Tuesday, January 29, 2013


That's right. I have joined the ranks of those who wish to ban the most terrible weapon of all.

The specific weapon I want to ban has killed more people than 9 mm pistols, more people than 12 gauge shotguns, more people than AK 47s and, yes, more people than both atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

This weapon has killed people all over the world. It has killed people in Asia, in Africa, in Europe, in South America, in North America and even in Antarctica.

Yes, this weapon WAS used for hunting, but that is little reason to allow it to be kept in circulation.

It is also true that collectors love this weapon. Their walls are adorned with examples of these weapons from the earliest recorded use of them to the ones manufactured today.

One of this weapon's greatest assets is also its greatest danger. It can be used in so many ways to commit so many different incidences of mayhem.

As an instrument of terror, this weapon is unsurpassed in history. It can be used to frighten, to intimidate, to maim, to dismember, to cut out a heart, to behead and countless other ways.

I speak of none other than the SWORD.

There are many kinds of swords, but one of the most deadly was surely the Roman gladius (shown above).

To quote Vince's Worthwhile Website, "With their skills as soldiers and battle formations the gladius was an ideal weapon for drawing out in the tight formations that they used to march and indeed fight in.

"The Roman Gladius (Gladius; n  Lat; sword) got its origins from the Spaniards when after several conflicts the Romans became impressed with the sword and adopted it for themselves."

The Roman gladius, though, was a short little dude, and its range was therefore fairly short.

For targets further away, there were various longer swords that could be used.

People have actually made their living and gained their fame using swords.

Now there can be little doubt. The sword must be banned.
Please contact your Senator and Congressman and encourage him to introduce a bill (hopefully with no earmarks) to ban these awful WSDs (weapons of such destruction).

Monday, January 28, 2013


Until President BO (the amateur president) did it, no president in US history has EVER declared Congress to be in recess. Only Congress has the Constitutional power to declare itself in recess. He simply said, in his usual dictatorial manner, "I declare that there is a recess."

Congress might take breaks during the year, but it does not recess until the end of the Congressional session...EVER. Then when it reconvenes, we call it a new Congress and give it the next number in the Congressional sequence.

From time to time Congress takes holiday breaks and other breaks for its members to go back to their districts and do some politicking  or to be with their families or whatever, but they do NOT take a recess to do it.

The Constitution makes it clear with the phrase: the Recess. It is the time following the end of a Congressional session.

See, words matter and so does grammar. That's why we should all learn it, whether we want to or not.

"The" is a definite article. That means it refers to something specifically and not to something generally, as in the case with "a."

If you say to me, "Give me a key to a car," I might fulfill your command by handing you just any old key. On the other hand, if you say to me, "Give me the key to the car," you have now gotten specific and any other key I hand you might raise your ire.

So, "the recess" is different from "a recess." It refers to the specific recess that occurs at the end of a Congressional session.

That's what the US District Court (not just "a" court, the court) affirmed unanimously with its decision concerning President BO (the amateur president 's appointments to the NLRB (not just any labor board...that specific labor board.)

The Constitution: Article II, Section 2: ...The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

A sitting president has every right, under the Constitution, to appoint people to certain positions when Congress is in RECESS. To make appointments when Congress is in session is not Constitutional. That would constitution a failure to uphold the Constitution, something PBO (tap) swore he would do.

Because it was still in session, and therefore must have been consulted with regard to those appointments, Obama circumvented Congress and the Constitution to get his way.

His attitude is, as he has stated, "if Congress won't do it, I'll do it without them."

We're a Constitutional, Representative Republic, and a president is not allowed to do such a thing.

Now, do you think he knew that?

If so, why did he go ahead and do it?

If not, why did he not know? Isn't he supposed to have been some sort of Constitutional Scholar?

Some scholar.

If you need more clarification, here is a link to a video by a man who really IS a Constitutional scholar and who has actually argued cases before the Supreme Court and won. (Whether you like him or not, you HAVE to admit that he knows more about the Constitution than you do...or I, for that matter.)

Friday, January 25, 2013


Was it that he did not know?

Perhaps he knew, but didn't care.

Maybe he knew but deliberately decided to flaunt his power.

Or maybe this is just part-and-parcel of his character and ideology.

Whatever it was, you'll remember the flack over President BO (the amateur president)'s controversial recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board last year. The administration claimed that Congress was in "recess," therefore the appointments were Constitutional.

The president is only supposed use his power of recess appointment when Congress quits business at the end of a year.

The left insisted that the "recess" was sine diewhich is a legislative term that indicates the end of a long work period.  

President BO (the amateur president) appointed three people to the labor board while the Senate was in session, ignoring the Senate’s “advise and consent” role.

Now, a federal appeals court has overturned his appointments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Obama, indeed, ignored the Senate’s “advise and consent” role by appointing those three people to the NLRB.

The court characterized PBO (tap)'s appointments as an abuse of power.

The White House had argued that the Senate was in recess because it was only holding pro forma sessions at the time of the appointments. The White House said the pro forma sessions did not constitute the Senate being in session.

They were either ignorant or they deliberately acted contrary to the law.

If they were ignorant, they further confirm the contention that this administration is amateurish in its actions.

If they were deliberately acting contrary to the law, their moral character and their competence to lead the country must be called into question.

There are a couple of places where you can learn more about the ruling: HERE and HERE.

This president continually exceeds his reach of power with policy decisions made by "executive order."

Executive Orders ARE Constitutional, as long as they do not violate other parts of the Constitution.

President BO (the amateur president) places no such restrictions on himself.

Thursday, January 24, 2013


What difference it makes is LIES.

All liberals think lies are OK if they suit their political agenda and/or get them off the hook for something wrong they've done.

She takes "...full responsibility...?

Responsibility always costs something. Always.

Liberals think just saying the words "I take full responsibility" means they have taken responsibility.

No such thing!

If I drive over the speed limit at the urging of my passenger, am stopped by an officer and explain to him that my passenger told me to drive that fast, who is he going to hold responsible? How? Can you say, "Ticket?"

If my passenger says, "I told him to, I take responsibility, " who do you think the officer will write the ticket out to?

Since I am driving, I am responsible and I must pay the ticket.

I repeat: Responsibility always costs something. Always.

What price do you, in your wildest imagination, expect Hillary Clinton to pay for her total lack of response to the security needs of the American Ambassador?

Does this remind you of another Clinton and a place called Waco?

Wednesday, January 23, 2013


Just a week before the New Year, Obama enjoyed his highest approval ratings of 2012. According to Gallup, 58% of Americans approved of the job Obama was doing. Survey results released today (Saturday, January 19) by Gallup, though, show Obama's approval rating has plummeted to just 49%.

So, what does it mean?

President BO (the amateur president) began to lose ground after his gun control proposals, which were a bunch of "Who shot John" to begin with.

One of the things his drop, even considering his second inauguration, means is that the public is not with him on the gun control issue...not his version of it anyway.

Gun control is not the only issue that has disenchanted some people, but it is representative of what has gone wrong (or right, depending on your point of view) in his tenure.

What it really shows is that PBC (tap) does not care one whit what the people want. They have made themselves clear and he's not listening.

He does not have to get reelected, so he can show his true colors. Some would say his color is pink.

The side of himself he is showing is the "I'm the boss here, and you'll do what I tell you. I don't need Congress or the Supreme Court or the people with me.

His attitude is, "Regardless of what the people want, they'll get them what I want them to get."

Wake up, America. Your president does not care what you  think, what you want or where you're going. He wants what he wants for you. And he's going to make you want it whether you want it or not.

Just a quick note. This post is not about gun control. It is about the public's reaction to Obama's attitude and policies in this new year.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013


Last Friday I watched a *“scicumentary” on PBS about time and how it is defined.

The program host visited various physicists, philosophers and clergy to discuss the topic of time and came to the conclusion that we don’t know how to define it.

Politicians can’t define it either. In fact, they lack the gene to anticipate what might happen in the future, largely because they can’t see past the next election or the current firestorm of choice.

“Unintended consequences” of their decision making often end up costing and/or hurting both their constituents and the other citizens of the United States.

One such “unintended consequence” is Social Security.

It was intended as an aid to retirement…a federal government plan to “care for the elderly” and to garner votes and political favor for FDR.

On this very blog I have referred to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme.  I was wrong. It is much worse than a Ponzi scheme.

Shikha Dalmia, a senior policy analyst at Reason Foundation, writes this about Social Security:

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. It is much worse.

Here are three reasons why:

One, a Ponzi scheme collects money from new investors and uses it to pay previous investors—minus a fee. But Social Security collects money from new investors, uses some of it to pay previous investors, and spends the surplus on programs for politically favored groups—minus the cost of supporting a massive bureaucracy. Over the years, trillions of dollars have been spent on these groups and bureaucrats.

Two, participation in Ponzi schemes is voluntary. Not so with Social Security. The government automatically withholds payroll taxes and “invests” them for you.

Three: When a Ponzi scheme can’t con new investors in sufficient numbers to pay the previous investors, it collapses. But when Social Security runs low on investors—also called poor working stiffs—it raises taxes. Indeed, Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute points out, 

Social Security taxes have been raised some 40 times since the program began. 

The initial Social Security tax was 2 percent (split between the employer and employee), capped at $3,000 of earnings. That made for a maximum tax of $60. 

Today, the tax is 12.4 percent, capped at $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,234. Even adjusting for inflation, that represents more than an 800 percent increase.

And given that the worker-to-retiree ratio is expected to fall from 3-1 today to 2-1 in 2030 (down from 16-1 in 1950) these taxes will only go up unless the government decides to kick retirees in their dentures and slash benefits.

Now, please don’t go telling me about how I have “reaped the benefits” of the Social Security program. I have had Social Security taxes taken out of my paycheck ever since I began working, much to my chagrin.

I was not given a choice. The money was confiscated…just taken…by the federal government. It was not invested as a retirement plan would be. It was just taken and redistributed.

When Social Security was enacted, it was touted as proof that the federal government cared about people.

Only it proved no such thing, largely because of unintended consequences.

Millions of people have no income EXCEPT Social Security, for a variety of good and not-so-good reasons.

Some lost their retirement savings due to economic pressures. Others lost savings because of their own stupidity. Still others never saved in the first place, expecting the government to take care of them in their old age.

As everybody knows (apparently not), one cannot live on Social Security alone and have any of life’s amenities.

The unintended consequence of this poorly designed scheme is that there are millions living right at the poverty level precisely BECAUSE of a government that was supposed to be helpful (if you are naive enough to believe that’s why FDR pushed it).

I am not really interested in discussing the merits or demerits of Social Security here, I have used it as an example of the federal government predictable way of enacting legislation that has UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

I could have chosen Federal Reserve Act of 1913, The New Deal, The Great Society, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act , the Dodd-Frank Act, the Department of Education Organization Act, the Reorganization Plan Number 3 (Environmental Protection Agency), or the Food and Drugs Act of 1906 (Food and Drug Administration). I chose Social Security. Get over it.

The point is the federal government cannot foresee the consequences of the laws it imposes on people because of its nature, its distance from the people, because it lacks the gene to anticipate what might happen as a result of any given law and its penchant for scrambling to pass foolish legislation in the name of “serving its constituents.”

They major on proving the sarcastic adage:  “We’re from the government. We’re here to help.”

*A combining of science with documentary. Not a real word, until now.

Monday, January 21, 2013


Would that Black America would embrace his ideals.

At 7:30 he expresses hope that Black Americans (to whom he referred as "Negroes") would not be bitter and/or hateful as they seek equality. Instead he emphasized dignity and discipline.

Please notice that there were both blacks and whites in the audience.

Dr. King mentions that favorably in his speech at about 8:35.

My prayer is that those who are supposed to be leaders in the Black American community will stop bringing dishonor to Dr. King's message, and will seek to fulfill it with the grace with which it was first presented.

Almost every line of this speech is full of greatness and both impresses me and inspires me.

This remains one of my favorite speeches of all time and I listen to it often.

Please do the same.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Saturday, January 19, 2013


Why? Why?

Why do you liberals continue to trust our federal government to make your decisions for you?

Why do you think they have to be involved in so many aspects of your life?

They are incompetent, unrealistic, short-sighted and just plain don't care about unintended consequences.

Is it your opinion that E-15 is an example of how the government gets things right?


What else do you trust them with?

What is wrong with you?

Friday, January 18, 2013


It’s incredible that from the time of the framers of the Constitution until the present, the Supreme Court justices who administered the oath of office for presidents were all too dumb to understand the inherent lack of “inclusiveness” of the Bible.

Liberal politician and media persons are openly questioning whether the use of the Bible for the occasion is appropriate.

President BO (the amateur president), who has praised the Koran as a “holy book,” considers the Bible flawed and in need of modern revision. In short, he believes the Bible needs to be amended to be more inclusive.

I wonder what part of “whoever believes in Him…” (John 3:16) is not inclusive? It means anybody, regardless of race, national origin, or social standing may come to God through Christ…ANYBODY.

As I understand the word “anybody,” it means…well, it means anybody. That’s pretty inclusive.

Nevertheless, PBO (tap) is considering not using the Bible at his second inauguration.

He has also chosen a non-minister to deliver the “invocation” at the event – the widow of Medgar Evers.

He apparently thinks that for 237 years we have been doing it wrong! He seems to think it is time to secularize the proceedings.

His decision seems to be an attempt to the “lowest-common-denominator” class of society.

Just to prove his inclusiveness, he has named a Cuban-born homosexual to be the inaugural poet.

Nice touch.

President BO (the amateur president) originally named Louie Giglio to deliver the benediction. Then he found out that Giglio objects to the homosexual agenda. That’s when he reconsidered and dismissed Giglio in favor of finding a “gay-friendly clergyperson” or perhaps an atheist.

Although PBO (tcp) has not dropped the Bible from the ceremony, he is certainly blending the practices of the past with the revolutionary ideologies of the present.

In his mind, our founders got it wrong, their political descendants got it wrong, and, after 237 years, he’s going to help us get it right.

Who knows what he will do at the inauguration of his third term.

Thursday, January 17, 2013


At first there were only going to be 19 new gun ownership proposals.

In typical government fashion, the tangled bureaucratic mess has multiplied on its own.

His willing partners in the MainStream Media are fawning over President BO (the amateur president)'s new proposals. NBC calls them "sweeping."

A bunch of  "Who shot John," in the end (not a good place to be shot).

Here is a step-by step revelation about each part of President BO (the amateur preaident)'s gun control agenda, as provided him by the very astute Joe Biden.

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

It is nothing more than telling the government to follow the law

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

It means regulators will have to back off from their mental health regulations which never should have been put in place to begin with.

3. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

The feds keep issuing unfunded mandates that cost the states money. This says pay the states back.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

It just says, "DOJ, don't let dangerous people slip through the cracks."

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

This established another unfunded mandate for the states (see #3 above)!

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

Tell gun dealers how to run a background check - which they already know.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

Do what the NRA is already doing. Since it will be done by the feds, it will be less effective and will cost more.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

This is already the job of the Consumer Product Safety Commission!

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

Guns used by criminals should be traced. To what, he did not say.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

This only tells the DOJ to do its job.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

It only tells President BO (the amateur president) to do the job he's already supposed to be doing.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

It's just a ploy to get the feds to spend more taxpayer dollars.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

It only tells the states to tell their law enforcement agencies to do their jobs.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

Now DOCTORS are supposed to tell the feds why the feds have been ineffective at doing their jobs.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country. 

A report! Now that would have stopped mass shootings, right? Obama wants "smart" guns.  They are not like phones, and don't exist. If they did exist, they wouldn't work.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

It only admits that the Affordable Care Act does not mean what it pretends to mean. In other words, "Tell doctors that it is okay to break the law even though we want them to follow the law that I pushed."

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

A letter!  A letter!? In other words, tell doctors the Affordable Care Act doesn't mean what it says (see 16).

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

This one might actually be worth something...not much, since it is only incentives, but something.

Every time I or the NRA has suggested this we have been ridiculed, disrespected and called names. Now President Obama is admitting that we were right all along...which we already knew.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

The feds shouldn't spend any money on this one. Every First Response agency in the nation has already done it. With the feds doing it, it will only be half as effective and will cost ten times as much.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

Another letter!! Oh, goody! Tell doctors what they already know. Good way to spend tax dollars, no?

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

Reveal what parts of ObamaCare don't say anything.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

More finalizing! This time asking Health and Human Services to do its job (isn't anybody in government doing their jobs already? NO?).

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

This would have done nothing to have averted any of the mass shootings that have taken place in this country.

It absolves President BO (the amateur president) of any responsibility for any of this.

So, do you feel swept?

Maybe "hoodwinked" would be a better term.

How did we get so lucky as to have this guy "leading" us?  

(Adapted from HERE)

Wednesday, January 16, 2013


In his final press conference of his first term in office, President BO (the amateur president) kept talking about the need for congress to “pay our nations bills.” “We have to pay what we owe,” he said.

Then he proceeded to lecture the press corps about the necessity to “do the math,” proclaiming, “the math just won’t work.”

The President has ordered the cabinet to cut $100 million from the $3.5 trillion dollar federal budget (which will be difficult, considering that we have not had a budget for 4 years, due to the Senate’s failure to produce one).

$100 million dollars! That’s a lot of money that he wants us to cut!

Let’s do a little math, shall we?

Let’s say it costs me $2,000.00 per month to meet my required expenses (a fairly close figure - groceries, household expenses, medicine, utilities, etc.,).

Let’s further say I decide to follow the President’s suggestion and cut my personal budget by the same ratio as the feds.

He is suggesting a 1/35,000th reduction in spending.

Using that figure, instead of $2,000.00 per month, I will now be spending $1,999.94, a reduction of $.06 (that’s 6 cents, for those of you educated in government schools).

Isn’t that what sacrifice is all about? I’ll have to do without $.06 worth of “luxuries.”

When President BO (the amateur president) encouraged us to do the math, did he think we wouldn’t take the time to actually do it?

Do you people understand how idiotic a $100 million cut is in a $3.5 trillion budget?

John Adams said, "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation... One is by sword... The other is by debt."

You can see an illustration of the actual math HERE.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013


CBS spent more time on an interview with Oprah Winfrey this morning than they usually spend interviewing  really important people.

As they went "in depth," they tried to get her to reveal "secrets" from her much touted interview with Lance Armstrong (who rides a bicycle for a living), she remained steadfast in her decision not to give away much of the interview.

Lance, under pressure from his sponsors, his family and maybe his conscience, told the world that he did what everybody already knew he did. He used performance enhancing drugs to...well, to enhance his performance.

According to something I heard somewhere, "everybody did it."

Asked why she was chosen to do the interview, Oprah gave some pontificatory response about the need to know the honest answers to the burning questions about Armstrong's drug use.

What a crock!

She lobbied for the interview for one reason and one reason only: to boost her ratings.

Oprah has one of the least watched "networks" in the known universe. Her programming is peppered with meaningless tripe and leftist dogma.

To be fair, that is what dominates most of TV.

I'm not at all certain why anybody even cares whether Lance Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs to win 7 Tours de France (or is it Tour de Frances?). I can think of nothing more boring than watching a bunch of people out for a bike ride, except a "thrilling" golf match, if there is such a thing.

CBS fawned over Oprah as though she was someone really special and had done some great newsworthy thing by landing this meaningless interview.

How many of us will stop our daily routines to watch an interview about the fall of a bicyclist?

I think she will probably double her viewing audience, which will bring it to 12 people and a couple of dogs (who are counted because they are sleeping on their dog pillow in front of the TV).

The good side is, the world will learn the truth about Lance Armstrong's drug use.

Uhh, let me ask you. Did you not already know that he used drugs to enhance his performance? Was it some cosmic secret? Have you been salivating to hear him tell on himself?

The interview is going to air Thursday. It is two and a half hours long! What a waste of network time! I could have done it a lot better.

"Welcome, Lance Armstrong, winner of 7 Tours de France (or Tour de Frances). Did you use performance enhancing drugs?"

"Why yes, Joe, I did."

"Thank you for coming, Lance. And now a word from our sponsor. What? We don't have any sponsors left to hear from? Oh, bother."

Look, I know Lance Armstrong fought and won a battle with testicular cancer. I'm glad he made it through.

It is not at all clear that it was wise to get back on one of those skinny racing bike seats after that experience. I suppose it was necessary to prove that he was still a man (double entendre intended).

Let me ask your opinion. Did you get all twitterpated at the news that Lance Armstrong will tell all on the Oprah Winfrey Network?

While CBS seems to have loved having the big "O" on TV right there in front of everybody, she didn't impress me at all.

Monday, January 14, 2013


Calling President Bush “Bush” was okay but calling President Obama “Obama” isn’t.

Isn't that a double standard ?

Does anybody remember "Dubya?"

Then Krystal Ball (Come on...could that honestly be her real name?) espouses her theory that Obama’s somehow being uniquely disrespected as president when referred to by his last name.

OK, so Kornacki is not one of my favorite MSNBC people (neither is he my least favorite liberal), but give the guy a break, for crying out loud!

The tweeters were just plain wrong.

We have ALWAYS called presidents by their last name, and often by disrespectful nick-names.

Why should Obama be treated special?

Can YOU think of any reasons?

Toure (another strange name, in my book) thinks it might be because he's black.

Saturday, January 12, 2013


If Friday is payday for you, you paid 2% more of your paycheck in taxes this week.

If you earn $50,000.00, your taxes went up about $1,000 per year. For people making more, taxes increased up to $4,500.

Why did taxes go up? Because the so-called “Bush tax cuts” expired.

Why did the “Bush tax cuts” expire? Because Congress wanted to make it look like we were doing something about the budget deficit and the national debt.

The increase in taxes will reduce both the budget deficit and the national debt by less than one-half of one percent.

There’s only 99 ½ percent left to go!

Taxes on the “rich” have also gone up. They should pay their fair share.

Fair share my hind leg! They already pay their fare share and more.

And if we took all of their assets…every penny of them and all of their cash on hand, we would not have enough to substantially reduce either the budget deficit or the national debt.

The only way we will eliminate the budget deficit and the national debt is to take everything everybody makes or owns and use it to pay them down.

Even that won’t spare our children and grandchildren the fiscal pain of owing way too much.

When it comes to the relationship of spending to confiscation of citizens’ resources, liberals in general and Congress specifically don’t care about our children and grandchildren.

They are happy to force them to eat certain things, not eat other things and to regulate them to the Nth degree, but financially they are cold as ice cubes toward them.

If Congress wants to know why their approval rating is in the toilet, I can tell them.  It’s because their integrity, honesty and principles are at an all-time low.

They lie, misdirect, stonewall, pontificate, and just refuse accountability, doing only those things that make their constituents think they are doing something for them, thus ensuring their votes.

They think we’ll never notice because we’re to dumb to take care of ourselves and too stupid to understand what they have done and are doing.

According to them, we won’t even notice the decrease in our paychecks.

Sadly, in the final analysis, THEY DON’T GIVE A RAT’S BEHIND!

Thank you, Congress, for proving the level at which you care about the American people.

Friday, January 11, 2013


The Affordable Healthcare Act (ObamaCare) is so full of terror that soon Homeland Security will declare it unsafe to fly.

Well, at least we could hope so.

Health care revenue cycle expert, David Catron, has written about an issue that has been a part of Medicare for decades. Under ObamaCare it will only get worse, as the AHA exacerbates its excesses.

Writes Mr. Catron:
“When I began writing about the menace of increased federal involvement in our medical delivery system, I was surprised to discover that some doctors actually supported it. These misguided medicos represented only a small minority of practicing physicians, and most were profoundly ignorant about health care economics, but the “M.D.” following their names provided them with a fa├žade of credibility.

“A number of these people took advantage of their illusory expertise in health care policy to launch blogs which they used to promote their notions of ‘health reform’ and extol the virtues of government-run health care in general.

"Among them was an ER physician who writes under the nom de plume, 'Shadowfax.' (He wrote a blog post headlined "Medicare made the rules and now punishes doctors for following them")

“…it would appear that the virtues of government-run health care have begun to pall for the good doctor.
He has finally discovered what I and others told him years ago: Medicare rules are, as he apparently now realizes, 'arbitrary and disconnected from reality.' He has also noticed that, when a physician runs afoul of these bureaucratic vagaries, the government is the judge, jury, and executioner. The immediate cause of his disillusionment is Medicare’s trick of performing a superficial audit of a doctor’s billing practices and, based on a hopelessly flawed statistical sampling method, accuses him of fraud.

“You get a letter from the Medicare … telling you that you’ve been reviewed, found guilty of upcoding, and this finding, based on a handful of charts, is extrapolated back several years.” The term “upcoding” is industry jargon indicating that a provider has submitted a claim using codes that produce inappropriately high payment. It’s rarely done deliberately, assuming it has actually occurred, but that doesn’t matter. “The result is a large demand for reparations, usually in the mid-to-high six figures. The physician group can either write a check or lawyer up and argue it chart by chart.”

“Medicare uses a sampling method that makes a mockery of statistical analysis, its refund demands are often unjustified.

“…the attempt to save money by harassing physicians and exploiting the contradictions within the rules that the government itself wrote is beyond maddening.”

(End of Article)

For the life of me I cannot figure out why liberals think there is a federal government solution to every issue that "plagues" our nation.

The government is uniquely qualified to provide for the common defense of the nation through the military. It is uniquely UNqualified to do nearly every other task it attempts.

This morning, CBS reported on an outbreak of Legionare's Disease in a V.A. hospital (a government run "medical" bureaucracy), the result of mismanaged sterilization programs and lack of response when the disease surfaced. (This is the same V.A. responsible for my father's last two years of life being living torture, and the same V.A. that put my best friends broken leg on crooked so he had to have repeated surgeries to correct the issue.)

But think how much better life will be with the expanded bureaucracy required for AHA!

Let's hope for some more changes of minds and policies.

When will we learn that allowing the FEDERAL government to rule and regulate every problem we face will only result in more unintended consequences? Answer: As long as liberals are in control, Americans won't learn a thing.

David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.

Here's an article you might be interested in.

Monday, January 7, 2013


You gotta hand it to the federal government. They are at their best when they are looking out for our safety, our economy and our liberty.

In order to reduce the expense of providing light for our homes, they have mandated that companies no longer produce incandescent light bulbs. Whatever is in warehouse across the country is all that’s left of them

Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs, very expensive to purchase, have replaced them on store shelves.

Think of the money saved!

Think of the lives lost!

Lives lost…what are you talking about, Jo-Joe?

Turns out that the ultraviolet radiation emitted by the bulbs pose a real risk of skin cancers, including melanoma.

That ultraviolet radiation comes from faults in the protective coating of every bulb tested by the  Stoney Brook university research center of Long Island.  

Professor of Dermatology, Marcia Simon states, referencing the study, “The results were that you could actually initiate cell death.”

Not only that, but they also have mercury in them, which, if they are broken in your home, requires very special handling of almost HASMAT proportions.

Then there’s the issue of disposing of the bulbs when they burn out. That requires a special treatment at a place designed to handle the bulbs.

Let's not overlook the fact that CFLs diminish in brightness over time, so the "long life" might not be as long as one thinks. Then there's the issue that their built in balast sometimes fails before the "expected life" of the bulb, rendering it prematurely useless.

But the federal government, ever looking out for us, has decided, in its wisdom, to require the replacement of incandescent bulbs in favor of the CFLs.

But wait!! There’s an alternative!

What? You didn’t know that?

Yes! Yes! You can purchase and use halogen light bulbs!

They are really bright and put out a lot of lumens for their size.

Only they are under pressure. If you read the package you are warned to use extreme caution when screwing them in and/or taking them out, because if broken they explode and you will probably get glass in your face, or elsewhere, depending on which way you are facing when it breaks.

Oh. Did I mention? They are even more expensive than CFLs, and require a warm-up period.

All is not lost, however.

You can still opt for LED lighting.

An array of LED lights is very safe and very effective (if you have enough of them) at lighting an area, remains cool to the touch and can be hidden in cubby holes if you have the need for such a thing.

Enough of them to equal any given output of lumens by the other two choices costs between seven and ten times more.

But thank goodness the federal government has our best interests at heart.

They have saved us from those cheap, safe (if somewhat inefficient) incandescent bulbs that have proven themselves over time.

At the behest of our benevolent federal government, we can say “Goodbye” to old Tommy Edison and his archaic invention.

Be still, my heart.


CFL light bulbs have an average lifespan of 10,000 plus hours.These use approximately 75% less energy than the traditional incandescent bulb.They also contain mercury and have to be disposed of properly and require special handling if broken. Their built in balast can fail before the lifespan of the bulb is up.

LED light bulbs have an average lifespan of 60,000 plus hours.
Incandescent light bulbs have an average lifespan of 1,500 hours.

Saturday, January 5, 2013


The following letter, written by U.S. Marine Joshua Boston and headlined “No ma’am.,” was posted in the CNN iReport on Dec. 27 with the included note from the producer and photo. It has struck a nerve with many and is being circulated around social media venues like Twitter and Facebook.

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps

Here's the thing. The federal government has NO BUSINESS restricting the use of fire arms.

That does not deter them from doing so in this or other matters.

They have no business telling churches what they can preach, politics or otherwise.

They have no business telling anybody when or where they can pray or otherwise exercise their freedom of religion.

They have no business telling me what kind of car to drive.

They have no business telling me what kind of light bulb to use.

They have no business telling me what to pay my employees.

They have no business telling me what kind of health insurance to buy, or whether I should or should not buy any at all.

They have no business telling me what I can write about, or speak about, or sing about.

They have no business telling me how to run my business.

They have no business telling me what to believe about marriage, social relationships, race relations or abortion.

Why do they think they have some business telling me about these and other things?

Power...that's all. Just power.

Friday, January 4, 2013


The Green bar represents the ANNUAL TAX INCREASE under the new fiscal cliff plan.

The Red bar represents the BUDGET DEFICITunder the new fiscal cliff plan. It is the amount MORE than our income that we spend.

Does this tell you ANYTHING about our current crop of politicians? They think they fixed something.

And this doesn't even address the National Debt. For those of you educated in government schools, the Budget Deficit and the National Debe are different.

The Budget Deficit is the difference between what we expect to take in through taxation and what we expect to spend.

The National Debt is what we owe other entities from which we have borrowed money to operate.

They are related in that the greater the Budget Deficit, the more we have to borrow to operate.

There are a lot of people who seem to think this proportion is A-OK.

There are other who say, "Why don't we just increase the Annual Tax Increase to make up the difference?"

That's the height of stupidity.

There isn't enough income to tax at a rate that would make more than a dimple in the Budget Deficit.

There will come a time when all of this will catch up with us, and that time is not far off. Then we will fall as a country.

When we falls, we will fall hard. Harder than you want us to fall.

The graph comes from Zero Hedge.

Thursday, January 3, 2013


I double-dog-dare you to watch the whole video, especially if your are a liberal, progressive and/or leftist.

If you can watch this and not understand why we are an exceptional nation, you have neither heart nor intellect.

Many totalitarian nations would not have lifted a finger to rescue one of their captured. To them, he is just another by-product of war.

But real Americans place such a high value on human life, freedom and on the individual that this type of effort is standard operating procedure. You might want to check this out.

Thanks and a hat tip to: GeeeeeZ.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013


Well, well, well.

Much has happened since last I wrote.

To set a good fiscal example for the nation, President BO (the amateur president) has lifted the Pay freeze on federal employees and “given” them raises.

Of course he did this by the method he prefers most, executive order, thus bypassing Congress and simply dictating the raise.

Vice President Biden (the incoherent one) will now be paid $231,900 next year to bumble and stumble his way to convincing you he knows where his posterior is.

Members of The House of Representatives and the Senate will receive an additional $900.00 per year, not a lot, percentage wise, but still questionable in this time of recession.

The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, will now get $224,600.00. The majority and minority leaders in both the House and the Senate will receive $194,400.00 per year.

John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, will get $223,500.00 and his associates will be paid $213.900.00.

Other government workers will receive raises as well.

Now nobody begrudges our hard working, ethical, honest Representatives getting what they’re worth. It could be argued, however, that that figure is much closer to $0.00.

Let’s give credit where credit is due.

OK, so there’s not much credit to be given to anyone.

We must remember, however, that these stalwart leaders have “avoided the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’” in a last minute “deal” in which all Americans who are not government employees lose.

They lose because the steps taken will not chip even a corner off the block that is the national debt, and will not affect the budget deficit, either. That’s mainly because we have no budget at this time, the Senate having failed to put one forth in 4 years.

But we can rest easy, knowing that we are being led by men of integrity. As Shakespeare put it, “Sure are they all, all honorable men.”

We might have slowed the rate of debt growth and budget deficit by some infinitesimal amount, but our children and grandchildren’s pockets are still being robbed.

What we have done for the children of America, today’s and the future’s, is unpardonable.

And it will destroy the liberty and freedom to which they are entitled.

So much for federal leadership.

Happy New Year.

ADDENDUM: There is a report that the wage increase for federal workers has been put on hold. While that's a good thing, it remains to be seen whether or not the hold will hold.