Saturday, July 28, 2012

Is There a Need for Speed?

We are driving down the road, heading to Kentucky this morning. I have a family reunion this afternoon, so we are hoping to make it there in time to see some of my relatives. We've been on the road for a little over two hours, and the excitement that we had for about an hour of our journey was following a speeding vehicle with federal government license plates. This guy (or gal) was flying. We're talking upwards of 90 mph at times.

Since my husband works for the federal government, he said that the license plate will identify which department the vehicle is from and, along with the date and time, who is driving that vehicle. So, I pulled my trusty camera out and played citizen journalist. Here is the license plate on the Jeff-Gordon-wannabe's van.

That picture was taken from 50 yards away since we could not get any closer. If there are any federal employees out there who know this car, please tell the driver s/he's busted!

Now, I will not pretend to be innocent when it comes to speeding. Just yesterday I wrote a $40 check out to the People's Republic of Montgomery County Maryland for getting caught by a speed camera on the way to 7-11 for coffee before work. I have mixed feelings about speed cameras like the 3 that have caught me in the last 5 years. Once you are "got," you won't get caught by that one again. So they are effective in that regard. But they normally put them in residential areas where you don't get a lot of non-repeat traffic. So word spreads pretty quickly once they are installed. This just happened to be an area that did not have a camera until recently. So, now I know and I will not make that mistake again. Imagine if they put them on the Beltway! Holy mackerel, talk about a goldmine!

Am I a hypocrite for pointing out the speeding van when I am guilty of speeding also? Some may say yes. But I can guarantee you, promise you, state unequivocally that if I was driving someone else's vehicle, especially a GOV (government owned vehicle), I would not speed. I am not a saint in my POA (privately owned automobile), but I would not risk it in someone else's car, even a rental car.

All of this does make me reflect on my own driving habits. I don't speed because I am in a hurry. In fact, I am almost always early for anything that I do. The ticket I got on the speed camera was a result of my impatience. A pokey-pokey driver was in front of me and I was just anxious to get around him. So when the second lane opened up, I darted around the guy. I saw the flash, and I knew. And I'm sure pokey-pokey dude knew also, and he probably got a good laugh at my expense, in addition to the $40 expense that it cost me. Luckily, there are no points assessed on a license for speed camera tickets since they do not know who was driving the vehicle.

The bottom line is speeding is wrong. I know that, but I have such a competitive sense that I cannot stand to see a car beside me get ahead because I am trapped in the slow lane. Unfortunately, the older I get the less patient I get. But I am working on it. Counting to ten, breathing deeply, and telling myself I am in control are ways that I try to keep from honking my horn at the many pokey-pokey people who drive in the D.C. area.

So I have a couple of nice pictures of the back of my car to add to my two other sets of photos of my old car from several years ago. And my wallet is $40 lighter (up from $35 that the first two tickets cost me.) I just hope the third time is charms. Lesson learned.

Friday, July 27, 2012

Which Came First: Chick-fil-a or the Bigots?

Yesterday this story was one of the news items that nearly made my head explode. I did not have time to post on it, however, and today I don't have write much about it either since Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center has done a terrific article on the matter. In fact, he even titled his article the same as I had titled my unposted blog: "War on Chicken."Before we get to what Brent has to say, let me just point out what I saw yesterday that made my blood boil.

First was an article about the pronouncements of Chicago Superbully-mayor Rahmbo Emmanuel.

Rahmbo, who cannot (or will not) control the rampant crime in his own Windy City, decided he could control chickens. Yes, he "came out" yesterday as a chicken-hater. It's no coincidence that his sudden war on chickens erupted a few months after Obama stopped being a chicken and "came out" as a supporter of gay marriage. Rahmbo jumped head-first into the chicken fray yesterday, telling the fast-food restaurant Chick-fil-a that they are not welcome in a neighborhood in HIS Chicago where they are planning to build a restaurant.

What is Rahmbo's problem with Chick-fil-a? It's as simple as this: he does not want someone who thinks differently from him running a chicken business in Chicago. "Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago values," said Superbully Rahmbo. "They're not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you're gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values." Even the
├╝ber-liberal Atlantic magazine has come out blasting Emmanuel.So have other liberal icons like the ACLU and Mayor Bloomberg of New York.

[Intentional Digression: Superbully Emmanuel only accepts people who think like him and who reflect Chicago values, so that explains why he is welcoming anti-Semite, hate-mongering Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to help with the murder problem in Chicago. Apparently Farrakhan is no chicken.]

And if Rahmbo's anti-chicken rampage is not enough, along comes Superbully Junior, mayor of Boston Thomas Menino, who also is banning Chick-fil-a from opening a store in Boston. Yes, Boston, where our ancestors fought for the very freedoms that made us a great nation. The very city where the Tea partiers dumped British tea into the harbor in protest against an oppressive government that refused to give the people a voice. Here is what Superbully Junior had to say in his hate-filled letter to Chick-fil-a's president.

boston mayor chick fil a letter

When I read that, I thought You have got to be kidding me. If this was not such a serious matter, I would laugh out loud at this absurdity from the mayors of two of the largest cities in America. This is further evidence of the war liberal politicians are waging on our Constitutional freedoms of speech and religion. Because Mr. Cathy dared to speak his heart (on more than one occasion -- gasp!) and state his own personal opposition to gay marriage, these politicians have decided to trample the Constitution and bully an entire corporation and the employees and the chicken-loving (and waffle-fries-loving) public.

The ridiculous and disturbing thing is that Barack Obama had the same anti-gay-marriage stance up until a couple of months ago, when it became politically expedient for him to admit he had "evolved" in his opinion. I don't recall Rahmbo ever telling Obama that he was not welcome in Chicago since, until recently, he did not "reflect Chicago values." So, clearly Rahmbo is a poultrist.

Mr. Cathy's personal opinion has nothing to do with the business. He does not prohibit his employees from serving gay persons. No one asks you if you are gay and married when you go in to order a chicken sandwich at Chick-fil-a. (I was just in one yesterday, so I would remember that if they did.) I did not see any signs of anti-gay "values" in the Silver Spring Chick-fil-a store. Indeed, the two guys holding hands in front of me in line ordered and were served in a timely manner. But then again, they were not wearing wedding rings, so I guess that's why they were not booted out.

The whole premise that a mayor or alderman can threaten--much less succeed--in imposing their own personal beliefs on an entire city and its businesses is chilling. Talk about trampling free speech. The actions of these superbullies has had a chilling effect on free speech. Mr. Cathy has made no secret that he is a religious, faith-filled man. After this though, regardless of how it plays out, I have to wonder what business owner in his/her right mind will ever profess a belief in traditional faith-based principles ever again? And that is just what the superbullies want. Add war-on -business to the growing list of liberal agenda items.

Then, as if political superbullies are not enough, you have the Hollywood superstarbullies adding their self-important "stardom" to the fray. This is where we come back to Brent Bozell, who wrote this about the Hollywood ninnies and their insertion of themselves into the fray, via Twitter. 
Other critics emerged on Twitter. "Chick-fil-A doesn't like gay people? So lame," actor Ed Helms (of "The Hangover" movies) tweeted. "Hate to think what they do to the gay chickens! Lost a loyal fan." Several other bold-type Hollywood moralists — Miley Cyrus, Lindsay Lohan and Kim Kardashian — also backed a Chick-fil-A boycott.

But few can compare with the undiluted spite of Roseanne Barr, who grabbed all the attention with her death wishes on Twitter: "anyone who eats S—t Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ."

This came after she had called them "chick filet- nazi chicken f—-ing pricks." She also cracked she was "off to grab a s—it fil-A sandwich on my way to worshipping Christ, supporting Aipac and war in Iran." When people attacked her for saying people "deserved" cancer, she lectured, "Giving (your kids) Cancer from processed fast food is child abuse." To think that this genius just tried to run for president of the United States on the Green Party ticket is mind-boggling.

What's that? Roseanne apologized for tweeting that people who eat Chick-fil-a deserve to die from cancer? Ohhh, okay. I guess I should apologize for putting her face on a cow. Here goes: "Sorry, cow, for putting Roseanne's face on you." That goes for Miley Cowrus and Kim Kowdashian, too.

It's Not So Far Fetched after All

Just for the record, the upcoming movie "2016: Obama's America" released another highlight from the movie this week. It is a short snippet containing something to which I rhetorically alluded in a post just a few days ago -- 100% taxation of the wealthy. Only the proposition in this video segment is not just taxation at 100% of income for the rich but for EVERYBODY (equal misery for all). And the person that offers this possibility for government is none other than Barack Hussein Obama, Senior. So now we know without a doubt that the socialist apple does not fall far from the communist tree.

<Video disabled due to automatic start. Click on link above to view trailers for "2016: Obama's America>

So a few days ago when I rhetorically asked what would make liberals happy, and I suggested 100% taxation of the wealthy, I guess it wasn't such a far-fetched idea after all. . . .

Thursday, July 26, 2012

I Must Be . . . Dreaming?

I am back tonight with more of the news of the day that nearly made my head explode. Here is a video that should make EVERY American's head explode, prefaced by these remarks on the You Tube posting:
Sen. Sessions hosted a press conference today with top officials from two unions that represent U.S. immigration law enforcement agencies.

ICE agent Chris Crane is President of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, the union representing America's more than 7,000 ICE agents and personnel. Border Patrol agent George McCubbin, III is President of the National Border Patrol Council, the union representing America's more than 17,000 border agents and personnel.

From Sen. Sessions' remarks (forthcoming in a video tomorrow):
"The Administration claims it has diligently enforced immigration law and that the border is 'more secure than ever.' But those on the front lines know this to be untrue. They see the violence, chaos and lawlessness. They have lost confidence in the leadership of their agencies...

As you will hear today, this administration has engaged in a sustained, relentless effort to undermine America's immigration laws. They have handcuffed and muffled those charged with protecting the public safety and the integrity of our borders. Such action has not only weakened our security but our democracy...

What are we to do when the chief executive officer -- the very one who is supposed to enforce the laws of this country to protect the citizens of this country -- decides that "dreamers" are more deserving of the protection of our laws than are our citizens -- even laws that have NOT been passed? It is quite disturbing to hear the union officer say this:
It's impossible to understand the full scope of the administration's changes but what we are seeing so far concerns us greatly. As one example, prosecutorial discretion for dreamers is solely based on the individual's claims. Our orders are: If an alien says they went to high school, then let them go. If they say they have a GED, then let them go. Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything. Even with the greatly relaxed new policy the alien is not even required to prove that they meet any of the new criteria. At this point we don't understand why DHS even has criteria at all as there's no criteria or burden to prove anything on the part of the alien. We believe that significant numbers of people who are not dreamers are taking advantage of this practice to avoid arrest.
The officer goes on to describe an incident in El Paso last week  where an alien was arrested for assaulting a family member and then charged also with preventing the family member from calling 911. The criminal then tried to escape from the ICE officer who arrested him - a 3rd criminal offense. The alien intentionally injured an officer during the escape attempt - a 4th criminal offense. Says the union officer, "Without any  questioning, without any investigation, the alien was released as a  dreamer; no criminal charges, no immigration charges, no nothing. 'He's a dreamer, release him.' Incidents like this happening around the nation lead us to believe that the new policies will be ineffective in terms of providing for public safety." (You can find a transcript of the You Tube video below the video -- very poorly done, but it may help to follow along.)

This is scary stuff, folks. A second official reports that Janet Napolitano's assertions that all is well in immigration are made without any input at all from the men and women on the front lines and the actual battlefield -- our border protection officers. Instead, as he says, she gets reports and statistics from individuals "who have an interest in them reflecting whatever position the administration wants to reflect."

Just because they are nice people does not mean undocumented persons should be able to avoid the pathway that already exists to citizenship.

November will be our chance to rid ourselves of Obama's grin -- once and for all! Then we can finally get someone back in the Oval Office who will do his job -- enforce the laws of this country rather than selectively choosing the ones that fit his agenda.

Don't You Hate It When Your Head Explodes?

OMG there is so much blog fodder this morning I think my head is going to explode!

 Exploding Head Syndrome
“Exploding head syndrome is a phenomenon or condition in which the sufferer sometimes experiences a sudden loud noise coming from within their own head. The noise is brief and is usually likened to an explosion, roar, gunshot, loud voices or screams, a ringing noise, or the sound of electrical arcing (buzzing).” via Exploding head syndrome – Wikipedia.

So, to start with,  it seems on Tuesday of this week Obama scheduled an unscheduled meeting with three vets in a diner in Portland, Oregon. Apparently one of the guys was named "Marv." A press pool member interviewed Marv before the President arrived and wrote:
Diligent co-pooler Laura Meckler had just interviewed Marv before the encounter. Her readout: Marv Self said he came to the diner to kill some time and avoid the backed up freeway jam caused by the motorcade, never expecting POTUS to show up there. He said he is undecided on the election.
Only the press pool quickly figured out that this stop was not so "unscheduled" when the Obama campaign staff handed out to the press pool printed bios on the three vets who just happened to be at the restaurant where Obama just happened to stop. It also turns out the three vets all have a history as Obama supporters. We should expect nothing less. I'm sure Obama learned how well he is doing from the vets, and he will now surge in the polls among American veterans. As one local reporter put it, "In addition, the local vets -- Thomas Foeller of Oak Grove and Mark Peterson and Dean Dilley, both of Portland -- are retired white males, a demographic the Obama campaign would certainly like to do better with."

I have to finish this entry, as the blog is acting up, and I don't have time at this sitting to add more. The blog-site locked up, would not respond, then published an unfinished version of this post. So I will have to work on it later.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Haven't We Heard That Before?

I have previously mentioned Elizabeth Warren, the Cherokee politician running against Scott Brown for his Senate seat in Massachusetts. You might remember the speech of Warren's that was secretly filmed at some kind of private gathering in someone's home and then posted on You Tube -- it went viral and caused embarrassment for liberals as they tried to defend the socialist hogwash that Warren was spouting. Here's a portion of that infamous speech -- you have to hear it because there is vitriol in her voice as she verbalize her hatred for successful business men and women.

The irony that is lost on most uninformed voters when they hear this is that Elizabeth Warren and her husband are millionaires themselves, part of the "1%" that Occupy-Whatever-You-Can has made the whipping boy of the left. (I can only hope Ms. Warren takes a whipping in November from our boy, Scott Brown.) Ms. Warren's encouragement of class warfare was at its finest.

But last week Ms. Warren was surpassed as the most prominent liberal to let down her guard and show her true liberal color, the one hiding behind a red, white and blue facade. It's pure red.

Last week Barack Obama, without the use of a teleprompter, let his own true colors show when he repeated the same class-warfare socialist babble that Ms. Warren espouses and uses to brain-wash the uninformed.

When I heard Obama's speech on the news that day, I thought "Haven't I heard this before?" I was immediately struck by the similarity in the fundamental message in these two speeches, even though they were delivered almost a year apart. Both of these politicians believe that no one can be successful without the government helping you and propping you up. Their belief that there is an "underlying social contract" that mandates the payment of a "big hunk of" your profit when you are a success in business is as Marxist as it gets. Their assertions that a successful businessman only got that way because of what OTHER people paid in taxes is so ludicrous that I cannot believe they espouse that theory. Fifty percent of Americans pay no federal tax, so how do they defend such an assertion. Property taxes paid by the business owners themselves pay for the infrastructure, so their argument fails on that front also -- epic fail!


When you consider that neither of these two people has ever held a private sector job nor created a job that was not funded by tax-payer dollars, it makes sense that they think that no one can succeed without the government's help. After all, the government is lining their pockets.

This morning I see where Scott Brown's campaign has also recognized the similarities and has taken the videos of Warren and Obama spewing their anti-capitalist rhetoric and put them "side by side." The campaign ad for Brown shows how these two socialists share the same hope-less mentality and anti-American goals -- to bring our economy to its knees, to spread the wealth, and to keep their own pockets lined with our hard-earned tax dollars. Neither one of them has ever held anything but a public-sector job, particularly in the liberal higher education arena, so that explains their obvious dependence on taxpayer dollars for their respective livelihoods.

Here is Scott Brown's very effective, very real, very scary commercial. I hope it wakes up the people of Massachusetts who will be voting in November.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Armstrong on the Strongarm

Tonight my husband pointed out to me an article that he read today, saying that it reiterated things he has heard me say. The article was by Armstrong Williams of the Washington Times, and it was in their July 23 issue. Naturally I read the article. And while there are a few things I am not 100% on board with in the article, I must say I wish I could say things as well as Mr. Williams. But that's why he is a paid writer and I am but an unseen, behind the scenes blogger who will not be quitting my day job any time soon.

Armstrong Williams' article cites what I call the strongarm tactics of the left as they strive to create Utopia, the perfect society. Williams first opines that "what unites the left is a vision of an ideal society, and what unites the right is a vision of an ideal state." Although I do not agree with the proposition that the right generally is seeking an "ideal" state, I do agree that those of us on the right are more focused on the state (namely its best interest and its survival) than we are in "society." Utopian society is indeed the prize for the left, as Mark Levin so masterfully writes about in his book Ameritopia. (I highly recommend this book for an understanding of how the theme of the perfect society has been around for as long as humanity has and how it has been unattainable because man himself is imperfect.)

By contrasting the left and right's respective positions on various issues, Armstrong cleverly identifies the inherent contradictions in liberal doctrine itself. Leftist politicians often claim to be pragmatic, but their pragmatism goes only as far as it takes to bring an argument back to their self-preservationist ideology. To put it mildly, they are flip-floppers who will not hesitate to flop-flip, even if it makes no sense (to do so).

These liberal tactics remind me of the way my siblings and I fought when we were children. It reminds me of the old adage, be careful when you point because there are three fingers pointing back at you. Armstrong points out one of the favorite liberal tactics -- accuse your opponent of having your own worst faults, even though it is not true.
Any disparity is against [the leftists'] ideal society, no matter how evanescent or specious it may be. To them, it is not just evidence but automatic, compelling proof of discrimination.

Any disagreement with them and they label you. And how do they label you? What form does their bigotry take? They call you a bigot. It’s a clever tactic of bigots to try to make all labels as meaningless as possible. It’s also a form of poisoning the well: If they call you a bigot first, then when you say it back, it has less force, since you’ve already been labeled.

You don’t want to pay for their contraception? You’re waging a war on women. You want to enforce the drug laws? They are victims of your war on drugs.

So many of the liberals' lines are illustrative of the old fable about sour grapes.

We saw an example of such infantile tactics last week when Nancy Pelosi told Democrats to stay home from the DNC Convention in September, only because Democrats were coming out announcing that they would not be attending. It's the method I used in my classroom when I was teaching little kids. If they were doing something and I did not know what to do about it, I would try to make them think that they were doing what I wanted them in hopes that they would then think, "If this is what she wants me to do, then I'd better do the opposite," which in reality was what I wanted them to do. Call it reverse psychology or some other Freudian label (I was educated in that psycho-babble nonsense in under-graduate school), it does not change the fact that I was clueless of how to handle the situation and, either way, my students were smart enough not to fall for it.

Will the liberals ever stop trying to achieve the perfect society? What will it take to make them happy? 100% taxation on anyone earning over $200,000? Free abortion and contraception and sterilization for all women? Free child care and medical care and full-ride education and housing for all women and non-white males? No mention of God or Jesus whatsoever anywhere, and protected status for burkas and mosques and all-things-Allah? No civil recognition of opposite-sex marriage and free everything for same-sex couples?

Something tells me that even if liberals achieved every last iota of their socialist agenda for the next 50 years, they will still be whining that things are not FAIR and that the rich (anyone making over $20,000 a year) are heartless and uncaring haters. Of course, we will not make 50 years if the liberals are allowed to run amok unfettered.

There is a movie coming out soon called 2016. Here is a trailer for that movie, which I plan to see as soon as it is released, hopefully next week.

That nominal year is second in import only to the most important and critical date we have ever faced in this country's history -- November 6, 2012. On that date, we the people will determine whether we continue on the downward spiral into oblivion in the name of striving for the impossible -- Ameritopia. Or do we return to the fundamental principles that made this country the greatest that has ever existed on earth? I, for one, am praying for and working for and betting on the latter.

I Love a Good Parody

If you're like me and like to laugh, then this guy should bring a smile to your face. My sister's fiance sent me one of his videos, and then I got hooked watching him. I am now trying to figure out an event to which I can invite him to come and perform! His name is Tim Hawkins, and he has a website where you can read more about him and his products.

Ready for a chuckle? Here is Tim's version of the song "The Candy Man."

(Did you hear him say "Kentucky"?) If you didn't like that one because of the political message, don't blame me. Remember, at the outset I said "If you're like me," so if you read this blog regularly, you should have known the video would have a conservative "flavor." Still, you gotta admit, he's talented. And if you DID like that one, here is another version where he has really short hair and video illustrations.

Tim has some non-political songs too. Here is one that crosses all political spectra.

I didn't say it wasn't sexist. Just not political. But funny still.Visit Tim's website, or see more of his videos on You Tube. Just put his name in and you'll get all you can handle. Check out his schedule of events while you are on his website -- he performs all over the U.S.

So that's my laugh blog for the day. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. Here's one more parody for good measure. Be sure to listen til the end - the best part is around the 2:54 mark!

[Update: I hate to end a fun blog post with this downer, but it ties in so well with the last video I posted above. Read this story about the Twitter ravings of an actress whose self-importance is abundant but whose opinion is worthless. This is an example (among many) of what Tim was talking about in is parody. Add Ellen Barkin to my list of not-gonna-go-see actresses -- like I ever planned to!]

Monday, July 23, 2012

Show Me the O-Records!

I post this here because I have known about these missing records for over 3 years now. But maybe ONE reader will see this for the first time and realize that this guy is an enigma. We have an unknown man as president and the liberals could care less. Yet they belly-ache about Romney's tax records. Bizarro!

Was July 15 a Cold Day in Hell?

Yesterday I noted that I was shocked to see a story on the CNBC website from last Friday, July 20, because it conveyed truths about certain fallacies being promoted by liberals on the campaign trail and on the staffs of media outlets. Today I came across another story that makes me wonder if Hell has frozen over. That's the only reason I can think of as to why the New York Times printed this story by Jeremy Peters. It appeared last week, on July 15, in the NY Times, but naturally it did not get much play and was not "noticed" by any other media, until a week later (yesterday), when World Net Daily picked it up.

The gist of the NYT story is that Obama and his underlings are bullying the media and censoring news about Obama and his campaign. The story begins like this:
The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.

They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name. 

Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review.
The verdict from the campaign — an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script — is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message. 
 Peters goes on to say:
[P]oliticians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House — almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.
 As for how the censorship by Obama's minions alters reality, Peters offers up two examples.
Jim Messina, the Obama campaign manager, can be foul-mouthed. But readers would not know it because he deletes the curse words before approving his quotes. Brevity is not a strong suit of David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser. So he tightens up his sentences before giving them the O.K.
 Then Peters paints the news media as victims.
It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms.
And all those poor, victimized media outlets are, of course, liberal. True to form, because of the nature of his inherent liberal-ness, Peters cannot refrain from trying to make the Romney campaign seem just as controlling as Obama and his puppets. Peters cites the Romney campaign's insistence on approval rights to what Romney's five sons say in interviews. Then he says that a senior Romney adviser, Stuart Stevens, will not let the media print his  quotes of Walt Whitman and H.R. Haldeman--"clever", "disparaging" quotes, according to Peters--that he makes about political opponents. That makes me wonder what Stevens really said about Obama in a recent Gentlemen's Quarterly (GQ) article where he reportedly called the President a "terrible candidate" (gasp!), and where the GQ author called Stevens a "campaign big-shot" and the Romney campaign "adept at optimistic spin." Neither of these last two descriptors being "mildly provocative" in the least. Did Stevens censor that article?

In another attempt to make the controlling media-censorship by Obama seem bipartisan, Peters spouts off some nonsensical reference to a 2007 incident involving Dick Cheney. I read this paragraph no less than six times, and I cannot for the life of me understand what Peters is saying.
In 2007, Vice President Dick Cheney outed himself in a briefing the White House intended to be anonymous during an overseas trip. “I’ve seen some press reporting says, ‘Cheney went in to beat up on them,’ ” the vice president told reporters, according to the official transcript, adding, “That’s not the way I work.”
Though reporters with him protested, the vice president’s office refused to allow them to identify Mr. Cheney by name — even though it was clear who was speaking.
Say what? Spoken like a true reaching-for-something-to-hang-his-hat-on (and doing a lousy job of it) liberal. Mr. Peters then ended his piece by getting back on topic -- the current administration's insistence on controlling the narrative.
Under President Obama, the insistence on blanket anonymity has grown to new levels.
The White House’s latest innovation is a variation of the background briefing called the “deep-background briefing,” which it holds for groups of reporters, sometimes several dozen at a time. Reporters may paraphrase what senior administration officials say, but they are forbidden to put anything in quotation marks or identify the speakers.
The White House held such a briefing after the Supreme Court’s health care ruling last month with officials including Mr. Plouffe, Mr. Carney and Dan Pfeiffer, the communications director. But when reporters asked to quote part of the conversation, even anonymously, they were told no. Even the spokesmen were off limits.
 It's easy for me to see why Joseph Farah of WND wrote yesterday, "This may be the most important story broken by the New York Times in years."  Farah explains:
What it means is this: When Americans read these reports – whether in newspapers, wire services or on the Internet – they are not really reading news stories at all. They are reading approved, pre-packaged press releases from the government and politicians. But, even worse, they are not labeled as such. They are labeled as actual news.
And try as the liberals might, there is a huge difference between the most powerful man in the world censoring and controlling the narrative and his opponent, who wants that job, controlling what the media says about his five sons.

Mr. Farah notes that WND has always refused to play by Obama's rules. As a result, "WND was denied credentials to cover the Democratic National Convention," says Farah. "Why do you suppose what has become one of the largest and most influential news agencies in the country would be denied access to the convention floor? Simply because the Democrats know we won’t play by their rules of control like the members of the establishment press club."

And for that insistence on maintaining the integrity and independence that was once the hallmark of nearly all the news media in this country, but is now nearly extinct, I say, "Well done, WND, well done."

I know it will be a(nother) cold day in Hell before WND abandons those principles.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Does NBC Actually Have a Sane Reporter?

I am shocked that this story was actually published on the CNBC website. I guess they cannot avoid the truth any longer without making themselves a bigger laughingstock that they already are.

The following excerpts tell the whole story.

The presidential election has given us two myths about the rich. First, that their incomes, and income inequality, are at all-time highs. Second, that the wealthy pay less in taxes than ever, and lower taxes than the rest of us. A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, however, suggests that both may be false.

 [. . . See charts and graphs with figures from CBO in article.]

The One Percent paid an average effective tax rate of 28.9 percent on their income — far more than any other group, and more than twice the average effective rate of the middle class, who paid 11 percent on average. So the rich lost more income and paid more of their money in taxes than the rest of the population.
[. . .]
But when politicians and pundits talk about the rich just getting richer and paying less taxes, they need to pay closer attention to the actual numbers.-By CNBC's Robert Frank

Robert Frank
A smiling Robert Frank
As I have said before, I am not and never will be part of the 1%. And I have no affinity for them either. Indeed, the 1% is where you will find Madonna and Rosie and Jeanine and Cher and Anderson and Chris (Rock/Matthews) and Rachel and Barack and George (Soros) and a couple hundred thousand other hater-millionaires. If they want to pay more in taxes, more power to them.

But when the haters become dividers through class-warfare, that is when my dander gets riled. If they think they should pay more, LET THEM. In fact, they CAN pay more. The Treasury Department makes provision for it. But in reality the Haters DON'T want to pay more in taxes unless they drag others into their misery, which, as we know, loves company. Indeed, they don't want to pay more at all because they could support charities that help the poor if they really had the compassion that they say is lacking in conservatives who do not want the government telling us what is a "fair share." This video from last November shows that these "fair share" seekers are not willing to put their money where their mouths are.

Friday, July 20, 2012

Liberals support Coke, Pepsi, Wal-Mart, & JP Morgan Chase?

I am relentless on this food stamps issue, folks. This vote facing Congress could be the beginning of breaking the cycle of abuse that liberals have forced on the American taxpayer. They have maintained this program for decades with the same tactics they use for Medicaid and other wasteful programs -- by shaming those who want to restore fiscal sanity and responsibility to federal spending. The food stamps program costs us nearly $80,000,000,000 (that's 80 BILLION dollars) annually and has to be re-approved every five years by Congress. The last time it was approved was 2007, when the Congress was controlled by Nancy Pelosi (House) and Harry Reid (Senate). Admittedly, it was approved in 2002 by a Republican controlled House, and I do not defend them in that vote. They caved to the liberal pressure and shaming.

So 2012 is the year for either renewing, reducing, or cutting of the food stamps program. Currently, the Republican controlled House is proposing a 2% cut, or about 1.6 billion dollars. Naturally the outcry from the Left is "Do you know how much food that money would buy? Boohoo [sniffle sniffle, "Is my mascara running?"], those poor starving children. Those mean old Republicans want to deprive the babies." Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) tried to sound pious, but succeeded only in showing herself to be holier-than-thou, self-righteous, and ignorant of the meaning of Christ's words when she stated, "In Matthew 25, the first question Christ asks on Judgment Day is, 'Did you feed the poor?"

Sen. Gillibrand appeared to discuss her efforts to prevent cuts to programs that feed the hungry.
(Memo to self: Okay, breathe deeply, and maintain a modicum of composure.)

Comments like these show how ignorant are the liberals who make them. Why do they persist in taking quotes from Scripture that Jesus said to people -- to human beings -- and applying them to GOVERNMENT? On Judgment Day, Jesus is not going to say to the GOVERNMENT, "Government, did you feed the poor?" On Judgment Day Jesus is not going to say to the GOVERNMENT, "Government, whatever you did for the least of my brothers you did for me," or "Government, whatever you failed to do for the least of my brothers, you failed to do for me." On Judgment Day, it is not the GOVERNMENT that will go to Heaven or Hell. It is the PEOPLE, it is HUMAN BEINGS. It is you and I to whom Christ spoke.

If I give out of love for my neighbor so that he might eat, that is a corporal work of mercy. If I "give" because I have no choice because the government requires it and will send me to jail if I do not, that is NOT a corporal work of mercy. It is a duty. I don't think we score many points in heaven for paying our taxes, even if we do it cheerfully. That is what is expected of us. Otherwise, Jesus would have said, "Whatever you give to the GOVERNMENT you give to me." And I think any honest Scripture scholar will agree that Jesus was not noted for his love of the government. If he had been, history and the world would have turned out quite differently.

Yes, Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's." We are expected to pay our taxes. And I do. I don't like it, but I don't want to go to jail. So what is taken from me by the government in taxes may belong the government's. But when the government takes so much and then uses it for purposes that are objectionable to my conscience and my faith, without heeding my objections, then I have to do as the original Tea Partiers did and toss some tea into the harbor and say, "Enough is enough!"

The truth about the food stamps racket is finally being told. Liberals don't want this truth to be told. They don't want Americans to know who truly benefits from the SNAP program. They don't want us to follow the money and see where it leads, since they know it primarily lines the pockets of their major donors and works its way back into their political coffers.

I truly think that we are at a turning point in the history of this country. We are divided into two camps that are fundamentally at odds with each other in culture and in civility and in faith. I believe the rift is bordering on irreparable. Liberals have turned their sleazy Saul Alinsky tactics into an art, and they have an overwhelming majority of the media pushing their agenda. If the conservatives in this country do not come out in full force and turn things around in November, there will be dark days ahead. I for one will be looking for a new place to live, and hoping for a split--literally-- in the lands of this country. Those on the left who are on the downward spiral can take each other down with them and the rest of us can go our way and live free and prosper. I say we start drawing the lines of division now and prepare to give half of the country to the liberals and the other half to us conservatives. And the liberals can have all the food stamps. Of course, we conservatives will produce the food!

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Project Veritas Exposes More Corruption -- in NY

James O'Keefe strikes again. You remember him. He, with the help of the late great Andrew Breitbart, brought down ACORN and slammed Planned Parenthood by revealing the truth about their operations. O'Keefe and his organization, Project Veritas, also have proven that voter fraud exists, particularly in state that do not require voters to show an ID. Yesterday O'Keefe posted the following video on You Tube. I think it speaks for itself, but you can read about it on Politicker.

The entire raw footage is also available on You Tube, lest someone think that the editing was for purposes other than telling the story more efficiently.

 I wish I had O'Keefe's guts and tenacity. He is fearless! I just hope he does not "accidentally" die as a result of the corruption he has exposed in recent years. Godspeed, Mr. O'Keefe!

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Nancy Gives Dems an Out!

I gotta hand it to ole Nancy Pelosi. She has come to the rescue of her fellow men and fellow (?)women.

It's not new news that numerous Democrats have stated publicly that they will not attend the Democrat National Convention in North Carolina in September. Normally everybody who is somebody in the Democrat world wants to be seen at their party's convention. It's the Oscars of the political year, and it only comes every four years, kinda like the Olympics (Go USA!). It's where Barack made his debut on the national scene in 2004.

But when it was announced on June 18, 2012, that West Virginia governor Earl Ray Tomblin ( a good southern name -- Earl Ray) would not attend the Convention, eyebrows were raised in both parties.

Then came fellow West Virginians Senator Manchin and Rep. Rahill, who also realized they had better things to do, despite the fact that each is a superdelegate at the convention. Can you say

Undoubtedly relieved to have a cover and to not have to be the first one to bolt, Pennsylvania Dem. Rep. Mark Critz quickly followed suit. Then, quite coincidentally and one a state over, New York Democratic Reps. Bill Owens and Kathy Hochul decided they had better things to do with their time than be seen supporting Obama in the first week of September. But the best was yet to come -- along came Claire. McCaskill, that is. Her excuse was, "I've got a really hard election."

So, what do you do when an artery is spurting blood? You put on a tourniquet. Paging Doctor Pelosi. . . Doctor Pelosi. . .  And here she comes, to the rescue, scalpel in hand. And like any good surgeon she nips it in the bud. Right in the B...U...D. "Democrats should not attend the Democrat Convention,"" Nancy commands. "Do not go to North Carolina. You are not needed. You are not necessary. You are not welcome. We want you at home, to take care of socialist business there. It is too dangerous for you in this godforsaken state. Stay away. Stay far, far away."

Shrek immediately filed for copyright infringement.

Added Note: I wonder if this guy is going to the Democrat National Convention. If so, they'd better make sure there are a lot of bathrooms!

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

No Truer Statement Than "You Lie!"

Remember when all the liberals were so shocked that Joe Wilson was brave enough to call out the president during a state of the union speech a couple of years ago? Well, Joe Wilson has been proven to be right. Obama IS a liar. I knew it already, but it is time the country and the world face the truth. And the truth is, Obama was proven to be a liar today.

I watched Sheriff Joe Arpaio's press conference this evening, just as I did the one on March 1. Tonight Arpaio's investigator declared the Obama birth certificate to be an indisputable fake. The evidence is incontrovertible.

Watch the video of the press conference on

Read the WND story here:

Here is how one Phoenix news channel reported on it.

FOX 10 News - Phoenix, AZ | KSAZ-TV

Even Yahoo has posted a story:

Lastly, wanna hear what the lovable, cuddly, George "Liberal" Lopez thinks of Sheriff Arpaio? Read his warm fuzzy comments here.

When will the truth finally set us free??

Suggestion for a Revised Form 1040 for 2013

They say great minds think alike. Now, I do not know the person who posted the blog piece that I read today (referenced below), but he must be great. That's because he thinks like me!

Just this morning I was thinking about this whole liberal trend of saying that "rich people" need to pay more in taxes. All these people who make millions of dollars are coming out in support of Obama's tax-em-more agenda. Now, I am not a rich person by any stretch of the imagination -- unless you ask the people in Haiti, and they think EVERY American is rich. And I tend to agree with them when you look at their standard of living. That's not an insult, just an observation. But I digress.

So this morning I constructed what I think the Form 1040 should look like for 2013. Here is the change I would make, on page 2 of the form:

Pretty good document alteration, eh? Almost as good as Obama's birth certificate!
Quite by accident this afternoon, while looking for something on taxes for one of my clients, I came across the other "great mind," who came up with a similar idea, albeit a little more subtle than my construct. He wrote his blog here:

I'll just call him Pappas the Great!

Sunday, July 15, 2012

How to Cook Perfect Corn on the Cob

It's Sunday, and that means going to Mass. This morning Hubby and I decided to go to a different Church. The one we go to is very liberal, and sometimes I just get tired of feeling so out of their loop. We went to one that is about equidistant from home as our current parish. It is a church in the round, which I don't really like. But it is more conservative, which I DO like. Plus they have plenty of parking and you don't get blocked in by people who ignore the lines and park in the travel lanes because they come in 10 to 15 minutes late to Mass (like at our current parish) and don't want to park a block away and walk. I enjoyed the liturgy this morning, although it was cold as all get-out in there. Even so, it may be time to change parishes.

Hubby and I worked in the yard today, pulling weeds from the flower beds and laying mulch. It was humid, but not as ungodly hot as the past couple of weekends have been. Now we are relaxing indoors, cooking a beer-marinated brisket and foil-wrapped potatoes on the grill. We have several ears of corn on the cob, and I was going to cook them on the grill. But the last time I did that they were kind of dry. So, I remembered that I once saw a video on how to cook corn in the microwave so that the silks come off automatically. With a simple Google search, I located the video. It has had almost 7,000,000 views in less than 10 months, and since it is a cool tip from a cool old man, I thought I would post it here (in case I ever forget it and need a reminder)!

Cool, huh? Yes, and maybe a little corny.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Snap to It

First there was Snap of Snap, Crackle and Pop fame, the delicious cereal that talked to me during my childhood on cold mornings while we waited for the bus to pick us up to go to school.

 Then there is SNAP - the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, which continues to provide support to individuals whose childhoods were marred  or destroyed by unthinkable acts of men whom they trusted and who betrayed that trust.

There is also SNAP that stands for Sustainable Natural Alternative Power. I have no clue what it is, it just came up when I Googled SNAP. No doubt by having "sustainable" in its name it is some sort of "green" program related to carbon credits and politically correct light bulbs. I don't have any desire to find out.

Now there is SNAP, which is the federally funded (Department of Agriculture) Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. This is the new politically correct term for what we used to call Food Stamps.

Last Fall there was an outcry over a viral video that millions viewed on You Tube. Its haunting refrain was "EBT, my EBT, I just swipe my EBT," and it depicted a young black man taking his sister's (or girlfriend's) EBT (electronic benefits transfer) card to all kinds of establishments to get free things.

Mr. EBT later claimed that the song and video were a spoof, intending to show how the cards are abused. OK, if you say so, Mr. EBT.

But what brings me to post on this topic is another story that I read today about the SNAP program. It's not about fraudulent use this time. Instead, it is about our federal government trying to recruit Spanish speaking people to go on the SNAP program. I am not making this up. The USDA has has produced a series of "novelas" that are like little audio plays where people have conversations about trying to convince a Spanish-speaking person to go apply for food stamps. I am not even kidding you. You can listen to one of the audio productions (The Poet) below and read a translation of the script yourself.

Here is another one called "At the Supermarket." (Translation here.)

Do these bureaucrats not know of such a thing as pride? Or dignity? Or not wanting to be on the government dole? Obviously, all they want is for these people to get handouts from the government so they can hook them, like a drug, and get them to vote for the hand that feeds them.

Brilliant. Brilliantly evil. I just want to cry right now. I have to snap out of it! Our country has to snap out of it.

7/13/12 UPDATE: This article on the food stamp program gives me additional reason to lament the rapid downward spiral to becoming a nation of welfare entitlements.

7/17/12 UPDATE: Here is the USDA webpage that tells you how you can qualify for SNAP: The threshold criteria are so low, yet over 20% of Americans are receiving food stamps. Something does NOT compute!

Let the Games Begin

With the start of the 2012 Olympics just around the corner, I have been watching a few videos and waxing nostalgic on Games of ages past. One of the most impressive athletes of my youth was a young girl a year younger than me in 1976. She captured the world's heart by achieving the first perfect 10 in gymnastics. The numbers would not even fit on the scoreboard, as Nadia's coach, Bela Karolyi, recounts in this video.

After the Olympics, Nadia's fairytale story did not end. She married U.S. gymnastics Olympian Bart Conner, and they now have a business built around gymnastics.

Four years before Nadia made history, a Russian gymnast named Olga Korbut was the darling of the games. Her story--that of growing up in another Communist-controlled country--was also mesmerizing to eleven-year-old me. I loved gymnastics as a child, and I actually took it as a P.E. credit the first year it was offered at my high school in 1978. I was too large and clunky to really be graceful, but I got an A for effort. No doubt Olga and Nadia are to be credited with enhancing the popularity of the sport of gymnastics and ultimately with it being introduced into the curriculum of many American schools.

Olga's patented back flip off the high bar

Olga was a pioneer in almost every gymnastics event, especially the parallel bars. But it was her smile that captured the hearts of people all over the world. Sadly, Olga's amazing performances in the 1972 games were to be overshadowed in history by the tragic slaughter of 11 Israeli athletes by Muslim terrorists at that  Olympic games.

Ironically, I was working on a project at school at the very time that the 1972 Olympics were going on. We had drawn the names of countries in my 8th grade social studies class, and I had selected Israel. Until that week, I had not had much to include in my book. But while the hostage crisis played out, there were stories every day in the newspaper. Forty years later, I still have that book I made on Israel, with the yellowed news clippings of the events of those tragic days glued to loose-leaf paper, bound in a yellow folder. I will never part with it.

Olga's story was also "overshadowed" years later when the nuclear accident at Chernobyl occurred.  Reportedly, Olga suffers from radiation poisoning from the Chernobyl accident.

From Nadia's fairy tale success and marriage, to Olga's perseverance, to the 11 Israeli athletes who never saw their loved ones again, there are many more stories of triumph and sorrow in the history of the Games. The Olympics of 2012 will no doubt create more that generations to come will look back on as life-altering.

An entire series of historic Olympic moments is available on Yahoo Sports.