Lone Wolf Archer

Paul Krugman Is An Idiot

2011-09-12T07:06:00.000-07:00

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.

"God Particle"? Maybe Not.

2011-08-31T05:00:00.000-07:00

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.

Time To Throw Out The Television?

2011-08-23T04:10:00.000-07:00

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.

Peace Loving Union Member Shoots Owner Of Non-Union Contractor

2011-08-17T05:35:00.000-07:00

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.

The Atheists' Problem Of Love

2011-08-09T07:59:00.000-07:00

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.

Men Wearing Capris??!

2011-08-04T06:48:00.000-07:00

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.

The Theory Of Evolution Is Based On Racism

2011-07-27T05:13:00.000-07:00

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.

Obama IS A Fascist

2011-07-25T11:46:00.000-07:00

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

2011-07-25T07:02:00.001-07:00

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.

Obama's Joke Telling The Worst Ever

2011-07-19T06:51:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2011-07-15T09:46:00.000-07:00

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.

Obama Takes Ball, Goes Home

2011-07-13T20:31:00.000-07:00

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

2011-07-13T06:36:00.000-07:00

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, http://www.michaelmedved.com/. 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

2011-07-13T05:19:00.000-07:00

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.

The Face Of An Angel

2011-07-08T04:53:00.000-07:00

Caylee Anthony is today in the arms of Christ.

Her mother is headed for the other place.

More Casey Anthony: Reasonable Vs. Unreasonable Doubt

2011-07-08T04:44:00.000-07:00

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.

I Can't Let This Go Without A Comment

2011-07-06T07:21:00.000-07:00

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 msnbc.com 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

2011-07-06T07:07:00.000-07:00

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

Visit msnbc.com 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.

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

2011-07-05T12:07:00.000-07:00

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.

Good NYT Article On Andre Agassi

2011-06-30T06:55:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2011-06-28T09:10:00.000-07:00

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.

Kids' Electronic Lifestyles Threaten Biodiversity

2011-05-31T09:01:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2011-05-27T05:20:00.000-07:00

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

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

2011-05-24T11:46:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-24T09:36:00.001-07:00

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.

Obama Thinks 8 Years Is Long Enough

2011-05-18T04:53:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2011-05-11T05:11:00.000-07:00

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.

Nearly 10 Years Ago Ann Coulter Suggested What We Should Do

2011-05-06T16:37:00.000-07:00

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.

http://old.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml

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.

Bin Laden Dead! My Thoughts

2011-05-02T05:10:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2011-04-15T08:09:00.000-07:00

LOL

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.

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

2011-04-11T10:23:00.000-07:00

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

LOL

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!

PETA Hates Black People

2011-04-01T07:30:00.000-07:00

First, you have to see this ridiculous story.

Click here for story: GoDaddy.com 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

Note:

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

2011-04-01T06:17:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2011-03-30T10:47:00.000-07:00

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 http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/ 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.

Heart, Yes To Swiffer But No To Palin?

2011-03-25T14:41:00.000-07:00

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.

Where Is Joe Biden And Impeachment Now?

2011-03-23T05:29:00.000-07:00

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

Nuff said.

Obama The War President?

2011-03-22T18:22:00.000-07:00

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.

Sticking In Liberals' Craw: Sarah Palin Was Right!

2011-03-18T07:54:00.000-07:00

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!!!

LoneWolfArcher Translates: Obama On Japan

2011-03-17T09:49:00.000-07:00

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.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-to-make-statement-about-japan-later-today/1

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

Adrian Peterson Is An Idiot

2011-03-16T05:24:00.000-07:00

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?

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

2011-03-14T05:22:00.000-07:00

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.

Obama Votes Absent. Again.

2011-03-06T05:37:00.000-08:00

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:

UK 'to send team of spies' to help oust Gadhafi... British Army readies for mission at 24 hours' notice... Obama goes golfing...

Sickening. Absolutely sickening.

Wisconsin GOP Senator Mobbed By, Well, Mob!

2011-03-02T05:11:00.000-08:00

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>

Narcissism 101: Charlie Sheen Is An Idiot

2011-03-01T06:17:00.001-08:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

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.

John Legend Is An Idiot

2011-02-25T06:24:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2011-02-24T05:55:00.000-08:00

Obama:

"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."

Did The SCOTUS Get This One Right?

2011-02-23T05:28:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2011-02-22T05:25:00.000-08:00

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

Obama Loves Big Government

2011-02-21T07:07:00.000-08:00

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?

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

2011-02-18T09:34:00.000-08:00

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.

Sincerely,
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.

Justin Bieber Is An Idiot

2011-02-16T08:54:00.000-08:00

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.

I Hate Valentine's Day

2011-02-15T05:23:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2011-02-04T06:03:00.000-08:00

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.

Blame Jimmy Carter For The Egyptian Unrest

2011-02-02T09:42:00.000-08:00

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!

I Have Seen The Future Of Computers....

2011-01-22T19:23:00.000-08:00

....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: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/landing_chrome.html?hl=en

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: http://chrome.google.com/webstore

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: http://www.google.com/chromeos/pilot-program.html

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!

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

2011-01-13T07:37:00.000-08:00

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.

Liberals consistent? Of course not!

2011-01-06T08:59:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2010-12-15T07:11:00.000-08:00

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.

Nancy Pelosi Was Wrong. Again.

2010-12-14T05:50:00.000-08:00

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!

Aaron Sorkin Is An Idiot

2010-12-09T07:34:00.000-08:00

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.

Arguing With Liberals

2010-10-27T12:47:00.000-07:00

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

2010-10-27T07:17:00.000-07:00

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........

Of Freaks And Geeks

2010-10-08T09:34:00.000-07:00

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:

The O'Donnell Factor: Republicans Take Note!

2010-09-15T05:39:00.000-07:00

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.

Michelle Obama Is An Idiot

2010-09-14T06:00:00.000-07:00

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?

9/11/2001: NEVER FORGET

2010-09-11T09:10:00.000-07:00

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

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

2010-09-10T07:11:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2010-09-09T05:59:00.000-07:00

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.

Burning Qurans Is Good For Warmth

2010-09-08T05:27:00.000-07:00

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!

New Name, Same Content

2010-09-03T05:18:00.000-07:00

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.

Thanks!

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

The Discovery Gunman: Why?

2010-09-02T08:54:00.000-07:00

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!

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

2010-09-01T09:36:00.000-07:00

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:

“I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES ORDICK ARMEYAND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS”

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 http://drudgereport.com just released the Cable TV News ratings. This might be what has Johnny's panties in a wad:

CABLE NEWS RACE MON. AUG 30, 2010 VIEWERS FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,977,000 FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,645,000 FOXNEWS BECK 2,600,000 FOXNEWS BAIER 2,097,000 FOXNEWS SHEP 1,858,000 FOXNEWS GRETA 1,856,000 MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,078,000 MSNBC MADDOW 1,027,000 MSNBC SHULTZ 699,000 CNN SANCHEZ 676,000 CNN KING 620,000 MSNBC HARDBALL 620,000 CNNHN GRACE 586,000 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.

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

2010-08-31T06:08:00.000-07:00

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.

Bullet Dodged! EPA Won't Ban Lead Bullets

2010-08-30T12:04:00.000-07:00

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.

EPA To Ban Lead Bullets?!?

2010-08-27T09:09:00.000-07:00

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.

New Surge In Iraq Following Troops Leaving, Exactly As Predicted

2010-08-26T06:24:00.000-07:00

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.

Great Non-Endorsed Political Ad I Thought I Would Share

2010-08-25T07:06:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-25T05:22:00.000-07:00

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."

WHAT?!?

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.

The Detroit News Continues Misinformation Campaign Over Stem Cell Research

2010-08-24T08:40:00.000-07:00

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

Notice:

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

2010-08-24T05:46:00.000-07:00

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.

Hollywood Liberal Idiocy Run Amok

2010-08-23T08:47:00.000-07:00

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.

Odds And Ends

2010-08-20T09:50:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-20T06:24:00.000-07:00

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.

Barack Hussein Obama Is An AINO

2010-08-19T10:24:00.000-07:00

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.

2010-08-19T05:55:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2010-08-18T08:56:00.000-07:00

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.

Unbelievable.

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

2010-08-18T06:14:00.000-07:00

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 Detnews.com 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!

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

2010-08-17T07:19:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-08-17T06:51:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-17T05:35:00.000-07:00

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:

James Caan: Ultra-Conservative!!

2010-08-11T08:23:00.000-07:00

From FoxNews:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/11/james-caan-refuses-typical-hollywood-liberal/?test=faces

*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.)

Emmitt Smith: Portrait Of A Grid Iron Hero

2010-08-10T09:36:00.000-07:00

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:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-hall-of-fame/09000d5d81998fa9/Emmitt-Smith-HOF-speech

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.

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

2010-08-06T08:35:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2010-08-05T06:26:00.000-07:00

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 FOX411.com. "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!

2010-08-05T05:18:00.000-07:00

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

I Grow Weary Of Immigration Protesters

2010-07-31T15:23:00.000-07:00

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.

Andy Griffith Pimps Himself Out For Obamacare

2010-07-30T12:49:00.000-07:00

Sickening.

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.

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

2010-07-29T08:12:00.000-07:00

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.

So Long BP, We Hardly Knew You

2010-07-21T05:33:00.001-07:00

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.

Follow-up To My Earlier DDT Post

2010-07-16T05:32:00.000-07:00

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.

BRING BACK DDT!! NOW!

Let's eradicate these things again: