Follow Me On Twitter!

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Liberals Don't Want To Just Take Your Money, They Want To Tell You What To Eat Too

Liberals hate freedom. At least that sure seems to be the case. We know that if Obama and his ilk got their way we would have a socialist, nanny state. The government would "provide" everything we need, own all business, tell you what you are going to do for a living, tell you how and what to worship, and what you are allowed to eat.

Here are a couple of items related to this:

Click here for story: Group seeks ban on new Detroit fast-food eateries

Click here for story: Lawsuit Threat: McDonald's Happy Meal Toys Make Kids Fat

So what is at play here, really? Usually with liberals there is a hidden agenda. They'll go after something, under the guise of "the common good", when really they are out to accomplish something entirely different.

After all, do liberals really care about other people's children? These are the same liberals that will fight to the death to allow parents to have their children torn asunder in the womb and sucked into a sink. But if those parents allow their child to eat unhealthy food after birth, then they are concerned for the child's safety? Typical liberal logic.

No the real root of this issue can be traced to entirely different efforts: animal rights and environmentalism. I remember in the early 1990s when McDonalds came out with the Double Quarter Pounder w/ Cheese. (Excellent eating by the way if you've never had one!) Animal rights groups screamed bloody murder, literally. "This is going to cause more innocent cattle to be slaughtered for the evil cause of food!"

Environmentalists were equally upset. Their argument was more cattle consumption meant more cattle production. Which would lead to a bigger environmental footprint, and more cow farts. Cow farts have been a major point of contention with environmentalists. They believe that the methane produced from cow farts causes global warming. Here this whole time I thought they just hated fossil fuels!

You can be sure that protecting children from the evils of french fries is not the reason for this latest effort by liberals. We know that they hate children because they want them killed in the womb. Their love for the earth and animals is what is driving this. On that you can be sure.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Nancy Pelosi Was Wrong. Again.

I know, shocking right? Check out this flashback article regarding Pelosi being questioned about the constitutionality of a health care mandate included in Obamacare.

Click here: FLASHBACK: When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?'

Now it has been documented many times just how wrong Pelosi is most of the time. But notice the dismissive nature of her answer: "Are you serious?" As if the question was a farce! Well a federal judge disagreed with Pelosi and struck down the health care mandate.

Also, notice how her spokesman responded afterward related to this question:
“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”
FAIL! Apparently it was a serious question because a federal judge heard it and responded with a resounding NO!

This is typical liberal tactics. Any questions that make a liberal uncomfortable are met with scorn and ridicule. Not that Pelosi should be expected to know our constitution since she has spent the last 4 years trying to destroy it. Maybe that is why she will be House minority leader come next month!

Thursday, December 09, 2010

Aaron Sorkin Is An Idiot

Aaron Sorkin has given us some of the most idiotic things in the world. First there is The West Wing. A far-left political drama so far-fetched that even fans of the show secretly laugh at it. Then there is The Social Network. 'Nuf said.

Now Aaron has doubled down on his idiocy and produced a turd so gigantic that even his fans will have to admit that he is an idiot.

Click here: Aaron Sorkin brands Sarah Palin TV show 'a snuff film'

Sorkin apparently has jumped on the liberal bandwagon that has attacked Palin over the hunting of an elk on the last episode of her show. Palin responded to the controversy thusly:
"Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation."
Sorkin apparently feels morally superior to Palin because he chooses to have other people do his killing. His response to Palin's response went a little something like this:
"I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather ... I'm able to make a distinction between you and me without feeling the least bit hypocritical,"
So not feeling hypocritical apparently makes one completely non-hypocritical. So, for instance, while Algore is out jetting around the world preaching environmentalism, while having the biggest carbon footprint on the planet, as long as he doesn't feel hypocritical then he apparently isn't.

Let's apply Sorkin's logic to other areas. A KKK member that doesn't feel racist, isn't? A murderer that doesn't feel like a murderer, isn't? How about a rapist that doesn't feel like a rapist? He must not be according to Aaron Sorkin.

See, Sorkin makes the typical liberal moral grab here. Simply declaring himself non-hypocritical makes him so. So he can actually be guilty of anything, but simply say he isn't and he thinks people should take that at face value.

What Sorkin is really saying is that allowing others to do your dirty work, like the killing of the animals that he uses in his daily life, is superior than doing the dirty work yourself. Huh? Is that really logical? Next time one of my handy carpenter friends remodels a room of his home I will claim superiority on him by telling him I am going to pay someone do something similar in my home. Would that really make me superior?

I suggest Aaron Sorkin take a big dose of reality, swallow his feigned pride, and volunteer to go hunting on Palin's show to take down a big game animal. Field dress it. Process it. Then if after all that his appreciation for the meat, chicken, fish and leather products he uses each day doesn't multiply he will be the most inhumane human-being on the face of the planet.

You see Aaron, when you have others do your dirty work for you, you don't really understand all that goes into getting that meat, chicken, fish, and leather to you. It becomes a product, not a natural commodity that must be harvested. Palin is superior to Sorkin because she understands what it takes to provide all those things. Instead of sitting in a Hollywood palace having those things delivered by servants, and then looking down her nose at those that do the dirty work.

In the end it is the elitist mentality at play here for Sorkin. He'll gladly use the products that others provide from animals without ever lifting a finger to partake in the harvesting of those products. Sorkin should be thanking Palin, and all those that do this type of work on a daily basis, instead of belittling and attacking them.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Arguing With Liberals

Here you go:

LOL So true. If you try to argue issues with a liberal you will get personal attacks and moral equivalents. Yet these people try to take the intellectual high ground.

H/T: Wintery Knight

Democrats Are Crybabies

Democrats are a lot like children. "If I don't get my way then I am taking my ball and leaving!" Nothing highlighted this more than last week when Bill O'Reilly was a guest on The View. We all know, that except for the beautiful Elizabeth Hasselbeck, the women on The View are all foaming-mouthed, fall down liberals. So you knew that the moderately conservative O'Reilly was due to stir some emotions.

Stir he did. When questioned about his views regarding the Ground Zero mosque, O'Reilly stated that "Muslims killed us on 9/11". This prompted Fat and Ugly (aka Joy Behar) to stand up and declare that she wasn't going to sit and listen to this. Sit and listen to what? The truth?

Then Fatter and Uglier (aka Whoopie Goldberg) declared the same thing. The two then walked off the set, hand-in-hand, like Spongebob and Patrick. Crybabies. Even ultra-liberal, no-talent Barbara Walters was upset with their behavior. O'Reilly then went on to cowtow to the idiotic trio (Scary Sherie sat quiet even though she probably wanted to storm off in a huff as well), by restating that he should have said Muslim extremists killed us on 9/11. Whatever, six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Joy and Whoopie came waddling back in because "O'Reilly apologized". Again, whatever. Their behavior highlighted exactly what is wrong with liberals. They can't stand opposing points of view. Instead they storm off in a huff like little children because their opinions are not backed by facts. How can they argue once the fallacies of the basis of their views are exposed?

0bama is the same way. While campaigning for election we heard these promises of bipartisanship. We heard lies about reaching across the aisle to work with Republicans. We were told he wanted to compromise. Then he got into office and the first thing he did was declare in a meeting with Republicans that "I won." In other words, you have to play ball with me, not the other way around.

He then went about getting Democrats to pass his agenda through every sneaky, dirty tactic that he could think of. Cloture. Buying moderate Democratic votes. Shady reconciliation tactics. All to get his far-left agenda passed. He wasn't interested in an open dialog, or compromise. No he wanted quasi-socialism rammed through the legislative process, and subsequently down the American people's throats.

Anytime any opposition was raised, Obama wasn't wanting to hear it. Scott Brown gets elected to Ted Kennedy's old senate seat? He still went forward with a socialistic, and unconstitutional health care bill. Glenn Beck holds a historic rally in Washington D.C. and the white house refers to the attendees as racist extremists.

This president for nearly two years has ignored any opposition to what he has done. So the American people are poised to up that opposition. When he has to deal with GOP majorities in the house and senate I want to see his reaction. Will he make good on campaign promises to work towards compromise? Or will he act like Whoopie and Joy and storm out of the legislative process? We'll find out in January........

Friday, October 08, 2010

Of Freaks And Geeks

Flipping through channels a couple of weeks ago I happened upon a mini-marathon on IFC of all channels for the long defunct, short-lived yet extremely well done show "Freaks And Geeks".

I added the series DVDs to my Netflix queue, and have slowly worked my way through 17 of the 18 episodes in this series. While there are some things that bug me about the show (episode 17 had VP George H. W. Bush visit the high school, and of course had to inject leftist political statements), overall the show is good (they try to have a moral), clean (other than some language and innuendo) fun.

What really struck me though is how similar some of the characters in Freaks And Geeks are to some of the characters in the movie Napoleon Dynamite. Now I am not accusing Dynamite creator Jared Hess of stealing ideas from Freaks and Geeks, but the influence that show had on Napoleon Dynamite is obvious. Freaks and Geeks aired in 1999-2000. Napoleon Dynamite was released in 2004. Here the similarities enumerated:
  • Napoleon Dynamite's 80s feel. If you didn't know better you would think Napoleon Dynamite was set in the 80s. Hess has insisted it wasn't, yet some of the references prove it. But all of the vehicles in the film are prior to, or from the 80s. Look at Napoleon's and his brother Kip's school pictures on the wall in the living room and tell me those are vintage 80s school portraits. Uncle Rico, the telephones (corded), vehicles (as mentioned), and even a lot of the hairstyles could all be from the 80s. Freaks and Geeks was set in 1980-81. Coincedence?
  • Napoleon Dynamite is essentially Bill Haverchuck. The glasses. The open-mouth breathing. The purposeful, thoughtful, yet blank and empty stare. Napoleon is very similar to Bill in many ways. They both get surly and aggravated easily. Heck, there is even a scene in an episode of Freaks and Geeks where Bill dances to a cheesy dance song. As much as I thought Napoleon was a great character, after watching all of the episodes of Freaks and Geeks Napoleon doesn't hold a candle to Bill Haverchuck. But the similarities are profound.
  • Kip Dynamite is patterned after Harris Trinsky. They both have the expressionless reactions. They both have an atypical girlfriend. They both speak without moving their lips much. They both have an understated intelligence. They both have braces and glasses. They both have wispy, nearly non-existent facial hair.They are both slight, smallish boys. This is so obvious that I retract my earlier statement and accuse Hess of stealing ideas directly from Freaks and Geeks.
  • Randy the bully from NP is a carbon-copy of Alan White the bully from F&Gs. No doubt about it. From the cross-eyedness, To the manic oppression of his prey. Again Hess seemed to lift the character idea for his bully directly from Freaks and Geeks.
These are the main similarities. Don't believe me? Watch a few episodes of Freaks and Geeks, then watch Napoleon Dynamite. And then try to deny these similarities.

Some ideas for this:

were lifted from this:

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

The O'Donnell Factor: Republicans Take Note!

Christine O'Donnell's win last night sends a huge message. Not just to Obama. Not just to Democrats. But to the Republican establishment as well.

The more I learned about Mike Castle the more upset I got. Here we have a big government (pro-cap and trade), anti-gun, pro-abortion RINO, and the GOP backed this candidate. Is the GOP really surprised that their base rejected this candidate? I don't understand the RNC and the NRSC constantly pushing these liberal Republicans for Senate.

Did they not learn from Arlen Specter? An isolated example you scoff? Okay, what about Jim Jeffords? Electing these Democrats in sheep's clothing does nothing to promote conservative ideals.

Your 1 or 2 vote majority means nothing if you have a left-leaning Republican senators that are ready to jump to the other side at the first good opportunity. Or that vote with the Democrats the majority of the time. Or that support the things that the Republican-base is against.

And this is what this is really about: the base. While the RNC and NRSC were backing Castle, the Republican-base was rallying around O'Donnell. The base is tired of business-as-usual Washington politics. Castle represented that. The base no longer wants to play the "nominate a liberal Republican because they have the best shot of election" game. We've tried that, it didn't work. Insanity is defined as trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. The Republican establishment has become insane.

The problem is that the GOP has felt it always needed to move to middle to come to power. They made that mistake again in 2006 trying to remain in power. As I said then, and will reiterate here, you do not win by moving to the left. The Democrats will not vote Republican just because there is a left-leaning Republican, and nominating RINOs alienates your conservative base. The results from 2006, and 2008 were predictable.

The energized conservative base is why the Republicans stand to make gains this November. But nominating people like Castle will cause a backlash against the GOP. That is why the attitude of people like Karl Rove, Michael Medved, and Dana Perino, all people I admire, is so frustrating. They are in "win at any cost" mode. The conservative base is not. The base wants the most conservative candidate, period.

I watched in disgust last night as Rove launched into a litany of thinly-veiled attacks on O'Donnell. Had this woman not just won the party's nomination? How about getting behind the candidate and propelling her to victory? Rove sounded like a child that hadn't got his way last night, not the strategist that drove the 2000-2004 Republican elections. Can't he see that the base is fed up with candidates like Specter, Jeffords, and Castle?

Also, let me remind these "O'Donnell can't win that seat" scoffers that the same things were said earlier this year about Scott Brown. Brown embraced the anti-establishment, anti-big government movement and swept to a win in Edward Kennedy's old senate seat. Amazing. Yet the GOP continue to think that O'Donnell is unelectable. That is hogwash.

In the meantime she beat the GOP-backed candidate. If Castle couldn't beat O'Donnell in the primary, how do they think he could get elected in November? To me the real unelectable candidate here was Mike Castle.

And the announcement by the NRSC last night that they are not going to help O'Donnell in the general election puts the Republican Party at a crossroads. The Republican Party could end up being the dead party so many proclaimed it late in 2008. Not because the country has moved to the left, but because the country has moved to the right! Obama has energized the silent majority in this country, and the Republicans can either embrace that and come back to core conservative principles, or get left behind to sit somewhere between the far-left Democratic party, and the new Tea Party movement.

Bottom line is that the Republicans can either ride the coming tidal wave, or get crushed underneath it along with the Democrats. To conservatives like this writer I really don't care either way anymore. As long as this country is taken back to where it belongs I don't care if that is with or against the Republican party.

I urge conservatives to pull your funding from the RNC and instead support individual candidates. When you come to a Mike Castle like Republican nominee, move on. It is time to let the GOP know that we are serious about returning to conservative ideals.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Michelle Obama Is An Idiot

Okay, it is probably no surprise that I think Michelle Obama is an idiot. I disagree with her on almost every single issue, and she has never apologized for calling America a "mean country". Nor for implying she had never been proud of her country until her husband stole the nomination from Hillary.

Then she was put in charge of this campaign to improve the health of the youth of our nation. A noble cause, no doubt, but one that is misguided because in the end it is parents that decide what their child gets to eat, or not eat.

For instance, my daughter gets little to no soda. Occasionally I will allow her to have some soda on special occasions, but we are talking once or twice a year. At her grandparent's house I believe she gets it a little more often but what is a father to do?

At home we eat a lot of vegetables, and she has to have a serving of vegetables at dinner. She puts up a fight now and again but she realizes she has to do it. I know I fought my parents about eating vegetables but now that I am an adult I love vegetables, and eat as many of them as I can. She also has to drink milk with every meal.

I know a lot of parents that do not make their children eat vegetables. They allow their children to drink as much soda as they'd like. Their kids are not only eating things that are not good for them, but they are missing out on the nutrition of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, etc. Sorry M.O., but you aren't going to change these parents with your little campaign.

And then there is this:

Click here for story: First lady asks restaurants to serve healthy foods

As with almost every one of the Obamas' endeavors, they go about things all wrong. Michelle asks restaurants to serve healthy food? Okay so restaurants start serving healthier food, what if no one orders it? The Obamas think you can just give people the choice and they will make the choice they want them to make.

NEWSFLASH: People order french-fries not because there are not healthier options, but because people want french-fries!!

Doesn't she get it? I mean the left always preaches: "you can't legislate morality". That may or may not be true but one adage that is as true as the day is long is: "you can't legislate healthy eating". You can't do it! People will eat what they want. You could make every restaurant in the world stop serving french-fries, people would make them at home. You could make cooking oil illegal, people will find a way to produce their own cooking oil and make french-fries.

Dear Michelle, concentrate on informing people, don't take their options away. Don't try to force people into how you want them to live. I know that is counter to how you and your husband think, but the idea of freedom is that we get to choose. The more you try to force people into a behavior the more they will resist changing to that behavior. You have two daughters, don't you understand that concept?

Saturday, September 11, 2010

9/11/2001: NEVER FORGET


On the anniversary of 9/11 remember all those Americans that lost their lives in:
  • New York
  • Washington
  • Pennsylvania
  • Afghanistan
  • Iraq
Freedom is not free. Security comes at a price. GOD BLESS AMERICA

Friday, September 10, 2010

Don' Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Activist Judge

I love our country, I really do. What I don't like is when left-wing whack-job judges in California get to make rulings about things that will affect all of us around the country. A few weeks ago a gay federal judge in California said that California's voter-approved constitutional amendment making marriage between one man and one woman (what else would marriage be?!?) was unconstitutional.

Then yesterday we have this:

Click here for story: Calif judge to stop 'don't ask, don't tell' policy

Don't ask don't tell seemed like a compromise liberals could live with. After all, what is this need to be "open" about our sexuality. I don't go around proclaiming my heterosexuality. It seems openness about being gay is something you'd only need to worry about in a gay bar.

Prior to 1993 there had been a ban on homosexuals in the military. If you were gay then don't even apply. Then the military went, in a compromise with the Clinton administration, to this "don't ask don't tell" policy. Basically, gays could join but if they were outed during service then they were discharged.

Many gays saw don't ask don't tell as a victory at the time. They celebrated. Here we are several years later and that is no longer good enough. If you can't dress in drag, and hit on your fellow soldiers, then apparently your rights are being violated. This mirrors the gay-rights fight in the civilian world as well.

First gays wanted to just be left alone. "You don't have to like my being gay but at least don't beat me up for it." That wish came to fruition in the 70s and 80s. Other than a few isolated incidents, gays have been largely left alone to be gay together.

Then suddenly forced acceptance became the goal. Suddenly Christian business owners were forced to take patronage from gays. Preaching and teaching that being gay is a sin is becoming intolerable. Lawsuits abound today over these issues as gays are no longer content with being left alone.

That I have a right to condemn a behavior I see as immoral seems to be going the way of the Dodo. I think it is immoral for a man and woman to cohabitate before marriage. Should I not be allowed to express that? I think it is wrong for men and women to have sex outside of marriage. Should I not be allowed to express that? There are lots of behaviors I find to be immoral, being a practicing gay is one of those behaviors.

And spare me the hate-filled emails and comments about folks being born gay. To me that isn't even an issue. It could be argued that pedophiles are born that way, that doesn't make the practice of pedophilia any more acceptable. It could be argued that serial murderers are born that way but that in no way excuses serial murder.

No the issue has changed from being left alone to "you better accept my lifestyle or else". I reject that. I reject it on moral grounds but I also reject it on legal grounds. I have a legal right to make judgments based on behaviors that I deem worthy or unworthy of my approval. That's just the way it is.

So this ruling is wrong. I think the military has a right to say we won't accept people based on certain criteria. If you have certain medical conditions, if you have certain crimes on in your past, if you engage in anti-American activities, and yes if you are gay. This judge got it wrong. And I think she got it wrong on purpose to support her own personal agenda.

And that is disgusting.

Thursday, September 09, 2010

This Is What I Mean: "Ground Zero Mosque Imam: If You Don’t Build It, They Will Attack "

Yesterday I commented here about the plan to burn Korans by a Florida church. While I agree it should not be done, I do not agree that the reason it should not be done is because of the likelihood of Islamic terrorism will result. We should never, I repeat NEVER, allow the threat of Islamic terrorism to make us decide on how to proceed. Otherwise the terrorists have won.

As exhibit A I present this:

Click here: Ground Zero Mosque Imam: If You Don’t Build It, They Will Attack

This is the problem. The Imam sees that the threat of terrorism is working in getting people like Sarah Palin, General Petraeus, Michael Medved, and even Sean Hannity, to try to appease the terrorists by telling this church not to burn the Quran.

As I said yesterday, that is never a good reason not to do something. The terrorists win. Next they will say "if you don't pull out of Afghanistan, we will step up attacks". Allowing their threats, their riots, their bullying to succeed even in the smallest of endeavors like this Quran burning, will embolden them to use the same tactics at every turn.

Now the Imam is using the same language. "If you burn the Qurans there will be attacks." "If you don't let us build our Ground Zero mosque there will be attacks." The problem isn't denying the mosque, or even the burning of the Quran. The problem is that Islamic terrorists hate us and want to kill us. Period. They will use any excuse to do so.

On the verge of another 9/11 anniversary we should be reminded of this fact by the attacks on 9/11/2001. America had done nothing to provoke the terrorists, yet they killed 3,000 innocent people anyway. They are plotting to kill us again as we speak. Not burning Qurans and allowing a mosque to go up in what would be the shadow of the World Trade Center towers will not stop that planning.

Patraeus, Palin, Medved, and Hannity are all fooling themselves. I respect all four of those people immensely. But they are wrong to bow to terrorism in asking this church to reconsider. The church shouldn't burn the Quran because it isn't Christlike to do so. Not because it might cause terrorists that are already plotting to attack us, to attack us.

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Burning Qurans Is Good For Warmth

There has been a lot of chatter recently about a Florida church's plans to burn Qurans in effigy on the anniversary of September 11th. Apparently, you can burn Bibles, and deface Christian religious symbols, but suggest burning a Quran and suddenly you are "putting our troops and Americans overseas at risk!". Please.

I have been vocal in my admiration for Michael Medved, the Jewish, conservative, political radio talk-show host. But I don't always agree with Medved. For instance, a while back he voiced opposition to the Arizona immigration law because it would cause "a Latino voter backlash" against Republicans. Disappointing because Medved rarely argues for doing things out of political expediency, and because he is a big fan of polls. And all of the polls suggest overwhelming support for the Arizona immigration law.

Well on the issue of this proposed Quran burning I also take umbrage with Medved. He agreed with General Patraeus, that if this church carried through with the burning of Qurans on Sept. 11, 2010, that it would put our troops in harms way. I agree with that assessment. Where I part with Medved and the good General is that it is therefore a bad idea to go through with the Quran burnings.

Am I advocating for putting our troops at further peril? Of course not. But what a cowardly outlook to have. I am sorry but it occurs to me that when we start making decisions about what we do or support based on whether or not it will incite Islamic terrorists to blow things, and people, up, then they the terrorists have won. I refuse to let them win. For years U.S. policy has been to not negotiate with terrorists. Suggesting we lay down rights and tread lightly around certain issues or it will incite Islamic terrorists is akin to negotiating with those terrorists.

Just like getting on an airplane in the weeks following 9/11 was a statement that we were not going to bow to Islamic terrorism, so too should our outlook be at the issue of burning Qurans. Burning Qurans, making political cartoons with Muhammad in them, and other anti-Islamic gestures incite Muslims to riot. It incites Islamic terrorists to plan attacks. It causes Islamic backlash against the U.S. and our allies. But you know what? If we allow that to keep us from making those gestures then the terrorists have won.

Islam is not a religion of peace. I've blogged on that topic now for a while. Any of the former Islamic fundamentalists that have reformed and left that erroneous faith will tell you that mainstream Islam is the same Islam that advocates for the killing of innocents, and practicing terroristic acts as a way to secure a life of paradise with dozens of virgins.

So I reject the notion that this church should cancel their Quran burning to avoid inciting the terrorists. After all, the terrorists hate us and want to blow us up anyway! Cowtowing to them has never worked, will never work, and shouldn't even be done if it did work because of what I already stated above.

However, I do urge this church in Florida to reconsider. Not because we are afraid of Islamic retaliation. Not because terrorism will ensue. Not because the Quran is a holy book, because it is not! But because Jesus wouldn't advocate this. He would not want us to burn Qurans as a way to offend people, even anti-Christians like Muslims.

No, Christ would want us to practice Christianity. He would want us to fight their terrorism with kindness. He would want us to live in such a way that the Muslims would say "Hmmmm, there is something about those Christians that makes sense. Maybe they do have the truth."

So let's cancel the Quran burning, not because we are afraid, but because the love of the Savior is in us.

Oh, and I urge everyone reading this to throw a Quran into your own fireplace. Burn it in private to remove a book of false doctrine from the world, not in public just for show. Plus, it will heat your home!

Friday, September 03, 2010

New Name, Same Content

After several months of debating, I have decided to drop the Steven's World title from the blog. I had noticed that other blogs that had linked to me, many of them, had used my moniker LoneWolfArcher, instead of Steven's World. I never really liked the Steven's World title anyway.

If you are linking to this blog, please update your link by changing Steven's World to LoneWolfArcher or, Lone Wolf Archer.


P.S. I can see November from my house! VOTE REPUBLICAN!

Thursday, September 02, 2010

The Discovery Gunman: Why?

Now that James Lee is dead, of course the next thing to do is figure out why he took the actions that he did. The mainstream media, on top of denying that he was motivated by a left-wing ideology, will misdiagnose the skewed-thinking that caused Lee to take such extreme actions.

From a more lucid point-of-view it is easy to see why Lee took the actions he did. After all his world view allowed for taking this action, and even justified it. Here are the main points from that view:
  • Since the earth is the top priority, any action leading to its betterment is appropriate
  • Since the earth is a physical world, and there is no spiritual world, there are no eternal consequences for taking extreme action
  • Since humans were the results of the earth, then humans have a bigger responsibility to the earth than to anything else
  • Earth is more important than human-life
  • Human-life is not only not important, but is the problem
  • Ending of human-life is a net gain for the earth
Based on this world view, Lee's actions are not all that extreme. After all, in his estimation he was taking steps to improve the health of the earth. Since the earth is all there is, there is no afterlife to worry about. Since human-life is so expendable, using human-life as a means to an end is not only acceptable, but desirable.

Lee saw no downside to his actions. In fact, he would have been upset, prior to entering the afterlife and discovering that he was dead wrong, that his life would was ended before taking others' lives with him. If Lee could have died and taken as many "evil" humans as possible with him, that is what he would have wanted to do.

That he will now face judgment for his actions, before the Creator of the earth he loved so much, is a huge surprise for Lee. While it isn't a happy thought for anyone to go into eternity lost, it was probably the only way Lee would ever have seen that he is wrong.

The most dangerous people are those that do not believe in an afterlife in general, and a hell in particular. Not having a fear of facing punishment for their actions at the end of their life allows them to be capable of nearly anything. That is a scary thing for the rest of us that are right-thinking.

James J Lee is now having to answer to a Creator he didn't believe existed!

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Now We Know Why Liberals Love Islam: They Live By The Same Philosophy

Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of forced conversion. "Convert them or kill them" is the Islamic evangelism strategy.

You'd think this kind of draconian religion would set liberals off. Consider that they hate Christianity for merely preaching that unborn fetuses are human lives. Or that practicing homosexuals, while free to choose whatever lifestyle they want, are doomed to eternal punishment in hell. With comparatively innocuous preaching you'd think liberals would applaud Christians.

But no, liberals hate Christianity and go to great lengths to defend a religion that condones flying planes full of people into buildings full of people. Or to strap a bomb on yourself and go into a crowded place, blowing yourself into oblivion and taking as many "infidels" as possible with you.

This has baffled me. One religion (Christianity) preaches: "do whatever you want, we will leave you alone, your punishment will come in the afterlife". The other (Islam) preaches: "do what we want or we will kill you!" Yet liberals defend the latter, and bemoan the former.

Then John Cusack melted down over the weekend on Twitter, and everything came into focus:

Click here: John Cusack Calls for 'Satanic Death' of Fox News, GOP Leaders

Now I understand why liberals defend Islam: they agree with their tactics. Liberals, like Islamics, have a belief that if you can't get someone to agree with you then you should kill them. Or least hope they are killed.

While rational people think that killing someone just for disagreeing with you is insane, liberals like Cusack can hardly be considered rational. They are so bent on their world view becoming the norm that they will take any steps necessary to insure that it does. Not that we can accuse this guy of being sane:

Granted, Cusack has been a braindead liberal for years now, but his new level of insanity makes sticking Q-Tips into every bodily orifice you have seem sane. Note his tweet:
Someone pass the Thorazine to Johnny-boy.

"Satanic death?" Wow. That is some strong language there. Imagine if a conservative said "I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER OUTSIDE THE WHITEHOUSE AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES OF NANCY PELOSI AND HARRY REID". The liberal media machine would be running the quote, ad nausem. But a liberal turd like Cusack says what he said, and the liberal media circle the wagons to sweep it under the rug. They protect their own, that's for sure.

Of course, Drudge at just released the Cable TV News ratings. This might be what has Johnny's panties in a wad:
MON. AUG 30, 2010

FOXNEWS BECK 2,600,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,858,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,027,000
CNN KING 620,000
CNN COOPER 581,000
So the left can keep making death threats. We on the right will continue to be informed and ready to vote come November.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Al Sharpton's Buffoonery Over Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally

I cannot stand Al Sharpton. My disdain for him has nothing to do with race, nor politics. It is his tactics. Sharpton (sorry I do not call anyone "Reverend") says whatever he wants, no matter how racist or inflammatory, and then backtracks and changes what he says.

You can watch him use these tactics again here:

Sharpton needs to go away. Shame on Fox for continuing to trot this farcical "religious leader" out.

Monday, August 30, 2010

Bullet Dodged! EPA Won't Ban Lead Bullets

A bit of good news, at least for the time being:

Click here for story: EPA rejects attempt to regulate lead in bullet

Of course the liberal press is positioning this as the EPA bowing to the NRA. Please. The EPA realizes this is out of its jurisdiction, and that they risk a lawsuit by pushing forward. So they bit the bullet (I love these puns!) and killed the proposal.

Friday, August 27, 2010

EPA To Ban Lead Bullets?!?

I am going to make a prediction. If the EPA goes through with this lead bullet ban, the Republicans will take back the House AND the Senate this November. That is why I am having trouble believing that the EPA would go through with this, at least prior to the elections.

Click here for story: Environmental Protection Agency Reviewing Petition to Ban Lead Bullets

The problem? Bullets made of other materials are 3 to 5 times more expensive. This is akin to a backdoor tax on gun owners and shooters. It can be stopped. Contact the EPA here: EPA asks for public comment on proposed lead bullet ban and let the EPA no you are against the ban!

I like this part:
Bill Clinton famously blamed the NRA and gun owners for sweeping Democrats from control of the House in 1994 after he pushed them to pass the Assault Weapons Ban. For Democrats, especially those in rural and conservative districts that are already facing voters’ wrath, gun control could once again be an issue that helps defeat them and swings control of the House and perhaps even the Senate to the GOP.
Gun owners vote and have power in this nation. It is time to through that weight around.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

New Surge In Iraq Following Troops Leaving, Exactly As Predicted

Many of us on the right chastised the 0bama administration's announcement that combat troops would be leaving Iraq by September of 2010. Why were critical? This is why:

Click here for story: Attacks in Iraq surging as U.S. soldiers return home

It was all just too predictable. But hey, when 0bama wants to appease those that elected him, the far-left, he doesn't care what the consequences are.

Anyone with a brain knew that the insurgents would just bide their time until the U.S. draw down was in full swing, and then they'd go back on the attack. The surge in 2007 by President Bush worked to perfection. And 0bama's draw down is failing as predicted.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Great Non-Endorsed Political Ad I Thought I Would Share

Ahhh yes. Thanks to the unions liberals have had a stranglehold on Michigan politics for decades.

Hey Michigan, how's that working out for you?

0bama Administration Legitimizes United Nations "Human Rights" Council

The quotes in the title are purposeful. The "Human Rights" Council is a joke. Actually, that is an insult to jokes, it is a travesty of monumental proportions.

Take a look at their membership: Membership of the Human Rights Council

Some of the greatest hits from their membership list:
  • China
  • Cuba
  • Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
  • Russian Federation
Seriously, some of the biggest violators of human rights atrocities, and they are members of the UN's Human Rights Council?

Also note that this council is used to condemn Israel every time Israel defends itself. It is just a ludicrous organization.

On that note, there is this news:

Click here for story: US admits human rights shortcomings in UN report

Keep in mind this report to this travesty of an UN council comes after the U.S. refused to acknowledge this council for years due to their membership, and their criticism of Israel. Until, you guessed, Chairmen 0 got elected. And note their report:
In its first-ever report to the U.N. Human Rights Council on conditions in the United States, the State Department said some minorities are still victims of discrimination. Despite progress in reforming past unfair policies and practices, the report said "work remains to meet our goal of ensuring equality before the law for all."

So while sitting members of this council engage in STATE-SANCTIONED human rights violations, the fact that some private citizens of the U.S. are still racist or bigoted means our State Department self reports U.S. discrimination? As if the U.S. sanctions that behavior? We already have hundreds and thousands of anti-discrimination laws on the books. Try to find such laws in China!

In fact, while we are bending over backwards to try and stamp out discrimination, and are the beacon of light in the world in regards to human rights, China continues to engage in forced abortions! Oh, not to mention forced sterilization!

That the 0bama administration would legitimize this council by providing a report, and a ridiculous report at that, while not surprising, is troubling. Over 19 months in and 0bama continues his anti-American reign of terror.

November 2, 2010 can't get here fast enough. And then I will look forward to November 6, 2012 with even more anticipation. Time for this idiotic administration to go.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

The Detroit News Continues Misinformation Campaign Over Stem Cell Research

The MainStream Media have been on a misinformation campaign over stem cell research ever since George W. Bush shut down new lines of EMBRYONIC stem cells for research.

Their tactics are:
  • If adult stem cells are used for a breakthrough, be sure not to distinguish that, just say "stem cell breakthrough!"
  • If embryonic stem cells are used for a breakthrough, be sure to bold, italic, and increase the size of the word EMBRYONIC to trumpet the breakthrough
  • When dealing with rulings or controversies around embryonic stem cell research, report merely as stem cell research (don't denote it) to confuse people over stem cell research
  • Never, ever point out that the real breakthroughs have occurred using adult (non-embryonic) stem cells
  • Confuse, distort, and continue to blur the embryonic and adult stem cell lines, unless not doing so is beneficial to embryonic stem cell research
The latest example of this misinformation campaign comes courtesy of the Detroit News. In their top stories area on the front page of their website, they had the following:

Obama stem cell regulations temporarily blocked

The Obama administration's expansion of stem cell research has suffered a significant setback with a judge's ruling that blocks important work on treating life-threatening conditions. - 11:07 am
  • They never mention that the ruling is on EMBRYONIC stem cell research, letting the reader of this snippet think that the ruling shut down all stem cell research
  • The last line "a judge's ruling that blocks important work on treating life-threatening conditions" is a blatant attempt at generating outrage. "HOW COULD THEY SHUT DOWN LIFE SAVING WORK?"
  • They are quick to point out that the ruling "temporarily" blocks the expansion of stem cell (actually embryonic) research, however it then goes on to call it "a significant setback". This show their hand, that they want the reader to think there is still hope, but use the term "significant setback" to make sure the reader is properly outraged
The actual article points out more details, but the News is hoping you'll read their little biased snippet and run off half-cocked about how right-to-lifers hate all stem cell research. Not true. We support adult stem cell research because: a) nobody dies to donate the cells, and b) the real breakthroughs in treatment have all been from adult stem cells. That latter part is true not only in the United States, but also in other countries that have allowed embryonic stem cell research unfettered!

The MSM doesn't want you know all of this though. They'd rather you think that conservatives just are totally opposed to stem cell research, period. Get informed and fight the insanity.

More Unintended Consequences Of The Misguided Stimulus Spending

Gordon G. Chang of Forbes Magazine was on Dr. Bill Bennett's Morning In America radio program during my drive into work. Mr. Chang recently wrote an article that talks about how China is the real winner in the stimulus spending frenzy that started, under Bush's watch, in 2008. And that 0bama took to new heights in 2009.

Click here: U.S. Spends, China Benefits

In short, when the government disperses "stimulus" money, some of that money goes to contractors to do things like repair roads, or build a border fence, etc. The contractors, who are private firms, buy materials from the most economical place: China.

Sure some of the money is used to pay workers, but China, who is loaning us the stimulus money, then gets portions of those loans back in payments for goods used on the stimulus projects that their loans are funding! Genius on the Chinese's part.

Of course America invented this "loan them money so they will pay us" type of plan. We called it the Marshall Plan, and that is what grew our economy so fast in the aftermath of World War II as we loaned Europe money so they could pay us to rebuild Europe. Talk about taking our own medicine!

And the results of this action?

The result is that Western nations will be wracked by inflation, burdened by debt and laid low by another downturn.
 As Chang pointed out on Bennett's show, another result is the American worker starts clamoring for higher wages because of the increased inflation, which further fules inflation as companies raise prices to offset higher labor costs. Kind of a dog chasing its tail type of economy.

0bama will use all of this as an excuse to raise taxes, starting by letting the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year. Higher taxes, especially on businesses and the wealthy, will, you guessed it, cause more inflation. 2011 is shaping up to be a rough year: runaway inflation, higher taxes, higher unemployment. The only silver lining will be that it will the final nail in the 0bama, 2012 reelection coffin.

And good riddance to bad rubbish.

Monday, August 23, 2010

Hollywood Liberal Idiocy Run Amok

Brad Pitt is an idiot. And such an idiot that he doesn't even warrant a full blown "Brad Pitt Is An Idiot" post on this blog. Look at this:

Click here: Brad Pitt: I'd Reconsider My Views on Death Penalty Due to BP Oil Spill

Wow. Just wow. So he is against someone getting the death penalty for raping and murdering children, but for it if someone is responsible for an oil spill in the Gulf. Of course, he is a little less idiotic considering the initial accident caused some deaths, but last I checked the death penalty wasn't applicable to accidental deaths.

I think Pitt is just upset that his career has essentially been given the death penalty.........

 Captain Caveman is upset with BP, but he should be upset with his recent Hollywood flops.

Friday, August 20, 2010

Odds And Ends

Oops Obama claimed that the stimulus funded a project, but it didn't!
Click here: Obama had facts wrong about visit here Finance director: Stimulus dollars didn't aid project

A coworker, who blamed George W. Bush for everything from global warming to her kids not acting right, was highly offended that people would dare blame Obama in the aftermath of the BP oil spill. I can only imagine what this coworker would have said if Bush had been president at the time of the oil spill.

The Ground Zero mosque controversy may end up being solved by the grunts on the ground. Literally.
Click here: A growing number of New York construction workers are vowing not to work on the mosque planned near Ground Zero

Obama's support for building the mosque has renewed an old debate: is he a Muslim? Apparently, even his backtrack from the original support hasn't stopped the rumor from rearing its head again.
Click here: Obama a Muslim? Rumors gain steam, defying facts

Incumbent Democrats are running scared. And they are afraid that taking a stance on the Ground Zero mosque may be the catalyst to get them ousted. As a result, they are divided and unsure of what to do or say about.
Click here: Mosque debate divides Democrats, especially in NY

Remember the travesty that is Obamacare? Well the Democrats realize that Obamacare is a hot-button subject heading into the elections this November. So they've issued talking points to Democrats to guide them in what to say and not to say. And they aren't saying celebrate it! Here is a Foxnews report on it:

This Is Why Republicans Are Only Slightly More Palatable To Me Than Democrats

The Democratic party is a party rife with cronyism, liberalism, and radical, left-wing extremism.

The Republican party is a party rife with cronyism, just right of liberalism, and moderate to left-of-center politics.

Why do I say that. Because of stories like this:

Click here: Ex-Bush advisers urge Republicans to soften criticism of mosque near Ground Zero

One of the things I disagreed with Bush on was his insistence that Islam is a religion of peace. It is not. Islam is a religion of "convert them or kill them". It is in the Quran, I am not making that up.

This movie lays out the case about the lack of peacefulness in Islam:

Fitna The Movie: Geert Wilders documentary about Islam - Watch more Funny Videos

So this article about Republicans wanting moderation on the anti-Ground Zero mosque rhetoric is ridiculous. We are at war with radical Islam. All Islam is radical Islam. There is no such thing as non-radical Islam. The Republicans needs to understand that.

This just goes to prove that there is no ideal choice in elections for conservatives. There is only levels of bad. The Republicans are just a level below the bad of the Democrats. We are forced, in a two party system, to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Don't get me wrong, there are some good Republicans. They just tend to be fewer and farther between every year.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Barack Hussein Obama Is An AINO

AINO. Pronounced "ain't no" without the T.

American In Name Only

That acronym epitomizes Barack Hussein Obama.

As bad as I could have imagined his administration to be, it is worse. Bowing to foreign leaders, government takeovers of private industry. Socialized health care. Calling cops "stupid". Apologizing for American policy. Nominating far left-wing whackos to the Supreme Court. Endorsing building of mosques near Ground Zero.

There were those of us that spoke out loudly about his ties to radicals. "Reverend" Wright. William Ayers. Michelle Obama.

Yes, I said Michelle is a radical. Why, you ask? Statements like these:
  • "For the first time, I am really proud of my country."
  • "America is a mean country."
Definitely radical in my book. These people seem to really dislike America. Which isn't really surprising. Lots of liberals dislike America.

I worked with an extremely liberal guy several years ago, he was from Wisconsin, that didn't even cheer for the United States in the Olympics. "We think we are the best at all of the sports!", he would say gruffly. I looked at him and say: "That's because we are!"

I didn't understand how a red-blooded American could cheer against his own country in the Olympics. And he was serious about it too. He didn't just mildly hope we lost, he rooted for the U.S. to come in last. If we had a high profile athlete in a given sport he was even more vitriolic.

This is how liberals think. This is why liberals in the 1950s sided with Communism. It is why liberals today side with Islam. It is why liberals today love France. Anything that is viewed as anti-American is tops in their eyes.

AINOs. Not real Americans, just Americans in name. And we, as a nation, elected an AINO to the office of president. Elections have consequences, and we are paying the price for that mistake now.

Jobless Claims Move The Wrong Way. Again.

Click here for story: Weekly Jobless Claims Post Surprise Jump, Hit 500,000

So my question to liberals is: How's that stimulus working?

As I posted yesterday, liberals are fond of trying to say that the stimulus kept things from being worse. But by the 0bama administration's own criteria, it was an utter failure.

Also, a new talking point I've noticed from the left: "After 8 years of George W. Bush, it will take more than 19 months to correct."

The problem with that theory is two-fold. First, Bush's biggest mistake was overspending. Obama has ramped that overspending up by 10 times! Second, Bush allowed the fed to overprint money. That overprinting has increased in volume under 0bama and Bernanke.

So the left can try to point the finger and Bush 43, but the truth is that 0bama's policies have worsened Bush's mistakes, not started to reverse them.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

New York Officials Say Yes To Ground Zero Mosque, No To Rebuilding Of Church Destroyed There!!

Further proof that politics are at play in the building of the mosque near Ground Zero. Now we find out that a church that already stood down there, that was destroyed the day the WTC collapsed, won't be allowed to rebuild.

Click here: Decision Not to Rebuild Church Destroyed on 9/11 Surprises Greek Orthodox Leaders

Apparently freedom of religious expression can be picked and chosen. Yes to a mosque. No to a pre-existing church.

Where are all the lefties at, and why are they not howling about the injustice of this? They are so defensive of the mosque going up, but mum on the issue of this church? I mean I know lefties hate Christianity, and the expression of it, but this is blatantly obvious. And yet they are unabashed in their behavior.


I Was Banned From Posting On The Detroit News Forums For Calling DetNews Blogger Libby Spencer "Dumb"

Too funny!

I knew liberals were sensitive. And I had been critical of Libby Spencer's idiocy on the Detroit News forums before. But banning me from posting there ever again simply for calling Libby "dumb"?

Read this and see if you don't agree with me:

Click here:  Libby Spencer: How Obama's Policies Are Saving Us

My comment on her blog was: "Wow, Libby is dumber than I thought."

Admittedly, that is quite a put down because I thought she was really, really dumb to begin with. That got me banned from commenting at the site from now on. Oh well, I have more important things to do anyway.

But how could I respond any other way. Even by the Obama administrations own words their policies are failures. Remember how he told us that passing the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8%? It is at 9.5% and peaked over 10% even after the stimulus was passed!

The economy is slowing again, despite the stimulus, and we are facing a double-dip recession. Consumer confidence has again begun to plunge. The market is a roller-coaster ride again, just like prior to the stimulus. Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, a supporter of the stimulus, recently gave a gloomy outlook moving forward, saying true recovery probably wouldn't come until the end of next year. That's right, the end of 2011.

Yet Libby Spencer continues to defend the Obama administration, and push snake-oil studies like the one that suggests the stimulus worked.

Meantime, people are out of work, can't find work, and thanks to Obama letting the Bush tax-cuts expire (they will at the end of this year), many more people facing potential layoff.

So thanks to Obama for nothing. Shame on Libby Spencer for her lies and dishonesty. And thanks to the Detroit News forums for freeing up more of my time!

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

I Have Read The Transcript Of Dr. Laura Saying The N-Word. And That Is All She Did.

She said it. The n-word. And that is all she did. She didn't use it in a derogatory manner. She didn't call anybody the word. She didn't even utter it as an epitaph in any way. She merely said that black comedians say the word all the time. She merely said if you turn on HBO you hear the word, and then she said it.

Okay, maybe she shouldn't have said it. She went on later to make the point that people are hypersensitive. Knowing that she should have said "n-word" and not the actual n-word. But she did.

If you haven't heard it or read it, here is a transcript:

What did Dr. Laura say on-air?

Her overall point was a good one: not everything that is said about race is racist. Also, just because someone feels that something is racist doesn't make it racist. However, I agree with her apology. Her point was lost because she dared to say the n-word.

I would have been unhappy if I had been listening with my daughter. If I was in the car, turned to her show and heard that word I would have been unhappy. Just like I am unhappy when I hear black people say the word around kids. How can we teach our kids that the word is wrong if they hear it all the time?

So she was guilty of poor judgment. Nothing more. She wasn't being racist. She isn't racist. And she shouldn't be removed from the air or boycotted by advertisers. If you think she should, or if you will stop listening to her show, or if you are an advertiser that pulls your ads, then you are guilty of the exact type of thing she was talking about.

As for Jade, the caller. I think we have a plant here folks. I think Jade was a plant to try to trip up Dr. Laura and get her in trouble. Some of the things Jade said "I hope everyone heard it" tip me off to the fact that Jade wasn't really who she said she was. That Jade was someone calling with an issue she knew might get Dr. Laura to say something others found objectionable. That Jade is a plant is unconscionable. That Dr. Laura took the bait is unfortunate.

Remember The Call To Boycott Arizona Over Immigration?

I believe New York City was one of the municipalities that wanted to boycott Arizona over their immigration law. You know, the  law that merely mimicked and enforced U.S. federal statutues?

Well, New York's council and mayor continue to push forward the plan to allow a mosque to be built near Ground Zero in lower-Manhattan. A plan that has raised an outcry of protest from New Yorkers, and Americans around the country alike. Even 0bama weighed in favor of the mosque Friday night (before saying he hadn't weighed in favor of it the very next day).

Well, I think the solution is simple. Take a cue from New York City themselves. If they go forward with the mosque near Ground Zero then real Americans should boycott NYC. Don't visit. Don't do business with. Etc. The same boycott they waged against Arizona should be waged against NYC.

New York has the opportunity to do the right thing here. If they choose not to then they should face the consequences.

Rumor: Muslim Leaders To Pull Plug On Ground Zero Mosque Plans

There is considerable chatter on the blogosphere this morning that Muslim leaders are ready to change the location of the proposed Ground Zero mosque and community center. The rumor is two-pronged. One version says that it is due to the outcry of protest against the plan. Another version suggests a lack of funding to build in the proposed location, in part due to the outcry of protest.

Muslim leaders supposedly feel that moving the location of the mosque will net them additional funds to go ahead with building. Again, this is all speculation at this point.

Some key Muslim leaders have begun to deny these rumors saying that the rumors are misinformation and that the original plans are still underway. Time will tell.

In the meantime, liberals continue to get it wrong regarding this. In fact, their arguments for the planned mosque are phony, lying, and completely miss the heart of the matter.

On her Facebook page (remember I hate Facebook), my wife changed her status to one voicing her opposition to the mosque. A "friend" of ours (note the quotes) then went on a short soliloquy about how this nation was founded on religious freedom. Funny, because this same guy would be against lots of other religious freedoms, but on the Ground Zero mosque he is all for it.

That he misses the real argument is of no surprise. After all he is just parroting what his friends on the left, and the president he voted for, have been saying. Religious freedom is not the issue here. We all know they have a right to build the mosque. But merely having the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it.

For instance, I have a right to eat a whole large pizza for lunch today. Or an entire cheesecake. Or all the fried food I can find. That is well within my rights to do. But the question is: should I? Would it be prudent? Would it be good for me and those around me?

The mere existence of a right doesn't necessarily mean that the exercising of that right is the RIGHT thing to do. I have many rights that I choose not to exercise for prudence sake. I could continue to enumerate many more examples but I think you get the point.

But liberals will continue to hammer on this "religious expression". In the meantime they will be selective regarding where they apply the "right to religious expression".

For example, remember this story: Mojave Cross still gone, but controversy remains

Quick summary: VFW erects cross to honor fallen soldiers in 1934. Cross stands for 75 years with no problems, then ACLU decides to fight against it under the guise of "separation of church and state". Issue is that cross is on public land. Compromise proposed to exchange another piece of land for the plot in the Mojave where cross is so that it can be "privatized". Opponents don't like that plan, that want the cross down. SCOTUS rules 5-4 cross can stay. Week later a vandal cuts down and steals cross. VFW erect new one but it is ordered removed and remains removed due to liberal opposition (IE the ACLU).

Where are the liberals screaming for for religious expression in the Mojave Cross case? For years they are anti-religious expression, but suddenly take up that cross (pun intended) in regard to the Ground Zero mosque? Please.

Bottom line is that the mosque is a slap to America's face, and liberals are all about slapping the face of the nation they despise. As are Muslims. Muslims standing arm-in-arm with liberals against the USA should surprise no one.

Liberals say YES to this:

But no to this:

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

James Caan: Ultra-Conservative!!

From FoxNews:

*Note: Pardon James' language.

Great to see a great Hollywood actor like Caan A) avoiding the liberal slime that is Hollywood and B) realizing that talking politics is not what he does for a living.

On top of it? James Caan is a proud Michigan State University Alum. GO SPARTANS! (He was grand marshal of the Homecoming Parade a few years ago.)

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Emmitt Smith: Portrait Of A Grid Iron Hero

This is a great photo. I remember exactly when this was taken. During the 2004 NFL season, though both of these great players were in their final seasons with teams that they didn't become stars with, they both played great games against each other.

After the game they embraced for this photo. It was a throwback to their glory years when they both were in their prime. And what a prime it was.

This past weekend, these two, possibly the best at their respective positions, went into the Football Hall of Fame together.

It was a bitter-sweet moment for me. While I really enjoyed watching Emmitt be inducted, while I laughed and cried during his induction speech, I also had some pangs in my heart. Never again would I see him run out of the tunnel at Texas Stadium, in uniform, ready to go to battle against a division foe. Never again would I see him take the ball, pick a hole, explode through that hole and pick up precious yards for the Dallas Cowboys. I would never again get the chance to see him play.

I flashed back to 1990. Back in those days you didn't get to see much in the way of college football outside of your local and regional teams. I didn't know much about Emmitt. I knew only what I had heard. He is small. He isn't that fast. While he was great in college he will have trouble in the NFL.

One thing I hadn't heard about was his heart. I remember going to get Tony Dorsett's autograph at a card show in the area. After getting Dorsett's autograph I began to peruse the cards at the show. I came across Emmitt's rookie card. On a whim I bought it.

Later I turned it over and read his stats. 5'9". 206 lbs. Birthday: 5/15/1969. Two days older than I am. I immediately began to relate to Emmitt. Too small. Too slow. Not good enough. He was my age and I had heard all of those things myself. Granted, I never played organized football, but I did play a lot of pick up sports. Whenever I went some where new I was looked over. Once the game started people realized that they had underestimated me. Didn't matter the sport, I had something people couldn't see in my slight frame.

I had heart.

Emmitt had heart. Though the back of that card didn't say it, as I began to watch him play, as I began to follow his career and read up on his past accomplishments, I realized he had enough heart for an entire team. People overlooked him, but once he laced up his cleats, strapped on his helmet, and went to work people couldn't overlook him any longer.

Through the years I watched Emmitt thrill not only myself, but Cowboy and football fans everywhere. If you needed a big play, he provided it. If you needed steady play, he provided that. He gave the team whatever it needed. And he always did it with class and dignity.

After the Cowboys won their first Superbowl since 1978, in 1993, Jerry Jones tried to overlook Emmitt. Emmitt's contract had expired. Both sides had come to a stalemate on negotiations. Jerry was low balling the kid that was too small and too slow. Jerry thought the team could afford to lose Emmitt. Emmitt missed the first 2 games of the 1993 regular season. The Cowboys lost both.

Jerry ponied up and paid Emmitt. The Cowboys went on, with Emmitt, to win 12 of the last 14 games, and win their second consecutive Superbowl. Oh yeah, and Emmitt? Well he wouldn't be overlooked ever again after that season. Because this was his list of accomplishments:
  • Won Rushing Title (in only 14 games mind you)
  • Won Superbowl
  • Named Superbowl MVP
  • Named NFL MVP
All that after missing the 1st two games of the season.

Further, Emmitt went on to have an even better year statistically in 1995, rushing for 1,773 yards and scoring 25 touchdowns. Oh, and the Cowboys won their 3rd Superbowl in 4 years that season.

Off the field Emmitt was an even better person than he was a football player. He went back to school and got his degree (he came out after his junior year) to keep a promise to his mother. He would lavish his offensive line with extravagant presents to show his gratitude to them (one year he got them all a Rolex). He was ever humble, ever professional, and always kept his goals in mind.

In 2002, he achieved the chief of those goals when he surpassed Walter Payton's career rushing mark to become the all time NFL leading rusher. It showed just what kind of person Emmitt is that the game was attended by Payton's family (Walter having passed by that time), and they were among his biggest cheerleaders though he was breaking their husband and father's record.

When Emmitt retired after the 2004 season, it was as if a part of me died. I love the game of football. I love watching it. I love to still play on the rare occasion that I get a chance. But the game will never be the same. I cannot imagine another player coming close to making me feel the way Tony Dorsett and then Emmitt Smith did for so many years. It was as if I was on the field with them, or as part of them.

No post about Emmitt will ever be complete without mentioning his HOF induction speech. In fact, here is a link to it:

Wow, that still gives me goosebumps. The raw emotion. The fact that this isn't being read from notes or a teleprompter, but straight from the heart.  How humble he is in giving so much of the credit to other people. And his heartfelt, emotional thank you to Darryl Johnston. All of that just seemed so genuine, so sincere. I could feel what Emmitt was feeling. I could empathize with him. I had watched so many great moments of his career happen live that it was as if all Emmitt Smith fans were being inducted with him.

I have seen some of my favorite players in sport come and go. Tony Dorsett. Lou Whitaker. Petr Klima. Joe Dumars. Andre Agassi. And now Emmitt Smith. I thank them all for the years they thrilled me. Not all of them will go into the HOF in their respective sport, but they are all HOFers to me. Now that I am in my 40s I doubt I will ever again look to modern sport stars for inspiration, but I will always look back on these stars as inspirations.

Friday, August 06, 2010

After Careful Consideration, I Cannot Endorse Rick Snyder For Governor Of Michigan

Based on this:

Click here: Right to Life unlikely to back Snyder

So unless Snyder is willing to say he would use his office to prevent EMBRYONIC stem-cell research, then I cannot endorse him, nor vote for him in his campaign for governor. I know he is anti-abortion, which is better than can be said for his opponent. But I don't see how one can claim to be for the sanctity of life, and yet allow rape and incest provisions for abortion, and support, unabashedly, the practice of destroying human-beings to harvest their stem-cells.

If he really is pro-EMBRYONIC stem-cell research, then I have to question the depth of his anti-abortion stance. It is shallow at best.

Note: I capitalize EMBRYONIC for two reasons. First, it is a misnomer. It should be called "LIFE DESTROYING" stem-cell research.

Second, to just say "stem-cell research" is misleading since adult stem-cells are easily obtained with no one's death being involved, IE ADULT stem-cells. Just another note: all of the medical breakthroughs involved so far with stem-cells have been accomplished with adult stem-cells. Which is why it is obvious to me that EMBRYONIC stem-cell research is less about the research and more about devaluing the lives it destroys.

Thursday, August 05, 2010

This Probably Goes With Out Saying: I Can't Stand PETA

One organization that I have zero respect for is PETA. Well PETA is at it again. A former American Idol contestant recently began a new reality series on Versus. Here is the premise:
“Goin Country,” which began its eight episode run this weekend, follows the singer trying to land a record deal as she participates in hunts across the country.
So, of course, PETA had to weigh in:

Click here for story: EXCLUSIVE: PETA Takes Aim at Kristy Lee Cook's Hunting Show, And She Fires Back
From PETA: “Instead of angering thousands of would-be fans by killing helpless animals on camera in attempt to get her '15 Minutes of Shame,' Kristy Lee Cook's fame crusade would be better served by following in the footsteps of fellow Idol alum-turned-country-stars Carrie Underwood and Kellie Pickler—as well as Simon Cowell—all of whom have used their fame and talent to speak up for animals.”
From Cook: "Given that hunters have done more for American wildlife conservation than any other group in history, I make no apology for being one," Cook told "Indeed, I join the ranks of millions of American hunters who celebrate our outdoor heritage and who conserve millions of acres of wild lands. These same people support more than 600,000 jobs across the country and provide a critical voice to encourage more investment in American conservation."
To her response I say: AMEN!

Further, no one cares what PETA says. The vast majority of Americans eat meat. A majority understand the necessity of hunting, and that it is actually good for the wild animal numbers and overall health. Of course, they don't care. They treat animals on equal footing as, or even slightly above, humans.

Carrie Underwood is a perfect example of an animal rights nut. How she could get so militaristic in her anti-meat views coming from her background is beyond me.

I think I'll have veal for lunch. With foie gras as an appetizer. And I'll do it while listening to Carrie Underwood. Carrie, I am eating meat, harvested in a controversial manner, all in your honor! You're welcome!

Katie "The Troll" Couric Hating On Sarah Palin........In The Summer Of 2008!

This is set to go viral:

Katie is an idiot. Always has been, and this raw footage proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt. She barely knew Sarah Palin at this point and was already hating on her. This is why CBS News is one step up away from having no viewers at all.

Katie is a troll. Looks like one, and acts like one.

H/T: Common Cents

Saturday, July 31, 2010

I Grow Weary Of Immigration Protesters

It sickens me to watch the people protesting illegal immigration crackdowns, like the Arizona law that has caused so much controversy. I also am growing tired of the calls of racism by those that disagree with the law. To me, as with many, it is a pretty clear issue.

If you are in this country illegally you are breaking the law and need to be deported. Period, end of discussion.

No one is against legal immigration, and I in fact know some people that are legal immigrants. Even some in my own family. They are here, abiding by the law, doing what they are required to do to take up legal residence here, or citizenship. That is great, perfect even.

But how anyone can defend those that gain illegal access to our country, or that out stay their visas, is beyond me. Further, that those people could stage protests against laws and measures to send illegal immigrants packing is even more unbelievable.

Now there is a story that immigration protesters jumped on to the field during a Mets game in New York, and ran around unfurling Mexican flags. Note to NYPD: the first thing you should do is verify their status in this country.

Dear illegals, stop breaking the law. Leave our country and apply for admittance through the proper channels. Dear law enforcement, please verify the status of anyone that seems suspicious of being in our country illegally. Dear legal immigrants, please come out against illegal immigration as it is no fair to those of you that did it properly.

And to the protesters, I only have one thing to say: GET A LIFE.

Some moron with a Mexican flag runs around on the field during a New York Mets game.

Friday, July 30, 2010

Andy Griffith Pimps Himself Out For Obamacare


Click here for story: Andy Griffith's new role: pitching health care law

Wow. So the head snake oil salesman turns to an old snake oil salesman to sell more of his snake oil.

Andy looks like he could use some health care:

If Barney were still alive maybe he could keep Andy in his place.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Time Magazine, Relunctantly, Admits that Rush Is Right About BP Oil Leak

This had to hurt. Time Magazine admits, relunctantly, that Rush Limbaugh is right about the BP Oil "disaster", and it being far from an environmental disaster.

Click here for story: The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated?

Here is the juicy part:
The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing that the spill — he calls it "the leak" — is anything less than an ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype.

Well, Rush has a point. The Deepwater explosion was an awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it's no leak; it's the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It's also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal communities that depend on tourism, fishing and drilling. But so far — while it's important to acknowledge that the long-term potential danger is simply unknowable for an underwater event that took place just three months ago — it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage.
Let me translate: Rush is right but we still hate him.

It must stick in their craw that Rush has been saying this for weeks, and now they have to admit it. The news outlets have been screaming about fishing bans, but how much have we heard as the bans have been lifted?

The fact is that this is not the environmental disaster that the environwhackos hoped it would be. While no one enjoyed watching the underwater shots of the oil being spilled into the Gulf, the fact is that oil is a natural occurrence and the earth has ways of dealing with its own products.

Now they can go back to screaming about a 1 degree increase in average air temperature (based on faulty, manipulated data) over the last 150 years.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

So Long BP, We Hardly Knew You

One of the best ways to destroy something is to turn the purse strings of said thing over to Barack Hussein Obama.

Just look what he has done to the United States in a year and a half. A $2 trillion dollar deficit by spending like there is no tomorrow.

By the way, a quick side note: I almost threw up in my mouth the other day when I over heard Obama saying something about "the previous administration took a surplus and turned it into a huge deficit". Granted Bush did leave office with a $200 billion deficit, but that is a 1/10th the ridiculous spending that Obama has engaged in. For him to use this language after what he has done is evil and hypocritical. Yes, I believe Obama is evil and is a hypocrite.

Back to this story. Now he is set to bankrupt a foreign corporation over which he has no jurisdiction.

Click here: U.S. Drills Deep Into BP as Drama Drags On
NEW ORLEANS — Bob Dudley, BP's lead executive
in the Gulf of Mexico, spotted his U.S. government counterpart, retired Adm. Thad Allen, at the New Orleans hotel where both were staying earlier this month. Wanting to say good night after a long day, Dudley instead got fresh orders.

Adm. Allen said the government wanted BP to pay for community representatives in states affected by the oil-well blowout. "What does that mean?" Dudley asked. "I'm reluctant to agree without understanding what you are asking us to do." On Tuesday, the government ordered BP to set up such teams, which are designed to handle local concerns.

Another day, another directive. The Obama administration now is controlling BP's checkbook and resources in the Gulf as the two sides respond to the disaster, from use of oil-busting dispersants to the language of announcements.

BP managers say they frequently hear that "Potus has ordered" such and such, "Potus" being Washington shorthand for "president of the United States." A few weeks ago, BP's coordinator of oil-containment booms got a call from an official flying on Air Force One about where to send 80,000 feet of the barriers.

On a smaller scale, BP just received a $75,000 non-itemized bill for a one-day visit by Vice President Joe Biden to the New Orleans crisis center.

"We effectively work for the government here," BP's Dudley says.

So Obama is now set to do to BP what he did to the United States. Take a disaster and use it as an excuse to spend someone else's money. Granted, BP should be on the hook for this, but does the president really have the authority to tell a British corporation on what and where it has to spend its money? Shouldn't he be worrying about our soldier dying in Afghanistan, or the threat that Iran and North Korea continue to pose?

No instead he is micromanaging an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In the meantime foreclosures continue to grow, the economy continues to languish, and his own party is facing their demise come November.

I am beginning to think Obama was the right man at the right time. He was the right man to get this country to look at itself and realize that he and his party represent all that is wrong in our nation today. Come November, when we see the senate's majority widdled down, and the house of representatives fall to the Republicans.

Friday, July 16, 2010

Follow-up To My Earlier DDT Post

A couple of months ago I wrote this posting regarding DDT.

Click here for posting: Time To Bring Back DDT

Now the state of Michigan has launched a website related to the bedbug epidemic.

Click here for website: Don't Let the Bed Bugs Bite!

This is so frustrating. Allowing DDT to be used again would prevent these types of things. But our politicians have allowed the environwhackos to infiltrate our government through taxpayer funded environmental agencies. It drives me crazy.


Let's eradicate these things again:

Thursday, July 15, 2010

In The End, It Is Bad Decisions That Cause Economic Grief

Since the economic meltdown of 2008, I have grown tired of hearing liberals blame banks and lenders for the collapse.
They were too greedy!
We entrusted them with the safekeeping of our money!
They only care about profits and their executives!
Blah blah blah blah blah.

Since the meltdown the idiocy has ramped up even more. Uttering statements about how the banks should take huge losses to let homeowners out of upside down mortgages. Or how the lenders are still greedy because they can't just wave a magic wand to lower someone's interest rate, or to cut their principal down.

The reason all of that has grown so tiresome to me is because that so many of the cases I know of personally, it was bad decisions that fueled the problems for borrowers. Bad decisions by the borrowers themselves.

First, I know several people that, over the course of 15-20 years, remortgaged homes and took more and more money out of those homes. The result? 20 years later, after the housing market tanked, they owe a lot more on their home than it is worth.

These people will blame everyone else, and will say many of the things quoted above. In reality it was stupidity on their part that got them into their current predicament. These people will accuse lenders of telling them that they didn't have to worry because real estate was just going to continue to surge in value. My response is always: "And you believed that?"

Anyone with half a brain knew that real estate was overvalued. Homes that should have been $200,000 were going for $380,000. Homes that should have been $90,000 were going for $130,000. Any real estate neophyte could have looked at the market and realized that it couldn't continue that way.

And even if it was true, it was still a bad decision to take additional money out of your home's equity! These people should have been enjoying watching their equity increase, as the value went up and as they continued to pay down their mortgage. But these people let other things get in the way of equitable growth.

Some of the reasons I personally know of that people took money out of their equity for:
One person took money out of their home to pay off their Ford F-150.
Another person took money out and put it into savings.
A couple took equity out of their home to pay off credit card debt, only to run up more credit card debt.
Another couple took equity out of their home in order to buy horses, boats and other items of luxury.

Could they not see that these were bad decisions? Taking away equity to pay for a vehicle that was only going to continue to depreciate? Taking equity out of your home to put in to a savings account in order to make 2% interest on the money? Paying off credit card debt and then turning around to run up more? Or the people that used the equity in their home as disposable income?

All of these people then turned around and complained that their house was too expensive, that they owed too much, and that the bank should do something to help them. But it wasn't the bank that made the decision to do these things. Oh sure, the banks might have advertised home-equity loans for things like this, but that doesn't mean these people were forced into doing it.

But the bad decisions get worse from there. Not only were people making bad decisions related to home financing decisions, but in financial decisions in general.

Here are some examples:
Going into foreclosure despite driving brand new cars on leases.
Taking money out of a 401K to save a house, only to lose the house to foreclosure later anyway.
Housewives taking on a job just to pay for a kid's wedding, instead of paying down debt.
Complaining about being behind on car loans and a mortgage, but showing up to work after a weekend with a brand new digital camera.
Complaining about money despite eating out every night.
Complaining about money, but funding cellphones for the entire family with unlimited minutes and texting.

These people then turn around and play the victim. "We couldn't afford our house!" "The bank won't work with us even though we owe $155,000 on a house worth $100,000." "I only have $100 to live on all month because of my bills!" "The bank said I don't qualify for government money because I make too much, but I am paying on a $100,000 mortgage and the house next to me just sold for $50,000." "I might not be able to go on my cruise this year because of my finances."

The decisions they make they don't want to be held responsible for. They want bailouts and governmental intervention despite the fact that they themselves are to blame for the position that they are in!

Oh, and many of these people were all for the bailouts for the auto companies despite being staunchly opposed to bailouts for the banking industry. Even in their political views they are hypocritical!

The bottom line is simple. The people that find themselves in financial distress 9 times out of 10 can trace their problem back to their own financial decisions. They can try and blame lenders and everyone else as much as they'd like, but those that live within their means are better able to withstand economic downturns. It is a fact of life.