Monday, September 28, 2015

Formally Announcing Temporary Leave of Absence

Just too much going on to do justice to this blog for a while. Never enough time any more.

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Monday, September 14, 2015

A Beautiful Tribute To The Troops!

Three soldiers in the British Army collaborated with two U.S. Soldiers in order to beautifully perform a song dedicated to troops around the world.

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Saturday, September 12, 2015

A Brief Review

The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that the federal government cannot pass a law that restricts freedom of speech. That's amendment 1. It does not guarantee that other entities cannot limit free speech.

 On this blog, I intentionally limit free speech. That is not against the Constitution, it is just that I am not the federal government and thus not subject to the same limitations. With that said, let me point out a few things about this blog.

 1. You do not have freedom of speech on this blog.

 2. I decide whose comments to keep and whose to delete.

 3. Comments must be on topic or they will be deleted.

 4. Rants about liberals, while they might express some level of truth, if they are not related to the subject of the post, will be deleted as soon as I see them.

 5. Foul language is not permitted on this blog. I will decide what is foul and will act accordingly. If you don't know the difference between foul and acceptable language, I will help you by deleting comments that I think contain foul language.

 6. It is not required that you think I am fair. It is required that you follow my rules on my blog. 

7. Comments that support either a liberal or a conservative agenda that contain grammatical errors that do not appear, in my eyes, to be typographical errors, will be seen by me to be too ignorant to be of merit and will be subject to deletion.

 8. Comments that indicate that the writer does not know the difference between "their," "they're" and "there" and other such homonyms of grammatical importance are subject to deletion. Those errors indicate that the commenter is too ignorant to make his/her point.

 9. Verbal attacks on other commenter as the main point of a comment will be deleted. "That's a stupid opinion" is an example of a comment that has no topic other than to deride someone else. Such a comment will not be tolerated on this blog.

 10. If all of that sounds unfair or defensive, get over it. That's the way it is.

Here are the rules as listed in my side-bar:

1. Absolutely no foul language (including the use of asterisks). If you are not man or woman enough to control your language, you are not welcome here...go somewhere else.

2. I am not looking for strings of commenters arguing with each other, so confine your comments to the topic at hand and address your comments to me, unless you can be exceptionally gracious and polite.

3. Since this is my blog, I am the sole arbiter of what can be placed on this blog. My decisions are final and without recourse. All anonymous comments, unsigned, will be deleted, as will ad hominem attacks against me or others.

4. Within the scope of those rules, you may feel free to have fun here (I sure will). Sarcasm, wit, half-wit, nit-wit, parody, satire, puns (especially puns), etc. are encouraged.

Friday, September 11, 2015

Tuesday, September 8, 2015


COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America .
ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 5.6%.
COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?
ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.
COSTELLO: You just said 5.6%.
ABBOTT: 5.6% Unemployed.
COSTELLO: Right 5.6% out of work.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 23%.
COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 23% unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, that’s 5.6%.
COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 5.6% or 23%?
ABBOTT: 5.6% are unemployed. 23% are out of work.
COSTELLO: If you are out of work you are unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, Congress said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.
ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.
COSTELLO: What point?
ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.
COSTELLO: To whom?
ABBOTT: The unemployed.
COSTELLO: But ALL of them are out of work.
ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.
COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?
ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!
COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look for work?
ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how it gets to 5.6%. Otherwise it would be 23%.
COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?
ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.
COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?
ABBOTT: Correct.
COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?
ABBOTT: Bingo.
COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have people stop looking for work.
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like an Economist.
COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the I just said!
ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like a Politician.

Sunday, September 6, 2015

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

So...Whose lives matter?

In response to this sheriff's declaration that ALL lives matter, the leaders of the Black Lives Matter have castigated his comments as racist, insensitive and destructive to the BLM movement.


So ONLY black lives matter?

Give me an ever-lovin'-blue-eyed break!

Come on, people! Get real!

Monday, August 31, 2015

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Monday, August 24, 2015


Friday, August 21, 2015


Saturday, July 25, 2015

Saturday, July 18, 2015

The Muslim World Laughs at Barack Obama

If this translation is accurate, the Muslims are laughing at Obama.

We should be, too.

And is Islam basically benign?

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Wednesday, July 15, 2015


Solar scientists predict that the Earth will enter a "mini ice age" around 2030 due to decreased activity by the sun, which will bring with it frigid cold winters. The last time the Earth experienced a similar situation occurred between 1645 and 1715. Photo: Albina Tiplyashina / Shutterstock
LLANDUDNO, Wales, July 11 (UPI) -- Solar scientists, armed with the best data yet regarding the activities of the sun, say the Earth is headed for a "mini ice age" in just 15 years -- something that hasn't happened for three centuries.
Professor Valentina Zharkova, of the University of Northumbria, presented the findings at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales this week, Britain's Independent reported Saturday.
Researchers, saying they understand solar cycles better than ever, predict that the sun's normal activity will decrease by 60 percent around 2030 -- triggering the "mini ice age" that could last for a decade. The last time the Earth was hit by such a lull in solar activity happened 300 years ago, during the Maunder Minimum, which lasted from 1645 to 1715.
Scientists say there are magnetic waves in the sun's interior that fluctuate between the body's northern and southern hemispheres, resulting in various solar conditions over a period of 10 to 12 years. Based on that data, researchers say they are now better able to anticipate the sun's activity -- which has led to the Zharkova team's prediction.
"Combining both [magnetic] waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 percent," Zharkova said.
If the "mini ice age" does indeed arrive, scientists say it will be accompanied by bitter cold winters -- frigid enough to cause rivers, like the Thames in London, to freeze over.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Monday, July 13, 2015

Thursday, July 9, 2015


Monday, July 6, 2015

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Rabbi Jonathan Cahn about God and America

Rabbi Jonathan Cahn about God and America

Tuesday, June 30, 2015


History books, the media, the school systems, etc abound in falsehoods and inaccuracies of Confederate and Southern history. This fact sheet will help to clarify and dispell some of these rampant inaccuracies.

MYTH - The War of 1861 - 1865 was fought over slavery.

FACT - Terribly untrue. The North fought the war over money. Plain and simple. When the South started Secession, Lincoln was asked, "Why not let the South go in peace?" To which he replied, "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" Sensing total financial ruin for the North, Lincoln waged war on the South. The South fought the War to repel Northern aggression and invasion.
MYTH - Only Southerners owned slaves.

FACT - Entirely untrue. Many Northern civilians owned slaves. Prior to, during and even after the War Of Northern Aggression.

Surprisingly, to many history impaired individuals, most Union Generals and staff had slaves to serve them! William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865.

U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. When asked why he didn't free his slaves earlier, Grant stated "Good help is so hard to come by these days."

Contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased - they were inherited) in 1862!!! Lee freed his slaves several years before the war was over, and considerably earlier than his Northern counterparts. And during the fierce early days of the war when the South was obliterating the Yankee armies!

Lastly, and most importantly, why did NORTHERN States outlaw slavery only AFTER the war was over? The so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" of Lincoln only gave freedom to slaves in the SOUTH! NOT in the North! This pecksniffery even went so far as to find the state of Delaware rejecting the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 and did not ratify it (13th Amendment / free the slaves) until 1901!
MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag was flown on slave ships.

FACT - NONE of the flags of the Confederacy or Southern Nation ever flew over a slave ship. Nor did the South own or operate any slaves ships. The English, the Dutch and the Portugese brought slaves to this country, not the Southern Nation.

BUT, even more monumental, it is also very important to know and understand that Federal, Yankee, Union ships brought slaves to America! These ships were from the New England states, and their hypocrisy is atrocious.

These Federals were ones that ended up crying the loudest about slavery. But without their ships, many of the slaves would have never arrived here. They made countless fortunes on the delivery of slaves as well as the products madefrom raw materials such as cotton and tobacco in the South.

This is the problem with Yankee history History is overwhelmingly portrayed incorrectly by most of the Federal & Yankee books and media.

MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag represented the Southern Nation.

FACT - Not true. While the Southern Battle flag was carried into battle, the Southern Nation had 3 different National flags during the course of the war.

The First National flag was changed due to a resemblance of the US flag.

The Second National flag was subsequently modified due to the similarity to a flag of truce.

The Third National flag was the adopted flag of the Confederacy.

The Confederate Battle Flag was never a National Flag of the Confederacy. It was carried into battle by several armies such as the Army Of Northen Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. Was also used as a Naval Jack by the Confederate Navy.

MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the "Stars & Bars".

FACT - A common misconception. The First National Confederate Flag is correctly known as the "Stars & Bars". The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the "Southern Cross".

MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag represents racism today.

FACT - The Confederate Battle Flag today finds itself in the center of much controversy and hoopla going on in several states. The cry to take this flag down is unjustified. It is very important to keep in mind that the Confederate Battle Flag was simply just that. A battle flag. It was never even a National flag, so how could it have flown over a slave nation or represented slavery or racism? This myth is continued by lack of education and ignorance. Those that villify the Confederate Battle Flag are very confused about history and have jumped upon a bandwagon with loose wheels.

MYTH - The United States Flag represented freedom.

FACT - No chance. The US flag flew over a slave nation for over 85 years! The North tolerated slavery and acknowledged it as a Division Of Labor. The North made a vast fortune on slavery and it's commodities. It wasn't until the South decided to leave the Union that the North objected. The North knew it could not survive without the Southern money. That is the true definition of hypocrisy.

MYTH - Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator.

FACT - While Lincoln has went down in history as the Great Emancipator, many would not care to hear his real thoughts on people of color. Martyred President Abraham Lincoln was fervently making plans to send all freed slaves to the jungles of Central America once the war was over. Knowing that African society would never allow the slaves to return back to Africa, Lincoln also did not want the slaves in the US. He thought the jungles of Central America would be the best solution and conducive to the freed slaves best interest. The only thing that kept this from happening, was his assassination.

MYTH - The South revered slavery.

FACT - A very interesting fact on slavery is that at the time the War of 1861 -1865 officially commenced, the Southern States were actually in the process of freeing all slaves in the South. Russia had freed it's servants in 1859, and the South took great note of this. Had military intervention not been forced upon the South, a very different America would have been realized then as well as now.

MYTH - The Confederate Army was comprised of rich slave owners.

FACT - Very far from true. The vast majority of soldiers in the Confederate Army were simple men of meager income. Most of which were hard working farmers and common men. Then, as now, very few rich men ever fight a war.

MYTH - Only the North had men of color in their ranks.

FACT - Quite simply a major falsehood of history. Many blacks, both free and of their own will, joined the Confederate Army to fight for their beloved Southern home. Additionally, men of other ethnic extraction fought as well. Oriental, Mexican & Spanish men as well as Native American Indians fought with pride for the South.

Today, many men of color are members in the heritage group SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans. These men of color and pride rejoice in their heritage. The continued attacks on the Southern Nation, The Confederacy, and her symbols are a terrible outrage to these fine people. These attacks should be denounced with as much fervor as those who denounce the South.

MYTH - The Confederate Flags are an authorized symbol of Aryan, KKK and hate groups.

FACT - Quite the contrary. These dispicable organizations such as the KKK and Aryans have taken a hallowed piece of history, and have plagued good Southern folks and the memories of fine Confederate Soldiers that fought under the flag with their perverse agenda. IN NO WAY does the Confederate Flag represent hate or violence. Heritage groups such as the SCV battle daily the damage done to a proud nation by these hate groups. The SCV denounces all hate groups, and pridefully boast HERITAGE - NOT HATE.

MYTH - The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a racist, hate group.

FACT - This is a blatant attack on one of the finest heritage groups ever. The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a historical, patriotic and non-political organization comprised of descendents of Confederate Soldiers and sailors dedicated to insuring that a true history of the 1861 -1865 period is preserved and presented to the public. The SCV continues to educate the public of the memory and reputation of the Confederate soldier as well as the motives for his suffering and sacrifice.

The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are in NO WAY affiliated with, nor does it recognize or condone the terrible legacy of hate groups such as the KKK.

HT Jinx Clower with Patrick A. Loghry Ssg

Monday, June 29, 2015


There has been a lot of weird reaction to SCOTUS' ObamaCare decision.

The same is true of their ruling on gay "marriage."

What actually happened was that SCOTUS sent a message to Congress to take a stand by passing or not passing legislation regarding each.

Now if Congress has the courage to directly challenge PBO (tap), it will work itself out. If not, we will lose the country that was envisioned by George, James, John and Thomas. The checks and balances will be null and void.

So, let's get on with it, you Senators and House members. Swallow hard, take a deep breath and stand up for America.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Friday, June 26, 2015

The Trouble with Black

There are three of them in our neighborhood. They are tall, they are black and they are ugly. They are unkempt and unclean. They don't belong here in their present state.

They are three black houses. Most of the houses in our neighborhood are pastels and earth tone in color. Their grass is uncut and their architecture is out of place. They are two stories high while all of the other houses in our neighborhood are single storied.

See, you thought I was speaking of black people. That is your mind set. That is what the word "black" has become. Regardless of context, if the word "black" is used it is immediately suspected of being part of a racist comment.

That myth always has been, is now and will for the foreseeable future be perpetuated by Democrats.

Now that the point has been made, I dare you to watch this video in its entirety.

Monday, June 22, 2015

Sunday, June 21, 2015

SUNDAY RESPITE-Love Will Overcome-Steven Curtis Chapman

It's with a very heavy heart that I come to you with this post. As I have prayed for and grieved with the people of Charleston SC there's one part of this terrible and tragic story in particular that continues to stir me. It's the fact that Rev. Pinckney and the other believers gathered at Emanuel AME Church to worship, pray and study God's Word opened theirHello friends, 
 hearts & made room in their "circle" for a stranger...unknowingly but willingly inviting in the very one who would take the lives of many in their circle. They chose to love...and Love never fails...Love always has the last word! As I read Romans 12:18-21 I'm struck with how profound those words are in this situation. Ultimately evil has been and will forever be overcome with good...and there is no more powerful "good" than the love of God! As we continue to pray for comfort and peace to fill the hearts of all affected by this terrible tragedy may we be inspired by the love and the lives of Rev Pinckney and the others in that circle...& may we remember that the story is far from over. Love cannot and will not fail!
With that thought I wrote this song for the people of Charleston...and to remind all of us...Love conquers all!
With a heavy but hopeful heart,

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

One of these stores illegally discriminates. Do you know which one?

We do not serve

We do not serve
tarot card readers

 We do not serve

We do not serve

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Monday, June 15, 2015


Monday, June 8, 2015

From Facebook

US is on verge of a deal with Iran. History warns us about deals with untrustworthy states

Posted by Step Up for Israel on Thursday, June 4, 2015

Monday, June 1, 2015

Smarter than You?

President George W. Bush was often characterized as some sort of buffoon. Never mind that he graduated from Yale (could you have done that?) and then Harvard Business School (could you have done that?). Never mind that he served honorably in the Texas National Guard (could you have done that?). Never mind that he formed his own company: Arbusto Energy-1977 (could you have done that?). Never mind that he ran the Texas Rangers baseball team (could you have done that?). Liberal Democrats, the people of love and compassion, hated, George W. Bush.
But the truth is, he was probably a lot smarter than you and I. We know his grades at both Yale and at Harvard Business School. 
A certain president (who shall remain unnamed but whose initials spell Barak Obama) will not let us know what kind of grades he made in school. My guess is that he is ashamed of them.
Keith Hennessey, professor at Stanford Business School, wanted to set the record straight about President Bush’s intellect. He writes:
I teach a class at Stanford Business School titled “Financial Crises in the U.S. and Europe.” During one class session while explaining the events of September 2008, I kept referring to the efforts of the threesome of Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Tim Geithner, who were joined at the hip in dealing with firm-specific problems as they arose.
One of my students asked “How involved was President Bush with what was going on?” I smiled and responded, “What you really mean is, ‘Was President Bush smart enough to understand what was going on,’ right?”
The class went dead silent. Everyone knew that this was the true meaning of the question. Kudos to that student for asking the hard question and for framing it so politely. I had stripped away that decorum and exposed the raw nerve.
I looked hard at the 60 MBA students and said “President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you.”
More silence.
I could tell they were waiting for me to break the tension, laugh, and admit I was joking.
I did not. A few shifted in their seats, then I launched into a longer answer. While it was a while ago, here is an amalgam of that answer and others I have given in similar contexts.
I am not kidding. You are quite an intelligent group. Don’t take it personally, but President Bush is smarter than almost every one of you. Were he a student here today, he would consistently get “HP” (High Pass) grades without having to work hard, and he’d get an “H” (High, the top grade) in any class where he wanted to put in the effort.
For more than six years it was my job to help educate President Bush about complex economic policy issues and to get decisions from him on impossibly hard policy choices. In meetings and in the briefing materials we gave him in advance we covered issues in far more depth than I have been discussing with you this quarter because we needed to do so for him to make decisions.
President Bush is extremely smart by any traditional standard. He’s highly analytical and was incredibly quick to be able to discern the core question he needed to answer. It was occasionally a little embarrassing when he would jump ahead of one of his Cabinet secretaries in a policy discussion and the advisor would struggle to catch up. He would sometimes force us to accelerate through policy presentations because he so quickly grasped what we were presenting.
I use words like briefing and presentation to describe our policy meetings with him, but those are inaccurate. Every meeting was a dialogue, and you had to be ready at all times to be grilled by him and to defend both your analysis and your recommendation. That was scary.
We treat Presidential speeches as if they are written by speechwriters, then handed to the President for delivery. If I could show you one experience from my time working for President Bush, it would be an editing session in the Oval with him and his speechwriters. You think that me cold-calling you is nerve-wracking? Try defending a sentence you inserted into a draft speech, with President Bush pouncing on the slightest weakness in your argument or your word choice.
In addition to his analytical speed, what most impressed me were his memory and his substantive breadth. We would sometimes have to brief him on an issue that we had last discussed with him weeks or even months before. He would remember small facts and arguments from the prior briefing and get impatient with us when we were rehashing things we had told him long ago.
And while my job involved juggling a lot of balls, I only had to worry about economic issues. In addition to all of those, at any given point in time he was making enormous decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan, on hunting al Qaeda and keeping America safe. He was making choices not just on taxes and spending and trade and energy and climate and health care and agriculture and Social Security and Medicare, but also on education and immigration, on crime and justice issues, on environmental policy and social policy and politics. Being able to handle such substantive breadth and depth, on such huge decisions, in parallel, requires not just enormous strength of character but tremendous intellectual power. President Bush has both.
On one particularly thorny policy issue on which his advisers had strong and deep disagreements, over the course of two weeks we (his senior advisers) held a series of three 90-minute meetings with the President. Shortly after the third meeting we asked for his OK to do a fourth. He said, “How about rather than doing another meeting on this, I instead tell you now what each person will say.” He then ran through half a dozen of his advisers by name and precisely detailed each one’s arguments and pointed out their flaws. (Needless to say there was no fourth meeting.)
Every prominent politician has a public caricature, one drawn initially by late-night comedy joke writers and shaped heavily by the press and one’s political opponents. The caricature of President Bush is that of a good ol’ boy from Texas who is principled and tough, but just not that bright.
That caricature was reinforced by several factors:
  • The press and his opponents highlighted President Bush’s occasional stumbles when giving a speech. President Obama’s similar verbal miscues are ignored. Ask yourself: if every public statement you made were recorded and all your verbal fumbles were tweeted, how smart would you sound? Do you ever use the wrong word or phrase, or just botch a sentence for no good reason? I know I do.
  • President Bush intentionally aimed his public image at average Americans rather than at Cambridge or Upper East Side elites. Mitt Romney’s campaign was predicated on “I am smart enough to fix a broken economy,” while George W. Bush’s campaigns stressed his values, character, and principles rather than boasting about his intellect. He never talked about graduating from Yale and Harvard Business School, and he liked to lower expectations by pretending he was just an average guy. Example: “My National Security Advisor Condi Rice is a Stanford professor, while I’m a C student. And look who’s President.
  • There is a bias in much of the mainstream press and commentariat that people from outside of NY-BOS-WAS-CHI-SEA-SF-LA are less intelligent, or at least well educated. Many public commenters harbor an anti-Texas (and anti-Southern, and anti-Midwestern) intellectual bias. They mistakenly treat John Kerry as smarter than George Bush because John Kerry talks like an Ivy League professor while George Bush talks like a Texan.
  • President Bush enjoys interacting with the men and women of our armed forces and with elite athletes. He loves to clear brush on his ranch. He loved interacting with the U.S. Olympic Team. He doesn’t windsurf off Nantucket, he rides a 100K mountain bike ride outside of Waco with wounded warriors. He is an intense, competitive athlete and a “guy’s guy.” His hobbies and habits reinforce a caricature of a [dumb] jock, in contrast to cultural sophisticates who enjoy antiquing and opera. This reinforces the other biases against him.
I assume that some who read this will react automatically with disbelief and sarcasm. They think they know that President Bush is unintelligent because, after all, everyone knows that. They will assume that I am wrong, or blinded by loyalty, or lying. They are certain that they are smarter than George Bush.
I ask you simply to consider the possibility that I’m right, that he is smarter than you.
If you can, find someone who has interacted directly with him outside the public spotlight. Ask that person about President Bush’s intellect. I am confident you will hear what I heard dozens of times from CEOs after they met with him: “Gosh, I had no idea he was that smart.”
At a minimum I hope you will test your own assumptions and thinking about our former President. I offer a few questions to help that process.
  • Upon what do you base your view of President Bush’s intellect? How much is it shaped by the conventional wisdom about him? How much by verbal miscues highlighted by the press?
  • Do you discount your estimate of his intellect because he’s from Texas or because of his accent? Because he’s an athlete and a ranch owner? Because he never advertises that he went to Yale and Harvard?
  • This is a hard one, for liberals only. Do you assume that he is unintelligent because he made policy choices with which you disagree? If so, your logic may be backwards. “I disagree with choice X that President Bush made. No intelligent person could conclude X, therefore President Bush is unintelligent.” Might it be possible that an intelligent, thoughtful conservative with different values and priorities than your own might have reached a different conclusion than you?  Do you really think your policy views derive only from your intellect?
And finally, if you base your view of President Bush’s intellect on a public image and caricature shaped by late night comedians, op-ed writers, TV pundits, and Twitter, is that a smart thing for you to do?

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

You Go, Zo

Monday, May 25, 2015

A Memorial Day Tribute

Remember, Memorial Day is not designed to recognize present day veterans, as much as they deserve recognition, Memorial Day is designed to remember those who paid the ultimate sacrifice, their lives, so that we might remain a free people.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Monday, May 18, 2015

Fundamental Change

PBO (the amateur president) lashed out at FOX News for some imagined way they report news by seeking out the radical exception to the rule and reporting on it, instead of presenting the liberal side of an issue.

Historically, the job of the press has been to help expose government excesses, corruption and largess. In the past few decades, though, there has been a change in how government behavior gets reported.The Main Stream Press discovered that there is an abundance of perks for them if they do not hit too hard at liberal political leaders and hit very hard at conservative political leaders.

Media such as the New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and a host of left wing blogs have discovered that they gain certain access to celebrities and politicians if they go easy on their foibles and make them look really cool.

If any of the media ever put pressure on a politician to change his/her behavior, you can be certain that the politician is a conservative.

Now FOX News comes along and points out things that the other MSM will not point out, such as the far too many people who vote for politicians like PBO (the amateur president) because he has dangled "ObamaPhones" or any of a myriad of other carrots in front of them, and FOX gets castigated by the rest of MSM and the liberal president.

Is there a liberal who yearns for the day when the MSM actually recognized stories and reported on them factually?

Example? Hillary Clinton.

So, how many of the issues of her moral character, her lack of action, her lying and cheating, and her hypocrisy relating to women's pay do you read or watch in the MSM. Have you seen reported in any of the media mentioned in paragraph 3 above that she pays her female employees $.72 for every $1.00 she pays her male employees? Have you seen anything but ridicule from the significance of her lost and found Emails?

You just don't see the MSM actually doing their job any more. You get only one point of view in the dozens of op ed pieces. The only place you find opposite views is on FOX News, in conservative blogs and in the few conservative newspapers. You NEVER see opposing views by hosts of the weekend talking heads.

But just like he wants to fundamentally change the United States of America, PBO (the amateur president) wants to fundamentally change the "how the media reports."

The role of the media is to keep that from happening.

Bu they won't.

Saturday, May 16, 2015

So What?

So now we hear that the Amtrak Northeast Regional Train 188 that derailed in Philadelphia was traveling at 106 MPH in a 50 MPH zone and that it might have been hit by some sort of projectile.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume it was hit in the windshield by a bullet or a rock. How would that affect the speed of the train? Whether or not it was hit, it was still going twice the speed it was supposed to go.

I smell something that is over-ripe.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Start Watching the Video at 3:39

Some things are just butt-stupid. Among the butt-stupidest are politicians.

For the sake of honesty, let's ignore that this is a report from the liberally hated FOX news channel, and just focus on the facts at hand.

At the time of this writing, the NTSB has reported that the Amtrak Northeast Regional Train 188 that derailed in Philadelphia was traveling at 106 MPH in a 50 MPH zone. For those of you educated in government schools, that's twice (2 times...2 X) the speed the curve was designed to handle.

Politicians have already begun blaming "lack of funding for infrastructure" and thereby making some kind of imagined case for more funding; i.e.: more taxes.

Here is that FOX report. The salient section begins at 3:39 into the video.

The trained derailed due to human error, not lack of infrastructure. Why does every disaster that ever occurs lead to higher taxes, or at least higher spending, when the direct cause for many is human error (or more correctly: human disregard for the rules of safety)?

What will liberals do to blame this tragedy on George Bush? Wait! The lack of infrastructure is Bush's fault!

But infrastructure had nothing to do with this accident!

No matter. It was still Bush's fault. Don't you get it? Everything bad always has been, is now, and always will be Bush's fault.

You stupid, inept, mindless liberals.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Funny and Poigniant

Peoples' skin (White, Black, Red, Yellow, etc.) has gotten so thin that our very language is becoming unusable.

Stop it! Get over it! Nobody thinks any more or less of you as a person, regardless of your skin color or ethnic origin, because of a football team's name!

What is wrong with you? Get an ever-lovin'-blue-eyed life!

Tuesday, May 12, 2015


Monday, May 11, 2015

Sunday, May 10, 2015

SUNDAY RESPITE-The First Lady in My Life-Paul Todd


Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Time to Weigh In

Do you remember back in 1987 when that offensive picture of the crucifix was put on display? It depicted a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the “artist” Andres Serrano's urine. It was all part of an exhibit sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts, a government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects, without controlling content.

Do you also remember the attacks and killings by Christians that followed? Do you remember the gun shots ringing out? Do you remember the police firing on the Christian attackers?

WOW! It was almost like Sunday night’s shooting in Garland, Texas. The cartoon drawings of Muhammad at a “Draw Muhammad” contest were offensive to Muslims.

And do you remember all of the other offenses committed against Christians and the violent response from Christians?

Following the Christian lead, shooters attacked the “Draw Muhammad” contest in Garland. One of the suspected shooters was in contact with an Islamic State recruiter who seemingly urged him to take action against organizers of the controversial event.

Two men in body armor, toting assault rifles and showing every willingness to open fire now and count their victims later staged the attack. A security officer -- a traffic officer by day -- with a pistol shot and killed both attackers. He prevented what could have been another tragedy.
Could there be a difference in how Christians respond to offenses as compared to the way Muslims respond?

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

Rosa vs Baltimore

There's not a liberal in the country who knows and/or encourages the difference. They might say that they do, but their actions speak louder than their words.

Monday, May 4, 2015

Betcha Didn't Know This

Most Americans think they know the history of slavery because it has been an abhorrent part of the American narrative taught in schools, portrayed in Hollywood, and mentioned frequently in the media.
But here is something you probably didn’t know: The first recorded American slave owner was a black man.
Anthony Johnson came to colonial America in the 1600s. He worked as an indentured servant to a tobacco farmer in Virginia. In colonial times servants typically worked under a contract of up to seven years to pay off their passage, room and board, and then their “freedom dues” — materials they would need to start life as a free person.
They were then released after the contract expired, with many of the former servants receiving land and equipment. This was the case for Anthony Johnson, who came to America under the name Antonio from Angola.
After his contract expired, he eventually received 250 acres of land. He then started a farm and enlisted the servitude of four white men and one black, who was said to be his son Richard Johnson.
While these contracts did not make one a slave, the case of John Casor — a black servant Johnson later acquired — would set a precedent and change that minor detail forever.
John Casor was working for Anthony Johnson on an indentured contract when he began seeking help from outsiders, claiming that his contract had well expired but Johnson refused to release him.
A neighbor, Robert Parker, brought a civil case against Johnson, demanding Casor be released. Parker intended to help Casor find another indenture contract.
The courts initially ruled in favor of Parker and demanded that Casor be released. Johnson did so, but after stewing in his defeat, he appealed.
On March 8, 1655, the court of Northampton County upheld Johnson’s right to hold Casor as a slave, stating in it’s ruling:
“This daye Anthony Johnson negro made his complaint to the court against mr. Robert Parker and declared that hee deteyneth his servant John Casor negro under the pretence that said negro was a free man. The court seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master … It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit.”
 This case marked the first time anyone who had not committed a crime was held as a slave for life, thus making Anthony Johnson one of the first, if not the most notorious, slave owners (H/T Gateway Pundit).

The problem with slavery is not an issue of race, but an issue of the human condition. Greed and cowardice, not skin color, made Anthony Johnson and countless other slave owners commit such treacherous acts against humanity.  Similarly, the black slaves brought to the colonies were sold to the America-bound slave ships by blacks in Africa.
More schools should teach the full story about slavery, including that of Anthony Johnson.  But as long as schools and writers of history books are held hostage by liberals in academia with their victimization agenda, we know that will never happen.
(Taken from HERE)
So here are the points I'd like to make:
The actual truth is often far different from what we might expect given the way we are taught things and the distortions afforded by those with a particular agenda.
The further away from an event in history we get, the more difficult it is to get history right. People, even "educated" people, tend to interpret history to fit their agenda.
It behooves us, therefore, to avail ourselves of documents written as close to the actual event in history. We are more likely to get it right by realizing that those who lived at the time knew more about an event than we can today. This truth has many implications and applications.

Saturday, May 2, 2015

The Delicate Balance

“It’s a very delicate balancing act, because while we tried to make sure they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we work very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to deescalate, and that’s what you saw,” said Mayor Rawlings-Blake.

She's going to protect them from the cars and other things? What does that even mean?

Oh, wait, "...we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well."???

So if you do something I don't like, I should have "space" to go out and destroy other peoples' property? 

So that you don't cry, "Out of context!" here she is:

What is this "delicate balance" she's talking about. There should be a balance between free speech and destruction?

Once again we see the logic of the Democrat/liberal mind set at work.

That statement is beyond outrageous.