Sunday, January 30, 2011

Some Motivation Monday Should Ease the Pain...

Well, I'm having a bit of trouble with this week's Motivation Monday. Not because I can't find any hotness to display, but because of a story I found recently by way of Little Miss Attila. A GOP sponsored bill could potentially make Internet Service Providers legally obligated to hold onto search histories that would later be reviewed by police. *sigh.*. Well, maybe there's hope. The article doesn't mention who sponsors or co-sponsors the bill. It only mentions that in the GOP controlled House, such legislation could pass the House with much less difficulty than before. Personally, I hope this bill is killed in committee, if indeed it still remains in committee. No word on how far it's progressed yet. Also, this isn't just a GOP thing. The article specifically mentions that a Democratic congresswoman was the first to propose such legislation. RINO alert? You betcha. Fortunately, I know just the person who can stop this craziness if she ever gets into the White House in 2012:

You know I'm right.

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Tingles is at it Again, Boys and Girls...

That's right, my friends. Chris "thrill up my leg" Matthews, by far the dumbest political pundit on TV now that Olberman is gone, has decided to revive the tired meme of "everything is Bush's fault, even the stuff he didn't do.". This time he's being blamed by Matthews for the outbreak of anti-dictator protests in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen. Via The Other McCain:

“Leading off tonight: Unrest in Egypt. Proving the Iraq war wasn`t needed, these protests in Egypt, as well as in Yemen and Tunisia, are all aimed at dictators supported by the U.S. The demonstrations have not yet turned anti-American, but they could. These are the events the Bush administration hoped to encourage by lying about weapons of mass destruction and invading Iraq.”

I'm apparently late to the party on this one, because That Mr. Guy was ahead of even Robert Stacy McCain in pointing out Matthews' idiocy:

Yep, you just knew that Chris “Tingles” Matthews would find some way to blame George Bush for the recent riots in the Middle East. What is up with this guy? He’s a one trick pony. Bush has been out of office for two years now. I’d say that the “blame Bush” meme has just about been worn out. I’d bet if Obama stubbed his toe getting out of the shower, Tingles would figure out some way to blame Bush for it.

The video above is also courtesy of That Mr. Guy. I'm just floored that someone like Matthews has a TV show where he can spout this garbage. When will he meet Olbermann's fate and be booted off the air?

Muslims vs. Secularists...True Change or False Hope?

I'm probably one of the youngest people commenting on this particular event, and giving it this particular comparison, given that I was born at the tail end of the Carter administration, but this issue in Egypt seems very similar to me to the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979. Then again,I could be completely wrong and this could be a good thing, but demographics involving Egypt don't paint a pretty picture. Via AllahPundit at Hot Air:

In Egypt, 30 percent like Hizballah (66 percent don’t). 49 percent are favorable toward Hamas (48 percent are negative); and 20 percent smile (72 percent frown) at al-Qaida. Roughly speaking, one-fifth of Egyptians applaud the most extreme Islamist terrorist group, while around one-third back revolutionary Islamists abroad. This doesn’t tell us what proportion of Egyptians want an Islamist government at home, but it is an indicator.

In Egypt, 82 percent want stoning for those who commit adultery; 77 percent would like to see whippings and hands cut off for robbery; and 84 percent favor the death penalty for any Muslim who changes his religion.

Asked if they supported “modernizers” or “Islamists” only 27 percent said modernizers while 59 percent said Islamists…

Granted, that last one there is a clear majority, but still, that leaves a nice chunk of undecided who could influence some of the Islamist supporters, but that's about as likely as Nancy Pelosi seeing the light and espousing the views of Ronald Reagan. Still, one can dream. And the picture isn't all doom and gloom, either, if these preliminary reports from Hot Air are any indication:

Even as pockets of protesters clashed with police, army tanks expected to disperse the crowds in central Cairo and in the northern city of Alexandria instead became rest points and even, on occasion, part of the protests as anti-Mubarak graffiti were scrawled on them without interference from soldiers.

“Leave Hosni, you, your son and your corrupted party!” declared the graffiti on one tank as soldiers invited demonstrators to climb aboard and have their photographs taken with them…

In another central Cairo square on Saturday a soldier in camouflage addressed a crowd through a bullhorn declaring that the army would stand with the people.

“I don’t care what happens,” the soldier said. “You are the ones who are going to make the change.” The crowd responded, “The army and the people will purify the country.”

The army, according to Allah, and several other sources, has been siding with the protesters the vast majority of the time during which the protests have taken place, even despite, as noted above, clashes between the two entities. If indeed the protesters have the support of the army, then at the very least battle lines will be drawn, and if the Muslim Brotherhood, as many say, are serious about seizing power, we could have another Islamic Revolution on our hands, with Mubarak playing the part of the Shah.

The more optimistic part of me says that this will play out anpd Egypt will emerge stronger and more pro-democracy than before, but the cozy ties that the supposedly pro-democracy leader of the protests has with the MB make me wonder. All in all, if we get another Iran, it's going to be bad.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Ronald Reagan, a Man Among Men

I'm not quite old enough to remember the Reagan administration, having been born just a few months before he replaced Jimmy Carter as our chief executive. Throughout Reagan's eight years, I was nothing more than an infant. I wasn't even aware of the political situation in the world until the months leading up to the 2008 election. In a few days we'll be celebrating the Great Communicator's 100th birthday, and though I believe Ronnie would be most concerned about the state of the country now, I also believe that, true to his faith in the human spirit, he would have embraced the grass roots movement known as the TEA party and their commitment to government accountability. To that end, I've decided to post a couple of videos I found highlighting some of the Great Communicator's greatest moments, as well as his funniest. And now, without further ado, here it is, the very best of Ronald Reagan:

Monday, January 24, 2011

Rubio Refuses toJoin Tea Party Caucus...Good for him!

I was going to make this a comment at The Conservative Lady's blog, but found myself going on longer than necessary, so instead I'll make it my next post. Apparently there's some hubbub from the Tea Party about Senator Marco Rubio of Florida refusing to join the Tea Party Caucus. Some don't care, but most are either in agreement with him or not, making arguments for and against depending on their point of view. I personally question the need for a Tea Party Caucus at all. After all, aren't we always worried about slippery slopes and all that?

I mean, look, before you know it there'll be an official Tea Party National Committee, and it'll be nothing more than a shadow of its former self, much as the GOP is now. The people who ARE on the caucus, as far as I know, are Michelle Bachmann and a few others. That gives me some hope that the caucus won't be corrupted, as Bachmann appears to be one of the few with a steel spine. However, one never knows. Even with solid conservatives like Bachmann, sheer numbers could overwhelm her and the other voices on her side until the caucus becomes little more than another front group to make the politicians look like they're working for us when they really aren't.

That being said, I think Rubio is doing the right thing in this regard. Just because he's not on some caucus doesn't make him any less of a Tea Partier than he was when he was running for Senate, remember. After all, we're all Tea Partiers in some way, aren't we?

With the Loss of Olbermann, the Left Attacks...Beck?

We've all heard by now that Keith Olbermann has now proven NOT to be as indispensable as he once thought, when Fox's Glenn Beck rightly predicted that after the Comcast merger, in light of actually bringing an audience to MSNBC, the cable giant would give him the ax.

Well, they did, and boy howdy has the left gone insane. Granted, they go insane every time certain conservatives so much as open their mouths, so it's not entirely unexpected, but good grief! To hear some of these people you'd think the world was coming to an end because the arrogant demagogue that was Keith Olbermann turned out to be a giant with clay feet.

n what I view as nothing more than Olbermann therapy, Media Matters for America, Politicus USA, and other left leaning "news" outlets are crowing incessantly over Beck's recent drop in ratings. Apparently half of his audience has abandoned the show in favor of other entertainment sources, but whether those viewers will return once those other shows go the way of the dinosaur or end their current seasonal run remains to be seen. To hear the left tell it, however, Beck's career is over and done with, despite having a solid base of followers much as Rush Limbaugh does. Never mind the fact that Keith Olbermann had only a few tens of thousands of viewers compared to Beck's 1-2 Million, of course. Things like facts don't matter to the left, as we all know.

That said, the left won't be rid of their conservative pariah as quickly as they might wish. Beck's radio show is still going strong, along with his web log and website. Coupled with the fact that he does still bring in enough viewers to keep him on the air, methinks the celebration of victory among the lefty moonbats is yet another premature emotional high that will only end in disappointment for them.

Update on Supreme Court Decisions Enabling Federal Judges to Ignore the Constitution

A comment was left at my first post about this issue:

Hi. I am William M. Windsor. The report of what the Supreme Court has done is 100% valid. The decisions in the THREE actions filed at The Supreme Court are all easily accessed from the SCOTUS website -- Just enter windsor, william, and then see 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690. These were original actions filed in The Supreme Court, and the justices were asked to declare that federal judges do not have the right to void and ignore the Constitution, the law, and the facts in cases. They refused to do so. They had THREE opportunities to tell their fellow judges to uphold the Constitution, and they refused to do so. They heard the case, and refused to tell judges to honor the Constitution!

The federal court system is corrupt. That's the issue. I have received calls and emails from close to 1,000 people, many relating their own stories of judicial corruption. A lot of normal law-abiding Americans are trying to keep our country from being a police state due to the tyrannical acts of federal judges who do whatever they want. The mainstream media won't touch this story because they are afraid of the judges. It will take people like you with your blog to educate the public. I believe this is the biggest crisis America has ever faced. Please see for lots of facts. If you have any questions, just email or call.

William M. Windsor

Any who have information regarding efforts to stop this monstrous practice please let me know so I can let others know in turn. Meantime I will be checking his sources and facts to be certain of what's going on.

Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Has it Really Been 200 Posts?

This week's Motivation Monday hits a milestone for me. Good gravy does time ever fly! When I started this blog, it was never intended to become the Conservative fortress that it has become. Back in 2005 or so, when I was attending MTI College in an attempt to suck out my soul and become a trial lawyer, I was only using it as a journal to record my personal life and achievements on my way to becoming a soulless lying douchebag That being said, I have now decided to work towards a more "everyman" type of career, perhaps in automotive repair or something equally rewarding in terms of hard work and results. On the side, however, like a tights-wearing vigilante with a secret identity, I fight tooth and nail to prove that freedom still exists here in the USA. It occurs to me, however, that I've been remiss in acknowledging those who inspire me to continue in my quest to annoy people by telling the truth as I see it, so I'm using this post to do just that, with a special treat for those who scroll to the bottom

Special thanks go to:

The Other McCain, for his linkagery and his Rule 5 Sunday. Keep the babes comin', Stacy

Just a Conservative Girl, for providing my better half with an extra follower in her own blog, as well as stopping by mine every so often.

That Mr. Guy for finding my whining and moaning about liberals interesting enough to add to his blog roll

Fuzzy Logic, for becoming one of my 34 followers and providing well thought out insight into both sides of the spectrum, not just the conservative side.

Little Miss Attila, for having an awesome net alias, as well as providing excellent reach around material

The Conservative Lady, for her awesome videos involving Ronald Reagan, whose accomplishments  are fast becoming the stuff of Conservative and American legend and folklore.

Legal Insurrection, for being a solid voice of reason amidst the sea of chaos that is the legal world, and his staunch opposition to Palin Derangement Syndrome

And last, but most certainly not least, my own better half, whose bored mind certainly provides me with interesting stories and adventures day in and day out.

And as a final act of celebration, a Rule 5 style pic of Gemma Atkinson:

If This is True...

Then we're in for a lot of trouble. The article is from Will continue following and update as necessary:

ATLANTA, Jan. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690). One word decisions: DENIED.

Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions: "There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court." The key questions answered negatively by the U.S. Supreme Court was: "Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts." By denying the petitions, SCOTUS has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and to allow federal judges to void sections of the Constitutional at will.

William M. Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.

Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).

After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S.

Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this was detailed for the Supreme Court.

Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, DC, and the justices of the United States Supreme Court function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S.

"My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. In my opinion, we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books.

"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us.

"I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place. I am writing an expose, and my book will be available at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and on soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed." For more information, see

Contact: William Windsor, +1-770-578-1094, SOURCE William M. Windsor Copyright (C) 2011 PR Newswire. All rights reserved -0- KEYWORD: Georgia INDUSTRY KEYWORD: BKS SUBJECT CODE: LAW

TIme for Another Good Idea, Bad Idea

No, this is not a post about the Animaniacs, as awesome as that cartoon was back in the nineties. The title of the post is, rather, an attempt at deciding whether the long known about decision of Jim DeMint to boycott CPAC (along with other senators) in order to protest the attendance of GOProud is a good or bad thing. It really depends on the outcome, which we will not know about until it actually happens. Some, such as That Mr. Guy, are afraid that such a boycott, along with Michelle my Bell Bachmann giving the TEA Party response to the President's latest upcoming SOTU speech, will give the Democratic minority in the house enough momentum to return for a second shot in 2012.

I do not believe this to be the case. While I also do not know whether the boycott of CPAC is a good or bad idea, I do know that the movement that has gathered steam over the last two years has more motivation than the actions of a few senators. Besides, isn't the whole point of the new Conservative movement to give long silent conservative voices the chance to speak out about their views, whatever those views might be? Most might not agree with Demint's decision, but it's still his decision to make, and he'll suffer whatever consequences result from it. Personally, I think he has a lot of sand for making a statettment like that, and I would vote for him if I could, with that being part of the reason.

Upon reflection, the boycott of CPAC is a minor issue, and is therefore a distraction. DeMint might not speak there, but that won't stop him from using the senate floor as his forum, or any of the wildly successful conservative opinion shows on Fox News, or for that matter, whatever liberal TV talk shows invite him on (though I don't know why they would).

Remember, people, this isn't about the gays, or any one particular group. This is about the country as a whole, and one boycott cannot be used to completely derail every other issue on the table. Keep your eyes on the prize, fellow tin-foil-hat-wearers. Don't be distracted!

Monday, January 17, 2011

A Letter


by Capitalism on Monday, January 17, 2011 at 10:23am
Dear Statist Friends:

I know, I know. You’re already objecting to my letter. You don’t like the label “statist.” You don’t think of yourselves as worshipping government; rather, you think of yourselves as simply wanting to help people, with government being your preferred means to achieve what is usually a very worthy end. “Statist,” you say, is a loaded term—a pejorative that suggests an over-the-top affinity for the state.

Well, let’s wait and see how the term stacks up after you’ve read my whole letter and answered its questions. Meantime, if you have any doubt about whether this missive is directed at you, let me clarify to whom I am writing. If you’re among those many people who spend most of their time and energy advocating a litany of proposals for expanded government action, and little or no time recommending offsetting reductions in state power, then this letter has indeed found its mark.

You clever guys are always coming up with new schemes for government to do this or that, to address this issue or solve that problem, or fill some need somewhere. You get us limited-government people bogged down in the minutiae of how your proposed programs are likely to work (or not work), and while we’re doing the technical homework you seldom do, you demonize us as heartless number crunchers who don’t care about people.

Sometimes we all get so caught up in the particulars that we ignore the big picture. I propose that we step back for a moment. Put aside your endless list of things for government to do and focus on the whole package. I need some thoughtful answers to some questions that maybe, just maybe, you’ve never thought much about because you’ve been too wrapped up in the program du jour.

At the start of the 1900s, government at all levels in America claimed about 5 percent of personal income. A hundred years later, it takes something approaching 40 percent—up by a factor of eight. So my first questions to you are these: Why is this not enough? How much do you want? Fifty percent? Seventy percent? Do you want all of it? To what extent do you believe a person is entitled to what he (or she) has earned?

I want specifics. Like millions of Americans planning for their retirement or their children’s college education, I need to know. I’ve already sacrificed a lot of plans to pay your bills, but if you’re aiming for more, I’m going to have to significantly curtail my charitable giving, my discretionary spending, my saving for a rainy day, my future vacations, and perhaps some other worthwhile things.

I know what you’re thinking: “There you go again, you selfish character. We’re concerned about all the people’s needs and you’re only interested in your own bank account.” But who is really focused on dollars and cents here, you or me?

Why is it that if I disagree with your means, you almost always assume I oppose your ends? I want people to eat well, live long and healthy lives, get the prescription drugs and health care they need, etc., etc., just like you. But I happen to think there are more creative and voluntary ways to get the job done than robbing Peter to pay Paul through the force of government. Why don’t you show some confidence in your fellow citizens and assume that they can solve problems without you?

We’re not ignorant and helpless, in spite of your many poorly performing government schools and our having to scrape by with a little more than half of what we earn. In fact, give us credit for managing to do some pretty amazing things even after you take your 40 percent cut—things like feeding and clothing and housing more people at higher levels than any socialized society has ever even dreamed of.

This raises a whole series of related questions about how you see the nature of government and what you’ve learned, if anything, from our collective experiences with it. I see the ideal government as America’s founders did—in Washington’s words, a “dangerous servant” employing legalized force for the purpose of preserving individual liberties. As such, it is charged with deterring violence and fraud and keeping itself small, limited, and efficient. How can you profess allegiance to peace and nonviolence and at the same time call for so much forcible redistribution?

Don’t invoke democracy, unless you’re prepared to explain why might—in the form of superior numbers—makes right. Of course, I want the governed to have a big say in whatever government we have, but unlike you I have no illusions about any act’s being a legitimate function of government if its political supporters are blessed by 50 percent plus one of those who bother to show up at the polls. Give me something deeper than that, or I’ll round up a majority posse to come and rightfully claim whatever we want of yours.

Why is it that you statists never seem to learn anything about government? You see almost any shortcoming in the marketplace as a reason for government to get bigger but you rarely see any shortcoming in government as a reason for it to get smaller. In fact, I wonder at times if you are honestly capable of identifying shortcomings of government at all! Do we really have to give you an encyclopedia of broken promises, failed programs, and wasted billions to get your attention? Do we have to recite all the workers’ paradises that never materialized, the flashy programs that fizzled, the problems government was supposed to solve but only managed into expensive perpetuity?

Where, by the way, do you think wealth comes from in the first place? I know you’re fond of collecting it and laundering it through bureaucracies—“feeding the sparrows through the horses” as my grandfather once put it—but tell me honestly how you think it initially comes into being. Come on, now. You can say it: private initiative.

I’ve asked a lot of questions here, I know. But you have to understand that you’re asking an awful lot more in blood, sweat, tears, and treasure from the rest of us every time you pile on more government without lightening any of the previous load. If anything I’ve asked prompts you to rethink your premises and place some new restraints on the reach of the state, then maybe the statist label doesn’t apply to you. In which case, you can look forward to devoting more of your energies to actually solving problems instead of just talking about them, and liberating people instead of enslaving them.

Lawrence W. Reed
President, Foundation for Economic Education (
(Based on an essay originally published in FEE's journal, "The Freeman," in December 2000

This was originally posted by the Facebook page "Capitalism" on Facebook

Teenagers: Stupid when I was one, Stupid now that I'm Not

That Mr. Guy has an interesting post that he picked up via The Other McCain, involving two teenagers that have been charged with a crime for making a fake Facebook profile involving another student and posting lewd messages, including "as many of you know, I'm a huge whore". An excerpt from the news article in question states the following:

Two Florida girls are facing cyberstalking charges for allegedly creating a fake Facebook profile in the name of a fellow high school student and placing obscene photos on the page . . .
[O]ne of the suspects, Taylor Wynn, 16 . . . admitted creating two fake Facebook pages “as a joke because she thought it would be funny.” Wynn said she was once friends with the unnamed victim, “but they do not like each other now.”
Wynn told probers that a second girl, McKenzie Barker, 15, created the image showing the victim’s head atop the naked body. Wynn reportedly copped to placing a photo of an adult male’s erect penis “by the victim’s face” . . .
[T]he victim . . . told a deputy that she had been subjected to “numerous incidents of teasing and ridicule” as a result of the Facebook hoax. One of the fake pages . . . included an assortment of disparaging comments, including an “About Me” claim that, “As you may know, I am a huge whore. I love dick so much.”

The two students claim that it was just a prank, yet now they're being charged with cyberstalking. The article does not say whether they will serve any time, or what their punishment will be at all, but I'm hoping the shame and guilt is enough to at least make these two think about what they've done and change their behavior quickly while they're still young enough to do something about it.

He had a Dream.

In recognition of MLK Day, I've decided to post his most famous speech. Hat tip to Musings of a Vast Right Winger for the vid:

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Motivation Monday!

Some say this pic was too sexy for Twitter. What do you say? In the comments forum, please.

New HHS Motto to be "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"?

I haven't been able to follow the news as closely as normal the past two weeks due to lack of a computer. I just happen to have gained permission to use the one I"m on now, at least for today. Ah, well, not that it matters. While I was searching for stories to rant and rave uncontrollably about, I find this little gem.

The story, in short, involves a couple who, with help from various volunteers in Houston, Texas, have been helping to feed a group of homeless people in their hometown at their own expense, including time and money. Apparently, however, Heath and Human Services, Big Brother's ministry for dealing with, ostensibly, healthy lives for all of us Americans, has deemed that the couple is not allowed to serve the food that they serve, unless they have Big Brother's permission in the form of a permit. A spokesman for HHS put it like this:

Anyone serving food for public consumption, whether for the homeless or for sale, must have a permit, said Kathy Barton, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Department. To get that permit, the food must be prepared in a certified kitchen with a certified food manager.
The regulations are all the more essential in the case of the homeless, Barton said, because "poor people are the most vulnerable to foodborne illness and also are the least likely to have access to health care."

A permit? Really? Why on Earth would anyone need a permit to serve food to the homeless? Barton goes on to explain that the regulations are "absolutely essential, especially in the case of the homeless" because they are more susceptible to food borne illness. Is this true? Maybe. I haven't done the research so I don't know for certain. What I do know is that these people were doing a good thing and have now been punished for it. Note, also, that ever popular Big Government narrative that the food must be prepared in "a certified kitchen with a certified food manager". What the heck? What qualifies in their mind as a certified food manager? What, for that matter, qualifies as a certified kitchen? When did everything we eat, cook, and drink come under the purview of Kathleen Sebelius and her government lackeys?

Oh, apparently the location they were on is on city owned land. Still stupid, stopping the homeless from getting help just because they don't have a pretty little piece of paper that gives them permission from on high, but it does prove one thing: the bureaucratic morass of insanity is what gummed up these works, not any maliciousness on the part of anyone that I'm aware of. What really gets my goat, though, is that according to the article these people had been doing this for over a year and only now are the suits getting involved. What took them so long? If it was such a horrible thing wouldn't someone have told them to stop long before this?

Fortunately this isn't the end of the help that the family involved is giving to these people. Even now they're searching for a way around the wall of red tape they've run into, perhaps working through a local church or another such thing.

Here's to hoping they find what they're looking for.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Westboro Baptist Church Agrees not to Protest Funeral of 9 Year Old

Sounds like good news, doesn't it? I thought so at first when I read it. Then I actually read the article. Apparently there's a little caveat to their agreement not to protest. They will renege on the protest idea if, and only if, they are given airtime on a local Canadian radio station to express their downright hateful views of all things American, from it's soldiers to its would-be-first-ladies. This is, I'm afraid, a necessary price to pay. As long as they're not ruining the funeral of the girl I'd be willing to give them the air time, despite my absolute disagreement with everything they supposedly stand for.

Too bad they didn't seem to feel the same way about the federal judge,or anyone else who died during that madman's shooting spree. Plans to protest those funerals appear to be underway even now.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Motivation Monday!

It's that time again, boys and girls. Here for your viewing pleasure (and my traffic-increasing pleasure) is another Motivation Monday pic to get you through the week, and decided to head into the realm of steam punk.

Also, you may or may not have noticed the donate button in the corner. I'm strapped for cash and in need of means to purchase a new vehicle. Every little bit helps, so as R.S. McCain is fond of saying: "Hit the freakin' tip jar!"

Sunday, January 9, 2011

First they Came for the Firearms...

Well, I can't say I didn't see this coming. Not even a day after the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the gun-grabbers are already trying to use it as justification for taking away our God-given second Amendment rights. Carolyn McCarthy, a long time advocate of gun control, has unveiled new, draconian legislation that, if passed would (she says) protect people. How? I don't know. She hasn't offered any details. This, more than being told what's in the bill, scares me. Let's set aside the fact that she's capitalizing on a tragedy to further an agenda. Let's set aside the fact that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun (or training only the likes of Chuck Norris have).

McCarthy wants to pass a law that makes it harder for people with mental instabilities to own weapons. Nothing too frightening about that idea, right? However, the next line in the article is what caught my eye. "No one should be allowed to own stockpiles of ammunition such as were owned by the 22 year old gunman." What? No one should be able to own ammunition? Does no one else see how ripe for abuse this idea is? If someone starts trying to tell people how much ammunition they can own, that means only one thing: That they will know exactly how much ammunition is out there. That's the only reason to do something like this.

My previous post went on and on about how we needed to stop capitalizing on this tragedy. When I see something like this it makes my blood boil.

Is This Righteous Fury or just Plain Anger?

I can't tell. All I can tell is that ever since the story broke about Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords being shot by an unhinged gunman in Arizona yesterday, I've seen both the best and the worst humanity has to offer. I've seen vitriol on Twitter from the likes of none other than Hanoi Jane Fonda. I've also seen some of the most heartfelt well wishes come out of the internet that I've seen in quite a while. I've also had to deal with those on both sides who blame either the left or the right for this insane act of violence that claimed the lives of almost 20 people, including that of a nine year old girl.

THIS MUST STOP! We cannot point the finger at each other and try to shift blame simply because we believe we're right and the other side is wrong! This is not the time to blame either Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Paul Krugman, or anyone else! The only one responsible for those deaths and injuries as happened in Arizona is the one who pulled the trigger. Plain and simple, end of story. Now there are plenty who will disagree. There are those who will continue to whine and moan about one or the other side or whether or not we should repeal the second amendment because of this, or even that the shooter did us a favor by taking her out.

I will not be one of those people. I will not be drawn into the "left vs. right" issues. I will not use this to further the cause of conservatism or liberalism because, frankly, that is an insult to the memories of those who died, as well as to the work the congresswoman did before this terrible incident. I've already posted on this, trying to find good news amidst all the chaos and disorder this incident has caused, but I've found precious little. At least they know that she has a good chance of retaining the majority of her brain functions because the bullet actually missed the geometric center of her brain.

To make a long rant short, please people, do not fall into the trap of arguing right v. left over this! It's not about that! Whatever the Congresswoman's politics, whatever the shooter's politics, the fact remains that people were hurt yesterday. Not just those that the gunman targeted, either. The families of those who died and were injured in the attack are no doubt going through horrendous amounts of grief and rage at having been violated in such a fashion. What needs to happen now is that people need to come together and do what they can to help those people, even if it's just a few kind words on Facebook or in a letter. If that is what is done instead of constantly trying to point the finger, the family will be much better for it and will find it much easier to navigate the storm of grief that they are now forced to endure.

As of this writing, the Congresswoman is expected to recover. Can we not focus on that instead of the negatives?

A Bright Spot in Dark Times

It seems that, through the grace of God, there is reason to hope in the case of Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona Congresswoman who was shot by Jared Lee Loughner yesterday. The doctors believe that she will recover, and retain the vast majority of her brain functions due to the realization that the bullet did not strike the geometric center of her brain. The family is no doubt overjoyed by this news, and it furthers my hopes as well that the woman will recover and continue serving the people as she has done in the past. Read the full story here.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

The Elite in this Country are Definitely NOT British, it seems

Looking at the reaction of the left in light of the rise of the Tea Party, one would never surmise that we descended from those tea-loving crumpet eaters, the British. Let me give you an example of what I mean:

Just a Conservative Girl has posted on the tragedy involving the representative who was shot in Arizona today, and has linked to a tweet by none other than Hanoi Jane herself, Jane Fonda. The traitorous Hollywood liberal had the audacity, as many on the left have had since the Tea Party gained steam, to blame the violence against the Arizona Democrat on the Tea Party itself, all without evidence to support the claim. She is joined in this endeavor by none other than Paul Krugman of the New Snark Times. Here is the tweet from Fonda:

Progressive Arizona Rep Gabrielle Giffords is shot. In her ads, Sarah Palin had her targeted in a gun site. Inciting to violence.

Fonda is referring to a map that shows districts wherein there were candidates for re-election that Palin sought to unseat in last year's elections.

Never mind that the ads in question was put on the air over a year ago, in preparation for the elections. Never mind that people are responsible for their own actions and that not that many people do something just because someone tells them it's okay. And never mind that the map Jane Fonda refers to was a SURVEY MAP and the markers were SURVEY MARKERS, used typically to target potential ore deposits in preparation for mining. But then, that's typical of the leftists in Hollywood and in Washington. They think we average Americans are too stupid to know any better when people use metaphor and hyperbole to make a point. Why else would they think we're nothing more than pawns of the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh? At least that insult tells me that they think we're capable of obeying commands. Paul Krugman doesn't even allow us that much intelligence, given how many of his columns have found eloquent and flowery ways to use the word "stupid" when referring to Americans.

I read his column, though it kills brain cells each time I do, and I am not surprised at all that Krugman, before anyone knew anything about the shooter, even his name, Krugman was out there blaming the Tea Party and the right wing for a deed that they are completely innocent of. Conservative Girl explains:

Paul Krugman couldn't even bothered to wait until more information was known before they decided to weigh in and blame the right for this horrifying act of violence. Krugman came out with his statement before the name of the shooter was known and what the press was reporting was that he was a war vet. There is enough information about the shooter now for Krugman to realize that this is a matter of a very delusional young man who didn't seem to have grip on reality. In one you tube video he is burning the American flag, in other he has a diatribe about the constitution and mind control.

Now I know Krugman doesn't like the right, but come on. Even he can't be THAT lazy...well, maybe he can.

Can we please just let the woman recover without turning her near death experience into a political pissing contest that tries to prove whether Liberalism is superior to Conservatism? Please?

Musings of a Vast Right-Winger: Pelosi Blames DemocRat loss on Bush

Musings of a Vast Right-Winger: Pelosi Blames DemocRat loss on Bush: "The video below is from CNN. Pelosi is delusional."

How right he is. This narrative will never die.

Reading is Funadmental, Unless You're a Democrat in Congress, Apparently

Yesterday morning (Jan. 6th, as of this writing), something
unprecidented happened in the hallowed halls of the House of
Representatives. The elected representatives, all of them, a piece at
a time, read from beginning to end the Constitution of the United
States of America. We all know, of course, that this is a symbolic
gesture pushed by the new GOP majority in order to tell the people who
voted them in that they intended to do things right and actually
listen to and stand by the document our Founders gave us 223 years
ago. I, and I'm sure many others, however, will be watching these new
congressmen and women like hawks in order to make sure they hold their
own against the coming onslaught of ridicule and slander that the
liberal left will send their way (in some cases, they already have).

My astonishment isn't only with the idea that this congress might
actually keep its word after the last two failed miserably to do so,
but at the level of vitriol and ridicule being received just for the
idea of reading one of our founding documents. Such things in general
are to be expected from the other side, of course. Joy Behar calling
Sharon Angle a "bitch" for one, and even John Boehner's nickname given
to him by the media, the "Weeper of the House." That type of talk was
more than a little expected by me, and by many others. What I
personally did NOT expect to hear from these liberal talking heads,
however, was open contempt and hatred for the very document that the
representatives we elect are sworn to protect and defend.

Joy Behar, to bring us back to the redheaded dragon lady, actually
asked this loony question: "Don't you think this Constitution loving
is getting out of hand?" What? Does she even realize that that very
document is what reafffirms her freedom to slander it and those who
praise it incessantly? I doubt it.

One representative, Jerold Nadler, mocked the reading as nothing more
than "propaganda" and complained that the GOP was "reading it (the
Constitution) like it's a sacred text." Well in a way, isn't it? It is
the document that garauntees our freedom of speech, right to bear
arms, and protection against illegal searches and seizures. Shouldn't
we hold some reverence and respect for this document, as well as the
people who wrote it? Not according to him, apparently.

Ezra Klein, a man four years my junior and a few hundred brain cells
short of normal intelligence, said the Constitution was "confusing"
because it was "over a hundred years old" and thus "had no binding
power on anything." That statement basically calls into question the
very existence of the United States itself, given that without the
Constitution and Declaration of Independence (in my opinion the latter
moreso than the former) then there wouldn't BE a United States of
America at all, and the mouthpiece known as Ezra Klein would have no
forum to speak his mind if the wrong chucklehead was in power at the
time. He also, in the same breath as the above comments, called the
reading itself a "gimmick".

Now, I honestly don't know if the reading will have stuck a few months
into the new Congress. No one knows what they're going to do in the
future. We can only speculate. I am hopeful, however, as this reading
and the upcoming vote to repeal Obama's Deathcare bill next week are
signs that the new GOP is listening, something that the former
Democratic Supermajority never did. Call me an idealist, but as Ronald
Reagan said in his first inaugural address, I believe that "it is
morning again in America," and the future, should this trend continue,
is very bright indeed.

Monday, January 3, 2011

Motivation Monday

Looking through the other laptop today for a second Motivation Monday pic lead me to this, the reason why many male teens and young adults went to see the awfulness that is Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Some Solutions to Some of our Most Difficult Problems

A friend of mine recently complained about my blog not offering up solutions to the problems I bring to light here every few days. So, per his advice, I've started posting some. Here's a solution to the gun control and airline security problems we face, courtesy of Archie Bunker of All in the Family:

As for the economy, here is a solution, brought to light by the Great Communicator, President Ronald Wilson Reagan:

And as an added bonus, here's the SAME SOLUTION brought about by a left of center president, Mr. John Fitzgerald Kennedy:

the website offers a solution in the form of a constitutional amendment called the Parental Rights Amendment.

So there you have it, fellow tin-foil-hat wearers. Solutions to some of the most important problems of our day.

Feedback always welcome

Where Have all the Heroes Gone?

I just recently read Biill O'Reilly's review of the movie "True Grit", a remake of the John Wayne classic of the same name. I haven't seen the movie yet, but if O'Reilly's assessment is at all accurate, then we in America are suffering from a distinct shortage of heroic icons to look up to. Apparently the main lead, played by Wayne in the original and by Jeff Bridges in the remake, is a hard drinking U.S. Marshal who, despite his shortcomings, is able to uphold some semblance of law and order in the Wild West, and help a young girl avenge the death of her father at the hands of some gang of desperadoes. John Wayne was and still is a hero in the eyes of many people belonging to my parents' and grandparents' generations. He is even a hero in the eyes of some of my own generation. Those who appreciate the past, mostly, and can see beyond the idea that that person is "passe" because he starred in "old movies".

Yet where are our heroes today? The world today is far different than it was fifty years ago, as many belonging to previous generations can no doubt attest. Looking around, you could probably see the difference if you only looked hard enough. In fact, you need look no further than Hollywood to see how much the world (or at least the country) has changed since our parents were kids.

When they were young, they had a clear representation of who their heroes were. Whether it be their parents, another relative, a sports figure, or even a superhero like Superman or Green Hornet. Back in those days, Hollywood produced all manner of genuine heroes for kids to look up to, from the Lone Ranger to Bob Kane's Batman (adapted from the comics of the time), or the aforementioned Green Hornet, who did the right thing in spite of being labeled a criminal (unjustly) by the local law enforcement. As O'Reilly says in his article regarding the remake of True Grit, we as Americans had a clearer set of boundaries back then. It was easy to find heroes, because we just looked for people who tried to emphasize the good in life over the shortcomings. Not to mention, in those days, when the family wasn't under constant assault by those who would see it destroyed, children could simply look to their father or mother to find someone worthy of admiration.

Those people are harder to find today. Not impossible, but certainly harder to find. Today children have no real sense of who their heroes are, in my view, because so may of our traditional boundaries have been crossed, and the "outrageous" bar continues to rise higher and higher while other bars, such as the education and accomplishment bars, continue to be lowered. Comic books, for example, continue to become more "gritty" and "realistic" in order to appeal to an audience who wants things to be "believable". There is still, and always will be, an element of the fantastic to them, as there was in the Golden and Silver Ages of comics, but for the most part the gleaming "shining city on a hill" that heroes were in the past has given way to "heroes are no different than you or I."

This is not to say that one needs some sort of elaborate, physics defying superpower or a Domino mask to be a hero. As we saw in the aftermath of September 11th, the National Guard, as well as the New York Fire and Police departments, proved that heroes do still exist today, and risk their lives daily in service to others. My lament, however, comes from the idea that such examples are few and far between in today's world. Back to my earlier assessment involving Hollywood, it seems that what once defined a hero fifty years ago no longer does so in the eyes of the entertainment industry. We hear all day long about the shortcomings of so many of our Hollywood icons, like Lindsay Lohan, Charlie Sheen, and others, that we forget that it wasn't always this way. Once upon a time, I seem to remember Charlton Heston in a film telling the epic story of the Ten Commandments. What happened, I wonder, to that Hollywood, that has been replaced by a Hollywood that seems to focus now on making films that try to break as many Commandments as possible as quickly as possible, as many times as possible?

That being said, most of you probably think by now that I don't believe their ARE any real heroes in today's world, but that simply isn't true. I believe that heroes still exist, though like true heroes they don't seek recognition for what they do. The U.S. military, by and large, is full of people like that, as are the aforementioned police and fire departments. And let's not forget historical figures. Martin Luther King is a hero to may. Not just blacks, either, but people of all walks of life, because of his message of a color blind society, which I believe we have largely achieved since his death.

Ordinarily I'd go on and on about how the Founders were heroes as well. People who risked everything, their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" to live their own lives according to their own destiny, but to those who read this blog, that very likely goes without saying.

I suppose that the point I'm trying to make by rambling on like this is simply that heroes are not born. They're made. Heroes are people who have the strength to stand by their principals without regard for what others might think. In that context, there are heroes made every day. The American people attempting to stop the race toward socialism in this country is one such example of that kind of heroism, as future generations will likely come to believe.

So after all this, what is the answer to the question that makes up the title of this post? Quite simply, heroes haven't gone anywhere. It's simply the type of people who exhibit heroics that have changed. No more do we need to look toward someone in spandex tights and a cape to see true heroism, because it's all around us, if only we have the eyes to recognize it for what it is.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Planned Parenthood Exposes Their True Colors...Again

Many who read this should know by now that I absolutely despise the organization known as Planned Parenthood. I'm not even sure why they're taken seriously by anyone anymore, really, after all the exposure their agenda has been getting in the new media by bloggers such as myself. Well, fellow tin-foil-hat-wearers, they're at it again, once again usurping parental authority under the guise of providing education and advice. An article headlined Planned Parenthood Launches 'Social Change Initiative' to Teach Parents how to Educate Children About Sex, Including Masturbation and Homosexuality goes into some detail about the procedure, which, when you get right down to it, is basically PP (hehe) telling parents that they're too stupid to teach their own kids about the birds, the bees, and the coconut trees, so they're going to do it for them. Well, what did you expect from an organization that was founded by a Hitler-idolizing baby killer who thought Eugenics was a good idea? Not much, I hope.

But enough about Sanger, and back to the important thing, the article: Here's a few highlights:

Specifically, Planned Parenthood’s Web site announced the group is preparing to launch a nationwide “social change initiative” to end the “stigma and shame about sex” in American culture. The project aims to teach parents and caregivers how to educate children about sex — from birth. And it recommends telling teenagers about masturbation, oral sex and “where to go for help to prepare to be sexually active.”

Yes, you read that right. FROM BIRTH! The article goes on to state Planned Parenthood's position that babies are interested in sex from pretty much the moment they pop out of mommy's womb. Well, I don't know about you folks, but I was more interested in getting a bottle and a nap than I was at learning "what goes where". That didn't come up until I was about eight or nine, and that was because THEY brought it up, not me.

Note also that they desire to teach children "Where to go to prepare for becoming sexually active." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't there only be one place a child should go to prepare for that sort of thing? I think so. They're called...parents or something, right? Yeah, that's it.

Another highlight from the article that proves they're trying to usurp parental authority yet again:

The initiative is geared to parents and caregivers of children aged 8 to 18. In the four pilot states, parents were invited to attend workshops where they received Planned Parenthood’s guide to “Sex Ed for Parents, Real Life. Real Talk.” The events were held at different community venues, including schools, churches, social services facilities and libraries.

So it's not just parents, but all types of legal guardians that they want to subvert. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, foster parents, you name it. The language used here is more than a little scary, as it completely undermines the family structure, which as we all know is something Planned Parenthood has been after the destruction of since their founding in 1913.

Spread the word, patriots. Things like this can't go unanswered! let's fight back and push Planned Parenthood into the dustbin of history! Full article here.

Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.