Imagine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No proof is required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey, we're eligible. I promise!

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

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

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

Is this what the Liberals really want for our country?

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

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

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

Of Poverty And Class Envy

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll start off with some facts about me.

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

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

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

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

One can only hope, I guess.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you seen pictures of these idiots?

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

Well, wah, wah, wah.

Who said life was fair?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Am I bitter? You bet I am.

Am I envious? Guilty as charged.

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

I don't blame my poverty on anyone else.

I have only myself to blame for my poverty.

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

Basically, expecting something for nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, they support him.

How do the protesters explain this apparent dichotomy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice And Injustice

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

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

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

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

Where is our outrage now?

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

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

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

The Boy President

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

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

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

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

Specifically, this:

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

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



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

They booed his question.

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

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

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

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

This one is particularly childish and dis-respectful.

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

Joe McGinness Does Palin A Favor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their only recourse is attack.

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

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

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

She quit.

Yes, she quit. That charge is true.

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

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

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

But, that's not enough now.

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

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

She will have the sympathy vote.

The left's plan has backfired.

Only, they don't know it yet.

This should be interesting.

Liberals Protest Justice..Again

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

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

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

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

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

...smiling.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Troy Davis' word.

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

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

Facts be damned.

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

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

The Tea Party Debate

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

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

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

I must admit I was pleasantly surprised. And fascinated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Count on it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can a stupid man suddenly become intelligent?

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

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

God forbid, America could re-elect Obama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It depends on who you're asking.

My Prediction

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

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

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

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

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

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

He will claim Americans "want" his policies.

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

Y'all watch it for me.

Let's see if I'm right.

The Wrath Of Hurricane Irene

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

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

Let's get one thing straight.

Wrath is defined by the dictionary as:

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

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

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

It is only a storm.

Disasters, God, And Politics

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

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

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

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

I will say this, however:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She is squeaky clean.

There are no skeletons in Sarah Palin's closet.

But there is this:

She quit.

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

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

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

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

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

Or, more blessed?

Or, more cursed?

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

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

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

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

Well, Democrats should, so Republicans can attack them.

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

A Good Quote

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

Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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







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

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

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

This morning, I signed onto Facebook and saw this:

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

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

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

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

There was no mistaking what we experienced yesterday.

It couldn't have been anything else.

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

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

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

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

A Good Quote

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

What Entitlement Spending Has Spawned

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irresponsibility begets irresponsibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so it goes.

Where will it end?

Will it end?

Who knows?

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

How is that possible?

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

If we the people don't, who will?

More Stupid Liberals

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the video:



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

This completely amazes me.

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

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

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

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

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

Who's Holding The Gun?

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

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

What more can I say?

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

I don't know.

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

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

I just watched this video:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, I admit, I don't know.

What I do know is this:

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

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

It's inevitable.

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

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

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

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

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

Just as it works in my personal life.

Responding To More Liberal Idiocy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Illegal".

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

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

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

Not Guilty

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



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

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

Despite the verdict handed down by the jury.

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

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

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

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

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

Just the Facts, Ma'am.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like it or not. The system works.