Who's The Cowboy Now?

"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

"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

"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

"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?

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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

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?

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

"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

"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

"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

"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

How many of these do you remember?

How The Left Honors King

"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

"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?

"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

"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

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

"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

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

"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

"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." ~ Albert Einstein