Sinistra's Bane

The God of Change

2012-01-29T17:21:00.000-06:00

While listening to The Michael Medved Show the other day Medved played a soundbite from famous actor Robert Redford. Redford opined--and I'm paraphrasing--that change was good, accepting change was open-minded, and opposing change was narrow-minded. He was implying that liberals are enlightened for embracing change and conservatives are backwards for not.

Since I heard Redford's remark I've been pondering it, and I think he did hit on a key difference between liberals and conservatives.

Liberals are infatuated with change. You could even say they worship it. This can be seen in Obama's campaign slogan of "Hope and Change". Liberals adore Obama in large part because he promised to "fundamentally transform", i.e. change, America. Liberals accept, as a matter of faith, that change is always good and progressive, therefore they look at conservatives as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals for so often opposing change. But that is where conservatives differ from liberals.

Conservative, in fact, do NOT oppose change, certainly not change in and of itself. But unlike liberals, we don't worship change and don't adhere to the dogma that change is always good. A faithful and loving husband who starts cheating on and abusing his wife has certainly changed, but not for the better. Conservative keep that example, or a variation of it, in mind when people began talking about changing things, especially changing what Ann Coulter called the "load bearing walls" of moral values.

When change is proposed conservatives usually respond skeptically. We ask probing questions about the motives of the proponents of change. We ask probing questions about the possible unintended consequences of the proposed change and, if seeing no benefit from the change that justifies risking the unintended consequences, we will usually oppose the change. That doesn't mean, however, that we oppose solving the problem(s) the change was meant to address. On the contrary, after rejecting the originally proposed change, we'll often offer our own version, one that is usually less sweeping in scope than the original.

Conservatives aren't bigoted or narrow-minded. Our skepticism about change is rooted in the healthy and venerable desire to preserve what's best in our civilization, for the good of all. So, conservatives accept change, but only after thoroughly vetting it, or at least trying very hard to. We don't mindlessly embrace change out of the false belief that all change is good. Unlike as with liberals, change is not our god. Maybe one day Robert Redford will understand that.

Shocker

2012-01-24T23:26:00.000-06:00

Shocked.

That's how I felt Saturday night when I heard that Newt Gingrich had won the GOP South Carolina primary. Like most people I'd assumed that a Romney victory in South Carolina was a foregone conclusion. Gingrich, whose campaign rebounded from a near collapse early last year, was starting to slip again in the polls. The momentum was clearly with Romney, with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul nipping at his heels. Or so went the narrative.

Then came Newt.

Not only did the former House Speaker win, he won by a landslide. Like I said, I was shocked, but in hindsight I probably shouldn't have been. Even though Gingrich lost badly in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, he performed very well in the two debates leading up to the South Carolina vote. In particular, Newt's fearless challenge of CNN's John King in the second debate wowed conservatives and was almost certainly THE thing that pushed Newt over the top.

Whether by accident or design, Gingrich touched a huge nerve with his face off against King. Conservatives have endured media bias for decades and were just waiting for someone to tell the media elites where to go. Newt did that, and conservatives repaid him with victory. Of course, his win in South Carolina doesn't mean that Gingrich is a shoo in for the GOP presidential nomination. Politics is a very unpredictable game, and voters can be fickle. Still, Newt's victory in South Carolina has given everyone something to think about and, if you're a conservative, something to cheer about.

It's All About Power

2012-01-21T13:55:00.000-06:00

A few days ago Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney gave a struggling Black woman, Ruth Williams, some money to help her out. Romney's kind gesture was immediately denounced by some on the Left as racist. Huh? How is giving a woman of color some help, one human being to another, racist? It isn't, but one particular criticism of Romney revealed the real problem his critics have with his act.

When appearing on MSNBC's show Now with Alex Wagner African-American columnist Joy-Ann Reid blasted Romney's charitable act as playing "into that conservative meme that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we'll just give them charity." (Emphasis added)

Did you get that? The real problem with Romney's gesture is that it epitomizes charity and contradicts the liberal idea of dependence on government as the only solution to poverty. Often, liberals will defend social progras as being charity, yet Ms. Reid clearly drew a distinction between the two. I believe her view is the true liberal one and explains why liberals give less to charity than conservatives do.

Liberals don't want any competition with government programs because dependence on government is the basis for their political power. Liberals create dependency on social programs, then promote themselves as the "caring" people who will protect said programs, then get votes from those whom they've made dependent. See the circle? The more people that can be made dependent on government handouts, the more power liberals attain. It's all about power, not compassion for the needy.

It's all about power. Remember that the next time a liberal scolds you for "hating the poor".

Rick Santorum, The Greatest Threat To Black People!

2012-01-07T21:25:00.002-06:00

A few nights ago I heard on The O'Reilly Factor about presidential candidate Rick Santorum's remark about not wanting to give Black people more welfare money. My sister also e-mailed a video of Santorum saying his very unpc statement. She titled the e-mail "What a bigot!" Rick Santorum a bigot? Not!

Santorum didn't say he wanted to withold welfare money from Blacks because he hated them so much he wanted them to starve en masse, although you'd think that's what he said judging by the nervous breakdown some people are having over his statement. Rather, Santorum said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, that, instead of government handouts he wanted Blacks to have the opportunity to earn money and that could happen only when manufacturing jobs returned to America. In other words, Santorum's statement was about jobs not race. But even if Santorum's remark had been about race, so what?

The liberal outrage over Rick Santorum's opinion is completely misdirected and politically motivated. It's not, I submit, motivated by genuine concern about Blacks. You want to know what liberals should really be mad about? Burning an old woman to death. That's what Jerome Isaac, a Black man, did to 73-year-old Deloris Gillespie, also Black. This horrific murder took place in December of last year and shocked New Yorkers.

A day after the killing Isaac, reeking with gasoline, turned himself in to police and said he killed Gillespie because she owed him $2000 for work he'd done for her. He set a defenseless woman ablaze over money. No respect for the elderly. No respect for human life, period. And that's just one instance of the Black-on-Black savagery that rages in this country 24/7, 365 days a year. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the greatest threat to Blacks is a white, conservative, Republican politician saying the right thing in the wrong way. Go figure. And we can expect more of this politically motivated race baiting as the presidential campaign heats up. Fasten your seat belts, folks. It's gonna be a bumpy night.

Happy New Year!

2012-01-01T11:19:00.000-06:00

Happy New Year, friends! I pray 2012 will be a blessed and prosperous year for all of you and for our great nation. Let's make that happen. Amen!

Merry Christmas!

2011-12-24T20:40:00.000-06:00

To all my sweet blogging friends: Merry Christmas, a blessed New Year, and peace to all men of good will! God bless you all!

Southern Pride

2011-12-11T23:44:00.000-06:00

I saw this on Yahoo! News a few days ago.

Byron Thomas, a Black University of South Carolina Beaufort student who'd been forced to remove a Confederate battle flag (CBF) he'd hung on his dorm room window, was told Thursday (Dec. 2) by University officials that he could display the flag after all. Thomas had put up the banner as a show of Southern pride but was told by USCB's housing office to remove it after several students complained. The University reversed it's decision on advice from its legal counsel, which apparently suggested that the forced removal of the flag violated Thomas' free speech rights. Thomas has said that he might not put his Confederate flag back up due to his parents' disapproval. However, he says he stands firm on his belief that the Confederate battle flag represents pride and that his generation should help make that the primary meaning of the banner.

When I read this story I felt a feeling of validation. I wasn't the only Black person who liked the Confederate battle flag! Like Byron Thomas, I like the CBF. Initially, I fancied this symbol of the South for purely aesthetic reasons. I like the combination of colors, lines, and stars and I love the St. Andrew's cross--the so-called "X"--that crisscrosses the flag. Later, as my cultural consciousness evolved, I came to respect it as a symbol of Southern pride.

Yes, I'm well aware of the Confederate battle flag's association with racism and slavery. But racism and slavery thrived in America under many different flags, including our national banner, Old Glory. In their marches, white racist groups often prominently display Old Glory right along with the CBF. According to the logic of the Confederate battle flag's opponents, that makes Old Glory a hateful symbol of slavery and racism, too. However, most opponents of the Confederate battle flag don't condemn displays of Old Glory as racist. Like most other Americans, they understand that Old Glory symbolizes America in its entirety and don't define it by one or two particularly nasty negatives. I think the same courtesy can and should be extended to the Confederate battle flag. And I think that's what Byron Thomas was doing, in his own way.

I respect Byron Thomas for taking a very unpopular and misunderstood stand. He's right that his generation must redeem the Confederate battle flag from its dark associations and restore it to the symbol of pride it really is. The South, like America generally, is about much more than slavery and racism. And the symbols of the South are, too. So, I say to Byron Thomas, put your Confederate battle flag back in your dorm room window. Let your fellow students see your pride in your heritage. Blacks are Southerners, too, and we shouldn't be ashamed nor afraid to show it. You go, Byron!

Remember Pearl Harbor

2011-12-07T21:44:00.000-06:00

"December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy..."

And it has.

On this day 70 years ago, 2,403 American sailors and civilians were killed, and America was plunged into WWII, by the early morning Japanese sneak attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Japan's intent was to cripple America's naval power and ability to challenge Japanese expansion in the Pacific. Instead, Japan awakened a sleeping giant. The very next day, December 8, the US Congress declared war on Japan one hour after President Franklin Roosevelt gave his famous "Date of Infamy" speech to Congress and the nation. From that moment on, the American people mobilized their "righteous might" as never before and committed themselves to "absolute victory" over Japan. That victory was achieved on August 9, 1945, with the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan. Six days later, on August 15, Japan officially surrendered to the United States and the War in the Pacific was over.

Let us remember Pearl Harbor. Let us remember and mourn the American lives that were taken by Japanese treachery that Sunday morning seven decades ago, and let us honor the fighting spirit that propelled our great nation to total victory over a relentless and savage foe. Remember Pearl Harbor. REMEMBER.

A Belated Happy Thanksgiving

2011-11-27T19:51:00.000-06:00

I just wanted to wish everyone a belated happy Thanksgiving. I hope your holiday was blessed and bountiful. Mine very much was.

Duggar Number 20!

2011-11-27T19:40:00.002-06:00

The Duggar clan is expanding...again. Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar, the patriarch and matriarch of America's most famous extra large family, have announced they are expecting their 20th--yes, 20th!--child. The news was revealed in last week's People magazine.

For those who don't know--and who doesn't know?--the Duggars are, as stated above, America's most well known huge family. Michelle and Jim-Bob are the face of being "quiverful", the doctrine, believed in by some conservative Christians, that the faithful should reject birth control and let God decide the size of their families.

Jim-Bob, Michelle, and their children first came to prominence in 2004 when the documentary 14 Kids and Pregnant Again! first aired on the Discovery Channel. As the title says, the Duggars had "only" 14 children then, with an expecting Michelle giving birth to baby number 15 on the show. That first documentary propelled the humble Duggar clan to fame, inspired several sequels, and culminated in the Duggars having their own reality show, 19 Kids and Counting*, on TLC. All this media exposure has made the Duggars the recipients of mostly friendly attention and curiosity, but they have been the objects of criticism.

Jim-Bob and Michelle have been attacked as environmentally unfriendly for having so many children. They've been accused of depriving their brood of the individual attention children need. They've been called ignorant, sexist, a drain on society, and even homophobic. Jim-Bob and Michelle were particulary scrutinized in 2009 when their 19th child, Josie, was born several weeks premature and suffered health problems. Critics opined that Josie's problematic birth should be a sign to the Duggars that it was time to curb their fertility. Of course, that didn't happen. Duggar number 20 is on the way.

I question the "quiverful" doctrine but I don't condemn the Duggars for believing it. I don't think I could have 20 children, but I don't condemn the Duggars for doing so. I do, however, question the motives of their critics. Frankly, I believe most of them are secular progressives (SPs) who just don't like white, conservative Christians. Their complaints about the Duggars supposedly depriving their children of attention or endangering the environment are just covers for their bigotry. The Duggars and others like them are an existential threat to secular progressives' efforts to establish an irreligious, libertine, multicultural, nanny state; that's why they hate them. And that's why I thank God for the Duggars. Through their family they are increasing and strengthening the cultural traditionalists who can reverse the moral decline of American society and save the nation. Duggar number 20 is another arrow for the war, and I say, yes!

*The title of the show changes as each new child arrives. It will be 20 Kids and Counting soon.

Happy Veterans' Day

2011-11-11T19:57:00.001-06:00

I'm keeping it short and sweet for Veteran's Day. I wish a heartfelt thank you to all our servicemen and women who fought to keep me and America free. The US Armed Forces is the greatest force for good the world has ever known. Thank you, thank you for your service! And God bless you all!

Clarence Thomas Redux

2011-11-03T21:44:00.000-05:00

It seems that liberals just can't handle the existence of a Black Republican. Tearing down such a creature, especially if he is a popular presidential hopeful, is job 1 for them and that's what they're doing now to Herman Cain with this sexual harassment story. It's Clarence Thomas all over again.

Let me be clear. I oppose sexual harassment. If Cain is really guilty of this he should, at the very least, resign immediately from the presidential campaign. At the most he should receive whatever legal penalties, including jail time, that the law demands. That being said, I don't believe for a second that liberals manufactured this controversy to highlight the problem of sexual harassment. This is about destroying a Black man who doesn't think or vote the way liberals believe Blacks should. And Herman Cain isn't the first one. Remember Clarence Thomas? For those who don't, let me remind you.

Clarence Thomas, a Black conservative, was nominated for the Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and liberals were not happy about it. They immediately committed to derailing Thomas' confirmation. Republicans, however, had the votes to confirm Thomas and were on the verge of doing so when explosive allegations of sexual harassment were made against him by Anita Hill, an attorney who'd worked with Thomas.

The timing of Hill's accusations was totally political and was meant to do one thing: stop Clarence Thomas from being put on the Supreme Court. A media circus followed as Hill gave lurid testimony of Thomas' alleged harassment at his confirmation hearings. Liberal groups, politicians, and Hollywood actors all rallied behind Anita Hill, but to no avail. With firm support from Republicans Clarence Thomas' nomination was successfully confirmed and he became the second African-American to sit on the nation's highest court.

At the time of Clarence Thomas' ordeal, my political views weren't as firmly set as they are now--I was still voting for Democrats, yikes!--but I knew that the attacks on him were punishment for his conservative beliefs. And I hated that. I was still a Democrat then but I never thought that I or any other Black person had to be a Democrat simply because of our race. In my own mind I took it for granted that Blacks could and should choose their political affiliation based on their values and conscience, not on their skin color. I mean, Whites were accorded that freedom, didn't equality mean that Blacks should have that freedom, too? Liberals didn't think so then and they don't think so now.

No one has all the information regarding these allegations against Herman Cain. As I said above, if he turns out to be guilty he should suffer the full consequences. But even if Cain is guilty he isn't being exposed to ensure justice for his victims. Liberals want to destroy Herman Cain personally and professionally for the same reason they wanted to destroy Clarence Thomas, i.e., as punishment for thinking independently, leaving the Democrat plantation and thereby threatening liberals' power. It won't work, though, just like it didn't work on Thomas. Even if Cain ends up not being the Republican nominee for president it won't be because of these left-wing attacks. Liberals won't stop Blacks from thinking for themselves and leaving the liberal plantation as a result. Freedom is empowering and no amount of intimidation can suppress it for good. Just ask Clarence Thomas. Just ask Herman Cain.

With A Friend Like This

2011-10-29T11:43:00.000-05:00

While watching The O'Reilly Factor last I learned an interesting fact. David Duke is supporting the Occupy Wall Street protests. That's right. The far right-wing, white nationalist, and erstwhile KKK member, likes the left-wing, anti-capitalist movement.

Duke's support for the OWS protests isn't surprising when you consider his anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitic sentiment has been part of this leftist protest movement almost from the beginning. In fact, when the protest first started and the protesters were shouting against bankers I immediately became suspicious of the movement. Why? Because "bankers" is and long has been a code word for Jews. My suspicions were confirmed when Fox News featured "Occupiers" denouncing "Zionist Jewish bankers" and accusing Jews of being behind most white collar crimes. But the anti-Semitic strain within the Occupy Wall Street crowd probably isn't the only reason David Duke supports it. Anti-capitalism is probably also playing a part.

Not fully known to most people is the fact that Naziism was a form of socialism and that today's neo-Nazis, including white nationalists like Duke, continue Naziism's anti-capitalist tilt. Neo-Nazis/white nationalists often criticize captitalism in terms very similar to those employed by the Left. Also, anti-Semitism is an added motivation for their anti-capitalist feelings since they tend to believe that the "international bankers" supposedly trying to dominate the world are all Jews. As a white nationalist David Duke almost certainly shares that belief. So, anti-Semiticism and anti-capitalism are most likely driving Duke's sympathy for the OWS protests. And maybe that's why the mainstream media has been pretty quiet about OWS's new friend.

The MSM is dominated by liberals who want big government to fix the "economic inequality" they believe is rampant in America. Since the Occupy Wall Street movement claims that as its aim the mainstream media has been reporting on it very sympathetically. If David Duke had endorsed the Tea Party protests in any way the liberal media would've jumped on that as irrefutable proof that the Tea Party was racist and extremist. But since the mainstream media supports the OWS's anti-capitalist cause, it sees little problem with the movement getting support from the likes of Mr. Duke. So long as you hate capitalism and want a socialistic redistribution of wealth, you're ok with liberals. That's why the Occupy Wall Street protesters can have a friend like David Duke without liberals batting a proverbial eye.

Anti-capitalist, anti-Semitic, anti-police, and now befriended by a right-wing extremist with no outrage from the mainstream media. That tells you all you need to know about Occupy Wall Street and the MSM. Thank God we have the Tea Party to really stand up for the 99%.

Beat Obama With A Cain

2011-10-25T19:47:00.000-05:00

A friend sent me this video by e-mail. This is great! The music is a little slow and a little more bluesy than I usually like, but the message in this song is spot on. And it's funny, too. So give a look and a listen to this little political ditty. Our side definitely needs more protest art like this. Enjoy!

"We, the People"

2011-10-17T00:30:00.000-05:00

Here's something all patriotic Americans should see. It's a video by a 12-year-old singer named Emily Keener. Emily appeared on Mike Huckabee's show on Saturday, Oct. 15 to sing this song, "We the People", which she wrote herself. Emily wrote the song for Constituting America's "We the People" contest and won Best Song in the middle school division. This song is quite beautiful and mature for such a young songwriter*. It gives hope to patriots like myself that not all young artists want to ape the libertine, socialist tripe that makes up so much of popular "entertainment". Emily Keener shows that there are talented kids out there who want use their artistic gifts for good. We patriots need to make sure we support such patriotic young artists like Emily. So give a listen to this song and buy her cd. You won't be sorry.

*The only "negative" about this version of the song is that the tempo is a bit too slow for my taste. The live version Emily performed on Huckabee's show was a bit faster. Also, her singing could be a bit louder. But she is only 12. I'm sure Emily will only improve with age.

Cheering A Black Man...Raaaaaaacist!

2011-10-15T20:50:00.094-05:00

I'm watching Mike Huckabee's show on Fox News and he's talking to Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain about his 9-9-9 tax plan, among other things. When Huckabee announced that Cain was coming up on the show his mostly white studio audience broke out in cheers. You would've thought that Herman Cain was a rock star. And you'd think that a white, conservative crowd bursting into spontaneous enthusiasm for a black candidate would show that (white) conservatives are NOT racist, and you'd be wrong.

Liberals have concocted a narrative that conservatives are racist. Period. Liberals believe this narrative so devoutly that they can't comprehend the world without it. Hence, they are now claiming that support for Herman Cain by white conservatives proves that conservatives are racist. That's right. If you're white, conservative, and you support a black candidate for president, that proves you're racist. This is what hardcore liberals like Janeane Garofalo, Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, and others are saying or implying.

If you can't believe this, you're not alone.

Anti-communist novelist George Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe adhering to two contradictory ideas simultaneously. That is what's on display here. What can be more contradictory than the idea that white people supporting a black man is proof that they're racist? Yet liberals make this claim with the proverbial straight face, totally uncomprehending that it utterly discredits them in the eyes of thinking, intellectually honest people.

Liberals are the losers here, though they don't know it. Herman Cain will continue to be a rising star in the conservative sky so long as his ideas resonate with conservatives. For that's what Herman Cain is being judged on, his ideas, not his race, and America is better for it. Cheering for a black man is proof of putting content of character above skin color, the very thing Martin Luther King wanted. Well, it's here. Conservatives are doing it. Get used to it.

No Palin Candidacy

2011-10-10T20:30:00.000-05:00

Sarah Palin announced a few days ago that she's not running for president this time around. Some of her fans were, I heard, a bit disappointed but I think Ms. Palin called this one right.

I like Sarah Palin a lot. I admire her unapologetic Christian faith. I admire her intrepidity in the face of withering leftist criticism. I agree with her positions on most of the major issues (pro-life, pro-gun rights, anti-amnesty, commitment to fiscal responsibility, etc.). I believe she's much, much smarter than her detractors give her credit for. Still, Sarah Palin isn't ready to be president of the United States. Having strong faith, intelligence, courage, and principled, conservative stands on the issues doesn't necessarily add up to the experience necessary to govern the world's only superpower.

Sarah Palin can be of great help to the Republican party and the conservative movement, but not as a candidate. She can, I feel, better serve the cause behind the scenes acting as a "king maker", if you will; rallying the base, and lending a folksy, down-to-earth dimension to critiquing the Obama administration. Apparently, Ms. Palin sees things the same way and made the right decision for the Republican party, conservatism, her family, and herself.

Good on you, Sarah.

What Do You Mean, Banned?

2011-09-24T23:59:00.001-05:00

I guess this must be Banned Books Week. When I went to Half Price Bookstore yesterday the Banned Books display was up. The usual books were there, like Huckleberry Finn and Brave New World, plus a several books that were unfamiliar to me. And there was Harry Potter, among the latest and most popular "banned" books. The one book I didn't see on the display was the Bible, the most banned book in history. Interesting omission, which got me to thinking. Do we use the term "banned" too loosely and too selectively? I think we do.

Off and on over the years I've heard about pitch battles between concerned parents and school officials over what kind of books should be available to public school children. Such battles usually involved shrill accusations of book banning and censorship, especially if the parents were conservative. But the charge of censorship never rang true to me.

If a book is removed from, say, an elementary school library but is still available in junior and senior high school libraries, public libraries, and bookstores, then that book really isn't banned. Removing a book from a certain audience but not from society as a whole isn't censorship, and if it is then we must ask why all the efforts to remove the Bible and other religious expression from the entire public square are rarely condemned as acts of censorship. It seems to me that the cry of "Book banning!" or "Censorship!" often doesn't reflect a principled commitment to free expression but is, rather, a weapon in the Left's war to discredit and extinguish conservative ideas and values. If the public can be convinced that conservatives are intolerant censors the easier it will be to, irony of ironies, censor them!

I don't think that everyone on the Left plays the censorship card as a means to suppress conservatives. I believe there are good people on both sides of the political aisle who sincerely oppose censorship and support freedom of expression as matters of principle. Such people need to lead the way in the fight to preserve our speech and press liberties. Then, freedom of expression will be defended for all and we won't waste time and effort fighting for "banned" books you can get at any library or bookstore.

If you can check it out or buy it without fear of the law, then it's not banned. Let's save Banned Books week for material that can get you jailed, or worse, if you have it. You know, like the Bible.

If A Republican Said This...

2011-09-17T16:37:00.000-05:00

...he'd be pilloried, condemned, denounced, and maybe even burned in effigy. But if a liberal says it, he gets a pass. What is "it"? Take a look.

While trying to explain the Democrats' loss of Anthony Weiner's 9th Congressional District seat in this week's special election, NY Representative Henry Waxman opined that Jews vote Republican "to protect their wealth." What?! Can you say, "anti-Semitic stereotype"? I knew you could. If a Republican said such a thing he'd be roundly and shrilly condemned as a rabid anti-Semite, particularly if he were in any way affiliated with the Tea Party. But a liberal Democrat can play on foul, age-old prejudices and the bigotry hunters just shrug.

Some might argue that Waxman's statement isn't anti-Semitic because Waxman himself is Jewish, but that just makes what he said all the more offensive. As a Jew Waxman had to have known the negative concepts of Jews he'd be conjuring up with his remark. Jews vote Republican to protect their wealth? Waxman might as well have shouted, "Those damn greedy Jews!". I mean, that is pretty much what he did say.

Now, to be fair to Waxman, the Congressman also claimed that "misunderstanding of Obama's [Middle East policies]" helped the heavily Jewish 9th District go Republican. No duh. I'd say Obama virtually selling out Israel was the reason 9th District Jews elected Republican Bob Turner. Trying to protect their wealth? How about trying to protect their lives by voting for the party that staunchly supports the survival of Israel and, hence, of Jews generally? Congressman Waxman, and all Democrats, need to wise up. The policies of their messiah lost the 9th District and will lose the nation in 2012. The Democrats need to face that hard truth and stop dredging up racist stereotypes to explain their defeat. Jews support those who support their survival. It's that simple. Congressman Waxman, of all people, should know that. Now, I think, he does.

Remember What Happened

2011-09-11T00:03:00.001-05:00

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the horrific terrorist attacks which struck America on September 11, 2001. Those attacks--two on the World Trade Center, one on the Pentagon, and one aimed for the White House that crashed in Pennsylvania--were the worst attacks on Americans ever. More of our national brethren were killed on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor. It was a monumental tragedy.

Look at the picture above. It's the tragically iconic "Falling Man" photo. This is what 9/11 is all about. This is what happened that day. Human beings, whose only crime was to go to work, forced to make a tortuous choice: burn to death, or jump from windows more than 1000 feet above ground. Two hundred chose to jump. Over 2000 others at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon burned to death, suffocated, or were pulverized by falling debris. And in Pennsylvania, 40 American souls perished when their plane, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed after the passengers heroically tried to take it back from the terrorist filth who'd hijacked it. This is what happened on 9/11. This is what we must remember.

The attacks on the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and the hijacking of Flight 93 were NOT the work of the US government. They weren't a so-called Black Ops operation. They weren't engineered by Jews. The World Trade Center towers weren't blown up from the inside. The Pentagon wasn't hit by a missile. Islamic terrorists committed the atrocities of 9/11. Muslims, acting on their religion's command to wage jihad, or holy war, on "infidels", hijacked passenger planes and used them as bombs to kill thousands of innocent people. That is what happened on 9/11. That is what we must remember.

The attacks on 9/11 were, together, an act of war, not a crime. The proper response to them was--and remains--to wage war on the jihadis who perpetrated the atrocity and remain committed to our destruction to this day. That is what we must remember.

9/11 wasn't just about horror, tragedy, and death. It was a day of heroism, patriotism, and extraordinary courage. It was a day when Americans were united like we'd never been since World War II. On that day, people risked their lives to save strangers, and gave their lives to save their country from further assault. On that day, and in the days after, it didn't matter what race, religion, class, or gender you were. On that day, there were no Republicans or Democrats, no conservatives or liberals. On 9/11 we were all Americans. Period. That, too, is what we must remember.

Look at the picture above once again. Look at it and let it stir up in you all the emotions, in all their intensity, that you felt that awful day. Feel the rage, fear, horror, shock, and grief, but also feel the courage, the patriotism, the brotherhood, the can-do spirit, the determination to save and be saved. Feel the best of America that burst forth that day, and make a resolution to live that spirit in your every day life as much as you can. For it was that spirit, more than our buildings, that the terrorists really wanted to destroy.

So, on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, let us remember our lost loved ones and the brave first responders who sacrificed their lives so others could live. And let us resolve that while our buildings may have been broken, our hearts never will be. The terrorists will never win because the American spirit will never be quenched. That is what 9/11 is all about. That is what we must remember.

God bless America.

Waste Not, Want Not

2011-09-07T23:41:00.000-05:00

I did something at work a couple of days ago that got me to thinking. What did I do? I got some paper out of my supervisor's trash can, took it home and used it for printer paper. How did I come to do that, and why?

I was helping my supervisor on her side of the warehouse. On the way to put up some product, I walked past her trash can and noticed some paper in there. I knew that paper was clean because I'd just seen it on my super's desk a few minutes before, so I reached in and got it. The paper was printed on only one side so it immediately occurred to me that I could use it for my own printing needs. And that's what I did. When I got home that day I put the paper in my printer and used it to print out a few pictures from the net. Although the paper I "recycled" from my job seemed to be of a lesser weight than what I buy, it worked fine. And that got me to thinking, what about all the paper that I missed? What should be done about wasting all that perfectly usable "trash"?

Paper isn't the only thing that's wasted at my job. I work in a warehouse so we use lots of wooden pallets. Sometimes pieces of these pallets break off and, of course, we throw them away. What a waste. I'm not sure what those pieces of wood could be used for but I'm sure they're good for something. Maybe they could be used by people who do woodworking as a hobby. I bet those pallet slats could be turned into very useful and beautiful things by some talented hobbyists. Sadly, we'll never get to know because the broken pallet slats are thrown away.

When I saw that paper in my supervisor's trash can, I thought about ALL the unnecessary waste that's piling up all over the warehouse, our country, and even the world. I wondered what can be done about it, and I think the answer lies in changing our understanding of what "resources" are and rediscovering the Biblical concept of stewardship.

I suspect most Americans and other wealthy Westerners think of resources as only the raw materials taken from nature. We don't think of the things made from those raw materials as resources, but they are. A piece of paper printed on only one side is a resource; it can be used again. A wood slat broken off a pallet is a resource; it can be used again. The cardboard rolls that packing tape is wrapped around are resources; they can be used for other purposes once the tape is gone. We've got to change the way we think about resources. Using something for its stated purpose is not the same thing as using it up. It makes no sense to toss out things that are totally reusable.

We live in economically and environmentally challenging times. Everything that we can save and reuse means less money going out of our personal, business, and national pockets and less damaging mining of the earth for raw materials. That's what Biblical stewardship is, wisely using and REusing the resources God has given us. The sage old maxim, "Waste not, want not", is a succinct expression of Biblical stewardship. We are suffering economically because we abandoned that principle and instead tried to build lasting wealth and economic security on extravagant consumption. It didn't work. So why not give Scripture's advice another try? Our forefathers did, and they created the richest nation the world has ever seen. Let's be their true heirs and start once again to diligently apply the Godly principles that undergirded their success. After all, if we "waste not", what do we have to lose?

If She Were Muslim

2011-08-23T23:31:00.001-05:00

In recent weeks, Republican presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann has come under fire from the Left for her beliefs about homosexuality and the role of women in marriage. Liberals are very upset that Ms. Bachmann accepts the Bible's teaching that homosexuality is a sin and that wives should be submissive to their husbands. They are fearful that the Tea Party favorite might try to impose her beliefs on the whole country if she should become president. So liberals have been asking Michelle Bachmann to explain herself.

I think this is very unfair.

I understand that to liberals, and even some conservatives, Michelle Bachmann's beliefs are threatening. But why are they threatening? Is it the nature of the beliefs themselves that liberals are fearful of, or is it the fact that they are rooted in Christianity that has liberals so upset? I believe it's the latter. If Michelle Bachmann were a Muslim things would be very different.

Muslim societies have a history of treating gays and women in ways that liberals claim to find abhorrent. However, since leftists have made Muslims collectively a member of the "coalition of the oppressed", their criticism of Mohammed's followers is restrained. Liberals portray peaceful Christian opponents of gay marriage as rabid bigots yet turn a blind eye to the actual execution of gays by Muslim regimes. Liberals eagerly blame the Bible for sexism, yet are deafeningly silent when Muslims commit honor killings, imprison rape victims, or practice a casual misogyny. It is, liberals seem to believe, their multiculturalist duty to defend or rationalize ALL actions by Muslims.

If Michelle Bachmann were a Muslim leftists would never question her beliefs. They would never ask her to explain herself. They would never imply that President Bachmann would impose her beliefs on others, and they would never nervously speculate that her presidency could violate the separation of church and state. No, if Michelle Bachmann were a Muslim, liberals would be defending her moral disapproval of homosexuality and her pro-submission view of marriage as valid parts of her culture. Any criticism of her would be denounced as Islamophobic fearmongering.

But Michelle Bachmann is not a Muslim, she's a Christian, so it's open season on her. She can be questioned, and her beliefs probed, however extensively liberals choose, and not one will yell, "Christophobe!".

I don't know if I'll vote for Michelle Bachmann in the primary, but she's earned my respect for helping, albeit unwittingly, to expose the hypocrisy and anti-Christian bigotry of the Left. Ms. Bachmann has a right to her beliefs. She has a right to act in the public square according to her religiously informed conscience. If a Muslim doing that doesn't terrify liberals, a Christian doing that shouldn't scare them, either. After all, that's only fair. And why would liberals be scared of a little fairness?

Mr. Buffet, Why Don't You Just Pay More?

2011-08-17T23:35:00.001-05:00

He's at it again.

On Tuesday's edition of The O'Reilly Factor it was revealed that billionaire businessman Warren Buffet has written an op/ed piece once again calling for rich Americans to be taxed more. It's been asked before and I'll ask it again. If Warren Buffet wants Uncle Sam to have more of his money, why doesn't he just give it to him? There's nothing preventing Buffet from giving the government as much of his personal wealth as he chooses. So why does he persist in his campaign for more governmental confiscation of private income?

I think Mr. Buffet wants people to think his campaign is about a patriotic desire to bring America back to fiscal solvency. Yes, the US has an ASTRONOMICAL debt problem, but taxing the rich more won't solve it. There simply aren't enough of them and they don't have the amount of money needed to put even a dent in America's deficit. Warren Buffet is smart enough to know that and that brings us to what I believe is the second reason for Buffet's tax-the-rich campaign: "social justice".

The Left's economic creed is that the rich are avoiding income taxes and the government must rectify this injustice by seizing the rich's assets and redistributing them to the less fortunate. Sounds nice, but it's just not true. Wealthy Americans not only pay income taxes, they bear the brunt of the federal tax burden, with the top 1% paying about 40% of federal income taxes. The rich are paying they're fair share, contrary to the class warfare rhetoric of the Left. If Buffet and others like him really want to increase revenue for the federal government while also promoting tax "fairness", they should go after the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes. It's those people, NOT the rich, who are the real federal income tax freeloaders.

Imagine the revenue that would pour into Uncle Sam's coffers if the freeloading half of Americans was made to pay up. And wouldn't it be the height of fairness to make millions of people who take from the system contribute to the system? Warren Buffet would do his country a better service by supporting legislation taking away the lucky ones' free ride. After all, why should I, a lower-income person, have my money taken from me in order to support those who add nothing to the pot? Where's the social justice in that?

I think Warren Buffet suffers from "embarrassment of riches" syndrome. I believe he feels tremendous guilt not only for being successful but for enjoying his success. The mere thought of government confiscating his money assuages that guilt. Furthermore, I believe Buffet has projected his guilt onto his fellow rich, which is why he's pushing so hard for higher taxes on all the wealthy rather than simply asking for more charitable giving. Freely giving one's money away doesn't stigmatize it the way having it seized like contraband does. And being stigmatized is part of the rich's punishment for being rich.

So why doesn't Warren Buffet just give the government more, maybe even all, of his money in order to help the country? Because helping the country isn't really the endgame here. The endgame is to convince himself that he really is a good person in spite of enjoying all the perks his filthy lucre can buy. And I think that's a very sad goal, indeed.

I'm a Palinista But...

2011-08-07T02:30:00.000-05:00

...I don't think Sarah should run for president.

In fact, if Sarah Palin ran for president I think it would be a disaster not only for her personally and professionally, but also for the Republican party. Why would I say that if I like Sarah Palin? Because, as much as I like her, I don't think Mrs. Palin has the experience to be president. Yes, I know that Sarah Palin has held executive elective office twice, once as mayor and once as governor. I know that in those positions she did reasonably well. However, I just don't think that being the mayor of a small town or the governor of a sparsely populated state provides anyone with the experience needed to lead a nation, especially a super power. And that's especially true when you bail out of your elected duties just halfway in, as Sarah Palin did when she quit the governorship of Alaska for reasons I still don't understand.

Sarah Palin may have had genuinely good reasons for abdicating her job as Alaska's chief executive, but stepping down still doesn't look good on her resume. It makes one legitimately ask if Sarah Palin lacks not only the experience but also the fortitude to govern. Being president of the United States can be an extraordinarily difficult job, as the current occupant of the White House can attest. Regaredless of their political leanings, we need someone at the helm who's not going to pick up their marbles and go home when the going gets tough. I don't believe Sarah Palin is that person, at least not now.

I'm not saying Sarah Palin doesn't have inner strength. She and her family have been the objects of rabid hatred and vicious personal attacks ever since John McCain chose her as his running mate in the '08 presidential elections. For the most part, Mrs. Palin has handled those attacks with a grace that stems only from a strength born of deep faith. However, having the strength to endure and overcome personal trials doesn't necessarily mean Sarah Palin has the strength needed to persevere in the high pressure cauldron of national leadership.

I am a conservative socially and fiscally. Sarah Palin is a conservative socially and fiscally. I agree with most of Sarah Palin's positions on the vital issues facing America today. I'd love to see her as president. However, I just don't believe she's ready now. Maybe, after she's had time to gain more political experience, she'll be ready to run for the nation's highest office in 2016. Until then, I think Sarah Palin's most effective role is as a "kingmaker" for conservative/Republican candidates. I believe that she can energize the conservative base the way few others can, and that can only be a positive for conservative candidates. So, for the foreseeable future, Sarah Palin should focus her energies there. Who knows? By being a kingmaker for others, she could end up becoming more powerful than she would've ever been sitting in the White House.

So Glad She Adopted White*

2011-07-24T20:17:00.001-05:00

Look at the picture to the left. Look at the beaming mother and her precious newborn baby. That's actress Denise Richards, Charlie Sheen's ex, and her newly adopted daughter, Eloise Joni.

When I first heard that Ms. Richards had adopted a child I was happy for her but, I must admit, happiness wasn't the first thing that came to my mind. My first thought was, "Oh no! Another white celeb adopting a black baby!". But, as you can see from the picture, Denise Richards' adopted daughter is white and I'm greatly relieved.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't oppose transracial adoption; in fact, I support it and have thought of doing it myself. I firmly believe it's better for a child to have parents of a different race than no parents at all. However, over the last few years it seems that white celebrities adopting black children has become a trendy "politico-fashion" statement. That's what I find troubling. But it wasn't always like this.

White celebrities have been adopting black children for a long time. Steven Spielberg, Tom Cruise, and Michelle Pfeiffer did it almost 20 years ago, before it was cool. Hugh Jackman and his wife also quietly adopted a black son. No one made much fuss about those transracial adoptions, but now it's become this trendy, politically correct thing.

Angelina Jolie, with her high profile life and multiracial family, seems to be the one who sparked, however unwittingly, the transformation of cross racial adoption from loving act to social statement. After she adopted her daughter, Zahara, from Ethiopia, it seemed everybody in Hollywood suddenly had to have a black baby, especially from Africa. Madonna got two kids from Malawi. Mary Louise Parker adopted a daughter from an undisclosed African nation. Last year Sandra Bullock adopted an African-American son and this year Mariska Hargitay brought home an African-American baby girl, making her the newest member of the I've-got-a-black-baby club. Everybody was adopting black. So I think I can be forgiven for assuming that Denise Richards was trying to keep up with the Joneses. I'm glad I was wrong.

I believe that Angelina Jolie, Madonna, and the other "black baby moms" sincerely love their black children. I don't believe, though, that love was the only motive they had for adopting them. I believe they were trying to make a statement. The fact that Denise Richards' new daughter is a white, American baby makes it easier to believe she adopted SOLELY out of love and not some PC need to prove her racial tolerance or assuage guilt over being "privileged". And love, not making some socio-political statement, is the only reason anyone should have for adopting a child. So good for Denise Richards, and her little Eloise Joni. May they enjoy all the happiness and blessings that life has to give.

*At least, little Eloise Joni looks white.

Food For Thought

2011-07-10T17:26:00.000-05:00

Question: What do you get when you kill all the white people?

Answer: Haiti

Learn a little history and think about it.

I'm An American!

2011-07-03T23:48:00.005-05:00

Tomorrow is July 4th, the birthday of the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Rather than write about my feelings for this land, I've decided to treat all of you to a musical tribute to my awesome America, courtesy of the rock band Stuck Mojo. Below is the video to their song, "I'm American". This is hard rockin', in-yo'-face, patriotic rock, the kind of music I wish epitomized the rock world. Sadly, it doesn't, but with an example like Stuck Mojo maybe up and coming rockers will realize that you don't have to be an Obama loving, blame-America-first, liberal to authentically rock out. So grab your flag, pull up a chair, and get ready to rock your love for the good ol' USA and your gratitude to God for making you American. You're an American!

I'm American
by Stuck Mojo

"You'll Never Make A Difference If You Quit"

2011-07-03T09:50:00.005-05:00

Hi everyone! It's been a long time since I've put a new post on SB. I did a D-Day post in June, and that's the only post I ended up doing that month. I just wasn't in the mood for blogging, and to a certain extent, I'm still not.

When I started this blog, which began as PoorGrrl Zone--'memba that name?--it was going to be a personal diary, over time it turned into my outlet for political commentary. Gradually, I came to feel that blogging about my opinions and beliefs could "make a difference"; that became my primary motive for blogging. But also over time, I came to feel that I was failing.

I'm a conservative socially and fiscally, with emphasis on the social part. I'm a traditionalist. I believe in the traditional, Bible-based, moral and familial values that have undergirded Western civilization for over 2000 years. I believe in them because I believe they come from God, are intrinsically good because of their source, and are the reason that America rose to greatness. I believe that the collapse of the moral order will be the end of the nation. Now, I'm also dedicated to fiscal conservatism. We must get our financial house in order, for debt can and will destroy us as surely as moral decay. Still, if I had to choose which battle to fight first, it would be for the restoration and preservation of the "old paths". And that's why I feel increasingly alone.

As I look out across this land of mind, I see my people moving further and further away from the values that made America great. Promiscuity, illegitimacy, adultery, homosexuality, abortion, casual divorce, unbelief, greed, shirking personal responsibility, these things, and more, have all become accepted as normal. Nobody bats a proverbial eye at them; in fact, it's now virtually required to defend them lest you be guilty of "bigotry" or "intolerance". Even people who call themselves conservative are defending these things. Clearly, I and other socially conservative bloggers are NOT making a difference. I'd become discouraged enough to seriously consider quitting blogging.

I recently talked to Robert, a cyber friend who blogs at Wise Conservatism, about my discouragement and he told me something that changed my perspective. Robert, whose outlook is more positive than mine, acknowledged that we conservatives still have a lot of work to do, but he told me that, "You'll never make a difference if you quit." Did you get that? You'll never make a difference if you quit. The truth of it really hit me, and gave me both the resolve and the hope to keep blogging. Maybe I won't make the difference that I'd wanted. Maybe I'll only reach a handful of people with the truth and necessity of (social) conservatism. But maybe that handful will go on to reach hundreds, or thousands, or millions more. But it won't happen if I quit, which is the one thing the Left wants all conservatives to do. So I will keep blogging; I will keep posting. I may make only a small difference but, to paraphrase Robert, if I quit I won't make a difference at all.

Thank you, Robert.

D-Day Remembered

2011-06-07T19:06:00.009-05:00

I apologize for writing on D-Day a day late. In truth, there's not much I can say about that herculean invasion, launched against monumental odds, which marked the beginning of the end of the "thousand year Reich". Others have written and/or spoken much more eloquently than I ever could on the glory, heroism, and sacrifice of the largest amphibious invasion in the history of the world. Still, I want to offer at least a small remembrance of the day that ensured I would live in a free nation. Just today I happen to find on Yahoo! a few color pictures--apparently first published in Life magazine--of events before, during, and after D-Day. I find these photos to be both fascinating and moving. There are only five* of them and they don't depict any D-Day scenes most of us are familiar with, which is why I like them. So, a day late, I humbly submit these color pictures of D-Day, the day that the Reich's fate was sealed and freedom was secured. As you peruse them I hope you stand in awe of the superhuman courage of the Allied (mostly American) troops and then ask God to help us be worthy of their sacrifice.

D-Day in Color

May, 1944: American Army engineers eating lunch atop a box of ammunition stockpiled for the invasion.

French couple welcoming American troops with wine.

French civilians having a friendly photo op with American troops.

Captured German soldiers.

American Army chaplain giving Last Rites to a wounded soldier. Behind the glory and the heroism, this is what D-Day was really about.

*There were actually six pictures on Yahoo! but the sixth one had no people in it, only a destroyed building, so I chose not to post it.

Quotable Quotes: In Memoriam

2011-05-30T21:19:00.003-05:00

"Only two people have ever volunteered to die for you. One is Jesus Christ, and the other is the American Soldier." Unknown.

Happy Memorial Day
God bless the Fallen

In Memoriam

2011-05-30T19:13:00.002-05:00

The following is the official video to Michael Jackson's song "Gone to Soon", a tribute to Ryan White, the young 1980's AIDS patient who helped to humanize those infected with HIV and who passed away in 1990. This video may seem inappropriate for a Memorial Day post but when I was listening to the song with my Mom it occurred to me that those who have fallen in battle are also "gone too soon", especially to their families. As photos of Ryan White appear in the video, the loved ones of the Fallen will see their son or daughter, father or mother, husband or wife, brother or sister and they will grieve for the one who was taken from them too soon. So this video is quite appropriate to post on Memorial Day as we, as a nation, remember all our great defenders who are "gone too soon". God bless them all.

Gone Too Soon
In Memory of the Fallen

A Small Taste Of Obamacare

2011-05-16T21:28:00.009-05:00

I'm opposed to Obamacare but I always kind of thought it wouldn't impinge on me personally for a few years. I know, that's a naive thought but I did think it...until today. Today I got what I think is a small taste of Obamacare.

Today at work we learned that some changes are taking place in our company health benefits. To put it simply, our health insurance is getting more expensive. Our premiums are going up, new surcharges will apply under certain conditions and, worst of all to me, the co-pay system has been abolished. Instead, we will have to pay the contract cost for doctor's visits and procedures until our deductible is paid. After that we will pay 20% of the cost of visits and procedures. Like I said, our health care is getting more expensive. Didn't Obama promise Americans just the opposite?

The costly changes that my company is making to its health benefits is an example of the unintended(?) consequences of government intervention in health care and the free market. Two Obamacare policies appear to be driving my company's health benefits shake up. Those policies are the requirements for health insurance companies to provide free preventative care and to let parents carry their children on their health plans until those children are 26 years old (and there are no restrictions on these adult kids; they can be married and have kids of their own and still be eligible for their parents' health coverage).

On the surface these policies seem compassionate. What's wrong with free preventative care? What's wrong with letting parents keep their twenty-something kids on their health insurance plan? What's wrong is that somebody has to pay for these "reforms". "Free" preventative care is free only to the patient; it still costs money to the doctors, clinics, and hospitals who deliver that care, and that costs money to the insurance company. Likewise, forcing insurers to take on droves of new customers will raise their cost of doing business. How will insurance companies pay for these new expenses? By passing them onto consumers in the form of higher premiums, new charges, and/or reduced services. Nothing very compassionate about that.

The Founding Fathers were right not to make social welfare the responsibility of the federal government. In almost every instance, government "help" winds up creating more problems than it solves. In the case of Obamacare, federal "compassion" means that my co-workers and I will end up a bit poorer and possibly a bit less healthy. And all because Barak Obama cares.

I really wish he didn't.

Celebrate Good Times, Come On!

2011-05-04T21:44:00.009-05:00

I was just over at my friend Angel's blog and saw the wonderful photographs she'd posted of Americans celebrating the death of archterrorist and American killer Osama bin Laden. I was really moved by those pictures and decided to post a few here. Go to Angel's blog, Woman Honor Thyself, to see the rest of the pictures, I'm sure you'll be as moved as I was. Here are Americans doing what patriots do when their nation defeats its enemy: CELEBRATE!!!!

And the children shall lead...

Raise the flag up to the sky! How many of them can we make die?!

Long may she wave!

USA! USA!

Victory!

What getting bin Laden was all about.

The Rat Is Dead!

2011-05-02T19:17:00.004-05:00

"If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it's that you can kill anyone." Michael Corleone in The Godfather, Part 2

I learned last night, along with the rest of the country and the world, that Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, was killed by American special forces in a stunningly successful raid on his compound in Pakistan. Osama bin Laden is dead. Repeat, the rat who engineered the slaughter of 3000 American men, women, and children is DEAD!!!! This is a glorious day for America! Here's how things went down.

American intelligence received a tip back in August that bin Laden might be holed up in a Pakistani compound. Over the next several months US intelligence agents painstakingly gathered more information to make sure that bin Laden really was in that compound. Finally, the rat's presence in Pakistan was confirmed and Sunday the president green lighted a commando raid to capture or kill him. The Navy SEALS killed him, shooting bin Laden in the face. The last thing this murderer of Americans saw before he died was an American pointing a gun in his face. SWEET! And after his execution, the world's chief Muslim terrorist was buried at sea. Osama bin Laden sleeps with the fishes. Again, SWEET!!!!

The killing of bin Laden is a huge victory in our war against radical Islam, and it show cased the bravery and professionalism of America's armed forces. The credit for getting Osama goes entirely to our great military. Every American should feel immense pride in our special forces. This very dangerous raid was conducted without one American casualty. It was a flawless operation. Almost.

I do have one problem with the Osama operation, and that is Osama's burial at sea so soon after his demise. I'm very upset that the US military gave bin Laden a Muslim burial, complete with a body washing and a Muslim service, on board a US aircraft carrier before dumping his body at sea. Specifically, I'm upset that this burial was done, in part, to show--ugh!--sensitivity to Muslims. This sensitivity thing was also the reason Obama ordered a commando raid on Osama's compound instead of bombing the place. He felt a commando raid would make it easier to avoid civilian casualties. Again, ugh!

Why are we addicted to the delusion that we can earn radical Muslims' goodwill? Why do we continue this malignant obsession with trying to curry favor with Muslims? When are we going to admit it doesn't work, not even with "moderate" Muslims? We change our tactics, putting our own troops in increased danger, in order to protect Muslim civilians; we strive to show respect for Islamic law; we assert repeatedly that we're not at war with Islam yet, Muslims still hate and condemn us. Our deferment to Islamic burial customs didn't prevent the likes of Hamas, a major Egyptian imam, and Pakistan's ex-president, Musharraf, from condemning our killing of Osama. When will we face facts?

We will never win over Muslims, radical or "moderate", so we should stop trying. We should do what's necessary to defend ourselves, paying no regard to Muslim sensibilities. A respecful burial, in line with the customs of his faith, was uncalled for and something bin Laden was totally unworthy of. We shamed ourselves by giving him that honor and by continuing to believe the false promise of political correctness. Still, the burial is the only fault I can find with the demise of one of the dirtiest human beings on the planet. On Sunday, May 1, America got her man. We brought a mass murderer of our people to justice, Navy SEALs justice. The rat is finally dead. Good riddance and God bless America.

The Kingdom Builders

2011-04-14T21:07:00.007-05:00

I read a great little Christian magazine called No Greater Joy, published by No Greater Joy Ministries, which is run by the Pearl family. NGJ magazine is my second favorite Christian magazine, the first being SALT Magazine. NGJ has insightful articles that make you think about what's going on not only in the church, but in the world, too. In the March-April issue there's an article by Michael Pearl that gives an excellent analysis of what motivates progressives. I've decided to reprint the article here on Sinistra's Bane. The article is titled, "Making Sense of It", which I think is non-descript and a bit lame. I'm calling this post "The Kingdom Builders", from a passage in the article, because I feel it better reflects the quasi-religious vision of progressives. They really do want to build a kingdom. Michael Pearl's article explains how and why. Read, learn, and understand. (I've highlighted in bold those parts of the article I found particularly illuminating.)

Making Sense of It, by Michael Pearl, first published in the March-April, 2011 issue of No Greater Joy magazine.

Lately I have come to understand that progressives are motivated by a conviction of their own righteousness. They attack Christianity and the Constitution of the United States because they stand in the way of their universal uotpia. They want to save us from ourselves and our delusions.

The average American knows our country is being driven to extinction, and it's demise is not far away. We cannot make sense of the decisions politicians make. "Stupid" comes to mind, but stupid is without pattern or purpose.

We see men and women who are highly intelligent and very well informed in political science, economics, business, and in history making decisions that are contrary to the best interests of the country and of the poor they claim to represent. And then there is the anti-Christian bias in the media, the courts, Hollywood, and in the public schools and the universities. Why? What is so threatening about the Bible and those who believe it?

The Constitution is held in as much contempt as the Bible. What is so menacing about a document that guarantees individual libery of conscience and action, free speech, free association, and ownership and management of one's property? The way the politicians are legislating and the courts are ruling, you would think faith and the founding Fathers are the most sinister evils ever to stand in the way of positive genetic mutations.

"Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; That put darkness for light and light for darkness; That put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."! (Isaiah 5:20)

For many years I observed the political theatre and wondered at the motivation of the American left. Lately I have come to understand that progressives are motivated by a conviction of their own righteousness. They attack Christianity and the Constitution of the United States because they stand in the way of their universal utopia. They want to save us from ourselves and our delusions. [Progressives] think they are more enlightened than the rest of us and believe their understanding requires them to take charge of the helm, even if they have to kill the captain and throw some of the crew overboard.

Human salvation is thought to be in the collective. [Progressives] seek the redemption and restitution of mankind in a way that assures our survival as a race. It is the Tower of Babel all over again. The kingdom builders get into politics, education, entertainment, rewriting history, and especially into the news media because that is where people are molded to a worldview that will cause them to be willing participants, or at least passive supporters in the New World Order.

The utopitarians are trying to establish what God has already promised to institute, a kingdom of peace and happiness in a paradise where all share in the bounty of a renewed earth. They too want that kingdom, but since there is no god to determine man's destiny, it is up to them to institute this kingdom. [Progressives] abort babies to prevent increased population from placing further stress on an already overtaxed planet. They must purge society of any religion that looks to the sweet by and by, for it prevents men from getting serious about the here and now. They are anti-American because the United States supports a divided world where American exceptionalism prevents us from entering into commune with the have-nots of the Third World. They must save every butterfly and lizard nearing extinction because they don't have a God that will create more.

If they had ten commandments they would read something like this:

1. Thou shalt have no other god above thy fellow man.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any absolutes that cannot be ignored for the sake of the common good.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of any religion in vain, for they are all created equal.
4. Observe the holy days of all religions with equal fervor.
5. Honor the state as your father and nature as your mother, that your days may be long upon mother earth.
6. Thou shalt not kill, even in self defense.
7. Thou shalt not call consensual sex adultery or sodomy.
8. Thou shalt not steal from the poor by accumulating to thyself wealth more than they neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not bear witness against thy government.
10. Thou shalt not covet the power that belongs to the elite.

The progressive/socialist has an anthropological world view that parallels theological doctrine. They believe in the fall of man and in depravity. Man, in oneness with mother nature, living in blissful harmony in a communal paradise of unbounded sexual license and village simplicity, fell into a selfish world of materialism and consumption, damaging mother earth.

In their confused anthropology, man is both evil and good. He is good as long as he is true to himself, following his own light and living his personal truth, not being judged by any outward standard. He is evil in that he is selfish and judgmental and therefore destructive to the collective good.

[Progressives] believe in temptation. Man is tempted by the lure of independent action. He is tempted to judge his actions and the actions of others on grounds of a supposed absolute good existing outside of human nature and independent of the material world.

To the progressives original sin is inherited by children from their parents who teach religion as a pie in the sky, sweet by and by, do it or be damned doctrine, inflicting crippling guilt.

[Progressives] believe in salvation. Their new birth is forgiving oneself and acquiescing to one's passions as normal, rejecting guilt as a foreign, dark force intruding upon their otherwise liberated souls.

[Progressives] believe heaven and hell are here now. Heaven is the new world order--the socialist's New Jerusalem, the utopia, where there will be no more war, or pollution, or bigotry, or hunger. Hell is fossil fuels belching out deadly gasses upon fragile Mother Nature, pollution caused by captialism. False doctrine is unbending religion that segments people. Demons are rich business owners and judgmental religious bigots.

Liberal Socialists/Utopitarians are crusaders for salvation. To understand these kingdom builders you must recognize that they are motivated by what they consider righteousness. They think the masses, especially the political right, are evil or, at the very least, out of touch and need to be pushed into the right path. You are self-destructive and they want to commit you for your own good, thus saving mother earth, the only eternal life the human race will ever know. Surely the survival of this planet is more important than the luxury of liberty. They know that if you are not with them you are against them, and they are willing to sacrifice the few to save the many.

To make sense of the present hour:
Why are our politicians, supported by the news media and Hollywood, seemingly trying to break our country economically. It is obvious that they are deliberately legislating so as to bring about high energy and food prices. With the certain increase in population and the limited resources on this planet, they want to create a worldwide commune where population is kept in check and resources are equally shared.

But they also know that this "sharing" will never come about through legislation. It will take a revolution where shortage is the enemy, not politicians. [Progressives] need crises so they are creating the biggest crisis this world has ever known. Why? Because the creation of a new world necessitates destroying the old one. They know we must fall and suffer before we will be willing to rise in a world with less liberty and more expensive goods and services.

No one will accept legislation that results in a 75% cut in wages and a great reduction in his consumption of goods and services unless he first loses everything and lives in abject poverty for a while; then he will be grateful to a government that puts him in a three hour food line and allows him to live in a two room apartment that has electricity for five hours every day. During times of stress and deprivation he will gladly receive a mark upon his hand or his forehead by which he can buy food for his family.

My final word:
Don't look to politicians to save you. Jesus will bring in the kingdom and He will be the Kings of kings and the Lord of lords, bringing in everlasting righteousness. Until then, pray for those in authority so we can live a quiet and peaceful life until God tires of men trying to take the kingdom by force. That is His job and He will do it soon enough.

There it is, friends. One of the best critiques of "Liberal Socialists/Utopitarians" I've read in a while. I hope, friends, that you find it as informative and illuminating as I did. Knowing what the progressives are all about, what their motives are, will help us defeat them and their innocuous sounding agenda. And defeat them we must, to keep the America we've always known and loved. So arm yourselves with the truths in this articles and zealously fight the good fight. Nothing less than our liberty and our lives are at stake.

Trump For President?

2011-04-04T20:33:00.004-05:00

Donald Trump wants to run for president. I wasn't keen on the idea of either a Trump candidacy or presidency. Then I watched The Donald's interview on The O'Reilly Factor last week and now I'm sort of liking the idea of President Trump.

What got me warming to the idea of Trump as America's Chief Executive was his largely forthright answers to Bill O'Reilly's questions. In particular, I was astonished that, without hesitation, Trump declared himself pro-life and anti-gay marriage. I'd always viewed Trump as a (stereo)typically liberal New Yorker. The reality that he takes the same position as I do on abortion and marriage was a refreshing discovery. And there were other refreshing discoveries to come.

In his interview, Trump revealed he's against illegal immigration and would militarize the border to halt it. He wants to deal decisively with China, saying he'd slap a 25% tariff on Chinese goods coming to America if China didn't stop manipulating its currency. Trump opposes the Ground Zero mosque, and his notion of what we should do in Iraq is really novel. Basically, he said we should take over the second largest Iraqi oil field and stay there. Trump said America needed to do what other countries do and keep what she conquers. There was no disdain toward or skepticism of American power in The Donald. President Trump won't go around apologizing for America and bowing to foreign leaders. All I can say to that is, yeah!

Did The Donald say--or not say--anything in his interview that gave me pause? Yes. Trump equivocated on Obamacare. He didn't say he opposed it, although he implied that other solutions, like individuals and businesses being able to buy health insurance across state lines, would work better than Obamacare. And Trump talked tough on Iran not getting a nuke but avoided saying how he'd stop that from happening. While I'm all for Iran not going nuclear, talking tough about it is useless. We've had that from politicians for years. What's needed is a bold plan including, perhaps, military action, and the will to carry it out. Trump's tough talk implied that he'd use force to stop Iran from going nuclear. If that's the case, I wish he'd been as forthright about it as he was on other things.

Oh, and Trump expressed some belief in the "birther" controversy which, I feel, could hurt his credibility among many voters.

Despite the few reservations I've listed here, I think I can take Donald Trump seriously as a candidate and even as president. I like that he's a Washington outsider. I like that he's a businessman who can tell the politicians how to really create jobs. And I'm thrilled with his unapologetically conservative position on two of the social issues most important to me. Yep, I think I can support a White House run by The Donald.

President Trump. It's sounding good.

"Sucker Punch" Rocks!

2011-04-03T17:35:00.003-05:00

Hey friends! As most of you know, last Thursday was my birthday. To celebrate I took myself out to dinner and a movie. I'd done that two weeks prior to celebrate my birthday and saw Red Riding Hood, which was a disappointment. Not terrible, just not worth the full price I had to pay. So I decided to try the movies again, hoping to find one that was really good, and I did! It's called Sucker Punch.

Sucker Punch is great! How great? So great enough that I didn't mind haivng to pay full price for it; I'd pay full price to see it again, and I plan on buying it when it comes out on dvd. That's how great Sucker Punch is. That's how much I liked it!

Sucker Punch is cool, original, exciting, decked with great special effects, and suprisingly warm and thought-provoking. It has a moving twist at the end and, to top it off, a killer soundtrack! I won't say anymore as I'm not a skilled movie reviewer. I just wanted to do a post on how much I liked this film. If you want to have a blast at the movies this weekend, go see Sucker Punch. You won't be disappointed!

Here's a preview of Sucker Punch's awesome soundtrack. It's a video of the remake of Jefferson Airplane's classic, White Rabbit. I know, classics aren't supposed to be messed with, but leave it to Sucker Punch to get remake right. So here's White Rabbit, Sucker Punch style.

Happy Birthday To Me!

2011-03-31T19:19:00.003-05:00

Today's my birthday. Woohoo! I'm 47 today. Wow! That's half a century! Kinda makes me feel old saying it that way, so I guess I'd better stop. Hee, hee. Seriously, this birthday is extra special because it's my first birthday as a cancer survivor. I am so grateful to see another birthday. I know that things could've so easily gone the other way. So I am very, very thankful. Thank you, God!

I didn't do anything really special for my birthday. I took myself out to dinner and a movie a couple of weeks ago and I'm going to do the same tomorrow. Actually, that is pretty special considering how tight my finances are right now. The movie I went to see on the 18th was "Red Riding Hood". It was just ok but it had a kick ass song in it. The song is called "The Wolf" and it's by Fever Ray, a band I've never heard of before. I'm including a video of the song on my birthday post. It was played during a celebration scene in the movie. I wish that scene was part of the video. Instead, all there is is a picture of Red. But it's the song, not images, I want you to focus on. So pull up a chair, relax, and enjoy!

"The Wolf", by Fever Ray

Told ya it kicked ass!

How To Handle A Liberal

2011-03-26T18:37:00.003-05:00

Who knew we'd get a lesson in handlling self-righteous, bullying liberals from a young boy in Australia. Thank you, Casey Heynes!

Does Obama Want Gaddafi To Win?

2011-03-12T17:24:00.003-06:00

Does Obama want Moammar Gaddafi to win the civil war raging in Libya? I'm pondering this question in light of the president's skittishness about imposing a no-fly zone over Libya.

Gaddafi's forces are crushing what had been a largely successful rebellion against his rule. The loyalists have superior equipment all around but one of their biggest strengths over the rebels is their air power. If that power could be grounded the rebels stand a chance of winning. A rebel victory would be good not only because it would free the Libyan people from a brutal dictator but also for a reason specific to America.

Moammar Gaddafi is a mass murderer of Americans. Before 9/11 and Al Quaeda Gadaffi had killed more Americans than any other terrorist. In 1986 he ordered the Berlin discotheque bombing which killed three US servicemen. And in 1988 Gaddafi masterminded the infamous bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland which killed nearly 200 hundred American civilians. If Gaddfi is overthrown he can be snatched by the US and put on trial for the Americans he slaughtered. That's the American reason why the no-fly zone must be imposed. It'll increase the likelihood of Gadaffi's fall and the chance of America snagging the butcher of Lockerbie. And I'm wondering if that's what Obama wants to avoid.

Barack Obama is a far-Left guy. Yes, he's done some good things in the War on Terror, but he's skeptical of American power and leadership, preferring to defer to the "world community". In fact, that is the "official" reason, articulated by Hillary Clinton, for his administration's reluctance to act first on the no-fly zone. There must be an international consensus on any action against Libya, Hillary Clinton said; America must not take the lead. With the "world community" in charge there's a greater chance that Gaddafi will crush the rebellion and stay in power, making moot any question of America apprehending Gaddafi. I believe that's the outcome Obama's hoping for.

Snagging Gaddafi and putting him on trial just doesn't mesh with Obama's worldview. In fact, being the far-Left guy that he is, it's safe to say that that would be a nightmare scenario for him. Obama would much prefer an end game that jibes with his progressive, "America the Bad" paradigm. So, does Obama want Gaddafi to win? In a word, yes. That would relieve him, at least partially, of the job of defending and avenging Americans, something he never really wanted to do. And he can save face by blameing his inaction on the "world community" which, in his paradigm, takes precedence over the needs of America. You see, in spirit Obama truly is a citizen of the world, just as he said in his Berlin speech in 2008. And those of you who voted for him thought you were electing an American. Silly you.

$3.29 A Gallon Gas?!?!

2011-03-01T20:37:00.009-06:00

I can't believe this.

Yesterday evening on the way home from work gas was $3.18 at my favorite discount filling station. On my way to work at 5:30 this morning gas was $3.29 at the same filling station. Pardon my French, but, "WTF?!?!".

Yes, I know the Libyan crisis is partially responsible for the latest hike in prices at the pump, but gas has been rising for some time. When is all hell going to break loose over this? I mean, when gas prices were soaring just a few years ago the country was pissed off (pardon my French again). The price of gas was all anybody could talk about. That subject seemed to lead every news hour on tv. People eagerly supported exploiting America's domestic energy resources and "Drill, baby, drill!" was chanted across the nation. But now? Nothing. And I think I know why.

When gas prices were rising a few years ago Bush was still president. It was in liberals' political interest to hype skyrocketing gas prices--and anything else wrong in the country--then. They believed it would help them win in '08. The liberals got a boost from many ordinary Americans who were also fed up with Bush and expressed it in anger over the gas prices. Ordinary folks were truly upset about the pain at the pumps but liberals were engaging in manufactured outrage to achieve political ends. And it worked. Republican John McCain was defeated in the presidential election. Liberals got their man into the White House; now criticism and dissent were supposed to stop.

Liberals' guiding principle on Barack Obama's presidency is that he's not responsible for anything bad that happens on his watch. I beg to differ. Paying almost $4 for a gallon of gas is just as painful under a Black Democratic president as it was under a White Republican president. Again, I know that unrest in the Middle East is partially to blame for sticker shock at the pump, but only partially. Obama is to blame, too. He doesn't get a pass just because he's Black and liberal. Racial equality means people are treated the same, regardless of race. Right? So, if Bush was responsible for everything bad that occurred during his presidency, then so is Obama. And believe me, paying $3.29 a gallon for gas is bad. Very bad. Even under the Messiah.

Union Busting Or Party Busting?

2011-02-24T22:06:00.003-06:00

I've been following the upheaval in Wisconsin, which is now spreading to Ohio, Indiana, and other states, and I think I've figured out what's really going on here.

Republican Wisconsin governor Scott Walker is being slammed for, among other things, making public sector union workers contribute to their health care plans and for limiting their collective bargaining power to wage and benefits issues. The unionistas are hysterically shrieking, "Union busting!", but I think they're really outraged about something else entirely. What's going on here isn't union busting but party busting, Democratic party busting.

It's no secret that unions are an extension of the Democrat party. For decades unions, public and private, have used their members' dues to finance the campaigns of Democratic candidates. The unionistas have done this while giving their rank-and-file members virtually no say in the matter. If you're a union member and you favor Republicans, too bad. Your money is going to elect the party you oppose. Governor Walker is putting an end to that.

A key change Walker wants in the union/state relationship is for the state of Wisconsin to stop automatically deducting public sector workers' union dues from their paychecks. In other words, Walker wants to give rank-and-file union members the choice of whether or not to pay upwards of $1000 a year in dues. If given that choice it's almost certain a high percentage of union members will opt out of paying dues. That would be financially catastrophic for the Democrats. The unions have been a cash cow for the Dems because of the dues paid by the members; take that away and the cash cow--and the Dems--become toast.

Wisconsin is broke. It's in the red to the tune of 3 BILLION dollars. Governor Walker says he wants sacrifices from the unions to help balance Wisconsin's budget. I believe that's true, but I also believe that Governor Walker knows that his proposal would severly hurt the Democrat party. I believe that hurting the Democrats is Walker's true objective and I say, more power to him!

In November the Republicans won an historic victory across the nation and they should use their new power the way the Democrats would had they won. Republicans have a shot at depriving the Democrats of their financial strength and helping to ensure their own re-election. They should take it. Union busting? No, this is PARTY busting and I say, BRING IT ON!

Ann Coulter On Conservative Gays

2011-02-18T23:00:00.004-06:00

I love Ann Coulter. I know she often has a, shall we say, forceful tone but that's why I love her. Coulter is a fiscally and socially conservative, Christian woman and she's unapologetic and fearless about it. So, when I heard that Coulter had endorsed GOProud, a conservative gay group, participating in CPAC this year, I was surprised and a little concerned. I've always thought of support for the gay agenda as a social Left cause at odds with conservatism's traditionalism. When Coulter endorsed the Republican gay group I was afraid she'd turned against the fight for traditional values. I needn't have worried and the video below shows why.

I agree almost completely with Ann in this video. She says better than I ever could how you can be a "friend of the gays" without jumping on the gay agenda bandwagon. I've always felt that was true, but sometimes I get demoralized by the constant shrieks of "Homophobe!" flung at traditional people. Coulter shows how stupid it is to brand belief in traditional marriage, for instance, as homophobic. This is just what I needed to hear. I'm a social conservative. I believe in traditional values, especially traditional marriage. And I don't hate gay people. Thank you, Ann Coulter, for explaining that.

Where's Ben Jealous On This One?

2011-02-03T18:29:00.002-06:00

If anyone wants to know where the real racism is in America, take a look at the video below. It'll shock you.

In case you didn't figure it out, these pleasant people are leftist radicals, the folks who're always angrily accusing conservatives of being racists. Here are White people calling for a Black man to be sent back to the fields, to be mutilated, to be strung up, to be hung. Where's Ben Jealous on this one? Why isn't he demanding that the Left expell these bigots from its ranks? Why the silence? If rhetoric half this hateful was merely whispered at a Tea Party rally Mr. Jealous and his leftists friends would've been all over it. White radicals, though, can spew rabid malice against a Black man without the liberal minority protectors batting an eye. Talk about things that make you go, hmmmmmm.

Here We Go Again

2011-02-01T19:20:00.003-06:00

Brrrrr! I got so caught up in the big winter storm that's striking well over half the country and pushing temps in my area down to their lowest levels in decades, that I forgot that today is February 1st, the beginning of Black History Month. And I hate that.

I don't like Black History Month. I don't like any of these racial/ethnic history months, ethnic studies, etc.. Liberals would say that minority studies and history months are necessary to right past wrongs and enhance the self-esteem of minority people. I disagree. These things, in my opinion, undermine the whole idea of a shared American identity and are contrary to the spirit of Martin Luther King's assertion that people should be judged by the content of their character and not their race.

When we teach history in schools the accomplishments of Blacks and other minorities should be included as they actually happened, i.e. as an integral part of American history. If a class is learning about inventors, for instance, Black inventors should be included in the same way as White ones, i.e., without stressing their race. Teachers shouldn't emphasize Black inventors as Black inventors. That wouldn't be teaching kids history; that would be teaching kids to like Black people. And that's wrong...and racist. Schools should not promote one race over any other race, not even in the name of racial justice or equality.

If we want real racial equality then educational segregation has to go. We'll never create a colorblind society by constantly highlighting color. It's time to put content of character above race, for real. We can start by saying bye-bye to Black History Month and hello to American history. Period.

Shame

2011-01-15T23:57:00.006-06:00

It's been a week since the deadly shooting in Arizona that left six innocent people dead and 14 others, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, wounded. It would've been nice if, during these seven days, the victims' families and the nation could've been left to mourn in peace. But that was not to be.

Before Arizona's dead were cold, before the survivors could be cared for, their horrific tragedy was being exploited by liberals for political gain. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik started the indecency by blaming the attack on "hateful rhetoric" from the "hard right". The national Left followed Dupnik's lead and began hammering away at the it's-conservatives'-fault theme. Not content to blame conservatives generally, liberals launched attacks on prominent individual conservatives. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Sarah Palin were all assigned blame. Leftists' political needs drove them to blame everyone but the shooter for the Arizona tragedy.

Shameful is the only word that describes liberals' actions in the wake of Jared Loughner's rampage. Actually there are other words--disgusting, crass, insensitive, self-serving, to name a few--that accurately describe liberals' behavior, but shameful describes it best. Shameful! Shameful! Shameful! It's impossible to have any resepct for liberals after this.

Obama tried to calm things down during his speech at the shooting victims' memorial on Wednesday. He stated that Americans need to use words that heal in our political discourse. Americans? Obama would've been more honest addressing his plea for healing words specifically to his liberal base. Hateful rhetoric is liberals' modus operandi. And then, after the shootings, they had the nerve to call for civility in the public debate. Monumentally hypocritical.

Liberals have no shame.

Massacre In Arizona

2011-01-08T22:55:00.003-06:00

There has been a horrific massacre in Tucson, Arizona today. The killing happened at a supermarket where Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords was holding a public gathering. Representative Giffords, who has suffered a critical wound to her head, appears to have been the intended target of the shooter. Eighteen other people were also wounded and six people, including a 9-year-old girl and Arizona's chief federal judge, were killed. The suspected gunman, a 22-year-old man named Jared Louughner, is in custody. Loughner may have had an accomplice, whom authorities are looking for now.

This is a shocking, horrific, and utterly senseless tragedy. And the worst part is that there've already been attempts to politicize it. Pima county sheriff Clarence Dupnik blamed the shootings on "certain mouths" spewing "prejudice and bigotry". Gabrielle Giffords' father pegged the Tea Party as his daughter's enemy. The Daily Kos, a far-left blog, also imputed blame to the Tea Party movement for the killings. Fox News has also been blamed. This is the height of irresponsibility, especially in light of emerging information that Loughner was mentally disturbed.

The disgusting practice of trying to destroy one's political opponents by exploiting tragedy must stop. The rush to judgment by the Left was particularly unseemly. What we need to be doing is expressing our condolences to the families of the dead while earnestly praying for healing for the wounded. In short, we need to come together as Americans, blaming no one but the killer(s) for this incomprehensible carnage and drawing strength from our commonality. In the face of horrors like the massacre in Arizona we are human beings first, Americans second, liberals and conservatives last. We should have the grace and compassion to act like it.

Happy New Year!

2011-01-01T18:46:00.002-06:00

Happy new year, friends!

Today is the first day of the new year, 2011. Of course, I've seen many new years come and go but this one is a tad bit more special than the previous ones. After battling cancer during the last half of 2010 I'm bringing in this new year with a new appreciation of life and health. One of the first things I did this morning was give myself a breast exam. I'm going to do them twice a month from now on. I have a renewed commitment to my health after the events of 2010. With God's help, NO MORE CANCER FOR ME!!!!

Dear friends, I wish for all of you the happiest, healthiest, most prosperous, and most blessed new year. 2011's gonna be a blast!

Merry Christmas, Friends!

2010-12-24T15:24:00.002-06:00

The Christmas Shoes

This one gets me every time. It'll bring tears to your eyes too and, hopefully, remind you of what Christmas is all about and what we have to be thankful for all year.

Merry Christmas to all! Goodwill to those of whom God approves.

(And I finished my cancer treatments on Friday, December 17th. That was the BEST Christmas present ever!)

Why Isn't This Racist?

2010-12-13T22:25:00.007-06:00

Well, the Chosen One worked out a deal with Republicans on the Bush tax cuts. Obama agreed to extend the cuts for ALL Americans, not just the middle class and, exchange, the Republicans agreed to extend unemployment benefits for some people for another year and one month. As compromises go, this one was pretty mundane to me, but not to Obama's liberal base, and that's the interesting part here.

Remember when the Tea Party movement first started? What was the movement accused of? Racism, right? Most of the Tea Partiers were White and that was supposedly prima facie evidence that their movement was anti-Black. After all, what motive but racism could White people have for criticizing America's first Black president? White criticism equalled racism; that was the formula, until just a few days ago.

Obama's agreement with the Republicans on the tax cuts has enraged his liberal base. Even now, they are in a virtual revolt against their erstwhile messiah. For the last several days White politicians have been all over the tv lashing out at Obama. And no one's accusing them of racism. Indeed, the very people who were sanctimoniously yelling, "Raaaaacist!" at the Tea Partiers for criticizing Obama are now yelling, "F--k the president!". But the Congressional Black Caucus, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Jeanane Garofalo are all silent.

This is solid proof that, for the Left, dissent isn't a right but a strategy to advance their agenda. And playing the race card is an intergral part of that strategy. Leftists originally saw criticism of Obama as a threat to their agenda and tried to discredit the critics by smearing them as racists. Now, though, Leftists see Obama's tax compromise as a threat to their agenda and are going after Obama for his heresy. But their angry revolt against the Chosen One will never be characterized as racist. You see, criticism of Obama or Blacks generally, is racist ONLY when it threatens the Left's objectives. That's why all those White liberals can unload on Obama without being smeared as haters. It's all about advancing the Left. And you actually thought liberals cared about stopping racism. Silly you.

The Guilt Tripped Rich

2010-12-04T10:37:00.006-06:00

I'm sure everyone's heard about billionaire Warren Buffet saying that he and other megarich folks need to and should pay more in taxes. This has been on tv as if it were some sort of sacred pronouncement, but I'm not impressed.

If Warren Buffet wants to give more money to the government he's free to send the IRS as much of his income as he wants. Other the-rich-should-pay-more-taxes billionaries like Bill Gates can do the same. So, why don't they? Simple. THEY LIKE BEING RICH. If they didn't Buffet, Gates, and friends would give away all their money, but they won't. They love their wealth but they apparently feel tremendous guilt over it. So they anounce their support for higher taxes on the rich to try and assuage their guilt and look good to the public in the process. It's almost like their saying, "Hey middle America! We're the good rich. We know how bad we are for being successful and we want to pay for it by having the government take more of our money. So please, don't hate us!" Pathetic.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates don't seem to understand that if they want to assuage their guilt they should do more good for the less fortunate themselves. Certainly helping the needy personally would be more satisfying and meaningful to them than empowering impersonal state bureaucracies to do so. Buffet, Gates, and other super rich people most likely do have charities that they generously support. But they seem to think such private efforts don't qualify as guilt-assuaging good works. Only governmental confiscation of their excess income can redeem them.

Wealthy Americans who turn against their own success are akin to traitors. Their prosperity, which often had humble beginnings, highlights the promise of capitalism and the American way. Instead of extolling that reality they've opted for the counter message that success is a sin for which you must do penance, preferrably in the form of having the state take your money. Like I said at the beginning of this post, I'm not impressed.

Here's my advice to Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and all other guilt racked billionaires. If you feel that bad about being rich then get a good therapist or just give all your money away. But please stop calling the government down on yourselves while you're enjoying your wealth. That just makes you look like hypocrites and frauds. And that's something for you to really feel guilty about.

Happy Thanksgiving!

2010-11-25T07:35:00.003-06:00

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! Wishing all of you a wonderfully blessed holiday full of fun, food, family, love, and gratitude. Remember, we all have so much to be thankful for. Enjoy your day!

Just In Time For The Holidays

2010-11-24T17:53:00.004-06:00

We've all heard about. Here's my take on what the TSA has in store for the travelling public just in time for the holidays.

I don't fly. I have flown in the past but I don't like it and haven't done it in about 10 years, so the TSA's new security measures aren't going to affect me any time soon. Still, I've been following the controversy and I think the body scans and pat-downs are a bit outrageous.

Yes, I want Americans to be protected from terrorism. As a supporter in limited government I believe that such protection is one of the federal government's few responsibilities, but the TSA's security measures just doesn't past the smell test to me. They're questionable on several levels.

First, the measures are just so intrusive. You have to submit to being virtually stripped by a machine or groped by a stranger in order to get on a plane. And if you refuse you can be fined $11,000! That's the second problem I have with this situation. The TSA is being quite heavy handed and arrogant toward the public. It reminds me of the way anti-Obamacare protestors were held in contempt by elected officials. Once again the government is copping an arrogantly paternalistic we're-going-to-force-you-to-do-what-we-know-is-best attitude. The TSA isn't listening to the people's concerns and that's creating as much anger as the intrusive security measures themselves.

The third problem with the TSA's new policy is that it puts TSA employees in an unfair situation. Imagine it's your job to "protect" the public by looking at the naked bodies of and/or fondling the "junk" of thousands of strangers. Now imagine that a lot of those strangers deeply resent what you're doing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that TSA employees could come in for some abuse from those strangers. Now, that shouldn't happen. The TSA workers are just doing their job and they shouldn't bear the brunt of the public's ire. Unfortunately, the government has put them in this unenviable position, and it could've been avoided if the feds had some courage. And that brings me to the most offensive problem with these security measures: they're a capitulation to political correctness.

Let's face it. The current admininstration is obsessed with not offending Muslims. So obsessed that it'll design "security" policies for Americans with "sensitivity" to Muslims in mind. Thus, the TSA's new security actions treat all fliers as if they pose an equal threat to America; they don't. Muslims--especially young, Middle Eastern, male, Muslims--are the likeliest perpetrators of terrorism today. But rather than acknowledge that fact the TSA implements anti-terrorism procedures so that Muslims don't feel--gasp!--profiled.

Ah, yes. Profiling! The most heinous act of racial oppression known to man, based on the way liberals react to it. Profiling Muslims is certainly worse than Muslims actually murdering Americans. Even if the profiling is based on behavior and not race, as the Israelis do it, it's still unacceptable to the PC whipped crowd. Why? Most likely because behavior-based profiling would still nab a lot of terrorist wannabes named Ahmed. So, the TSA strains to avoid profiling of any type, and opts instead to subject all American fliers to fondling and/or a virtual strip search. Fondling, strip searches, and privacy violations. All brought to you by your friendly federal government.

Just in time for the holidays.

Happy Veteran's Day. We Remember.

2010-11-11T19:47:00.002-06:00

Here's a video for Veteran's Day. This video is 4 years old. I first saw it, if memory serves, on The O'Reilly Factor. It is one of the most moving tributes to our troops I've ever seen. If you don't tear up when you see it you're not human. It's called, "Remember Me". And that's what we should do, remember. And say, thank you. God bless our vets, living and dead, active duty and retired, combat and peace time. God bless them all. We remember.

"Remember Me"

Awwwwwww!!!

2010-11-06T20:49:00.001-05:00

Sometimes you just gotta put the politics aside. Is this adorable or what?

Judgement Day

2010-11-02T20:12:00.002-05:00

It's finally here! 2010 election day, the day that's been looming in the minds of Americans for a year.

I did my civic duty after work and voted. It was a cold and rainy day today and it would've been much nicer to just go home after work and curl up with a cup of hot chocolate. But I was going to vote, no matter what. And not just because I believe voting is an important duty of citizenship and not just a right. No, I was determined to vote today because I wanted to be part of putting a stop to Obamaism. No matter how liberals will try to spin it, this election is a referendum on Obama's policies. I wanted to go on record with my disgust for the president's socialistic, fiscally irresponsible, and unconstitutional "change". Millions of other Americans did too. Now that we have, the results are coming in.

I've been glued to Fox News for nearly two hours now. I can't believe I'm following election results like a Cowboys game. I've never been this excited about an election, ever. So far, the election is breaking pretty much like all the polls said it would. The Republicans are poised to take over the House and to make gains in, but not win, the Senate. The exciting part, for me at least, is seeing by how much the Republicans are winning, what the unexpected wins and losses are, and how the Dems are spinning it all.

One of the most interesting races to me is the Senate race in West Virginia. The Democrat Joe Manchin defeated Republican John Raese which, at first glance, looks bad for the Republicans. But how Manchin won might make the Dems wish he'd lost. Manchin, a pro-life Democrat, won in West Virginia by running from Obama's policies like a vampire running from sunlight. That all but guarantees that Manchin will vote with Republicans on many issues. That will be a Republican gain by proxy and the Dems will NOT be happy about it. But I say, sweeeeeet!

This has been a great election for America. Even though the Republicans didn't take the Senate I'm going to bed happy. Tomorrow when I awake it'll be morning in America again. Obamaism will be on the ropes and Americanism will be on the rise. That's the kind of change I can believe in. Yes I can!

Pink Warriors!

2010-10-16T20:55:00.003-05:00

In case you didn't know, October is breast cancer awareness month. October 12 was Cares Enough to Wear Pink (CETWP) day. On that day people were supposed to wear pink to work to show support for women who have or had breast cancer. In my town CETWP day was sponsored by the fire department, which is selling special pink T-shirts during October.

Since I have breast cancer my co-workers and I decided to participate in CETWP day, only we had ours on Friday. I was really touched by all the people who participated. The department where I work was pretty much a sea of pink yesterday. Almost all of the women wore shirts in various shades of glorious pink. Even a couple of the guys wore pink shirts, and those who were too "manly" to do so tied pink fabric squares around their arms or heads or let them dangle from their pants pockets. The show of support was very moving. I even got a few gifts given to me in a breast cancer awareness gift bag. My co-workers are such kind and compassionate people. I'm really fortunate to work with them. And I'm blessed to be doing well.

I'm getting along in my cancer treatments. I had my last round of chemo--YES!!!!--on October 6. I can't tell you how happy I am that that awful ordeal is now over. Like all of my chemo treatments, the last round had side effects. Most of them have gone away but I'm still dealing with some constipation and some neuropathy in my toes. The side effects are bearable, though, because I know that, once they're over, I'll never have to deal with them again because my chemo is DONE!!!!

My cancer treatments aren't entirely done, though. At the end of October or the beginning of November I'll start my radiation treatments which will last 6 1/2 weeks. After that, I'll be finished with my treatments and finished with cancer and I'll be going on with my life. I'm keeping a very prayerful and positive outlook. I'm not giving in to fear and worry over a possible recurrence. I'm going to live my life with the conviction that I'll be cancer free from now on. After all, that's what pink warriors do, we LIVE!!!!

Rescue Of The Chilean Miners

2010-10-12T20:04:00.004-05:00

I'm watching FoxNews and those trapped Chilean miners are FINALLY being rescued. I haven't blogged about the plight of those trapped men but I've thought about them off and on ever since I heard about their plight. When their story first made the news the men's prospects for a fairly quick rescue were rather grim. It was reported that they wouldn't be saved for about four months. I remember shuddering at the thought of being trapped underground, where God knows what can happen, for four months. Now, however, the men are at last being rescued after being underground for "only" a little over two months.

I'm so happy to see this miracle unfold. And it's not just the miracle of the rescue; it's the miracle of people all over the world pulling and praying for these men, strangers to them, connected to them only by their common humanity. It reminds me of the rescue of Baby Jessica over twenty years ago. The world seemed to come to a stop then, too, and the only thing that mattered was the safe retrieval of an 18-month-old baby trapped in a well. Humanity showed its best face then, and it's doing so again now.

I'm one of those people pulling and praying for those 33 men in that mine. Their safe rescue will be a huge blessing to them and their families. God bless the rescuers, God bless the miners, and God bless the human race for acting human.

Socialism Saturday in the Capital

2010-10-02T19:21:00.007-05:00

Oops! I almost forgot! Today was the day of the big One Nation Working Together, aka we-lefties-can-do-it-too-Glenn-Beck-!, rally. Liberals hoped to show the power of their ideology and the Democratic party by outdoing Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally held on August 28. They failed.

By the media accounts I've seen, turn out for the One Nation protest was far below the hundreds of thousands who attended Beck's rally. And no wonder.

Glenn Beck's rally was about just what its name says, restoring honor in America. It was about getting back to God, family, community, patriotism, decency, integrity, all the traditional values that made this nation great. Beck's rally wasn't about politics. It wasn't about rallying the party faithful to defeat their ideological opponents at the polls. On the contrary, attendees to Restoring Honor were specifically told NOT to bring signs to the gathering. Contrast that to One Nation.

One Nation Working Together was political to the core. How can an event featuring speakers like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Ed Schultz be non-political? How can an event sponsored by groups like Code Pink, AFL-CIO, SIEU, NAACP, La Raza, Rainbow PUSH Coalition, International ANSWER, American Muslim Association of North America, Democratic Socialists of America, and the Communist Party USA, to name a few, be non-political? Simple answer: it can't!

Nope, no politics here!

Make no mistake. The One Nation rally was political. That's why NAACP president Ben Jealous called it the "antidote to the Tea Party". The purpose of the rally was to support and promote big government liberalism and even full blown socialism. If you doubt that take a look at this:

"Obama ain't no socialist! We are! We are!"

Yes, you heard the chant right. Those were the people at the rally supporting the Democrats and Obama. Hmmmmm. Socialists, communists, and radicals. That's the real base of the Democratic party. And they call the Tea Partiers extremists. No. The truth was on display today in Washington D.C. It was socialism Saturday. That's what the Democrats have become. And that's why they must be defeated in November.

Down with socialism!

Mile Wide, Inch Deep?

2010-09-18T23:45:00.005-05:00

Conservatives are very excited right now. Midterm elections are less than two months away and all indicators predict that they'll be a tsunami for conservative Republican candidates. People like Sean Hannity and Dick Morris seem to think that not only will the elections be a huge victory for conservatives, but that they'll prove that conservatism is the real belief system of the American people. I understand why some conservative commentators think that, but I'm not so sure.

Things are looking great for conservatives and their philosophy but I don't think that means Americans have really adopted conservatism on principle. Remember, the people who now call themselves conservative by a margin of 2 to 1, put the Democrats in control of Congress in 2006 and voted in Obama in 2008. Were they conservative then? I don't think so. So what's going on now? To use a famous phrase, it's the economy, stupid!

Americans are fearful and fuming over the economy, especially unemployment which has hovered dangerously close to 10% for months. On top of that, they see a government that's spending money recklessly, driving up the deficit, and ramming through new entitlement programs in total disregard for the opinions of the people. In anger Americans are lashing out at the party that's in power, which happens to be the Democrats. But again, that doesn't mean Americans are truly embracing conservatism. If you doubt that ask yourself this: would the Tea Party movement exist if the stimulus had worked and unemployment had remained below 8% as Obama promised? No. The Tea Party movement, like Obama's falling poll numbers, is a reaction to the failure of Obama's policies. Had those policies succeeded even half as well as expected most Americans would now be enamored of big government and unconcerned about deficit spending. The voting public is fickle; that's just the way it is.

Americans' current shift to the right may not be grounded entirely in principle but it does present a golden opportunity for committed conservatives. Because of Obama's failures Americans are open to right-wing ideas. They're willing to listen to people who're offering free market, small government solutions to the nation's problems. If committed conservatives intelligently engage Americans in this crucial moment then conservatism may very well become the principled view of most citizens. Otherwise, Americans' "conversion" to conservatism may prove to be mile wide but inch deep.

The Plot Thickens

2010-09-16T20:13:00.003-05:00

So, some more interesting information emerges on Ground Zero mosque imam Feisal Abdel Rauf. According to reports on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday and Tuesday, it's been discovered that Rauf has a relationship with one Faiz Khan, a Muslim 9/11 Truther. Talk about things that make you go, hmmmmm!

9/11 Truthers, as you may know, are people who believe that the attacks on September 11, 2001 were an inside job. They offer various reasons for that belief but the general Truther line is that the US government wanted to eliminate our Constitutional freedoms by engineering a massive crisis that would cause ultimate fear and have Americans clamoring for more government protection. Faiz Khan believes that, and why is he more troubling than the average Truther? He's a Muslim and his commitment to the 9/11 Truth movement is almost certainly motivated by a desire to absolve his religion of any responsibility for the September 11 terrorist attacks. And that's bad news for imam Rauf.

Imam Rauf deeply offended Americans by saying that America was an accessory to 9/11 and that Osama bin Laden was "made in America". He didn't deny Muslim involvement in the attacks but by imputing some blame for 9/11 to the US Rauf greatly damaged his credibility. And now it's revealed he has ties to an actual denier of Muslim responsibility for 9/11. And we're supposed to believe that that has nothing to do with Rauf's insistence on building a mosque at Ground Zero. Yeah, right.

Americans overwhelmingly oppose building a mosque at or near Ground Zero because that's where Muslims slaughtered 3000 of their fellow citizens and loved ones. Americans are highly and rightfully suspicious of anyone, particularly a Muslim, who downplays or outright denies the Islamic identity of the 9/11 terrorists. Feisal Abdel Rauf's close association with 9/11 Truther Khan gives us more than enough reason to question his motives. It's not Islamophobia that's fueling opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. It's the cloudy funding, inflammatory rhetoric and, now, radical associations of the supposedly moderate Muslim cleric who's spearheading it. The plot thickens indeed.

Burn, Baby, Burn?

2010-09-08T20:40:00.003-05:00

By now everybody has heard of the Florida church that plans to burn Korans on the upcoming 9th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The burning, planned by Dove Outreach Center (DOC) and its pastor Terry Jones, has created a huge backlash and has been condemned by everyone from Angelina Jolie to Gen. Petraeus. While I understand some of the concerns raised by the critics of DOC and pastor Jones, I'm also suspicious of those critics considering most of them are left-of-center.

Dove Outreach Center wants to burn Korans on September 11. I don't know what the church's motive is but if it's to expose the glaring hypocrisy of liberals and Muslims, especially the ones who support the Ground Zero (GZ) mosque, I think the church succeeded.

Think about it.

Every since the GZ mosque controversy erupted liberal and Muslim supporters of the mosque have posed themselves as gallant defenders of the Constitutional right to freedom of religion. They've insisted that religious freedom absolutely overrides the hurt feelings of Americans who are insulted by a symbol of Islam being built near the place where Muslims slaughtered their loved ones and fellow citizens. Yet, when it comes to the Koran burning these same liberals and Muslims aren't nearly so zealous and absolutist in defending another Constitutional right: the right to freedom of speech. Why not?

Is it due to the Left's corrupt "anti-racism" which says that any criticism of non-White people, which most Muslims are, can only come from hate? Or is it because of the Left's equally corrupt idea of appeasement which insists that we must brown nose Muslims even to the point of restricting certain freedoms so they'll like us and stop wanting to kill us? I think it's both.

In the "anti-racist", appeasement wracked, PC world of the Left the hurt feelings of Americans are irrelevant to the right of Muslims to practice freedom of religion, but the hurt feelings of Muslims trump the right of Americans to practice freedom of expression. Instead of a climate of hate coming from "Islamophobes", the real problem is liberals and Muslims creating a CLIMATE OF REPRESSION where our freedoms are stifled if Muslims find them in any way offensive.

I understand the dangers inherent in burning Mohammed's book. I share the concern that it could lead to reprisals against our troops BUT, in light of the context outlined above, I must come down on the side of BURN, BABY, BURN! Muslims need to realize that sensitivity, tolerance, and Constitutional freedoms work BOTH ways. If Muslims insist on exercising their undisputed right to religious freedom in a grossly insensitive way, then they have no right to expect sensitivity from non-Muslims when exercising their Constitutional rights.

I know that burning a Koran insults Muslims; I get it. I get that burning any book is almost always an expression of disgust with the book's content and/or author(s). But this is America and her citizens have the right to express disgust with ideas by torching the books--or CD's, flags or anything else--that contain or symbolize those ideas. If Muslims want to live in America and invoke her Constitutional freedoms in their own defense, then they must accept those same freedoms giving voice to disgust with or opposition to their faith. If they can't deal with that then I hear the Kingdom--and I don't mean the magic one--is nice this time of year. And the liberals can go there, too.

Guest Column: Obama Has Failed

2010-08-30T20:30:00.003-05:00

Hey friends! While I'm out of sorts because of chemo a blogging friend of mine, Robert, has offered to do a guest column for my blog. I hope you enjoy Robert's insightful post and check out his blog, "Wise Conservatism", in the blog roll. Happy reading!

Obama has failed.......even as he is pushing his "so called" Summer of Recovery.

If you tell a lie enough times, eventually, the people will begin to believe it as the truth. That is what we have happening now. Obama, is saying over and over again, that this is the summer of recovery, when in fact it isn't happening. But, saying it over and over and over again, does not make it so.
-Robert Garding-

That quote tells it like it is. The Gaffe-o-Matic Joe Biden keeps doing that, too. It seems that the entire left end of the spectrum in our government are there only for progagating the same lie, in the hopes that we, the American people fall for it, as we always have in the past. I will explain this in a bit. But they do not stop there.

Even after a year of working the economy the way they want, they still turn to Bush bashing and blaming Bush for the troubles that they are having. Historically, it has been proven, that liberalism and Socialism do not work. Liberalism, if left to it’s own devices, implodes like we are seeing now. They start out with government programs to help the needy. This in itself is not a bad thing. No one ever said it was. But, like I said, it doesn’t stop there. Liberalism will not work unless it grows government. A big government, and our constitution are not compatible. Just like Sharia Law and our Constitution are not compatible.

This is something that bothers me, and I know it bothers Seane-Anna, and the rest of America who do not like what Obama is doing. The fact is the left is so disconnected from the American people, and that they do not care to get connected to us, is insulting. It's insulting because they feel we are too stupid to know what we want. It is really galling that Obama and his gang really think the American people are dumb enough to fall for their propaganda. And Propaganda is what it all is folks. It’s as if they think we can't see reality, even though we're the ones living it, not Obama and his limousine liberal friends. They cannot seem to tell the truth to us no matter what, but they think that their lies are not detected by us either.

Now it is like I said a few paragraphs ago. They think that we believe their lies, mainly because we have allowed them to be implemented in the past. I have a sort of historical perspective on this, because in my 58 years, I have seen freedom after freedom taken away from us in the name of bigger government and more governmental programs. Freedoms like being able to pray in school. Freedoms like learning America is a great nation. Freedoms like learning the truth, which for the most part isn't taught anymore in government schools. Freedoms like being able to put our children into private schools. That freedom isn't gone yet, but you can see the government trying to take that one too.

In Chicago, the second amendment of the Constitution does not apply anymore because the average person cannot own or possess handguns. This did not happen overnight either. It started out small, with a law to help the police fight crime. When that didn’t work they went to the next step. And on and on, always with the same pretext that if we do this, the desired effect will happen. The trouble is, the desired effect of the government, and the desired effect of the people soon parted ways, and the people didn’t speak up....and we ended up with the second amendment of our constitution being junked in Chicago by the usual thuggish style of politics, and criminal polticians, that has now hit the White House.

Chicagoans allowed their rights to bear arms to be taken away from them. We are now fighting it, because we see what is going on. The difference being is that Chicago had it happen to them over generations. We are seeing it happen in less than a decade. That is the other side of Liberalism. They start out slow, and when they get what they want, which is total power, they go power crazy and start implementing their ideals with no regard to what the people want. And there is the disconnect from the people. It is the same as the analogy of the Frog. Drop it into a boiling pot of water and it will leap out to keep from boiling to death. Put it in cool water, and slowly heat it up, the Frog will sit there and cook because it doesn’t see or feel the danger of what is coming before it’s too late. That is how the liberals have pushed they’re agenda since the beginning. Things that are seen as normal today would have been completely rebuffed 50 years ago if tried then.

We the people, still see the Constitution as the document that forms this Republic into the great nation that she is. They the liberal left, sees the Constitution as a document that is flawed and in the way of the things they want to do. Nancy Pelosi spoke it right out in the open a few months ago, when a reporter asked her if the Health care bill was Constitutional. Her reply was telling if nothing else, when she said, ‘Are you kidding???’ Fortunately, the reporter wasn’t kidding. UNFORTUNATELY, Pelosi wasn’t either. That is how these liberals believe. But there is more.

On October the 29th of 2008, before the election was voted on Thomas Sowell said this about an Obama Presidency. And his words have all but come true. Read them:

"........if Sen. Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic — and catastrophic.
Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign. Performance is where Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.

Policies he proposes under the change banner are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries — and failed repeatedly in other countries.
Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That’s been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century. The economies of China and India began to take off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of change.

Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.
Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.

Higher taxes to “spread the wealth around,” as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and a lack of incentives has stifled the production of new wealth.

Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran’s being “a small country,” as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counterattack. Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy — and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that situation cannot be reversed.
Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?

If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II. In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for President Bush. But he didn’t have nuclear weapons to back up that threat — yet.

America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish. Do you think our leaders wouldn’t do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn’t bet my life on that.

What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has been demonstrated repeatedly in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East. None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage, and decisive actions, none of which Obama has ever demonstrated."

Now, after months and a few years since that was printed by Thomas Sowell, can you see that he was right? If you can’t, then you are still stuck in Obama’s mantra chant of “change change change” because you do not like America as a free nation. But if you are a Patriotic and Freedom loving American, then you can see it only too well.

Obama told us when the Stimulus was being pushed, that if we didn’t pass it, and spend those hundreds of billions of dollars, that we didn’t have, then Unemployment would continue to go up and the economy would crash and burn. He said if it was passed, unemployment would not go above 8%. It has and it continues to hover at or above 10% now. And the government is now telling us that is the new normal. HUH????

It’s just like in Chicago. For generations they were telling the people, get the guns off the streets. If guns are outlawed, there will be no crime. But crime flourished there. Why? Because the people’s ability to defend themselves against the criminals was taken away. When guns were outlawed, only the outlaws had the guns. Where there is no protection for the people, crime WILL flourish, with abandon. As it has in Chicago.

It is then, when they’re ideas do not work, that they turn to the other tactic that they have always used. And that is out and out lying. As with Chuck Schumer in 2008 said, when trying to help the liberal cause, that "Conservatism is akin to porn."

The evidences are all there to tell the American people that Liberalism will NOT work under any circumstances. Yet, the politicians on the left continue to push it on us, and like in the last election, we continue to fall for it.

They have pushed their socialistic health care bill on us, just as Europe is opting out of the same system because it didn’t work! And the same can be said about almost everything that Obama has tried to push on us since becoming president. And yet, even after more than a year in office.....he is still trying the same thing that the Liberals would not allow anyone else to get away with. And that is blame the previous administration, and not taking credit for the fiasco that He himself has caused. And that is the last thing I wish to talk about when it comes to the liberals. Their ideals will never work. But when they don’t work, they place the blame elsewhere. Always elsewhere. Never where the blame actually belongs. And that is the implementation of ideals that will never work. They have historically proven to never work, and those ideals at this very moment, all over the world, are not working and are being stopped because of it. But not here. Obama is pushing these same failed agenda’s saying that we need to do this to save the economy. He is so moronic at times. But so can we be.

When are we going to learn? America is a great country. America is a strong country. But America can be destroyed. The left right now, is on the path to doing just that. Is that what we Americans want? I mentioned to my children just the other day, that for the first time in my time, I can actually say, that if we do not change the path that the liberal government has placed us on, that that I can see a world, where America will NOT exist when they are adults. That to me is a sad thing to consider. I hope it is to all other patriotic Americans.....

"If we cease to be a nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
-President Ronald Reagan-

The Few. The Proud. The Marines.

2010-07-29T11:33:00.004-05:00

Hey friends! I'm not posting regularly right now due to my chemo treatments, but while on YouTube this morning I came across this great tribute to America's greatest fighting force and had to post it. I love all the armed forces, but my late uncle was a Marine and so the Corp has a special place in my heart. Anyway, here's the video. Hope you enjoy it!

Update On Me

2010-07-12T20:45:00.003-05:00

Hello everyone! I'm so sorry I've been away for so long. I haven't been here because I've been dealing with the effects of my first round of chemo. In a word, it was AWFUL.

I had my first dose of chemotherapy on Wednesday, June 30; talk about the cure being worse than the disease! I didn't have any nausea or vomiting thanks to some anti-nausea medicine, but I had something worse: a paralyzing, frightening, CRUSHING fatigue. Actually, "fatigue" doesn't begin to describe it but it's the only word I can think of. I've never felt anything like it in my life. It was as if the chemo was a pharmaceutical vampire sucking every ounce of energy from my body. All I could do was sleep, but it wasn't a restful sleep. Do you know how miserable it is to sleep 15 hours and wake up as drained as when you laid down? That first round of chemo was so bad that I seriously considered not taking anymore, but then I started coming out of it.

Saturday night I stopped feeling the chemo draining my energy and started to feel a "normal" exhaustion. From then on I slooooooowly climbed back to normalcy, feeling well enough to go to work on Tuesday, July 5. I lasted only half a day but it was still a big step forward. Since then I've worked every day and gotten stronger and stronger. I've gotten back into the rhythm of normal life, except for blogging. I don't know why, but I've had no desire to blog since I had chemo. I hope it's not a sign of "chemo brain", a condition where the ability to concentrate and remember is impaired. And I hope my interest in my blogs will return SOON!

So that's what's been happening, sweet friends, and that's why I've been away. I'm here for tonight but don't know when I'll be back. Be prepared for my postings to stay irregular during my chemo treatments which will end in October. I'll post as my physical, emotional, and mental health allows. Please keep your prayers and good vibes coming my way; I will need them. I'll receive my second round of chemo this coming Wednesday. The nurses said the second time will be a little easier. I so hope they are right; another round of that oppressive fatigue will be unbearable.

Pray for me.

The McChrystal Affair

2010-06-23T22:51:00.007-05:00

General Stanley McChrystal, commander of American forces in Afghanistan, was fired today by President Obama for criticizing the president and members of his adminstration in an article in the left-wing magazine Rolling Stone.

When the news first broke that Gen. McChrystal was in hot water with the president I didn't know what to make of it. I know the military has rules governing what its members can and can't do and say. I know those rules can be far more strict than the rules applied to civilians. So, when I heard that Obama was upset with McChrystal I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, I had no way of knowing if what McChrystal said in Rolling Stone equalled insubordination. If the general's remarks did violate the military's code then Obama acted appropriately today. But I have a problem cutting Chicago BO some slack, and here it is.

Barack Obama is the most thin skinned president in recent history. His epidermis is flimsier than a wet Kleenex. The man does NOT like criticism. Consequently, it's almost impossible for me to believe that his sacking of McChrystal was anything but retribution for the general's dissent. Yes, Obama claimed that "personal insult" had nothing to do with McChrystal's firing, but c'mon. Barack Obama is the president who tried to discredit an entire news channel because he felt it wasn't "sufficiently supportive" of him. But now we're supposed to believe that General McChrystal's gone simply because Obama's devoted to order in the military. Again, come on!

Obama's star is fading fast. In less than two years he's gone from being a messiah to a false prophet. He knows he must salvage his image among the people. Perhaps Obama thought that sacking McChrystal would make him look strong and decisive and allay Americans' increasing doubts about his leadership. It won't. Instead, most Americans will probably see firing a great general when he's needed most as a vindictive act by a president childishly intolerant of dissent. The McChrystal affair could've helped Obama regain some of his lost mojo but the president sabotaged himself with his previous mishandling of criticism. And I actually think that's too bad.

Brave, Brave Obama!

2010-06-21T22:41:00.005-05:00

Over the past few days I've been dwelling on the bravery of our dear leader, The Obama. He is very, very dauntless, y'know. It takes courage for a leader to stand against the people and pursue unpopular policies because he knows they're right. The Obama showed such courage when his administration chose to side with law breaking foreigners against fellow Americans.

That's right. Obama has decided to file a lawsuit against the state of Arizona over its strict new anti-illegal alien law. And rather than reveal this principled move to the American people himself, Obama the Brave had Secretary of State Hillary Clinton do it, on Ecuadorean television no less. You can't get more courageous than that!

I can't begin to tell you how thankful I am that America now has such an intrepid president. After eight years of that embarrassing cowboy George W. Bush, it's so refreshing to have a Chief Executive who knows that true courage is turning on your national brethren in order to appease failed Third World countries that ship their poor people here. Yes, this is soooooooo amazing! I wish I could tell the Big O in person how much his bravery has inspired me.

Oh, yes, my fellow Americans. We're in good hands now that Chicago BO is on the job. We can rest assured that The Obama's doctrine of security through appeasement will strike terror in the hearts of our enemies while simultaneously endearing us to our friends. Strength and peace will be the natural results. The Obama figured that strategy out by himself and that just makes me love him even more. Not only is he brave he's smart, too. He's got brawn AND brains. What a combo!

I feel so comfortable now. The sun's shining, birds are singing, and Arizona's gonna get kicked to the curb by the most fearless leader America's ever had. Yep, everything's right with the world and we all can rest easy. The Dauntless One is at the helm. What could possibly go wrong?

The Speech

2010-06-16T10:42:00.003-05:00

I watched Obama's speech about the oil spill last night. I hadn't planned on watching it but when I heard Obama would be speaking from the Oval Office I decided to give it a listen. And I wasn't disappointed. The speech, though short, was as full of spin and crisis-exploitation as I thought it would be.

I really can't believe the arrogance of the guy who's occupying the White House.

The BP oil rig explosion happened two months ago. Obama rejected almost immediate offers of help from the Dutch to contain the oil spill. He rejected the use of spill-containing equipment from American companies. He refused to speak with BP CEO Tony Hayward, even though he's more than willing to speak, without preconditions, to some of the world's worst dictators. And he didn't travel to the Gulf states until a couple of weeks ago. Yet Obama swaggered into the Oval Office last night and expected the American people to believe his assertion that his administration has been on top of the crisis from day one. How dumb does he think we are? Very, apparently.

Unfortunately for Obama, however, we the people are not dumb.

We are not dumb! We don't believe his ridiculous claim that he's been on this from day one. And we're incensed at Obama's smarmy politicizing of the crisis, using it to push his big spending clean energy initiatives. Indeed, it seemed half or more of Obama's speech consisted of him hawking his eco-dreams of a future green economy rather than saying what he was going to do to stop the spill and help the Gulf states NOW.

Maybe that's why Obama gave this speech in the Oval Office rather than out in the Rose Garden with reporters present. Maybe he was avoiding having to answer embarrassing questions, like did he purposely drag his feet on tackling this disaster so as to make his demand for green energy look more urgent and justified? Cynical? Maybe, but I wouldn't put anything past this president.

Barack Obama is a left-wing zealot who believes his own messianic con. He truly believes he was elected to do great things and he's justified in using any means, exploiting any tragedy, to achieve his grand goals. That's what was on display last night; messianic zeal, not concern for ending a disaster. Unfortunately for Obama, fewer and fewer people believe in his messiahship or his presidency, and no amount of flowery speeches will stem the erosion of faith in his "change".

Obama's massive mishandling of the Gulf coast oil crisis has revealed his feet of clay, and almost certainly assured sweeping Republican victories this November and in 2012. Not exactly the "fundamental transformation" Obama thought he'd create but it's the one that more Americans understand we need. Obama's arrogant zeal has to be stopped.

Hurry up, November!

Cancer Free!

2010-06-16T10:28:00.003-05:00

Well, friends, I got the results of my lymph node biopsy I had Monday and I'm thrilled to report that I'm officially cancer free! YIPPEE!!!! My treatment isn't over, however. I'm still going to have a few rounds of chemo and then radiation to reduce the risk of recurrence, and that's alright. I'm willing to do what ever it takes to defeat this monster. And I thank all my blogging friends for your prayers and support. I truly believe that your positive energy played a part in helping me beat this thing. Y'all are GREAT!!!! And being cancer free is GREAT!!!!! Watch out all you libtards. SEANE-ANNA IS BACK!!!!

Tribute To The Troops

2010-06-07T19:36:00.003-05:00

This is my late D-Day and Memorial Day post. Sorry I didn't post anything on those actual days. I've had my mind on other things and yesterday when I finally got online in the evening Blogger was down. So I'm posting my ode to our gallant fighting men today. It's a song I wrote back in '07 and first posted on Sinistra's Bane--then PoorGrrl Zone--on February 20 of that year. The song is called "Hail Us Now Our Great Defenders!". It's sung to Beethoven's "Ode to Joy". Enjoy and honor the troops!

"Hail Us Now Our Great Defenders!"
(sung to Beethoven's "Ode to Joy")

by Seane-Anna

Hail us now our great Defenders!
Soldiers bold and soldiers strong!
Fighting with a fearsome splendor
'gainst the foes of Freedom's song!

Gun and tank and bomb and rifle
evil enemies do slay,
in the hands of our brave warriors
pledged to keep us free and safe.

Hail us now our great Defenders!
Guarding Freedom's Home with steel,
like the Lord of Hosts above us
saving with His righteous shield!

Strength and courage are their armor
and them both they proudly wear.
Knowing well the holy nature
of the Cause they chose to bear.

Hail us now our great Defenders!
Like the Spartans, we admire!
Standing firm and never falt'ring
'fore the awesome Gates of Fire!

Long and hard, with grit they struggle
for our precious Land to save.
We, their sons in spirit honor
those who fullest measure gave.

This song popped into my head almost fully formed when I was putting my day care babies to sleep. "Ode to Joy" was playing as the nap time music and the words just came to me. I'm rather proud of my little ode to the troops and I thought it was time to bring it out again. Hope you enjoyed it!

God bless America!
God bless our troops!

Invasive Ductal Carcinoma

2010-06-01T20:08:00.003-05:00

Well, I now have a name for it.

I learned this past Wednesday that I really do have breast cancer, and I found out today what kind: invasive ductal carcinoma or IDC. IDC is the most common kind of breast cancer, accounting for 80% of all cases of the disease. I know some general things about this cancer but things that are specific to me are still unfolding.

The good news is that the cancer is now out of my body. I went to the hospital last Monday to have a surgical biopsy. This was necessary because the results of the initial needle biopsy were inconclusive. However, when my surgeon actually got inside my breast he saw that he could take the whole tumor out, which he did. So, I went in for a biopsy and came out with a lumpectomy. And the tissue around the tumor was cancer free. And that, to repeat, is good news.

So, what's next?

I go see my oncologist this Friday. I should learn from her the stage of my cancer and what my next round of treatment will be. My surgeon said I'll have to have radiation and most likely chemo, too. I really don't want chemo but if that's what it'll take for me to beat this then so be it. Whatever's next, I'm anxious for it to start because the sooner it starts the sooner it'll be over and I can go back to my normal life. My normal, cancer free life. That will be BEAUTIFUL!

Thank You!

2010-05-23T01:06:00.003-05:00

I just wanted to send a shout out to all my blogging friends who've left me such sweet, kind, and supportive comments in my time of trial and tribulation. Your love has made my day. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

Update On Me

2010-05-22T23:43:00.004-05:00

Hello friends! I just wanted to update you on my health situation. I still don't know with 100% certainty that I have breast cancer. I hope to find that out by Wednesday of next week as I go in Monday for a surgical biopsy. It will be an out patient surgery and I'll be home the same day, thank God. Then will come that nerve wracking wait for the results; ditto with the results of the PET scan that I had today to see if there's been any spreading of the cancer (if it's there).

Whether or not I even have cancer...I just don't know what to think. As I wrote in my previous post I was told I have breast cancer but was later informed by my surgeon that my pathology report was inconlusive. Still, my surgeon, Dr. C, is 99% convinced that I do have cancer and we just need to find out what kind, hence the new biopsy. My oncologist, Dr. G, is more doubtful, telling me flat out that "we don't know" if I have cancer because the results of the first biopsy were "useless". Two good doctors; two different opinions. So, what to think? I don't know. All I can do is wait for the results, prepare for the worst, and pray for the best.

The next few days are going to be a little hard.

PS

I almost forgot. My genetic test results came back NEGATIVE for BOTH gene mutations that signigicantly increase a woman's chances for breast cancer. This is good because IF I do have breast cancer not having the mutations means that I won't have to consider a double mastectomy as my best or even only treatment option. If the lump is small enough--and Dr. C thinks it is--I can get by with only a lumpectomy followed by radiation and/or chemo. That's the treatment option I prefer if I have to have treatment. But I'm steadfastly praying that I won't.

Announcement

2010-05-12T22:45:00.004-05:00

Hello blogging friends! This is going to be a very personal post. I hesitated to write it. Once I'd said what I want to say I was worried about getting nasty comments from any of my ideological opponents, most notably Jane. Plus, what I have to say isn't the most pleasant thing to talk about, but I decided that my loyal blogging friends deserve to know what's going with li'l ol' me. So here goes.

As of yesterday, Tuesday May 11, I'm 99% sure I have breast cancer. On Monday I was 100% sure I have the disease, but during my visit to my surgeon, Dr. C, on Tuesday I was shown my actual pathology report which was some what inconclusive. The report doesn't say my biopsy was positive for breast cancer; instead it says there was "extensive" dead cell proliferation "consistent with necrotic carcinoma" (necrotic means dead). Sounds like cancer, doesn't it? But the path report also says, twice, that "[n]o viable tumor was identified". So I'm a bit confused, though my surgeon is proceeding on the opinion that I do, in fact, have breat cancer. I understand and accept that.

Tomorrow I have to go for genetic testing. This was suggested to me by a nurse at my local cancer resource center. Dr. C concurred on getting the test. He said I need to know if I have a certain cancer-causing gene because that could have a bearing on the best way to treat my disease. But there won't be any treatment of any kind until after I see my oncologist on Friday. After that the next step is to have another biopsy, most likely a surgical one. If it comes back conclusively positive for breast cancer then I will have some serious decisions to make. And that's all there is medically, right now.

You might be wondering how I'm doing emotionally, and the answer is, fine. Finding the lump in my breast back in March and then finding out it's most likely cancer threw me for a loop. I'm doing ok, though. My outlook is totally positive. I'm praying hard and there are many other people praying for me, too. Despite the prayers, I get scared or depressed occassionally. Mostly, though, I'm in good spirits. I decided that it just wouldn't do any good to be bitter and wallow in self-pity. Having hope and faith and a merry heart is the way to go. And that's what I'm doing. No matter what happens I choose to believe that I will be alright. I have too many leftists to fight to let a little cancer slow me down!

Keep me in your thoughts and prayers!

Your blogging buddy,

Seane-Anna

The Great Liberal Hope

2010-05-05T21:31:00.003-05:00

It wasn't a "teabagger".

Despite the Left's desperate hope that the terrorist wannabe who tried to blow up Times Square was a Tea Party devotee, he turned out to be a--surprise!--Muslim with the usual jihadi chip on his shoulder. It wasn't supposed to be that way. NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg opined Monday that the Times Square bomber was probably some home grown, disturbed individual upset about Obamacare. Not so much, and the Left is distraught. MSNBC anchorwoman Contessa Brewer gave perhaps the most eloquent voice to liberal dismay.

Speaking on The Stephanie Millier Show Brewer whined, "There was a part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country. Because there are a lot of people who want to use terroist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as a justification for really outdated bigotry."

First, who is this "they" who supposedly use "terrorist intent" to justify racism? Second, what race, religion, ethnicity, or nationality would Brewer have preferred the Times Square bomber to be? We know the answers to these questions. The "they" are Republicans/conservatives who dare to call Islamic terrorism what it is and lay the blame for it on Islam. And Brewer would've been estactic if TS Boy had been a white, male, Christian who had attended a Tea Party protest. That would've conformed perfectly to liberals' narrative of evil white, anti-Obama, Tea Partiers.

You see, liberals don't need proof of the wickedness of the Tea Party movement. They just know that the movement and its participants are dangerous. Still, proof would be nice. That is the great liberal hope, to find a smoking gun that reveals beyond question the violent, malicious nature of those white, Tea Party folks. Liberals thought they had such a smoking gun in Amy Bishop, the biology professor who murdered three of her fellow profs at the University of Alabama in February. Bishop, however, turned out to be an Obama supporter.

The next candidate for the great liberal hope was Joseph A. Stack, who flew his plane into an IRS building in Austin, TX in February. A ha! An anti-tax protestor! This guy had to be involved in the Tea--Taxed Enough Already--Party movement. The smoking gun at last! But it was not to be. Joseph Stack turned out to be a left-wing extremist who railed against capitalism and organized religion as much as against taxes. Stack had nothing to do with the Tea Party movement. The smoking gun the liberals longed for proved a dud.

And then came the Times Square almost attack.

Hope burned brightly again for liberals but the flame almost instantly flickered out. The Times Square bomber wannabe turned out to be a TOTALLY unpc suspect. A Muslim, an immigrant, a person of color, everything that their dogma orders liberals to embrace. And, as Brewer showed, they did.

The Times Square would be bomber has been given sympathetic treatment by at least some in the lame stream media. They can't help it. Their worldview won't let them treat TS Boy any other way. If a Muslim, immigrant, and/or person of color commits a crime it's never his fault, at least not his fault alone. White, Western, Christian culture is the real culprit, the real threat. Liberals know this; they just lack the proof that will convince the rest of us. So they keep on hoping for the advent of the unmistakable sign that they are right.

One day, liberals believe, a white guy with a Tea Party t-shirt will blow something up and they will be there to exploit the carnage for political gain. That's what liberals want. A terrorist attack by a white guy, someone they can condemn. That is their great hope, and it's sick.

Not Young, Not Black, Not Latino, Not Female...Not Important

2010-04-27T20:22:00.006-05:00

Take a look at the picture above. It's Robert Krentz, the Arizona rancher whose murder at the hands of an illegal alien probably helped secure the passage of Arizona's tough new anti-illegal immigration law. But if Robert Krentz's murder propelled the new law into action, that's all it did.

It didn't move the oh-so-compassionate liberals to express sympathy for Krentz. It didn't prompt the Mexican government to issue an apology to Krentz's family for their suffering at the hands of a Mexican citizen. It didn't stir the lame stream media to demand the feds get in control of the border NOW! No, Robert Krentz's brutal murder didn't inspire any of the above because he was the wrong type of person. Robert Krentz didn't belong to any of the categories of people, articulated by Barack Obama, that it's fashionable for liberals to care about. Krentz was an unfashionable victim.

Take a look at the picture above. It's a picure of a human being: older, white, male, and in the mind of a frighteningly large segment of our population, expendable. That's REAL racial profiling. Why don't the liberals condemn that?

Gone, Baby, Gone! Part Deux

2010-04-22T23:42:00.005-05:00

Everybody's heard about it.

Lance Baxter, aka DC Douglas, the voice actor for the Geico commercials, was fired by that auto insurance company after he left a hateful voice mail at FreedomWorks, a pro-Tea Party group. Apparently, Baxter/Douglas--who sounds very stereotypically gay on the voice mail--was angry at alleged anti-gay sentiment in the Tea Party movement. After FreedomWorks released Baxter's pseudo-civil tirade Geico handed the actor his walking papers. Adios muchacho!

Now I'm not sure if Baxter was fired specifically for spewing hate against FreedomWorks or for using the politically incorrect word "retarded" in his rant, but either way it's downright thrilling to see a denizen of the Left get his just desserts. I don't expect Baxter to be jobless for long. Hollywood's owned by liberals who'd love to have sweet Lance come and talk for them (or to them). So I'm sure Baxter/Douglas will be drawing a paycheck again soon. But for now Geico Dude is jobless and I, for one, couldn't be happier.

18 Seconds Of Truth

2010-04-20T20:35:00.003-05:00

So the Tea Party is a racist movement, huh? This brief interview of Darryl Postell, a black man at a Tea Party rally, by white NBC reporter Kelly O'Donnell puts the kibosh on that liberal myth. The question that O'Donnell asks Mr. Postell exposes her liberal bias. Mr. Postell's answer is awesome. Listen and cheer!

God Bless The Tea Parties!

2010-04-15T22:42:00.002-05:00

Well, today is tax day and I wasn't disappointed. Tea Party rallies were held all over the country just like last year, clearly demonstrating that this unjustly maligned movement is not just standing firm but gaining ground.

I didn't get to attend the local rally like I did in '09. I had to get my car fixed after I got off work. Also, the local rally wasn't held in my city but in a nearby suburb that I hardly ever visit. As I don't like to drive around unfamiliar places after dark, I probably wouldn't have gone to this year's rally even if my car hadn't been an issue. I'm thrilled, though, that millions of other Americans DID get to participate in the movement and make their voices heard.

I love the Tea Party movement. The people involved are the salt of the earth. They have, as stated above, been unjustly maligned. They have been smeared, trashed, mocked, derided, vilified, and demonized. The lame stream media has denounced them. Democratic officials have denounced them. Yet, despite all the hate and opposition the Tea Partiers have persevered, becoming the epitome of resolve, principle, and grassroots activism. They aren't burning the flag. They aren't demonizing our troops. They aren't chanting they want to kill the president, nor are they hanging anyone in effigy. They're simply using their God given right to speak out against criminal levels of fiscal irresponsibility and unconstitutional governmental expansion.

The Tea Party movement has it right. Spending is out of control and government is getting too big to be compatible with liberty. If that straight forward message is deemed hateful or racist by liberals then that only shows their intellectual bankruptcy. Tea Partiers have nothing to fear from those people. They should ignore them and keep on fighting for America to have a free and solvent future. They WILL do that, and that's why I love them and their movement.

God bless the Tea Parties!

God bless the Tea Partiers!

God bless America!

Gone, Baby, Gone!

2010-04-09T19:24:00.003-05:00

Representative Bart Stupak has announced his retirement. The Michigan Democrat, I'm sure you remember, betrayed his pro-life views and the pro-life community in his desperation to vote for Obamacare. Stupak claimed his decision had nothing to do with anger over that betrayal. Instead, Stupak said that he's retiring because he's tired and wants to spend more time with his family. Yeah, right.

Stupak is the first in what will be a long line of post-Obamacare casualties. The American people, including those in Stupak's district, don't want the Dems' kind of health care "reform". They hate the way it was shoved down their throats by arrogant, we-know-what's-best-for-you politicians. And pro-lifers are NOT fooled by the executive order (EO) Stupak got from Obama in exchange for his vote. They know that said EO is just a fig leaf to give Stupak cover; it has no real teeth. And they are angry.

Stupak retired because he saw the writing on the wall. He wanted to avoid a humiliating defeat in November, a defeat that would be all he had to show for betraying his principles to support Obama and Obamacare. It's a bit frustrating that Stupak cheated his constiuents out of the joy of voting him out of his job. It would've been great to see his declining fortunes splashed across national tv on election night. Still, Stupak has gotten his just desserts. The voters didn't get to deliver the coup de grace but they, along with the majority of Americans, can cheerfully say of the Michigan traitor, "Gone, baby, gone!"

It's My Birthday!

2010-03-31T20:02:00.002-05:00

Today's my birthday! Woohoo!

Today was actually a good day even though I spent it at work. I took my b-day vacation last Friday so I could give myself a three day weekend. THAT was NICE! I slept late, went to my town's biggest flea market, took myself out to dinner, and spent quality time with my Mom watching movies. An all around WONDERFUL birthday weekend!

Today is my birthday. I've lived another year, and that's the greatest gift of all.

Today is my birthday, and I am BLESSED!

From Opposition To Resistance

2010-03-26T16:05:00.008-05:00

Finally, I'm posting about the vote on health care reform that took place this past Sunday. I waited because I wasn't sure about what to say and, honestly, I'm still not quite sure what to say so I'm just going to speak from the heart. The passage of the Democrats' health care bill is a disaster for America, and it's not primarily because of what's actually in the bill. The primary problem, the real tragedy about the passage of Obamacare, is the way it happened.

America is a representative republic. That means that government officials are elected by the people to do the will of the people. Governments throughout history have exercised power, but according to our Founding Fathers just governmental power can exist ONLY by the consent of the governed. "The governed" is We the People, but where was our consent on Sunday? The Democrats were wiping their collective ass with it, that's where it was.

What happened Sunday wasn't government of the people, by the people, or for the people; it was government OVER the people. It was the way they govern in Cuba, in Venezuela, in North Korea, and in the now defunct Soviet Union. If Americans ever wondered what one party rule looks like, it was on full display Sunday. Not only was the opposition party dissed, so where the folks. The Democrats tossed the principle of representative democracy and acted like an oligarchy. And then they had the unmitigated gall to expect Americans to be grateful to them for it. Well, we are not!

We the people, the governed, told our representatives we didn't want their "reform" and we are OUTRAGED at being so contemptuously dismissed. And we're outraged that the opposition party was contemptuously dismissed, too. No, we aren't angry because we love the Republicans. We're mad because, in our democracy, the minority party is supposed to be respected as the loyal opposition that, though out of power, is still an integral part of the governing process. The minority party is NOT to be treated like an enemy to be vanquished. But, drunk on power and ideology, that's exactly how the Dems treated the Republicans on Sunday. And we, the people, are left to fearfully wonder what the Dems, in their righteous zeal, are going to impose on us next.

Will it be cap and trade? Amnesty for illegals? Gay marriage? A nationwide ban on gun ownership? Federal control over how you heat and cool your home? An order for all public schools to give, without parental knowledge or consent, birth control to any student who wants it? This is all part of the far-left agenda that Obama and the Dems passionately believe in. And the Dems will always trot out some "good" cause to justify their every violation of democracy and the people's will.

We have to fight global warming. We have to stop teen pregnancy. We have to stop gun crime. We have to create social justice. Social justice, SOCIAL JUSTICE, SOCIAL JUSTICE! We can't let petty concerns about representative government stand in the way of transforming America for the better. That's what their justification will be. And they'll think nothing can stop them, but they're wrong.

In this hour when the majority party and its leader have chosen to act like an unaccountable aristocracy the minority party, along with the people, must transform from the loyal opposition into the resistance. It is time to resist! We must resist the socialization of America. We must resist the slide into dictatorial, one party rule. We must resist the arrogant wielding of power by the ideologues entrenched in Havana-on-the-Potomac.

Obama is a socialist dictator wannabe but he ain't gonna be. We, the people, are still here and still strong. We are the real power in this country, just as the Founders intended. The loyal opposition is gone. The resistance has arrived and come November heads will roll.

Bring it on!

The Mandate Explained

2010-03-20T22:25:00.002-05:00

I'm watching Mike Huckabee's show Huckabee which is on live tonight because of the health care reform debate. An unexpected thing happened on the show. The government mandate, i.e. the government forcing you to buy health insurance, was explained. Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania, who supports Obamacare, explained it as a money saving device for taxpayers. Seriously.

Here's how it's supposed to work: the added cost of insuring those 30 million uninsured people will be covered by the private insurance companies who will receive a huge influx of cash from those SAME 30 million people who will be forced by the government to buy their product. I'll give you some time to let that circular reasoning sink in.

This is incredible.

Obama has campaigned for his health care "reform" bill largely by demonizing those EVIL insurance companies that dare to sometimes deny people coverage, yet Gov. Rendell described Obamacare as a virtual give away to the insurance companies, giving them millions of customers they otherwise wouldn't have and fattening their bottom lines as a result. And that's how we're going to insure the 30 million uninsured without bankrupting the country.

I know. Only a liberal can believe that. That's why we have to defeat those goons in November. Bring it on!

No Reward For Arrogance

2010-03-19T19:55:00.005-05:00

Well, the vote on Obamacare is getting closer. It seems it'll go forward this Sunday and it's going to be a real nail biter. I'm hoping and praying for a defeat of this monstrosity but, right now, it's just too close to call. And I'm a little perturbed about that. In the wake of three stunning electoral defeats--including losing Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts--poll after poll showing firm opposition to Obamacare, and outraged citizens tongue lashing politicians last August, you'd think Obamacare would be dead. You'd think we wouldn't be fighting over it now. But the Democrats, even after everything the people have told them, are STILL determined to force this abomination on us. And that's become the main reason I want Obamacare defeated.

I oppose Obamacare on principle. I'm against the nanny state. I'm against deficit spending. I'm against wealth redistribution. I'm against socialism. And I'm against the federal government doing what the Constitution gives it NO right to do. I oppose Obamacare for all those reasons but now I want this thing defeated because of the unbridled arrogance of the Democrats. No matter how the people have spoken the Dems are determined to do what THEY want. They've trampled on the very premise of representative government, i.e. government derives its power from the CONSENT of the PEOPLE, and are acting like an aristocracy that needs no such consent. Their attitude, like that of parents dealing with recalcitrant children is, "We know what's best; one day you'll thank us." Their condescension is appalling. And that's why Obamacare must be defeated. The arrogance of the Democrats cannot stand.

America is a representative, constitutional Republic, not an aristocracy and definitely not a socialist dictatorship. If Obamacare is passed against the will of the people there will be hell to pay. We, the people, will NOT take this lying down. We will NOT view the Democrats who voted for this outrage as heroes bravely standing on their principles. The arrogant, egotistical shitheads in Washington who think they are our masters will discover in November who really rules this country. And they'd better thank God that Americans are civilized enough to vote, otherwise the shitheads would get their just desserts the Mussolini way.

Long live the Constitution!

Long live the people!

Down with Obama!

THUNDER!!!!

2010-03-16T20:29:00.002-05:00

Hey friends. Having a bit of writer's block again, *sigh*, so I thought I'd put up a patriotic vid for y'all's enjoyment. The song is AC/DC's awesome track Thunderstruck played over equally awesome shots of America's helicopter "cavalry". This video makes me believe that the only two entities that should control the skies are the Lord of Hosts and Uncle Sam's flyboy killaz. Halleluyah and USA!!!!

Reality Not Revision

2010-03-10T20:37:00.006-06:00

Sometimes I'm just stunned by the ignorance of liberals, and even non-liberals.

Tonight I watched The O'Reilly Factor as I usually do. Bill O'Reilly had a liberal radio talk show host, Mark Levin, on the show discussing some inane things actor Tom Hanks said. Basically, Hanks accused America of anti-Japanese racism during WWII and insinuated that the same racism is at work today in the War on Terror. O'Reilly brought liberal Levin on to explain Hanks remarks.

Not surprisingly, Levin agreed with Hanks' assessment; O'Reilly challenged him and that's when Levin revealed his ignorance. To back up his agreement with Hanks' accusation of racism Levin asserted that America interned Japanese-Americans during the war but not German-Americans. That, my friends, is a total falsehood. And O'Reilly apparently didn't realize that because he didn't challenge Levin's utterly inaccurate statement. It is disheartening when even Bill "looking out for the folks" O'Reilly doesn't know enough to counter anti-American fictions. Well, I do.

Here is the truth, people.

The United States of America interned white German and Italian Americans, as well as non-white Japanese-Americans, during the Second World War.

Yes, the racist US government rounded up and imprisoned without trial thousands of white people it considered threats to national security. The racist US government even pressured Latin American countries to arrest and deport to the US Latin Americans of German ancestry. The racist US government imprisoned many of those whites in the same camps as the Japanese, the largest one being just outside Crystal City, TX.

This is what happened in this country during WWII. Whites had their civil liberties violated, property confiscated, reputations ruined, and families destroyed. To my knowledge, none of the white internees received reparations after the war like the Japanese internees eventually did. Tom Hanks was wrong. Our war against Japan wasn't rooted in racism. Just ask the German and Italian Americans who spent the war behind barbed wire.

Why don't more Americans know about their country's internment of whites during the Second World War? Possibly because white people don't make a career out of victimhood or a cult out of greivance. But more likely because exposing this suppressed reality undermines the Left's fundamental conviction that America is an inherently and malevolently racist nation. Liberals want to believe the worst about the country they profess to love. The revisionist story that only Japanese-Americans were interned during WWII, and that the internment was based on race, lets them do just that.

Patriots must reject the Left's noxious narrative; it's just not true. The truth is that, during WWII, America interned people with "enemy ancestry", not Asian people or European people. "Enemy ancestry" was determined by the countries we were fighting, not by race. Chinese Americans weren't interned during the war even though they were Asian. Why not? Because China was our ally;therefore, Chinese Americans didn't have "enemy ancestry" no matter how Asian they were. Race just wasn't the driving force behind the internment policy. Sorry , Mr. Hanks.

The reality of America is 180 degrees opposite of the dark, revisionist narrative espoused by Hanks, Levin, and liberals generally. America is NOT an inherently and malevolently racist country. Whites have suffered injustice just like non-whites. The imprisonment of Germans and Italians in the internment camps proves that. Let this be a lesson to all of us. We must know our history so we can defend our nation against the perverted paradigm of the Left.

Time to throw out the revision.

Time to embrace the reality.

Let the patriotic defense begin!

Some Facts On Health Care "Reform"

2010-03-07T21:19:00.002-06:00

This video was placed on YouTube back in August but what it reveals about what's really involved in health care "reform" is most certainly still a part of the bill that Obama wants passed today. Take a little look at what the government has planned for you. This is some unsettling stuff.

Blah

2010-03-01T19:48:00.002-06:00

Hey everyone. I know it's been a long time since my last post. I don't know what's going on with me but I've just been having the blogging blahs lately. It's not like there hasn't been anything to post about. The same old libtard idiocy is still out there, but I think that's part of the problem. It's the same old libtard idiocy. Sometimes it feels like I can write about that stuff only so much before it becomes mind numbing. I mean, when is the idiocy going to stop? Sometimes it seems like never.

I look out across this country that I love. I see the Tea Parties getting stronger. I see Republicans winning elections they weren't expected to. I see polls saying twice as many Americans identify themselves as conservative rather than liberal. I see other polls showing the majority of Americans describe themselves as pro-life. I see all that yet I'm not giddy like, say, Sean Hannity is about the resurgence of "conservatism".

Yes, I was thrilled about Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts a few weeks ago. A Republican winning Teddy Kennedy's old seat was almost miraculous. My enthusiasm for Brown has cooled, though, since learning he's not a true social conservative. And I've been wondering if that's going to be the case with all the other Republican candidates this year. Will they be people committed only to conservative economics but not to conservative values? Fiscal responsibility is very important, but if that becomes all that conservatism is about, if conservatism is gutted of its soul, then I can't get enthusiastic about that.

It remains to be seen what kind of "conservatism" will emerge from the current anger at and disgust with Washington. If what emerges is a movement that is as contemptuous of traditional values and the people who hold them as social liberalism is then it'll be a movement I can't support. I'll be forced to find a new ideological home. I won't be a conservative anymore.

No wonder I have the blahs.

Record Snowfall

2010-02-12T11:57:00.002-06:00

My humble neck of the woods outdid itself yesterday. Instead of 5 inches of snow, which would've been a LOT itself, we broke the previous record set 30 years ago and got a FOOT AND A HALF of the white stuff! That's just frickin' AMAZING!!!!

I went outside this morning and took some pictures on my street. When I stepped in the snow it almost came up to the top of my boots. It was almost scary. The pics, though, are great. I never knew how pretty snow covered trees could be. Unfortunately, the snow is starting to melt. The stuff on the trees is the first casualty of warming temperatures, but the ground cover is so thick it'll probably be here until Valentine's Day, if not later.

This has been quite an experience. Beautiful snow, a four day weekend, great pics. And I owe it all to global warming. Who woulda thunk it!

Thank God For Global Warming!!!!

2010-02-11T10:09:00.002-06:00

Thanks to global warming I got an unexpected day off from work today. You see, my humble neck of the woods is getting hit with more snow than we've seen in YEARS. As much as 5 inches of the white stuff is expected to fall by tonight. And if the wet, snowy roads freeze overnight, as is predicted, I won't be going to work tomorrow, either. No driving on snow or ice for me. No way, no how. So I'm looking at a possible FOUR day weekend. Yippee! Ain't global warming WONDERFUL!!!!

The "R" Word

2010-02-06T10:06:00.004-06:00

I've been thinking about the tempest in a teapot, as I view it, over Rahm Emmanuelle's use of the word "retarded" in a tirade he launched against far-left elements in Barack Obama's administration. Emmanuelle's use of that word got him into hot water with many people, particularly Sarah Palin. Now, I'm a Palinista; I like the woman, but I think her reaction to what Rahm Emmanuelle said was as uncalled for as her reaction to her cover photo on Newsweek magazine. Sarah Palin called for Rahm Emmanuelle to be fired. Fired? Please! Whatever trouble Emmanuelle should get for his remark, he doesn't deserve to be fired.

I understand Palin's reaction. She's the mother of a Down's Syndrome child and obviously took Rahm's remark very personally, but come on. I'm sure Rahm Emmanuelle didn't have Trig Palin, or any other "special needs" child, in mind when he called those far-left people "f---ing retarded". He was just expressing his anger at and contempt for the left-wingers he was talking about at that time. Yes, he used a poor choice of words, but who hasn't in the heat of the moment? And if we're going to chastise Emmanuelle for his language, shouldn't we chastise him for using the "F" word, which is real profanity? I mean, what are our priorities here?

We are getting too thin skinned in this country. The effort to turn every word in the dictionary into a slur is utterly ridiculous. It's getting to the point where people can't say two words to each other without someone getting sanctimoniously and gravely offended. And it's disheartening to see conservatives joining in this sorry pc game instead of challenging it. It's time to challenge it.

Retarded is not a slur. It simply means slow or backward. "Mentally retarded" means mentally slow or mentally backward. It's not a smear; it's an accurate description of an unfortunate condition affecting some people. And that condition won't change just because you change the name of it. Thinking you can change reality by changing names is just plain stupid--oops!--I mean logically challenged.

With all due respect to Sarah Palin, she needs to calm down and maybe even apologize. We don't need to make profanity out of perfectly acceptable words while ignoring real profanity. When people say things that are truly hateful or demeaning, they should be held to account. No one, though, should be skewered for violating some rule set by the pc language police.

The Scriptures say, "Come, let us reason together." How can we do that if we can't agree on the meaning of the words we say to each other? How can we "reason together" if we're itching to be offended? Answer: we can't. And maybe that's the goal of the language police. If so, that's all the more reason not to cooperate with the linguistic cops. Let's save our outrage for words that are really offensive, mean-spirited, and intended to harm. Verbal gaffes made in the heat of the moment don't fit the bill. Let's use some common sense here, people. Let us truly reason together.

Crash! Part Deux

2010-02-04T19:27:00.002-06:00

Well friends, it happened again.

Only a couple of days after my laptop, Li'l Lappy, was repaired after he crashed, he started crashing again. Remember, he was in almost like-new condition when I brought him home from the rental store Saturday. By Monday that like-new condition was gone, baby, gone! I, however, was in denial. I didn't want Li'l Lappy to be on his last legs, but by Tuesday evening I had to admit LL was going belly up. It was kind of sad 'cause I was rather attached to him; but, time to move on.

Tonight I went back to the rental store and got a laptop upgrade. Now, I'm the proud "parent" of a Dell whom I've named D-Bop, which is a play on one of my favorite Cindy Lauper songs, "She Bop". I only turned D-Bop on just over an hour ago so we're still getting to know each other, but I think this is going to be a great relationship. D-Bop is much faster than Li'l Lappy was when I first got him, and he has Windows Vista. Li'l Lappy just had Windows XP.

Yep, I think this is going to work out just fine. I don't think there'll be any more interruptions to my posting due to computer problems. How can there be? Dude, I've got a Dell!

Crash!

2010-01-30T21:41:00.003-06:00

Well, I'm back!

My laptop, Li'l Lappy, crashed last Tuesday, taking all my files down in flames. Don't you just hate it when that happens? Fortunately, the most important stuff on my computer, my photos, are also all on cd's so I didn't lose them permanently when LL went kaput. The music I lost is also fully replacable. Whew! Today I took Li'l Lappy back to the rental store I got him from and he was repaired and restored to nearly like-new condition. Hooray!

I'm so glad to be back in business. Being away from the computer for nearly a week was like going through withdrawal. I didn't know what to do with myself not being able to plug into cyberspace. And that was kind of...scary. I don't want to get "addicted" to the computer. I think from now on I'm going to set aside one day a week to be computer free. That way I hope to bring a bit more balance to my life. Still, it really is good to be online again. I missed y'all, but now I'm back.

Yeehaw!

What Now?

2010-01-23T14:04:00.003-06:00

It's been four days since the huge upset in the Massachusetts Senate race with the victory of Republican Scott Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley. We conservatives/Republicans have danced in the streets, and it's been fun watching the Dems/libs' stunned and shocked reaction to Brown's victory. But now that the dust is beginning to settle I've been asking myself, what now?

What now for Republicans? What now for Democrats? What now for America?

I don't have the answer to those questions but I do think that we conservatives/Republicans shouldn't get too gleeful about what happened in Kennedyland last Tuseday.

Massachusetts is the bluest state in the Union. I just don't believe that the voters there experienced a massive conversion to conservatism on election day. Massachusetts voters were angry and frustrated and they sent a stinging message to Washington. But we conservatives need to make sure we correctly understand that message so we can build on it properly. And we must not make the mistake of counting the Dems/libs out.

As much as I hope for a Democratic bloodbath in November I don't believe it's a shoo in just because of what happened in Massachusetts. Right now Dems are reeling and confused about how to proceed in the wake of the Great Massachusetts Rebuke. But I feel that will change. The Dems/libs will regroup and come out swinging. A lot can happen between now and November 2010 and November 2012. Any positive change in the country, especially in the economy, could make the Dems bullish again. We conservatives musn't loose sight of that. Now's not the time to rest on our laurels. We have to stay on the offensive. The Democratic counterattack is coming. We must be ready.

Upset In Kennedyland

2010-01-19T23:15:00.003-06:00

I was wrong. Massachusetts has shown that it's NOT too blue to do the right thing.

In an upset almost as historic as the election of Barack Obama, Massachusetts--home of the Kennedys and the bluest state in the Union (with the possible exception of Vermont)--elected Republican Scott Brown to the Senate seat left vacant by Ted Kennedy's death.

I can't believe this. Neither can the Dems. They've just watched their filibuster proof majority vanish and their great hope for health care "reform" right along with it. That's just too cool.

It's late and I'm tired, so this will be it for the election right now. I will go to bed with the estatic sentiments of my blogging friend Angel ringing in my ears: Woohoo! We got Massachusetts!

We damn sure did!

Shocked!

2010-01-17T20:38:00.004-06:00

I never thought that any part of the liberal lame stream media would ever give Sarah Palin a break. Their hatred for her borders on maniacal. Imagine my utter shock then when I saw Sarah and her daugher Bristol portrayed positively on the cover of the January 25 issue of In Touch entertainment magazine. I was further surprised by the quote that was also on the cover, in all capital letters no less: "WE'RE GLAD WE CHOSE LIFE." Incredible! A positive take on Sarah Palin AND the pro-life view. I suspected there had to be a catch to this, but there wasn't.

The interview in the magazine was refreshingly fair and even sympathetic. Sarah and Bristol Palin talked candidly about how they are handling the less-than-ideal circumstances life handed them. There was no attempt by the magazine to spin what they said into something negative. Sarah wasn't called a bad mother because her teenaged daughter got pregnant. Bristol wasn't called a hypocrite for advocating abstinence, as well as safe sex, to young people. Sarah Palin tackled the hypocrisy question. She said that Bristol wasn't being hypocritical by telling teens to look at her life and learn from her mistake. I agree with that. And the family photos really were heartwarming, just like the cover blurb said.

In Touch magazine did an excellent job with this story. Sarah Palin was portrayed as what she is: a normal human being facing unexpected challenges with dignity, courage, and faith. Kudos to In Touch. Now if only the rest of the lame stream media would get a clue.

Too Blue

2010-01-14T20:49:00.004-06:00

In less than a week a key election will take place in Massachusetts to fill the Senate seat left empty by the late Ted Kennedy. The candidates are Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican challenger Scott Brown. The most recent polls I've heard about have the race neck and neck. The Republican actually has a chance...in Massachusetts.

But that's just it. This election is taking place in Massachusetts; and while I'd love to see Scott Brown win I just don't think he will. I can't and don't share the optimism of Sean Hannity, for example. He's been acting almost like Brown has already won. He's been down right giddy about the prospect of the Dems losing their filibuster proof majority. Now that would be wonderful! But I'm not popping any champagne bottles, yet. Scott Brown may get within an inch of winning but I don't think he'll be able to pull it off. Massachusetts is just too blue. And that's just too bad.

People Of Faith

2010-01-09T23:23:00.006-06:00

One of the fundamental characteristics of the Left is it's disdain for religion, especially Christianity (but not Islam; religions that inspire their followers to kill Americans are A-ok). Liberals love to mock people of faith, i.e. Christians, and proclaim their commitment to reason and science as the sources of their understanding of the world. No trusting in revelation for them! How interesting, then, to find that liberals themselves are not only people of faith, but the irrational kind of people of faith: those who put their faith in man. And that man is Barack Obama.

While watching Fox News and listening to talk radio I've seen and heard left-wingers expressing the deepest faith in their Anointed One. Liberal pundits and deluded Democrats from Bob Beckel to Alan Colmes are absolutely convinced that Obama is virtually infallible and is saving the country. Seriously.

Bob Beckel, a Dem strategist who appears regularly on Sean Hannity's show, has said at least three times that Obama has saved the economy. Last year Kirsten Powers, another Dem strategist and Fox News regular, said Obama's anti-terrorism policies made her feel "very safe". Ellis Henican, a Newsday columnist and, like Beckel and Powers, a Fox News pundit, was giddy with optimism about Obama's America on a recent episode of The O'Reilly Factor. And it's not just prominent liberals who worship the Big O. Ordinary, no-name ones do, too.

On Michael Medved's talk radio show a Black woman called in incensed that Medved had criticized Obama. She credited Obama with saving her and her unemployed husband's personal economy, even though her husband lost his job after Obama took office. When Medved pressed her on that fact and the dismal state of the national economy, this woman claimed Obama said things would get worse before they got better. And she was certain that things would get better. No matter the reality, Medved's caller saw Obama as the bringer of nothing but good. And, as we've seen, she's not alone in that opinion.

So, how do we explain this phenomenon? Beckel, Powers, Henican, Medved's caller, and the rest of the liberal horde aren't basing their assessment of Obama on the facts. Double digit unemployment, multiple terrorist attacks, ballooning deficits, none of that has any bearing on liberals' judgment of their Messiah. For them it's all about faith. Faith in Barack Obama.

Obama's far-left ideology coupled with his race make him the perfect savior to liberals. Whatever happens in the real world is irrelevant to their view of him. Obama can only do good and be good because that's what the progressive paradigm says. Liberal people of color are endowed with an innate wisdom and moral purity totally absent from even liberal Whites. Whites, however, can access this wisdom and purity by doting on non-Whites. Hence, Obamamania. It will occur to few liberals to question this paradigm, no matter how much Obama screws up. He's Black, he's liberal; therefore, he can do no wrong. Liberals just know it. No facts necessary.

People of faith indeed.

Bush Must Be Laughing

2010-01-07T19:55:00.006-06:00

When Barack Obama became president much of the country acted like Jesus had returned to earth. Obama's inauguration was worthy of a god and we were promised that his mere presence would save the country. Well, it's almost a year later and a bit of reality has set in, especially for Obama himself.

On inauguration day last year, and during the presidential campaign, nobody believed more in Barack Obama than Barack Obama.

Obama really believed that he would usher in a new America. He would be the post-racial president and bring Americans together. He would close Gitmo and instantly renew America's reputation abroad. He would win friends by acknowledging how rotten America is, thereby showing humility. He would give health care to all Americans and illegal aliens without raising the deficit by one penny. And he would stop terrorism through the force of his charm alone. He would bring hope and change , and the entire world would flourish. What a difference a year makes.

In twelve months Barack Obama has learned some hard lessons. He's learned that his left-wing base won't give up using race to divide people. He's learned that simply being popular abroad doesn't automatically translate to tangible benefits for America. He's learned about the fickleness of the electorate, who will love you one minute and hate you the next. He's learned that charm won't stop terrorism. He's learned that "hope and change" is really just a slogan, not a blueprint for governing. And he's learned that blaming his predecessor for everything wrong is starting to wear REAL thin. In short, Obama's learned that it's easier to campaign for president than it is to actually be president. Which explains why Obama has never stopped campaigning.

There's someone out there who could've warned Obama about this and offered him help. Instead, that someone can now sit back, watch, and say to himself, "I told you so."

Bush must be laughing.

I know I am.

New Year, New Look, New Name

2010-01-03T18:42:00.005-06:00

No, you have not made a mistake. You are at the blog formerly known as PoorGrrl Zone.

First, a belated happy New Year to my blogging friends! Hope you all had a wonderful holiday and that the new year will be exceedingly blessed for you!

Now, on to the blog.

Why the new name? Well, things change. Your outlook changes. Your mood changes. Your opinions change. Your circumstances change. You change. And when that happens the things in your life change, too.

When I began blogging I originally intended for my blog to be personal, sort of like a journal online. I just wanted to express my thoughts and feelings, but those thoughts and feelings gradually became more and more political and less and less personal. I'm not sure why that happened, but it did. Hence, I've felt for quite a while that the name PoorGrrl Zone, chosen for a personal blog, didn't fit the political blog that emerged. A new name was in order. It took a while to find one that fit but around mid December one popped into my head. I decided to wait until the new year to unveil it, so here it is: Sinistra's Bane. Cool, huh? And what does it mean, you ask?

Well, like I said, my blog became more and more political over time. My politics are right of center. Very right of center. I don't know why but I've had a visceral animosity to the Left virtually all my life. I hate the Left. I hate the political Left, the economic Left, the academic Left, the cultural Left, and the religious Left. I hate them all. And I wanted a name for my blog that reflected that.

Sinistra is Latin/Italian for "(on the) left". It's also where we get our word sinister from. The Left is certainly sinister. Bane is something that causes death or ruin. So, Sinistra's Bane can be loosely translated as "causing death or ruin to the Left". That's what I want to do. Ruin the Left. Crush it. Defeat it once and for all. I want to drive a stake through its heart so it'll never again rise from the dead as it has been wont to do. That's what Sinistra's Bane means.

I hope my regular readers like my new name. The url, http://poorgrrlzone.blogspot.com, will stay the same, at least for now. So those of you who have me in your blogroll will only have to change the name, not the web address too. Again, I hope you like the new name and the new look. I do. They say who I am, and I am not ashamed.

Happy New Year!