Kirsten Powers Continues Anti-GOP Narrative, but Without Mentioning Starving Seniors

I don't know why I keep coming back to the Daily Beast. Perhaps it's because most of the articles I read are linked from Hot Air, who doesn't tell you their source before you actually click on the link itself to find out what the article in question says. I've had to put up with reading articles by Meghan "Mean Girl" McCain, among others that make me grind my teeth whenever I see the ubiquitous phrases "tea party racism" or "tax the rich". Kirsten Powers's latest writing for the Beast is of the latter variety. I know Hannity allows her on his show to provide an alternate point of view during his Great American Panel, but come on. Surely you can find SOMEONE on the left who can actually make a coherent argument, or at least a truthful one.

Oh, I forgot. We're talking about the left here, who use sites like Wonkette to demonize down syndrome children in a shameless attack on conservative families. Never mind. I thought I was dealing with rational adults for a second there. Must have been temporary insanity. At any rate, to the meat and mead of the article:

It is tellingly headlined "The GOP's Budget Backfire". Right away you know this is not going to be a favorable or even objective piece on the budget deal  passed by the House of Representatives last week. It only gets better (worse?) as you go. Example:

Not only are Republicans wasting time with the Paul Ryan proposal, their cynical gambit on the even more drastic House Republican Study Committee came back to bite them. They may be under pressure to keep campaign promises about balancing the budget—but they're running a huge risk of electoral disaster with their overreach.


Overreach? You, Kirsten, want to talk to us, Conservatives, about overreach? Are you forgetting the years of 2007-2010, when Democrats had full control (minus Bush's veto power, of course, which he never used) of the purse strings and could have put the kibosh on any of this discretionary spending at any time during their tenure as the 111th congress? Seriously? Oy...


To be fair, at least Kirsten tries to use polls to justify her rehashed and recycled arguments. According to a gallup poll she cites for us, more people now support taxing the so-called "rich" in order to balance the budget for 2012. But look closely at the poll she uses. If you take a closer look and actually do a little math, you'll realize that the majority of those that support taxing those who make over 250k a year are democrats, as opposed to the majority of those who oppose that measure being Republicans. Nice try Kirsten, but that little lie of omission about a partisan split couldn't escape my eagle eye for journalistic integrity, and I'm just an amateur blogger. Do you really think that people smarter than me won't get it enough to realize your smoke and mirrors are just that? 


Gallup's bottom line about the poll shows:


Bottom Line

Americans mostly approve of Friday's budget agreement that will keep the federal government running through September, but few say it was a victory for either party. Whether this is because of the messy politics involved in reaching it, or because the $38.5 million in spending cuts was not, in fact, a complete victory for either party, is not clear.

Republican and Democratic leaders are making considerable noise about the federal debt, and Americans share this concern. President Obama is expected to spell out his vision for reducing the national debt in a White House speech Wednesday afternoon, and Republicans are expected to press for dramatic deficit reduction in the looming negotiations over raising the debt ceiling. With a divided Congress, the challenge will be, once again, to strike a compromise between Democrats' calls for higher taxes on the wealthy and Republicans' calls for deeper domestic spending cuts. At this stage, the Democrats' position seems to have the greater public appeal.

What's that you say? American's share this concern about the debt? Of course they do. That's not the question Kirsten answers with her article, however. Kirsten skirts that question by falling back into her "tax the rich" talking point delivered to her COD by the DNC. She also makes some noise about an alternative budget that would have cut spending even more drastically than the Ryan plan, but that budget didn't pass because at the last minute a few Republican voters switched from yes to no. What she doesn't tell you, but what the article does say, is that the more conservative RSC budget only has a few differences that make it more conservative than the Ryan plan. Via Right Wing News Watch, These are:


Discretionary Spending: The RSC proposal would trim FY 2012 total discretionary spending down to 2006 levels-a $141 billion cut from the last budget passed in 2010.  The subsequent 9 years of total discretionary spending would be frozen at 2008 levels-$933 billion annually.


Medicaid:  The RSC plan adopts the same laudable block grant and mandatory cap program for Medicaid that is proposed in the House budget.  The difference is that the RSC pegs its spending level to 2006, providing increases only for inflation.  Ryan’s budget increases the spending level slightly more every year.  Consequently, Honest Solutions achieves an extra $712 billion in Medicaid savings over 10 years.


Medicare: Again, the RSC plan takes Ryan’s premium support proposal and accelerates it in order to achieve more front loaded savings.  Their plan fundamentally differs from the House plan in three ways.  First, their premium support plan would only be optional, thus offering the Medicare recipient the option to stay on the current system or opt for the more free market oriented plan.  On the other hand, unlike the House plan, this plan would allow even current Medicare recipients to opt for the premium support program any time after 2017.   More importantly, the premium support option begins in 2017, well within the 10 year budget frame.  Ryan’s version would delay the reforms for an extra four years.


Our friend Ms. Powers, however, is more concerned with the fake "gotcha" moment that the democrats managed to pull on the Republicans at the last minute by organizing a unified "present" vote, which would have allowed that budget to pass. however, for reasons I personally have not been made aware of as yet, they decided not to pass that budget and instead went along with the Ryan plan. 


"I find the RSC budget draconian and counterproductive, but the difference between the House Republicans and me is I won't lie to you and tell you that I support it just to get credit for doing something I never wanted to happen."


No, Ms. Powers, you'll just use Gallup polls to distort the reality of what the public wants as an excuse to raise taxes on small businesses and upper middle class households; and on the two budget plans, to Ms. Powers I say...so what? Either way the reforms happen, and either way the reforms are drastic. The only difference between these two plans is HOW DRASTIC THE REFORMS ACTUALLY ARE! Also, either way the reforms are NECESSARY! Ryan's plan will have the same effect as the RSC plan, albeit on a slightly smaller and more drawn out scale, but the result will be the same: a balanced budget and a U.S. economy brought back from the brink of insolvency, which is what both sides claim that they want! 

Fleebag Supporters Resort to Criminal Activity

So the Wisconson Fleebaggers are so confident of their recall elections that they have to have their thugs break into where the petitions are being held and steal them:

Another Epic Win

Rand Paul continues to amaze and excite me. If he ever runs for president, thus far he's given me little cause not to vote for him. Via Real Clear Politics:

This...is...PAINFUL TO WATCH!!!

This video was painful, as stated in the title. Try to keep your brain cells alive as you watch, but don't underestimate the power of stupid ideas.

My Take on the Budget Deal, and Other Musings

John Boehner is getting a lot of flak for avoiding a government shutdown and striking a less than perfect deal to pass a budget that should have been passed months ago by the then Democratic majority. I think people are missing the point on this. Boehner has just cleaned up a huge mess left behind by his colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I admit, I'm not so happy about the budget deal as I would like to be, given that we had to give crucial ground in order to make substantial gains, but isn't that what compromise really is? Boehner and the Repubs fought tooth and nail to get this deal, did they not?

I have to say that I'm in agreement with JACG on this one. She has gone into some detail about how this amounts to a win for Speaker Boehner and the Republicans, but some just won't let it go. That said, I admire the sand of the ones who stuck by their principals and voted no in the hopes of getting a better deal. It's those kind of people we need to keep things on the right track. Mark Levin calls the budget deal a scam, but I'm not so sure. The fact that he seems to be the only one doing so seems to lend a little less credibility to the idea that we're being scammed. I don't know, as I don't know the full extent of the budget deal, but if Fuzzy has her head on straight (and I'm sure she does) then we won tonight, and we should be celebrating the fact that we got ANY kind of deal out of the jackasses and averted a government shutdown. Not that the world would have ended, but I honestly can't abide our troops not getting their due pay for putting their lives at risk day in and day out. Politico also reports that, in the words of Charlie the Clown, the GOP is "Duh, WINNING!".

The budget deal wasn't the only occurrence of note, however. Apparently protest god-of-the-left Bob Dylan doesn't like the fact that he's been named protest god of the left. Maureen Dowd apparently doesn't like the fact that he doesn't like it. All in all, if ol' Bobby Boy is pissing off Lefties, then I have a whole new respect for the guy. But what's even better is the method by which he's pissing them off. Apparently he's doing well and making money doing the thing that he's famous for. Horrors. Such a blatantly honest class enemy should be immediately strung up and sent to the gallows. Grab your torch and pitchforks!

And finally, the most absurd act in this three act play: China. Apparently the Reds aren't too happy with our Human Rights record. Why? Apparently because it outshines their own dismal chronicling of the very same subject. In light of U.S. disapproval of China's actions (cracking down on protesters, blogs, and others) in response to the recent catastrophe that the Middle East has become, the Red Chinese have dared reach down and find a pair, and asked We the People to step down as a judge on the Human Rights council. Right. Because China is SO MUCH BETTER at treating prisoners and dissidents well than we are *cough*bullshit*cough*. Tienemen Square ring a bell, anyone? Feh.

And that, dear readers, is my rant. Hope you enjoyed it, many more to come in the future.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has a more balanced approach to the budget deal than my other sources. He calls the budget deal a truce, rather than a victory, but acknowledges that the GOP has gained both credibility and ground in the fight to cut spending and reduce the size of government.

Sounds like a win to me.

A Woman with Brains and Balls

Ever hear of a woman named Ann Barnhardt? I have, and you're about to. All you have to do is scroll down to watch the video at the end of my little rant here. But first, a bit of background information on the happenings that led to this video being made. We are all, I'm sure, familiar with Senator Lindsay "Grahamnesty" Graham, RINO-SC. He's the insipid little fool that said recently that he wished we could "hold people accountable" for certain types of speech. That it just so happened to deal with speech against the greatest threat to democracy since Hitler, Stalin and their goons were on the scene is just a coincidence I'm sure. NOT! For Graham's exact words, watch this little gem of a video I pulled from Youtube:



Yeah, you heard that correctly. He said that burning the Koran is speech that "inspires" the enemy. In actuality, what burning the Koran does to these people is DEMORALIZE them by making them so incredibly enraged at our infidel practices, that they cannot fight the war effectively! Inspirational speech is more like this.

Now, in comparison to Ronaldus Maximus, Linsday Graham is less than the shadow of a snake, no doubt. Especially where his wartime policies are concerned. Restricting speech so that our enemies won't be offended? Reagan would have laughed this guy out of the Senate if he'd heard such a ludicrous proposal as that!

But apparently others think this is a good idea. Of course, there are always those who think that less freedom for the people will lead to more security. Those people are woefully misinformed, and need to look at what big government has done to such countries as Germany and Soviet Russia before they go and advocate getting rid of the constitution.

Now, take the woman I mentioned above, Ann Barnhardt. This woman has more balls in her little finger than Graham has in his whole body, and the videos at the bottom prove it. She even gives her address and contact information, daring people to call her bluff and come after her if they're serious about not wanting to offend Islam. Oh did I mention that in the second part of the video she burns a Koran, which she has conveniently bookmarked with raw pieces of bacon? Absolutely incredible that someone would do something so shockingly un-PC these days. I know the libs are in hysterics over the pastor who originally proposed the Koran burning a while back, but if they saw THIS, they'd go absolutely nuts!

The best part is that each passage she has conveniently bookmarked is a passage that advocates either prostitution, rape of prepubescant boys and girls, or even beating your wife if she refuses to have sex with you. She even points out a passage in the very book the Islamists revere so much that calls Allah a "deceiver". Now, why on Earth would Muslims refer to their own god as a deceiver unless they believed it? And who else do we know of as a deceiver? Someone who whispers temptations into our ears and persuades us to only think of ourselves at the expense of our neighber? Oh, right *church lady voice*....could it be....SATAN? Well now isn't that special?

Watch the video for the full effect. Whether your head explodes or not will determine your place on the political spectrum:

For it After he was Against It: Holder Reverses Decision Regarding KSM Trial

Astonishment. That was the feeling I experienced just now, as I randomly decided to head over to Fox News.com and see what their front page story was. I've taken to expecting bad news from the media so much that the bright shiny nuggets of good news seem that much brighter and more valuable to me. Apparently, our esteemed AG, Eric Holder, has run into what the article calls "the buzz saw of reality" and has grudgingly accepted the fact that New York is not the best place to hold the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and his cronies. The article reads in part:

Because a timely prosecution in federal court does not appear feasible, the attorney general intends to refer this matter to the Department of Defense to proceed in military commissions," reads the order to dismiss signed by U.S. District Judge Kevin Duffy.

The decision to return the detainees to a military commission is a reversal from Holder, who announced in November 2009 that he would move the trials to a civilian court in the United States. Supporters said it sent the right message to the rest of the world that U.S. courts were the fairest and best venue for trials. 

Gee, ya think? Holder didn't exactly take this lying down, since he decided to rip into Congress, blaming their legislation  for forcing his hand and leaving him  no choice but to *GASP* abide by the will of the people of NYC:

Congress tied the Obama administration's hands in trying the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and his accomplices, Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday, announcing that he was left without a choice and has referred the cases to the Defense Department for trial. 

In stark language, Holder lambasted Congress for imposing restrictions blocking any detainees from being tried in the U.S., saying that the "unwise and unwarranted restrictions" undermine the U.S. in counter-intelligence and counter-terror efforts.

Not only that, but he also threw what in this humble Crusader's mind amounts to a temper tantrum, screaming about how he knows better than everyone else how to handle these things:

Do I know better than them? Yes. I respect their ability to disagree but they should respect that this is an executive branch function, a unique executive branch function," Holder said in a press conference.

And during a press conference to boot. Not exactly the height of gentlemanliness. Oh, and guess who else isn't happy! The ACLU threw their own little hissy fit as well:

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, which vehemently opposes military courts, said the Obama administration's decision "is completely wrong."

"There is a reason this system is condemned: it is rife with constitutional and procedural problems and undermines the fundamental American values that have made us a model throughout the world for centuries. Attorney General Holder's previous decision to try the 9/11 defendants in federal court was absolutely the right call but this flip flop on the part of the Obama administration is devastating for the rule of law and greatly undermines America's standing abroad," Romero said.

I've put the juiciest parts here for your viewing pleasure, but be sure and read the whole thing. At the very least it'll make you smile.

Al Gore Contributing to the Very Thing he Claims to Despise!

That's right, boys and girls. The self-proclaimed savior of the planet, Mr. Al "I'm Just Raising Awareness" Gore has been causing the very problem he claims to be trying to help solve. Via Jammy Wearing Fool:

Now how exactly will Al Gore's masterful invention go about destroying the planet? Why, by giving climate change "deniers" a voice to oppose the environmental wackos.

The planet may not be so lucky. It's increasingly apparent thatthe internet may bring about the death of human civilisation, beating out previous contenders such as nuclear holocaust and the election of George W. Bush.

The agents of this planetary death will be the climate-change deniers who, it's now clear, owe much of their existence to the internet. Would the climate-change deniers be this sure of themselves without the internet?

Indeed, how on Earth would all us country bumpkins who refuse to be swindled by the snake oil salesmen at the IPCC get along without their Orwellian policies telling us how to think, feel, and do basically everything necessary to live a normal life as a worker drone for the great Statist Revolution?

I particularly find amusing the idea that the mere election of The Evil One (AKA George W. Bush) was a contributer to a nonexistent crisis. I particularly like how he's embraced the "new F-ing tone" (as RS McCain calls it) by calling us all idiots literally from the first word of the article.

I could go on about how they need to see the error of their ways and simply realize that people disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're idiots, but I have a feeling that'll be too much wishful thinking on my part. My only source of solace is that people who write things like this make themselves sound so incredibly stupid  that no one takes them seriously. At least, no one smart enough to realize that differing opinions are a GOOD thing, rather than a bad.

Walker to Activist Liberal Judge: Screw You!

Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin has certainly shown that he has an almost Reaganesque steel spine. He's been standing up to the onslaught of ungrateful liberal union whiners with nothing more than public support and a pen, and he continues to do so even now, when the liberal courts are entering the fray. According to Hot Air, the Temporary Restraining Order that a judge issued took effect within the last few days, which was supposed to block the implementation of the new budget repair bill.

Walker, however, has found a loophole. The order only restricts certain agencies from implementing the bill, so Walker decided to use one that WASN'T mentioned in the restraining order to continue his work of doing what the people voted him into office to do.


It's so nice to see that there are still some good people in politics.

Motivation Monday's Absence is now Over

It's been a while, what with several personal issues taking precedence over the blog, but I'm back and have been for the last few days, though my motivation Monday had to take more of a backseat than other posts. Hoping to make up for that, here's the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing one of my favorite songs, The Battle Hymn of the Republic:

Philadelphia Police act Stupidly. Barack Obama Could not be Reached for Comment

Remember when Barry O decided without facts that the police acted stupidly when they were dealing with the Crowley/Gates issue? Well, here's a video I found via Conservative Scalawag, who is an avid Second Amendment defender, as I am. In the fifteen minute video, which is really just audio with an image attached, the PA police stop a man who was legally carrying a Glock pistol in full view on his hip. I'll let the words exchanged paint a picture for you, but trust me when I say that THESE cops, as opposed to Officer Crowley, did in fact act stupidly, not to mention illegally.

Audio rated NSFW due to multiple F bombs and utter stupidity on the part of the boys in blue.

Wait Wait Wait...

I am a regular listener of Sean Hannity's radio program, as well as an occasional viewer of his Fox News opinion show. The reason for this is because Hannity has a way of placing certain events into a neat little box of perspective that enables me to understand most of what's really going on with various news stories around the country and/or the world. Tonight was no exception. As I was working alone in the production center at my place of employment tonight, I flipped on his show promptly at seven so that I could remain apprised of world events, and get his take on those same events before posting a blog entry like this one.


When he brought up Libya again, I had to roll my eyes. More of the same? Really? We already know that Gaddafi is winning his civil war thus far, and that the UN has authorized a no-fly-zone over the country, effectively grounding the tin-pot dictator's piss poor air force. We also know that people are rightly up in arms over Obama waiting for the UN to give the okay before we decided to take military action, as well as Obama being raked over the coals for not going to Congress before authorizing the missile strikes on Lybian soil. All this ran through my head in a scant few seconds at the mention of the word Lybia. Then...something caught my attention.

More bureaucratic nonsense doesn't usually hold my attention the way it used to, but this one was unique. Apparently, there is a struggle to find out just who exactly is in charge of our little jaunt into Col. Gaddafi's back yard. Such confusion has erupted from recent events that some sort of political committee has been formed to lead military efforts. The ones who proposed the idea? The French.

I'll wait for you to stop hyperventilating.

What the hell are the French doing leading this thing? These nimrods haven't won a war in recent memory. The one that comes to mind is the Hundred Years War, and even then they were losing handily before divine intervention turned things around in the form of Mademoiselle Joan of Arc and her voices from Heaven. That being said, in my opinion this bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys couldn't lead a fish to water, much less lead troops into battle and expect to actually win.

One big mess. That's what this whole thing in Lybia has turned into. Our president can't even decide whether or not he's in the fight, since he keeps paying lip service to ousting Gaddafi while at the same time sitting on his hands hoping Col. G will just realize the error of his ways and step down of his own free will like a good little citizen of the world.

Yeah...and maybe a moistened bint at the bottom of a lake will hand me a shiny sword and I'll be proclaimed the Once and Future King...

Reductio ad Absurdum

So...I just learned a new Latin term today, thanks to the Classic Liberal, whose post on social justice I just read is one of the most elaquent explanations of the flawed redistribution philosophy that I've ever read.

Simply put, for those of you who read this and don't know, Reductio ad Absurdum translates to "Reduction to the Absurd." The phrase is used to describe something when it becomes so ridiculous as to have lost all credibility. There seems to be a lot of that these days, doesn't there? From Climategate pretty much trashing every argument that has to do with manmade global warming to the idea that the ecomonic prosperity of a given country can be improved by taking from those who work and giving to those who do not.

Why, though, are we so given to the absurd that we believe such things? Are we mere sheep or cattle who react to the whims of a few ranchers, as Glenn Beck has pointed out on his television show? Are we robots that wait for commands from on high, as Nancy Pelosi seemed to think during the health care debate and rise of the Tea Party?

Because we only had a few sources of information back then, that's why.

For a long time, it seemed as though what is now known to be the minority view was in fact the majority. Much like Lenin and his Bolsheviks when they "seized the telegraph office" in what would become Soviet Russia, an ideological coup had taken place in our newsrooms and, more slowly, our schools and universities.

Even Hollywood, as witnessed by the great Ronaldus Maximus, had become a bastion for a particular ideology over the years, with movies bashing America becoming so common place that even those who paid attention, such as my mother, barely noticing anything wrong after a few years of the same tired old claptrap. In fact, up until recently, I wasn't even aware there were actors in Hollywood who DID support America in anything. I'm glad it turns out I was wrong.

Even as early as ten years ago, I never would have thought that a movie making fun of those on the left could ever make it past the planning stages in Hollywood, or that the works of an uberindividualist like Ayn Rand would see her greatest work, Atlas Shrugged, become a feature film.

What's different? Why the change in attitude, however small it might be? I'm not sure, but I hope to see more of it int he future.

Conservative Porn at it's Finest: Wisconson Edition

Glenn Beck coined the phrase "conservative porn." He did so on his hour long Fox News opinion show before showing us the epic dressing down of Senator Barbara "Ma'am" Boxer by one Harry Alford of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. That episode of Beck set the tone for my entire day, which was, I'm glad to say, epic in it's awesomeness.

Well, boys and girls, get out the cigarettes, because I have not one, but two items that fall into that category tonight, in the form of one hat tip from The Other McCain, and another HT from the Left Coast Rebel. Be warned about the epic rant, however, as it is somewhat NSFW due to its peppering of F-bombs throughout. Still worth the read.

As to the other, here is Rand Paul, newly elected Senator of Kentucky, dressing down some moonbat bureaucrat that actually tries to tell him that restricting choices leads to us having more of them. Don't wrap your head around that. It'll explode and you'll have a huge mess to clean up.

A Turning Point?

I've seen more than a few motivational videos in my time, but nothing quite puts a spring in my step like an unapologetic acknowledgment of the greatness of one Jesus Christ, and a defense of his day of birth as a part of our heritage both as a country and as a human being. Here's the video that has put me on Cloud 9 for the time being:

A Reason to Vote for Herman Caine

As you all who read this know, I'm a Palinista. I've backed Palin for president ever since I heard the first glimmer of rumors that she might run for the office in 2012. That being said, a case is continually being made for Tea Party motivator and favorite Herman Caine. I liked the guy from the get go, but not until I heard this did I really consider changing my vote from Palin to someone else. Honestly, if Caine can do to Congress and our enemies what he just did to this nitwit high school/college kid, he could end up serving twelve years!

Here's the video of the incident that shall hence forth be known as...The Ownage:

If you can't Protect the Speech you Don't Like, you don't Have Free Speech

The title of this post is a comment my political sciences teacher at MTI technical college told my classmates and me during a lesson on the Constitution one day. No more apparent is that example than in the Supreme Court's decision to protect Fred Phelps and his group of inbred cultists who have the audacity to call themselves a church.

I have nothing but dislike and loathing for the practices of the Westboro group, as I've stated in previous posts about them, such as when they protested the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards, or when they lauded the actions of psychopath Jarod Lee Loughner when he ended the lives of several, and injured several more, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

The act of horrific hate I'm referring to comes in the form of yet another funeral protest, this one (of course) a soldier who died bravely in Afghanistan (or was it Iraq?) Either way, this young man who gave his life for his country was at the time the latest target of the Westboro crazies. It had gotten so out of hand, in fact, that Bill O'Reilly of the O'Reilly factor had gotten involved and actually picked up the tab for the plaintiff's legal fees, said plaintiff being the young soldier's own father.

But now the supreme court has ruled that Fred and the gang can protest all they want at soldier's funerals under the First Amendment. This is wildly inconsistent of them given previous rulings on speech, particularly in cases involving the Catholic church or other branches of Christianity. How can it be that these people can spew nothing but hate at a solemn time of grief for a family who now has to bury their son, yet a single nativity scene on a front lawn is a violation of that same right?

Before I go on a free speech rant, though, I should make my point clear. The Supreme Court was right to rule as they did. In THIS case, at least. I've got plenty of opinions on bogus free speech rulings by the Supreme Court in the past, but in this case they did the right thing. No matter which side of the aisle you're on, once we start banning certain types of speech, it's basically all over. Despicable as it may have been for these people to do what they do, the only way we can stop them is by not giving them a forum from which to spew their hate. If private broadcasters would disallow more than barely minimal coverage of these wackos, their message would just be ineffective whistling past the graveyard.

Take two Asprin...

Ugh...Sick as a dog right now. Also, due to a death in the family, I will be busy helping with funeral arrangements for a while and will not be able to post. Keep up the fight, true believers. I'll be back as soon as I'm able.

Ask Not for Whom the Bell Tolls...

The title of this post is inspired by a tragic event. An even that, as of this writing, happened a mere five hours ago at Sutter Roseville in the emergency room. Two years ago, a similar tragedy occurred in the form of the death of my would be Father in Law, Billy Eckhardt, who died of heart failure in his home the very day after two friends of mine were married.


A similar tragedy struck today, as you might have guessed from the timing of this post. Apparently God wasn't happy with just one Eckhardt parent keeping him company upstairs. Just three years after taking her dad, he decided that it was time for her mother to come home as well. This couldn't have come at a worse time. With no employment, my fiance can no longer afford to live in the house they moved into after the one they used to own was repossessed by the bank. Fortunately we have a pair of great friends who are willing to help her out by allowing her to stay with them.

I'm more worried about her mental state, really. So close to the death of her last parent, she's been going on and on about how she could have done something better or different, or how she should have listened a little more so that God wouldn't have punished her by taking her mother away.

I know that's ludicrous, and so does she. The thing that makes this so hard for me to bear is that she's like a lost little girl now that she doesn't have the rock of stability that her parents were. I'm doing my best, but I feel so incredibly inadequate in regards to this, even though I know I'm doing everything expected of me and more besides. I wish to high heaven that comic book physics worked so I could get bitten by a genetically altered insect or bombarded with gamma rays to gain superpowers. Maybe then I'd be able to do enough good to satisfy my conscience.

I don't know...

I Couldn't Have Said it Better Myself...

This video is via Hack Wilson.

I Have not Forgotten, and I Will Never Forgive

It's not even September, but for some reason I just spent the last half hour or so perusing YouTube for various videos, and found myself gravitating towards several different 9/11 tributes that were made on various anniversaries paying tribute to the brave men and women who died trying to save the thousands that were victimized by fanatics from the Middle East. I've heard all the cliches regarding that day. It was my generation's Pearl Harbor Attack, etc. I tend to liken it more to the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, however. Why? Simply because more than be reminded of who attacked us and why we were retaliating against them, I tend to remember where I was and what I was doing on that fateful morning.

I was just turning 20 that year, and so I was still pretty stupid. Clueless, you might even say, though I thought I had a good handle on how things worked, like most people do at that or any age. And then, at six o'clock in the morning, Pacific Standard Time, I was informed by a customer using the drive through at what was then my place of work that two planes had crashed into the World Trade Center, and that the attacks had been perpetrated by terrorists. I wasn't really listening at the time, so at best it struck me as odd. Planes crashing into the two tallest buildings in the world? On purpose? Such a thing had never happened before in my lifetime. Was it a misreporting of the situation? Was it pilot error? I didn't know at the time, and I came later to regret finding out. It's true what they say, you know? Ignorance really IS bliss.

That day, I think, was the day that my descent into the depths of all things political truly began. For the first time, I watched the president's State of the Union address. Never had I done such a thing, before, believing (rightly, it turns out) that those speeches were boring and pointless. I mean, we were still here, right? America still existed. That was about all I understood the state of our Union to be. Not this time. This time I knew instinctively that something was wrong, though the full extent of what that was still eluded me. Also for the first time, I thought about what the people in our military had gone through throughout the years, from the Revolution all the way up to the current quagmire that Afghanistan has turned into. These heroes, for they are nothing less, literally give their lives, whether they are in combat or not, to protect and defend the people of this country. One could not ask for a more noble sacrifice. Even the Bible states "greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for another." That defines what our military does daily the best, in my own humble opinion.

My own cousins, in fact, serve now in the United States Marine Corps. One an officer, the other two NCOs. I admire these three men more than I ever did when I was younger, and wish I could do what they do. Alas, that's not my lot in life, apparently. Nevertheless, I still find ways such as this to express my support for all things America, and it seems to satisfy that desire enough to allow me to get on with other things in life.

To this day, however, I cannot understand those who blame the military for our (indeed the world's) problems. Clearly they simply do not understand what it is to be in said military, or to be in combat overseas, away from family and loved ones, sometimes for years at a time, with only the occasional letter or care package from home to link that brave soul with his civilian life back home. I don't claim to understand what it's like to be a soldier, but I do know what it is to lose those you love, having suffered, as everyone does, the death of a close relative or two. Do they not understand that they owe these soldiers their very lives? It's thanks to people like those belonging to the Greatest Generation that we are able to go to work in peace and safety, and spend that off time with our family and friends without fear of a mortar attack or ambush from the side of the road.

And so I ask this simple yet poignant question: Have you forgotten? Do you not remember that horrific scene of Towers One and Two crumpling to the ground like two houses of cards? Do you not remember the anguish that those families went through, and are still going through? If not, I seriously recommend a trip down Memory Lane. I just took one, and though not a pleasant trip, it did remind me of why I started this blog in the first place.

Thought Police. Coming to a State Near You

The Other McCain has a truly disturbing story on his site that I only just got wind of. Apparently a judge Kessler has decided that "it is a matter of pure semantics to say that someone who chooses not to purchase health insurance is not acting." As McCain says in the post, paging George Orwell.

This is truly frightening to me, and even though I know the law will have to reach the supreme court before the final decision is made, what really scares me is that there are people working in our federal courtrooms who can actually twist the meaning of our most important founding document so horrifically that someone can actually be lead to believe that making a decision through thought is the same as acting on that decision. If this ruling is not overturned eventually, the floodgates will have opened. What then stops the federal government from regulating absolutely everything we do at any given time for any given reason? Nothing, that's what. One of the comments on McCain's site does lend a bit of humor to the situation which helps keep things in perspective for me:

"As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power."

Oh this could be SO much fun. Let's try it with other Constitutional provisions:

"As previous Eighth Amendment cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. thoughts, there is little judicial guidance on whether a punishment that makes someone feel bad can constitute cruelty."

"As previous Freedom of the Press cases have all involved physical publication, as opposed to mental publication, i.e. ideas, there is little judicial guidance on the scope of First Amendment exceptions such as libel apply to the general police power against Badthought."

"As previous War Powers cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power."

"As previous Electoral College rules have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether deem-and-pass can apply in this context." 

Legal Insurrection as well has something to say about this. Via the Other McCain:


Our thoughts are now actions. There literally is nothing the federal government cannot regulate provided there is even a hypothetical connection to the economy, even if the connection at most is in the future.

A new Twist for Motivation Monday

Usually this is the day that I post a little cheesecake in a shameless attempt to garner more traffic to the blog. However, today I think I'll try something a little different, and post a few things in the coming weeks that personally motivate me or that I find particularly inspiring. Also, in honor of the recently-celebrated hundredth birthday of Ronaldus Maximus, known to everyone else as President Ronald Reagan, I'm posting this:



May he Rest in Peace

End the Fed Becoming a Rallying Cry?

This is a decent article. Definitely worth the read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/12/AR2011021202409.html

A Motivational Valentine

In recognition of the holiday, here's an old school pinup my better half found for me to post for all you loyal readers to enjoy.

Now not Smoking is Illegal? EPIC FAIL!

I really can't add anything to this analysis. Just that this is exactly why I don't trust politicians of any stripe unless they've earned that trust.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/02/transportation-secretary-ray-lahood.html

Candidates in 2012: My thoughts.

Many are speculating about the political landscape of 2012. Here are my thoughts on our current crop of potential candidates:

Paul Ryan: Hack Wilson goes into great length to defend this choice, and I must say his record does look promising. He's been a staunch defender of the constitution all through the health care debacle, for one, and his limited government philosophy is definitely appealing to me. I'll keep an eye on this one.

Mike Huckabee: I read his book on the 2008 presidential campaign and his run for the White House and while a lot of his policy ideas rung true with me, I have to say that his record as governor of Arkansas won't appeal to the lower taxes crowd, since he balanced his cuts in spending with a tax increase or two here and there. His stance on religious views is appealing as well, but honestly we don't even know if he'll run yet, so while I'll keep an ear open, I'm not too sure he'll be a factor in this year's run.

Mitt Romney: One word spells doom for this man and any potential bid for the White House in 2012: ROMNEYCARE!

Michelle Bachmann: If she does decide to run, this woman has an incredible chance to become Commander in Chief. Bachmann is a Tea Party favorite, hated by the far left for believing in things like the Constitution and limited government, has a sterling record of conservative policies, and is nice to look at to boot. I'll probably be labeled sexist for that last, but I don't care. Names don't hurt me anymore.

Sarah Palin: Potential abound for the girl from Alaska, but the far left will do everything in their power to make sure she loses the nomination, much less the general election. I'm hopeful that she runs, and if she does run I WILL vote for her should she receive said nomination.That said, I'll probably vote for whoever gets the GOP nomination, since I refuse to vote for Obama even on pain of death.

Hook, Line, and Sinker

This is how easily the world seems to be buying the situation in Egypt as a real chance at democratic reform. I've already posted previously about how I believe, as well as many of my fellow bloggers, that this is a replay of Jimmy Carter's disastrous handling of the '79 Islamic Revolution, wherein the Shah of Iran, a tyrant and despot supported by the U.S., was overthrown and replaced by the Ayatollah and his mouthpiece, Ahmidenijad. Add to this our support of the corrupt Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai and, coupled with our support of Mubarak, a man who has tortured family members and willingly tortured innocent people for the crime of running against him for president, or has ordered the internet shut down throughout the region to prevent the spread of information. To be fair, that first was in part due to U.S. urgings. Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse our part in propping this guy up for thirty years. I've always seen the American flag as a symbol of freedom. I still do. I always will, because I know that at its heart, it always will be. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case with most Middle Eastern countries (in fact I think Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has a favorable opinion of us, or had one, anyway.)


The Middle East has been a powder keg for decades. Centuries, even, if you go back far enough and connect the dots. the pro-Western Shah was deposed by radical Islam, Iraq was under the control of radical Islam until George W. Bush sent in the big guns, and still could potentially crumble if things go bad. This, though, these riots breaking out first in Tunisia, then in Egypt, as well as in Jordan, Yemen, and who knows where else? This has the potential to change the balance of power not just in Europe or the Middle East, but in Russia and China as well. Already, the Russian Federation and the People's Republic are the two most powerful players in that area of the world. Now we have the Muslim Brotherhood fomenting rebellion and unrest in Egypt. Whether they're behind the other rebellions or not remains to be seen in my eyes, but if they are, they could very well be well on their way to accomplishing their goal of restoring a unified Muslim Caliphate, which would leave the Middle East under a form of government not seen since the Middle Ages.

Let's be realistic here. The people of Egypt do in fact have a chance at real democracy being implemented, but not as easily as the pundits in America seem to believe it is. We in this country seem to take freedom for granted. Like John Adams before us, we seem to believe that democracy is the rule because to us, it's the obvious thing to do. This is not the case in the Middle East. Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there was only one democracy that even came close to being a government of, by and for the people: Israel. Now Iraq is taking its first fledgling steps into that area of the political spectrum and it's proving to be a bumpy ride. Until that began, however, the idea of democratic government was, and still is, seen as downright blasphemous. Government by the people? It's laughable to them in large part because they still hold to the theory of the Divine Right of Kings. To them, the people don't choose the leaders, Allah does. And the leaders do not serve the people, the people serve the leaders. This is, obviously, a completely backwards idea in the eyes of many in the West.

If the situation in Egypt is to have any chance at improving in a way that serves the best interest of the United States and her allies, most notably Israel, then we have no choice in the matter. We must support the people of Egypt and let them know that we will stand with them against any tyrant, Muslim Brotherhood, Mubarak, or otherwise, We must, as John F. Kennedy declared in his inaugural address to the nation in 1961, "support any friend" and "oppose any foe to ensure the survival and the success of liberty." This seems to be somewhat lost on our president, however, who it has been pointed out, cannot even seem to utter the word "democracy" even as he throws out such buzzwords as "reform" and "freedom". Don't get me wrong, he should be mentioning those things as well, but it will all be for nothing if he doesn't use that all important D word while he still has a chance to do so.

Still, as I realized after watching a video at The Other McCain, I came to realize that this is just another attempt by the Obama administration to vote "present" and play both sides in the hopes of coming out somewhere in the middle. This will not bode well for our Dear Leader, as that is exactly the kind of stance that Jimmy Carter took when dealing with the Shah! History repeats itself boys and girls, and never exactly the same way. These events playing out now could have a significantly WORSE outcome than the Islamic Revolution did if my above analysis is correct.

Let's hope it's not, however. The last thing we need is a unified radical Islamic Caliphate consolidating power in the Middle East. If and when that does occur, it'll bring us one step closer to World War III.

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.

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.

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:

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 -- http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx 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 www.LawlessAmerica.com for lots of facts. If you have any questions, just email or call.

Thanks,
William M. Windsor
bill@LawlessAmerica.com

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.

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 er...lawyer. 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 CNBC.com. 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 amazon.com soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed." For more information, see www.LawlessAmerica.com.



Contact: William Windsor, +1-770-578-1094, bill@lawlessamerica.com SOURCE William M. Windsor www.prnewswire.com 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!

A Letter

AN OPEN LETTER TO STATISTS EVERYWHERE

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.

Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Reed
President, Foundation for Economic Education (www.fee.org)
(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:

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.

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.