Follow Me On Twitter!

Monday, September 12, 2011

Paul Krugman Is An Idiot

And a coward.

In a blog posting, Krugman takes a swipe at Republican leaders that were so incredible in the aftermath of 9/11.

Click here for Krugman's idiotic blog: The Years of Shame
What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.
Now I understand that Krugman, as a liberal ideologue, is opposed to the war in Iraq. And since he can't point to it and say it was a failure (because the surge worked) or that Obama ended it quickly after being inaugurated (because we are still there), he has to use the 10th anniversary of 9/11 to bash Bush over the war.

That Krugman is an idiot may not surprise many people. That he is a coward may. Notice this at the end of his hit-and-run:
I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.
What an idiotic, blow-hard, moronic, pathetic, waste of human flesh, doofus baby. If you are going to float something like this out on the anniversary of 9/11, be prepared to take your licks. Or better yet, retire, shut-up, and fade into the oblivion.

Wait, he is a liberal so no one should be surprised that he is a coward.

 Oh, and my comments are on. Fire away.

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

"God Particle"? Maybe Not.

Over at Right Klik they have a great post up.

Click here for story: Losing Faith in God Particles

And yesterday, August 22, ... CERN scientists declared that over the entire range of energy the Collider had explored—from 145 to 466 billion electron volts—the Higgs boson is excluded as a possibility with a 95% probability.

...there is still a 5% chance that the Higgs is hiding somewhere ... But the Higgs is quickly running out of places to hide.

Oops. The much ballyhooed "God particle", and the Large Hadron Collider that was supposed to find it, have proven to be a dud.

Now it is important to realize just how important this admission is. Considering that Stephen Hawking himself was sure that the Collider would eventually discover the Higgs Boson "God particle". This just proves, if nothing else, that scientific theories, without experimental evidence to support them, are useless.

I am not posting all of this to gloat, but to point out that, as Socrates once said, "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." The science community needs to remember that.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Time To Throw Out The Television?

I have recently come to a moral crossroads. The question at hand is whether to keep television in the house or not.

I have long admired people that don't have a TV. I admired, though slightly less, those that do not have cable or satellite (or internet now) TV.

I came across this blog entry at Newsbusters:

Click here for story: New Fall TV Heavy on Sex

This makes me want to get rid of cable, and our TVs. Not only would I avoid this filth ever coming into our home, but I would save about $80 to boot.

There is only one thing preventing me: sports. As a huge baseball and football fan I would miss being able to watch those sports, not to mention college basketball. My wife is also a huge college sports fan, so she would not like having to miss watching the Spartans every chance she gets.

So that is the crux of the decision. We have parental locks currently our cable boxes. Anything PG and worse requires a code. I will have some soul searching to do in order to decide what course of action to take. But I would love nothing more than to be able to get rid of the evil box and everything it has become.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Peace Loving Union Member Shoots Owner Of Non-Union Contractor

I hate unions. For a lot of reasons. But here is a perfect example of how union-minded people aren't in their right mind:

Click here for story: Lambertville vandalism turns life-threatening

Vandalism. Trespassing. Felonious assault with a deadly weapon. There really is no limits to the lengths unions will go to in order to keep their stranglehold on industry. If you need a union to keep a job then you are probably a terrible employee.

The truth hurts.

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

The Atheists' Problem Of Love

One of the things atheists can't get around is love. Love is something that is not tangible. It is difficult to explain. It is something that can't be described in words. To feel love is to know love.

If you ask people what love is you get all kinds of answers. "It's an emotion." That's like saying that a Lamborghini is a vehicle. It doesn't really describe what it really is. "It's something that causes a being to feel empathy for another being." No, that is the result of love, it doesn't describe what love is.

You really see the problem for atheists regarding love when it comes down to the animal kingdom. In the wild there is a distinct lack of love. Oh they'll point to the way a mother cares for her young in the wild. Is this done out of love? Or is it instinct? I would argue that it is instinctual. Especially since most species of animals eventually send their offspring off into the world on their own, and don't even seem to recognize them as their offspring once they do so. In fact, they view them as rivals for food.

Even wolves, which are probably as close to a familial species without being fully like humans in that regard as you can get. For some reason wolves will, for no apparent reason, expel a relative from the pack. You also see a lack of love in wolves during mealtime. The alpha pair will kill another pack member if that pack member tries to muscle in on a kill before the alphas have had their fill. In the animal kingdom self-survival is paramount, and love plays no part in that survival instinct.

In humans, parents would gladly go hungry in order to feed their young. Parents would do without water to make sure their children were hydrated. Love is something that overcomes the self-preservation instinct. Love trumps all self-centered motives. It is because of love that we put others first.

Where does that come from? Could evolution explain something like love? Or is it like intelligence and speech, something that scientists have no clue about and can only  float partial theories to describe?

If someone asks me "where does love come from?", the answer is easy. God.
1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
Notice this wording. "God is love." Those two are not mutually exclusive. You can take the inverse of it: Love is God. In other words, you can't have one without the other.

Atheists will claim you can have love without God, but when they try to explain how that is when their arguments become thin. Love is something that could not have evolved, it is something that had to be placed within us. It is innate. Visceral. We couldn't have evolved from loveless apes into loving humans. It is impossible.

Now atheists would also look at ape behavior and try to say it exhibits feelings of love. Does it? Apes groom one another. Do they do that because they love the one they are grooming? Or is it because they like to eat the bugs they pick out of their fellows' fur? Apes copulate to reproduce. Do they do that out of love? Or do they do that for the self-gratification it provides? Everything you can observe in the animal kingdom has some selfish motive.

So where did love come from?
Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
There is your answer. God created all the creatures of the earth, but it wasn't until the creation of man that we see Him say: "Let us make _______ in our image, after our likeness". God is love, therefore a creature created in His image, in His likeness would innately have love. It is so simple if you just accept it.

God instilled love in man. He instilled instinct in animals. He instilled altruism into man. He instilled survival into animals. He instilled the capacity to care for others emotionally in man. He instilled the capacity to care for others if there is some reward for self in animals. Love is one of the things that sets humans apart from the animal kingdom.

Atheists can't describe love. They can't explain it. They can't give an origin for it. The problem is fundamental for atheists: Without God you can't have love.

Want a description of love? Read I Corinthians 13.

Thursday, August 04, 2011

Men Wearing Capris??!

I hardly ever use this blog for ranting. But I have to rant. What is the deal with men wearing capris?

Capris are ankle long pants. Women have worn them for years. Arguably they are much more modest than shorts or skirts, so I have always been supportive of women and girls wearing them. After all modesty is something this is severely lacking in today's American society.

But these things are patently female. And for this new trend of men wearing them, I just can't get on board with that. I recently saw a buddy wearing them in a family picture. Then last night in the grocery store saw two different dudes wearing them. I just don't get it.

Shorts that come to, or just slightly above, the knee are perfectly modest on men these days. There is no need to go girlie and wear capris for added modesty. Women don't look at your calves and swoon.

So men should leave the capris to women.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

The Theory Of Evolution Is Based On Racism

While studying the claim that the theory of evolution has a basis in racism, I came across this article:

Click here: Skin Color: Handy Tool for Teaching Evolution

So notice a few things about evolution:
  • It is believed that man's origins began in Africa
  • Early man was dark skinned and covered in hair
  • As we evolved we lost the hair
  • As we migrated out of Africa we evolved into fairer skinned people
Wait a minute? So evolutionists believe that lighter-skinned people are further evolved than dark skinned people? That sure is what it sounds like. Wouldn't arguing that one race is more evolved than another be teaching that one race is superior to another? It sure sounds like it.

Now notice what creationists believe.

  • God created Adam and Eve
  • All people of all races are descendants of Adam and Eve
  • All are equal in God's sight (Romans 2:11)
Interesting isn't it?

The article is correct in one aspect, and that is why people of different skin colors were dispersed about the earth. Those in sunnier climates tend to be darker because of the folate problems that lighter skinned people have in those climates. And lighter skinned people do better in less sunny environments because of the vitamin D problem this would have posed for darker skinned people.

But to suggest that light skinned people are further evolved is pure racism and has no part being taught to our kids.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Obama IS A Fascist

In his own words.

Click here: Obama: 'I need a dance partner' on immigration reform

Here is the quote:
"The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written," Obama said at the National Council of La Raza's annual conference.
Yep, he'd love to be king instead of president.

Powerful, Motivating, Thought-Provoking. Dr. Brad Harrub Hosts Seminar At Church

So this weekend my church put on a seminar featuring Dr. (and Brother) Brad Harrub from Focus Press. The topics he spoke on were:

  • Can We Prove God Exists?
  • Intelligent Design or Ape-like Creature?
  • The Dinosaur Dilemma
  • Is the Bible Just a Good Book?
  • Faith for Life (7 Reasons We are Losing our Children)
  • Mt. St. Helens, the Grand Canyon, and the Age of the Earth

All I can say is: WOW. It was so uplifting, so encouraging, and so informative. Never again do I have to be intimidated when an evolutionist asks "what about the Grand Canyon?". Never again do I have to be clueless when someone asks about strata layers. I have been armed with information to defend creationism and a young earth.

To hear Brother Harrub deliver such incredible scientific information showing the validity of the Bible, and then to hear him speak so heartfelt about spirituality was incredibly motivating. Brother Harrub continued to make the point that saving the souls of our children should be our number one priority, and I agree.

Check out Focus Press and the materials the materials they have available. Brother Harrub's book Convicted should be required reading for all Christian families.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Obama's Joke Telling The Worst Ever

Click here for story: Obama Tries Telling Joke, Falls Flat

I love that he has to tell everyone that it was a joke. Though I am still unsure if he meant the joke he just told, or if he was referring to the last 2 1/2 years.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Obama's New Ploy? Make It Up As You Go!

Barack Obama is liar. We all knew that. But now his lies are going from the mildly misleading to out-and-out whopper of all lies.

In case you missed it, Obama made an incredibly exaggerated claim.

Click here for story: Obama: Public is 'sold' on tax increases in a debt-ceiling deal
"The American people are sold," he said. "The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."

Obama said 80 percent of Americans are on his side in the debate over what to include in the debt package. Voters are paying attention to "who seems to be trying to get something done," the president said. "It's going to be in the interests of everybody who wants to serve in this town to make sure they are on the right side of that impression."
Amazing. Now for some time I have claimed that Obama thinks that the American people are stupid. That he can say anything he wants and people will blindly believe it. That may have been the case in eras past, but this is the internet era.

When a politician makes a claim like this, all you have to do is start googling it. The truth will be made known. For instance, here is a poll taken on the issue:

Click here for story: 55% Oppose Tax Hike In Debt Ceiling Deal
Just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% disagree and say it should not. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
There is a huge partisan divide on the question. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats want a tax hike in the deal while 82% of Republicans do not. Among those not affiliated with either major political party, 35% favor a tax hike and 51% are opposed.

Even if you claim that Rasmussen is wildly biased, the numbers just don't add up to swing it from 55% opposition to 80% support. It is like Obama picked 80% out of thin air.

In fact, I believe he did. If you were going to make up a statistic off the cuff, more than likely you would use a nice round number. Like 80%. A real statistic would more than likely be 78% or 81%.

You could argue that the real stat was not a nice round number, but that Obama just said 80% for simplicity. Okay, I can buy that. But still you can't go to the public, make an outlandish claim like this, and offer no support to back it up. And he has offered no support, just the same old "because I said so" attitude he takes anytime he is questioned.

The truth is that Americans are opposed to raising taxes to support our current level of spending. Americans have made it abundantly clear, time and time again, since November of 2008, that they want spending reigned in. Entire movements to that effect sprung up after Obama and a Democratic congress rammed a $800 billion plus stimulus down our throats.

And the American people are not as dumb as Obama thinks they are. They know that he inherited a $400 billion deficit from Bush, and turned it into a nearly $2 trillion deficit. The American people aren't so stupid to believe that is sustainable. And they certainly aren't going to buy the line that "we are spending it, so now you have to pay more in taxes to pay for it". That is a line of BOLOGNA.

Cut spending. That is what the American people want. This country has been clamoring for spending to be cut. The crescendo has been building for more than 2 1/2 years now. Only Obama and his fellow Democrats have been deaf to it.

And they could pay for that dearly come November of 2012.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Obama Takes Ball, Goes Home

What a baby. Seriously.

Click here for story: President Obama abruptly walks out of talks

Seriously? What is he, 12 years-old? I'd love for him to take his case to the American people. In fact, the American people have taken their case to him in every election since November 2008. And they have said overwhelming "CUT SPENDING!!!"

Obama is turning into a bigger idiot than I already thought.

Michael Medved: Obama's Numbers And Claims Don't Add Up

Michael Medved made an outstanding point on his show yesterday, and more conservatives need to pick this up and point it out.

Obama is pushing for $4 trillion dollars in "reductions". I quote that because he wants $3 trillion in spending cuts, coupled with $1 trillion dollars in tax increases.

The Republicans are saying we should cut $2 trillion dollars in spending and leave taxes alone.

Obama is trying to sell his plan to the American people by claiming that the Republicans want to make "draconian" entitlement cuts, while continuing to reward the rich by not raising their taxes.

But his math, as Medved points out, is skewed. He is actually proposing MORE cuts than the Republicans. So his cuts are more draconian than the GOP's are. The only exception is that Obama wants punitive tax increases on the rich. How dare they be rich after all.

Michael Medved has it right. I wish I could find a clip of his comments over at his site, Medved said this proves that Obama's goal isn't deficit or spending reductions, but getting the rich to pay higher taxes. I agree.

Kid Rock Is An Idiot

Hat tip to JammieWearingFool

Click here for article: 'All of Them are a Bunch of Idiots'

Kid Rock got political at a party for his platinum-selling album "Born Free." "We don't need a bunch of pot-smoking hippies and we don't need a bunch of Bible Belters [for leaders]," he told us Monday at the Co-Op Penthouse at the Rivington Hotel, adding he's "not sure" if he'll endorse Barack Obama -- whom he backed in 2008 -- for re-election. Of Republican candidates, Rock declared, "All of them are a bunch of idiots."

First let me say that I've always thought Kid Rock was a giant turd. Correct that, WANNABE turd. First he tried to be a hip-hop rapper. Then he turned himself into a rock-rapper. Now he wants to be a country singer. All the while he steals other people's music and just "rewrites" the lyrics.

My opinion on Kid Rock has always been controversial considering I live in Michigan. People here think he is some kind of musical genius superstar rock god. It is kind of sad really. I don't think the guy has a bit of talent. Ted Nugent has more talent in his little finger than Kid Rock will ever have.

But I gave Kid Rock credit for mostly staying above the political fray. I knew in 2008 he endorsed Barack Obama. I figured at the time it was a Hollywood outsider turned celeb trying to be part of the "in" crowd. After all, Kid Rock has always tried to find a place to fit in (see my WANNABE explanation above). But now he is just proving to be a complete idiot.

"All of them are a bunch of idiots."

Seriously Kid? You are bashing people with educations well above a high school level that have served at various levels of government? Some of them are extremely intelligent people that have run cities and states, and in some cases successful businesses. But the are a "bunch of idiots"?

I guess taking the music to Sweet Home Alabama, and rewriting the lyrics to say "Northern Michigan" makes you more intelligent than others that have have written legislation, articles, and even books? If they are a "bunch of idiots" then Kid Rock would do well to aspire to idiocy.

Friday, July 08, 2011

The Face Of An Angel

Caylee Anthony is today in the arms of Christ.

Her mother is headed for the other place.

More Casey Anthony: Reasonable Vs. Unreasonable Doubt

Maybe you are as sick of this case as I am, but reading another blog yesterday it hit me, and I made a comment there to this fact. What the jury got confused over was reasonable vs. unreasonable doubt. I truly believe this is the crux of the issue in the jury's idiotic verdict.

I am not a lawyer, but I know what reasonable doubt means. Reasonable doubt means that after hearing all of the evidence, that it is reasonable to conclude that the defendant is still possibly innocent of the crime charged. Where the reasonable piece comes in is that there is a REASON, based on fact, that you feel this way. The prosecution is not tasked with eliminating every possible doubt a juror might have, only reasonable doubts.

For instance, if I as a juror just couldn't fathom a mother being able to chloroform her 2 year-old daughter, putting duct tape over her mouth and nose, and then putting her in the trunk of her car to die slowly, that is doubt. But it is not a reasonable doubt because we know that human-beings are capable of such atrocities. It might be hard to imagine, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

A reasonable doubt would be if there were nothing else linking the defendant to such a heinous act. For instance, if Casey Anthony had never done a Google search on how to make chloroform, or how to kill someone, or hadn't abandoned her car due to the smell of human decomposition, then it would be reasonable to doubt that she committed the crime. Or if Casey Anthony had been grief stricken after the "disappearance" of her daughter, or she had contacted police the first day of the supposed disappearance, or if she hadn't been out partying and getting tattoo'd, then it would be reasonable that a juror would doubt that she committed the crime.

However, in this case, all of that was true. Factor in that the defense tried to get her declared incompetent to stand trial in the last week of the trial, and you can see that even they thought she was guilty.

Reasonable doubt is not unreasonable. So far everything I've heard the jurors that have spoken out say has been unreasonable. Casey Anthony was a good mother?!? Are you serious? Casey was more believable than George Anthony? Are you kidding me? Only a completely imbecilic moron could conclude those things. And apparently there were at least 12 of them, and more if you count the alternates, in this jury.

In the end a 2 year-old is dead, her mother that was responsible for that death is set to go free, and there are 12 people walking around in the Tampa Bay, Florida area that are responsible for that travesty. So far nothing has been done or said to change my mind that this jury was made up of morons.

Wednesday, July 06, 2011

I Can't Let This Go Without A Comment

This Anthony trial has brought to remembrance the O.J. Simpson trial. While the outcome is similar, there is one GLARING difference.

Please pay attention to reaction outside of the courthouse in relation to the "not guilty" verdict.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Now juxtapose that with the video outside the courthouse of the Simpson trial, when the mostly black crowd began cheering at the news of a "not guilty" verdict. I won't say much about that, but the difference is striking.

Stupidity Has A Face: Alternate Juror Defends Anthony Verdict

I don't have much to say, but first the clip:

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

All I will say is that this guy spends a lot of time talking about reasonable doubt, then turns around and says, definitively, that Casey Anthony didn't get away with murder. Sorry, but that is patently unreasonable. So, based on that, Russell Huekler is as dumb as I thought this entire jury was.

Tuesday, July 05, 2011

Further Proof That People Are Stupid, Casey Anthony Found Not Guilty

I remember watching in horror as the O.J. Simpson verdict was read. Not guilty. How could 12 people believe that O.J. didn't kill his ex-wife and her boyfriend? DNA, circumstantial, and every other kind of evidence pointed directly to it. I could see there being a person or two that didn't believe he did it. I could even see that, in the aftermath of the Rodney King row, that there were African-Americans unwilling of convicting O.J. But that aside, how could 12 people all be so dumb?

So here we are, nearly 16 years later, and yet another high profile trial ends in a completely inconceivable "not guilty" verdict. Anyone with half a brain could see that Casey Anthony is at least responsible for the death of her daughter, Caylee. Yet 12 people are too dumb to see what is so evident.

I have some questions for these 12 dimwits:

  • How do you explain Casey Anthony's behavior in days following her daughter's "disappearance"?
  • How do you explain Casey Anthony's lies to her parents about her daughter's where-abouts in days following her disappearance?
  • How do you explain Casey Anthony's complete lack of grief at the supposed disappearance of her daughter, and for showing no remorse at the discovery of her body?
  • How do you explain Casey Anthony looking up chloroform, and methods of killing someone, on the family PC?
  • How do you explain her ditching her car due to the smell of "human decomposition"?
  • How do you explain Casey Anthony, well into the trial, filing a motion trying to be declared incompetent to stand trial?

I'd love for the jurors to explain all this to me. Granted, I understand, they've been sequestered for weeks. But still, these are questions that are still unanswered. How any rational person could allow a monster like Casey Anthony to walk away, completely scot free, is beyond me.

Another blow was struck this afternoon for mass stupidity in our society. Congratulations to you 12 complete morons.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Good NYT Article On Andre Agassi

Two years after his auto-biography, which I reviewed here, Andre does an interview with the New York Times. A couple of weeks old, it is a pretty good article. Nothing earth shattering here, but he does answer the question about why he hasn't gone into commentary.

Click here for the article: Agassi’s Post-Tennis Career Is Anything but Restful

On going into commentary:
I think to be a good commentator, you have to stay really involved in the game. Otherwise, you grow disconnected to it as it morphs and changes and gets better. When I was leaving the game, the spins and the Nadals, Federers and the way they can make the ball do whatever they want was something I experienced. So I can talk about it quite extensively.

But all of the sudden, you start seeing guys who come out. They are different kinds of players. They are bigger. They are stronger and I haven’t competed against them, so to really talk about it in an educated way, you have to be out there. So it’s a lot more to me than just showing up and talking about tennis. I don’t really do anything halfway anymore in my life.

I kind of commit to something or don’t, and leaving the family and traveling to go stay connected to the game in a way that allows me to talk about it the way I would like is just much more of a commitment than I can afford to take on at this time.
Class act all the way. He is still someone I admire.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

More Obama Arrogance: Apparently The Law Doesn't Apply To Him

Reelection time is always a precarious time for incumbents. But with unemployment over 9.1%, GDP growth slowing towards a possible double-dip, and no end to the misery in sight, Obama decided to bend the rules in his favor:

Report: Obama Films Campaign Ad In White House, Possibly Violating FEC Laws?
NRO's Jim Geraghty raises the question of whether Barack Obama filmed a video for his reelection campaign in the White House, which may possibly be a violation of federal election laws.
Of course the White House claims that there is nothing to see here.
UPDATE: RCP's Alexis Simendinger reports that the White House disputes any inference of wrongdoing. A presidential spokesman said that the video does not constitute fundraising under the law, that portions of the White House can legally be used for that purpose anyway, and that previous presidents have done so.
Too funny. For all of 2008, during campaigning, we heard how an Obama administration would be so different than every other previous administration. Then when they get caught of improprieties the first thing they do is claim that they are just like every other administration.

If you voted for this idiot in 2008, and you make the same mistake in 2012, well then there isn't much hope for you.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Kids' Electronic Lifestyles Threaten Biodiversity

I thought this was an interesting follow-up to my last blog entry about Mark Zuckerberg.

Click here for story: TV, Internet harming protection of biodiversity: UN

Granted this is from the UN, but it makes an interesting point. As kids become more abstracted from how nature works, they begin to think of things like plants and vegetables, and even meats, as a product. Since everything they use is mass-produced, they don't see how the food on our shelves begins: as living things.

Credit Zuckerberg, as I said last week, for getting back to the basics. Prior to the industrial revolution most people grew and cultivated the foods they ate. Most people slaughtered their own livestock for the meat that was on the table.

I run into this attitude all the time. A few years ago I bought a fresh turkey for Thanksgiving from my preacher. He used to raise them every year. Once my brother and sisters found out this turkey came from my preacher's farm and had never been frozen, then they wanted nothing to do with it.

I asked them why a turkey from Butterball, that was raised and slaughtered just like this turkey had been, but then frozen for an unspecified amount of time, was better. They couldn't answer that. All they knew is that all of the turkeys they'd consumed their whole lives came from the grocery store, and that one didn't.

Sad commentary on our modern society.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg A Trend Setter? Well, Not Really.

So Mark Zuckerberg, the man who gave us one one of the biggest scourges that planet earth has ever seen called Facebook, announced recently that he is only eating meat that he himself has killed.

Click here for story: Mark Zuckerberg's new challenge: Eating only what he kills (and yes, we do mean literally...)

First of all, good for Zuckerberg. So many people think that their meat is a product grown on trees. They never see what happens to actually produce that meat.

In fact, I blogged on this subject a while back. When Aaron Sorkin bashed Sarah Palin for hunting, I noted that Sorkin is an idiot because he admits to eating meat and using leather, but leaving the actual harvesting of those products to others. Apparently Aaron wants someone else to do his dirty work.

Click here for blog posting: Aaron Sorkin Is An Idiot

So Zuckerberg is to be commended for "disambiguizing" (I love making up my own words!) the process of harvesting meat. Of course, many will look to him as a trend setter on the issue, and he really isn't.

You see, lots of people every year harvest the meat that they provide on their dinner tables. Meats of all kinds from a variety of creatures. Those people are called hunters and farmers. Zuckerberg is late to the table on this issue, but still to be commended for not making the mistake that Aaron Sorkin made.

Now if we could just Zuckerberg to shut down Facebook.

For my thoughts in the past on Facebook, see these blog posts:

Facebook Is Rotten
Facebook Is Rotten Part 2
Facebook = Digital Crack

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Surely The Pro-Abortionists Don't Approve Of This!

Caught this headline today:

Study shows girls increasingly aborted in India

One thing that pro-abortion feminists cannot condone is singling out of female babies being aborted. Am I right? Feminists have taken up abortion as a woman's rights issue, surely they feel the rights of future women are important too.

And lest you start crowing that this doesn't happen here, bologna. I've known several couples that purposely had another child hoping it was a boy or a girl. Less scrupulous couples might abort a child over their sex, and I am sure many have done that very thing.

This has always been one of the dangers of abortion. It is bad enough that it is used as birth control, but people using it to get a designer child is appalling.

The Ultimate Warrior's Fitting Tribute To Randy The Macho Man Savage

I won't say too much to set this up, except to say that The Ultimate Warrior was, is, and always will be my favorite wrestler of all time. And the Warrior had a very fitting video tribute to Randy The Macho Man Savage, who passed away at the age of 58 last Friday. Here is the link to the video:

The Ultimate Warrior video tribute to Randy Savage

My thoughts and prayers go out to Randy's family. You will be missed.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Obama Thinks 8 Years Is Long Enough

I happened to catch this little news item yesterday.

Click here: Clinton says Obama believes 8 years is enough

Call me skeptical, but I don't believe for a minute that Obama will be happy about leaving office. Whether that is in 2013 (LET'S HOPE!), or 2017. Either way a man like Obama, with an inflated ego and a power hungry disposition, will want to hold onto his presidency as long as possible.

All you have to do is look at his handling of Nicaragua. Or how he shoved Obamacare down our throats after Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts sent a clear, strong, anti-Obamacare message. Obama is man that wants power.

This part of the article is laughable:

She (Clinton) told a State Department forum that neither she nor Obama can understand leaders who refuse to transfer power and cling to office for 10, 20, 30 or 40 years.

I have no doubt that Obama would prefer to hold onto power as long as possible. After all, most ex-presidents retire from political office after their terms in office. He'd have no where else to go. I can't imagine Obama's ego allowing him to quietly ride off into the sunset like George W. Bush has done. Nor does Obama have the class to do something like that.

No, mark my words, if Obama is reelected, God forbid, there will be rumblings in 2016 of trying to amend the constitution to allow him to serve another term, or two. Just like liberals made noise about doing at the end of the Clinton years. Liberals love nothing more than to change the rules to their benefit.

And Obama is as liberal as they come.

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

A Great Point: Waterboarding Bad, But Shooting In The Head Good?

For the last several years the left in the U.S. have been beating this "anti-torture" drum. Now we know that liberals aren't very consistent. As I pointed out in my last post, Ann Coulter took heat for suggesting 10 years ago what the Obama administration did last week: invade Muslim countries and kill their leaders. However, they are really starting to look silly now.

President Bush in his autobiography admitted to approving Khalid Shaikh Mohammed be waterboarded in order to extract terrorist information from the 9/11 mastermind. Obama and his fellow liberals were outraged by this. After all, strapping someone down and pouring water over their face is akin, in their mind, to sticking needles under their fingernails. They seriously think that.

As the days following the bin Laden killing unfolded, the question began to be raised about whether enhanced interrogation tactics (IE waterboarding) had been used to find bin Laden. The answer was yes, it had been the result of Prsident Bush's okay of those tactics.

Then over the weekend, FoxNews' Chris Wallace asked another question. Why is it okay to shoot bin Laden in the head, but wrong to waterboard Kalid Shaikh Mohammed? Especially considering that the first couldn't have been accomplished without the second? -insert chirping crickets-

I am on record as applauding the taking out of bin Laden. It was a longtime in coming. What I don't understand is how liberals could applaud that (and they did) yet be so upset about the pouring of water over a terrorist's face. Amazing hypocrisy, even for the idiotic left in this country.

And Obama now refuses to stop the investigation, and possible prosecution, of CIA interrogators. Oh, but he'll bask in the glory of their efforts in that he gave the okay to take bin Laden out based on those interrogations. What a hypocrite.

Friday, May 06, 2011

Nearly 10 Years Ago Ann Coulter Suggested What We Should Do

In the aftermath of 9/11, Ann Coulter who is an outstanding conservative columnist, made a very heartfelt suggestion about how to deal with Islamic terrorism:
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

The left mouth breathers (redundant I know), were all in a tizzy about Ms. Coulter's suggestion. In fact, the National Review fired Coulter over the uproar that resulted.

Fast-forward to May 1, 2011. What did Barack Obama do? He invaded one of their countries and killed one of their leaders. Where is the outrage? Where is the left to demand he be punished for being so cold and callous. Obviously Obama left out the "convert them to Christianity" part, but he is very hostile toward Christianity so that is to be expected.

While I agree with the decision to kill bin Laden, and applaud the president for his (ever diminishing) role in that decision, I have to laugh at the left in this country for their blatant hypocrisy. Merely make a suggestion as a conservative, and they want you tarred and feathered. If one of their own actually carries it out, they applaud it wildly and speak of reelection.

I guess I should be used to the left's inconsistency on such matters.

Monday, May 02, 2011

Bin Laden Dead! My Thoughts

So last night, at about 1am, my wife woke me up to inform me that Osama Bin Laden was dead at the hands of American forces. I turned on Fox News and the coverage was on! Great news. Of course as more and more comes out about all of this I am finding some interesting things. Here are a few of my initial thoughts:

1) Gitmo detainees provided the information that led to Bin Laden's location in Pakistan. If Obama had closed Gitmo in Jan. of 2010, as he said he would, we may never have received the information. Even if we already had the information it is still an argument for the initial idea of opening Gitmo and detaining terror suspects there. I doubt Obama will admit this.

2) Obama HAD to have Bin Laden killed. The political firestorm of capturing and detaining him would have gone against everything Obama has been preaching since he began his run for president in 2007. Holding him indefinitely, and never bringing him to trial would have had those on the left howling in protest. No, Obama had to get Bin Laden dead, not alive.

3) Unilateral operation. Those words keep ringing in my ears. I am actually impressed that Obama had the guts to pull this off, but I am also shaking my head at his hypocrisy. Is unilateral military action right or wrong? For years he railed against it, but when it was convenient he ordered it. I am glad he did, but hope he will no dial down the anti-Bush rhetoric on the subject.

So while I am happy, and pleasantly surprised,  I am also going to be watching Obama's handling of the aftermath with keen interest. I already have noticed that in his statement last night he used I and me an awful lot.

Friday, April 15, 2011

The Cardboard Cutout President: "I thought I would get cool phones and stuff."


Obama is as superficial of a president as we've ever had. Elected on looks, and reading well of a teleprompter (and being against things he is now for), he has no depth of character. He has no real meat to his administration.

Here is further proof!

Obama Disappointed With Lack of 'Cool' Phone in Oval Office

"The Oval Office, I always thought I was going to have really cool phones and stuff," he said during a small fundraising event at a Chicago restaurant. "I'm like, c'mon guys, I'm the president of the United States. Where's the fancy buttons and stuff and the big screen comes up? It doesn't happen."

What kind of chief executive says "and stuff"? Sheesh, this guy is a disgrace. Hopeful Americans will see that in November of 2012.

Monday, April 11, 2011

One Of The Funniest (And Dumbest) Dear So-And-So Letters Ever!

Click here for story: Meat-eating hubby turns vegan bride's stomach


When my (now) hubby and I got together, we were both ethical vegans and shared many common interests about the issue. Recently, he decided he was "going back" to meat and has done so to an extreme.

Over the years we've had countless heartfelt discussions about why we don't eat animals -- the cruelty of factory farming and the moral imperatives -- and now I feel duped.

One final issue: He is not working, so it's "my" money going to purchase a product I find truly abhorrent. How can someone I love not see the cruelty that was once so obvious to both of us -- and still is to me? Do principles trump love? -- Anonymous

The "Dear Abby" type columnist had some good lines for this bride:

I can't tell you what he's thinking, nor can I decide for you where you need to stand.

I can point out, though, that for all your reverence for animals, you're not showing much respect for the mammal you married. I'm going to give your words back to you: "How can someone I love not see the cruelty?" Does your love determine how someone else thinks?

I appreciate your passion and sympathize with your predicament -- dramatic change in a spouse is difficult, no matter what form it takes -- but you need to take a couple of rhetorical steps back to your side of the personal responsibility line. He is entitled to his own principles, which include the right to revisit, revise or reject them.

You say you've had "countless heartfelt discussions," but when you agree on the topic of those discussions, it's easy to trust and respect the other person. Your job now is to see whether you're willing to do the hard work and look for ways you can trust and respect someone who differs with you, and whether he's willing to do the same.

Before you go in, I suggest you think carefully about "mine" vs. "ours" when it comes to money, because you could have a whole other, even more painful argument on your hands if you misspeak on that topic.

And, also consider whether there's any room for compromise in your views -- say, for kosher meat or nonfactory-farmed products. Pose the issue as the following question, to yourself first, and then to your husband: "Is 'ethical omnivore' an oxymoron?" After all, we're equipped with those pointy teeth.

Too funny!

Friday, April 01, 2011

PETA Hates Black People

First, you have to see this ridiculous story.

Click here for story: CEO Under Fire for Posting Video of Elephant Hunt in Zimbabwe

As expected animal rights whackos, like those that make up PETA, are calling for Go Daddy boycotts and condemning Bob Parsons for killing this elephant. But take note of the benefits of his legally killing this elephant:
  • Crop damage caused by this elephant was stopped
  • Many villagers in need of food were able to harvest the elephant meat
Parsons fires first, killing the elephant. Villagers arrive in chaotic masses the next morning to eat the elephant meat.
So PETA and their ilk would rather see black villagers starve to death than to see a problem elephant legally hunted and killed. Why does PETA hate black people?

Louis Farrakhan Is An Idiot

Click here for story: Farrakhan defends Libya's Gadhafi as 'brother'

I think I will leave it at this since that headline is really all you need to know.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Obama: I Was Against The Iraq War, But Bombed Libya For The Same Reasons

Does this guy even remember what he has said in the past? I think this is a classic case of lying so much that you forget what lies you told. After running around the country in 2008 bashing Bush for the Iraq war, because, Iraq was not a direct threat to the United States, Obama has now bombed Libya despite admitting that they were not a direct threat to the United States. (He did that very thing in his speech on Libya yesterday.)

In case you are too obtuse to notice the contradiction here, let's use a chart (thanks to Neil over at for posting this chart) to illustrate:
So I can completely see how someone could be against the war in Iraq, but for the bombing of Libya. Not.

So Saddam was in violation of numerous UN resolutions, many provisions of his cease-fire agreement, and continue to spurn any attempts at getting him to comply.

Qaddafi is in merely trying to hold onto power. But we bomb him, without congressional approval, yet the doves seem silent on the issue.

So there is only one conclusion to be drawn: if you are for the action in Libya, but against the war in Iraq, then you are a hypocrite. Just like Obama.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Heart, Yes To Swiffer But No To Palin?

Almost exactly one year ago (missed it be a day) I wrote this blog entry about Ann and Nancy Wilson of Heart insisting that the 2008 McCain campaign stop playing their song Barracuda for Sarah Palin at campaign events.

Here is the post: Click here for Ann and Nancy Wilson are Idiots

Today, due to having to do some over night work, I happened to be at home. A commercial for Swiffer came on the television and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. Here is the commercial:

So let me get this straight. Heart is okay with their music being used to sell household cleaning products aimed at domesticated women, but are against their music being used in support of a strong, independent woman that is making headway in a field dominated by men (presidential politics).

And they'd claim to be the enlightened ones. My original post stands, they are idiots.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Where Is Joe Biden And Impeachment Now?

Obama. Libya. Biden. "No immediate threat to the United States." Impeachment. Now the video:

Nuff said.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Obama The War President?

Go back to before 2008. Presidential candidate Obama never missed an opportunity for a little Bush bashing over the war in Iraq.

Terms like "illegal war". "War we couldn't afford." "Invasion of a sovereign nation." "Iraq was no threat to America." Those types of things were the typical jargon Obama used as he made a run to the White House.

Now fast-forward to 2011. There is Obama behind the presidential seal defending the decision to bomb a sovereign nation and to impose a no-fly zone over a foreign country. It should be pointed out that Libya posed no threat to the United States.

Now I have to go on record here as saying that I am for the actions taken in Libya. And I am for more. But this highlights so intensely of electing an anti-war president. It becomes awkward when an anti-war president has to go to war.

Of course from El Salvador today Obama tried to highlight the lives this action was saving. Instead of stating that this action was purely offensive (which it is), he tries to position it as if it were somehow defensive. As if Gaddafi was beating down the door of the east coast of the U.S.

This reminds me of when Clinton was president. Clinton spent a lot of time dismantling the military that Reagan had built. That made it kind of hypocritical of Clinton when he would deploy our military. The Somalian Mission in Oct. of 1993 is an example of what can happen when a president is tentative and unsure of his decision to use military force.

It is March 22, 2011. Last I checked we still had troops in Iraq. Last I checked we still had troops in Afghanistan. Now we are engaged in military action in Libya. So is this Obama a hawk? you be the judge.

Friday, March 18, 2011

Sticking In Liberals' Craw: Sarah Palin Was Right!

Click here for story: Palin Doctrine Emerges as Arab League Echoes Her Demarche on Libya

This has to hurt. For liberals. Palin floated this idea in an interview with Sean Hannity THREE WEEKS AGO! Of course some liberals were quick to condemn the idea.

Now the Arab League is saying this IS and WAS the correct strategy, and it should be implemented today. LOVE IT.

PALIN 2012!!!

Thursday, March 17, 2011

LoneWolfArcher Translates: Obama On Japan

A new feature here! I started it a couple of weeks ago regarding Obama's presser on Libya. I will occasionally take things Chairman Zero says, and translate it for those of you that don't speak Obama-eeze.

So here is what Obama said when asked questions about Japan: "I'm going to be making a statement later about Japan," Obama said in a photo opportunity with Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny.

Translation: "My staff hasn't told me how to feel about Japan yet, so I have nothing to report until they do."

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Adrian Peterson Is An Idiot

You are not going to believe this one!

Click here for story: Vikings running back Adrian Peterson compares NFL owners' treatment of players to 'modern-day slavery' in an online interview

Pertinent portion:
Vikings running back Adrian Peterson compared NFL owners' treatment of players to "modern-day slavery," according to an online interview published Tuesday by Yahoo! Sports.

WHAT? A guy that makes a living playing a game compares his situation to that of slaves? Remember, slaves are people, forced against their will, into a life of servitude. Compare that to Peterson who gets to make millions playing a game, all voluntarily I might add. Please.

Oh and good for Ryan Grant of the Green Bay Pukers (sorry, couldn't resist, Packers):
Green Bay Packers running back Ryan Grant took exception to Peterson's comment, writing on Twitter: "Their is unfortunately actually still slavery existing in our world. Literal modern day slavery. That was a very misinformed statement."
I also like Heath Evans response:
Saints fullback Heath Evans said he agrees with most of the Twitter responses about Peterson, which have been mostly negative.

"We are all blessed to even strap a helmet on in this league!" Evans tweeted.
For a reference point, Adrian Peterson's contract is set to pay him $10.72 million for the 2011 season. Congrats Adrian, you are an idiot.

Anyone want to take a guess as to who Peterson voted for in 2008? Anyone?

Monday, March 14, 2011

If The Unions Are Against It, Then I Am For It

I heard about this last week. Here is the story:

Click here: Michigan bill would impose "financial martial law"

When I first heard about this I wasn't sure what to think, or which side to take. I knew that the hyperbole was probably blowing it out of proportion. Martial law? Come on, let's get real.

But then as I heard and read more one thing became clear: unions, especially public unions, hated this bill. That cemented my position as being squarely for this bill.

I love quotes like this:
"It takes every decision in a city or school district and puts it in the hands of the manager, from when the streets get plowed to who plows them and how much they are paid," said Mark Gaffney, president of the Michigan State AFL-CIO. "This is a takeover by the right wing and it's an assault on democracy like I've never seen."
This has to make one laugh. Michigan, except for brief periods, have been in the hands of the left wing for over half a century. What that has caused is record unemployment, record low property values, less jobs, and higher taxes. A perfect storm of economic catastrophic.

This is not an exaggeration. While the rest of the country has been in a recession for 3 years, Michigan' recession is at least 8 years old. Ironically, it began around the same time that a Republican governor left office, and a Democratic governor took office. Hmmmm.

So to hear an union boss decrying this move as a right wing power grab is laughable. Extreme measures must be taken in order to reverse the damage that union-backed Democrats have done to this state for nearly 60 years now. Unions are a dinosaur that have outlived their usefulness.

So don't believe the hype. If the unions are against it then you know it has to be a good thing.

Sunday, March 06, 2011

Obama Votes Absent. Again.

These three headlines from Drudge are all you need to read to get the whole picture. And just how incompetent of an idiot we elected to the highest office in the land:

Sickening. Absolutely sickening.

Wednesday, March 02, 2011

Wisconsin GOP Senator Mobbed By, Well, Mob!

The blog prof has this up at his site:

Click here: theblogprof: Video: WI GOP Senator Mobbed at Capitol by Leftist Protesters

As theblogprof points out, if the Tea Party had anything close to this the left-wing mainstream media (IE everyone except Fox News and talk radio) would have been reporting on the antics. Since the unionized press supports the mob, and their antics, they bury it. Or they glamorize it.

Sickening. I can't wait for Governor Walker to start laying these slackers off.

H/T: theblogprof>

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

Narcissism 101: Charlie Sheen Is An Idiot

I don't know what to say to this. The elitism, the arrogance, and the unbelievable way he puts himself above all and everyone. This is a public service announcement against fame, liberalism, drug use, and growing up in Hollywood.

This guy, at this point, won't see 50. This has to break Martin's heart.

Friday, February 25, 2011

John Legend Is An Idiot

Click here for story: John Legend: Take my tax cut. Please.

Here are his comments:
"People fought to give me — a millionaire — a tax cut this year," he said. "I didn't need it. And all the other millionaires didn't need it either." 
The singer said he'd benefited from cultural organizations such as community choirs and arts councils in earlier years, which often suffer when budgets get trimmed. 
"I hope our politicians will not think that they are expendable and they can just get rid of them and nobody will feel the pain," he said. "Because I think society will feel the pain." 
He added: "I'm really frustrated with some of the discourse that's coming out of Washington."
Here are the reasons these comments make John Legend an idiot:
  • He shouldn't speak for others! He has no idea what other millionaires need and don't need.
  • If the arts are so important to him, then he should take his tax cut and donate it to private organizations that support the arts.
  • Because he wants to force others to support the arts through taxation
  • Where was his frustration with discourse from Washington during the Bush years?
See this is the problem with the John Legend's of the world. They are socialists first. Tax and spend baby. The arts should be funded by taxes? Where in the founding documents of this nation was that ever something that the fathers thought should be done?

Liberals like this can't understand that the government shouldn't be in the business of charity. What the government should do is get out of the way and let private charities fund things like the arts, shelters for the homeless, etc. Government is wasteful. Government is full of corruption. GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THIS TYPE OF ENDEAVOR!

But I am sure John Legend is like the rest of the left and think that people are generally stingy, and therefore we can't count on private donations. And they may be correct to a certain extent. But it is because of taxation and the government being involved in charity that people have that attitude. Drop our tax rates, take the government out of the charity business, and you'd see people donating to help those in need at an unprecedented level. The prevalent mentality today is "that is what the government is for".

Finally, John Legend is an idiot because the discourse from Washington is no different than it has ever been. The difference now is that John Legend has a president in the White House that he is heavily invested in (financially, emotionally, racially, etc), and he can't handle the criticism that this impotent administration draws for their incompetence. John Legend, you sir are a hypocritical, socialistic idiot.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Transcript Of Obama's Press Conference Yesterday (on Libya and Gay Marriage)

"I'd like to take a moment to comment on Libya. What Muammar Gaddafi is doing to his people makes me angry. It is unacceptable. I am going to jump up and down and scream until he stops."

(When asked if he doesn't stop?)"I will jump higher and scream louder until he does. With only small breaks in that activity for basketball, golf, and concerts at the White House."

(When asked if jumping and screaming was all he had planned?)"My team are discussing all possible options. Including us all jumping and screaming in unison. Unless I am playing basketball, golfing, or hosting concerts at the White House."

"Now onto another matter. Gay Marriage. In order to get elected I said I was against it. Then last December, in order to appease my base, I said my views on it are evolving. Now I am completely opposed to the defense of marriage act. It is unconstitutional, and in fact I believe that marriage should be redefined to being between 2 men or 2 women, and we should make opposite sex couples use civil unions. Further, if a person wants to marry an animal, or even an inanimate object, that is up to them. After all you don't choose who or what you love. I wish i had met basketball, golf and hosting concerts at the White House before I met Michelle."

"That's all, thanks for your time."

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Did The SCOTUS Get This One Right?

Click here for story: Supreme Court rejects vaccine lawsuit

Read the above article, then form your opinion. Who was right in this case? I am torn. On one hand I am not a fan of frivolous lawsuits. On the other hand I am wary of childhood vaccinations. Let's review the facts in this case:

  • 6 month-old suffers debilitating seizures that cause severe brain damage after routine vaccination
  • 65 other children were also harmed by the same vaccination
  • The vaccination that caused this (and no one disputes that it caused the problem) was removed from the market in 1998

Now remembering I am against frivolous lawsuits, but reviewing the above facts, I would say these parents have a case. Their daughter is now 19 but has the brain of a toddler. They are facing 24 hour care for this young lady for the rest of her life. It seems the vaccine maker could have be held complicit since the vaccine was pulled from the market in the years since this child's unfortunate reaction.

After some quick research I learned that the DPT vaccination is for the prevention of three diseases: diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough) and tetanus.

Diphtheria has already been pretty much eradicated. There have been 55 reported cases since 1980.

Pertussis, or whooping cough, while seeing a resurgence in recent years, doctors now have effective treatments that have rendered whooping cough to the status of treatable disease.

Tetanus if also extremely treatable. Once a potential tetanus-causing wound occurs a patient can be given the tetanus shot to prevent the disease.

So the question is this: was the DPT vaccination as necessary as preached? And the fact that it was known to cause seizures and brain damage in a relatively low number of cases, was that risk worth the reward?

I would argue no. Vaccinations are extremely controversial today. But the risks to the types of reactions that cause debilitating conditions seem to outweigh the rewards of preventing the diseases that they prevent. I would even argue that parents should also weigh the fact that since the vast majority of other kids receive the vaccinations, your child is very unlikely to ever come in contact with said diseases.

I know it sounds callous to take the position of "let other parents risk their kids well-being so that my kid can be safe", but put yourself in the shoes of the Bruesewitzs. You take a healthy, active, happy 6 month-old in for a routine check-up, and come out with a child that is brain damaged to the point of needing full-time care. For the rest of the child's life. Very scary and sad.

I never thought I'd agree with this woman, but on this point I do:
But other justices, such as Justice Sonia Sotomayor, expressed concerns that the immunity vaccine manufacturers have provides no motivation for them to improve vaccines and make them safer. She also didn’t seem to buy the arguments that allowing certain cases to go to court would cripple the vaccine-manufacturing industry.
My heart and prayers go out to the Bruesewitzs. If anyone knows of a website that we can donate to this family to help them with their daughter's care I would appreciate if you'd post it in the comments. I am extremely saddened for this family, and all families that have been harmed by vaccinations and immunizations, because they have no recourse thanks to laws like this one that has been upheld that prevent vaccination manufactureres from lawsuits.

And shame on the SCOTUS for getting this one wrong.

If you disagree with this post, do so respectfully or your comment will never see the light of day.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Where Is Obama And His "New Tone" Talk On This?

Watch the video. Amazing. Mere months since the Arizona shooting, and the left falling over themselves to ask for a "new tone in politics", we see these leftie weenies so attached to the union freebies they are used to, that they are actually calling to have Governor Scott Walker killed.

And where is Obama in all this? Shouldn't he come forward and ask for a tone of civility to prevent another Arizona type massacre? Oh, he is busy getting ready to shut down the government over American-people approved spending cuts. And defending dictators around the world at every opportunity.

I will set a new tone since the left can't. IMPEACH OBAMA!

H/T: Jammie Wearing Fool

Monday, February 21, 2011

Obama Loves Big Government

Shocking revelation here, I know. It isn't a surprise that when you elect the most liberal Senator in the Senate to be president, that he would turn out to be a lover of big government. And Obama has delivered on that threat/promise. He loves big government.

You can talk about the government handouts, the stimulus, cap and trade, and Obamacare. Yes those all point to his quasi-socialistic, big government leanings. No doubt about it. While Bush was funding two wars, he ran a modest deficit (huge, okay but modest by Obama's standards). Obama comes along and in 2 short years manages to multiple the deficit by 5.

But even scarier than Obama's love of spending tax-payer's money, or the government's money as he'd call it, is his penchant for always coming down on the side of government.

First there was Nicaragua. When a wannabe dictator tried to cease control of power by suspending the Nicaraguan constitution and usurping dictatorship rule, Nicaraguans reject it and ousted the power nabbing president from their country. Obama tried to step in and reinsert the dictator as president. Seriously? A president of a democracy supporting someone that tried to destroy their own democracy?

Then there was Egypt. Their ruler has been a dictator since he took office. (Egypt has been under emergency military rule since Mubarak took office in 1981.) When the Egyptian people have had enough of him and rise up to oust him, Obama falls all over himself to defend Mubarak. When he finally starts talking tough against Mubarak it is only because it is obvious that Mubarak can't stay. Maybe Barak saw Mubarak's name and decided to defend him.

Now China. Remember Obama bowing to the Chinese leader a while back? Do you think Obama will come out now and condemn China for excessive force against protesters? After all, Obama looks to China as a pinnacle of how to run government. It is sickening.

Yet when Gov. Walker of Wisconsin wants to reign in runaway salary and benefits to state workers, Obama steps in on the side of the unions? Now obviously Obama got elected largely on the union vote, especially public sector union votes. But why would Obama be so quick to condemn a state of our country, yet be so slow to condemn dictatorial leadership in Nicaragua, Egypt, and China? It is simple. Obama loves big government.

Gov. Walker is trying to end big government in Wisconsin, just like he promised to do while running for office. If Obama has any thought of reelection, he should support Gov. Walker and tell the unions that the era of easy money, where every lazy worker is protected and paid the same as every good worker, is over. After all, all Walker wants is for public sector employees to pay for a share of their benefits. Private sector workers already do that, and at a much higher rate than Walker is proposing.

Big government. Big labor. Obama. Dictatorships. Communists. Amazing how these all make such snuggly bedfellows, isn't it?

Friday, February 18, 2011

Proof That Moronic Nancy Pelosi Still Doesn't "Get It"

Click here for story: Nancy Pelosi aide says a government shutdown is likely

This just cracked me up. Nancy Pelosi, due to over excessive government spending, saw her majority in the House dissolve, and saw her lose her status as Speaker of the House. By the way, that title is #3 in line for the presidency, lest you forget.

So the new Republican House is going to play hardball with the president on setting the budget. Setting up a showdown that is likely to shutdown the government. Pelosi's response?
“It is a failure. It’s really a failure to say we have taken the leadership of the Congress of the United States and the first thing we’re going to do is shut down the government to the detriment of our people, to our security and to our country’s future,” she told reporters.
Huh? Good! The Republicans should take credit for this because it is exactly why the American public voted the Republicans into power!
Dear Nancy,
We are sick of government overspending. If the Republicans have to force a government shutdown to reign in the spending then we, the people, are all for it. This is why you lost in November. Not only are you a tax-and-spend liberal, but you are blatantly clueless to the fact that the philosophy runs counter to mainstream Americans' beliefs.

We The People
Pelosi went on to say:
“I would hope that instead of having ultimatums and statements of ‘I’m not going to do this’ or ‘I’m not going to do that’ that we will really have a process, go forward with an approach that talks about how to keep government open, not how we intend to shut it down,” she said.
WHA?! WHA WHA WHAT?!? You mean like the Democrats did with the health care debacle? Funny how Nancy disagrees with her own tactics when she is no longer in the majority and they are used against her.

Hopefully this kind of thing will cause her to lose her seat in 2012. And take another bunch of her fellow Democrats with her.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Justin Bieber Is An Idiot

Okay, I know he his young. But come on. Check this out:

Just Bieber calls Americans "Evil"

The Canadian-born Bieber never plans on becoming an American citizen. "You guys are evil," he says with a laugh. "Canada's the best country in the world. We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills. My bodyguard's baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if your baby's premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home."

See why socialism is so dangerous? Those that only know socialism can't imagine a world without it. Not only that, but a world where you pay for services, even of the medical variety, seems foreign and abnormal. Food, shelter, and transportation are all necessities that make you "broke". Why doesn't the altruistic Canadian government provide those for their people as well?

Further, a millionaire teenager complaining about having to pay for health care? Please. His hair and make-up bills are probably higher than anything I've ever spent on medical care. What an idiot.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

I Hate Valentine's Day

Call me cynical in my old age. Call me unromantic. Call me anti-love. Call me anything you want, but I hate Valentine's Day. It is such a joke. Shouldn't we be showering our wives with love and praise all year, and not on just one particular day?

So yesterday at lunch I journey over to the local store. Yes, I hate Valentine's Day so much I waited until the day of Valentine's Day to actually shop for it. And I wasn't alone, I counted at least 50 other guys, and 2 women, doing their last minute V-Day shopping too.

The flower department was filled with guys that can only be described as looking like zombies from some undead movie, milling around with blank stares in their eyes. Whether they were young, and in brand new relationships, old and married forever, or somewhere in between, none of us had a clue as to what we were doing. Should I get the single red rose? How about the bouquet of carnations? What about the potted lillies?

My daughter was easy. A "Happy Valentine's Day" helium balloon. She loves those things. I decided that the balloon for my daughter, along with a card was sufficient. I would get the wife a card, and take her to dinner. Done.

So I venture over to the cards. Where 30 of the 50 guys I mentioned, and the 2 women, were crammed into an aisle's worth of space. Jockeying for position. "Excuse me." "Pardon me." "Don't mind me reaching around you, please." It was like one being with 32 heads, 64 arms and hands, getting in its own way. And no one was smiling.

Further, forget the labels for the cards. Kids cards were where the "For Wives" cards should have been. Naughty cards were were religious-themed cards should have been. Sifting through hundreds of cards became harder because as the 32 headed monster rejected a card, it jammed the card into any convenient slot it could find. Those cards have been out for at least a month, so you have multiple days of multiple 32 headed monsters arranging the cards in random order.

I settle on the wife's card right away. A nice $4.49 piece of cardboard that voiced my appreciation for the blessing that she is. What I could have said for free, I paid Hallmark nearly $5 to say for me.

The kid's card was tougher. Again, just finding them was tough. But once I did they were all geared towards older daughters. "I remember when you made my V-Day's cards from construction paper" one said. My daughter is 7, she still does that. Another talked about her being my little angel, but that what I didn't know won't hurt me. Uhhh, not exactly the kind of morals I am trying to instill in her.

Finally, after 15 minutes of searching, I settle on a puppy card. She loves puppies and dogs, so I know I can always fall back on a card with one of those. And it said: "Have a Happy Valentine's Day". Perfect. And a bargain at $2.49.

While searching for her card, one of the heads over heard my head telling my coworker's head "I hate this holiday." All 32 of the heads, even the 2 female heads, nodded approval. And then a discussion about how it is just a holiday to make greeting card companies rich broke out. The heads started frothing at the mouth when the discussion turned to Sweetest Day. (For those not in or from Michigan, look up that doozy of a holiday!)

I then went to check out, where the balloon refused to ring up at the Do-It-Yourself scanner. The attendant came over and had to type in her codes, and then the balloon's code. When it popped up for $4.99 on the monitor the attendant decided to go into color commentator mode: "That balloon is $5?" I looked at her through a fake, toothy smile, and muttered, "Yes, I guess it is." Inside I was thinking "it is your employer that is gouging me for some cellophane and helium!"

As I walked out, $20 lighter, I realized all over again why I hate Valentine's Day. And when I realized I would be standing in the lobby of a local seafood place that night, for an hour, waiting for a table, I just couldn't wait for February 15th to get here.

At least I was able to pick up some light-bulbs while I was out, so the trip to the store wasn't a total loss.

Friday, February 04, 2011

What The Left Doesn't Want You To Know: Energy Crunch Obama's Fault

And I was verbally assaulted for suggesting this guy was The Manchurian Candidate.

Click here for story: Obama’s Blocking Of New Power Plants Triggers Nationwide Blackouts
The rolling blackouts now being implemented in Texas and across the country as record cold weather grips the United States are a direct consequence of the Obama administration’s agenda to lay siege to the coal industry, launch a takeover of infrastructure under the contrived global warming scam, and help usher in the post-industrial collapse of America.
None of this is surprising. Remember Obama was pushing the falsely named "Cap and Trade" bill. Better called "Cap and Tax". He also said during his presidential campaign that energy costs would "necessarily skyrocket".

And we wonder why we have been dragging in a recession which he claims he inherited. Maybe he did, but he has done nothing to get us out of it, and has, in fact, worsened it.

So hopefully we only have 2 more years of this Emperor in new clothing. And then we can get someone in there that has a clue.

Wednesday, February 02, 2011

Blame Jimmy Carter For The Egyptian Unrest

I am surprised that more political commentators haven't said this already. I blame Jimmy Carter for the unrest in Egypt right now.

The reason I say this is that it was Carter that "brokered" a peace deal during his administration between Israel and Egypt. This was really the only significant accomplishment by Jimmy Carter. Of course, I quoted "brokered" above because he didn't really broker anything. He paid the Egyptians off.

Israel was already receiving more foreign aid from the U.S. than any other nation in the world. This is one of the reasons that the Arab nations hate us so much, because we continue to be the main reason that Israel isn't A) overrun by its Islamic neighbors, B) a smoking hole, or C) Both. So Jimmy C. slithered up to the negotiating table and made Egypt a close second behind Israel in the U.S. foreign aid sweepstakes.

Let me state, for the record, that I am staunchly pro-Israel. In fact, if it were up to me, Egypt wouldn't see another red penny, and I would give all of their aid, as well as any foreign aid we are giving to Gulf region nations (save Iraq) to Israel.

Back to the issue at hand. Carter. What an idiot. So we have been giving billions in aid since 1979 to Egypt. Carter, the Idealist, dealt with a rogue nation. Here is what transpired from Wikipedia:
This treaty was welcomed with controversy. The Arab nations, and especially the Palestinians, condemned it and considered it as a stab in the back. PLO Leader Yasser Arafat said "Let them sign what they like. False peace will not last."[5] On the other hand, the treaty led both Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to share the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize for bringing peace between the two nations. However, Anwar Sadat became unpopular in the Arab circle as well as within his own country. Egypt was suspended from the Arab League as a result of the treaty for 1979-1989[6]. His unpopularity grew, leading to his assassination on 6 October 1981 by members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
Since Sadat's assassination, Egypt has secretly supported anti-Israel initiatives, while outwardly being friendly in order to continue taking the billions in aid from the United States. Further, the nation itself, the individuals that make-up the nation, never liked Israel, never recognized Israel, and would never support a leader that did.

So while current President Hosni Mubarak outwardly supports Israel, he only does so to keep the aid flowing. It has caused him to have to survive 6 assassination attempts himself since he took over for Sadat in 1981. Meantime, this internal tension has been on the rise in Egypt for 30 years. It finally spilled over due to economic chaos. Unemployment at 39% coupled with the increasing cost of food made Egyptians remember "oh yeah, we hate Israel, and therefore we will use our misery to make this guy (Mubarak) go".

So in the end this is exactly what you would expect. Carter paid the Egyptians to broker a phony peace. The people revolted against it immediately. Throw in horrific economic conditions (Carter knows about those as well!) and you have the fuel for a revolt and a lit match all in one location.

Thanks Jimmy!

Saturday, January 22, 2011

I Have Seen The Future Of Computers....

....and it is Chrome OS! Yes, the Google OS called Chrome is going to revolutionize the computer world. And it is based on Cloud computing. All that really means is that your storage, instead of local on a harddrive, is over the internet. When you save a file the file is saved on hardrive on a server somewhere.

Actually, it is more technical than that. The file is backed up, and it also has redundant protection (RAID) built into that storage. It is infinitely safer than storing it on local media. Unless you are rich and can afford your own SAN array.

Anyway, back to the Chrome OS. You can take a glimpse of the future for yourself. First, go here and download and install the Chrome web browser:

Once you have the browser start using it to surf the internet. Chrome has become my favorite web browser even over Mozilla's Firefox. Then go to the web store:

The web store is where you download apps and extensions to the Chrome browser. And this is where the meat and potatoes are. When you start using Chrome applications and extensions what you are basically doing is using Chrome OS! The only difference is that you are using it within your Windows operating system. However, Google is already working on Chrome as a standalone OS, and in fact have been giving away 60,000 Google Chrome OS laptops! You can sign up to try to get one here:

The Chrome OS is basically just the Chrome web browser. You can see a demo of the Chrome OS in this video:

Believe me, this is the future!

Thursday, January 13, 2011

After 2 Years Of Polarizing Us, Obama Tells Us To Chill

Huh? Seriously, this guy is the problem, but he thinks he has the solution. Right....

Dear Obama, please shut-up and don't presume to tell me what to do. Thanks in advance.

Thursday, January 06, 2011

Liberals consistent? Of course not!

I recently came across this article being touted by liberals on a forum:

Click here for story: Retracted autism study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

The short story is a reporter wrote a series of articles bashing the publisher of the study that linked autism to vaccinations. Here is the basis for his findings:
The series of articles launched Wednesday are investigative journalism, not results of a clinical study. The writer, Brian Deer, said Wakefield "chiseled" the data before him, "falsifying medical histories of children and essentially concocting a picture, which was the picture he was contracted to find by lawyers hoping to sue vaccine manufacturers and to create a vaccine scare."
What? So no other study was done? Just a reporter making accusations.

Now understand, I am not saying that what this reporter is saying is wrong. He may very well be right and there may be no proven link between vaccinations and autism. But the liberals' lack of consistency on this type of thing is what galls me.

First off, I have no idea why liberals care if I decide to not have my kids vaccinated or not. For any reason. Maybe I don't trust the vaccine because of the substances used in them. Or I don't want to risk my child's life, as a percentage of people die from bad reactions to all vaccinations. Or maybe I don't want to risk autism, whether there is a proven link or not, in my child.

But liberals were spitting mad at this study. They were out destroy it. So when a reporter claims that the study is flawed, they jump all over it whether or not the reporter offers any real proof.

Now let's juxtapose that with the Climate-gate emails. If you've forgotten, leaked emails showed that the global warming "experts" were purposely manipulating the data to make the warming seem more extreme than it actually was. Remember, these were emails written by these climatologists themselves, in their own words. "We need to manipulate the data to tell the story we want to tell." That's basically what they were saying.

Liberals refused to believe it. Brushed it aside. Pretended it wasn't true. Didn't care. Dismissed it. Completely ignored it.

So for liberals, if someone is caught red-handed in their own words that isn't nearly as much proof as a reporter making an accusation. Of course, the truth is they'll believe whomever sings the song they want sung.