A guest post by Paul A.
Ibbetson, author of the books Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society andFeeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World. Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008 and 2009 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM.
Do you still have a sense of
humor? Can you still break into a good solid laugh when the opportunity
arises? Conservatives and the Republican Party are at risk of losing one of the most compelling
weapons in their arsenal, a sense of humor. Now don’t think
for a moment that I am opposed to the righteous indignation, repulsion,
and anger that has been reflected by the American people to the onslaught of socialistic policies that the Obama administration has
attempted (and continues to attempt) to heap on this country and its
people. I also reject the notion that victory for conservative values
can be won by moderating our convictions and core values for the promise
of “peace and tranquility” that would supposedly come from compromising
the soul of this country. When it comes to this battle for the Christian foundations of this country, for the
continuance of the capitalistic free market, and for the protection
and security of this great nation against those who would wish us all
dead, there is room for nothing short of absolutely victory.
However, I firmly believe that those
of us caught up in the turmoil of today may be withholding one of the
most powerful tools for the ultimate victory of conservative values
and the survival of the nation. So, for humor’s sake, please humor
me as I recount a story from the plains that will have applicability
to not only politics but to all places where a good laugh should ensue.
I remember my first year of
law enforcement, the first summer I worked, and my first experience
with public nudity - from behind the badge. Yes, when you are a policeman
you remember a lot of your “firsts,” as they often have a strong
impact on you both positive and negative. Among the many “firsts”
I would experience, this was a major life lesson. I was still in training
and was riding with a seasoned officer. I remember we were sitting at
a stop light and I was writing on a clipboard, part of the never ending
paperwork that comes with the job, when I looked up for a moment to
see a naked man run by the front of the patrol car. It was just about
dusk, but the evening rays of sunshine were more than abundant to illuminate
a not so athletic man in his forties - sporting nothing more than a
set of glasses running southbound down one of the busiest streets in
the city. I noted that he was traveling in the proper lane of traffic.
Funny, how the mind works isn’t it?
Now, in the heartland, a naked man running
down the street still rates as the highlight of the day for many and
causes a rather healthy amount of pandemonium. As the supervisor pulled
the patrol car into traffic behind the rotund runner (red and blue light
flashing), for what would turn out to be a quite lengthy slow speed
pursuit, my mind was racing through the Kansas statutes, the department
policies, and all the things that make up the serious business of law
enforcement - or so I thought. It was time for a lesson in the field
that we can take right into the world of politics.
The lesson came not from words
but from the sound of nearly uncontrolled laughter from the veteran
officer at the wheel of the patrol car. When his laughing began to subside,
the supervisor said between deep breaths for air “never miss a moment
for a good laugh.” With those white bouncing buttocks still in my
peripheral vision, I listened as the supervisor explained that longevity
in law enforcement was hinged upon the ability to find humor in places
where humor is often lacking. Although we must prepare for potential
dangerous things that may transpire at the conclusion of events such
as these, what we have at this moment in time is “a naked man running
down the street.” So, among the flashing lights, the public screams
of shock, and the not so quick flashes of human anatomy, a chorus of
healthy laughter from a patrol car in the heartland of Kansas was added
to the scene.
To my fellow conservatives,
today we fight for a country that is under siege by a socialistic administration
that wishes to rip the foundations of this country apart. The defense
of this country will not be a short battle, nor will it be a battle
without many painful casualties. To this reality I would say that we
must arm ourselves with all the weapons at our disposal, laughter being
a powerful tool in that arsenal. We need to laugh, not only at the foolishness
of our adversaries, but even have a good laugh at ourselves from time
to time. Yes, conservatives, we have to win the day, but to win, we
may have to do it while among other things, laughing.
Remember when Rush Limbaugh used the term "Gorbasm" to describe how the left in America used to react Mikhail Gorbachev? I ask because in today's Huffington Post, Dan Siegel had what can only be called the first ever public, multiple Moore-gasm describing the newest hypocritical piece of trash from Michael Moore, the successful, capitalist filmmaker who hates capitalism.
In the piece, titled (seriously) Michael Moore's Grapes of Wrath, Siegel sets a new standard for leftist hero worship.
Michael Moore has made the most important and urgent political film of our time. In fact, he might have made the most American of films since the populist cinema of Frank Capra.
He's serious. Really.
This film is a logical capstone to a twenty year documentary journey
surveying the carcasses left behind by bootstrap capitalist ideology
and cold-hearted greed, all greased by Washington's collusion.
No, it's the logical capstone to a career ending in a lunatic ward. And Siegel seems like a prime candidate as his roommate.
This film takes wholesale aim at the house of capitalism by displaying
the most venal and outrageous practices of the ill-begotten bottom line.
Really? You mean Moore takes on people who write deceitful, dishonest, anti-American, anti-logic and anti-commonsense documentaries, all-the-while duping idiots like yourself? Oh, that's not what you meant?
Moore's cameras capture both the tragedy of stolen dignity and the
possibility of hope in small victories enabled by, yes, good old
fashioned community and labor organizing.
Yes, the hero is ACORN. And the unions that killed our auto industry. Awesome.
But which populism shall we choose? The pitchfork crowd of
teabaggers and birthers manipulated and misdirected by the Right and
corporate lobbyists, and embodied by Joe the Plumber and Glenn Beck? Or
shall we respond to Moore's progressive populist call for deep-seated
democratic reform to take back our economy and politics?
Those choosing the latter are well-guided by the film's rare footage
of Franklin Roosevelt calling for a Second Bill of Rights in 1944.
Sixty-five years later we are waiting for this unfinished New Deal, and
today witness the heavily-financed resistance to achieve even one of
those basic rights, universal healthcare.
With the glimmering hope of the Obama campaign behind us, Moore's
film is a wake-up call to renew and expand America's democratic
promise. Will we create the America of the next Roosevelt, or revert to
the country of Reagan.
He's actually using the America of Reagan, the longest sustained and most prosperous time in American history as the bad choice. The time of Roosevelt... you know, bank runs, the longest economic downturn in our nation's history, soup kitchens and bread lines and brother can you spare a dime... that's the good choice. There's a lot more at the link, but I can't stand to read the rest of this tripe. Feel free to go there yourself.
Liberals can be scary. But there my be nothing as scary, or more dangerous, than a liberal undergoing a Moore-gasm.
Check out this graphic from the New York Times today (click for larger view) :
Despite signs that the economy has resumed growing, unemployed
Americans now confront a job market that is bleaker than ever in the
current recession, and employment prospects are still getting worse.
Job seekers now outnumber
openings six to one, the worst ratio since the government began
tracking open positions in 2000. According to the Labor Department’s
latest numbers, from July, only 2.4 million full-time permanent jobs
were open, with 14.5 million people officially unemployed.
even though the pace of layoffs is slowing, many companies remain
anxious about growth prospects in the months ahead, making them
reluctant to add to their payrolls.
“There’s too much uncertainty out there,” said Thomas A. Kochan, a labor economist at M.I.T.’s
Sloan School of Management. “There’s not going to be an upsurge in job
openings for quite a while, not until employers feel confident the
economy is really growing.”
Which won't happen until we have a reduction in corporate tax rates. Which won't happen until we have a new President and Congress. Which won't happen until 2012.
Yep, just 45% of likely voters now approve of President Obama's performance, according to the latest Zogby poll.
Asked whether they approve or disapprove of the
president's job performance, just 45.3 percent of likely voters say
they approve. That compares with 50.5 percent who disapprove of the job
Obama is doing.
The results are a strong indication that contentious national
debate over healthcare reform has taken a major toll on the president's
Dick Morris commented on the poll for Newsmax:
"As soon as Obama dropped below 52 percent . . . he was leaking real voters who
had backed him in November," Morris tells Newsmax. "Now that he is down
to 45 percent among likely voters . . . he is in deep political
Of greatest concern to Obama may well be his decline among
all-important independent voters. Just 37.5 percent of self-identified
independents say they approve of how Obama is handling the presidency.
That compares with 59.2 percent of independents who disapprove.
"There is nothing counterintuitive in any of these numbers,"
pollster John Zogby of Zogby International tells Newsmax. "The
president is clearly taken a slide — most especially with independent
voters, who play such an important role in any legislation or policy
"Interestingly, the president had been making some inroads with
groups like investors, and frequent Walmart shoppers . . . both
typically conservative," Zogby says. "However, he has slipped
considerably with them in this poll."
Zogby adds: "The healthcare plan appears to be consolidating conservative opposition and scaring independent voters."
84 percent of likely Democrat voters still approve of the job Obama
is doing, which I find simply mind-boggling. It leads me to suggest
that the Democrats may be leaking registered voters, with many of the
less liberal ones switching their registration to Independent or
Republican. That's something to definitely watch for in the coming
months. Republicans leaked massive amounts of voters in the last years
of President Bush, and plenty of those people can't be liking what they
are seeing on the Dem side.
Any thoughts on that, or are Democrat voters choosing to be particularly partisan with this President?
I thought this piece I wrote at Patriot Room today is a pretty important thing to understand about our current President and how he feels about America and its people, or maybe even about himself. Check it out:
he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and
likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and
buy a sword.
Nevertheless, the view maintained here
is that self-defense is exactly what Jesus taught. Self-defense is a
basic, natural right of all men, and there is no lawful government on
earth that denies it. Just why should it be supposed that Jesus denied
to Christians such a basic right has never been explained. "Resist not
evil ... go the second mile ... turn the other cheek... give thy cloak
also, etc." are not applicable to situations in which one's life is
threatened, or endangered.
That anyone ever questions this boggles my mind. Self-defense, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are God-given freedoms, protected by any just government.
A guest post by Paul A. Ibbetson, author of the books Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A SocietyFeeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World. Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008 and 2009 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM.
money or your life! These are the words most people have seen on television,
and a precious few in real life, where the villain gives the frightened
passer-by the option of handing over their hard earned money or forfeiting
their precious life. Ah, for the good old days. For a bad case scenario,
the classic robber/victim interaction was a pretty good deal. Think
about it, the thug/villain/bad guy (whatever title or representation
identified this dastardly person), was usually apparent by the robber's
covered face, grizzled appearance, or whatever makes a bad guy look
most noticeably bad. The options (your money or your life), while not
fair, were straight forward; and for a bad situation, "living"
was clearly the best decision of the choices available. However, when
it comes to the man-made global warming crowd, currently in power in
the United States, the old 'your money or your life' routine now has
a radically new spin. In fact, it's truly a theft you're not meant to
walk away from.
man-made global warming policies of the Barack Obama administration,
such as Cap and Trade, are starting to receive sharper scrutiny as more
focus is being placed on the tremendous cost of implementing Obama's
quest for a carbon reduced, "better tomorrow." The fact that
the U.S. will spend trillions of dollars, cripple our economic standing
in the world, and reduce many important personal freedoms of citizens
here in the U.S., chasing a Gorian Hoax, is starting to get traction
with the American people, much to the chagrin of the Obama Administration.
This is a positive thing; however, most people that combat the cabal
of climate cuckoos focus their attention on the 'theft' argument behind
man-made global warming. That is, the criminal way our taxes will be
raised (and our pockets emptied), or the robber's demand that we turn
over our personal choice on what to buy and how to travel (you know,
those personal freedoms). This challenge to the American people alone
is worth fighting for, as this is the fleecing of the country by the
miscreant in the back ally, "packing heat" and demanding,
"your money or your life," and it isn't even their complete
man-made global warming "rescue" package. To incorporate the
complete "green" package of the Obama administration, we have
to modify the classic robber's option of 'your money or your life' with
the certainty of Obama's new criminal request of 'your carbons and your
life.' Yes, we have to add the seldom analyzed element of certain death
that is a fundamental component of the "green initiative"
policies of the man-made global warming crowd.
most people are focusing on the economic detriments of Obama's green
initiatives, the broadest encompassing life issue of our time stands
before us. If the anti-capitalistic, anti-industrial measures of Cap
and Trade come to fruition, it will dramatically increase death rates
in developing countries that are attempting through industry to pull
themselves out of third world status - with its war, poverty, and disease.
Yes, for these countries, green initiatives should come packaged with
a depiction of the 'skull and crossbones.' There is little spin that
can be thrown at the fact that poverty and death walk hand in hand.
If you believe in the goodness of life and its right to flourish, then
you must observe the overt stance of the Obama administration, that
'too much of a good thing' is ultimately bad.
understand how death plays an intricate part of the Obama agenda, you
have to step into the complex, socialistic, web of the administration.
Within this flowing web, we see the devaluing of the individual and
the blending of people and environment as one. With this psychology
in place, the Obama administration can now find common applicability
to monitor and control the environment and the individual as the same
issue. Simply put, bellies, babies, and your breath (C02) become the
privy of the government, as do cars, construction, and carbon credits.
These all become one and the same, and, unfortunately, all in need of
radical reduction. John Griffin's observation in the American Thinker
that within Obama's healthcare plan is Section 1233 of HR 3200, which
mandates "Advance Care Planning Consultation" for the elderly,
depicts in an eerie Soylent Green-like fashion (a movie from 1973),
the Obama Administration's quick step to walk the elderly to their own
funerals, which should be chilling to both young and old. However, this
is just the back-end assault by the Obama "death dealers,"
as HR 3200 would also be the largest abortion expansion since Roe v.
Wade and would make abortion on demand a 'federal essential benefit.'
that you understand the Obama game plan, meet reflecting images of Barack
Obama and the death dealers for a better tomorrow. Obama's top science
advisor, John Holdren, advocated in his 1977 book, Ecoscience,
mandatory abortions, mass sterilizations by way of the food and water
supply, and forced implants to prevent pregnancies. While Health Czar
Nancy-Ann Deparle can be viewed as a pro-abortionist, she pales in comparison
to the 'abortion queen' of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's Health
and Human Services Secretary - with her nefarious ties to the recently
departed Dr. George Tiller. Deputy Health Care Director (and pro-abortionist),
Jeanne Lambow, can also be placed on the list of "death first"
dealers. Each of Obama's many arms (e.g., Czars and Agency heads) work
without any morality limitations to the common collective goal. Obama's
EPA director, Lisa Jackson, recently admitted the agency had not even
read the Waxman-Markey carbon tax bill before issuing a positive report
on its economic impacts. The most overtly vile Obama minion to date
is that of the global governance guru from 'Socialist International,'
now global warming Czar, Carol Browner. For Obama, the death dealer
positions never end. Even as you read this sentence a new Czar or Agency
head is being conjured up from the bubbling socialist pot.
The point here is not that
the Barack Obama Administration won't wreck the economy or bring about
a socialist America (under the guise of creating a "better, greener
tomorrow"); what is of importance is that while we oppose these
'warm' mongers, we must remember that the young, the old, the poor,
the living at all stages have a lot more to lose than their hard earned
A guest post by Paul A. Ibbetson, author of the books Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A SocietyFeeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World. Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008 and 2009 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM. It has been edited for length.
In the wake of Gatesgate, both Barack Obama and professor Gates should be taken to task as premeditated race conflict builders.
For those who wish to deny the social advances this country has made over the decades, my personal law enforcement background will no doubt be a disqualifier of my right to speak on this issue. But before you condemn me, let me defend Barack Obama.
You can decide for yourself if the President of the United States should be more restrained when talking about events without the facts, or about giving input on the arrests of personal friends. However, I can tell you from professional experience that immediate statements made about the “rightness and wrongness” of police arrests by family and friends are often tainted by the emotional bonds people have with those who find themselves in the evening lockup. So, while many rail on this part of the Cambridge incident, my experience leads me to extend a certain amount of compassion for those (the President) who find themselves gagging on their foot when speaking out of turn on friends and family who have just been arrested.
The problem that should be observed in the Gates arrest situation is not that of simple “stupid statements” but that of race conflict building. As events of the arrest of Professor Gates became more clear, we see that the Harvard scholar not only ‘talked himself’ into getting arrested, but that he did so by initiating race into his verbal attack that continued throughout the police investigation to the point of being placed into custody. President Obama, like Gates, needlessly and without provocation raced to “the race card.” For Obama, this can be seen in his initial media statement, where he made sure to reinforce the notion that minorities do not get a fair shake from the police in America. This is where Obama did his greatest disservice to not only to law enforcement but also the nation.
The final sadness of this event is how both Obama and Gates, when faced with the reality of Gates’ racial statements at the scene and an arresting officer who not only was not a member of the KKK but was an instructor on racial profiling with a sterling record, could not bring themselves to apologize. Instead, they did what liberals always do when obviously in the wrong - they attempted to create a new reality. President Obama started his bizarre procedure of re-calibrating his statements, as if you can turn a dial and make racial conflict building into a nice thing. Professor Gates, not to be outdone, decided to attempt to remove himself from the entire incident and went from demanding police apologies to saying that the issue was not really about him at all and that he just wanted to move on.
In reality, the largest injustice will neither be that a black professor got mad at the police, got arrested, used the race card, and got caught in the process, nor that the first black President of the United States was only too happy to jump on the bandwagon of racial conflict building. As bad as both of those two events are, the largest injustice here is that a police officer, who did his job and did the right thing, was put through the racial grinder (although he survived), and the entire issue will drop with a framing of ‘no harm, no foul’ as the race conflict builders will simply wait for the next opportunity strike.
This is one of my favorite videos ever. Harry Alford of the National Black Chamber of Commerce finally does what I've been waiting for someone to do -- challenge liberals on their use of racial politics.
Some of the awesomely awesome quotes:
"It was like down there in Mississippi in the bad old days..."
"I don't think she can help it. When she gets caught up in a rut or up against the wall, race comes out."
"Yeah (laughing). She loves poor black folks and she loves black folks in their place."
"The way she treated Condoleezza Rice.. was just terrible."
Here's the conversation that started it all at Hot Air.
Glenn Beck got a tad bit volcanic on the topic of healthcare on his radio show today, and I've got to say, I loved it. I know, I know, Beck gets over-the-top emotionally on a regular basis. It's one of the things that has won him so many fans and so many haters at the same time.
But enough is enough. People like this woman don't want facts and logic, they want to accuse anyone who isn't for socialized medicine of not caring about the problems, of not being touched by the costs of the system as it now stands. Is it not understandable when, faced with this tripe on a daily basis, Beck finally lets the emotion kick in, too? And is it surprising that the emotion we hear is anger, anger at not being able to get through to the meatheads who think we can all have anything we want, without paying for it?
Well, if this national health care is such a great Idea, then shouldn't we all be investing in the plan? Not just the wealthy, as this guy notes: Pay up! Utopia ain't free, ya know
As eternal tools of Satan, we understand that the wealthy normally attain their largesse via human misery, corporate plundering and the raping of the environment, but they also tend to be smart.
Love that line.
They tend to calculate their taxes and make up any losses by investing less, opening fewer businesses, hiring fewer people and spending less money.
The National Federation of Independent Business claims that the congressional health care plan could cost 1.6 million jobs — most of them in small businesses — and decrease wages across the board.
But if Americans have truly fallen in love with the idea of expansive federal government, so be it. Let's all start chipping in to pay for the costs associated with Hope...
There is a way to find out just how much we value the idea. Would a proposal that forced every taxpayer to shell out the true cost of this legislation ever get out of committee — or any politician's mouth, for that matter?
If voters believe that health care reform, as the president maintains, would offer savings and an improved level of medical care, surely they would be willing to take a stake in the game. Let's all ante up and see.
House Democrats plan to hold a vote on the “Restore Our American
Mustangs Act” (H.R.1018), which would create a new $700 million welfare
program for wild horses. This floor action comes at a time when
unemployment has soared to 9.5 percent, a 26-year high, and the federal
deficit has grown to a historic $1 trillion.
Here’s what HR1018 proposes to do with the $700 million:
Conducts a horse census every two years
Provides “enhanced contraception” and birth control for horses
Establishes an additional 19 million acres of public and private land for wild horses
Covers $5 million tab to repair horse damage to land
Mandates that government bureaucrats perform home inspections before Americans can adopt horses
Birth control … for horses. How exactly does that restore
the mustang population? If it needs “restoring”, doesn’t that suggest
that we need to encourage reproduction rather than launching a mustang
safe-sex program? Of course, mustang rubbers would make each
successive “horse census” easier, assuming mustangs can figure out how
to wear them.
When it comes to crafting bills that are full of horse pucky, this Congress may be the best evah. More at the link above.
"Muzzle?" Well, at least I'm sure it's an honest, ethical and open muzzling.
In their zeal to protect their members from politically hazardous votes on issues such as gay marriage and gun control, Democrats running the House of Representatives are taking extraordinary steps to muzzle Republicans in this summer's debates on spending bills.
On Thursday, for example, Republicans had hoped to force debates on abortion, school vouchers and medical marijuana,
as well as gay marriage and gun control, as part of House consideration
of the federal government's contribution to the District of Columbia's
No way, Democrats said.
One would almost think that the Dems were attempting to hide the fact that the majority of their positions are highly at odds with most Americans. But certainly the most honest, ethical and open Congress ever would never think of such a thing. Turns out Pelosi's Congress is not even honest, ethical or open with members of its own party.
Even some Democrats are chaffing at the heavy-handed clampdown on debate. Abortion opponent Rep. Bart Stupak,
D-Mich., on Thursday lashed out at his party's leaders for denying him
and others a chance to vote on restoring a long-standing directive by
Congress blocking taxpayer-funded abortions in Washington, D.C.
Democrats effectively reversed that stance while the bill was still being considered by the Appropriations Committee. Stupak said the Democratic leadership's new policy on floor debates "muzzles the voices of pro-life members."
With all the muzzling going on, couldn't we find one for Pelosi?
Whatever the case, the major causes of the budget blowout are
well-known: an aging population and rapid increases in health spending.
In 2000, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- the main programs
providing income and health care for the 65 and over population --
totaled nearly 8 percent of GDP. In 2020, CBO projects that will reach
almost 12 percent of GDP. But the deeper source of our predicament is a
self-indulgent political culture that avoids a rigorous discussion of
Everyone favors benefits and opposes burdens (taxes). Republicans
want to cut taxes without cutting spending. Democrats want to increase
spending without increasing taxes, except on the rich. The differences
between the parties are shades of gray. Hardly anyone asks the hard
questions of who doesn't need benefits, which programs are expendable
and what taxes might cover remaining deficits.
A major discussion must take place on the role of government. It is the conservative's job to take reigns of this argument. Ronald Reagan won two landslides by maintaining that government was not the solution to our problems, but the cause. Imagine a Reagan-like President, plus a Congress of like-minded folk. You could begin to undo what has been done to us.
Obama would make matters worse. He talks about controlling
"entitlement" spending (mainly Social Security and Medicare) but hasn't
done so. He's proposing just the opposite. His health care proposal
would increase federal spending. He says he will "pay for" the added
outlays with tax increases or other spending cuts, but what people
forget is that every penny of this "payment" could be used (and should
be) to close the existing long-term deficit -- not raise future
spending and taxes.
A California businessman details in the Wall Street Journal why he and his company will be leaving Los Angeles and taking his taxes and employees jobs with them:
But we have no choice. The city's bureaucrats rival Stalin's
apparatchiks in issuing decrees, rescinding them, and then punishing
citizens for having followed them in the first place...
We work with hundreds of outside agents, consultants, independent
contractors and support services -- many of whom pay taxes to the city
of Los Angeles. This spurs a job-creating ripple effect on the city's
economy. Yet I suspect many companies like ours already have quietly
left town in the face of the city's taxes and regulations. This would
help explain the erosion of jobs.
Regardless of the outcome of our case, the arbitrary and capricious
behavior of some bureaucrats is creating a lose-lose situation for
everyone involved. If we win in court, the taxpayers of Los Angeles
will have lost because all those tax dollars will have been wasted on
If we lose in court, the remaining taxpayers in Los Angeles will
have lost because their burden will continue to swell as yet another
business moves its jobs -- and taxpayers -- to another city.
As long as City Hall operates like a banana republic, why is anyone
surprised that jobs have left the city in droves and Los Angeles is
teetering on the brink of bankruptcy?
Meanwhile, Just Politics? has a nice chart that shows that California's problems have nothing to do with tax revenues, but with ridiculous growth in state expenditures.
The federal government's most secure prison has determined that two
books written by President Barack Obama contain material "potentially
detrimental to national security" and rejected an inmate's request to
The crowd for the St. Louis Tea Party on the 4th dwarfed the crowd we saw in Phoenix. Maybe that's because they had shade, while the folks in Phoenix decided to march in 110 degree heat to the Capitol building.
Mark Polege, photographer and author of the new blog Keyboard Militia, discussed the details of this event with me, and sent photos.
St.Louis was less than cooperative in providing a location for the Tea Party protest on July 4th, therefore our protest took place in Washington, Missouri
in Rennick Park. The town was very hospitable as many businesses downtown stayed open on the Fourth to cater to the extra 3500 population surge. In fact many of them offered deals or specials for Tea Party-ers.
This week's Rule 5 post contains not only a nude photo of Khloe Kardashian, but also a serious point, written below by Paul A. Ibbetson, author of Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society and Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World, an excellent book which I am reading for review right now.
“Save the whales, save the snails!” Comedian George Carlin had it right when he talked about the audacity and craziness of some to misplace priorities on where to put a helping hand when it comes to people and the planet. When it comes to organizations that ‘break from the norm’ the most, when balancing the value between people and animals, PETA has to be near the top of the list.
PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, was founded in 1980. On the periphery, the organization seems somewhat benign, if not wholesome, in their stated mission of working to decrease the abuse of animals. If you dig a little deeper, you would find that the organization believes that animals should not only be saved from cruel experiments, but also from being used by man for clothing, or even to be eaten. It doesn’t take very long for a grounded individual to begin looking askew at this radical leftist organization, and why not? In reality, to endorse PETA, one has to take oneself several steps down the food chain.
We can see that humans are not so welcome in PETA’s view of things, with their continuous onslaught on free market organizations, such as Kentucky Fried Chicken. Despite the organization’s charges of cruelty to chickens by the KFC restaurant chain, their own organization statement that animals should not be consumed by humans brings thinking people to the simple fact that KFC will never be able to throw PETA ‘a bone’ they will accept.
Despite this fact, PETA members go straight to the gutter to attempt to save potential chickens in distress. Like a deranged cult group, the young and impressionable (almost exclusively female) are recruited, stripped, and sent all but naked into the streets to decry the fate of a chicken, bird, rabbit, you name it. In what should enrage the feminist groups around the globe, PETA objectifies partially nude women in bondage-like ‘cage’ depictions that reduce women to nothing more than cheap sex objects.
In other words, PETA attempts to swap one form of ‘meat’ with another form of the same. This activity is, in a word, shameful.
The depths that this organization will go to are potentially limitless. PETA recently admonished President Barack Obama for killing an annoying fly during a television interview. While this may be the toughest foe that President Obama actually takes on, PETA made it clear that the fly ranks as high as any creature under their protection from the abuse of man.
To top off the lunacy, PETA sent the president a “capture and release” device for future fly encounters.
Groups such as PETA warrant more than the simple ‘eye-roll’ we often give radical leftist organizations. In my opinion, PETA’s bizarre equating of human and animal as being equal reflects not so much a love for the creatures of the planet, but an underlying hatred of humans. The fact that they actively denigrate their followers is only further proof of a twisted philosophy in action. Any group or organization that diminishes the worth and value of mankind, be it to certain religions, social groups, race-baiting groups, or even those cute little animals, should be a concern to everyone.
Best Week Ever wonders why other companies don't use the same advertising philosophy as PETA, with humorous results.
Meanwhile, Alicia Silverstone should never wear more clothing than she does in the video below. If we could just get her to stop clothing herself in this idiotic, inhumane cause.
Morons getting naked for no good reason, below. Actually, that's not fair. We should probably encourage more Idiots to nearly freeze themselves to death on the streets of Cleveland. At least they aren't busy reproducing.
Here is the part that, to me, showed just how fed up she was with everything she's been dealing with. Can she turn this into a positive, a selfless move designed to allow Alaska to get back to business? I think it's going to be a tough sell to anyone who wasn't already a fan.
Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I've been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations – such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters’ questions.
Every one – all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won! But it hasn't been cheap - the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to “opposition research” – that’s money NOT going to fund teachers or troopers – or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction” … Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources – spending other peoples’ money in their game.
It’s pretty insane – my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with THIS instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more “politics as usual,” but THIS isn’t what anyone had in mind for ALASKA.
Steve Driehaus is a Democrat from Ohio who ran as a "fiscal conservative" in a very red district (OH-1). Seriously. And yet he voted for every single one
of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid economy-killers including Cap-and-Trade. If
you have a blog and you want to express your disgust with PelosiCons
like Driehaus, please join me in posting a Steve Driehaus blog widget.
Glad to be able to help, Doug. These clowns have got to go next time around.
Michelle Obama has entered the health care fray, which may be good news for those who recall what a great job Hillary Clinton did getting her beliefs passed into law during her husband's administration. But that's not the big news, according to this ABC blog story, which can't resist reporting what really matters about the First Lady:
Mrs. Obama wore a light gray elbow-length jacket with a large silver
high waisted belt, and dark gray pants. She accessorized with several
silver bangle bracelets and diamond earrings.
At least our media are no longer distracted by minutia. Did anyone think to ask her if she felt her $317,000 hospital income was excessive when many of her hospitals patients couldn't afford health insurance? Probably not. Too busy getting her earring details.