Sunday, February 28, 2010


William Samuel Johnson


"[I] . . . am endeavoring . . . to attend to my own duty only as a Christian. . . . let us take care that our Christianity, though put to the test . . . be not shaken, and that our love for things really good wax not cold."

Friday, February 26, 2010


He is either stupid or dishonest. You just can't have it both ways.

I have often accused President BO of being sophomoric.

In case you don't know what that means, here is the definition:

Main Entry: soph·o·mor·ic

Function: adjective

1 : conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of a sophomore

3 : juvenile, puerile, and base comedy that would normally be expected from an adolescent. It is used to refer to a type of comedy that often includes bathroom humor and gags that are based on and appeal to a silly sense of immaturity.

During that magnificent trap that the president set for Republicans, which to their discredit they bought into, President BO tried to use automobile insurance as an example of the short-falls of insurance in general. He tried to apply it to health insurance as follows:

"When I was young, just got out of college, I had to buy auto insurance. I had a beat-up old car. And I won't name the name of the insurance company, but there was a company -- let's call it Acme Insurance in Illinois. And I was paying my premiums every month.

"After about six months I got rear-ended and I called up Acme and said, I'd like to see if I can get my car repaired, and they laughed at me over the phone because really this was set up not to actually provide insurance; what it was set up was to meet the legal requirements.

"But it really wasn't serious insurance.

"Now, it's one thing if you've got an old beat-up car that you can't get fixed. It's another thing if your kid is sick, or you've got breast cancer. "

Either he knows that when you choose to buy only required liability insurance it does not cover collision, or he does not know that.

If he does not know that, he is unqualified to speak on the subject of insurance and thus not the one we want "fixing" America's imagined health insurance "problems."

If he does know that, then he deliberately used an illustration designed to mislead, misdirect and confuse the issue.

You just can't have it both ways. He did one or the other.

President BO is either a Tenderfoot (that's a brand new Boy Scout, who has not yet learned all that Scouting entails), or he is a consummate liar.

You just can't have it both ways.

In my humble, but correct, opinion, President BO has refined the art of lying to a fine point.

Now if he could only remember when he lied about what, so as to give the appearance of consistency, he might get past the scrutiny of people as intelligent as you and I are.

If he cannot do even that, then I have to admit, he is not sophomoric.

He has not yet made it half-way through being a Freshman.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010


That used to be General Electric's slogan.

Every time I saw or heard it, I responded, "Gee, I remember when it was light bulbs."

Most of us would agree that progress is a good thing, as long as the progress is in the right direction; that is: making things better.

Very often, however, certain groups take a word and change or adapt it to mean what they want it to mean, quite apart from its true meaning.

"Marriage" is one of those words.

Since its beginning, "marriage" has meant the union of a man and a woman. In recent years the homosexual community has usurped the word to include the partnership of two men or two women.

So the moral of the story is: When you don't like the meaning of a word, just ignore or change it. If enough people do so, the word comes to mean what the user(s) want it to mean.

One who believes in progress toward a better product, in the way General Electric meant the term in their advertising, might be called "progressive." That term would indicate that the person believes in improving the product.

In 1912, politicians, specifically Theodore Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" Party, stole the word to make it define a movement " dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics."

The Bull Moose Party was a split off from (are you ready for this?) the Republican Party!

The term "progressive" has gone through several etymological alterations, and today it is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.

We are at a point where "progressive" and "liberal" are almost synonymous.

Still, there are some differences between pure liberalism and pure progressivism.

Progressivism has evolved into a philosophy of governmental control and oversight of almost every aspect of citizens' lives.

The progressive movement in America has more in common politically with extreme socialism and/or communism than it does with traditional liberalism. It has really become a logical, natural adaptation of liberalism.

President BO, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charlie Rangel and other Democrats are examples of modern progressive thinking.

Progressives believe that no matter the problem, the federal government should have a hand in its solution, even to the point of assimilating the very problem itself.

If an automobile company runs into trouble, insert the government into it.

This applies not only to the government takeover of Chrysler and General Motors, but now in "solving" the problems that have beset Toyota.

When financial institutions ran into problems that were brought on by the very "progressive" regulations instituted by government, requiring banks, for instance, to make loans to people who had no means of repaying them, the solution seen by progressives was to increase the involvement of government, including dictating to them what they should be paying their people.

The mind set of the progressive arm of the liberal philosophy is that the more government is involved in the corporate and private lives of citizens, the more secure those citizens will be.

Those of us who disagree with that premise, believe that the evolution of progressivism from its beginning as the Bull Moose Party into a form of "democratic communism," is a danger to the existence of the United States of America as we have known it.

From progressivism will come an extreme degradation of individual freedoms, until true freedom will become a faint memory in the minds of those who survive into the future.

It is not too late...yet.

If Americans can get the dangers of progressivism through their thick skulls, if Americans can educate themselves as to the real meaning and direction of progressivism, if Americans can begin to see that they each share in the responsibility for reversing this insidious menace, they can reverse it by loudly protesting it and by voting for traditionalists in November and in 2012.

When we re-establish the principles upon which this country was formed: independence from the control of a central, mis-responsive government, individual freedom coupled with responsibility, and local control of most issues, we will discover that progress, civil and industrial, will once again enable us to be the world's leader in virtually every aspect of life.

Freedom's progress will become our most important product.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010


My friend of over ten years, Charlie, had a stroke about four years ago.

Since his partial recovery we have gone to lunch together nearly every week.

Today I went to his house to wheel him to the car for our weekly luncheon outing.

As he was getting his shirt on, he suddenly became conversationally unresponsive. He could not tell where he was, what time it was, nor could he tell me his address.

His skin was cool but clammy, and he seemed almost to be nodding off to sleep.

I feared that he was experiencing a mini-stroke(TIA-transient ischemic attack).

After a few moments of not being able to elicit a coherent answer from him I decided more help was needed, so I called 911.

In about four minutes the EMTs were attending to him. They did a blood sugar test and found that his sugar had dropped to 30. A blood sugar of near 100 is normal and it was clear that Charlie had begun to experience hypoglycemia in the extreme.

The EMTs began an infusion of glucose and when the bag was about half empty they checked his sugar levels again and it was coming up.

Suddenly Charlie became aware and alert and began to resist the further efforts of the EMTs.

I knew he would be OK.

In fact, within six or eight minutes, Charlie was back to his normal self, joking with me and grumbling at the mess the EMTs had made (which they did clean up, BTW).

We went to lunch as previously planned, only an hour and a half late.

Charlie had no further symptoms and seemed fine when I left him, but the experience has left me tired and not ready to engage in anything political right now.

If you'll excuse me, I'll go take a nap and resume blogging tomorrow.

God bless you, and thank you, Lord, for watching over my friend, giving the EMTs the wisdom to properly assess what was going on.

See y'all tomorrow.

Sunday, February 21, 2010


Thomas Jefferson


"The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses."

Friday, February 19, 2010


Here is a link to an 11 minute video that will shed a little light: PJTV's Bill Whittle on Global Warming.

The following has been added for those who don't want to take the time to watch an 11 minute video, But I highly recommend that you go back and watch it anyway.

I visited a liberal blog where the writer was conducting a whine-in about Christians, implying that they engage regularly in torture, ugliness and other non-Christians behavior.

She quoted some verses of Scripture to introduce her complaint.

In typical liberal style, she quoted the Scripture completely out of context, implied that the Bible is a politically Socialist "document," and otherwise demonstrated her total ignorance of its purpose, nature and message.

What I found most interesting was her sweet, loving liberal references to people who hold a different viewpoint than hers.

"The Lizard " was her reference to Liz Cheney. "Fugly" was another. Nice and uplifting.

She called Dick Cheney, "Dickless..." and "despicable slimeball." That was a nice touch.

The two of them she referred to as, "hideous family." Tolerant.

She called House Minority Leader John Boehner, "Bonehead," and a "a friggin whiny 3 year old."

There were several other instances of this liberal using names that do not pass the gentile verbiage requirement of this blog, but you get the point.

This blogger perfectly represents the liberals who are always calling conservatives "intolerant name callers."

It is good to see the tolerance, politeness and lack of name calling exuded by liberals, isn't it?

Wednesday, February 17, 2010


Back in the early days of TV, there was a friendly little show on called "Ozzie and Harriet."

It was about family and the issues families often had to face.

One of its features was when the two sons, David and Ricky, got into arguments.

Invariably they dissolved into: "Oh yeah?!" "Yeah!" "Oh yeah?" "yeah!" which went on until Ozzie stepped in to put a stop to it.

That's very much like the ongoing arguments between conservatives and liberals.

Each side says, "It's like this." The other side then responds, "No it isn't."

Then the argument goes: Is, too. Is not. Is, too. Is not. etc., etc. ad infinitum.

Even when facts are presented, they are subject to interpretation (called "spin") by one side or the other.

Liberals look at snow, and blame it on the fact that the Great Lakes have not frozen over, leaving the moisture in the air to produce snow. Then when the lakes DO freeze over, they go back to their previous set of facts, and just change the name of the phenomenon to "climate change."

The fact that the data over the last 15 years has been deliberately manipulated, rearranged, made up and corrupted makes no difference to them at all.

Conservatives look at snow and see that it is usually the result of cold, rarely happening in the Temperate Zone in Summer, and conclude that global warming is NOT taking place, as we are in a record setting cold snap.

Now the phrase "climate change" is disingenuous, at best. "Climate" has always been defined by science text books as "The cyclical change in weather that occurs in a given area." Recently it has become a substitute for "global warming," and is said to be man-made.

Climate is and always has been. Climate change is and always has been. Climate change took place before mankind burned his first log.

Must have been carbon emissions from some alien life form in those days.

So why don't the liberals just concede that they were wrong and move on to some other crisis to emphasize?

Liberals operate from an ideological position that requires mankind to be the culprit for all of the world's woes, while asserting that man is basically good if you give him/her enough education.

They are totally incapable of seeing the contradiction of their beliefs, because their pride dictates that contradictions do not exist.

Now before you go off all half-cocked, we conservatives aren't that much better, only marginally.
We don't do a very good job of stating facts, largely because we have such a limited ability to express ourselves and our truths in a kind of English that makes sense.

So we say, "Is not!" or "Is, too!" instead.

How do we solve this problem.

One way would be to pay attention to me. I try to adequately research what I write about before I write about it, only occasionally waiting until after I write about it.

I'm nearly always right (politically speaking).

Now I already hear you screaming, "Joe, you are so opinionated. You always think you are right."

In the first place, that is a misinterpretation of what I just said. "I said I'm nearly always right." That is because I am a right winger, therefore, I end up on the political right of issues.

(See, you thought you caught me.)

Actually, I DO think I am always right.

Make me a list of the positions you hold to that you think are wrong, but that you insist on holding anyway.

Go ahead...I'll wait.

How long is your list?

We could decide troublesome issues with a vote, after all, this is a democracy, right?

Premise: The Sun Will Come Up Tomorrow (almost sounds like a song).

Let's vote.

Pretend that one group out-votes the other 2 to one that the sun will NOT come up tomorrow. They present their arguments eloquently: The sun went down. The sky is no longer blue. The stars can be seen. There is NO immediate evidence that the sun is going to come up tomorrow or ever again. The fact that it always HAS come up in the past is discounted as irrelevant. We cannot see it, therefore it is gone.

Then the sun "comes up."

(Of course, we know that the sun does not "come up," the earth just rotates until this half of its inhabitants can now see the sun).

What we need here is some good, un-manipulated, un-corrupted science that will tell us why the sun has "behaved" the way it has in the past and why it is likely to continue to behave that way in the future; science that is not agenda based but that is based on physics.

In the political realm, what we need is empirical data that definitively proves that one system or another works or does not work. We need the same kind of good, un-manipulated, un-corrupted data that demonstrates what actually works: how and why.

The best we have is a sort of hodge-podge of history, math and economics that leaves far too much to imperfect human analysis. Not only that, it is written and re-written to suit the whim of whatever group is trying to prove what.

Without exception, every society that has ever existed before the one(s) we have today has failed.

It would be helpful to know why they failed, but we can't agree on that.

So what do we do?

Again, just check in with me and I'll be happy to tell you.

Recognizing that you probably won't do that, we are left to continually squabble about who is correct and who is incorrect.

Surely a person as intelligent as you can see that I'm right.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010


No grades will be given. We'll do this on the honor system.

(Are there any liberals out there who understand the concept of "honor?")

Feel free to comment. If you take the time to watch the video at the end, you'll find all of the answers therein.

Name a nation that has survived once its tax burden reached 1/3 of its national income.

For how long can any entity, including the government, spend millions more than it takes in from revenue or taxes?

List the advantages of a nation having a balanced budget.

List the disadvantages.

Is there any limit to what our debt limit should be?

Should the U.S.’s debt continue to be larger than all of the combined debts of all of the nations of the world?

How much gold does the U.S. have in its treasury?

How much of that gold do we own?

What will happen to the U.S. if we lose the War on Terrorism?

Do we still have the freedoms that were intended for us by the founding fathers?

If we lose freedom in America, where will those of us who revere it go?

Where did the idea that government should be beholden to the people and not the people to the government come from?

Name two or more other countries that have tried such a thing.

Do you believe in the U.S.’s citizens capacity for self government?

What did the American Revolution accomplish and why?

Do you consider totalitarianism a goal to be achieved by our government?

Is security a good trade for freedom? Why?

Do we need to just accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people?

Has any American politician ever adopted the viewpoint that we should accept “a not undemocratic socialism?”

Has the profit motive become outmoded? Must it be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state?

What senator said, at Stanford University, “…the Constitution is outmoded,” and referred to the president as our “moral teacher,” and that he is hobbled in his task “…by the restrictions imposed on him by this antiquated document?”

What senator defined liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government?”

Did or did not the founding fathers of the United States seek to minimize the “full power of a centralized government?”

Does the government control things, or people?

List six things the government does as well or as effectively as the private sector of the economy.

OK, list four.

How about two?

Has the government involvement in the farm program of the U.S. which it forced upon farmers growing certain crops resulted in an increase or a decrease in the number of farmers interested in growing those crops?

Did the government threaten jail for those farmers who grew those crops but did not follow federal guidelines?

If government help to the needy has been so good to them, why does the number of needy as a percentage of the U.S. population keep going up? Shouldn't it be going down?

Are we spending enough on poverty through government programs that if we just directly divided the money up among the poor they would then be above the poverty level?

Do you think that President BO’s idea of a “volunteer” youth force is a new one?

For what he is proposing to spend on them, couldn't we send each one to Harvard for free?

Given that President BO is a Harvard graduate, is that even a good idea?

Isn’t the problem with liberals not that they’re ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so?

According to Democrats, is Social Security an insurance program or a welfare program?

Is there a Social Security trust fund into which your “dues” are paid for your use when you are old?
How long has Social Security operated in the red, and is that OK with you?

List the government programs once launched that have outlived their usefulness and therefore have been eliminated.

Can federal agents invade YOUR property without a warrant?

Can federal agents impose a fine on YOU without a formal hearing?

Can they seize YOUR property to enforce the payment of a fine imposed on you?

After pledging to stop the advance of Socialism in the U.S., was Barry Goldwater elected President?

Did Democrat Al Smith ever complain that the leaders of his Party were taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin and Stalin?

Are our natural, unalienable rights a dispensation of government or are they endowed by our Creator?

If we avoid any direct confrontation with terrorists, will they forget their hatred for us and learn to love us?

Wanna bet?

If we prefer disgrace over danger, are we therefore prepared for a master?

If we don’t want to fight terrorists, why don’t we just surrender to them?

Is the U.S. stronger morally, spiritually and economically than we were between 1776 and 1960, or are we weaker?

Do you believe in the maxims: “Peace at any cost;” or “Better Red than Dead” or “you would rather live on your knees than die on your feet?”

Is anything in this world worth dying for?

Is there a point at which we will say to terrorists, “There is a price we will not pay. There is a point beyond which they must not advance?”

After you have answered these questions, take the time to watch this video, taking note of how current it is, given when it was recorded: Economic Swim Video (H/T to CB)

Monday, February 15, 2010


Let me make it plain to you: I am a conservative who has registered as a Republican.

Where my conservative values conflict with the stated principles and/or objectives of the Republican Party, I will side with my conservative values, hands down, every time.

The names of the two Parties are derived from their original meanings politically.

The name "Democrat" suggests an allegiance to the government as a pure, or nearly pure, democracy.

The name "Republican" suggests an allegiance to the government as a representative republic.

Technically, the United States of America is a "Constitutional Republic."

It most certainly is not, nor was it ever intended to be a democracy.

Benjamin Franklin was asked, upon his emergence from the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, what form of government the United States was going to have. Franklin answered succinctly, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Abraham Lincoln said, in his Gettysburg Address: "...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

When examining documents to determine the history or historicity of something, the closer in time one gets to the original(s), the closer one will be to the original intent of the authors of the documents.

By examining the writings of those closest to the formation of this country one can discern the actually intent and meaning of the founders when they established it.

Conversely, the farther we get from the events surrounding the founding, the more likely we are to infect or even corrupt the original intent.

Our forefathers established a "Democratic Republic," based on, and controlled by a constitution deliberately designed to limit the power held by the central government over the people it governed.

That constitution was a document that could be altered by the will of the people through an amendment process that required a substantial vote of the congress and a ratification by the people.

Now let me get to my point(s).

If you hold to so-called "liberal" core values, such as: a large central government can best meet the needs of the citizens; government regulation will solve many or most of the things that are wrong with business in this country; government has the right to intrude in people's lives when it is "for the common good;" the constitution is nothing more than a guide and can be changed or reinterpreted at the whim of the Judicial branch of government; etc., then you should not be in the Republican Party.

If you hold to so-called "conservative" core values, such as: belief that the The Constitution is our ultimate arbiter of things governmental; the smallest possible government is the best thing for the country; individual responsibility for one's actions and personal accountability for ones pursuit of happiness and for one's achievements, then you should not be in the Democrat Party.

What has happened in our great land is that people "born into" one Party or the other remain in that Party regardless of what they actually believe, unwilling to change Party affiliation due to some kind of pride or pressure.

Thus, each Party has become a caricature of itself, no longer definable.

We have "Blue Dog" Democrats and RINOs all scrambled up in the mix, making Party identification nearly moot.

I am particularly vexed with the Republican Party members who have adopted this "Big Tent" idea that Republicans need not stick to their original dogma, but should become "inclusive," meaning, I suppose, "all things to all people."


Big Tentism never has, does not now and never will help the Republican Party. It will only split it up into factions and ensure that Republicans do not get elected to any office.

What Big Tentism DOES do is alienate people like me and other conservatives.

It seems to have gotten the idea that "if we can't win with conservative values, then we must become like the Democrats and try to steal some of their positions so liberals will like us more."

Newsflash! Liberals will NEVER like us more, no matter what we do BECAUSE THEY ARE WHO THEY ARE AND THEY DON'T WANT US BEING THEM!!

I, for one, don't want to be them anyway. If you want to be them, for Pete's sake just go join them...that's OK! But don't try to change me and my ilk by trying to convince us that we should be more like them.

If the Republican leadership has any "learnability" left in them, let them learn that lesson.


As the old saying goes, "People who stand for nothing will fall for anything."

Republicans! Do you want to win more elections? Then start acting more like Republicans.

That means adopting a conservative platform with conservative values and running conservative candidates.

Then the people will have a choice in the upcoming elections, and given that choice, they will side with conservatives every time.

When both sides look alike, as in the last presidential election, it looks like there is no choice and the people choose "change for the sake of change," which is exactly what they got.

It is time for another change. This time, let's make it change with a purpose...a conservative purpose.

Are you listening, Mr. Steele?

Sunday, February 14, 2010


John Jay


Condescend, merciful Father! to grant as far as proper these imperfect petitions, to accept these inadequate thanksgivings, and to pardon whatever of sin hath mingled in them for the sake of Jesus Christ, our blessed Lord and Savior; unto Whom, with Thee, and the blessed Spirit, ever one God, be rendered all honor and glory, now and forever.

Saturday, February 13, 2010


I believe that taxes should not be raised in a down economy because of the negative impact it will have on the economy.

I believe the federal government should NEVER have bailed out banks, insurance companies and auto companies to begin with and that it has way overstepped its bounds in doing so.

I do not support any kind of amnesty for illegal immigrants.

I beleive English should be the official language of the United States of America.

I believe that former illegal immigrants who gain U.S. citizenship by whatever means should NOT be granted Social Security benefits retroactively.

I believe that federal court nominees should be properly and carefully "vetted" before being approved to sit on the bench.

I believe that government school operation should be returned to local governments with no involvement from the federal government.

I believe that school performance standards should be stringent and administered by the individual states.

I believe that health care is NOT a right. (If you believe it is, where does that right come from? Is it unalienable? Where has it been in the history of the universe?)

I believe that creating a government-funded "Citizen Volunteer Corps" (pronounced "core," by the way) is a contradiction of terms.

Friday, February 12, 2010



That's my occasional liberal commenter, Xavier Onassis. You know, Mr. Kool. You can read his blog (if you have any reason to want to) at: Hip Suburban White Guy .

XO has occasionally commented on my blog and been deleted because his remarks were unrighteously and unkindly aimed directly at my other commenters, which I don't allow.

He screemed, "No freedom of speech on this blog," and stopped commenting so often.

But XO has not banned me from his blog (as far as I know, anyway), nor is he banned from mine...just closely monitored.

No, I have been summarily castigated and told, "Buh-Bye," by the writer on one of my favorite liberal blogs: Hellooooo...Mr. President , run by a lady named Sue (uppercase "S"), not to be confused with another of my favorites, sue (lower case "s") over at The Reclusive Blog. "sue" (lower case "s") is a very nice person, who hates to be called a nice person, which, of course, is why I call her a nice person every chance I get.

Sue (upper case "S") is a very sensitive liberal who got her feelings hurt by my having pointed out how some of her commenters called me names, even though she professed that her blog was the essence of civility.

Among other things, Sue (upper case "S") believes that the deep snow that had her pinned in was caused by, what else, GLOBAL WARMING! She also loves Rachael Madcow and John Stewtard.

(I have to admit that John Stewtard is quite funny and is an almost equal opportunity basher, with strong liberal leanings, of course).

Now, I believe that blogging should have an element of fun about it. Therefore I often illustrate my points with a sort of outrageousness that is designed to catch the attention of the reader and still say what I need to say.

Being a staunch intellectual, I sometimes exceed the understanding of my readers, especially the liberal ones. Witness Xavier Onassis' comments in my previous post. (OK, look: I KNOW he was that? I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid.)

Back in the old days (yesterday), when I was actually allowed to comment on Sue (upper case "S")'s blog, my comments were addressed by a liberal fellow who goes by the name, Oso. He is one of the few liberals with whom I have been able to have an actual blogoscopic conversation.

Instead of name calling, he articulately laid out his beliefs and philosophies, along with reasons why he believed them. He also asked for my response...can you imagine that?

I totally disagreed with him, but really enjoyed the back-and-forth.

Although Oso's link was active, it did not seem to lead to an actual blog.

If you know whether he has a blog and how to get to it, I would love to know, 'cause I can no longer converse with him on Sue (upper case "S")'s blog.

Meanwhile, back at my subject, I absolutely defend Sue (upper case "S")'s right to ban me from her blog.

The "Free Speech" clause of the Constitution applies to the federal government, not to homes, blogs, public venues, etc., so nobody has a "right to free speech" on someone else's blog unless granted by the blog owner.

So here I sit, languishing in Banville, able now only to read one of my favorite liberal blogs, no longer to comment on it.

You have to admit, this is a sad, sad tale.

Don't you?

OK...maybe not so much.


Just think about this for a second:

Did you ever see anyone arrested wearing a Bush T-shirt, or for you older guys, an Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, or even Nixon, or Dole shirt..

There MUST be a message or a pattern here, but I can't quite grasp it.

Maybe you can help me out here...give me some links to mug shots of criminals wearing the afore mentioned T-shirts.

Thursday, February 11, 2010


Most of the colonists in Boston in 1773 were British citizens. They were not rabble rousers, nor were they disloyal to England.

Tea, as you know, was and is important to Englishmen. For centuries, every afternoon has featured “tea time,” during which the British pause for a refreshing snack of crumpets (a savory/sweet bread) and tea.

The British East India Tea Company had been awarded a contract to ship tea to the colonies in the New World. They got the tea mainly from the Indian subcontinent and China and delivered it to the various settlements in America.

Taxes on tea had gotten so high that colonists began buying “bootleg” tea from the Dutch, who did not tax the tea, making it much cheaper to buy.

In May of 1773 the British Parliament passed the Tea Act. The Tea Act placed a 25% ad valorem tax on tea, making it very expensive.

In part, this helped to keep the British East India Tea Company from filing bankruptcy, Parliament believing that it was a company too big to allow to fail.

The tax on tea had been put in place without input from the colonists, even though it was they who were most affected by it, since the act exempted those living in England from paying it.

Understandably the colonists were put off by the Tea Act and began protesting it.

After much pleading with Parliament to reconsider the tax, and after Parliament refused to do so, a group of colonists boarded the ships of the British East India Tea Company and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor.

This was one of the iconic events that eventually led to the American Revolution.

Parliament’s reaction was not to yield to the colonists’ desire to elect their own representatives, rather it was to enact the Coercive Acts, which closed Boston’s commerce. The Coercive Acts provided that commerce would remain closed until the tea that had been destroyed was paid for by the Americans.

The Boston Tea Party was a grass roots protest against a government that had ceased listening to those it governed.


It is a grass roots movement, not funded by large entities, but mostly by those directly involved in it.

The Tea Party movement demands that the federal government listens to those it governs.

Its fundamental principles are: 1. the smallest possible government; 2. individual responsibility; 3. the lowest tax rate possible (to maintain the country’s need for a firm union, a fair system of justice, peacefulness among it citizens, a strong national defense, the promotion [not provision] of the general [not specific] welfare, and the keeping of liberty for its citizens); and 4. respect for the Constitution.

With which of those principles of today’s Tea Party movement do you disagree and why?

(If you choose to respond, please give specific reasons and/or data, don’t call Tea Party members names…that indicates ignorance on your part and does not help your cause).

Wednesday, February 10, 2010



The thing I want you to notice is the length of her speech. It's the better part of an hour long!

Hold on to that thought, it will be important later.

Now here are some folks from the left commenting on Sarah Palin's use of her hand as crib notes (the first few minutes will tell you all you need to know):

In this next video you can see how smooth and coherent your President was when his TelePrompter went out in the middle of his speech and he had to speak from his heart:

See, you just don't understand. When President BO uses the TelePrompter because he is totally incapable of coherent and fluid speech without it, it shows suave leadership and astute intelligence.

When Sarah Palin gets a one hour speech done smoothly and coherently, with charm, grace and energy and with a few brief notes on her hand, somehow it is a sign incompetence.

Would someone please explain the logic of that?

In my humble, but correct, opinion, Sarah Palin's intelligence can run circles around Barack Obama's intelligence any day of the week and twice on Saturday afternoons.

As for Joy Behar. Ron Reagan and Stephanie Miller...well, they have exposed themselves as not only totally prejudiced people but as completely mindless, lacking the intelligence of a larval tapeworm.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010


Asked how a small business can make plans for expansion in the face of the uncertainties of pending health care legislation, cap and trade, taxes on both owners and their businesses and other parts of his agenda, President BO responded to Republicans at their "conference" with a lecture on what businesses need.

Keep in mind that the President has NEVER run a business, did not study business at Harvard and has shown absolutely no understanding of business principles and practices.

Yet he saw himself as qualified to speak to Republicans, some of whom HAVE run successful businesses.

The President told the Republicans that they had the wrong idea about what was holding back small businesses from expansion. He said it was not uncertainty of the future but that they had not been able to get loans. He further said that now they can get loans for payroll, etc., and thus should begin hiring soon.

OK. Let me ask YOU to do this:

If you have EVER run a small business or if you run one now, at what point in your business operation did you decide to borrow money to make payroll?

Have you ever borrowed money to make payroll?

Did any business course you ever took suggest that borrowing money to make payroll is sound business practice?

If you can answer yes to any of these questions, please indicate so in my comments section. I would be interested in knowing how many have.

For liberal readers: Is it the belief of liberals that a business borrowing money to make payroll is either normal or a good option for a small business owner? You can answer in my comments section.

Isn't it normal for loans to small businesses be made on collaterally viable items such as inventory and real property rather than on an expense such as payroll?

I am astonished that our Lecturer-in-Chief would reveal how inept he is at business practices while in front of people some of whom have successfully done what he never has done.

If experience is the best teacher; if a business school education is the second best teacher and if theoretical philosophy is the worse teacher in the universe, where on earth does President BO get off telling anybody why businesses are reluctant to make plans for future expansion?

Monday, February 8, 2010


President BO wants to have the Republicans meet with him for a "bipartisan" discussion on health care.

Now, the fact is, health care is dead in the water because the people have killed it. So what could possibly be his motive to meet with Republicans on the matter?

Maybe he believes that if he runs up the health care sail, along will come a great wind to push it forward.

Is that what you think?

If you don't think the breezes will materialize, but President BO thinks they will, either he is smarter than you are (which we know he believes) and is correct, he is wrong or he has some other hidden agenda.

What could be his hidden agenda?

Let's see whether we can discern what is going on.

He wants Republicans in one place.

He wants the meeting televised on C-SPAN.

He wants Republicans' ideas on health care.

He wants health care to be adopted, having stated firmly that he will not back down.

Getting Republicans together in one place would give President BO an opportunity to once again scold them for not backing his health care "reform."

Wanting the meeting televised on C-SPAN appears designed to soften the criticism that he did not put the proceedings or the bills on C-SPAN as he had promised he would.

Asking the Republicans to share their ideas on health care with him has to be a red herring, because they not only have shared them with him already, the ideas are all over the Internet.

The thing is, the President (along with the Democrats in congress) has rejected every one of them. Why would he want the Republicans to share them again?

Think, think, think.

Conclusion: President BO has heard the voice of the people, does not like the voice of the people and intends to do what he wants to do in spite of the voice of the people.


The only reasonable explanation is that he believes he knows what is good for the American people and intends to implement his program whether they want it or not.

Have you a more reasonable explanation? Share it with some illustrations to back up your rationale.

Sunday, February 7, 2010


Liberals in general, the MainStream Press, TV talk show hosts and comedians and people like Rosie O'Donald, Janeane Garofalo and others in particular, loved to lambaste President George W. Bush as a hayseed from Texas who was basically the stupidest thing the White House had ever seen.

He was depicted in banners and posters as Hitler, he was ridiculed as bumbling and scoffed at by the Democrat Party.

The following email has been making the rounds and has been pooh-poohed by the liberal press and blogosphere as either untrue or unimportant.

I provided a link to each question showing the event in question. Some of the links are to conservative sources, some to liberal sources. All are accurate.

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes? CHECK THIS OUT

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved? TRY THIS

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved? CLICK HERE

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved? THIS WILL BOWL YOU OVER

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved? WHAT PROTOCAL?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky? TACKY IS AS TACKY DOES

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?CHECKING HIS SHOELACES?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip? NO SPEAKA AUSTRIAN

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved? A TAXING ISSUE

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment? SPEAKA ESPANOL?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?I ADVISE YOU TO GET IT RIGHT

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite? FLY ME TO THE MOON

If George W. Bush administration had ok'd Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11? IF YOU CAN MAKE IT HERE

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence? IOWA NOT AMERICA

If George W. Bush had created the position 32 or more Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved? TO RUSSIA WITH LOVE

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved? GIT OUT A HERE

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved? DOUBLE UP!

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved? DOUBLE-DOUBLE UP!

If George W. Bush had spent more than all the Presidents combined since George Washington, would you have approved? WATCH YOUR POCKETBOOK

If George W. Bush had twice referred to a military unit as a corpse, instead of a corps, how much would you have ridiculed him?DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can't think of anything?

Don't worry.

He's done all this in his first year in office-- so you'll have 3 more years to come up with an answer.

Saturday, February 6, 2010


1. I Love Me, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah
2. Hopelessly Devoted To Me
3. How Sweet It Is To Be Loved By Me
4. I Wanna Hold My Hand
5. Everything I Do, I Do It For Me
6. I Am The Sunshine Of My Life
7. Tonight I Celebrate My Love For Me
8. I Light Up My Life
9. I’m The One That I Want
10. Up Where I Belong
11. I Love Me Just The Way I Am
12. In My Eyes
13. I’m The Inspiration
14. I Am So Beautiful (To Me)
15. I Love Me
16. I Honestly Love Me
17. (I’m) Still The One
18. Have I Told You Lately That I Love Me?
19. I Only Have Eyes For Me
20. I Was Always On My Mind
21. I Don’t Know Much (But I Know I Love Me)
22. I Can’t Help Falling In Love With Me
23. I’ve Got A Crush On Me
24. It Had To Be Me
25. You Made Me Love Me
26. I’ll Have To Say I Love Me In A Song
27. Dreaming Of Me
28. Because I Loved Me
29. I’ve Only Just Begun
30. I Decorated My Life
31. If I Leave Me Now
32. (I’m) More Than A Woman
33. I’ll Give Me A Diamond Ring
34. I Owe It All To Me
35. Unforgettable (That’s What I Am)
36. How Deep Is My Love?
37. Till There Was Me
38. And I Love Me
39. Just The Way I Am
40. Can’t Take My Eyes Off Of Me
41. Close To Me
42. I Want Me, I Need Me, I Love Me
43. Miss Me Much
19. I Can’t Stop Loving Me
44. How Am I Supposed To Live Without Me?
45. God Must Have Spent A Little More Time On Me
46. I Can Love Me Like That
47. I Just Called to Say I Love Me
48. Every Breath I Take
49. As Long As I Love Me


Thursday, February 4, 2010


In my last post I suggested that we establish a sort of blogging Tea Party, at which we would choose a subject to all write about, say once a month on a given day of the month.

We could call it TEA PARTY TUESDAY.

We certainly don't want to dictate what anybody CAN write about, but imagine if many of us decided that on the first Tuesday of March we were going to write about Prasident BO's view of the Constitution, as expressed in one of his current speeches, or some other subject we decide on.

We will try to write about the most current events we can, from a conservative point of view.

We could do our own research, or one or more of us could do some extensive research on what the president has said in the past, etc.

Then each of us could write from our own perspective what it means, choosing what we wish to emphasize and suggesting viable alternatives.

Linking to each other in the body of the post would increase our traffic, potentially from "outsiders" as well as our regular readers.

We are bound to get response from liberals, some of whom we may even influence.

Then, what if we took the salient thoughts and visited hundreds of liberal blogs, posting those thoughts in the comments section?

We could actually begin to overwhelm them with factual data that might begin to illustrate the folley of their thinking patterns.

People DO change their minds. Listening to Mark Levin this evening, I heard two callers who purposted to have come over to the conservative point of view after hearing the indisputable logic of it on Levin's show.

If the people begin to believe a lie that is repeated often enough, would that not also be so with a truth repeated often enough?

If you would like to be a part of it, leave a note to that effect in this comments section (I have already included those of you who indicated that you would be interested in taking part in the comments section of my last point). You can also make topic suggestions, as well.

I will post the upcoming suggested subject and the date it is suggested to be written about. I will also leave a brief notice of it in YOUR comment section.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010


I'm just a solitary blogger.

My blog attracts a number of readers, mostly conservatives, but quite a few liberals as well.

Many of you are in similar situations, with quite a few readers and some active discussions in your comments sections.

Most of you, like me, feel like "lone voices" in the great expanse of the blogosphere.

Most of our readership is nothing close to that of the really big names in blogging, like Michelle Malkin (Michelle Malkin), Kevin Jackson (Black Sphere ), or Jim Hoft ( Gateway Pundit ).

I'm wondering whether we could collectively increase our effectiveness if we chose a day of the month, or even of the week, to express our opinions in our own way but on a given topic.

As an example, we could choose the second Tuesday of the month to all write about a particular aspect of the health care debate, Cap and Trade, climate change or whatever seems to be at the fore at the time.

We could poll one another to determine what general area we would deal with on the chosen day, write our posts on the subject and thus get a wide view of the issue from a conservative viewpoint.

We often end up posting on the same subjects, but organizing in this way might make our voices more influential and even attract more readers.

I believe that we are poised to have a historic impact on the political events in the mid-term elections and next presidential election.

We could make this a sort of Internet Tea Party.

Just a thought. Let me know what you think.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010


By now you do realize that Algore, climate change guru and self-proclaimed Internet inventor, did not really bring the Internet into being...right?

His claim to have invented the Internet is on the same truth level as his claims about man-made global warming (climate change), that is, total, unadulterated bunk.

Bradley A. Blakeman, writing for News Max, gives us a refresher:

"The The Internet came into being thanks to the genius work of Americans, Dr.Robert E. Kahn and Dr. Vinton G. Cerf. These men, while employed by the Department of Defense in the DARPA office, (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), in the early 1970s, went to work conceiving, designing and implementing the idea of "open-architecture networking.

"'This breakthrough in connectivity and networking was the birth of the Internet.'"

Then he brings us this frightening bit of news:

" an effort to show the world how inclusive, sharing, cooperative, and international America can be, the Obama administration set off on a plan to surrender control and key management of the Internet by the U.S. Department of Commerce and their agents."

The rest of the story is HERE.

So, what difference does that make to you and me?

If President BO gets his way, the oversight of such things as Domain Names, URLs, IP addresses, content and other aspects of the Internet have, up to now, been mostly under the control (or in the case of content: lack of control) of the country which invented it, the United States.

The president's decision to give control away is a step toward his goal of internationalism, and his willingness to surrender America's control over a product we invented and should continue to control.

Why on earth would we even consider relinquishing control of that important element of our national security and economic interest?

As evidence that the international community does not share our commitment to free speech (or at least as much as we still retain), we need only to look to China's recent attempt to control Google's content.

How much of the content of your blogs and web sites are you looking forward to being controlled by the "international community?"

Are you naive enough to think that our First Amendment rights are going to be honored by that community?

In my last post it was the government intrusion into college football. Now it's the ceding of control of the Internet to others.

Is there no end to the liberties you and I will allow President BO and his minions to take from us?

Monday, February 1, 2010


Conservatives have been laughed at for sounding the warning that the government wants to get into every aspect of our lives.

Don't believe it?

Check this out RIGHT HERE.

Now the administration wants to intrude in our Friday, Saturday and Sunday (or whatever other days might be included) college football!

They want to control the way the national championship is determined!

Now, maybe there needs to be a change...maybe not.

That misses the point.

What in the name of oyster shuckin' business is it of the federal government to decide such a thing?

I promise you that if the NCAA thought it would make a difference in revenues, the change would be made. If it is not clear to them that income would be affected, they will not change.

In the end, it is their decision, not the Fed's.

The government is using the guise of "anti-trust laws" to make the possible change, but that, too, misses the point.

THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE, SOLITARY ARGUMENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S INVOLVEMENT HERE! NOT ONE! NOT EVEN THE: "Well, they provide financial resources for the players....etc."


The point of college football is the sport itself and its spectators.

Barack H. Obama! Get the heck out of my life...especially my football!