMD. It doesn't matter that he murdered thousands of his own people and invaded Kuwait. His repeated threats against America meant nothing.

This is what we were told by the Liberal intelligentsia:

George W Bush was wrong. He was a war monger. He was a war criminal. He was a cowboy.

All of these appellations and more were common throughout the media and the blogosphere.

Now, we have Obama's war on Libya.

Look at this chart:

For you Libs who can't make simple connections, the above chart shows the difference between the reasons for Bush's "illegal war" in Iraq, and the reasons for Obama's altruistic civilian rescue mission in Libya.

I have to admit, it's hard for me to understand how intelligent people could have fallen for Obama's "ear kissing arguments", but, it happens. Smarter people than they have been fooled.

Many Liberals are already regretting their support of Barack Hussein Obama. Many are now admitting they may have been deluded. Dennis Kucinich, rabid anti-war Liberal, has denounced Obama and even called for his impeachment because of this Libyan incursion.

My own Liberal Doctor Nephew admitted on Facebook, when introducing a link to a video, "This is dedicated to operation "Odyssey Dawn," with a great big f--- you very much to President Obama, who (as I'm starting to believe) conned me into voting for him."

And, in an additional post, "Reading articles like this, about the 2004 softening of (business) relationships between the US and Libya, would be funny if it didn't also provide such a compelling explanation for why the Obama Administration has now decided to bomb Libya, out-Bushing George W. in his haste to employ military 'solutions.'"

In all fairness to my beloved nephew, at least he is consistent. He is anti-war, and that stance has led him to question his judgment. He will not blame his mistake on others. I say, good for him!

Now, for you other Liberals. It's time for you to come clean.

Clear your conscience. Just admit you made the mistake of supporting this man who is incompetent and despises the Constitution of the United States.

But, for God's sake, stop pretending that you still support this man in spite of all the proof that he cares about no one but himself. Grow up! Grow a pair! Admit you were wrong!

I won't gloat, I promise. I understand people can make mistakes. I understand that some people are gullible enough to simply believe all the promises a charming charismatic Presidential candidate makes. I've done it in the past myself. I once supported Carter for president, for God's sake!

There is forgiveness in the Republican party.

Talk Talk Talk

2011-03-22T07:30:00.004-04:00

"We have too many high sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them." ~ Abigail Adams

When the riots began in Egypt, somebody predicted that all the citizens in the Middle Eastern Islamic countries would start to revolt. I don't remember who. But we are now seeing that happen, as one by one, oppressed people in these countries are attempting to throw off the shackles of despotism and agitating for their freedom.

The latest is Libya.

I also made a prediction, back when Barack Hussein Obama was running for President. I wrote a blogpost about it. I said America has little to worry about because a president Obama administration would be one of much talk, little action. I can't find it in my archives. It probably has some ambiguous title that doesn't indicate the subject matter.

As it happens, I was not entirely correct.

For the first two years of Obama's presidency, he worked tirelessly to bring about a totally different type of government, unlike any previous government, anywhere in the world. Part Islamic, part Socialist, and part dictatorship. For the most part (thankfully), Obama was ineffective in achieving his goals, but one thing he did accomplish was the monstrosity known to Conservatives as Obamacare.

In spite of the fact that a judge has ruled Obamacare unconstitutional, Obama is steadfastly ignoring that ruling and is still actively engaged in pushing it forward, as if the judgment didn't even exist.

But, I was mostly correct in my assessment.

As we have seen during these latest crises, Obama's response to them is delayed, when he responds at all. He does, however, talk about them.

While Egypt was burning, and, as Obama lined up his putt, he casually mentioned Mubarak should step down.

As more and more third world republics erupted in chaos, Obama appeared on ESPN and filled out his NCAA brackets, and then, expressed his desire for peace in the middle east.

It is pretty simple to identify which leaders are anti-American. They are the ones who Obama supports.

Japan suffers the worst earthquake and tsunami in recorded history and Obama goes to Rio and offers his condolences.

The Congress cannot come to an agreement regarding the nation's budget, and Obama again, goes golfing. But, to his credit, he speaks eloquently.

The deficit is trillions of dollars in the red and Obama plays basketball. And, defends his position in glowing rhetoric.

I recently went back and re-read some of my own blogposts from the past. In one of them, which I entitled "Politicizing Disaster", I pointed out that many Liberals were complaining about George W Bush's tardiness in responding to Hurricane Katrina. This, apparently, was an indictment of Bush's racist policies and incompetence.

These same Liberals are strangely silent on Obama's lack of action in responding to world crises.

One gets the impression that if Hurricane Katrina had happened on Obama's watch, those poor people might still be living in the Superdome.

But, at least we'd know how he feels.

Wisconsin Democrat's Plan Backfires

2011-03-10T19:17:00.003-05:00

"Exile, for no other motive than ease, would be the last defeat, with no seed of future victory in it." ~ Lois McMaster Bujold

Oh, I love this!

The Wisconsin Senate passed Republican Scott Walker's Budget repair bill in spite of the efforts of 14 Democrat Senators who chose to run away rather than vote. They thought, by going AWOL, they could prevent the State Senate from passing the bill.

They thought wrong!

I love it!

I especially love this line from the article: "You are cowards!" spectators in the Senate gallery screamed as lawmakers voted.

Yeah, the ones who stayed in Madison are cowards, but the ones who ran away aren't?

Yeah, that makes sense.

Bust The Unions

2011-03-07T07:08:00.004-05:00

"Determine never to be idle...It is wonderful how much may be done if we are always doing." ~ Thomas Jefferson

On Friday, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker finally announced he is issuing lay-off notices to 1500 State employees. Walker sent letters to state employee unions saying that layoff notices would go out to state employees in 15 days. The governor also said that actual layoffs would occur a month from now if legislators do not pass his "budget repair" proposal.

He should have done that two weeks ago, in my opinion. And he also should have strongly suggested voters recall the 14 Democrat senators who went AWOL.

While surfing several blogposts about the Wisconsin public employee union's illegal "strike", many Liberal commenters have accused Walker, and by extension, his Conservative supporters, of "union busting".

They say that like it's a bad thing.

What is surprising to me is that Conservative bloggers and pundits seem to believe Unions are important, and reject the accusation that they support union busting.

Well, I don't.

I think the unions should be busted, and I'll tell you why.

In their day, unions had their place. Manufacturers had long oppressed their workers with long hours, low wages, poor working conditions, and no fringe benefits. Workers had no voice, and only two options:

1. Work under these conditions, or 2. Quit.

Then came organization. The unions, by organizing the workers, and employing various tactics, some strong armed, eventually forced Corporations to meet their demands thereby decreasing working hours, providing benefits, improving workers safety, and raising wages to a more acceptable level.

Unions also led to the establishment of several Government programs and agencies, which today, serve to regulate all things labor related. Wage, hours, working conditions, and benefits. We have the National Wage and Hour boards. We have OSHA. We have the Department of Labor. All of these agencies work together to insure the American laborer is treated by their employers fairly.

Because of these agencies and organizations, unions no longer serve a purpose.

Wait. That's not true. Unions do have purposes. All negative.

Unions now do nothing but drive up the costs of manufacturing, which in turn, drives up the price of products and services. Unions are also heavily influenced by Socialists (and have been since the early days of organization), which, through organizing massive political campaigns and spending millions of union dollars, helps Socialist political candidates such as Barack Hussein Obama attain public office.

The election of Obama alone is enough evidence of the negative influence of unions in America and reason enough to bust the unions.

Unions reward poor performance, and encourage laziness and sloth among workers.

Seriously, I can't think of a single thing Unions do that benefits Americans in any way.

It's time to abolish unions. They are no longer needed.

A Sign Of Hope, At Last?

2011-03-03T07:22:00.003-05:00

"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." ~ Mark Twain

I will confess right here, that I don't personally know a lot of liberals intimately. I'm sure I work with Liberals, and interact socially with them on a daily basis, but our ideology is not discussed. Probably, out of all the people I know, a majority of them may be liberals. Maybe not. I don't know.

But, two Liberals I do know well are my niece and nephew, the children of my older brother, the college professor. I read their Facebook statuses regularly, and from them, it is clear they are Liberals.

I find it interesting that their Facebook statuses rarely reference politics now, although, a couple of years ago they often did. Included in some of those earlier updates were pictures they took of their trip to Washington DC to attend the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama.

Oh, what a joyous occasion that was for them!

My nephew, you may remember, is the same nephew who has earned a doctorate in Media studies, and now teaches courses in the same. Similarly, my niece has received a degree from the same institution of higher learning where her brother and my brother both continue to teach.

My nephew and I have had many spirited debates via Facebook regarding Conservative vs Liberal ideologies. One in particular, a debate over how some Christians, being Christians, could support legalized abortion, was contributed to by fellow blogger buddies Neil Simpson and Marshall Art. (or was it Timothy? I forget.) In the end, it would appear that we Conservatives convinced him to reconsider his position. His last comment was something along the lines of, "You've given me something to think about. I'll spend some time thinking and praying about this and get back to you."

I have yet to hear to what conclusion, if any, he eventually arrived. But, regardless, that's one of the things I like about him. He shows an (unique for the typical Liberal) ability to keep an open mind towards other opinions.

This morning, while lying in bed, unable to sleep, with a rather aggravating and unexplainable pain in my right leg, it occurred to me that I haven't seen any Facebook status posts recently from either my Niece or Nephew that wasn't ideologically neutral, and I wonder if the hope and change that their candidate, Obama promised, but never delivered, hasn't somewhat soured on them.

I never could understand how someone of their towering intellect and education could have allowed themselves to be taken in by such an obvious fraud as Obama in the first place.

But now, I wonder if they have finally saw through the deception, and are simply too embarrassed to admit they were duped.

(I realize this blows Lone Ranger's "Immutable Truths About Liberals" number 8 out of the water, and for that, I apologize, LR)

As an aside and possibly an explanation, neither of them appear to have much of a grip on reality. My niece's updates center on her relationships with her friends and trips she takes, and are generally devoid of any kind of intellectual pursuits. She stays well clear of any mention of politics , or any ideology, for that matter.

My nephew's life revolves around fantasy. His job is analyzing and critiquing films, and teaching others how to analyze them. If one spends all their time watching movies and listening to music, how will he ever retain more than a tenuous grasp on reality?

It is not surprising, therefore, that he is so out of touch with the real world.

I've often said that the reason Liberal talk radio and television news commentary is continually unsuccessful is that Liberals don't want to concern themselves with issues of life changing political import. They are more concerned with happy times, happy thoughts, and dreams of living in Utopian worlds of fantasy.

Liberals don't listen to talk radio, either Conservative or Liberal.

Cold hard facts are simply too much for them to bear.

That factoid would seem to be validated by a recent message my Nephew sent me via Facebook, in which he implored me to stop typing out my ideological opinion on his status updates, as he suffers from depression and some of my comments upset him too much.

Out of compassion for him (he is family, after all), I agreed to keep my comments non-provocative and relatively innocuous, but I am left with a pervading feeling that he is beginning to see the proverbial light and the mere thought of having to come face to face with reason and logic scares the daylight into him. So, as a typical Liberal, he prefers to avoid the subject altogether.

And, now, I wonder if other Liberals might be coming to the conclusion that Obama and his Liberal ideology are fraudulent.

If enough of them have the required intellect and guts to admit they may have chosen unwisely in the last election, it may sway the next presidential election results to a true Conservative.

And that would be a joyous occasion, indeed!

The Pursuit Of Happiness

2011-03-02T06:30:00.005-05:00

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ~ Declaration of Independence

Whatever founding father added the phrase "the pursuit of happiness" to the Declaration of Independence had it exactly right. God, in my opinion, has indeed endowed all men (and women) with the right to pursue happiness. Unfortunately, that is a goal that will always elude us on this side of forever.

Nobody is, or ever will be, one hundred per cent happy.

It is with that phrase in mind that I address the issue of the teacher's union's complaint in Wisconsin.

What, exactly are they complaining about?

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has asked them nicely to make a small sacrifice to help ease the economic burden of the state. He has asked them to contribute a bit more of their own earned income to their own benefits plan. This might be objectionable were it not for the fact that they already have a more generous compensation and benefits plan than any position in the private sector.

Yet, they believe it's unfair to ask them to make that sacrifice.

I submit it's not only fair, it's expected. Their very own darling, their dear leader, the One the Unions supported and voted for, Barack Hussein Obama, has repeatedly demanded Americans to make sacrifice after sacrifice to help ease America's economic burden.

But, somehow, the teacher's union in Wisconsin feel they should be exempted from that demand. Why?

Because teachers, like the rest of us, have the inalienable right to pursue happiness.

Apparently happiness, for the Wisconsin teachers, means they have the right to keep as much of their earned income as they can. Money is happiness. Happiness is money. I have no doubt that money can certainly have an effect on happiness, or at least the pursuit thereof.

Funny. Wanting to keep as much of my earned income as I can is a Conservative concept. I wonder how the Wisconsin Public Workers Union Liberals explain this apparent ideological dichotomy. I wonder if they realize how duplicitous this makes them appear.

Also, the amount of money that might produce happiness is relative. By that I mean, the amount of money it would take to make one happy is different for every individual. I've often used this allegory:

To me, $100,000.00 is a veritable boatload of money. If I was ever lucky enough to have that amount added to my meager bank account, with careful planning and shrewd investments, and barring some severe unforeseen circumstances, I could live a long and comfortable life on that much money.

To Bill Gates, however, $100,000.00 is an insignificant drop in the proverbial bucket. It would be virtually impossible for him to maintain his lavish lifestyle with a mere one time addition of a hundred grand to his bank account.

See what I mean? Relative.

I am going to tell you something I have never told anyone: My income is just a little over $20,000.00 a year.

I recently looked over a list of average teacher's salaries from every state in the union. In all of the states, they make much more than I, and in most states, the average teacher makes more than double what I make in a year.

More than double.

Now, I understand their vocation is more important than mine. I also understand that they have attained their positions by doing the things they needed to do, such as finish college, suffer through internships, obtain their certifications, etc.

But still, the emotional me says, "It's not fair that they make so much more money than I. Don't I deserve to make a living for myself and my family as much as they do?"

The logical me says, "They have every right to try to make as much income as they possibly can, and every right to yearn for more, if they think it will make them happy."

I do not begrudge teachers, or anyone else for that matter, the right to make as much income as they can, as long as they do it ethically.

See, again, that's where that inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness comes in.

Some might point to my last post and say, "But, you think the teachers in Wisconsin are overpaid, and should be fired."

And that is still true.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think the teachers should be fired because they are overpaid. If they can manage to be overpaid for the job they do, I say, more power to them.

But, while I support their right to try to make as much money as they can, I don't support their refusal to do the job they were hired to do.

If I decide I am not being paid what I am worth, and there is much truth in that statement, I cannot just stop coming to work. I'd be fired, and justly so. Besides, if I don't come to work, I don't get paid anyway.

If the teachers in Wisconsin aren't getting paid to stand in the street outside the Capitol building and protest, they are demonstrating that they have enough money to last them if their paycheck stops coming.

Obviously, they make more money than I, because I can't afford to miss even one day of work.

So, again I ask, what are they complaining about?

They want money.

Well, so do I.

But, if money is the reason they became teachers, they made the wrong choice. That is, if we can believe what they say, that they are sorely underpaid.

If they became teachers to make a difference in the world, to help children become educated, to mold the leaders of tomorrow, etc, then the money they make shouldn't be all that important to them.

If it is that important to them, they have a college education. They don't have to teach for a living. They can look for work that's more rewarding. The opportunities are endless for anyone with the drive and determination it takes to succeed. The teachers of Wisconsin have demonstrated in the past they have the capacity and the ambition to study hard to obtain a diploma and certification. Surely that same determination would lend itself to other, more lucrative endeavors.

With a few notable exceptions, these teachers don't even do the job they are being paid to do when they aren't out in the streets protesting. I understand two-thirds of Wisconsin Public School 8th Graders can’t read proficiently, despite the highest per pupil spending in the Midwest.

On the other hand, according to this article, Wisconsin Public schools boast a 90% graduation rate.

Huh?

How do they go from 2/3 illiteracy in eighth grade to a 90% graduation rate? To paraphrase Shakespeare's Hamlet, Methinks something's rotten in the state of Wisconsin.

Bottom line:

You don't like it? Shut up, and get back to work. If not, start looking for something more to your liking. No one said you have to teach.

Drive By Commentary

2011-02-26T11:40:00.002-05:00

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." ~ 2 Thessalonians 3:10

The 14 fleebagger Democrat Senators in Illinois (who are supposed to be doing their jobs in Wisconsin) should be recalled, and the greedy, selfish, overpaid, over-compensated whining Teachers and public workers who are refusing to do the jobs they are being overpaid to do, should be fired.

The so-called doctors who are writing false sick notes for those union employees should be brought up before the medical ethics board, and subsequently lose their licenses to practice medicine.

No if's, and's, or but's.

Remember how President Ronald Reagan handled the illegal Air Traffic controller's strike? The same solution applies.

What They Want

2011-02-21T21:04:00.006-05:00

"This truly sums up the progressive/liberal position. Always apologizing for the USA, denigrating the USA to the world, bowing before foreign dignitaries, sanctioning same-sex unions to undermine society, promoting the murder of children in the womb, etc, etc." ~ Glenn E. Chatfield

In my last post, I encapsulated, "Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility."

Apparently there are those who have failed to comprehend that simple statement. So, I suppose I should elaborate somewhat.

As Glenn Chatfield pointed out, for instance, Liberals want to avoid the responsibility of raising children, thus they support abortion.

They want to avoid the responsibility of being normal heterosexuals, as God intended, so they support the oxymoronic "Gay Marriage".

They want to avoid the responsibility of having to deal with unpleasant people and situations, so they support introducing legislation that would require us, under penalty of law, to accept immoral, illegal, and degenerate behaviors as normal behavior.

They want to avoid the responsibility of providing for their own health care, so they want to force the rest of us, also under penalty of law, to buy the government health insurance, which is really nothing more than an elaborate scheme, intended, in reality, to separate us from as much of our hard earned money as they possibly can.

They want to avoid the responsibility of working for a living, so, they support extending unemployment benefits and endless entitlement programs. As a reminder, Welfare was originally designed to be a hand up, not a hand-out, but Liberals, as usual, have bastardized that intent, much the way they bastardize the Constitution. And why? Because they don't want to be responsible for their own welfare.

They want to avoid the responsibility of funding their own Television and radio stations like NPR and PBS to promote their Liberal agenda, so they support forcing us to pay taxes to fund these stations. Apparently, these stations are incapable of supporting themselves without demanding financial help. Perhaps that should be a clue that their agenda is not too popular.

They want to avoid the responsibility of dealing with possible bankruptcy, so they beg the government to bail them out whenever their businesses suffer financial setbacks because of irresponsible business decisions.

They want to avoid the responsibility of having to defend their indefensible ideological positions so they support the censoring of Conservative speech with proposed legislation called, ironically, the "Fairness Doctrine", which, like everything else they support, isn't fair at all.

Instead of finding another job that will pay them better, they want to avoid responsibility for their own income by demanding the government pay them more, or in the case of Wisconsin public employees, refusing to agree to a minuscule increase in their share of their over-generous compensation package.

I'm sure I have left some things out, but this should serve as some examples of what I was referring to when I said, "Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility."

Actually, I didn't think it was that hard to understand. It only took me a few minutes to think of these examples.

But, I guess that's another avoidance of personal responsibility:

They don't want the responsibility to figure these things out for themselves, so they demand explanations.

What We Want

2011-02-16T07:27:00.003-05:00

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." ~ Declaration of Independence

Although the ideological gap between Liberals and Conservatives is often seemingly impassable, in the end all of us really want the same thing:

Freedom.

It is merely the extent of that freedom on which we disagree.

We Conservatives want freedom from excessive governmental restraint. Conservatives want to be free to earn an income in whatever responsible way we choose. We want to be free to keep the money we earn and to do with it as we please. We want to choose our charities, and we want the right to refuse to donate our money to causes and organizations with which we disagree.

We want the freedom to be responsible for ourselves, and to hold ourselves accountable for our successes and our failures.

We want to retain our First Amendment rights: The freedom to worship in the church of our choice, or not worship at all, without being persecuted for that choice. We do not want to be told, by the government or anyone else, where and Whom we should worship.

We want to be permitted to speak our mind freely, without being berated, belittled, ridiculed, insulted, sued, banned, or even incarcerated for our thoughts.

We want the right to assemble together without fear of being shouted down, bullied, or assaulted by opposing factions, and certainly not by representatives of the government.

We want to be free to offer our suggestions about how we believe the government should govern without fear of some degree of retribution.

We want the right to bear whatever arms we deem necessary for the protection of our life, family, and possessions.

We want the freedom to own personal property and we desire a reasonable expectation that our right to our personal property be respected.

Oh, my God. I didn't think this would be this long.

For the sake of brevity, allow me to encapsulate:

Conservatives want to retain our basic freedoms of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

Liberals simply want freedom from personal responsibility.

Revisiting An Old Topic

2011-02-09T08:46:00.003-05:00

"I am often so far out in left field, I'm three or four deep in the bleacher seats." ~ Me

Here's something I woke up thinking about this morning. Who knows what makes me think of these things? Anyhow, this is how my thought processes often go:

I think Osama bin Laden is dead. That isn't based on anything scientific, but it's been quite some time since anyone's heard from him. Once in a while a video or audio recording pops up, and al Qaida assures the world that it's proof of his continued existence, but I remain skeptical.

But, why can't we find him?

He's supposed to stand head and shoulders taller than the average man, so, if he was circulating around, he'd be pretty easy to spot in a crowd. The videos we've seen are grainy and blurred, not at all what a high tech high definition modern video looks like (and he is wealthy enough to afford the finest quality video equipment), so I think they were all pre-recorded long ago. And, also, because they are blurry and grainy, one cannot tell if he's aged since the last one was released, which would also offer some insight as to his health, or lack of it.

If he isn't dead, I have thought up a way in which we might capture him:

First, I know this sounds crazy, but, release all the detainees in Guantanamo. But, before we do, plant tracking devices somewhere on or in their persons. Then follow them to see where they'll go. Probably, all of them won't go immediately to meet up with bin Laden, but surely some of them will.

The few that don't meet up with him will still have tracking devices so they can easily be recaptured, along with their confederates in terror, so it's a twofer.

Not only that, but we have the technology to find this guy. We have drones with high powered cameras. We have satellites with telescopic camera lenses that are powerful enough to determine the sex of a fly from outer space. We have black ops. Surely we can put them to use to find Osama.

Which brings to mind a question:

We've had the technology and man power to find and eliminate this man for decades. Why haven't we used it?

Do you buy the story that we just can't find him? I don't.

I don't want to sound like some kind of wacky conspiracy theorist, but, could there be more to this situation than meets the brain? I'll leave that question to greater intellects than myself to reason out.

A Sign The Apocalypse Is Upon Us

2011-02-07T08:22:00.005-05:00

"Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?" ~ Francis Scott Key

I daresay, one could simply read the lyrics of "The Star Spangled Banner" with more patriotic fervor and love of our country than was demonstrated by it's butchering by Christina Aquilera at last night's Super Bowl. Watch (if you can stomach it):

Horrible, and on Reagan's 100th birthday, too!

I'm not talking about just screwing up the lyrics, either. Many much more talented people have done that and still managed to make it sound respectful.

I couldn't even listen to the whole thing. I had to turn off the volume.

Perhaps I'm an old fuddy-duddy, but I don't understand why these modern pop singers seem to have to meander aimlessly around the scale on every note that comes out of their mouths when they "sing".

I have a theory: All of these pop singers who sing as though they are searching for the right note must be doing it because they know they can't carry a tune in a bucket, and are trying to fool real music lovers into thinking they have singing talent.

They don't convince me. In fact, as I see it, they are proving exactly opposite.

This version, although not sung exactly correctly, was so much better:

inspiring

Perhaps it was because this was the first Super Bowl performance following 9/11 that this version resonated so strongly with Americans, or maybe her love of our country showed through in her rendition.

I don't know, but I'd take just about any version over Christina's.

Except Roseanne's.

By the way, have you ever heard the other verses? Read these:

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Perhaps Ms. Aquilera should familiarize herself with the remaining verses before attempting to sing it again. Perhaps then she would realize what the song means to real Americans.

What's In My Head

2011-02-03T09:09:00.001-05:00

I woke up with this in my head and I really wanted to go to Burger King for Breakfast, which marks the first time in my memory that a TV commercial actually inspired me to do what was suggested. Perhaps there's a subliminal message embedded?

So, Who Are The Bad Guys?

2011-02-02T08:58:00.006-05:00

Good guys or bad guys?

"In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain." ~ Pliny the Elder

I've been trying to get a handle, with the limited time and intellect I have, to understand the events transpiring in Egypt. I know Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is under fire from protesters, and I know about their accompanying riots, resulting in deaths, injuries, and destruction.

But I don't know who the bad guys and good guys are.

I'm not too sure anyone knows. Yesterday, while listening to Sean Hannity, I heard him say something (I don't remember his exact words) that seems to indicate he isn't too sure who the bad guys are, either.

So, I'm trying to figure out exactly who I should be supporting. To that end, I've come up with a few things that I think I understand so far. Walk through this with me:

I know there is a faction calling themselves the Muslim Brotherhood, who, although they didn't start the protests, now seem to be running the show.

As an aside: Anytime the word "Muslim" comes up in a story about the middle east, you know automatically, that death and destruction will be involved.

Regardless of what American Liberals would have us believe, the words, "Muslim" and "Terrorist" have become somewhat synonymous. If not synonymous, at least, inexorably linked.

Additionally, the Muslim Brotherhood is calling for war on Israel, which gives me a fairly strong clue.

So, right away, I assume the bad guys in this situation have to be the protesters.

But hold on! Not so fast!

We are told by the American media guys that Mubarek is an evil dictator, who has been oppressing his people for decades.

I had never heard that about him up until now, but then, I tend to be more concerned about domestic matters than international events.

So, in order to ascertain for myself how much of what I've heard is accurate, I took a little of my limited time to google "Hosni Mubarak" to see just how evil he is.

I will confess, now that I've done a little research (very little), I don't see how the media have arrived at the conclusion that he is particularly evil. At least, in comparison with other world leaders. Or a dictator.

Probably, I haven't done enough research. I suppose I should have gone directly to the experts on evil dictators: The Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, and The Huffington Post, perhaps.

OK. So let me assume that the American media are being truthful, and that Mubarak is indeed a very bad man. Why wouldn't they be truthful? They have the public trust. That is a great and awesome responsibility. It would be a very bad thing for them to attempt to mislead us. Why would they ever want to do that?

In doing my limited research, I read that Mubarak has been a loyal friend and ally of the United States since he gained power shortly after the assassination of Anwar Sadat. He has maintained control of a "secular government", which, as every one knows, is one of the main goals of the Liberals in this country.

You know, separation of church and state, and all that.

And yet, It seems the Liberals in our country support the Muslim brotherhood in their desire to create a decidedly non-secular government.

I wonder. How do the Liberals explain this apparent dichotomy?

And then, I wondered, where does Obama stand in all this? Who does he support? Because, as you know, knowing who Obama will back would be a definitive indication of exactly who the good and bad guys are.

Actually, I kind of knew what Obama would do when I read that Egypt's Nobel laureate, Mohamed El Baradei, had demanded that Obama call for Mubarek to step down.

And, now, since Obama never met a Nobel peace prize winner he didn't love (particularly if they are antagonistic to the United States), Obama has done what Baradei suggested.

Of course, Obama never met an evil dictator he didn't love, either, so with that in mind, it still could go either way. If Mubarak is really an evil dictator, that is.

That said, according to an ABC news story headline, "Obama Calls On Mubarak to Hand Over Power Immediately".

Well, that kind of answers the question for me. I know if Obama doesn't support Mubarak, Mubarak must be the good guy and the protesters must be the bad guys.

It's really not a difficult conclusion. If it's a question of right or wrong, like most (and I resist the temptation to say "all") Liberals, Obama will always come down on the wrong side.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I support Mubarak's Egyptian government in this one. I figure I have the odds on my side.

Anyone Obama doesn't support can't be all bad.

How A Liberal Solves Annoyances

2011-01-29T08:04:00.003-05:00

"Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice." ~ Arcesilaus

My Liberal Doctor (PhD Education) nephew often unintentionally gives me fodder for blogposts. Just reading his short Facebook status reports give me a unique insight into the Liberal mind. Here is his latest:

"I hereby decree: those who cannot park their Earth Bruisers in one space, drive them in one lane, or reach up high enough to brush the snow off their tops shall not be allowed to operate them."

Some points found within this short statement are singularly noted. First (and I may be wrong, but am pretty sure I'm not), I believe his term, "Earth Bruisers", is used to describe SUV's, and other similar large gas guzzling vehicles. He has swallowed the Liberal line that SVU's are destructive to this sensitive planet, and thus, are evil.

Incidentally, my only problem with people who drive SUV's is their apparent belief that their vehicles are made of glass. Of course, this is a generalization, so it doesn't apply to all SUV drivers. But, many of them are absolutely the slowest, most careful drivers I've ever seen, particularly in inclement weather. They drive as if one little bump in the road has the potential to shatter their vehicle. I was following one of them most of the way home last night, and I swear, the driver never drove over 25 mph in a 45 mph speed zone(and the roadway was dry), and almost came to a dead stop before crawling painfully slowly over a railroad track. "Oh, my God! You're driving a TANK! It's not going to BREAK if you hit a PEBBLE!"

But I digress.

Another point gleaned from my beloved nephew's short comment is his wish to create yet another law (or laws) with which to regulate our private lives. The idea that if something someone does annoys him, they should simply not be allowed to be annoying.

This is typical of Liberal thought, and what I consider a major pillar in the Liberal ideology:

"People are too stupid to take care of themselves, so the Liberal intelligentsia must take care of them, for them."

So, make a law.

As I've often said, people have a right to be stupid. While I agree with my dear relative that people who drive SUV's should drive them more responsibly and intelligently, passing laws to regulate them is overstepping our bounds.

You want to stop irresponsibility? Teach and encourage people to be responsible.

I understand that. Seemingly, Liberals don't.

The Jewish people in Jesus' time had so many oppressive laws it was virtually impossible to go from day to day without breaking several in the everyday course of their lives.

It would seem the modern American Liberal wants to bring those days of over oppressive laws back.

A Call To Action

2011-01-27T11:36:00.006-05:00

"The American, by nature, is optimistic. He is experimental, an inventor and a builder who builds best when called upon to build greatly." ~ John F. Kennedy

The following message had been making the rounds on Facebook recently:

"Kentucky just passed the best law ever. To be on Food stamps, Medicaid,or Cash Assistance on your Children or yourself You have to pass a DRUG Test. Now every other state should do the same. If you agree re-post. People that work HAVE to take a drug test so should they. Amen....re-post if you agree"

When I first read it, I was at first elated, but then, I considered the source, and decided it sounds a little too good to be true.

Following the maxim, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't", I decided before I pass this tidbit on, I should research it to see if it's true.

So, I googled it.

This is what I found.

It turns out that it is partly true, and partly false. A bill has been introduced in one house of the Kentucky legislature. It has not been voted on yet.

Some time ago, I posted a photo of an actual "letter to the editor" that had been printed in some newspaper in the Pacific Northwest. I can't find the post now. Anyway, The author of the letter suggested drug screens should be required for welfare recipients.

Now, it appears the state of Kentucky is prepared to act upon that suggestion.

More likely than not, the bill will die on the house floor, if not sooner.

That is, if it doesn't get enough support.

We the people can make this proposal become a reality.

If you agree that this is a good idea(and I do), spread the word to all your friends and colleagues. We can make this happen by flooding the legislature's switchboard with our calls, and overwhelming their mail rooms and web browsers with messages of support.

We can set the precedence. If Kentucky succeeds in making this proposal a law, you know other states will follow suit.

Well, what are you waiting for?

Cross posted at American Descent

How I Would Balance The Budget

2011-01-26T08:41:00.004-05:00

"If you would be wealthy, think of saving as well as getting." ~ Benjamin Franklin

I just read a snippet of Obama's state of the union address over at AOW's place this morning.

I didn't watch the speech. There is much more believable fiction on other channels.

As I've said countless times, I am not an economist. These billion and trillion dollar proposals, stimuli, tax increases and cuts boggle my mind. I don't understand how cutting this and raising that will reduce the national deficit very significantly.

I can only compare the national budget to my own personal finances. It is the only way I can relate.

I make far less money than I need with which to balance my budget. And, I can't manage my bank account by speculating that some future windfall is going to drop into my lap. I can only base my accounting on what I physically have in my possession.

I, unlike the government, cannot simply print more money. And, truthfully, because the government can print more money, this is where the comparison between my budgetary concerns diverge from the government's.

I could just stop here, and that would pretty much make my point.

But, I digress. Since I am not, in any way, some kind of economical genius, I devised a way, years ago, of balancing my budget. This is what I do:

When I receive my paycheck, after first depositing a small amount of it into my savings account (for emergencies), the first thing I do is determine what bills are most pressing. Then, I calculate how much of my money I can afford to pay on those bills. If I don't have enough to cover all the most immediate bills, I do one of two things:

1. I call my creditors and make payment arrangements. I negotiate (if they'll let me) a future time and amount that I feel reasonably (barring some unforeseen catastrophe)sure I can pay, and/or...

2. I sometimes have to let a bill or two slide until the next paycheck. This is undoubtedly the worst choice, because once in a while something gets turned off. Unfortunately, that can't be helped. If I don't have the money to pay it, it can't be paid.

Next, I pay the bills I have determined I can pay without going completely broke.

With the remaining money, I calculate how much I can spend per day until the next paycheck. Then I try to stay under my self imposed spending limit every day, thereby increasing the amount I can spend per day until the next paycheck. Hopefully, if I did my calculations correctly, and some unforeseen financial emergency doesn't come up, I will have something left before my next paycheck, which I can add to the paycheck, with which I pay the next round of bills.

I check my bank balance every day, religiously. (By the way, because I check my balance everyday, I have stopped attempts of identity fraud on more than one occasion. You see, what they do is invade your bank account and withdraw a very small amount of money at first to see if you discover it. If you don't catch it, they withdraw huge amounts.)

This system works for me, provided I don't overspend my daily allotment on whims. If I do overspend one day, I have to necessarily adjust my per diem spending limit.

This cycle will continue until I either start getting paid enough to pay my bills and have funds left over, or I receive an unexpected windfall such as win a lottery, or a rich uncle dies and leaves me his entire fortune.

Neither is likely to happen. I don't play the lottery and as far as I know, I have no rich uncle.

Now, the way I see balancing the federal budget is much the same, except on a much grander scale.

Just like myself, unless the Federal government has a trillionaire uncle somewhere who dies and leaves his entire fortune to the U.S. Government, or the federal government wins a trillion dollar plus lottery, the way it's currently budgeting it's money is not working.

The federal government has to first determine how much money it actually has.

Then, it has to pare down it's spending to the point where it can only spend what it has, and no more. If it has to be done daily, the way I do it, then do it that way. If something has to be cut off temporarily, let it be cut off.

Make some arrangements, if necessary. The government should always be aware of exactly how much money it can spend without going over the limit. In other words, the government should be checking it's bank balance every day and making adjustments.

It needs to stop printing up monopoly money. All that does is create a false sense of security that our children and grandchildren will have to pay dearly for later.

Then, don't go over the limit.

Too simple, you ask? Perhaps. But, as I say, I'm not an economist.

Cross posted at American Descent

Welcome Back

2011-01-24T08:21:00.003-05:00

"Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And auld lang syne!" ~ Robert Burns

Tugboat Cap'n (or Tug, as I call him) is back! After over a year of inactivity on his blog, I had sadly removed him from my blogroll. He stopped blogging, and even efforts to contact him through his wife and sister (Facebook friends) failed to resurrect him.

A couple of days ago, I noticed an invitation on my Facebook page to befriend a new Facebook user who has a very common name. I checked out his profile but still wasn't sure if he was the same as the man I know as Tug. So, I asked his sister.

To my delight, he answered my question himself! This morning, I noticed a comment from Tug on my blog, so I linked his name and visited his once dormant blog, and found he had written a new post.

I have now re-added him to my blogroll.

I've also dropped a few blogs. Not because I have anything against them. I don't. But my blogroll is really for me, so I can quickly link to my favorites. I doubt anybody else uses my blogroll to link elsewhere. I dropped the ones I rarely, if ever, visit anymore. I just don't have time to spend it dropping by every blog on my roll. Maybe now that I've pared it down somewhat, I can visit more often. For now, any one who reads this who's blog has been dropped, fear not. If you comment here, I will link over and visit yours.

Welcome back, Tug, and thanks for being my friend.

Ahhh, Memories

2011-01-18T08:59:00.001-05:00

How many of these do you remember?

How The Left Honors King

2011-01-17T07:35:00.003-05:00

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Martin Luther King's dream can be summed up in that one short statement that he uttered in his famous "I have a dream" speech on the 28th of August, 1963.

Today, I opened up my browser, and I read this. My first thought was, "Now, that is just stupid. Exactly what does Martin Luther King's dream have to do with the tragedy in Tucson?"

Then, I read the article.

Amazingly, the author of the piece managed to create a link between the shooting and Dr. King's message.

It is a tenuous link at best.

Is there nothing the left won't do to let no good crisis go to waste?

Now, The Blaming Starts

2011-01-10T10:39:00.004-05:00

"I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts." ~ John Locke

Even before the news media knew the extent of the recent shooting spree in Tucson, the first non-news commentary I read was an indirect indictment of the entire Conservative movement, and a direct accusation that Sarah Palin was to blame.

While the news media was still erroneously reporting the death of Democrat Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the lefties had already concluded that the deranged shooter was a right wing looney, heavily influenced by the hateful, bigoted rhetoric emanating from the vicious, unbalanced, hate filled, bigoted, homophobic Tea Party.

Then, with the news that Democrat Congresswoman had not died, but Judge John Roll had, we heard Glenn Beck was to blame, too.

Other speculation posited that Judge Roll had been appointed to the bench by George H. W. Bush, and was a Republican, and if he had been the primary target of the day's shooting spree, that might indicate the shooter is a Liberal.

For the record:

The man who carried out the horrendous murders in Tucson, Arizona Saturday was a mentally unstable individual who would have been just as negatively influenced by a bruise on an apple as by any political movement or ideology. From what I've read about him, he was just anti-government, regardless of whether the government espoused Conservative or Liberal values. In short, he was simply a homicidal nut.

No one could have predicted his actions. No one could have stopped him.

As far as I know, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin were not present.

In my humble opinion, the media itself is as much, or more to blame for this shooting spree as any one previously named.

It is the media that selectively edits news stories and interviews to portray events in the most sensational way. It is they who highlight the negative and play down the positive in the news stories they present. It is the media that put a spin on the stories and interviews they choose to air or write about. And, I'm not excluding FOX news from this indictment. They also are guilty of coloring much of their programming with an ideological crayon.

(Incidentally, why do you suppose the media finds it necessary to point out, ad nauseum, that the Congresswoman, who survived, is a Democrat, but the party affiliation of the Judge, who died, is not mentioned?)

But, no, the media did not put the gun in Jared Loughner's bloody hands. They did not incite his violence. They merely put their opinion out there, and sensationalized it, and that did what it was intended to do: Affect emotions.

Those emotions, coupled with an unbalanced mind created the situation that eventually became the tragedy in Tucson.

For, Or Against?

2011-01-07T09:57:00.004-05:00

"Remember that what you believe will depend very much on what you are." ~ Noah Porter

A Muslim student reveals what she really thinks during a question and answer session following a speech by David Horowitz at The University of California at San Diego:

I believe this indicative of the attitude of the majority of Muslims around the world. Although friend Jim (and other Liberals)would have us believe they are as harmless as your average Baptist Sunday School association, facts don't support his position.

The fact is, Muslims, in general, have been strangely quiet over the years since 9/11 on support or condemnation of terrorist organizations. While most peaceful Muslims refuse to admit support, they also don't admit opposition.

I find that telling.

Before we blindly accept the supposition that most Muslims are peaceful, perhaps we should pose Horowitz's question to them to ascertain exactly their position on the Jews.

"For, or against?"

I wonder. How many of our peaceful Muslim neighbors would answer that question truthfully? And, how many would say, "For"?

In addition, when the big day arrives when militant Muslims arise and attack the Jews and their allies en masse, who will the peaceful Muslims defend? How many of these "peaceful Muslims" would participate?

In the final anaylsis, if we are to err, doesn't it make more sense to err on the side of caution and automatically suspect all Muslims of supporting terror than to blindly accept the possibly dangerous supposition that they are mostly peaceful?

Introducing The Huxtaballah Family

2011-01-04T09:56:00.004-05:00

"Maybe we need a Muslim version of The Cosby Show." ~ Katie Couric

While surfing the net, I came across this news story.

Katie adopts the elitist Liberal condescension pose made famous by Charlie Gibson

Katie Couric suggests an Islamic version of "The Cosby Show", ostensibly I suppose, to combat what Katie calls, "the seething hatred many people feel for all Muslims, which I think is so misdirected, and so wrong -- and so disappointing."

We knuckleheaded Americans need to be educated.

Personally, I find Katie's perky enthusiasm for all things Muslim rather humorous, considering the fact, that, under Sharia law, she would not have anywhere close to the same liberties she currently enjoys under our antiquated first amendment.

But really, it isn't altogether unexpected to hear such moronic inanities issuing from betwixt those ruby red lips.

However, I really didn't want to focus on the hilarity of what "Klueless Katie" has to say. After all, we Conservatives have come to expect such empty-headed Liberal Media types to gush all over anything that's anti-American and pro-Islam.

I would instead point the reader(s) to the comments made about the story. Some are hilarious. Some are disturbing.

Keeping in mind, of course, that there are indeed peaceful Muslims living amongst us.

It's just that, as one commenter said, "The Bingfhndfnghy family living next door to you in the suburbs of America only have a 60% chance of being a muslim/arab terrorist sleeper cell."

I daresay we uneducated Conservative Americans have no similar suspicions about the Baptist family who spend their weekends at Bible study.

Why We Celebrate

2010-12-24T18:49:00.004-05:00

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.

And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;

A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. ~ Luke 2:1-35

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Merry Christmas!

A Local Event

2010-12-22T15:54:00.002-05:00

"And He shall reign forever and ever." ~ George Frideric Handel

I recently posted the following video on my Facebook page, and added that I would like to get one of these flash mob things going here locally.

While I procrastinated, someone else acted, and last night, right here in the Fredericksburg area, nine area choirs assembled in the food court at Spotsylvania's Towne Centre Mall and entertained weary Christmas shoppers with the most majestic piece of music ever composed:

According to our local newspaper, The Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, the "mob" had alerted the local Television stations and newspaper to their intentions, so I am a bit surprised that the videographer was apparently unprepared, because the video begins a couple of bars after the instrumental introduction of the piece.

Other than that, it plays well. I only wish I had known about it beforehand. I was off work when it started, and I could have been there, and I certainly would have participated.

About The Secularization Of Christmas

2010-12-18T10:15:00.004-05:00

Last year, I wrote this post about the secularization of Christmas. This year, I am adding a short addendum:

Our local Wal-Mart began playing Christmas music over the PA system before Thanksgiving this year, yet none of the songs played are of a religious nature. How can we celebrate Christmas with absolutely no mention at all of the reason we celebrate?

I know I risk sounding redundant by mentioning this again this year, but the problem is worsening.

Atheists and secularists are trying, with no small amount of success, to remove any connection with Jesus Christ from the traditional celebration of His birth.

I would like to point out that Christians don't object to other cultures and religions celebrating their holy days in the way they see fit. You never hear of Christian groups objecting to the celebration by other religions and cultures of Kwanzaa or Ramadan.

I have expressed consternation with the blatant attempts to stifle all connections of the Christmas holy day with Christianity before.

So. Although there is ample evidence to suggest Christmas is indeed being targeted by secularists and atheists, the significance of Christ's birth, life, death, and subsequent resurrection will not be erased.

In the end, they will all realize their folly, as God has promised us, "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." ~ Philippians 2: 10-11

Good Company

2010-12-05T08:00:00.004-05:00

"When I was born I was so surprised I didn't talk for a year and a half." ~ Gracie Allen

Actually, in my case, I understand I didn't talk for about 4 years. I've been making up for it ever since.

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 59 years on this planet.

I don't even know about 90% of them

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

A Good Quote

2010-12-01T07:22:00.003-05:00

"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." ~ Albert Einstein

Respect

2010-11-23T08:41:00.004-05:00

"A man meets with no more respect than he exacts." ~ William Hazlitt

It is so much fun to watch the Democrats go after their own! And especially fun when they attack Obama.

I don't know how to imbed the video in this story, but go here and watch the video.

It was simply a joke, and it was funny. The first commentator acknowledged that fact.

But then, apparently realizing how his remarks might be misconstrued as a defense of Carville, he quickly added a reminder that such jokes, when told about Obama, are in poor taste.

Well, naturally, the fawning Obama lapdogs over at CNN wouldn't want to offend their dear leader, now, would they? Their slobbering love affair with Obama continues despite the mountain of evidence that he is attempting to destroy our country.

Well, they say love is blind, but in the media's case, it's also deaf and dumb.

The second commentator made a very good point:

Where was all that feigned outrage when Liberals insulted President Bush at every turn? Every day, for 8 years, we had to endure the vitriol and disrespectful attacks on the President of the United States, and no one on the left had the cajones or the grace to say, "Wait a minute. We're supposed to respect the office of the Presidency".

Not once, in 8 years, did any leftist Liberal media spokesman offer even the most innocuous defense of the president.

Now, as the third commentator rightly pointed out, we're supposed to have respect for the office, even if we don't like the President himself.

That's truth about Liberals number 5 in spades: The only standards Liberals have are double standards.

But, I must say I agree with the third commentator.

We must respect the office of the president of the United States.

I believe the best way to respect the office of the President is to throw the current occupant (who demonstrates no respect for the office himself) out on his oversized ear.

True Colors

2010-11-20T18:23:00.003-05:00

"The smaller the mind the greater the conceit." ~ Aesop

I read this story earlier this week, and was struck by two observances:

1. From the way he responded to Pat Sajak's statement, as well as the arrogant tone he manifested as a sports reporter so many years ago, Keith Olberman has apparently always been a condescending elitist.

2. Even back then, Keith thought Federal legislation was the answer to everything with which he disagrees. He suggested that the "Icky shuffle" should be outlawed by an act of Congress.

Yes, I know it was a joke. But considering the first thing Liberals want to do in handling a problem is either throw money at it, or legislate it out of existence, I wonder if he really was kidding.

Watch this, and you'll see what I'm talking about:

Over the course of years, most people evolve into better educated, more intelligent beings. Keith Olberman has devolved.

Can We Focus?

2010-11-03T21:09:00.003-04:00

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." ~ John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton

Now that the Republicans have won the majority in the House of Representatives, most Conservative pundits are celebrating what would seem to be a great victory. And, if a Republican victory is all the American people wanted, then there is indeed a reason to celebrate.

But, not so fast, my friends.

As Lord Acton observed, power has a way of staining the most spotless of reputations.

Many a fresh-faced idealistic political hopeful has lost his integrity when faced with difficult choices. There is always a certain amount of compromise in political negotiations. The trick is to stand strong for one's principles in the face of relentless opposition. Can they do that?

I don't know. I hope they can.

I know I seem cynical, but we've all seen this movie before and we know how it usually ends.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope this election was indeed the turning point in history that we all desire.

I hope and pray these new representatives can stave off temptation and stick to their guns. I hope they don't let the old beltway politics get to them.

I was born in Missouri, the show-me state.

I will be keeping a watchful eye on our new representatives, and will not fully relax until they show me they will not be corrupted by their new found power.

Let us celebrate, but let us be wary.

The old guard will not surrender easily.

I've Worked So Hard...

2010-10-22T22:41:00.003-04:00

“I think we've had enough ‘hope’ and ‘change.’ At this point, I think the American people would settle for ‘competent.’” – Cal Thomas

I've worked so hard to boot these morons out of office. Hollywood film director David Zucker donated to Barbara Boxer's Senatorial campaign in the early 90's. Since 9/11, he has been voting Republican, but he still feels guilty about helping put Boxer in office.

In an attempt to offer an apology to the United States, and California for his mistake, he made this short video.

Call Me Senator from RightChange on Vimeo.

Please, if you love your country, help this video go viral by posting it on your blog and on your Facebook or other social networking site. We need to fire the Liberal elitists in Congress. And that includes Republican Liberal elitists.

Casting Pearls Before Swine

My Annual Tribute To Myself...

Not Born That Way

11-11-11

FYI

Just Had To Share

A Message to Liberals

The Dogs Are Out

Imagine

Of Poverty And Class Envy

Justice And Injustice

The Boy President

Joe McGinness Does Palin A Favor

Liberals Protest Justice..Again

The Tea Party Debate

My Prediction

The Wrath Of Hurricane Irene

Disasters, God, And Politics

A Good Quote

Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On

A Good Quote

What Entitlement Spending Has Spawned

More Stupid Liberals

Who's Holding The Gun?

Responding To More Liberal Idiocy

Not Guilty

On Media Bias

Father's Day 2011

Palin Is Vindicated

Moron Liberal Stupididty

More Liberal Stupidity, With A Twist

Obama Is Stupid

Taking Off The Gloves

Family Feud?

Thoughts From A Left Field Perspective

Surprise! The Media Lies!

A Funny Video

A Clever Video

Yet Another Question

More Questions

The "Paper Tiger" Has Teeth

Convincing Proof: Obama Is A Phony

Potential Candidates I Like

Sometimes, No Choice Is Better Than Poor Choice

He's Alive!

Good Friday

Politics Explained

National Tartan Day

Obama's Assault On The Second Amendment

Trying To Make Up. Really

Who's The Cowboy Now?

Talk Talk Talk

Wisconsin Democrat's Plan Backfires

Bust The Unions

A Sign Of Hope, At Last?

The Pursuit Of Happiness

Drive By Commentary

What They Want

What We Want

Revisiting An Old Topic

A Sign The Apocalypse Is Upon Us

What's In My Head

So, Who Are The Bad Guys?

How A Liberal Solves Annoyances

A Call To Action

How I Would Balance The Budget

Welcome Back

Ahhh, Memories

How The Left Honors King

Now, The Blaming Starts

For, Or Against?

Introducing The Huxtaballah Family

Why We Celebrate

A Local Event

About The Secularization Of Christmas

Good Company

A Good Quote

Respect

True Colors

Can We Focus?