Really, I thought this was the party of peace and love and tolerance?!
Two days ago I was out with my family, just after I put this sticker on my car. I passed a Volvo that had Obama '08 and Obama 2012 stickers, as well as the other usual liberal stickers. My wife pointed out the stickers, but we just drove by. We have glanced at the middle aged white woman, but we did not make ugly faces or gestures or anything of the sort.
A half mile down the road I pulled into the left hand turn lane, and looked in my rear view mirror while waiting for the light. Her was this woman shaking her fist, jumping up and down in her seat, and screaming what I can only imagine was a long blue streak. Of course I couldn't hear what she was saying, but I could see the spit flying from her mouth. She was quite agitated, to say the least. I couldn't help it, I gave her my best award-winning smile and gave her a friendly wave. This seemed to get her even more upset. Fortunately, the light turned green and I didn't have to wonder what she was going to do next.
This is just one of many personal stories that I could tell you about encounters with those on the Left. You have all seen them in recent protests and interviews. They seem to get angrier and angrier. Contrast that picture with the average Conservative or "right-winger". Are they angry. You may describe some of them as confrontational, but that is usually only on TV during a debate when they are trying to be sure that their viewpoint is represented. I seriously doubt you have ever seen them cuss someone out that has an Obama sticker on their car, and get up in people's faces at protests. It just doesn't happen.
It is also notable that during interviews, split-screen debates, and protests, it seems that Liberals are always the ones calling names, challenging someone's intelligence rather than presenting facts, and being down-right ugly and hateful. I just don't get it.
So why is the Left so angry?!
Friday, June 8, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Rights vs. Responsibilities
Rights. People are always talking about them. They have the right to this, they have a right to that. But what they do not like to think about is responsibility.
The truth that you cannot have on without the other. Rights and responsibilities cannot be separated. If they are there is a consequence. Well... in some cases there is a consequence, but there should be in all cases.
Here's an example: I have the right to own a gun, but if I do not act responsibly with that gun, my right to own it will be taken away.
So rights and responsibility go hand in hand, so one should not be allowed to have a right and place the responsibility on another person. I feel that I have to right to engage in behavior with my wife that can result in the birth of a child. But I also have accepted the responsibility of providing for that child.
You cannot say you have to right to bear children and say that someone else (the taxpayers) have the responsibility to care for them. Am I saying that people on government support should not have children. Yes, I am. I think people on government support programs should have to agree to remain on birth control until they have improved their situation enough to provide for those children.
What do you think?
The truth that you cannot have on without the other. Rights and responsibilities cannot be separated. If they are there is a consequence. Well... in some cases there is a consequence, but there should be in all cases.
Here's an example: I have the right to own a gun, but if I do not act responsibly with that gun, my right to own it will be taken away.
So rights and responsibility go hand in hand, so one should not be allowed to have a right and place the responsibility on another person. I feel that I have to right to engage in behavior with my wife that can result in the birth of a child. But I also have accepted the responsibility of providing for that child.
You cannot say you have to right to bear children and say that someone else (the taxpayers) have the responsibility to care for them. Am I saying that people on government support should not have children. Yes, I am. I think people on government support programs should have to agree to remain on birth control until they have improved their situation enough to provide for those children.
What do you think?
Friday, April 6, 2012
Electric and Hybrid Cars: Another Government Flop?
![]() |
| Image Source |
Rather than letting the Free Market choose a solution to the concern of the use and rising cost of petroleum, Big Government stepped in and heavily funded the production of the Chevy Volt, a plug in style car, via tax subsidies, tax credits, and grants.
This MSRP on the Chevy Volt comes to about $40,000. After another tax credit to the buyer, the final sticker price comes to about $32,500, report Ed Morrissey from Hotair. So how much does it cost the American taxpayer? Oh, only up to $250,00 per vehicle. You can read all of the details at how he arrived at this number at his article here.
To be fair, I also read an article claiming to debunk his numbers. They claimed that $250,000 was too high of a number and the actual taxpayer cost was closer to $81,000. So if they are right, (read article here) the cost to the taxpayer is still more than double the selling price of the car! Crazy. Oh, and due to the high sticker price, GM has had to halt their production line, because the silly cars are not selling from the dealers lots. I wonder why? I just bought a 2012 Ford Fusion SEL, fully loaded (leather, sun roof, 12 speaker Sony, etc), which get's around 32 mpg on average, for around $28,500.*
While we're on the subject, check out this article on 7 reasons why buying an electrical car is a terrible idea.
So what about Hybrids? Are they a good idea? Well, a recent Truecar.com study reveals that even if as prices rose to $5 per gallon, it would still take over a decade to actually see a return on investment in a hybrid vehicle. (see Blaze article here) Something to think about before buying a hybrid.
![]() |
| Sudbury, Ontario (image source) |
The article claims that "Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius." It is a sad and ugly fact that big government cheerleaders do not want the public to be aware of. Especially because the Toyota Prius has become the flagship of the elite "environmentally responsible" among us.
So I and all other conservatives hate the environment and don't care what we pass on to our kids, right? No, I stand for economic and environmental responsibility as well, but I do not believe in government mandated programs that try to force the consumer to "make the right choice". I believe in rational, responsible, economically-sound solutions.
*Author note: The reason I bought a Ford, is because they did NOT accept government bailout money like GM and Chrysler did. Even though the President is trying to claim credit for Ford Motor Companies over-whelming success. My dealer told me that about half of his first-time buyers state that reason for choosing Ford. That is how the Free Market is supposed to work.
Monday, April 2, 2012
I'll Show You Mine, If You Show Me Yours
President Obama's re-election campaign is publicly requesting copies of Candidate Mitt Romney's tax returns. This is a joke, considering that after seven years of being in the Political arena, this is how little we know about President Barrack Obama:
1. Occidental College records and transcripts -- Not released
2. Columbia University records and transcripts -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
4. Harvard University records and transcripts -- Not released
5. Medical records -- Not released
6. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
7. Illinois State Senate records -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of Original Birth certificate -- Not released
10. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
11. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
12. Record of Baptism -- Not released or 'not available'
2. Columbia University records and transcripts -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- 'not available'
4. Harvard University records and transcripts -- Not released
5. Medical records -- Not released
6. Illinois State Senate schedule -- 'not available'
7. Illinois State Senate records -- 'not available'
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of Original Birth certificate -- Not released
10. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
11. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
12. Record of Baptism -- Not released or 'not available'
The Romney camp did make his 2010 and 2011 records public. I think that was a missed opportunity. They should have held back and done the old "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours" deal.
Source
Monday, March 26, 2012
How to Reform Social Security (in 3 easy steps)
Look, we can argue about it all day, but Social Security was never meant to be permanent. Maybe if it had been run the way that it was originally intended it would have been okay. But since that SS# no longer represents an account containing all of the funds that you paid into it, it is pretty much belly up.
We all know that the system is ripe with fraud and corruption, and it is unsustainable. Period. So what do we do? Here is how we can reform the social security system and phase it out without hurting anyone financially:
Step 1: Everyone who is currently on the system, stays on the system. They paid into it, they counted on it, they deserve it.
Step 2: Everyone who is still paying into the system (in the workforce between the ages of 18-67), get tax credits back for the amount that they paid in. These tax credits can be used to invest into their own private 401K or other private retirement fund.
Step 3: Everyone who has not yet paid into the system (under 18), stays off the system and starts their own private retirement plan.
Okay, I know, what would happen to irresponsible people who chose not to save for retirement? Simple. they would continue to work, or rely on a family member for support... just like people did before we had a government safety net.
Why is a private plan better than the government plan? There are many reasons, but here are just a couple:
1.) Inheritance. You pay into the system for 40 years and then you die of a heart attack at 65 years old. Where does all that money go? You pay into a private plan, and you die before you use all of the funds, your children inherit that hard-earned money and hopefully invest it into their own plan.
2.) More money. Conservative estimates say that if you invested the same money in a private investment account that you dumped into SS, you would get back 8 to 9 times the amount that you would receive from SS.
3.) Permission: You pay in for years and years and years. Then when you hit a magical age that some bureaucrat determines, you have to then beg for every penny that you get. With a private plan, you decide when you want to retire, and how much you want to spend. You basically pay yourself out of your plan. And you need some extra money to put down on that beach house? You just withdraw it! Try that with social security!
So if a private retirement is so much better, why do we still have this ridiculous government system? Simple: political power. Control people's money and you control them. Listen to all of the rhetoric and scare tactics next election that revolve around seniors. Thanks to the baby boomers, we now have about twice as many people in retirement as we have working. So scare seniors, tell them they will lose their retirement money or have it reduced if they vote for the other guy, and you've got your votes. Easy.
What do you think?
We all know that the system is ripe with fraud and corruption, and it is unsustainable. Period. So what do we do? Here is how we can reform the social security system and phase it out without hurting anyone financially:
Step 1: Everyone who is currently on the system, stays on the system. They paid into it, they counted on it, they deserve it.
Step 2: Everyone who is still paying into the system (in the workforce between the ages of 18-67), get tax credits back for the amount that they paid in. These tax credits can be used to invest into their own private 401K or other private retirement fund.
Step 3: Everyone who has not yet paid into the system (under 18), stays off the system and starts their own private retirement plan.
Okay, I know, what would happen to irresponsible people who chose not to save for retirement? Simple. they would continue to work, or rely on a family member for support... just like people did before we had a government safety net.
Why is a private plan better than the government plan? There are many reasons, but here are just a couple:
1.) Inheritance. You pay into the system for 40 years and then you die of a heart attack at 65 years old. Where does all that money go? You pay into a private plan, and you die before you use all of the funds, your children inherit that hard-earned money and hopefully invest it into their own plan.
2.) More money. Conservative estimates say that if you invested the same money in a private investment account that you dumped into SS, you would get back 8 to 9 times the amount that you would receive from SS.
3.) Permission: You pay in for years and years and years. Then when you hit a magical age that some bureaucrat determines, you have to then beg for every penny that you get. With a private plan, you decide when you want to retire, and how much you want to spend. You basically pay yourself out of your plan. And you need some extra money to put down on that beach house? You just withdraw it! Try that with social security!
So if a private retirement is so much better, why do we still have this ridiculous government system? Simple: political power. Control people's money and you control them. Listen to all of the rhetoric and scare tactics next election that revolve around seniors. Thanks to the baby boomers, we now have about twice as many people in retirement as we have working. So scare seniors, tell them they will lose their retirement money or have it reduced if they vote for the other guy, and you've got your votes. Easy.
What do you think?
Saturday, March 24, 2012
One of The Bravest Men I have Ever Met
![]() |
| An unknown Soldier, not the man mentioned in this article. |
I wanted to tell a story
about one of the bravest men I have ever met. I say one of the bravest only
because the bravest men that I have met was easily my Father-in-law, who was a
combat veteran in the Vietnam War, and recently succumbed to a service related
medical condition, and made the ultimate sacrifice. I may tell you all more
about him at another time.
This man that I wanted to
tell you about today, I met shortly after I was injured in the service. My
injury was nothing compared to this Soldier’s injury, so I will not go into
detail about mine. But it did require me to attend five months of occupational
therapy. During those therapy sessions three times a week, I met the some of
the bravest, most honorable men that I have ever known. It was an honor for me
to even be in the same room as them.
This was back in 2006, and
there were many Soldiers and Marines coming home from Iraq because of
injuries. One day, the nurse seated me at a table with another man. The table
was “U” shaped and capable of seating four patients, with the therapist sitting
in the middle of the “U” shape. It was not uncommon to have at least two people
at each table.
As I sat, I noticed the man’s
scars. They were the kind that made you recoil inside when you imagined the
pain he must be in. Fresh, angry, red scars across his left hand and up his
sleeve. He was a Soldier and was a little bit older than most Soldiers. I would
say he was around 35 years old, but I may be wrong, because the Military has a
way of aging people beyond their years.
The Soldier had his jaw
clenched and nodded his head to acknowledge me and then continued on with his
therapy with intense focus and determination. Everything the therapist told him
to do, he went much farther than he was required to. You could tell he was
really pushing himself.
A few minutes later, his
session ended and he quietly left in a cold sweat, saying that he would
continue his therapy at home. She told him to slow down and take it easy,
knowing full well that he would not.
After he left, she saw the
concern and questions in my eyes. Then she told me that although she was not
supposed to discuss patients with anyone, this man’s story was too honorable to
not be told. So she began to tell me what she had learned about him over the
last month of intense therapy that he had pushed himself through.
The Soldier was on his fourth
combat tour in Iraq
when he was ambushed. He was shot several times. Once through the thigh, once
through the shoulder, once through his left hand, once across his left forearm,
and several times to the ballistic vest that saved his life. Fortunately, none
of the bullets hit bone, except the one that hit his left hand. The hand
skimmed across the back of his knuckles, taking fragments of bone with it.
The therapist said that given
his age and condition, he was offered a medical retirement but refused it. He
was one of her most determined patients. The man pushed himself harder and
faster than any of her other patients, even though his pain levels were
dangerously higher than most people could handle. He refused to take narcotic
strength pain pills, saying that they messed with his head.
One day she asked him why he
was pushing himself the way that he was. He gave her a look that suggested that
the answer was simple and stated that while he was “sitting there on his butt”
his brothers were still in Iraq
getting shot at every day. His only goal was to get better quick enough to get
back to Iraq
and rejoin his squad.
I am telling this story
because I am sure it is quite typical. I have heard many more like it, and over
the years met some incredible war heroes while at appointments at various V.A.
Hospitals. I am careful not to group myself with these men. Yes, my injury was
service related, yes I am not a disabled Veteran, and yes, I have been in war
zones on more than one occasion, but I have never been fired upon. I was in the
Navy, and we did fire missiles into Baghdad,
so we were classified as being in combat, but I do not consider myself a combat
Veteran.
I have the utmost level of
respect for these men and women that risk their lives every single day for
months on end. They don’t do it for the fame, because they are barely
recognized in our society. They don’t do it for the money, because what we pay
them in laughable compared to what they go through. They do it out of a level
of Honor, Courage, and Commitment that most civilians cannot even begin to
imagine.
In the last few years, the
Military has been cast in a bad light by many agenda-driven politicians and
reporters. Recently, a Soldier allegedly killed sixteen civilians in Afghanistan,
including women and children. I say allegedly, because he has not yet been
convicted. The loss of innocent lives saddens me, but I personally do not think
the Soldier was 100% to blame for the incident.
He was on his fourth combat
tour. He had recently been inured by an IED (improvised explosive device) and
suffered from a TBI (traumatic brain injury). Some of his comrades believe that
he had been prematurely declared fit for full duty following his injuries.
The fact is that we do not
know what this Soldier was going through or what he saw. He could have been
suffering from PTSD, he could have been having flashbacks at the time, and he
could have very well thought that he was engaging the enemy. We simply do not
know.
I have seen first-hand what
combat stress can do to a man. Three decades after serving in Vietnam, my
Father-in-law would still suffer from nightmares and flashbacks. I remember one
time that I woke him from a nap and he grabbed me by the throat, thinking that
I was the enemy.
These men and woman deserve
far more credit and respect that what they receive. Please remember this the
next time you see a Combat Veteran. No matter what they look like, or how they
are dressed, they deserve the highest level of respect in our society.
God bless our Troops.
Guest Writer: Thoughts on Socialized Medicine
![]() |
| Milo Martin |
Milo M.T. Martin, my youngest brother, writes below about his recent experience with his local Congressional Representative:
A politically powerful and respectable woman, those are my thoughts
about Congresswoman Louise M. Slaughter. I got a chance to sit next to
her on a flight home from Naval Weapons Station, Charleston (I flew
through Washington). Since she is my representative, I received this
email from her office.
![]() |
| Representative Louise Slaughter, D. |
""Dear Milo M,
This week,
House Republicans released a budget that once again would slash
investment in Medicare, while creating new irresponsible tax cuts for
the wealthiest Americans. I oppose this reckless and irresponsible
approach, and I believe that we must shape a sensible budget and craft
legislation that truly shares sacrifice, not a budget that ends Medicare
while handing more tax giveaways to those who need it the least.
Because I value your input and so that I can better serve you, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:
What do you think is the best way to reduce the budget deficit?
Turn Medicare into a voucher program
Increase taxes on millionaires and billionaires
End foreign wars
Cut red tape and government bureaucracy
All of the above
Other ** ""
WOW,
I wish I could get another airplane ride sitting next to Congresswoman
Louise M. Slaughter. NOW I have something to talk about.
I want to draw your attention to a couple words, in particular
"...we must shape a sensible budget and craft legislation that truly
shares sacrifice...".
This makes we think of a couple of words of my own:
Socialism- a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
Anti-patriotism-
the ideology that opposes patriotism; it usually refers to those with
cosmopolitan* views and is usually of an anti-nationalist nature as
well.
*Cosmopolitanism- the ideology that all human ethnic groups belong to a single community based on a shared morality.
If
such an influential member of out United States Congress has views that
lean toward socialistic.. How many more are there among them?
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Supply and Demand vs. Government Bailouts and Subsidies
Here are just a few recent examples of Government ignoring the will of the taxpayers and the laws of supply and demand and foolishly investing in solar companies without proper oversight. The results were not pretty.
Evergreen Solar company received $5.3 million dollars of stimulus money to solar panels and stimulate the U.S. economy. The declared bankruptcy in February of 2012 and are planning on moving the bulk of their manufacturing processes to China.
SpectraWatt, based in Hopewell Junction, NY, received a $500,000 grant from National Energy Renewal Laboratory in June 2009. They also declared bankruptcy last month.
We are all familiar with Solyndra, who received $500 million dollars to make solar panels. They recently went bankrupt and layed off 1,100 workers. Much of the left over supplies, tools, and equipment were destroyed or disposed of rather than being sold to recoup some of the cost. We still do not have accuarate reports on how the 500 million was used, and there are unsubstantiated rumors that the company donated some of the money to Obama's 2012 campaign fund.
So what is the proper way to invest in alternative energy? We all know that without risk, there is little reward. When the government gambles with your money, essentially picking winners and losers by giving taxpayer's money to this company or that, there is no risk, and no process in place to oversee the money and make sure that it is spent wisely.
It's just a bunch of bureaucrats trying to get votes by bragging about how they've helped the economy and the green movement.
If private investors and entrepreneurs were developing a new product in response to a market demand, they would be responsible with their money, because it would be their money at risk. Market demand creates the best product at the lowest price.
What do you think?
Evergreen Solar company received $5.3 million dollars of stimulus money to solar panels and stimulate the U.S. economy. The declared bankruptcy in February of 2012 and are planning on moving the bulk of their manufacturing processes to China.
SpectraWatt, based in Hopewell Junction, NY, received a $500,000 grant from National Energy Renewal Laboratory in June 2009. They also declared bankruptcy last month.
We are all familiar with Solyndra, who received $500 million dollars to make solar panels. They recently went bankrupt and layed off 1,100 workers. Much of the left over supplies, tools, and equipment were destroyed or disposed of rather than being sold to recoup some of the cost. We still do not have accuarate reports on how the 500 million was used, and there are unsubstantiated rumors that the company donated some of the money to Obama's 2012 campaign fund.
So what is the proper way to invest in alternative energy? We all know that without risk, there is little reward. When the government gambles with your money, essentially picking winners and losers by giving taxpayer's money to this company or that, there is no risk, and no process in place to oversee the money and make sure that it is spent wisely.
It's just a bunch of bureaucrats trying to get votes by bragging about how they've helped the economy and the green movement.
If private investors and entrepreneurs were developing a new product in response to a market demand, they would be responsible with their money, because it would be their money at risk. Market demand creates the best product at the lowest price.
What do you think?
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
The Road We've Traveled.
During President Obama's time in office:
This video is a response to BarrackObama.com's 17 minute video that attempts to paint his Administration in a much different light. (you can view it here)
-It say's that the President did not deal in blame! Are you kidding me?! He's done nothing BUT blame our current problems on the previous administration.
-References to the bailouts are referred to as the "Recovery Act" or as investments. What recovery? Where are the returns on investment?
-Obamacare is painted as the savior of health care. Yes, we do spend more on health care than any other Nation in the World. Why? Because it is the best! Would you rather have the Hyundai plan, or the Lincoln Plan?
Yes, I watched the entire video. It has a lot of claims and chest-thumping in it, but the resounding questions are:
Where is the HOPE? Where is the CHANGE?
- The National Deficit has risen $10.7 — $15.3 Trillion
- Gas prices have risen $1.84 on average
- 7.7 Million foreclosures
- A record 46.2 Million at poverty level
- 46.1 Million on food stamps
This video is a response to BarrackObama.com's 17 minute video that attempts to paint his Administration in a much different light. (you can view it here)
-It say's that the President did not deal in blame! Are you kidding me?! He's done nothing BUT blame our current problems on the previous administration.
-References to the bailouts are referred to as the "Recovery Act" or as investments. What recovery? Where are the returns on investment?
-Obamacare is painted as the savior of health care. Yes, we do spend more on health care than any other Nation in the World. Why? Because it is the best! Would you rather have the Hyundai plan, or the Lincoln Plan?
Yes, I watched the entire video. It has a lot of claims and chest-thumping in it, but the resounding questions are:
Where is the HOPE? Where is the CHANGE?
Hollywood vs. Wall Street
Why is Wall Street hated and Hollywood loved? Why do the occupiers hate CEO's and their millions and adore the stars from hollywood, the music industry, and the fashion industry? Together, films, music, and fashion accounts for Billions in revenue. Why are these not ill-gotten gains?
What is the difference between the two industry leaders? Let's take the CEO vs. the Film Star for a minute.
The CEO often starts at the bottom of the ladder, invests hundreds of thousand into an education, pours his or her life into their work, spending countless hours in their workplaces. They are the best and hardest working workers in their field. Not only are they paid millions as compensation for their talent, but also as a retainer to persuade the said CEO to stay with a particular company.
The Hollywood actor may or may not attend a couple of years of acting school. The sell their their looks or talents to the highest bidder. They live luxurious lives than even some CEO's would never dream of. They are treated as heroes for simply endorsing and lending their name to this charity or that, but rarely get directly involved in them.
The bottom line is, whether you love them or hate them, both CEO's and Hollywood elites have similar incomes, but arrived at their status in society by completely different routes. So why the vast difference in the way they are talked about?
Aren't all millionaires and billionaires equally evil and greedy? Hmmm...
What is the difference between the two industry leaders? Let's take the CEO vs. the Film Star for a minute.
The CEO often starts at the bottom of the ladder, invests hundreds of thousand into an education, pours his or her life into their work, spending countless hours in their workplaces. They are the best and hardest working workers in their field. Not only are they paid millions as compensation for their talent, but also as a retainer to persuade the said CEO to stay with a particular company.
The Hollywood actor may or may not attend a couple of years of acting school. The sell their their looks or talents to the highest bidder. They live luxurious lives than even some CEO's would never dream of. They are treated as heroes for simply endorsing and lending their name to this charity or that, but rarely get directly involved in them.
The bottom line is, whether you love them or hate them, both CEO's and Hollywood elites have similar incomes, but arrived at their status in society by completely different routes. So why the vast difference in the way they are talked about?
Aren't all millionaires and billionaires equally evil and greedy? Hmmm...
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
After Birth Abortion?
Can you believe that any human being would want to kill a newborn baby? We are not talking about traditional in-the-womb abortion or partial-birth abortion, both methods being sick and twisted. We are talking about ending the life of a newborn breathing baby.
In a recent Journal of Medical Ethics article, two Australian academics, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, wrote: "We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk," the Washington Post reports. The article continues: "We propose to call this practice 'after-birth abortion', rather than 'infanticide', the emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable to that of a fetus (on which 'abortions' in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child."
The article in the Journal of Medical Ethics has since been removed and replaced with a "content not found" notice.
Personally, it disturbs and pains me that we throw the term "abortion" around these days like it is nothing. I believe that life begins at conception and any un-natural "termination" thereafter is premeditated murder.
So how long will it be before the term "after-birth abortion" is bantered about? Have we grown this cold-hearted as a society that we can openly discuss taking an innocent human life? I hope you all find this equally as shocking and disturbing. I feel sick to my stomach just blogging about this.
Let me close with this thought: The very people that often support abortion or "choice", are the same people who oppose the death penalty. So let's get this straight: Save the criminals and kill the innocent.
In a recent Journal of Medical Ethics article, two Australian academics, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, wrote: "We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk," the Washington Post reports. The article continues: "We propose to call this practice 'after-birth abortion', rather than 'infanticide', the emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable to that of a fetus (on which 'abortions' in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child."
The article in the Journal of Medical Ethics has since been removed and replaced with a "content not found" notice.
Personally, it disturbs and pains me that we throw the term "abortion" around these days like it is nothing. I believe that life begins at conception and any un-natural "termination" thereafter is premeditated murder.
So how long will it be before the term "after-birth abortion" is bantered about? Have we grown this cold-hearted as a society that we can openly discuss taking an innocent human life? I hope you all find this equally as shocking and disturbing. I feel sick to my stomach just blogging about this.
Let me close with this thought: The very people that often support abortion or "choice", are the same people who oppose the death penalty. So let's get this straight: Save the criminals and kill the innocent.
Giving Credit where Credit is Long Overdue
I have been active in politics for coming up on six years now. After I was injured in the U.S. Navy and could not re-enlist, I was looking for a new way to contribute to this Great Nation of ours.
One of my co-workers got me started in political debate in an online chat forum. It was a lot of fun. I then began to listen to talk radio, since my job required me to be on the road for several hours per day. I mainly listened to Rush Limbaugh, since it brought back so many memories of my childhood, listening to Rush with my Dad. But the commercials killed me! It seemed as though every 5 minutes was another commercial break.
Then my loving wife gifted me with a Sirius satellite radio. The first station I tuned in to was Sirius Patriot 144. I loved their lineup, but when I heard Andrew Wilkow for the first time, I was hooked! He is on from Noon to 3pm and only has 3 short commercial breaks per hour. His show is called The Wilkow Majority. I have no idea how many listeners he has, because I don't think he is allowed to discuss numbers on the air. (to prevent jealousy from the rest of the SiriusXM lineup) Andrew calls himself "the next generation of great talk radio" and I agree! Rush Limbaugh is a good man, but I would rather listen to Wilkow anytime. The man calls things like they are, gives incredible "perfectly executed political analysis", and I agree with 100% of the things that he says.
I do not agree with what he says because he is saying it, it is because he is saying the things that I already believe in. It is refreshing to hear such an honest, straight-forward, unapologetic Conservative. Andrew also has his priorities in order. He says that he is "Patriot first, Conservative second, and Republican third". Although he is not openly religious, he has never bashed religion. The man has a talent for making the most complex arguments clear and concise. It's been said that a truly wise man does not make the simple complicated, but makes the complicated simple. By this measure, Wilkow is a very wise man indeed.
I have been blogging for almost two years now. Andrew Wilkow has contributed greatly to ideas for my blog. If he was to read through it, he may smile when he recognizes me blogging on topics that he discussed that day.
As long as I am giving credit, I might as well thank The Blaze.com. I always link my sources in my articles, so you will see that most of my stories come from The Blaze. It is a great source for news. They do a great job of filtering the silly stories and reporting on things that interest politically active people.
Thank you for sharing my passion in politics and America. Together, we will stay informed, inform others, and restore this Great Country to it's former glory.
Oh, and as Andrew would say: "We're right, they're wrong, and that's the end of the story!"
One of my co-workers got me started in political debate in an online chat forum. It was a lot of fun. I then began to listen to talk radio, since my job required me to be on the road for several hours per day. I mainly listened to Rush Limbaugh, since it brought back so many memories of my childhood, listening to Rush with my Dad. But the commercials killed me! It seemed as though every 5 minutes was another commercial break.
Then my loving wife gifted me with a Sirius satellite radio. The first station I tuned in to was Sirius Patriot 144. I loved their lineup, but when I heard Andrew Wilkow for the first time, I was hooked! He is on from Noon to 3pm and only has 3 short commercial breaks per hour. His show is called The Wilkow Majority. I have no idea how many listeners he has, because I don't think he is allowed to discuss numbers on the air. (to prevent jealousy from the rest of the SiriusXM lineup) Andrew calls himself "the next generation of great talk radio" and I agree! Rush Limbaugh is a good man, but I would rather listen to Wilkow anytime. The man calls things like they are, gives incredible "perfectly executed political analysis", and I agree with 100% of the things that he says.
I do not agree with what he says because he is saying it, it is because he is saying the things that I already believe in. It is refreshing to hear such an honest, straight-forward, unapologetic Conservative. Andrew also has his priorities in order. He says that he is "Patriot first, Conservative second, and Republican third". Although he is not openly religious, he has never bashed religion. The man has a talent for making the most complex arguments clear and concise. It's been said that a truly wise man does not make the simple complicated, but makes the complicated simple. By this measure, Wilkow is a very wise man indeed.
I have been blogging for almost two years now. Andrew Wilkow has contributed greatly to ideas for my blog. If he was to read through it, he may smile when he recognizes me blogging on topics that he discussed that day.
As long as I am giving credit, I might as well thank The Blaze.com. I always link my sources in my articles, so you will see that most of my stories come from The Blaze. It is a great source for news. They do a great job of filtering the silly stories and reporting on things that interest politically active people.
Thank you for sharing my passion in politics and America. Together, we will stay informed, inform others, and restore this Great Country to it's former glory.
Oh, and as Andrew would say: "We're right, they're wrong, and that's the end of the story!"
Monday, March 12, 2012
Impeach President Obama?
Today a resolution was introduced in Congress to impeach Obama.
...if he proceeds to an act of war without Congressional approval.
“ ‘This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria, but to NATO and the United Nation,” Tandcredo writes. “This led to Rep Walter Jones, R- N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Pannetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.’
In response to question from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would… come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress- I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.’ ”
Key words in that first paragraph: "...look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations."
Maybe my memory is a little fuzzy, but I do believe that the Democrats were constantly accusing President Bush of starting an illegal war, even after he followed the Constitutional mandate and obtained Congressional Approval.
So this should be interesting, because if the President does indeed pull this trigger without proper authorization, it is the Speaker of the House's duty to immediately start impeachment proceedings.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Green Energy not so Environmentally Friendly
Wind turbines: the ultimate in green energy right? Tell that to the 70 Golden Eagles that are killed each year at Altamont Pass in California.
Nevermind the fact that these turbines could never survive without government subsidies and handouts, what I want to point out is the blatant bias displayed by the media when it comes to reporting these things... oh wait, they just don't report on it at all.
Can you imagine if a "big oil" company were responsible for the death of 70 eagles?! It would be all over the news!
The video below may be a bit disturbing, but it illustrates how dangerous these wind turbines are to birds. These 70 deaths are just at this one location. Imagine how many bird deaths are caused around the country by these things!
Remember the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Eagle Protection Acts? If you were to kill an eagle, accidentally or otherwise, you would be subject to up to 2 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Oh that doesn't apply to wind turbines? You try erecting some large experimental device in your backyard, and all it takes is one phone call saying you are endangering animals or the environment, and they are on your front porch with cuffs out.
It gets better: "A 2008 study funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency estimated that about 2,400 raptors, including burrowing owls, American kestrels, and red-tailed hawks—as well as about 7,500 other birds, nearly all of which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act—are being killed every year by the turbines at Altamont.
The Pennsylvania Game Commission estimates that wind turbines killed more than 10,000 bats in the state in 2010.
ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court…to the deaths of 85 birds [not eagles] at its operations in several states, according to the Department of Justice. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Exxon agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.
In July, the PacifiCorp utility of Oregon had to pay $10.5 million in fines, restitution and improvements to their equipment after 232 eagles were killed by running into power lines in Wyoming, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
That is far fewer than the estimated 10,000 birds (nearly all protected by the migratory bird law) that are being killed every year at Altamont…" (original article)
So what's be said or done about these bird-killing machines? Nothing.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Taxpayer's Funding Recreation? (PG-13)
Sorry guys, I have to go here. Thanks to President Obama's Fluke (see previous blog post), we have a debate about whether health insurance providers should have to fund contraceptives.
I do not think that insurance companies or taxpayers should have to pay for contraceptives. In any form. Period. Yes, this means no free condoms at schools either. Why? It's an easy argument really.
Sexual activity is meant to be used for reproduction. If one wishes not to reproduce, then they are engaging in that activity for their enjoyment or recreation. If a person is using a from of contraceptive, they do not desire to reproduce. Therefore, anytime a contraceptive is used, it is for recreation, is it not?
So should insurance companies and taxpayers have to fund recreation? Should a person not have to pay for their own entertainment?
If not, then I would like to have my favorite recreation funded. So sign me up for free bullets!
I do not think that insurance companies or taxpayers should have to pay for contraceptives. In any form. Period. Yes, this means no free condoms at schools either. Why? It's an easy argument really.
Sexual activity is meant to be used for reproduction. If one wishes not to reproduce, then they are engaging in that activity for their enjoyment or recreation. If a person is using a from of contraceptive, they do not desire to reproduce. Therefore, anytime a contraceptive is used, it is for recreation, is it not?
So should insurance companies and taxpayers have to fund recreation? Should a person not have to pay for their own entertainment?
If not, then I would like to have my favorite recreation funded. So sign me up for free bullets!
Friday, March 9, 2012
Sandra Fluke Controversy Fabricated to Help President Obama?
Sandra Fluke, famous overnight for her "stand" on contraceptives and how insurance companies should be forced to pay for them.
So where did she come from? Bill O'Reilly from Fox News recently did some digging and found that she has ties to Anita Dunn, Former Communication Director for the Obama Administration.
Yes, it turns out that Anita Dunn now works for a progressive Public Relations Firm called SKDKnickerbocker that is representing Sandra Fluke. Interesting...
"But now we see, alright, that Anita Dunn and her firm have embraced her. Now, she appeared on NBC 1, 2, 3, 4 times, CBS once, CNN once — no, five for NBC — and The View also. And each of these times, alright, there was a shadowy booking process. Because I spoke to some of these people. [...] She appears, she shows up. Somebody pays for all of that." -Bill O'Reilly Show
So Sandra is making all of these appearances to make President Obama look like less of a bad guy for trying to force Catholic Churches to fun contraceptives (something they think is morally wrong), and meanwhile, distracting the public from more legitimate concerns, like rising unemployment, gas prices, and food prices.
One last thought: Amid all of the controversy over contraceptives, the media is failing to point out one thing: The most effective method of birth control is also the cheapest. Yes, abstinence is 100% FREE!
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Lottery Winner still collecting Food Stamps?!
![]() |
| Taking advantage of hard-working tax-payers. |
How is she abusing the system? Amanda recently won a $1,000,000 drawing! After accepting a one-time payout and paying taxes, she banked just over half a million dollars. That is about ten years of paychecks for the average middle class family of four. (see the original story and video here)
Sure, she's only getting $200 in food stamps per month, but that is money that could be going back to the tax-payers or to someone who legitimately needs the help.
America is the most generous Nation in the World, and I do not have a problem temporarily helping those who really do need help, but this story sickens me and makes me wonder how many others are abusing the system. Remember, we are just talking about food stamps here, not welfare. Don't even get me started on the abuse and corruption in that program. That's a different blog post for another time.
Does this anger you? It should.
Hat tip to my sister-in-law Cecelia for pointing me to this story.
Uncle Ted Endorses Mitt Romney!
I have to admit, I have not been excited about any of the current GOP candidates for President. I was very excited about Herman Cain, but I believe he is a victim of a political hit job. That's an entirely different topic though.
I was a bit surprised to see today that Uncle Ted has officially endorsed Mitt Romney for President! I am excited about the pledges listed below in Nugent's post. After reading this, I may reluctantly jump on the band wagon. If I do, I will do what I can to be sure Mr. Romney stands behind his pledge. See for yourself:
"I know many of you disagree, I respectuflly beseach you all to reconsider, and join me to rid the US gvt of the gang of enemies infesting our great country. After much heart & soul searching research & prayer, I gave the greenlight to the Romney team to pass my ph# to Mitt Romney, and he called me today. We spoke at length. Im sure I dont have to repeat what I said to him here, surely self evident truths are universally known & understood here. That being said, I demanded and he indeed did pledge the following- 1-no more restrictions on any gun or ammo ownership, no AWB bullshit, and that he would push with us to eliminate all anti 2A restrictions currently in place. 2- he would stand with us solidly for we the people hunting, fishing & trapping rights, fighting to backdown the feds from wasting tax dollars slaughtering our wildlife with our tax dollars instead of the rightful owners of said wildlife rights to utilize them as assets instead of forced bureaucrat liabilities. He also vowed to stack the SCOTUS with Constitution respecting Americans. For a change. We spoke of other critical upgrades, and I felt good about his proclaiments. So I officially endorsed him for POTUS. Plz take a deep breath, think hard, and join me for the fight of our lives for the soul of America.
Thank you, Ted"
-Copied from Ted Nugent's Facebook page on 3-8-12.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Wounded Warrior Project
My wife and I are proud to announce that we are now Advance Guard Monthly Donor's of the Wounded Warrior Project. Each month a donation will be given to WWP in honor of the courage and sacrifice of Staff Sergeant Raymond Allen Newsome. We would also like to encourage our friends and family to donate to this worthy cause.
Sergeant Newsome, my Father-in-law, succumbed to cancer in December of 2011. The cancer was believed to have been a direct result of his exposure to agent orange during his Honorable service in The Vietnam War.
http:// www.woundedwarriorproject.org/
Hate Crime Laws: Do they spread more hate?
Just a few days ago, a 13 year old boy in Kansas City was chased down and doused with gasoline as he was trying to seek protection in his own house. He was on the front porch of the home trying to get in when the two teenage aggressors flipped a bic lighter and said "This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve white boy" as they lit him on fire!
Read the original story here.
The boy was able to put out the fire and call 911, but his hair is burned off, he suffered 1st degree burns to his face, and the doctor's have concerns about his eyes and lungs.
The victim was a white 13 year old boy. The perpetrators were two black teenagers.
Now imagine if the boy who was set on fire was black and the perps were white. This story would be on every front page, it would get hours and hours of TV coverage, and Rev Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be setting up rally's and screaming about hate crimes.
So what is different about this story? Last time I checked, if you dislike someone enough to set them on fire, it goes without saying that you probably hate them. Shouldn't these two teenagers be charged with a hate crime?
The fact is, in most cases, hate crime charges are only filed if a crime was committed by a white perpetrator against a member of a minority race. So white folks are the only folks capable of hate?
I am not trying to say that racism and hate do not exist. They do. And I think that this hate crime legistlation makes things worse. Last time I checked, the U.S. Constitution affords all U.S. Citizens equal protection under the law. (see the 14th Ammendment, Section I here)
Equal protection means that we should all be protected against hate crimes and any other crimes equally. That means all written law must apply to everyone. Justice cannot be applied selectively. Either a law applies to everyone, or it applies to no one. Blind Justice cannot peek from behind her blindfold to see what color skin a person has.
When legislation such as hate crime legislation is not applied to all citizens equally, it creates more animosity and hate due to the injustice and hypocracy of the system, which further divides us and has a negative impact on race relations.
Your thoughts?
Read the original story here.
The boy was able to put out the fire and call 911, but his hair is burned off, he suffered 1st degree burns to his face, and the doctor's have concerns about his eyes and lungs.
The victim was a white 13 year old boy. The perpetrators were two black teenagers.
Now imagine if the boy who was set on fire was black and the perps were white. This story would be on every front page, it would get hours and hours of TV coverage, and Rev Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be setting up rally's and screaming about hate crimes.
So what is different about this story? Last time I checked, if you dislike someone enough to set them on fire, it goes without saying that you probably hate them. Shouldn't these two teenagers be charged with a hate crime?
The fact is, in most cases, hate crime charges are only filed if a crime was committed by a white perpetrator against a member of a minority race. So white folks are the only folks capable of hate?
I am not trying to say that racism and hate do not exist. They do. And I think that this hate crime legistlation makes things worse. Last time I checked, the U.S. Constitution affords all U.S. Citizens equal protection under the law. (see the 14th Ammendment, Section I here)
Equal protection means that we should all be protected against hate crimes and any other crimes equally. That means all written law must apply to everyone. Justice cannot be applied selectively. Either a law applies to everyone, or it applies to no one. Blind Justice cannot peek from behind her blindfold to see what color skin a person has.
When legislation such as hate crime legislation is not applied to all citizens equally, it creates more animosity and hate due to the injustice and hypocracy of the system, which further divides us and has a negative impact on race relations.
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






















