It's Not My Problem...Or Is It?

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." ~ Thomas Jefferson

As much as I dislike insurance companies, I dislike what I am hearing about Obama's health care plan even more.

As a Conservative, it disturbs me deeply whenever I hear of any government plan that essentially denies anyone their Constitutional right to liberty.

Obama's health care plan will virtually outlaw insurance companies.

Additionally, it will force Americans into a Government run health care system whether they would personally choose such a system for themselves and their families or not.

This, as I say, is blatantly unconstitutional.

This is a perfect example of the classic Liberal notion that we American citizens are too stupid to know what's best for us, so the Government must make that decision for us.

I have mentioned my dislike for insurance companies before, but even I would not think of denying them the right to exist.

I don't even like the government requiring me to buy car insurance under penalty of law, so one can imagine how opposed I would be to any kind of national health insurance.

It's not that I don't think auto insurance is a necessity. I do, but mandating the purchase of it, in my opinion, violates basic human rights outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

I could do a whole blog post on the subject. In fact, I have. And here, also.

And so, I admit I have mixed feelings about this health care plan. On the one hand, I would personally like access to free health care. And, I'm not so sure Obama's plan wouldn't work, even though efforts to implement such plans have always failed when attempted elsewhere. Perhaps those who engineered the plan for him have managed to perfect the system, although, if Obama's history of choosing incompetent advisors and aides is any indication, they haven't.

Anyone who thinks I am wrong about his plan to outlaw private insurance, take notice. As early as page 16 of the health care bill now being debated, is this paragraph:

Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

That's legislature speak for: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

The linked article goes on to say:

The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."

What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.

Stepping away from my own self interest, I have to say:

No one, not even Government, has the right to take away any free market business' right to operate their business as they see fit.

Stepping back to my self interest, I don't want anyone, not even the government, telling me how I should choose to spend my health care dollar.

They don't even have the right to deny me my right to be stupid, if I want to be stupid. I reserve the right to refuse health care. If I want to suffer and die without ever seeing any medical professional, that is my Constitutional right.

This isn't about whether we have a right to health care or not, which, by the way, we don't.

It's about our inherent and constitutional right to choose how we want to live our individual lives.

Then, there is the point about the natural consequences of free health care for all, which I mentioned in a recent post:

Crowded waiting rooms and long waits for treatment, among other things. Not to mention the increased likelihood of misdiagnosis, due to rushing through examinations because of time constraints on the medical professionals.

More patients, less time to be thorough.

Personally, I am quite healthy, although I have some health issues with which I will eventually have to deal. Some day, I will need immediate health care.

Right now, I can wait for medical examinations. I don't have an immediate need for any prescriptions. I will not suddenly drop dead for lack of immediate health care. Knock wood.

Many people, notably senior citizens, don't have that option. They need care immediately.

Then, there's this, from Obama's own black heart:



Did you hear and understand what Obama said in this video? "Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe, you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killers."

He wants the government to decide who lives and dies.

Is this what you want for your grandparents? Is this what you want for yourself should you reach the point when Obama determines you have outlived your usefulness?

Obama has made it clear that he believes senior citizens, and those younger people with terminal diseases are, due to their advanced age and stages, past the point of saving. Therefore, he has suggested the government will save some money by simply not treating the aged and infirmed, except to dull the pain with pain killing drugs.

In other words, he believes saving the lives of some people isn't worth the cost and effort needed to do so.

Euthanasia is just around the corner. How could it not be?

He has yet to specify at what age we officially outlive our usefulness to society, but I'm sure eventually, once his plan is adopted into law, he will make his wishes known on that subject.

But, as I said, that doesn't specifically concern me personally. Yet. But, I'm not getting any younger.

But that leads me to ask, "What's next?" Eliminate the mentally challenged? How about those with Down's Syndrome? Is Sarah Palin's baby in danger?

Will Obama make "Welcome to the Monkey House", and "Soylent Green" a reality?

We already know he plans to grant late term abortion rights, on demand, to anyone who feels the least bit inconvenienced by an unexpected, and/or unwanted baby.

What were his words? Oh yes. "Punished with a baby".

Now, it seems simply being old or chronically sick will be justification enough for these Mengele-worthy "progressive" changes.

OK. Those are just a couple of thoughts I have about Obamacare.

But, what all this boils down to, whether the information we have about it so far is accurate or not, is this:

This is undoubtedly an unprecedented reach for power and control on the part of Obama.

It really isn't about a "failing health care system". It really isn't about "leveling the playing field". It isn't even about making sure all Americans have affordable health care.

Obama and his lackeys in Congress don't really care about Americans health or ability to pay for health care.

It is really all about a Marxist control of Government which will ultimately lead to the destruction of a free America.

O.M.G!

"Lord, what fools these mortals be!" ~ William Shakespeare

What hath the Minnesota Supreme Court wrought?

How fate loves a jest!

Senator Al Franken.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor?

Relevance?

God help us.



Be afraid. Be very afraid.

h/t: Lone Ranger, through Joe.

That's Outrageous!

"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." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

The last blog entry I posted, entitled "Congressman King Is Called A Racist" was perhaps the worst piece I ever wrote. I know what I was trying to say, but I was so angry. I just couldn't find the words.

I am still angry.

Why isn't everybody as enraged as I am? How long are we going to allow these race baiters and bigots to infect our culture with their hate and bigotry?

I am sick and tired of these jerks.

Do you understand what happened here? Let me remind you:

Congressman Pete King of New York posted a video wherein he exercised his first amendment right to free speech, and was mercilessly attacked for it.

He was apalled, as most of us sane citizens are, with all the fervor surrounding the death of Micheal Jackson, a man (and I use the term loosely) who's sole positive accomplishment in his 50 years was recording rhythmic, catchy, tunes for profit.

And also, for easier access to young boys for the purpose of sexual abuse.

OK. So maybe Jackson was a musical genius. If one wants to make that claim, I'll acquiesce to that. Perhaps he was extraordinarily brilliant at musical and video production. I'll grant you that as well.

But, as one commentator wrote, all those accomplishments are negated by his perversion.

Pete King was attacked and vilified for stating the truth.

I understand Michael Jackson's fans may have felt insulted by what Mr King said, and they have every right to voice objections to Kings portrayal of Jackson as a pedophile. After all, Jackson was acquitted of those charges. Some people accept that, and that's their perogative.

And, if Jackson's devotees had simply stopped at that, I wouldn't be writing this post.

But the racists and race baiters and bigots just had to stir the pot, and throw in charges of racism as well.

This is wholly unacceptable behavior.

Pete King said nothing about race, or color, or even any physical difference between blacks and whites during his rant. He made no reference whatsoever to stereotypical behavior of any race color or creed. He did not draw any similarities between race and pedophilia.

He did not say Jackson was a pedophile because he was a black man.

In short, nothing Pete King said had anything to do with race issues.

None. Zip. Nada.

When are we going to speak up and stop these people from disrupting and dividing our culture?

If not for these so-called black leaders and professional racists, there would be no racism anymore.

But they just have to keep the anger seething, don't they?

Ask yourself: What are they trying to accomplish? Racial equality?

Hardly. We have, for the most part, achieved that now. Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr won equality for blacks through his campaign of non-violence back in the 60's.

Yes, we are still a work in progress today, but really, how much further would we be toward that goal of true racial equality without certain people (on both sides admittedly) continually antagonizing the others?

The white supremacists and the Ku Klux Klan have been effectively neutralized. They have become insignificant.We pretty much ignore them and discount them as just a bunch of nuts, now. And nuts they are.

The only real racists and bigots that have any influence now are the black racists.

Are blacks still relegated to the back of the bus, banned from lunch counters, forced to drink from specially labeled drinking fountains?

Does our white culture still prevent blacks from attending all white schools, bar them from jobs they are qualified for, or otherwise "keep them in their place"?

No I say. No, no, and a thousand times no.

The fact is, blacks have more opportunity to all these things, and more today. Their leaders agitated for affirmative action and they got it.

Now, the pendulum has swung the other direction. Whites are now discriminated against regularly in schools, businesses, and everyday culture.

Do you think I'm overstating the problem?

Ask Frank Ricci.

Or, on your next visit to the Walmart, or the supermarket, or any place where the customer service people don't get paid on tips. Pay attention. Pay attention to the difference in how the black customers and white customers are treated by black customer service workers.

And still, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, Lewis Farrakhan, Hazel Dukes, Charles Rangel, Barack Hussein Obama, and so many other so-called black leaders continue to agitate, antagonize, bully, accuse, vilify, and intimidate white people into keeping their mouths shut, and allowing black leaders to set public policies and agendas.

Believe it or not, these racist bigots actually get paid to incite division and hatred! They get paid to hate! Someone (and in many cases, it's the taxpayers), is paying these scumbags to spread hatred and division among the races.

This outrage has to be stopped. These so-called black leaders need to be fired. They are systematically destroying the fabric of our multi-racial culture.

We need to get angry. We need to stand up for true racial equality. We need to find our voices, and we need to use them to affect real change.

We need to treat everyone with respect and dignity, regardless of their race, color, or creed.

Everyone, that is, that deserve equal treatment. Not the scheming, cheating, lying race baiters and hate merchants.

We need to treat them as they would treat others.

That is what they deserve.

Congressman King Is Called A Racist

"People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest." ~ Hermann Hesse

New York Congressman Pete King is right. Michael Jackson was a pedophile freak. Not a hero. He did nothing to help out his fellow man. Nothing but record music and make videos. He has no record of altruism. No record that he ever helped anyone but himself.



Next comes the inevitable attacks on Congressman King. He must have known he would be attacked. But I wonder if he could have imagined he would be labeled a racist?

Hazel Dukes, president of the NAACP New York State Conference, said King's remarks are "racist," adding "Sometimes you think you know people... I thought at least he was a decent person. He is like Jim Crow Jr., the way it came out."

Excuse me? Just where in Congressman King's rant did he mention race, or color, or anything even remotely associated with racism?

How is he racist? Michael Jackson could conceivably be called more of a racist than King.

After all, he is the one who spent millions of dollars changing his skin color and facial features, so he wouldn't look black. Seems to me, Jackson hated black people more than the average white racist.

Then there are those who insist Michael Jackson was falsely accused of being a pedophile.

But does anyone remember how Jackson admitted to sleeping with children who weren't his own?

That's pretty sick in and of itself, but wait! There's more! According to the Smoking Gun website:

Jackson is a textbook pedophile, a 46-year-old predator who plied children with wine, vodka, tequila, Jim Beam whiskey, and Bacardi rum. A man who gave boys nicknames like Doo Doo Head and Blowhole and then quizzed them about whether they masturbated and if "white stuff" came out. A man who conducted drinking games with minors and surfed porn with them on a laptop in his Neverland Ranch bedroom, noting that if anyone asked what they were looking at, the kids should just say they were watching "The Simpsons." A man who frequently talked sex with his little companions and explained that "boys have to masturbate or they go crazy." A man who told one pajama-clad boy that he wanted to show him how to "jack off." When the tipsy child declined the demonstration, Jackson announced, "I'll do it for you," and buried his hand in the boy's Hanes briefs, size small. And a man who emphasized to his little friends that these activities were "their little secret" and should not be disclosed to anyone, even if a gun was at their head.

King was right. Jackson was a pedophile, a child molester, a pervert.

King might be a racist. I don't know. But there is nothing in his rant that indicates he is anything but a man who despises pedophiles and perverts.

Fun With Numbers

"Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from." ~ Al Franken

In a previous post about Minnesota's new Senator, Al Franken, I made this statement in the comment thread:

"[I]n many counties in Minnesota, there were more votes counted for Franken than there were registered voters".

My resident Liberal, Jim, who I have yet to run off (nor do I want to), pounced on that statement, and demanded I supply citation or shut up. Actually, to be fair to Jim, his comment was, "Cite it, prove it, or shove it".

So, despite the fact that I really don't like to do research, I began googling the words, "more votes for Franken than registered voters", and found, to my surprise, there wasn't any concrete evidence that my statement was true.

I wrote it because I had read it on some other blogs, and never considered it might not be supportable.

So, I shoved it, figuratively speaking.

I did find the original article that made the charge. It was from the Wall Street Journal, and I published the appropriate link in my next thread comment.

The singular statement made by the WSJ, which spawned all the other references to counties with more votes for Franken than registered voters was, "This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote", yet the WSJ, nor any of their affiliates have provided any citation in support of that statement.

But, I did find some interesting information regarding how Franken could have ended up with more votes than Coleman despite the fact that Coleman had, when the votes were counted on election night, 775 votes more than Franken. By Minnesota law, that is grounds for an immediate recount, since the final vote tallied at less than 1% difference between candidates.

Al Franken didn't demand the first recount. He didn't need to, although, if not for Minnesota state law, he probably would have. It is Minnesota law that elections that close have to be recounted.

Nevertheless, the first recount showed Coleman still led Franken by 215 votes. This should have been final, but then Franken demanded another recount. And another. And another, until the results were more to his liking.

Here's what happened:

According to the WSJ, "Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots".

But, they didn't segregate the original ballots, as required, but instead, added the total of duplicate ballots counted to the total of original ballots.

For example, say one precinct had 100 ballots originally cast for Franken and 90 cast for Coleman. By law, the election commission should figuratively throw out the original ballots (because they are damaged) and only count the duplicates. But, instead, they counted the duplicates, and then added the total of duplicate ballots to the total of original ballots. Now, Franken has 200 votes and Coleman, 180.

That results in an increase of 10 votes more for Franken than for Coleman. Now, recount again, and this time add the newest totals, once again, to the earlier totals, instead of throwing the original ( the first recount results) away.

The new results? 300 for Franken and 270 for Coleman. That's 20 more votes for Franken than were actually cast.

And, that's only in one precinct!

This method of recounting could conceivably go on forever, or until some one stops the process, whichever comes first.

But, now, consider that this same odd method of recounting ballots may have taken place in other precincts, all precincts that traditionally vote Democratic. This creative recounting, in the end, netted Franken 225 votes more than Coleman, and Franken won the election.

It wouldn't be at all difficult to believe precincts that traditionally vote Republican recounted the ballots the right way, with the final tally probably not much different than the original, if different at all.

Liberal Jim makes the point, "Why didn't Coleman charge this in any of his lawsuits?", which is a very good question, but one I'd have to direct to Coleman, as I don't know.

But if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say because Norm Coleman knew in advance how the Liberally-biased Minnesota Supreme court would decide, and refused to waste his valuable time and resources.

Support For Life Is Inappropriate

"Education is a state-controlled manufactory of echoes" ~ Norman Douglas

Last night when I opened the AOL start page, I noticed this story.

Anna Amador says the principal at McSwain Elementary School, a K-8 school in Merced, Calif. ordered her daughter to take off the T-shirt she wore to school on "National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day" in April 2008. The shirt displays two graphic photos of a fetus in the womb with the word "growing" under the images. A third box is black, and features the word "gone."

Then, I got angry. Or rather, righteously indignant. Again. As I often do when I see blatant abuses of the first amendment by those who say they respect it's principles.

Mrs. Amador alleges the school 's administrators grabbed her daughter's arm in a "vice-like grip" while escorting her to the principle's office.

Some might become enraged over the alleged rough treatment of the child, and I can understand that. Teachers and school administrators are, after all, human, and prone sometimes, to over zealousness.

But that could also be an exaggeration by an overly protective mother. We've all seen that happen on occasion.

I can see where she might have some trouble convincing a jury or a judge that the school officials overstepped their bounds when they physically compelled her to walk to the principals office.

With that acknowledged, what I can't understand is the school's definition of the word, "inappropriate".

According to School district officials,

[T]he T-shirt violated the school's dress code, which forbids any clothing advertising "inappropriate subject matter" like tobacco, drug or alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, profanity or vulgarity.

But sanctity of life? That is inappropriate?

It's inappropriate to champion a pre-born baby's right to life? What kind of convoluted logic is that?

It can't be the images depicted on the shirt that are inappropriate. Those very same images are found in the pages of the school's text books.

I'll bet the school allows T-shirts that promote death metal bands, and obscene rappers, and pedophiles (like Michael Jackson), and Charles Darwin, and gay rights, and abortion on demand, and anarchy, and any one of dozens of Liberal and/or anti-Christian messages.

"The message of the T-shirt is that life is sacred," says Becker, a First Amendment attorney. "One would be very hard pressed to find anything wrong with that particular idea, except that some people do object to the political message."

Funny how the Libs respect the first amendment right to free speech except when they disagree with the message.

The Newest Senator From Minnesota

"Truth is often said in jest." ~ Proverb

Introducing the new Senator from the great state of Minnesota, Al Franken. This is the kind of upstanding values you Liberals voted for.

You must be very proud.

Warning: Extremely Offensive Explicit Language!



And so respectful to his parents, too!

OK. I know it is intended to be funny, but I would never, ever talk to my parents that way.

Not even as a joke.

If he's that disrespectful of his family and colleagues, why should we expect him to be respectful of our country?

Obama A Student Of History?

"History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap." ~ Ronald Reagan

Obama is doing it again. What is he doing? You might well ask.

He is sitting down with a world leader, this time, Russian President Vladimir Putin, trying to broker a deal with Russia, a mutual agreement to reduce stockpiles of nuclear weaponry by both countries.

This has been tried before. When the Soviet Union agreed to reduce nuclear weapons back in the 60's, they lied to America. They didn't reduce. Now, Obama apparently thinks this time, they will be honest.

Well, maybe they will be. After all, this is no longer the Soviet Union of the 50's.

But that's not the point.

The point is, these continual negotiations with other countries to ostensibly make the world safer, do nothing to convince terrorists of the United States' willingness to defend ourselves against our enemies.

This overeager willingness to negotiate peace by lessening our effectiveness is seen as a sign of weakness to the rest of the world.

Is Obama simply naive, as Sean Hannity believes, or is he intentionally trying to leave us open to future attacks on America?

This will no doubt show the rest of the world that he has not learned from history.

What it shows to me is, he is willing to sacrifice Americans so that he can make overtures to our enemies in the Muslim world.

I think he has learned from history, which, if I am right, makes him that much more subversive than even our most conspiracy minded pundits have considered.

Here is what Obama knows:

Terrorists do not respond positively to negotiations. They interpret a willingness to talk peace as weakness. They will exploit weakness every chance they get. They will attack at the slightest hint of vulnerability.

This is undoubtedly what Obama and the terrorists know. History has proven it to be true. If he truly doesn't know this, he is too naive to be a world leader, and especially President of the United States.

But I don't think he's naive.

The longer he remains President, and the more he demonstrates to the world his weakness, the more I believe he may be a closeted Muslim intent on bring the United States to destruction.

How Low Can You Go?

"Anger at lies lasts forever. Anger at truth can't last" ~ Greg Evans

In their usual unbiased way, AOL linked readers who were interested in reading a unbiased story about Sarah Palin's resignation to columnist Melinda Henneberger, editor in chief of some apparently Liberally biased, obscure, insignificant, little web site called "Politics Daily" and her hateful screed against Palin, instead of an unbiased honest reporting of the facts.

The facts are:

Sarah Palin has announced her resignation as Governor of Alaska. She no doubt has her reasons, but she didn't specify the main reason that prompted her decision to resign. She did mention several possibilities, but no one specific reason emerged.

Now, This "columnist" takes advantage of the opportunity to pile further garbage on Palin, instead of posting a respectful portrayal of a Governor who was probably the most effective and popular Governor of any state to come along in decades.

In her first paragraph, Henneberger writes:

"Another week, another on-camera breakdown by a Republican governor: In a rambling, borderline bughouse decoupage of sports metaphors and intimations that the forces of darkness were running her out of public life, Sarah Palin announced Friday that she had decided to step down as Alaska's governor, and would be leaving office on July 26".

Not only did "Politics Daily" run this insulting article, but they included the most unflattering photo of Palin they could find. Which, probably to their consternation, isn't really very unflattering.

This is what the Libs consider unflattering.

The article is not only disgusting and deplorable, it doesn't even approach any semblance of intellectual honesty.

"Another on-camera breakdown?" Apparently Ms. Henneberger was watching a different speech than the one I saw. While I was listening to Governor Palin's speech I was thinking, "She sounds much more natural and relaxed than she did in any of the great speeches she made while running for the office of Vice-President". Obviously, the speeches she made at the time were written for her, and while she delivered them well, her resignation speech was heart felt, and it appeared to me, she was delivering it off-the-cuff, without notes or teleprompters.

But "breakdown"? I don't see that. I don't see that at all.

Perhaps she was listening to Democrat Governor Elliot Spitzer's speech instead of Palin's.

Someone get Ms Henneberger the right transcript, please.

"Borderline bughouse"? Again, who's speech was she watching? Never have I heard Sarah Palin speak more calmly and intelligently.

"Intimiations that the forces of darkness were running her out of public office?" Hardly. Unless Ms Henneberger is referring to the shameless way the Media swarmed upon the State of Alaska as soon as McCain announced his choice for a Vice Presidential running mate, looking to dig up dirt--any dirt---any dirt at all--on Palin in their efforts to destroy and denigrate her candidacy.

And, do you know what's really funny about that?

They couldn't find anything. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

Sarah Palin is the most incorruptible, most ethical politician, possibly in the history of the world. During the Liberally biased news media's search for improprieties and evidence of corruption, fifteen frivolous, and baseless investigations were launched with the sole purpose of impugning her dignity and her competence.

Fifteen(15).

All fifteen were dismissed.

All of them.

Dismissed.

Funny how the media didn't mention that fact.

Even now, that Palin has tendered her resignation, more allegations of corruption and malfeasence have emerged, which the FBI has refuted.

Refuted.

But, the absolutely most shameful attacks weren't on Palin, personally. They were visited upon her children.

First, they suggested Palin's baby wasn't hers, but instead was her daughter's. Then, they hounded and pursued Palin's daughter and her daughter's boyfriend, until, under the pressure of a shameless and unrelenting press, the two broke up.

More recently, a Democrat blogger shamelessly altered a photo of Palin's Down syndrome affected baby, prompting an outcry of righteous indignation from many people, including many Democrats. Sarah, though egregiously insulted, nevertheless handled the entire sordid incident with grace and aplomb.

And Barack Hussein Obama said "children are off limits". Apparently, that admonition only applies when it comes to Democrats. Republican's children are fair game.

OK. Since the Liberals have set the bar, the first time I hear of anything that can be even remotely construed as dirt on Sasha and Malia, I am going to attack mercilessly.

"Running her out of office"? OK. If one thinks she's running rather than simply resigning for a myriad of sound, sensible reasons, which she artfully articulated in her speech, go ahead. You have the right to your opinion. You also have the right to be wrong.

My personal opinion is that she resigned to protect her children from the continual harassment and lies emanating from the hateful, Liberally biased, state-run media dogs.

Imagine. There were 15 investigations launched against Palin herself in a concerted effort to undermine her character and her candidacy. Imagine what lengths the press would be willing to go to attack her children.

I believe Palin could have handled those personal attacks on herself, but she draws the line when they come after her children. As any good parent would.

Any person, male or female, who is a parent, can sympathize with Sarah Palin.

No child should have to undergo so many hateful, egregious attacks on their parent or themselves.

It's shameless.

Or, perhaps Ms Henneberg actually hit on the real reason for Sarah's resignation, when she sarcastically opined, "she seemed to be saying that she was being forced out for being too effective"

While considering my response to this poison pen article, I tried to think of the reasons the Liberals hate Sarah Palin so much. She certainly hasn't done or said anything that inspires such undeserved rancor and hysteria. So why do they have such objections to her mere presence on this earth?

I believe Ms. Henneberg was correct for once:

She's too effective. Liberals hate that.

My Favorite Restaurant Is A Gas Station

"Health food makes me sick." ~ Calvin Trillin

In my humble but expert opinion, the best Barbeque restaurant in the world is a gas station.

Nestled snugly on the corner of Mission Road and County Line Road in Kansas City, Kansas, is a convenience store which boasts gas pumps on the outside. On the inside of the store is Oklahoma Joe's Barbeque restaurant. Just a few short blocks from the Missouri line.


My wife often sends away for literature from resorts, and interesting tourists spots from around the United states. Recently, we received one from Kansas, my home state.

Last summer, we drove to Kansas to visit my elderly mother, some of my siblings, and my kids in Wichita.

Although she wasn't feeling too well through much of the journey, I made it a point to take her to Oklahoma Joe's when we went through Kansas City.

After sampling the fare, she agreed it was the best Barbeque she ever had.

So imagine my delight when I found actual recipes for Oklahoma Joe's ribs, Barbeque sauce, and brisket in the tourist's guide to Kansas!

As many of you know, I own a smoker, and enjoy smoking meat at home. I use my own recipes for rubs and sauces. I am pretty good, but I don't compare with Oklahoma Joe's. I've always had a problem with getting my ribs "fall-off-the-bone" tender. Perhaps this strange mustard rub of Joe's will solve that problem for me.

Here is a picture of one of my briskets on the smoker:



It looks dry in the photo, but trust me, it isn't.

I was going to post the recipes, but just now decided against it, due to concerns of copyright or patent infringement.

But tomorrow, on Independence day, my family and friends are going to enjoy genuine Oklahoma Joe's barbeque ribs and brisket, cooked by yours truly!

My Response To A Liberal's Comment

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

In a previous post, I commented on the Ricci vs Stephano case, in which The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of Obama's recent Supreme Court Justice nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Jim, a Liberal commenter, who I haven't managed to run off yet, (nor do I want to, yet) made this comment:

"Actually, your activist judges didn't reverse Sotomayor and the District Court. They reversed the Supreme Court. The District Court ruled based on Supreme Court precedent, as they should. In this decision, this court has changed its own rules. Read the ruling."

To which I replied, "Jim, I won't argue that point. But I will question your employment of the term, "activist judges.

I would argue that the Supreme Court simply applied the civil rights act of 1964, and applied it correctly."

Then, I asked him some pertinent questions regarding what he considers is the definition of racist discrimination. You may read the entire thread, if you're so inclined, here.

But then, after re-reading his comment, I write the following, in response:

I changed my mind, Jim. I will argue that point.

A columnist (his name doesn't matter), who once worked for Sotomayor, and now writes for The Washington Post, a Liberally biased newspaper, wrote "Of course, the fact that Judge Sotomayor or any judge was overruled by the Supreme Court..."

A columnist (Again, name doesn't matter) at The National Review, a Conservative biased magazine wrote,

"although there is a sharp 5-4 divide among the justices, not a single justice thought that Judge Sotomayor acted correctly in granting summary judgment for the City of New Haven."

Actually, that statement isn't accurate, but stay tuned.

From an update to that same article, the writer quotes Justice Ruth Ginsburg, possibly the most Liberal Justice on the SCOTUS, saying, "Ginsburg believes that Sotomayor and the other judges below applied the wrong standard: “The lower courts focused on respondents’ ‘intent’ rather than on whether respondents in fact had good cause to act.”"

From Salon.com, another Liberally biased website: "the Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 ruling, reversed the decision of a unanimous Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel (which included Judge Sonia Sotomayor)..."

Apparently, and according to most experts, Sotomayor's decision was indeed reversed by the SCOTUS.

Now, let me add, also, that all of the arguments presented in support of the District court's (including Sotomayor) ruling focused on the cities decision to throw out the test results because no black firefighter qualified for the promotion.

But their race (or color) is not the reason why the black firefighters were disqualified.

They were disqualified for promotion because none of them scored high enough to qualify for promotion to one of only eight openings.

15 firefighters, including Ricci, passed the test, with a high enough score to earn a promotion, and only the top 8 scores were to be rewarded with a promotion, which is how it should be, regardless of race.

The one fact that cannot be ignored is this:

No black firefighters scored high enough on this particular administration of the test to earn a promotion.

That's why the city of New Haven threw out the test scores. They were afraid that some black firefighter would charge them with racial discrimination. It's as simple as that. What does that say about the enabling of inequality in America?

Surprise!

We have achieved racial equality in this country, but certain people (such as Judge Sonia Sotomayor) apparently feel racial discrimination is fair, as long as we only discriminate against white people.

Here's the wrap (with apologies to Kevin Jackson):

This isn't about racism or discrimination. It is about qualifications based upon a standardized test. If any one of the black applicants had earned one of the eight top scores, the test scores would not have been thrown out, and the lawsuit would not have been necessary.

My unsolicited advice offered to any so-called minority who wants to get promoted, and that promotion is predicated upon scores of a standardized test is this:

Study hard to score the highest, and if you don't score high enough, study harder next time.

What Was In My Head When I Awoke

"Sitting on a park bench, eyeing little girls with bad intent" ~ Ian Anderson

I can't think of any reason why I woke up with this song running rampant through my head, unless it's all the press coverage of Michael Jackson.



Stay tuned for more frivolity directly.

A Victory For Civil Rights

"Justice consists not in being neutral between right and wrong, but in finding out the right and upholding it, wherever found, against the wrong." ~ Theodore Roosevelt

It's about time we had some good news to blog about. Presented here is this week's (or this years) good news:

The United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, has reversed Judge Sonia Sotomayor's decision in New Haven Connecticut's Ricci v. DeStefano lawsuit.

For those of you who have been living in a subterranean cave somewhere for the last several weeks, this case is a victory for true civil rights.

From Wikipedia, "In November and December 2003, the New Haven Fire Department administered written and oral examinations for promotion to Lieutenant and Captain.[3] The City's Department of Human Resources issued an RFP for these examinations, as a result of which I/O Solutions ("IOS") designed the examinations.[4] Under the contract between the City and the New Haven firefighters' union, the written exam result counted for 60% of an applicant's score and the oral exam for 40%. Those with a total score above 70% on the exam would pass".

To make this unnecessarily long story short, the bottom line is: Mr Ricci passed the test for Lieutenant, but the City of New Haven threw out the results of the test because no black firefighters received scores high enough to qualify for one of the eight open positions for lieutenant.

It seems the city was afraid some black firefighters would sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As it turned out, Frank Ricci sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

However, Barack Hussein Obama's choice for Supreme Court Justice, Ms. Sonia Sotomayor, in an appellate court decision, ruled that the city of New Haven was correct in rejecting the test scores. We must assume she based her decision on her "empathy" for the black firefighters who didn't study as hard for the test as Mr. Ricci.

This, unfortunately, is the kind of decisions we can expect from a Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor should she be confirmed to the SCOTUS.

Supreme Court Justice Souter was right when he described Ricci vs De Stafano as a case of a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't situation".

But, to the Supreme Court's credit, they reversed Sotomayor's obviously racist, biased opinion.

The press has labeled this action as a "reverse discrimination" case, but that's not what it is at all. The term "Reverse Discrimination" is a misnomer. It implies there is no discrimination at all. One either discriminates or one doesn't. Just because the so-called victim is white instead of black, it is no less discrimination than it is if the victim is black.

In either case it is discrimination.

Now, the good news isn't only that justice was finally served in the Ricci case.

It's also good news that Judge Sonia will have this case to answer to when she undergoes scrutiny from the Senate in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Along with the fact that 60% of her cases have been overturned in higher courts. If her nomination is rejected by the Congress, Obama will have to wait a little bit longer to complete his Marxist takeover of the Supreme Court, and the United States. A small victory, I admit.

To me, it's a no-brainer.

Sotomayor is totally, completely, absolutely unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, and this case may very well be the deciding factor in her confirmation process.

That's assuming the lawmakers have a sense of justice of their own.

Which, I admit, is perhaps asking a little too much of our erstwhile Senators.

A Tale Of Two Icons

"There is a healthful hardiness about real dignity that never dreads contact and communion with others, however humble." ~ Washington Irving

OK. I was going to write an entry about the "Cap and Tax" bill being approved in the House of Representatives yesterday. But, I confess that I don't understand the implications of it well enough to make an intelligent comment. Yet.

But then, before I could do the appropriate research, the news about the death of Michael Jackson grew legs, and before one could say "Billie Jean is not my love", stories about him were plastered all over newspapers, blogs, television, and radio.

In this morning's local newspaper there is a headline story, and no less than three related stories on the front page alone, and still more on the back, plus a commentary by what can only be described as, a columnist with a schoolgirls crush on Michael Jackson.

(as an aside, the columnist claims she remembers Jackson from a concert she attended before she was two years old. Anyone want to take bets that's a lie?)

All speaking in glowing terms about the so-called "King of Pop".

"Queen of Pop" would be more accurate, but still an overstatement.

It would be a vast understatement for me to simply say I am deeply disturbed by this level of hero worship. Why?

Does anyone remember who else died on Thursday?

Let me try to put things in perspective.

On one hand, we have a woman who many describe as an accomplished model and actress, or one who others may describe as a somewhat mediocre actress who nevertheless produced an iconic poster.

But this woman was also a brave fighter. A woman who sought to bring real awareness to the plight of millions around the world also affected by Cancer, through a self -produced documentary film that was shown on network TV just a short time before she lost her valiant battle with the horrible disease that took her life.

She left this world with the message that there is indeed dignity in dying.

There are many more positive adjectives that could be used to describe her, but mere words fail me.

Farrah Fawcett was an inspiration for all those who value integrity and self-worth.

She will be missed.

On the other hand, we have a freak. A man (or whatever) who had so many phobias and so much greed and selfishness that he shut himself away from the world, afraid of exposing his oft altered face to the world for fear he might catch some virus. A man who was afraid to come out into the light of day except to parade himself in front of an adoring media. A man who was so ashamed of his race and his color and his culture that he tried everything humanly possible to change himself. To alter his very physical appearance to hide his true identity.


A life exemplified by fear and shame.

Yes, he recorded music. I will even give him credit for being one of a few recording artist who had an instinct for perfection. His recordings were nearly flawless in their production.

But, he was also a pedophile. One of the lowest creatures to ever emerge from the cesspool of licentiousness. This man took depravity to a whole new level. What do his adoring fans say of the many children whose lives he literally ruined? Not one blessed word.

How tragic.

Michael Jackson doesn't deserve tribute. He deserves scorn.

There is not one positive moral value to be garnered from a study of his life and death.

No positive, moral message to teach our children and grandchildren. Except to be wary of men who say they love children.

He will not be missed.

So, I am outraged by the shameless adoration being shoveled out en masse for this monster, and by the lack of respect for a beautiful woman who's life exemplified courage, dignity, and integrity.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

What Was In My Head When I Awoke

The Rose of Tralee by Irish Tenor, John McCormick.

Royal Majesty

"Music hath charms to soothe a savage breast, To soften rocks, or bend a knotted oak." ~ William Congreve

This song was on a record album that my brother owned. I think it was recorded around 1969 or so. It was produced and recorded by the Earl Scruggs Revue, and it featured a bunch of artists from all genre's of music.

This particular cut features Tracy Chapman, The Pointer Sisters, Joan Baez, Bonnie Bramlett, and Charlie Daniels, in that order.

It's a gospel song. I think it's funny, now, that Joan Baez had to get her anti-war statement into the lyrics. And Bonnie Bramlett seems to add a reference to drugs in her verse.

Memories And Introspection

"Nothing fixes a thing so intensely in the memory as the wish to forget it." ~ Michel de Montaigne

Today's post is just a sort of a personal catharsis for me. It is written to help me cope. Don't read it if you don't want to.

Over on Facebook, a member of my high school graduating class, Karen W, has posted photos of our 40th High school reunion that was held earlier this month. I wasn't able to go.

Memories rushed back to me, as Firesign Theatre says, "like a hot kiss at the end of a wet fist"

I wanted to make some nice comments on the photos, but I am not on her Facebook friends list, which apparently is a prerequisite to making comments about anything to anyone, specifically, on Facebook. I still don't understand Facebook yet, although I have enjoyed posting some of my blogposts in the "notes" application. I think---at least, I hope they bug my Liberal relatives.

So, I made a request to add me to her friends list. So I can comment. I don't know that she will add me. I don't think she likes me very much, if at all.

I had a tremendous crush on her in High School, but I doubt she ever knew that. I went to my 10 year reunion, and while there, I asked her to dance. She declined. It was kind of a slap in the face to my mind. It still hurts somewhat.

I got over it, but...

It probably wasn't anything personal at all, and she probably doesn't even remember the encounter. She most likely had her reasons, and they probably don't include whether she liked me or not.

OK, at this point you're likely wondering why I seem to think she would dislike me.

When I was in high school, I was extremely obnoxious, believe it or not! Seriously. If anyone thinks I'm obnoxious now, believe me, you wouldn't have wanted to know me then. I have improved tremendously since then. And, I'm still a work in progress. I don't remember if I shared any classes with Karen, but I'm sure my reputation preceded me.

Memories are funny things, you know? I really don't remember much of my school days. I've always assumed that I blocked unpleasant memories out, hence, there are few things left to remember.

My School days are not memories I consider particularly pleasant.

Here are some things I do remember:

As I mentioned, I had a crush on Karen, and I don't think she ever knew. I was shy. Really. At least, with the girls. She had an ever-present boyfriend, named Paul. He was at this years reunion. Karen has pictures of them standing together. Almost as if they had never gone their separate ways after school was over. They still look good together, only now, I don't fantasize about making him disappear.

Then, there is a picture of Deb M, and Vickie W, and Bill T. All I remember about Deb is that she was a cute girl and still is.

Vickie? Up until now, I thought Vickie was dead! Her name was very similar to one of BTK's victims and I had always assumed that's who she was. Fortunately, she wasn't. Not so fortunate for the girl I thought she was.

I think Bill was on the Basketball team, but I may be mistaking him for someone else.

Mark H: His name is familiar, and I still remember his yearbook picture, but that's all I remember about him. He was the classmate who was charged with finding me to invite me to the reunion, and since then, he has sent me several personal messages. As if we are old, dear, friends. That's OK. Can't have enough friends, right?

Sharon R: The girl I was assigned to march beside into our graduation ceremony. By the way, she didn't remember who she marched in with until I told her. I don't think I knew her well then, but she has become a friend to me on Facebook. Apparently, she has never married. But, I don't know. I haven't asked.

Ray K. and Karen H: Knew who they were but didn't know them. I do remember Karen wore a pair of really ugly white framed glasses! They would probably be back in style now. I remember Ray as a nerd.

Then, there's Paula S. Ah, Paula! Paula was my first wife. Well, not really. During a Sadie Hawkins day dance and race at our Junior high school, Paula threatened to catch and marry me. She did. I was the shortest boy in school at the time, and she was the tallest girl. What a sight that must have been! From the photos, she's still tall.

Susan O, Rosie M, Debbie H, and Tim B: Susan was a cheerleader, and so was Debbie.I didn't know them well. Oh, I forgot to mention, Karen W, the girl I had the crush on, was a cheerleader, too.

Rosie: Her locker was right next to mine. She was a delightful girl with a great sense of humor. Her and I talked everyday because of the placement of our lockers. She's a teacher now.

Tim, I found out at the 10 year reunion, is a doctor now. He was a nerd in High school.

Gary M: He married a girl who lived just around the corner from me. I played sandlot sports with her younger brother. He was pretty talented. We once convinced Gary to play some tackle football with us in the vacant lot across the street from my house. He broke his ankle in the game. Sandy, who later became Gary's wife, was pretty angry at us for that, but he was the one who stepped over the curb! Later, when I was living in Kansas City, I attended a state Championship football game in Lawrence, Kansas. My old High school defeated Lawrence High School for the State Championship that year. I ran into Gary there.

Don A: In the current photo, he looks much the same as he did then, except older. I seem to remember him wearing a light blue short sleeve dress shirt. I doubt he wore it everyday, but that's how I remember him.

Funny what you remember.

Ah, Stephanie F: Stephanie was a particularly nice girl in school. She always treated me with respect and kindness, and I had something of a crush on her, too. I even considered asking her out, but I didn't have the nerve. Good thing I didn't. As it turned out, she was secretly married all through her senior year. To a semi-professional football player. She looked like Nicki Cox, the actress.

Sheila A, and Barbara K: I remember their names, but that's about all. Except I think Barbara slumped a little when she stood. Maybe not.

Peggy B: I remember she was nice. And cute. And short. Seems her and I were not enemies.

Bruce B, and Brigette V: Bruce was Peggy S's boyfriend, and I remember he went looking for me once, and not to exchange hello's and greetings, either. Something a little heavier than hello's and greetings. There was a misunderstanding, as I recall. He was under the impression I had insulted his girlfriend, Peggy. I had not. The fight (or beating) never took place.

Brigette was head cheerleader. She wasn't the best looking cheerleader at all. She was actually pretty plain, but she had a wonderful effervescent personality, that more than made up for her physical shortcomings. She sat next to me in one of my classes. She was always friendly and bubbly. I liked her. Everyone did. After school, she seemed to drop out of sight. She didn't attend the 10 year reunion and there was speculation that she was having a hard time making a life for herself. I don't know if that's true or not, but here she is, at the 40 year reunion, so she didn't die, at least.

I don't know of any of my High School classmates who have died. Every year, in our school, a student died. It was always a senior. Except when my class were seniors. That year, it was a sophomore. Weird, huh?

Memories. Some good, some bad.

Which leads me to look back at my life over the years, introspectively.

I wonder if others are as dissatisfied with things as they turned out as I am. I look back over the years and I see a life littered with missed opportunities, lost chances, wrong decisions.

I rarely took a risk. I allowed myself to be pushed to the side and watched many of my friends go on to bigger and better things.

I took a chance once that worked out rather nicely, but for the most part, whenever I took a chance, it didn't.

I answered an ad for a job, and when I was interviewed, it turned out that it was to be a direct sales job that paid only a draw against commission. I am not good at sales. I have trouble justifying a high price in my head, so consequently, I cannot justify it to customers.

I didn't want the job, but I was unemployed, with a newborn baby, and just about to fall back onto Welfare. The only reason I took the job was the first two weeks were to be paid training. $250.00 a week guaranteed for two weeks. I figured I could stay for the $500.00, and look for something better in the meantime.

I stayed with the company 13 years, and was quite successful, until surgery on my vocal chords to remove a possibly malignant growth afforded me the opportunity to look at what I was doing with my life, and I didn't like what I saw.

So, I quit.

As it turned out, that was fortunate for me. A few years later, law suits and government intervention put that huge nation-wide corporation completely out of business. If I had stayed, I would have been forced out of my job.

In one of the rare personal conversations with one of my brothers, he hung his head, shook it slowly, and said, "Mark, you are the unluckiest person I know".

He is the luckiest person I know.

We all know we make our own luck, right? Remember the old truism, "The harder you work, the luckier you get"?

That's true. Except with my brother. I'm not kidding. Fortune literally falls into his lap. You would like to hate him for that, but you can't. He's just too nice a guy. He is also very humble about his continual good luck. Who can hate a guy like that?

But that, too, has it's drawbacks.

As I explained to him in the same conversation, "If anything catastrophic ever befell you, you'd turn into jelly. You aren't used to calamity. You'd fall apart". He acknowledged that is true. On the other hand, Catastrophes happen to me every day. They are like water off a ducks back to me. Every setback I experience is only a minor speed bump in my road. I pick myself up and go on as if nothing happened. I believe I am stronger for my experiences. My brother agrees.

This, I believe, is God's way of preparing me for future calamities in my life and my family's lives. When the pain sets in, I will be the one they will look to for comfort and guidance. Because I can handle adversity.

I have been trained well.

Don't get the wrong idea, though. I don't want that responsibility. I'd rather let someone else, someone more competent, someone smarter, someone who enjoys being responsible, someone who can take criticism better, do the job.

But if this is my lot in life, I will accept it, and work with what I have, and be what God created me to be.

Like it or not.

All Generalizations Are False

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." ~ Henry Kissinger



It's not because the Republican party is hypocritical or corrupt that the Republican Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford made a stupid, hypocritical, colossal blunder in having an affair. Because overall, it isn't (as far as I know).

But, that won't stop the Democrats from making that presumptuous charge.

Here are just two of the comments posted about Sanford's revelation of his affair:

"Once again, the Republicans prove they are the bigger enemy to the 'sanctity of marriage' than the gays and lesbians".

"That is normal for a republican! Know wonder that our gov is screwed UP!"

Obviously, that particular charge applies only to him. It's not like the Republican party leaders ordered him to commit adultery. Or, to announce it publicly. Indeed, the Republican party, more than the Democrats, stand for personal responsibility. And, in this case (as all other similar cases), Governor Sanford is the only one who bears responsibility for his actions.

To his credit, he acknowledges that fact.

I hate it when some Republican politician does something stupid. I love it when some Democrat does. Because the entire party automatically becomes suspect.

And, I admit, that is just plain wrong.

One simply cannot, in all honesty, fault the entire party for something some idiot member of the party did. But, by the same token, haven't many of us been guilty of projecting the same onto the Democratic party?

Well, yes, but then the Democratic party is normally the party that defends rather than condemns such behavior.

Nevertheless, wait. Watch. And see.

The media and the Democrats and the Liberals will be making that connection:

Governor Mark Sanford is a hypocrite and corrupt, therefore, the Republican party is hypocritical and corrupt.

It follows as night follows day.