Confessions of a Constitutional Crusader

Pelosi Doesn't Have Much of a Poker Face, Despite all That Expression Freezing Botox of Hers...

2012-01-25T21:17:00.000-08:00

So now that Newt has apparently become a threat to the plans of our newly elected King Barack The First (and, one hopes, only), that Nancy McBotox Pelosi has decided it's time to take off the kid gloves and get down to the nitty gritty of dirty pool politics. Or not. A while back, just after Newt announced he was running, if memory serves, Nance said point blank that she has "something" on Newt that will "insure he will never be president." Some of my readers might remember Newt's first response to this, when Gingrich called it an "early Christmas gift" due to its being a flagrant disregard and violation of the House Rules of Conduct. I don't know the House rules by heart, but in my view, any one who uses dirty tricks for the sake of taking down someone who disagrees with you belongs in the "I"m a scumbag" category of humanity. I think we all know that the leader of the most ethical congress in American history belongs quite nicely in that little niche, don't we?

Below is the video of Pelosi putting out her supposed carrot, hoping that gullible GOP voters will take the bait and abandon Newt in droves on the word of someone who never seems to be able to ttop smiling like the Joker on a Meth high. You, loyal readers, be the judge and tell me: Is Newt really in trouble or is Pelosi just whistling past the graveyard in an attempt at making things seem safe and sound for Democrats come Super Tuesday?

For my part, I say she's bluffing, and she has a major tell. Note in the first few seconds that all she says, in kind of a manic sounding voice, in my opinion, is that "it's not going to happen." How does she know? Nance here thought the Democrats would keep control of the House in 2010, if I'm not mistaken. In short, I'm thinking she's more wrong here than a Lousianna fortune teller. And apparently so does Newt:

2012-01-25T11:49:00.000-08:00

I found this video courtesy of the Mock Dock. It was made back in 2009 after an American Idol contestant was killed in a car crash after being eliminated from the show. As funny as it is, it reminds me that the brightest candles often burn the fastest.

Let the Anti-Newt Barrage Continue

2012-01-24T11:27:00.000-08:00

Let me just begin by saying I have about as much trust for the media as a housefly does for a frog. This statement can only be reinforced by the recent development being touted by Matt Drudge and Hotair, and I'm sure there are several dozen other media outlets piping it on their propaganda speakers as well.

I'm speaking of course, of Newt's supposed threat to back out of the rest of the debates if the audience is not allowed to cheer. Let me be clear here. In the video wherein Newt actually addresses the point of the moderators asking that the audience hold their applause until commercial breaks, Newt does not say anything about quitting. What he said was that he didn't appreciate and would not condone such acts by media moderators. A perfectly reasonable response, in my view, given Newt's tendency not to beat around the bush about such things. Unfortunately his choice of words and the pandering of the media outlets to the Stop Newt campaign have taken this theme and run with it. It remains to be seen if any of this will affect the outcome of Florida's primary. Romney appears to have, in a last ditch effort to regain his lead among Sunshine State voters, given this meme more than a little airtime himself. Via Legal Insurrection:

Here’s how CNS transcribed the segment (h/t Gateway Pundit):

“And we’re going to serve notice on future debates, we won’t (mumble), we’re just not going to allow that to happen. That’s wrong. The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to. It was almost silly.”

The claim that Newt threatened to pull out of future debates, at least if this video is the proof, is a fabrication of The NY Times being hyped by Drudge.

To the contrary, if I were Newt and the network set such rules, I’d show up and in my opening announce that the audience does not need to obey the network, and invite the others on stage to join him. Is there any candidate who would not go along?

I have to agree with that sentiment. I haven't yet watched the debate, but all reports I've heard so far are Newt has lost said debate because of apparently falling into a bit of a trap regarding disclosure. More on that as I learn of it.

To end, here's my boy Newt's stance on an issue I thought long dead: The Ground Zero Mosque:

Tortoise and the Hare: Is Romney's new Status as a Giant With Clay Feet due to Early Overconfidence?

2012-01-22T21:49:00.000-08:00

So soon after South Carolina, Romney, whose nomination was once thought inevitable, is now beginning to crumble due to his lackluster performance in which he flubbed the chance to come clean about his tax returns in addition to giving an overall decidedly ho-hum performance, especially when compared to Newt Gingrich and his confident lambasting of John King and the media in general, as well as his far more confident display of his record while serving as Speaker of the House. Santorum made a decent showing, even if it was too little too late to go on the offense for him, at least in my view.

Regardless, it would seem that everyone and their brother has decided that Romney is now in a less than tenable position regarding his campaign, as if that wasn't obvious by the stomping Newt gave him last week. Still, it would seem that the only ones who don't yet know that Newt has pulled ahead is the Romney campaign themselves. Or perhaps they do know it, since Romney has now been backed into a corner and forced to actually commit to the Florida debates, something he had initially declined to do while he was so far ahead. To be perfectly honest, in this climate now, Romney has to enter damage control mode immediately, and entering into the debates is the most immediate way, aside from an ad blitz that will likely hit Florida in the coming days, as well as is concession speech, in which he needled Newt without actually mentioning him by name.

The question of whether or not this will help is certainly in doubt. Mitt had a big lead in Florida prior to SC, but now things seem to have turned around, if this article is any indication. Though even with the prep work Romney has done to shore up his defenses and prepare to go on the attack in the Sunshine State, this particular political junkie believes that it might not be enough. Then again, Newt could have another moment where he squanders his momentum. Call me optimistic, but I don't think that'll happen. Newt is a man who learns from his mistakes, as far as I can tell, and I think he's learned well from this one.

Still, Mitt has an uphill battle ahead of him now whereas before it seemed to be a lock. Even now on Twitter, the first pre-debate polls have been released and it's not looking good for the governor. Gingrich appears to be enjoying a nine point lead. It appears that Mittens may have to take off the kid gloves if he has a hope of winning back the senior citizen/retiree demographic.

Newt Wins South Carolina! What's Next for the Former Speaker?

2012-01-21T19:26:00.000-08:00

Well, the results are in boys and girls. It looks like Newt has carried South Carolina, according to Twitter, Hot Air, FiveThirtyEight and CBS News. All are different mediums, but they all say the same thing. Newt has won the day. We now, interestingly enough, have a three way tie between three candidates in as many states. Santorum won Iowa, Romney won New Hampshire, and now Newt has won SC after the pundits and talking heads continued to squawk about how Romney would be the inevitable nominee and we should all just bend over and take it like good little sheep. Well, the pundits all showed just how much they knew about who is and is not electable. After an early muck up in Iowa, it seems Newt has the momentum he needs to really give Romney a run for his money.

What's interesting is watching the different takes on what it means now that Newt has won. The next stop of course is Florida, where until recently Romney had an insurmountable lead against his now chief rival. FiveThirtyEight holds that things will be much more difficult for the former Governor than they were before, since the poll data that determined Romney's lead was factoring in a possible Gingrich defeat in the Palmetto State.

CBS News, on the other hand, shies away from predicting the future and simply states the facts. Newt won, end of story. Probably a good idea since no one really knows what will happen with Newt now that he's in a position to go all the way.

Hot Air appears to have liveblogged the entire event, with regular updates leading all the way up to Newt's victory. Allahpundit comments on Twitter that Newt won over most every demographic in the state, most of whom were for Romney up until debate night. Apparently someone doesn't think much of scoring a come from behind victory based on two debates, calling us the U.S. of American Idol.

Romney's boys appear to have seen the writing on the wall early, if this photo is any indication. Tough luck, guys.

Here's the actual exit poll information via New York Times for all those interested.

And that's the skinny, boys and girls. And next on the list? Florida. Onward and upward. If Newt pulls a win there, perhaps it'll be the first time since Reagan's inauguration that it will well and truly be "morning in America". What better place to usher in a new Conservative dawn than the Sunshine State, I ask you?

Mitt Romney Collapsing in SC?

2012-01-21T14:22:00.000-08:00

So much for the inevitable rise and election of Mitt Romney. If indications in South Carolina are any indication, Mitt seems to be a giant whose clay feet have at last been revealed, and are beginning to suffer being chipped away little by little as Newt rises to overtake him. The Other McCain has more. Check it out.

Thursday's Debate: An Analysis of South Carolina one Candidate at a Time

2012-01-21T13:20:00.000-08:00

I'm two days late with this, but that's only because as of this writing, I have literally just finished watching my TiVoed recording of the South Carolina debate between the remaining candidates.

We began the primary season with seven candidates. A Minnesota Congresswoman, a CEO, a former Speaker of the House, a former Governor, a current Congressman, and a former Senator. Now,with the developments happening as they have, we have been reduced to four. Herman Cain was ousted after sexual harassment charges proved he didn't have what it took to stand against the smear machine that attacks all candidates that go through this process. Michelle Bachmann shot herself in the foot with her Gardasil comments, but was really taken out of the running when Rick Perry came in blustering about how he was the ideal "Not Romney".

Now we are left with four: The Speaker, the Senator, the Congressman, and the former Governor. Each of these has, whether through luck or skill, has proven that they have staying power of some kind or another. As regular readers know, I've thrown my support, meager as it is, behind Newt Gingrich in the event of losing both Bachmann and Cain. Each of the candidates in the SC debate gave a strong showing, in my opinion. Even Ron Paul, who normally comes off as naive on foreign policy, seems to have gained some footing this time around, though that may have largely been due to the fact that the moderator, John King of CNN, stuck mostly to domestic policy questions with Paul, where admittedly he shines, but more on him later.

First, let's start with what was clearly the highlight of the debate, Newt's utter lambasting of John King for bringing up the recent interview ABCInformer held with his ex-wife Marrianne. I posted the video of the exchange in my last post, and have to admit that every time I see it, I get a tingle. Now, don't go comparing me to Chris Matthews or anything. I'm well aware of Newt's foibles, but when any politician does what he did there, standing up against the unmitigated gall of the MSM to bring personal information to bear in a presidential debate against a conservative contender for president while at the same time actively protecting Barack Obama from so much as the slightest bit of honest criticism about his record. Many are saying that that response won Newt the debate, and I was initially inclined to agree with them until I realized I was letting my support for Newt blind me to the other candidates' responses to the questions being asked.

Governor Romney did well for himself, though there were some awkward moments when the question of tax returns came up. When asked point blank by King whether or not he would release the returns, he said specifically "when my taxes are done for this year, then I'll release them." This was after a bit of wishy-washy flip-flop sounds coming out of his mouth as he attempted to dodge the issue. Makes me wonder why he's waiting. Could he have something to hide? Or does he just not want to deal with the hassle of filing taxes while he's running for the highest office in the land? I don't know, and only time can answer that riddle.

Rick Santorum FINALLY went on the offense in the debate, blasting the other candidates on all things from tax policy to abortion. His strongest argument, I believe, was when he spoke out as the only "truly pro-life" candidate in the race. This, I think, was Santorum finally flashing his social conservative cred in the hopes of getting the same kind of support he had in Iowa. It may or may not work, but if it doesn't Santorum will have to reconsider his run for the White House and back either Gingrich or Romney. But what does that mean, "truly pro-life"? Does it mean that he's the only one who's worked towards protecting unborn children while working in Washington? I don't know. Newt is pro-life as well, but Santorum, in perceiving a weak spot, tried to hit Gingrich in the chink in his armor and, I believe missed the mark. Just because Newt made a few decisions not in line with what Santorum sees as pro-life doesn't mean Newt cares any less about the unborn. Whether this will hurt Santorum or not remains to be seen, but the news buzz around the net and blogs suggests that the race may be all but over for the former Senator. Personally, I'll wait for the results to actually come in before I make that prediction.

Romney seemed less like the flip-flopper everyone says he is and largely remained consistent with his responses to King's questions, as well as the other candidate's challenges. Baine Capital didn't directly come up to rear its ugly head, which was fortunate for Romney, and when King asked about his economic views, Romney answered. After hearing him speak, I think Mitt, from an economic standpoint, would be a decent president. The major problem I have with his tendency to change his mind. Governor Romney did well for himself overall, though there were some awkward moments when the question of tax returns came up. When asked point blank by King whether or not he would release the returns, he said specifically "when my taxes are done for this year, then I'll release them." This was after a bit of wishy-washy flip-flop sounds coming out of his mouth as he attempted to dodge the issue. Makes me wonder why he's waiting. Could he have something to hide? Or does he just not want to deal with the hassle of filing taxes while he's running for the highest office in the land? I don't know, and only time can answer that riddle.

Consistency is Mitt's main weakness, and remains so, which explains why his support has stayed steady rather than rising or falling significantly during his run for the nomination. People appear too reluctant to swing his way, and as such, have gravitated towards the other three candidates in more or less equal portions. To that end, our next stop: Texas.

Specifically Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has a reputation as a staunch Constitutionalist, and it is well deserved. The man reportedly has never voted to raise congressional pay, never voted for an unbalanced budget, and has voted consistently in line with his views all through his time in Washington. Domestically, he's everything you could want in a presidential candidate, from his desire to return us to the gold standard to his ideas on cutting back on foreign aid and to as he put it "stop subsidizing" other countries by using our military to defend them when they should be defending themselves. All in all decent ideas that have merit. But where Paul falls short is foreign policy. In dealing with other countries, Paul specifically stated in the last debate that we needed a "Golden Rule" premise when dealing with countries like Iran. This is the kind of foreign policy that will likely get more Americans killed than anything else, since just because we leave other countries alone, it doesn't mean they're going to leave us alone.

Finally, we come to Newt Gingrich and his performance. While trying to remain objective, I do still believe that Newt won the debate, and reminded me a bit of old footage of Ronald Reagan talking to the press. The main difference was in tone of voice. While Reagan would talk OVER the press and deflect unwanted questions with a well placed joke, Newt made it clear that he was most certainly not going to take any of King's guff, and brought the hammer down on the issue immediately.. You've all probably already seen the footage, so I won't go into it here, but I found that Newt's tone for the entire exercise was set by that one exchange. A lot of people deride Newt for his boastful attitude, but name me one candidate that had a backbone and DIDN'T sound (at least a little) like an arrogant gasbag. Even Reagan had those moments, most notably when he walked away from the table in Iceland when the Soviets tried to use diplomacy to kill SDI. Or how about this little gem from his speech at the Berlin Wall? A bit arrogant of him to call out Gorby like that, no? Well, to some it certainly was. That doesn't mean Reagan was a bad president. In fact I argue that it made him a better one, since whatever arrogance he possessed likely helped him in his decisions to walk away from the table and tell the Soviets to "tear down this wall".

Sorry about that. Got a bit off topic.

Back to Newt's debate performance: He did well, long story short. His answers were clear and concise. He defended his record with the steel spine a president needs, and he stood by previous statements he made. That, in my view, is why I'm declaring Newt the winner. He proved that he can stand the heat, and that's what we're going to need. Someone who's been through the fire before with a proven record of success.

Way to go, Newt. Way to go.

Conservative Porn at it's Finest: Newt Gingrich Edition

2012-01-19T22:03:00.000-08:00

This video, taken from tonight's debate in South Carolina, is without doubt my favorite moment yet of the primary season in general, and of the debate itself as well. Watch Newt utterly DESTROY the moderator from CNN, garnering another standing ovation from the audience similar to the one he got when he lambasted Ron Paul for his naive foreign policy ideas. If Newt keeps this up, he'll sail into the White House on a tidal wave of votes.

Rising From the Ashes: Phoenix Candidate Newt get's Much Needed Boost as Perry Drops Out

2012-01-19T09:09:00.000-08:00

Well , boys and girls, the interview that I posted about last night just before going to bed has aired. Via The Hill, a video clip now exists of Marrianne Gingrich telling the interviewer in question that Newt wanted an open marriage so that he could keep Callista on as a mistress while at the same time remaining married to Marrianne. Whether this is true or not, I have no idea, though it doesn't mesh with the story she told in 1999, which Legal Insurrection explains in perfect brevity. I don't particularly care, in truth. My interest in the Gingrich campaign is on his ideas and his record, which more than make him qualified for the highest office in the land. The polls in South Carolina agree with me, given that Newt is now within 3 points of Romney mere days before the primary. I won't go into how the timing of the interview seems more than a little coincidental, but if I start screaming bias everywhere I go, it'll be all I see, and I'll start sounding the way Michelle Bachmann sounded when she doubled down on her Gardasil comments despite having no solid proof as to whether or not it was true. ABC News has the full skinny on the interview, and the clip I mentioned can be read there as well. There's also Newt's response to the interview, a class act, which can be viewed here.

And now that the bad news is out of the way, it's time for a pallet cleanser in the form of several pieces of good news regarding Newt and his campaign. First, we begin with the big ticket item in the news, Perry's dropping out and endorsing Newt, which has been confirmed by Legal Insurrection, Peter Hamby on Twitter, as well as Hot Air. Part of me was surprised at the fact that he didn't fall in line behind those in the Romney camp, but then I realized that he's staked his entire political image on being an anti-Romney. For him to endorse the very person he's been railing against all this time would only be political suicide in all things not having to do with the Oval Office, should he choose to pursue a Senate or House seat in the future. Either way, Perry's endorsement can only help solidify Newt's claim to being the strongest "not Romney" in the race, though the question of how much still remains in doubt. Lastly, Politico reports that the disorganization of the campaign is still with them even to the bitter end, and the exit is proving to be just as rough as the rest of the ride.

In other pro-Newt news, It appears that, according to The Daily Caller, approximately 100 Tea Party leaders from 25 states will coalesce around Newt Gingrich, giving him a more solidified foundation regarding his stance in the eyes of the Tea Party. This will likely, in my view, make up for the fact that Perry, who was only polling six percent in South Carolina, probably won't affect Newt as much as one would hope had he been doing better. Still, good news is good news, and that's what I see here.

And thus stands the current state of the campaign of future President Newton Gingrich. More to come in the days ahead, faithful readers. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: New Rassmussen Poll has Newt taking a narrow lead against Mittens in SC, and provides the real insight as to why Perry dropped out.

Opening Old Wounds: Gingrich's ex Dishes on Dirty Laundry we Already Know About

2012-01-18T22:27:00.000-08:00

It would seem that democrats and liberals aren't the only one's who don't believe that Newt Gingrich is fit to be President of the United States. As I was milling about the internet in search of more news regarding the primaries and the progress of Newt's campaign, I somehow became lost and found myself on the Huffington Post website. Usually I only go there when I've nowhere else to go for information, but the headline of the piece in question caught my eye, mainly due to it being potentially damaging to Newt's resurgent momentum.

The basic story is this: Newt's second wife, Marrianne, has decided to do an interview with ABC insider about her thoughts on her ex-husband's presidential bid. Reading the piece through, it became apparent to me that Newt could have walked on water, healed the sick, and restored sight to the blind during his campaign and she still would likely have said he had no chance of gaining entrance to the Oval Office. Here are some choice quotes from the article:

"He could have been president," she said. "But when you try and change your history too much, and try and recolor it because you don't like the way it was or you want it to be different to prove something new ... you lose touch with who you really are. You lose your way."

"He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don't have to be connected," Gingrich added, in the Esquire interview. "If you believe that, then yeah, you can run for president."

In the Esquire interview, Marianne also dismisses the conversion to Catholicism during his current, and third, marriage. She said it "has no meaning."
These don't sound like the thoughts of a woman who is out there trying to give an objective opinion on one of the candidates for the Republican nomination. More likely, they're the rantings of an embittered woman still smarting from having been served divorce papers years ago. After all, a jilted ex-wife is hardly the most objective source to go to for information regarding a presidential hopeful, now isn't it? My personal favorite is the part where she says Newt converting to Catholicism "has no meaning". Who exactly is this woman to say that converting to a certain faith has no meaning? To whom does it have no meaning, exactly? To her? to the American people? To Newt himself? She doesn't elaborate so I don't know, but my gut is telling me that in fact Newt being Catholic has no meaning to her. But then, of course it doesn't have any meaning to her. She's not married to him anymore. Why would she even care what religion Newt is unless she just wanted to bring it up to hurt his chances at getting the nomination?

I don't really know what her motives are for certain, but regardless, I doubt that this interview that's going to air before the primary will hurt Newt TOO much. His dirty laundry is already out there for all to see if they spend all of five minutes searching Google. Yes, we know he's been married three times. We know that he had an affair with his current wife before divorcing her and marrying Callista. The bedside divorce aspect of the story (which, unless I'm mistaken, Marriane is the wife he divorced in that narrative) is a myth. Newt did not serve his wife divorce papers as she was dying of cancer, as the narrative goes. I won't go into the actual details because frankly they've been run through the ringer far too much for me to even care about them anymore.

Not to be outdone by a bitter divorcee, the Gingrich sisters have written a letter to ABC explaining the situation as it stands from their point of view, and I can't help but be impressed by the articulate defense they present on their father's behalf. Here's the letter in its entirety:

To: ABC News Leadership
From: Kathy Lubbers, Jackie Cushman
Date: January 18, 2012

The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved. Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events.

We will not say anything negative about our father’s ex-wife. He has said before, privately and publicly, that he regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves.

ABC News or other campaigns may want to talk about the past, just days before an important primary election. But Newt is going to talk to the people of South Carolina about the future -- about job creation, lower taxes, and about who can defeat Barack Obama by providing the sharpest contrast to his damaging, extreme liberalism. We are confident this is the conversation the people of South Carolina are interested in having.

Our father is running for President because of his grandchildren -- so they can inherit the America he loves. To do that, President Obama must be defeated. And as the only candidate in the race, including Obama, who has actually helped balance the national budget, create jobs, reform welfare, and cut taxes and spending, Newt felt compelled to run -- to serve his country and safeguard his grandchildren's future.

Bravo, girls. Bravo.

Everyone Deserves a Second Chance

2012-01-18T09:24:00.000-08:00

It has come to my attention yet again, dear readers, that Newt Gingrich's campaign is once more on the rise. Another sign of revival from Hot Air speculates that the new resurgence of Newt's campaign after the South Carolina debate two nights ago is in fact real. The stats now put Romney within 3 points of Gingrich in SC, whereas before Romney had a reported 14 point lead just days before the debate. This of course speaks to the power of a good debate performance, and lends credence to Newt's ability to speak over the rhetoric and race baiting questions of the MSM and moderators. If Newt doesn't squander this newly regained momentum, as he did in Iowa, he could give Romney a real run for his money in the months to come. Via Hot Air:

The race for the Republican presidential nomination is now nearly even with Mitt Romney still on top but Newt Gingrich just three points apart.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters nationwide shows Romney with 30% support and Gingrich with 27% of the vote. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, who was running second two weeks ago, has now dropped to 15%.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul captures 13% support from likely primary voters, and Texas Governor Rick Perry remains in last place with four percent (4%). Another four percent (4%) like some other candidate in the race, and seven percent (7%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

But the story in the new numbers, taken Tuesday night, is Gingrich’s jump 11 points from 16% two weeks ago. Romney’s support is essentially unchanged from 29% at that time, while Santorum is down six points from 21%. Paul’s and Perry’s support is also unchanged. Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman earned four percent (4%) of the vote at the start of the month but dropped out of the race this week. This suggests that many voters are still looking for an alternative to Romney and currently see Gingrich as that candidate.

I'm reminded, oddly, of the Lady of the Lake just now, of Arthurian Legend. In the stories revolving around Britain's greatest King, Lady Nimue of the Lake is portrayed often as a creature of seemingly random and unexpected behavior, whose moods shift with the ebb and flow of the tides themselves. It appears to this humble blogger that Newt's campaign is doing much the same. One minute Newt is out, the next he's back in. Some will say that this cements the nomination for Romney, but in my view, I believe this only means that the outcome of the race is still in doubt, and thus we should definitely keep our eyes open. With each piece of news like this, all the Newt naysayers out there might have a new song to sing come Election Day.

Newt Gingrich Gains more Newtmentum...And acts as Though he's Already Won

2012-01-17T23:57:00.000-08:00

So here we have a second burst of momentum for the Gingrich faction. This is good news for Newt supporters like myself, given that I believe him to be the best man for the job in light of the loss of Herman Cain, and the fizzling of Michelle Bachmann's campaign. Yet even as he regains lost momentum and stands to become the frontrunner once more, it appears as though Newt's ego may be a bit of a detriment to his goal of attaining the nomination and the White House. I'm speak of a new story via Hot Air in which Gingrich appears to have hinted at Rick Santorum to drop out of the race and endorse him:

Mr. Gingrich made clear that he is not asking Mr. Santorum to leave the race, but the remark reflects the boastfulness the former speaker often displays when he feels a sudden boost in momentum.

“I would be delighted if he decided to endorse me,” he told reporters here after being asked if Mr. Santorum should drop out. “I’m respectful that Rick has every right to run as long as he feels that’s what he should do. But from the standpoint of the conservative movement, consolidating into a Gingrich candidacy would, in fact, virtually guarantee victory on Saturday.”

Mr. Santorum essentially tied Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucuses and Mr. Gingrich for fourth place in last week’s New Hampshire primary. But Mr. Gingrich often says [he] is the only Republican contender who can run a national campaign besides front-runner Mr. Romney. “I don’t think Santorum could do any of that,” he said. “It’s not because he’s not a nice guy, he just doesn’t have the knowledge that I do.

I enjoy reading Tina Korbe, but honestly I think the headline of this piece is a little misleading and a tad disingenuous. Gingrich did not in fact say, as is perfectly evident above, that he would be delighted if Santorum dropped out of the race. Honestly, who wouldn't be delighted to have a former rival come forward and make himself an ally? I'm betting the same would be true of Santorum being delighted if Newt dropped out and endorsed him, rather than the other way around. It seems to me, and is implied by Tina herself, that Gingrich's mistake (if indeed a mistake was made, which I'm not certain is the case here) was that he said it out loud. Funny, nobody said anything about it being a mistake when Newt lambasted both Ron Paul and Juan Williams. Why should another direct answer to a question that was in all actuality nothing but the truth be any different than those two debate follow ups? I don't know.

Another interesting development comes via the blog Motivation Truth. I don't stop off there as often as I do some other sites, but this time it proved interesting and relevant to my following of Newt's campaign. The author of the blog reports that apparently, Sarah Palin has all but endorsed the former speaker by saying "If I were a South Carolinian, I'd vote for Newt." Now, it's not an official endorsement by any means, but even a whisper of approval from Sarah Palin is worth listening to, given her power to change debates with a single Facebook note or Twitter post. Does this mean that the former Alaska governor has chosen her candidate and is only giving us a taste of what might be, as was her style back when we were all asking the question of whether or not Sarah herself would make a run for the White House? Only time will tell. In the meantime, my watchdog duties will continue.

Returning to the issue of Newt being delighted should Santorum endorse him, it would appear that the boastful Newt has returned, at least for now. But then, every politician to some degree is boastful. Even Ronald Reagan, by far one of the humblest presidents I've ever known of, had a bit of gravitas and pride that gave him the steel spine he needed to take on and defeat the Soviet Union. I don't believe that this one remark about Santorum is in any way going to really hurt Newt, but that could of course be wishful thinking on my part, however unlikely the possibility.

Lastly, my support of Newt largely comes from his stances on things like national security, his record as Speaker of the House in the nineties, and his belief that every American has the right to pursue happiness and should earn their own money through a job rather than having it handed to them by Uncle Sam. Santorum's social stances strike a chord with me, but without the economic and foreign policy stances (though I admit to knowing nothing about Santorum's foreign policy ideas) the man sort of rings hollow to me, as if he were a sort of "incomplete" candidate. There is one issue, however, where I believe they both have a good position that is effective and appealing. Santorum wants to aggressively attack the debt and slowly reform Social Security, and Newt would rather aggressively reform SS first and then take care of the debt little by little. Either plan would work if properly implemented and handled with discipline and foresight, because either way both goals get achieved. All in all, that particular stance is six of one, half a dozen of the other to me.

Looks Like Newt Might be Getting Better

2012-01-17T11:22:00.000-08:00

After my analysis of the field last night concerning the GOP field of potential nominees, I've come to the conclusion that Newt Gingrich may in fact have gotten the resurgence he's needed since his disastrous attack on Mitt Romney concerning Baine Capital. Specifically I'm speaking of the recent debate he had with the other GOP hopefuls. From reports on Twitter and Fox News, as well as The Other McCain, it looks as though Newt's campaign has been given a much-needed shot in the arm by his performance in the debate. I, as a Gingrich supporter, and more than a little relieved at the possibility that Newt's campaign has been revived, given that he, in my view, is the most Reaganesque candidate we've had since the Gipper himself was on the national stage. The South Carolina debates last night, as I've heard second hand from the above sources, Newt garnered a standing ovation after he called out Ron Paul for his "Golden Rule" national security nonsense. That alone is something to take notice of, since there hasn't been a standing ovation at any debate since Ronald Reagan's performance in New Hampshire in 1980.

Honestly, though, if his debate performance is any indication, Ron Paul has killed his campaign chances due to the fact that he simply has no understanding of just how much (or for that matter, the real reason why) the Middle East despises us. He continually cites, in his speeches on the Senate Floor and now on the campaign trail, that we bring it on ourselves through our occupation of the Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Now I'll be fair and say that Paul is a man of his convictions, and opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts from the beginning, as he continues to do so now, but that doesn't excuse his getting facts completely wrong. First off, the "occupation" that he rails against is one that was conducted at the invitation of the then-King of Saudi Arabia. I just watched the seven minute video via Hot Air's site that detailed Paul's response to Brett Baer's question regarding the congressman's complaints over the Bin Laden raid, and Lord Almighty, he makes virtually no sense at all. Not only that he sounded like a whiner when Brett completely destroys him with further follow up questions, resorting to Paul becoming little more than a stammering idiot. Why do people follow this man?

Gingrich, on the other hand, simply destroys Paul's argument with a simple statement: "Osama bin Laden was not a Chinese dissident." He then goes on to say, using Andrew Jackson as an example, that the best way to deal with our enemies is to kill them. Simple common sense from the former Speaker. Gotta love it. It's for that reason and that reason alone that I continue to support Gingrich over the RINO favorite Mitt Romney or the socially conservative Rick Santorum. To be perfectly fair, Paul did regain some footing when he mentioned that we needed to quit the wars we're in and bring the troops home, but it not the thunderous ovation that Gingrich received for dressing him down mere minutes before that, nor does it make up entirely for the nonsensical rambling he'd engaged in previously.

That being said, my previous warnings not to count Newt out of the race appear to be proving valid. When the former speaker talks turkey and lays out the facts, he's dead on. What he needs to do from this point on to win the nomination is, in my opinion, to stop the personal attacks, run against Obama rather than against Romney, and continue to provide the American people with an alternative to the current empty suit we have in the White House.

And Another One Bites the Dust: Analysis of the Post-Huntsman Field

2012-01-16T12:01:00.000-08:00

Well, it took a bit longer than I thought it would, but Jon Huntsman, via various sources including The Other McCain, Twitter, and various others, has dropped out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination. This leaves us with only a few contenders even as primary season just begins. As I write this, only New Hampshire and Iowa have decided who they want to get the nod from the RNC. Their choice has been revealed in a very close race in Iowa and in a landslide in New Hampshire to be Mitt "mittens" Romney, famed flip flopper and architect of the infamous Romneycare, which has in turn been used to construct the framework for the most hated piece of legislation since the Alien and Sedition Acts, Obamacare. Trailing behind Romney in these states is Gingrich (my personal choice, with the deaths of the Cain and Bachmann campaigns) Perry, and Santorum. My belle Michelle is still in the race, but she has now taken the place of John Huntsman as most impotent candidate, and poses no threat at all, in this humble blogger's view, of taking the nomination from Romney, Santorum or Gingrich.

Gingrich, by his own admission, believes himself capable of winning South Carolina, but of course what else can he say given that he's lost two of the most influential states in the union to a dark horse and an establishment candidate? Newt's optimism may in fact be genuine and not political posturing as some may or may not think, but after several gaffs of his, some of which occurred well before the campaign for president began in earnest, if Newt does in fact lose SC, he's going to have to seriously reconsider whether or not he's going to acquire that coveted prize that is the Republican nomination. If he doesn't get it, as even I'm beginning to believe he might not, then the question becomes who will Gingrich endorse? Will it hurt or help said candidate should Gingrich drop out? In my view, he'd only have two choices, as Perry's campaign continues to remain on life support, just ahead of Bachmann's in the viability category.

First choice, and my hopeful choice should he endorse rather than win: Santorum. Rick Santorum has gained a good deal of momentum, just as the other "not Romney" candidates have each in turn gained momentum throughout the tumultuous race for the chance to beat Obama. Santorum also appears to have gained a good deal of support in Texas. More support, it appears, than Perry even has, and it's Perry's home state. I seem to recall another presidential candidate, John Edwards, who couldn't carry his own home state during the 2008 Democratic primaries. Could Perry be the GOP's John Edwards? It's looking that way to me.

Second choice, and really the only other viable choice is in fact Romney. Should Newt endorse Romney, it is my prediction that the nomination will go to the former Bay State governor, lock stock and barrel. Newt will also cement his undeserved reputation as a RINO in the eyes of many. My fears of this occurrence also include the possibility that many Republican voters will stay home and not vote at all because "their guy" didn't make the cut. However absurd that is, it's what happened with Chuck DeVore during the California Senatorial Primary race. That's why we got Barbara "Senator Ma'am" Boxer for another six years instead of Carly Fiorina.

In conclusion, it's looking more and more plausible by the day that Romney will win the nomination. The odds are certainly in his favor, so far as I can tell. Yet at the same time, I'm not going to shift my support from Gingrich just yet. After all, nobody in the establishment thought Reagan could win, or for that matter even Rutherford B. Hayes all those decades ago was thought to be a loser candidate, yet both of them still won the day. In short, don't count out the Newt. He might just surprise us all.

No, Virginia, This is no Way to Be

2011-12-30T11:57:00.000-08:00

Red State has an interesting little piece on the Virginia ballot debacle. Apparently they don't think much more of the process than Newt Gingrich or his campaign manager does. The site screams favortism given for Paul and Romney, given that they were able to secure half again as many signatures as necessary (15,000 as opposed to 10,000) and thus didn't garner the same scrutiny as the ones who didn't make the magic number. Well, that's just dandy. So people who get 15000 signatures don't get as closely scrutinized as people with only 14,999? Dumb. Just plain dumb.

That's my personal opinion anyway, but I can see where we, being fallible human beings, would take the lazy approach and just say "Well, he got fifteen thousand, the probability of five thousand signatures being false isn't likely." Well, to that I say bull. If anything, just by the nature of positive correlations, the more signatures you bring in, the more scrutiny you deserve, given that the percentage increase means it's far more likely that fraud WILL occur. After all, a percentage of 10000 is a lot smaller than a percentage of 15000. Fifty percent smaller, in fact. You'd think this would warrant a bit more attention from the VA Republican Party.

Not to be, apparently. Still, as I mentioned before, this is only one state out of fifty. It won't look good for the candidates that were looking forward to these primaries, but with all eyes on Iowa right now, VA seems to be small potatoes right now. But that's just me.

A Day That Will Live in Infamy...for Newt and his Campaign at Least

2011-12-24T20:23:00.000-08:00

It would seem that even a major setback like not being able to qualify for the Virginia presidential ballot is going to deter Newt from winning the 2012 nomination. Comparing it to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, his campaign manager has stated that they will soldier on. Gotta admire the guy's guts. It's why I've thrown my lot in with him to win the nomination after the unfortunate rise and fall of first Michelle Bachmann, then Rick Perry, and lastly Herman Cain. Regular readers will no doubt realize that I was somewhat torn between Bachmann and Cain, until the Gardasil comment from Bachmann and the bogus sexual harassment allegations concerning Cain knocked them both, for all intents and purposes, out of the running. If for some reason the link doesn't work, here's the facebook note in its entirety.

By now you've likely heard that our effort to gain access to the primary ballot in Virginia was not successful. This was not due to a lack of effort by our volunteers, but the cumbersome process in Virginia.

We are exploring alternate methods to compete in Virginia - stay tuned.

Going forward, we will be as in-front of the process as possible and with the help of our grassroots volunteers we will make all other deadlines.

Newt and I have talked three or four times today and he stated that this is not catastrophic - we will continue to learn and grow. Remember that it was only a few months ago that pundits and the press declared us dead after the paid consultants left. They declared that the decision not to compete in the Ames Straw Poll would mean that Iowans would ignore us. Some will again state that this is fatal.

Newt and I agreed that the analogy is December 1941: We have experienced an unexpected set-back, but we will re-group and re-focus with increased determination, commitment and positive action. Throughout the next months there will be ups and downs; there will be successes and failures; there will be easy victories and difficult days - but in the end we will stand victorious.

To help achieve that outcome we each need to spend the next 24 hours enjoying our families and friends as much as possible. Enjoy their company. Be grateful for them. Gather strength from them. The promise of a better future for our family and friends is the reason we are committed to rebuilding the America we love.

May the spirit of the season fill each of you. Merry Christmas.

Michael Krull
National Campaign Director

The analogy fits quite well, I think. It caught them by surprise, and it's put their plans in a place that they didn't think they were going to be. Some of the commenters on the thread, however, are a little less than cordial. As mentioned above in the letter, the campaign manager calls the snafu a setback. But it seems that some don't appreciate the analogy. here are a few choice tidbits:

Pitfuful. Newt, if your team can't accomplish this administrative task, how could your administration deal with the real challenges that face the president?

Perhaps we should change the law just for your campaign? You are a part of the failed system if you can not follow the rules. It clearly says that write-in ballots will not be counted so why would you pursue this? These laws were written by the people and for the people and that includes you. Do not stoop to the democrats level and try to change the rules to suit your present needs.

Yeah you not getting on the Virginia ballot is just like Dec.7,1941. I didn't get all I wanted for xmas, now I know how the families of that 9/11 thing felt.

No you idiot, it's not like Pearl Harbor. It's called a horrendous ground game who doesn't know wtf it's doing. Why don't you just head to the moon and start your lunar colony already or something?

Honestly, people. This is not the time to insult a man just for making a mistake. And the comparison isn't in the least distasteful. Not that it matters in the slightest. For all those who think Virginia is going to make all the difference, it won't. It's one state among fifty. Newt still has 49 more ballots to try for. That being said, there are other ways to get on the ballot, I'm sure, though I admit I don't know that much about how things work in Virginia. Regardless, Newt isn't done yet. Don't count him out.

Thinning of the Herd: Perry not Able to Make Virginia Ballot

2011-12-24T09:07:00.000-08:00

Well, look at that. It would seem that. Rick Perry's bid for the White House has become all the more difficult. As I just recently learned, and as many of us in the blogosphere no doubt already knew, one needs at least 10,000 signatures to qualify for the Virginia presidential ballot, and our Mr. Perry didn't make the cut, along with, unfortunately, my belle Michelle and Rick Santorum. While this doesn't necessarily rule them out for a term or two in the White House, it certainly doesn't bode well. I'm probably one of the few who actually found this surprising, given that I've never heard of this particular provision for the Old Dominion State, and this has been all over the net for all of two or three days, so everyone pretty much probably knows about it and has moved on. Since I"m a Johnny-Come-Lately, however, I will only just now be expressing my thoughts on the matter.

As mentioned above, this is at the same time not a big deal, and yet a very big deal. Perry, Bachmann and Santorum not making the ballot in Virginia means that effectively, the only candidates that people will be able to vote for in Virginia, a key state in any election, will be Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Dear Lord help us if either of these two gets the nomination. Ron Paul being the isolationist he is, and Romney being the flip-flopper HE is, either one of these two would be a bad choice to replace the current chair-warmer in the Oval Office. Romney's no doubt good at playing the political game, but his policies are more Obama-lite than anything else. As for Ron Paul, I believe this video clip says all that needs to be said about this senile whackjob's stance on foreign policy. Some of his ideas are good, but what good is a stellar domestic policy if your foreign policy amounts to "It's totally okay for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, and it doesn't matter if they say they're going to use it to wipe Israel off the map."?

What gets me more about this news development than anything else is that Newt Gingrich, my new choice for POTUS since Cain was driven out of the running by bogus sexual harassment charges, has also failed to make the virginia ballot, proving to be a rather significant setback for the former Speaker of the House. Still, Virginia is only one state out of fifty, and however many electoral votes the state has, it's still up in the air about whether Newt will win the nod from the RNC. Personally, I hope he does. I would love to see Newt wipe the floor with Obama in a debate, but the namby pamby in the White House probably doesn't have the cojones to stand at a podium without his favorite teleprompter ready and raring to go with another prepared speech.

So, Which Holiday are we Celebrating on the 25th, Anyway?

2011-12-17T21:33:00.000-08:00

Well, boys and girls, it's that time of year again. After months of absence due to my wanting to focus on studies in a new profession wherein I sit for eight hours and type furiously while four people speak back and forth to one another, I have returned, though for how long I cannot say. This profession, known as court reporting, has taken up so much of my time, in fact, that I've had to neglect this site for far too long; but being that the day upon which our Savior humbled himself and came into this world wrapped in swaddling clothes and in a bed of hay is upon us, I think it's time I dusted this place off and took up the role of watchdog once again. However, I'm changing things up a bit. Instead of exclusively pointing out the douchebaggery that goes on concerning people trying to ruin Jesus's birthday for him and everyone else trying to celebrate it, I've decided to point towards the positive aspects of Christmas, which last year had eluded me due to my being as blind as the proverbial bat because of my swimming in the cesspool of politics. Wow. Quite the run-on sentence there. I must have a lot to say regarding this particular subject. Well, let's get started, shall we?

In 2008, I finally became aware that there were dangerous people out there who wanted to change the very fabric of the makeup of this great country, and turn it into something that the Founding Fathers never wanted it to be. The election of King Barack the First tore the scales from my corneas and sent me on a mission. I was going to be like a bloodhound on meth and uncover every outrageous wrongdoing perpetrated by groups like the ACLU and CAIR. I was going to be Sam Spade, and I was going to expose every single wrongdoing for what it was on this blog and on Facebook and anywhere else I could. I became so gung ho about my little crusade that for a while there, all I saw was the negative. Add to that a wretched holiday season last year wherein my car broke down, I had almost zero money for gifts, and that turned out to be the last holiday season that I would spend with my would-be mother-in-law, and it was pretty much a recipe for disaster waiting to happen.

Still, the closer the holiday actually came, the more I felt genuine holiday cheer, and it turned out not to be so bad after all. But that's not what this post is about. This post is about the current Christmas season and the fact that even though I didn't see the good things about it last year, I can see the good this year once again. I was lost, as the song says, but now am found. That said, let's begin.

Last year at Christmas I was introduced through Youtube and Moonbattery.com to a comic by the name of Brad Stine. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. After all I'd heard and seen about Liberal Hollywood and the left leaning entertainment industry, I was floored and relieved to see the stylings of a genuine Christian Conservative Comedian (CCC for short), and a downright hilarious one at that. This post is where I first placed a video I found on moonbattery that had me rolling in the aisles because of Brad's no nonsense approach towards political correctness and how absurd the very idea is.

Well, to make a long story even longer (ha ha) I once again have come across Brad Stine in the form of the movie entitled "Christmas With a Capital C". In this spectacular film, the town of Trapper Falls is celebrating Christmas the same way they always have: by putting up a Nativity scene in the front yard of the mayoral residence. That is, until an old resident of the town files a complaint that the town is in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause.

This of course, leads the town's mayor, a devout Christian, to find a way to fight back against the onslaught of bureaucratic hooplah and preserve the fifty year old tradition.

All in all, the movie was awesome, and was a very refreshing change from the negative stories about Nativity scenes being taken down in Texas, as this link informs all who click it.

Before, I was afraid our Christmas traditions were under attack from so many angles that we didn't stand a chance. Now, with more and more displays of holiday cheer popping up this year than last year, perhaps the tide has been turning. Here's hoping that's the case.

Is This the Sound of a Kingdom Falling?

2011-09-20T17:28:00.000-07:00

The title of this post is derived from one of my favorite novels, A Storm of Swords. The scene the line is from is one wherein one of the major characters, Catelyn Stark, is worrying over her son, newly crowned King of the North, and the fact that his war of rebellion against their political enemies is not going his way. Such appears to be the case with one Michelle Bachmann and her budding (until now) political aspirations.

I like Michelle Bachmann. I agree with her Tea Party friendly message, and I like her record as well. However, after her slew of gaffs involving the Gardasil issue, it appears to me, your humble Crusader for Constitutional Justice, that her campaign has, as Rush Limbaugh put it recently, jumped the shark. Unfortunate, too, because I was looking forward to seeing the first female President of the United States, especially in light of the attacks calling the Republican Party anti-woman. I was hopeful from the beginning. "Run, Michelle, run", I was always saying back even before it was hinted at that she would announce her candidacy. Of course, by the time I heard she was running, I had already begun to get sucked into the Herman Caine Camp. I had a choice to make, and had made it, yet now with Cain doing so poorly in the polls, and Bachmann's campaign folding like an origami crane, I may find myself believing more and more that Rick Perry will end up being the nominee for the Republicans this time around.

I believe, however, that my belle Michelle still has a chance to snag the nomination if she enters damage control mode. Unfortunately, according to Hot Air, rather than backpedal on the issue, she doubled down with an anecdote about a mother who supposedly became mentally retarded as a result of being medicated with Gardasil. This only hurts the woman in the long run. I hope she is able to see the error of her ways, because all in all, I believe that Michelle Bachmann is, despite her mistakes, the best candidate to become our new leader of the free world. Here's to hoping she does, and that I'm right.

Mirror Mirror, on the Wall...

2011-09-16T18:42:00.000-07:00

I believe, dear readers, that we have been thrown into a parallel universe. I know most of you think we were thrown into one in 2008 when Obama was elected and began his assault on our freedoms, but I say you nay. It is only now that we've been forced to face the mirror images of those who inhabit the so-called Mirror Universe. I haven't been following the news as much as in the past recently, but I've still been keeping up with Hot Air, so I've got a semblance of what's going on. I've been keeping track of Teh Wun's reelectability (is that even a word?) for the last few months, and the signs don't look too good for him, despite Michelle Baachman's recent gaffe regarding Gardasil, and Perry's scandal from umpteen million years ago coming to light. His reelect numbers keep dropping at a steady pace even in Smurf states. Don't believe me? Check this out. Yep. You read that right, fellow crusaders. DWS, the new airhead of the DNC, has the audacity to claim that New York District 9 is a difficult district for Democrats despite the fact that a Republican hasn't held that seat since the COOLIDGE ADMINISTRATION!!!! I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.

But that is not the meat and potatoes of what I have for you today, dear readers. What I have for you today will astound, amaze, shock and stupify: Apparently Der Commissar is having a bit of trouble passing his nonexistent jobs bill due to the obstructionist efforts of the..Democrats?!

It seems yet again, I must ask the question:

Ron Paul: Leftist?

2011-09-14T08:29:00.000-07:00

I just got this hat tip from Chicks on the Right's Facebook post: Ron Paul has apparently turned to the left in his views on why 9/11 happened. Ron Paul was never my guy. Way too much of an isolationist, in my view, in a world where the United States can no longer completely cut itself off from the rest of the globe. His views are his, however, and I respect his right to have them. However, he will not win the presidency if he starts spouting garbage like THIS:

That, for those of you who didn't watch, is Ron Paul, potential nominee for the Republican Presidential ticket, spouting the same garbage that Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda have been spouting for the last ten years. There was a time when I thought I might actually vote for Ron Paul. Not anymore.

Okay, someone explain to me why this is a Problem..?

2011-09-09T20:47:00.000-07:00

Thaanks to Chicks on the Right for posting this first: Guess what, clever and competent crusaders for constitutional justice. Another university is so chock full of politically correct idiocy that they're refusing to honor the victims of 9/11 unless...and I kid you not...

You see, Marietta College is “threatening to cancel a 9/11 memorial planned by their students if flags from other countries are not observed in the activities as well.

Let's let that sink in for a second, shall we? This college is threatening to shut down a 9/11 tribute just because it's not fair that other countries aren't being represented. I ask...why on Earth would other countries need to be represented? Well, according to the school, it's because "other nationalities were killed at the twin towers as well." Umm...yeah, ethnicities besides white people were killed at 9/11 (including at least 13 Muslims...oops was that too politically incorrect? Eh, whatever.)

Listen up, Marietta College! 9/11 HAPPENED IN AMERICA! THEREFORE THE AMERICAN FLAG IS THE ONLY ONE THAT NEEDS TO BE FLOWN TO REPRESENT THE VICTIMS BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL LIVING HER AT THE TIME OF THE ATTACKS! IS THAT REALLY TOO MUCH FOR YOU TO COMPREHEND!?

Or, I believe I can sum this up more simply with a little help from Captain Jean-Luc Picard:

Too Long an Absence

2011-08-20T09:01:00.000-07:00

There's something to be said about there not being enough hours in the day. I remember back when I first started this blog, I was on here practically every other day posting a new outrage that fanned the flames of my anger towards a corrupt and overblown government body whose sole purpose seemed only to be to find out just how far they could stick their fingers into the lives of the American people before we finally told them to shove off.

That all changed when I started my journey on my new career path. Being a court stenographer is NOT an easy thing to learn. The basics are, but as with most things, the more you advance the more difficult things become. Don't misunderstand me. This isn't some whine fest about how I can't continue and should just give up the ship. It is, however, an explanation as to why my watchdog duties have fallen by the wayside of late.

Not that I haven't been paying attention, of course. I still get my doses of FOX news on occasion, and my visits to Hotair and Facebook inform me of the goings on of our Monarch-in-Chief and his goons, as well as the goings on of the supposedly small-government repubs that talk a good game but can't seem to move the pieces correctly.

As for why I haven't posted, well, that should be obvious. I just don't have the time lately. Hopefully that will change somewhere down the road. As it stands right now, the only thing I can say to you, my loyal readers, is that my crusade for Constitutional justice must be placed on hiatus for the time being, yet have no fear. I'll be back leading the charge during the 2012 elections, and I'll be keeping as much of an eye out as I can for any shinannigens being pulled by our new president elect.

Portrait of an American Badass: George Washington

2011-07-18T08:31:00.000-07:00

.3
Those who read this blog regularly are no doubt familiar with my weekly attempts to get away from the slimy quagmire that is the political realm that I refer to as Motivation Mondays. Well, I've done some thinking and I believe it's time for a change. I will no longer be posting pics of that sort for the sole purpose of calling it "motivational". Instead, Motivation Monday will now be referred to, as the title of this post hints, Portrait of an American Badass. Shamelessly stealing the same premise used by www.badassoftheweek.com, I, your humble crusader for constitutional justice, will lay out in accurate and (hopefully) humorous detail the story of one particular icon of American history that I believe to be, in layman's terms, a badass, and why.

Appropriately, I begin with one of my personal favorites, the cherry tree chopper himself, former U.S. President George Washington:

Unfortunately, many of the younger generation are unaware of the awesomeness of George Washington from being lied to about him being an asshole in public school. Fortunately I went to a school where people actually taught you stuff instead of trying to use Soviet mind control tricks to get you to believe that tyranny is awesome, so I know a thing or two about ol' George.

Like many of our ancestors, George was an Englishman who emigrated over to the New World because he was way too awesome for the old one, and also because the British king was a douche who wouldn't let Washington own any property until he beat the royal crap out of some French wusses that actually for some reason thought they had a chance at fighting an army that wasn't composed of other French soldiers. Deciding to remind the French how much they actually sucked at waging war, Washington joined the British army as a Colonel, since his daddy had loads of money from owning plantations over in Britain and could pay for he commission. During his time as a colonel, Washington found out that the French and some of the local Native American tribes were acting all buddy buddy. George said "Aw hell no!" and charged in saber rattling and muskets blazing, blowing the heads off many Frenchmen and Indians alike, thus reminding the world that not only does France suck at warfare, they aren't allowed to be friends with anyone, ever (citation needed).

Sadly, the French only became bigger assholes after losing to Washington, so they went and violated the whole "No friends for you" policy the world had in place at the time and got together with more Indians that hated the British so that they could surround Washington's fort and make him surrender. Washington did so, but that was only because he had a far more awesome plan in the works. He let them have the fort, sure, but that didn't mean he had to let them keep their lives. Instead of just bitching about losing the fort and crying in his teacup, Washington carried out the two rules for a gunfight and decided to blow up more French heads like over ripe watermelons until the French finally ran home crying in their Crepe Suzettes, losing yet another war in a string of losses tracing back to Joan of Arc being burned at the stake, which still plagues them to this day. (Read: World War II),

But it wasn't until after the War of Beating France Like the Redheaded Stepchild They Are that Washington truly became more awesome than anyone else ever would be allowed to become. After another badass, John Adams (who will be covered in a future post) convinced all thirteen English colonies to tell King George III to go suck a lemon and leave America the hell alone, Washington was out there being his Mafia enforcer, forcing British generals to cough up their protection money or face "accidents", capice?

One particular incident of badassitude is Washington crossing the Delaware River in the dead of winter on Christmas Eve, 1776. Washington had retreated with the remainder of his army after unfortunately being beaten by the British, who were clearly using a cheat code of some kind since no one could beat Washington in a fair fight, ever (editor's note: might be an exaggeration). To do this he had to brave a near frozen river with ice chunks as large as small animals that could have turned his little twig of a boat into kindling if he hit any of them. After safely ensconcing himself in Delaware away from the Redcoats, Washington looked at the river and said "You know what? They'll never expect me to cross AGAIN!" And so he did. And, of course, the British were severely ganked by His Awesomeness, since they thought no one would be stupid enough to actually cross a river and interrupt their tea party.

Then there's that whole mess at Valley Forge. During the same winter in which Washington crossed the Delaware, after the crossing, Washington and his army found out that they were out of supplies and that it was cold. Really really cold. So cold that a lot of the soldiers who weren't as bad ass as Washington actually froze to death. But even as the others' teeth were chattering and they were jumping up and down trying to stay warm, Washington just looked at them all and went "What's the matter, you guys cold?"

After a few months of learning how to drill from a German officer that decided it'd be way more fun to beat up on the British themselves rather than work for them, winter ended and Washington's army came out bigger and badder, eventually leading to the defeat of General Cornwallis at Yorktown. Oh, and I think the French finally got up off their asses and sent us some ships or something, but whatever.

Another Birthday Come and Gone

2011-07-04T16:13:00.001-07:00

Happy Birthday America. May there be a thousand more.

And then Then There Were Two

2011-06-16T08:47:00.000-07:00

Friends, readers, countrymen, I am now feeling a teensy bit torn regarding the presidential primaries. As you all who read my posts (at least the ones who read more than just the cheesecake pics) know, I'm a big supporter of not one, not two, but three potential candidates for the presidency come 2012. My first choice was everyone's favorite (or least favorite if you're a lefty) Mama Grizzly, Sarah Palin of Alaska. Alas, the one with teeth, claws, and balls is not running so far as I can tell, so I was forced to find another candidate who met my criteria for POTUS. I searched high and low until quite by chance I stumbled upon Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfathers Pizza. The more I heard this man speak, the more I wanted to vote for him in the race. However, there was another hopeful who had yet to announce whether or not they would run: Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann. I now have a choice to make, and I have yet to find the criteria I need to make the right choice.

Comments on who's the better candidate are welcome. Tell me about Miss Bachmann, if you would.

2011-06-14T21:01:00.000-07:00

Happy Birthday, United States Army. This is for all those who have served, are serving, and will serve.

Paging George Orwell...

2011-06-02T20:55:00.000-07:00

The latest attempt to shut down the alternative media. Thanks to That Mr. Guy for bringing this to my attention, as well as the rest of the right wing blogosphere.

Herman Cain Music Video. Vote reason number six!

2011-06-01T21:17:00.000-07:00

Well, yet again I find a video glorifying the walking set of balls that is Herman Cain, only this time it's a music video montage highlighting his stops at various TEA party gatherings, as well as a bunch of people going on about how awesome he is. Clearly these people weren't told that Cain lacks name recognition, otherwise they'd know better and realize he can't win. /sarcasm

Motivation Might as Well be Tuesday

2011-05-30T22:03:00.000-07:00

I really need to be more timely with these Motivation Monday posts of mine. But, given that I'm starting a new career path as a court reporter, and have as such been running around like a chicken with his head cut off, I haven't had much time to do anything other than the usual political snark. That being said, here's an image that we all might recognize in the form of Diana Prince, AKA Wonder Woman:

And to all those who miss the old costume, I say amen! Bring back the stars and stripes of Old Glory, money-grubbing nimrods!

Herman Cain Does it yet AGAIN! Is there Anything he can say That I won't Like?

2011-05-29T23:04:00.000-07:00

Cain-gasm number five, via Just a Conservative Girl:

Remembering why we Celebrate

2011-05-29T10:11:00.000-07:00

Via Smitty at The Other McCain:

Semper Fi, do or die.

Meghan McCain hates her Tits

2011-05-27T19:03:00.000-07:00

Everyone's least favorite big breasted dumb blonde is at it again, folks. This time Sarah Palin is the reason Meghan McSmarmy has no real dating life. Seriously. Read this, and try not to gag:

No. I’m in, like, dating Babylon. Like, I go on dates with men and, literally, like Sarah Palin will come up in like the first 20 minutes, and that doesn’t put me in the mood. Like, talking about Sarah Palin. And they just want to know gossip, and I’m just kind of taking a little hiatus from dating right now, because I just don’t want to talk about Sarah Palin.

So, like, she's totally not dating now, you guys, because she's like, totally not wanting to talk about Sarah Palin (except when she like, totally brings her up in interviews like the one this excerpt is from).

Not only does she blame Sarah Palin for her lousy dating life, ladies and gentlemen, but she also apparently hates the fact that she's a bombshell with, as the Monty Python gang is fond of saying "huge tracts of land". (Bonus geek points for those of you who read this that can pinpoint the movie that quote is from). Another quote, this one from the New York Times:

I wake up every morning with large breasts, and it doesn’t affect me. But people had a meltdown when I posted a photo of myself on Twitter. I found such extreme sexism in it. I’ve spent as much of my career having my weight and body commented on as my writing and politics.

Listen up, few remaining brain cells in Meghan McCain's head: People did not have a meltdown because of the size of your boobs. People had a meltdown because you threw a bitch fit after those same people gave you negative feedback about that photo. It wasn't exactly tasteful, you know. Plus, it made you look like you had man-hands. Seriously, take a look:

Are those her fingers or are those sausages holding that book? I can't tell. If anyone can, please let me know in the comments.

Also, how you can be hateful of those balloons she calls mammary glands is anyone's guess in my book. Personally, I'm still wondering how she can get up off her back in the morning, thanks to the size.

Hat tip to The Other McCain for the material for this, my latest Meghan McCain rant.

Netenyahu Schools Hecklers

2011-05-24T19:55:00.000-07:00

I'll just let this video speak for itself:

Shall I Join the Herman Cain Mutiny? Reason Number 4 to do So.

2011-05-22T11:23:00.000-07:00

Since I started posting videos about the venerable Herman Cain on this site, I have been seeing a notable increase in my traffic not seen since the last time I was a part of R.S. McCain's Rule Five Sunday, which was about a year ago, I believe. Well, divide the number of hits I got (500/day) from posting pics like these by ten and you'll get the idea of how my traffic has been in recent days. I had a bit of a firecracker from bin Laden's demise as well, but that one lasted all of one day or so before my traffic started sucking at normal levels, as opposed to sucking a little bit less than it normally does. This, however, is new, as with Herman Cain gaining traction in the news as the "candidate who can't win", yet also as the one who seems to just keep on going while other candidates such as Huckabee, Trump, and now Mitch Daniels have dropped out for various reasons.

As it is looking increasingly likely that my favorite Mama Grizzly isn't going to be running either, Magnificent Michelle has yet to announce, and T-Paw just doesn't really do anything for me, I seem to be drawn more towards this man, who is seeming more and more like the "anti-Obama". As I would definitely like to see traffic to this site increase, I have made the decision to keep an eye out for any more news items involving Mr. Cain, in the hopes that he might officially turn me into a supporter for his White House bid. I have to admit, though, I wouldn't be doing this if part of me didn't already WANT to be convinced that Cain can beat Obama in the upcoming slug fest. After months of painstaking research through news, blogs, and opinion commentators, Cain seems to be the only one who matches someone who fits my bill for a presidential candidate. Columns like these only make me want to vote for him more.

I especially love his take on Israel. This video is yet another moment that caused a Cain-gasm for me, especially since it matches almost completely BB Netenyahu's response to Obama's ludicrious 1967 borders "solution" to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:

Honestly, this man gives me what Chris Matthews would call a "thrill". I seriously doubt anyone has the titanic set of balls necessary to go up against this man in a debate. Seriously...how is it that sparks don't fly from this man's crotch when we walks, given the chrome steel alloy he's been gifted with down there? Need more evidence? Look at this ball-filled statement given to us by the Daily Caller, and displayed prominently at The Other McCain. The people in the vid above that one seem to like it. Lol.

WIN!

Yet a THIRD Reason to Vote for Herman Caine

2011-05-22T07:50:00.001-07:00

I'll just let the video speak for itself:

Semper Fi!

2011-05-21T10:12:00.000-07:00

In honor of Armed Forces Day (a holiday I didn't even know existed until a few minutes ago. Pretty sad, I know.) I'm posting this slide show I found on youtube:

Fight on, brave soldiers. The citizenry appreciates what you do, even if some do not

Obama Turns BB Netenyahu Into his Latest Speed Bump

2011-05-20T07:45:00.000-07:00

I am seeing all over the news and the blogosphere that as of, I believe, yesterday, Obama has done what no other president has done before, and has turned our strongest Middle Eastern ally into his latest speed bump on the road to reelection. I am not surprised by this, and really, no one should be surprised. If you are chances are you haven't been paying attention to what this man has done to the nation in the last three years. After snubbing Great Britain by A: Sending back the bust of Churchill, B: having the audacity to give Queen Elizabeth an iPod filled with nothing but his own speeches, and C: Giving Tony Blaire a series of DVDs that don't play on British DVD players, not to mention the more important and audacious things this man has done to our allies, it should be readily apparent to anyone with the brain cells God gave a chimp that Barack Obama has no love for Israel. For crying out loud, people, he snubbed BB more than once before this, though the only time that comes to the front of my memory is the time he left Benjamin in a White House sitting room while he went off to eat dinner with his family. Now Obama is calling for Netenyahu to "make concessions for peace", which, if you speak fluent bullshit, as I do, means that BB should just shut up and give in to the absolutely ludicrous concessions for peace that Obama is advocating in favor of the Palestinians.

In case you haven't heard, those concessions consist of returning Israel to the borders it had back in 1967. In other words, the country would go back to looking like this:

The green is Israel as it stood prior to the year in question. Note the location of the Holy City, Jerusalem. Notice how it's half in and half out of the green and the yellow. It would return to this state should Obama's demands be met. except this time, instead of Jordanian rule, that half of the city would be under Palestinian rule and as such would be subject to much more displays of sectarian violence than it is now. (8 murders in the last year in a country of several hundred thousand people, FYI). Also, take a look at the territory being ceded under this proposal. Up near Samaria, the left most part of the yellow chunk includes the Golan Heights. This is one of Israel's two currently defensible borders. With this proposal, that border would go to the Palestinians, as well as all those nifty caves and cliffs to hide in and mount missile defenses on.

The worst part? At that point, not only would the border be indefensible, it would leave Israel with its widest point being a whopping EIGHT MILES across! That's right, boys and girls. If this plan were to go through, it would leave Israel with little more land than most small cities have to build on. Oh, and the Gaza Strip? The other defensible border? That would go to the Palestinians too.

I was once introduced through one of my favorite novels to the story of a king who was surrounded by enemies, yet too blind to see it. his heraldry consisted of a stag. The enemy's? A lion. A stag surrounded by lions. Fairly predictable ending, wouldn't you agree? Yet the stag had friends in the form of a wolf, who came to his aid, yet too little too late. We, the United States, are the wolf in this story. Israel the stag, and the Palestinians the lions. As Israel is in the heart of the lion's den, so to speak, we must stand firm in solidarity with Israel. If we do not, the lions will only turn our way next, assuming they haven't already.

Let the Mudslinging Begin

2011-05-19T09:50:00.000-07:00

Well, boys and girls, it's come to this. With the 2012 presidential primary race heating up, the ads have begun to trickle out, and no doubt will soon become a torrent once things REALLY get underway. Already, via one of my favorite writers at Hot Air, we have the first of what will most likely be many shock ads involving that great Conservative "evil", the privatization of Social Security. View for yourself and see if you believe that Paul Ryan really wants to kill seniors:

Only two words can describe the technique used in this ad to scare the shit out of old people so that they'll vote democrat:

EPIC FAIL!!!!

Will the Real Levi Johnston Please Shut Up!

2011-05-16T11:05:00.000-07:00

I agree with Stacy here. Levi needs to go the hell away.

I would say more but my brain cells enjoy functioning.

Another Reason to Vote for Herman Caine

2011-05-12T09:22:00.000-07:00

I have posted previously on one reason I would vote for Herman Caine, and now I have found another reason. I'm watching the Glenn Beck program from two days ago on my TiVo, and he's giving me the total GLEES! Here's the video via YouTube of his massive gleetastic ideas on how to secure the border and make us energy independent.

Wow...Just...Wow...

2011-05-06T21:44:00.001-07:00

Andrew Klaven of Pajamas Media does it again...

BREAKING: A-Jad to Resign due to Aides Wanting Three Wishes or Something...

2011-05-05T22:03:00.000-07:00

Well well well, isn't this interesting? The Conservative Lady has found a story that reports that our friend A-Jad of election fraud fame, may in fact be forced to resign. Why? The Ayatollah doesn't apparently like him anymore. Oh, that, and according to the article, his aides have been rubbing magic lamps in their spare time and summoning genies to try and get rid of our pal Khomeini. This story hasn't been corroborated by western media as yet, but since we don't trust what they say anyway, that probably doesn't matter as much as it should. Will keep an eye out on this story to see how it develops.

A Woman With Brains and Balls: German Awesomeness Edition

2011-05-05T10:23:00.000-07:00

A palate cleanser direct from The Other McCain:

The Noose Continues to Tighten

2011-05-05T10:21:00.000-07:00

I can't add any words to this article except to state the obvious: This is proof that the FDA is unconstitutional.

Warning: Offensive Material Below

2011-05-04T21:39:00.000-07:00

At least, that's what the feminists would have you believe. For my contribution to National Offend a Feminist week, which I heard about via Smitty at The Other McCain, some vintage housewife photos, as well as a little cheesecake for good measure:

And now the cheesecake:

I can see the heads exploding right now.

Bin Laden Death Follow Up, With Linky Love for Some Comfy Shoes

2011-05-04T11:22:00.000-07:00

She of the Fuzzy Slippers always seems to bring quite a bit of common sense to exciting events, whether they be negative or positive in outlook. I've been, like most bloggers, following the aftermath of Osama bin Laden's long overdue demise by our courageous SEAL team 6, and must admit that though I now begin to question the veracity of the motives of our president, I still feel a bit heady. This must have been how adults back in the nineties felt when the Soviet Union collapsed in on itself after decades of being on the brink of nuclear annihilation. I'll get to her contributions to my current line of thinking in due course, but first, the follow up and the newly uncovered facts:

ABC news last night reported that a simple phone call was one of the factors that lead to his death. One of bin Laden's aides apparently picked up the phone a year ago which lead to us finding one of bin Laden's couriers, thus leading us to the mansion in Pakistan where bin Laden was holed up. I don't normally read the Huffington Post, given their reputation for inaccuracy, but this time I did read something they wrote on the subject, and it was surprisingly free of anti-conservative snark, though they did manage to slip a bit of anti-waterboarding propaganda in there right at the end.

The meat of the article is that a phone call from one of bin Laden's couriers was traced to a location near the compound. they were bound to slip up sometime, I guess.

Now to fuzzy. She of the Fuzzy Slippers, as I mentioned, is a welcomed oasis of common sense in the desert that is the blogosphere. In her most recent post, she throws what most would call a wet blanket over our bin Laden death fun time, but I think now that the head rush is beginning to subside, we should definitely take a step back and look at the implications of bin Laden's death, and the consequences that will undoubtedly unfold. I do not claim to know what those consequences are, but I'm sure that like with most things, they will be good and bad both in some measure or another.

Fuzzy appears to agree. Her analysis, which you can read in full here, ends as follows:

So ask yourselves this: given what we now know about BO's disdain and contempt (even dripping hatred) for America and her citizens, the moves this administration has taken to demonize and label conservative, Christian patriots as "terrorists," do you sleep more soundly knowing that he will stop at nothing to destroy his enemy (and that you and I are among his enemies who must be punished), that no treaty, no U. N. power, no human rights laws, indeed, no law of any land (including both our own and even the international law he favors . . . when it suits him) will stop him?

Some big picture parting questions to ponder: What is BO's ultimate vision of a "fundamentally transformed" America? Where do you think you fit into that? How will he achieve it?

And on a less-weighty note: how long before the increased terror threat (in the wake of possible, I'd say likely, retaliation for the death of bin Laden) is used as an excuse to further limit, even eliminate, our civil rights? Isn't this just the impetus needed to fulfill Nappy the Tyrant's promise to roll out TSA gropers and molesters to shopping malls, train/bus/metro/ferry stations, and sports arenas? How long before he gets his internet kill switch, his gun bans for law-abiding Americans, his silencing of the conservative media, indeed of any dissenting voice?

BREAKING: Bin Laden photos are not going to be released by order of POTUS. A few new questions to add to fuzzy's list: Why did he decide not to release the photos? How will this affect his political prospects for 2012, such as they are? More importantly, will less people believe that bin Laden is dead now that the proof has been placed under lock and key?

UPDATE: Stacy McCain has video of the above news item, and quotes from senators on why they either opposed or supported Obama's decision.

UPDATE 2: Left Coast Rebel also weighs in on the photo controversy, and is clearly upset over Obama apparently ignoring the need for closure that the 9/11 families have been begging for for ten years.

And so the Op Eds Begin...

2011-05-02T11:58:00.000-07:00

I've been following the Telegraph for a while through Blogger in order to attempt to get a point of view outside of America to influence the posts that appear on this blog from time to time. Most of the op eds I read in there recently have been decrying America for celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden, as I and many others reported on last night after hearing it from varying sources. A multitude of information has arrived since the declaration made by President Obama last night. Michelle Malkin gave an Op Ed column pointing out how the politicization of the event has already begun, and will likely continue into 2012. Legal Insurrection assures us all that "it's still the economy and big government, stupid.", in regards to Obama's reelection prospects, and points to a story that reveals that enhanced interrogations, in a gross irony that will likely haunt the now slightly cooler and more competent looking Obama later on, lead to the very information that allowed him to green light the use of Navy Seals to end his life. I guess he learned a thing or two after dealing with Somali pirates.

The Telegraph op eds, however, are running the gamut from "America did the right thing" to "America is freaking awesome" to "this isn't really as great as we all think it is". There are even those whom I know personally, and some who are complete strangers, admonishing those like me for celebrating the death of a notorious war criminal. Well, as one American who is lauding the operation that killed the most heinous terrorist this nation has ever seen, I can honestly say that I don't care whether I'm admonished for feeling the way I feel. I expressed all this in a note on Facebook, but I seem to still have a little resentment left over.

But this post isn't about me. In reading those several varying Op Eds from the Telegraph, I've come to the conclusion that, predictably, no one knows what is about to occur as a result of Osama bin Laden's long-overdue demise. And that, dear readers, is that we did the right thing. No one save the most avid peacemongers dare suggest that Osama didn't deserve the bullet between the eyes that ended his pathetic life.

Now, however, there are questions that need to be answered. Why was Osama so easily able, as is being reported, to hide out in a neighborhood so near the Pakistani capital? Was anyone giving him asylum for some reason? If so, then who? And more importantly, why?

The drama isn't over yet, boys and girls. As the song states: We've only just begun.

BREAKING NEWS: BIN LADEN DEAD IN DRONE ATTACK!

2011-05-01T20:47:00.000-07:00

President Obama is about to make a late night statement. No one truly knows what that statement will be, but everyone has one phrase on the edge of their lips: Osama bin Laden is dead.

I'm going to take a moment to let that sink in, as the news is still springtime fresh in my mind. As of this writing, Drudge Report and Hot Air, as well as Fox, are all reporting the same piece of news: Osama Bin Laden, mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on our soil, as well as alleged mastermind of such attacks as the '93 bombing of the WTC, as well as the bombing of our embassies in Lybia. If this news is indeed true, it is a momentous occasion, as it vindicates ten years of conflict and ten years' worth of dead United States fighting men and women, as well as justification for ten years of soldiers being away from their families for inordinate amounts of time.

Drudge report doesn't seem to want to report on how he died, however, as the link leading to the story that Matt Drudge has provided leads to what amounts to a biographical account of the mass murderer's words and deeds throughout his life. Fox News and Hot Air, however, are providing preliminary information about the death of bin Laden, and that he was killed in a drone strike that was committed last week and killed approximately 23 people. If indeed bin Laden IS dead, then I will be dancing in the streets tomorrow.

UPDATE: bin Laden has just been confirmed dead by POTUS, who is as of this writing speaking now on Fox News Channel.

It was Ronald Reagan who said on the eve of his election, that it was morning again in America. With the most notorious terrorist of our time dead by the actions of our valiant military, I feel once again that such is the case. With this evil man now smoldering in the deepest circle of Hell, it is morning once again in my America. And also, we Americans have found an event that we can once again rally around, not in horrific grief, as with 9/11, but elated, and filled with triumph, for we, the United States of America, have brought down the head of one of the most poisonous snakes ever to sink its venom into our society.

UPDATE: AP is reporting that it was in fact a spec ops team that killed Osama, and NBC corroborates the story. Fox also has something on the subject.

This is why I Started This Blog

2011-04-26T22:05:00.000-07:00

I didn't believe it even after I saw it. A man was arrested for reading the bible. the BIBLE! Not only that, but the cop arrested the guy for "impeding an open business" Which is bull since the courthouse was CLOSED AT THE TIME HE READ THE PASSAGES! He wasn't impeding anything!

Let's pray for these brave men who dared practice their freedom of religion in spite of a downright tyrannical police officer.

Motivation Monday, Even Though it's Almost Tuesday

2011-04-25T22:44:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I know. I'm late. I haven't been so great at keeping the Rule 5 bit going, but I've had a life the past few months and haven't exactly had time to act the part of computer junkie as much as I'd like. Anyway, to make up for what I missed, here's a bit of Rule 5 inspirational music, with Krista Branch providing the hotness:

Kirsten Powers Continues Anti-GOP Narrative, but Without Mentioning Starving Seniors

2011-04-21T09:15:00.000-07:00

I don't know why I keep coming back to the Daily Beast. Perhaps it's because most of the articles I read are linked from Hot Air, who doesn't tell you their source before you actually click on the link itself to find out what the article in question says. I've had to put up with reading articles by Meghan "Mean Girl" McCain, among others that make me grind my teeth whenever I see the ubiquitous phrases "tea party racism" or "tax the rich". Kirsten Powers's latest writing for the Beast is of the latter variety. I know Hannity allows her on his show to provide an alternate point of view during his Great American Panel, but come on. Surely you can find SOMEONE on the left who can actually make a coherent argument, or at least a truthful one.

Oh, I forgot. We're talking about the left here, who use sites like Wonkette to demonize down syndrome children in a shameless attack on conservative families. Never mind. I thought I was dealing with rational adults for a second there. Must have been temporary insanity. At any rate, to the meat and mead of the article:

It is tellingly headlined "The GOP's Budget Backfire". Right away you know this is not going to be a favorable or even objective piece on the budget deal passed by the House of Representatives last week. It only gets better (worse?) as you go. Example:

Not only are Republicans wasting time with the Paul Ryan proposal, their cynical gambit on the even more drastic House Republican Study Committee came back to bite them. They may be under pressure to keep campaign promises about balancing the budget—but they're running a huge risk of electoral disaster with their overreach.

Overreach? You, Kirsten, want to talk to us, Conservatives, about overreach? Are you forgetting the years of 2007-2010, when Democrats had full control (minus Bush's veto power, of course, which he never used) of the purse strings and could have put the kibosh on any of this discretionary spending at any time during their tenure as the 111th congress? Seriously? Oy...

To be fair, at least Kirsten tries to use polls to justify her rehashed and recycled arguments. According to a gallup poll she cites for us, more people now support taxing the so-called "rich" in order to balance the budget for 2012. But look closely at the poll she uses. If you take a closer look and actually do a little math, you'll realize that the majority of those that support taxing those who make over 250k a year are democrats, as opposed to the majority of those who oppose that measure being Republicans. Nice try Kirsten, but that little lie of omission about a partisan split couldn't escape my eagle eye for journalistic integrity, and I'm just an amateur blogger. Do you really think that people smarter than me won't get it enough to realize your smoke and mirrors are just that?

Gallup's bottom line about the poll shows:

Bottom Line

Americans mostly approve of Friday's budget agreement that will keep the federal government running through September, but few say it was a victory for either party. Whether this is because of the messy politics involved in reaching it, or because the $38.5 million in spending cuts was not, in fact, a complete victory for either party, is not clear.

Republican and Democratic leaders are making considerable noise about the federal debt, and Americans share this concern. President Obama is expected to spell out his vision for reducing the national debt in a White House speech Wednesday afternoon, and Republicans are expected to press for dramatic deficit reduction in the looming negotiations over raising the debt ceiling. With a divided Congress, the challenge will be, once again, to strike a compromise between Democrats' calls for higher taxes on the wealthy and Republicans' calls for deeper domestic spending cuts. At this stage, the Democrats' position seems to have the greater public appeal.

What's that you say? American's share this concern about the debt? Of course they do. That's not the question Kirsten answers with her article, however. Kirsten skirts that question by falling back into her "tax the rich" talking point delivered to her COD by the DNC. She also makes some noise about an alternative budget that would have cut spending even more drastically than the Ryan plan, but that budget didn't pass because at the last minute a few Republican voters switched from yes to no. What she doesn't tell you, but what the article does say, is that the more conservative RSC budget only has a few differences that make it more conservative than the Ryan plan. Via Right Wing News Watch, These are:

Discretionary Spending: The RSC proposal would trim FY 2012 total discretionary spending down to 2006 levels-a $141 billion cut from the last budget passed in 2010. The subsequent 9 years of total discretionary spending would be frozen at 2008 levels-$933 billion annually.

Medicaid: The RSC plan adopts the same laudable block grant and mandatory cap program for Medicaid that is proposed in the House budget. The difference is that the RSC pegs its spending level to 2006, providing increases only for inflation. Ryan’s budget increases the spending level slightly more every year. Consequently, Honest Solutions achieves an extra $712 billion in Medicaid savings over 10 years.

Medicare: Again, the RSC plan takes Ryan’s premium support proposal and accelerates it in order to achieve more front loaded savings. Their plan fundamentally differs from the House plan in three ways. First, their premium support plan would only be optional, thus offering the Medicare recipient the option to stay on the current system or opt for the more free market oriented plan. On the other hand, unlike the House plan, this plan would allow even current Medicare recipients to opt for the premium support program any time after 2017. More importantly, the premium support option begins in 2017, well within the 10 year budget frame. Ryan’s version would delay the reforms for an extra four years.

Our friend Ms. Powers, however, is more concerned with the fake "gotcha" moment that the democrats managed to pull on the Republicans at the last minute by organizing a unified "present" vote, which would have allowed that budget to pass. however, for reasons I personally have not been made aware of as yet, they decided not to pass that budget and instead went along with the Ryan plan.

"I find the RSC budget draconian and counterproductive, but the difference between the House Republicans and me is I won't lie to you and tell you that I support it just to get credit for doing something I never wanted to happen."

No, Ms. Powers, you'll just use Gallup polls to distort the reality of what the public wants as an excuse to raise taxes on small businesses and upper middle class households; and on the two budget plans, to Ms. Powers I say...so what? Either way the reforms happen, and either way the reforms are drastic. The only difference between these two plans is HOW DRASTIC THE REFORMS ACTUALLY ARE! Also, either way the reforms are NECESSARY! Ryan's plan will have the same effect as the RSC plan, albeit on a slightly smaller and more drawn out scale, but the result will be the same: a balanced budget and a U.S. economy brought back from the brink of insolvency, which is what both sides claim that they want!

Fleebag Supporters Resort to Criminal Activity

2011-04-17T22:43:00.000-07:00

So the Wisconson Fleebaggers are so confident of their recall elections that they have to have their thugs break into where the petitions are being held and steal them:

Another Epic Win

2011-04-14T22:41:00.000-07:00

Rand Paul continues to amaze and excite me. If he ever runs for president, thus far he's given me little cause not to vote for him. Via Real Clear Politics:

This...is...PAINFUL TO WATCH!!!

2011-04-14T11:00:00.000-07:00

This video was painful, as stated in the title. Try to keep your brain cells alive as you watch, but don't underestimate the power of stupid ideas.

My Take on the Budget Deal, and Other Musings

2011-04-10T22:46:00.000-07:00

John Boehner is getting a lot of flak for avoiding a government shutdown and striking a less than perfect deal to pass a budget that should have been passed months ago by the then Democratic majority. I think people are missing the point on this. Boehner has just cleaned up a huge mess left behind by his colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I admit, I'm not so happy about the budget deal as I would like to be, given that we had to give crucial ground in order to make substantial gains, but isn't that what compromise really is? Boehner and the Repubs fought tooth and nail to get this deal, did they not?

I have to say that I'm in agreement with JACG on this one. She has gone into some detail about how this amounts to a win for Speaker Boehner and the Republicans, but some just won't let it go. That said, I admire the sand of the ones who stuck by their principals and voted no in the hopes of getting a better deal. It's those kind of people we need to keep things on the right track. Mark Levin calls the budget deal a scam, but I'm not so sure. The fact that he seems to be the only one doing so seems to lend a little less credibility to the idea that we're being scammed. I don't know, as I don't know the full extent of the budget deal, but if Fuzzy has her head on straight (and I'm sure she does) then we won tonight, and we should be celebrating the fact that we got ANY kind of deal out of the jackasses and averted a government shutdown. Not that the world would have ended, but I honestly can't abide our troops not getting their due pay for putting their lives at risk day in and day out. Politico also reports that, in the words of Charlie the Clown, the GOP is "Duh, WINNING!".

The budget deal wasn't the only occurrence of note, however. Apparently protest god-of-the-left Bob Dylan doesn't like the fact that he's been named protest god of the left. Maureen Dowd apparently doesn't like the fact that he doesn't like it. All in all, if ol' Bobby Boy is pissing off Lefties, then I have a whole new respect for the guy. But what's even better is the method by which he's pissing them off. Apparently he's doing well and making money doing the thing that he's famous for. Horrors. Such a blatantly honest class enemy should be immediately strung up and sent to the gallows. Grab your torch and pitchforks!

And finally, the most absurd act in this three act play: China. Apparently the Reds aren't too happy with our Human Rights record. Why? Apparently because it outshines their own dismal chronicling of the very same subject. In light of U.S. disapproval of China's actions (cracking down on protesters, blogs, and others) in response to the recent catastrophe that the Middle East has become, the Red Chinese have dared reach down and find a pair, and asked We the People to step down as a judge on the Human Rights council. Right. Because China is SO MUCH BETTER at treating prisoners and dissidents well than we are *cough*bullshit*cough*. Tienemen Square ring a bell, anyone? Feh.

And that, dear readers, is my rant. Hope you enjoyed it, many more to come in the future.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has a more balanced approach to the budget deal than my other sources. He calls the budget deal a truce, rather than a victory, but acknowledges that the GOP has gained both credibility and ground in the fight to cut spending and reduce the size of government.

Sounds like a win to me.

A Woman with Brains and Balls

2011-04-07T12:00:00.000-07:00

Ever hear of a woman named Ann Barnhardt? I have, and you're about to. All you have to do is scroll down to watch the video at the end of my little rant here. But first, a bit of background information on the happenings that led to this video being made. We are all, I'm sure, familiar with Senator Lindsay "Grahamnesty" Graham, RINO-SC. He's the insipid little fool that said recently that he wished we could "hold people accountable" for certain types of speech. That it just so happened to deal with speech against the greatest threat to democracy since Hitler, Stalin and their goons were on the scene is just a coincidence I'm sure. NOT! For Graham's exact words, watch this little gem of a video I pulled from Youtube:

Yeah, you heard that correctly. He said that burning the Koran is speech that "inspires" the enemy. In actuality, what burning the Koran does to these people is DEMORALIZE them by making them so incredibly enraged at our infidel practices, that they cannot fight the war effectively! Inspirational speech is more like this.

Now, in comparison to Ronaldus Maximus, Linsday Graham is less than the shadow of a snake, no doubt. Especially where his wartime policies are concerned. Restricting speech so that our enemies won't be offended? Reagan would have laughed this guy out of the Senate if he'd heard such a ludicrous proposal as that!

But apparently others think this is a good idea. Of course, there are always those who think that less freedom for the people will lead to more security. Those people are woefully misinformed, and need to look at what big government has done to such countries as Germany and Soviet Russia before they go and advocate getting rid of the constitution.

Now, take the woman I mentioned above, Ann Barnhardt. This woman has more balls in her little finger than Graham has in his whole body, and the videos at the bottom prove it. She even gives her address and contact information, daring people to call her bluff and come after her if they're serious about not wanting to offend Islam. Oh did I mention that in the second part of the video she burns a Koran, which she has conveniently bookmarked with raw pieces of bacon? Absolutely incredible that someone would do something so shockingly un-PC these days. I know the libs are in hysterics over the pastor who originally proposed the Koran burning a while back, but if they saw THIS, they'd go absolutely nuts!

The best part is that each passage she has conveniently bookmarked is a passage that advocates either prostitution, rape of prepubescant boys and girls, or even beating your wife if she refuses to have sex with you. She even points out a passage in the very book the Islamists revere so much that calls Allah a "deceiver". Now, why on Earth would Muslims refer to their own god as a deceiver unless they believed it? And who else do we know of as a deceiver? Someone who whispers temptations into our ears and persuades us to only think of ourselves at the expense of our neighber? Oh, right *church lady voice*....could it be....SATAN? Well now isn't that special?

Watch the video for the full effect. Whether your head explodes or not will determine your place on the political spectrum:

For it After he was Against It: Holder Reverses Decision Regarding KSM Trial

2011-04-04T12:43:00.000-07:00

Astonishment. That was the feeling I experienced just now, as I randomly decided to head over to Fox News.com and see what their front page story was. I've taken to expecting bad news from the media so much that the bright shiny nuggets of good news seem that much brighter and more valuable to me. Apparently, our esteemed AG, Eric Holder, has run into what the article calls "the buzz saw of reality" and has grudgingly accepted the fact that New York is not the best place to hold the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and his cronies. The article reads in part:

Because a timely prosecution in federal court does not appear feasible, the attorney general intends to refer this matter to the Department of Defense to proceed in military commissions," reads the order to dismiss signed by U.S. District Judge Kevin Duffy.

The decision to return the detainees to a military commission is a reversal from Holder, who announced in November 2009 that he would move the trials to a civilian court in the United States. Supporters said it sent the right message to the rest of the world that U.S. courts were the fairest and best venue for trials.

Gee, ya think? Holder didn't exactly take this lying down, since he decided to rip into Congress, blaming their legislation for forcing his hand and leaving him no choice but to *GASP* abide by the will of the people of NYC:

Congress tied the Obama administration's hands in trying the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and his accomplices, Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday, announcing that he was left without a choice and has referred the cases to the Defense Department for trial.

In stark language, Holder lambasted Congress for imposing restrictions blocking any detainees from being tried in the U.S., saying that the "unwise and unwarranted restrictions" undermine the U.S. in counter-intelligence and counter-terror efforts.

Not only that, but he also threw what in this humble Crusader's mind amounts to a temper tantrum, screaming about how he knows better than everyone else how to handle these things:

Do I know better than them? Yes. I respect their ability to disagree but they should respect that this is an executive branch function, a unique executive branch function," Holder said in a press conference.

And during a press conference to boot. Not exactly the height of gentlemanliness. Oh, and guess who else isn't happy! The ACLU threw their own little hissy fit as well:

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, which vehemently opposes military courts, said the Obama administration's decision "is completely wrong."

"There is a reason this system is condemned: it is rife with constitutional and procedural problems and undermines the fundamental American values that have made us a model throughout the world for centuries. Attorney General Holder's previous decision to try the 9/11 defendants in federal court was absolutely the right call but this flip flop on the part of the Obama administration is devastating for the rule of law and greatly undermines America's standing abroad," Romero said.

I've put the juiciest parts here for your viewing pleasure, but be sure and read the whole thing. At the very least it'll make you smile.

Al Gore Contributing to the Very Thing he Claims to Despise!

2011-04-02T19:18:00.000-07:00

That's right, boys and girls. The self-proclaimed savior of the planet, Mr. Al "I'm Just Raising Awareness" Gore has been causing the very problem he claims to be trying to help solve. Via Jammy Wearing Fool:

Now how exactly will Al Gore's masterful invention go about destroying the planet? Why, by giving climate change "deniers" a voice to oppose the environmental wackos.

The planet may not be so lucky. It's increasingly apparent thatthe internet may bring about the death of human civilisation, beating out previous contenders such as nuclear holocaust and the election of George W. Bush.

The agents of this planetary death will be the climate-change deniers who, it's now clear, owe much of their existence to the internet. Would the climate-change deniers be this sure of themselves without the internet?

Indeed, how on Earth would all us country bumpkins who refuse to be swindled by the snake oil salesmen at the IPCC get along without their Orwellian policies telling us how to think, feel, and do basically everything necessary to live a normal life as a worker drone for the great Statist Revolution?

I particularly find amusing the idea that the mere election of The Evil One (AKA George W. Bush) was a contributer to a nonexistent crisis. I particularly like how he's embraced the "new F-ing tone" (as RS McCain calls it) by calling us all idiots literally from the first word of the article.

I could go on about how they need to see the error of their ways and simply realize that people disagreeing with you doesn't mean they're idiots, but I have a feeling that'll be too much wishful thinking on my part. My only source of solace is that people who write things like this make themselves sound so incredibly stupid that no one takes them seriously. At least, no one smart enough to realize that differing opinions are a GOOD thing, rather than a bad.

Walker to Activist Liberal Judge: Screw You!

2011-03-31T08:50:00.000-07:00

Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin has certainly shown that he has an almost Reaganesque steel spine. He's been standing up to the onslaught of ungrateful liberal union whiners with nothing more than public support and a pen, and he continues to do so even now, when the liberal courts are entering the fray. According to Hot Air, the Temporary Restraining Order that a judge issued took effect within the last few days, which was supposed to block the implementation of the new budget repair bill.

Walker, however, has found a loophole. The order only restricts certain agencies from implementing the bill, so Walker decided to use one that WASN'T mentioned in the restraining order to continue his work of doing what the people voted him into office to do.

It's so nice to see that there are still some good people in politics.

Motivation Monday's Absence is now Over

2011-03-28T21:26:00.000-07:00

It's been a while, what with several personal issues taking precedence over the blog, but I'm back and have been for the last few days, though my motivation Monday had to take more of a backseat than other posts. Hoping to make up for that, here's the Mormon Tabernacle Choir singing one of my favorite songs, The Battle Hymn of the Republic:

Philadelphia Police act Stupidly. Barack Obama Could not be Reached for Comment

2011-03-25T21:48:00.000-07:00

Remember when Barry O decided without facts that the police acted stupidly when they were dealing with the Crowley/Gates issue? Well, here's a video I found via Conservative Scalawag, who is an avid Second Amendment defender, as I am. In the fifteen minute video, which is really just audio with an image attached, the PA police stop a man who was legally carrying a Glock pistol in full view on his hip. I'll let the words exchanged paint a picture for you, but trust me when I say that THESE cops, as opposed to Officer Crowley, did in fact act stupidly, not to mention illegally.

Audio rated NSFW due to multiple F bombs and utter stupidity on the part of the boys in blue.

Wait Wait Wait...

2011-03-24T00:26:00.000-07:00

I am a regular listener of Sean Hannity's radio program, as well as an occasional viewer of his Fox News opinion show. The reason for this is because Hannity has a way of placing certain events into a neat little box of perspective that enables me to understand most of what's really going on with various news stories around the country and/or the world. Tonight was no exception. As I was working alone in the production center at my place of employment tonight, I flipped on his show promptly at seven so that I could remain apprised of world events, and get his take on those same events before posting a blog entry like this one.

When he brought up Libya again, I had to roll my eyes. More of the same? Really? We already know that Gaddafi is winning his civil war thus far, and that the UN has authorized a no-fly-zone over the country, effectively grounding the tin-pot dictator's piss poor air force. We also know that people are rightly up in arms over Obama waiting for the UN to give the okay before we decided to take military action, as well as Obama being raked over the coals for not going to Congress before authorizing the missile strikes on Lybian soil. All this ran through my head in a scant few seconds at the mention of the word Lybia. Then...something caught my attention.

More bureaucratic nonsense doesn't usually hold my attention the way it used to, but this one was unique. Apparently, there is a struggle to find out just who exactly is in charge of our little jaunt into Col. Gaddafi's back yard. Such confusion has erupted from recent events that some sort of political committee has been formed to lead military efforts. The ones who proposed the idea? The French.

I'll wait for you to stop hyperventilating.

What the hell are the French doing leading this thing? These nimrods haven't won a war in recent memory. The one that comes to mind is the Hundred Years War, and even then they were losing handily before divine intervention turned things around in the form of Mademoiselle Joan of Arc and her voices from Heaven. That being said, in my opinion this bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys couldn't lead a fish to water, much less lead troops into battle and expect to actually win.

One big mess. That's what this whole thing in Lybia has turned into. Our president can't even decide whether or not he's in the fight, since he keeps paying lip service to ousting Gaddafi while at the same time sitting on his hands hoping Col. G will just realize the error of his ways and step down of his own free will like a good little citizen of the world.

Yeah...and maybe a moistened bint at the bottom of a lake will hand me a shiny sword and I'll be proclaimed the Once and Future King...

Reductio ad Absurdum

2011-03-22T02:54:00.000-07:00

So...I just learned a new Latin term today, thanks to the Classic Liberal, whose post on social justice I just read is one of the most elaquent explanations of the flawed redistribution philosophy that I've ever read.

Simply put, for those of you who read this and don't know, Reductio ad Absurdum translates to "Reduction to the Absurd." The phrase is used to describe something when it becomes so ridiculous as to have lost all credibility. There seems to be a lot of that these days, doesn't there? From Climategate pretty much trashing every argument that has to do with manmade global warming to the idea that the ecomonic prosperity of a given country can be improved by taking from those who work and giving to those who do not.

Why, though, are we so given to the absurd that we believe such things? Are we mere sheep or cattle who react to the whims of a few ranchers, as Glenn Beck has pointed out on his television show? Are we robots that wait for commands from on high, as Nancy Pelosi seemed to think during the health care debate and rise of the Tea Party?

Because we only had a few sources of information back then, that's why.

For a long time, it seemed as though what is now known to be the minority view was in fact the majority. Much like Lenin and his Bolsheviks when they "seized the telegraph office" in what would become Soviet Russia, an ideological coup had taken place in our newsrooms and, more slowly, our schools and universities.

Even Hollywood, as witnessed by the great Ronaldus Maximus, had become a bastion for a particular ideology over the years, with movies bashing America becoming so common place that even those who paid attention, such as my mother, barely noticing anything wrong after a few years of the same tired old claptrap. In fact, up until recently, I wasn't even aware there were actors in Hollywood who DID support America in anything. I'm glad it turns out I was wrong.

Even as early as ten years ago, I never would have thought that a movie making fun of those on the left could ever make it past the planning stages in Hollywood, or that the works of an uberindividualist like Ayn Rand would see her greatest work, Atlas Shrugged, become a feature film.

What's different? Why the change in attitude, however small it might be? I'm not sure, but I hope to see more of it int he future.

Conservative Porn at it's Finest: Wisconson Edition

2011-03-10T20:59:00.000-08:00

Glenn Beck coined the phrase "conservative porn." He did so on his hour long Fox News opinion show before showing us the epic dressing down of Senator Barbara "Ma'am" Boxer by one Harry Alford of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. That episode of Beck set the tone for my entire day, which was, I'm glad to say, epic in it's awesomeness.

Well, boys and girls, get out the cigarettes, because I have not one, but two items that fall into that category tonight, in the form of one hat tip from The Other McCain, and another HT from the Left Coast Rebel. Be warned about the epic rant, however, as it is somewhat NSFW due to its peppering of F-bombs throughout. Still worth the read.

As to the other, here is Rand Paul, newly elected Senator of Kentucky, dressing down some moonbat bureaucrat that actually tries to tell him that restricting choices leads to us having more of them. Don't wrap your head around that. It'll explode and you'll have a huge mess to clean up.

A Turning Point?

2011-03-10T10:26:00.001-08:00

I've seen more than a few motivational videos in my time, but nothing quite puts a spring in my step like an unapologetic acknowledgment of the greatness of one Jesus Christ, and a defense of his day of birth as a part of our heritage both as a country and as a human being. Here's the video that has put me on Cloud 9 for the time being:

A Reason to Vote for Herman Caine

2011-03-09T21:10:00.000-08:00

As you all who read this know, I'm a Palinista. I've backed Palin for president ever since I heard the first glimmer of rumors that she might run for the office in 2012. That being said, a case is continually being made for Tea Party motivator and favorite Herman Caine. I liked the guy from the get go, but not until I heard this did I really consider changing my vote from Palin to someone else. Honestly, if Caine can do to Congress and our enemies what he just did to this nitwit high school/college kid, he could end up serving twelve years!

Here's the video of the incident that shall hence forth be known as...The Ownage:

If you can't Protect the Speech you Don't Like, you don't Have Free Speech

2011-03-06T08:51:00.000-08:00

The title of this post is a comment my political sciences teacher at MTI technical college told my classmates and me during a lesson on the Constitution one day. No more apparent is that example than in the Supreme Court's decision to protect Fred Phelps and his group of inbred cultists who have the audacity to call themselves a church.

I have nothing but dislike and loathing for the practices of the Westboro group, as I've stated in previous posts about them, such as when they protested the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards, or when they lauded the actions of psychopath Jarod Lee Loughner when he ended the lives of several, and injured several more, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

The act of horrific hate I'm referring to comes in the form of yet another funeral protest, this one (of course) a soldier who died bravely in Afghanistan (or was it Iraq?) Either way, this young man who gave his life for his country was at the time the latest target of the Westboro crazies. It had gotten so out of hand, in fact, that Bill O'Reilly of the O'Reilly factor had gotten involved and actually picked up the tab for the plaintiff's legal fees, said plaintiff being the young soldier's own father.

But now the supreme court has ruled that Fred and the gang can protest all they want at soldier's funerals under the First Amendment. This is wildly inconsistent of them given previous rulings on speech, particularly in cases involving the Catholic church or other branches of Christianity. How can it be that these people can spew nothing but hate at a solemn time of grief for a family who now has to bury their son, yet a single nativity scene on a front lawn is a violation of that same right?

Before I go on a free speech rant, though, I should make my point clear. The Supreme Court was right to rule as they did. In THIS case, at least. I've got plenty of opinions on bogus free speech rulings by the Supreme Court in the past, but in this case they did the right thing. No matter which side of the aisle you're on, once we start banning certain types of speech, it's basically all over. Despicable as it may have been for these people to do what they do, the only way we can stop them is by not giving them a forum from which to spew their hate. If private broadcasters would disallow more than barely minimal coverage of these wackos, their message would just be ineffective whistling past the graveyard.

Take two Asprin...

2011-03-05T04:51:00.000-08:00

Ugh...Sick as a dog right now. Also, due to a death in the family, I will be busy helping with funeral arrangements for a while and will not be able to post. Keep up the fight, true believers. I'll be back as soon as I'm able.

Ask Not for Whom the Bell Tolls...

2011-03-02T23:29:00.000-08:00

The title of this post is inspired by a tragic event. An even that, as of this writing, happened a mere five hours ago at Sutter Roseville in the emergency room. Two years ago, a similar tragedy occurred in the form of the death of my would be Father in Law, Billy Eckhardt, who died of heart failure in his home the very day after two friends of mine were married.

A similar tragedy struck today, as you might have guessed from the timing of this post. Apparently God wasn't happy with just one Eckhardt parent keeping him company upstairs. Just three years after taking her dad, he decided that it was time for her mother to come home as well. This couldn't have come at a worse time. With no employment, my fiance can no longer afford to live in the house they moved into after the one they used to own was repossessed by the bank. Fortunately we have a pair of great friends who are willing to help her out by allowing her to stay with them.

I'm more worried about her mental state, really. So close to the death of her last parent, she's been going on and on about how she could have done something better or different, or how she should have listened a little more so that God wouldn't have punished her by taking her mother away.

I know that's ludicrous, and so does she. The thing that makes this so hard for me to bear is that she's like a lost little girl now that she doesn't have the rock of stability that her parents were. I'm doing my best, but I feel so incredibly inadequate in regards to this, even though I know I'm doing everything expected of me and more besides. I wish to high heaven that comic book physics worked so I could get bitten by a genetically altered insect or bombarded with gamma rays to gain superpowers. Maybe then I'd be able to do enough good to satisfy my conscience.

I don't know...

I Couldn't Have Said it Better Myself...

2011-02-27T10:44:00.000-08:00

This video is via Hack Wilson.

I Have not Forgotten, and I Will Never Forgive

2011-02-25T21:53:00.000-08:00

It's not even September, but for some reason I just spent the last half hour or so perusing YouTube for various videos, and found myself gravitating towards several different 9/11 tributes that were made on various anniversaries paying tribute to the brave men and women who died trying to save the thousands that were victimized by fanatics from the Middle East. I've heard all the cliches regarding that day. It was my generation's Pearl Harbor Attack, etc. I tend to liken it more to the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, however. Why? Simply because more than be reminded of who attacked us and why we were retaliating against them, I tend to remember where I was and what I was doing on that fateful morning.

I was just turning 20 that year, and so I was still pretty stupid. Clueless, you might even say, though I thought I had a good handle on how things worked, like most people do at that or any age. And then, at six o'clock in the morning, Pacific Standard Time, I was informed by a customer using the drive through at what was then my place of work that two planes had crashed into the World Trade Center, and that the attacks had been perpetrated by terrorists. I wasn't really listening at the time, so at best it struck me as odd. Planes crashing into the two tallest buildings in the world? On purpose? Such a thing had never happened before in my lifetime. Was it a misreporting of the situation? Was it pilot error? I didn't know at the time, and I came later to regret finding out. It's true what they say, you know? Ignorance really IS bliss.

That day, I think, was the day that my descent into the depths of all things political truly began. For the first time, I watched the president's State of the Union address. Never had I done such a thing, before, believing (rightly, it turns out) that those speeches were boring and pointless. I mean, we were still here, right? America still existed. That was about all I understood the state of our Union to be. Not this time. This time I knew instinctively that something was wrong, though the full extent of what that was still eluded me. Also for the first time, I thought about what the people in our military had gone through throughout the years, from the Revolution all the way up to the current quagmire that Afghanistan has turned into. These heroes, for they are nothing less, literally give their lives, whether they are in combat or not, to protect and defend the people of this country. One could not ask for a more noble sacrifice. Even the Bible states "greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for another." That defines what our military does daily the best, in my own humble opinion.

My own cousins, in fact, serve now in the United States Marine Corps. One an officer, the other two NCOs. I admire these three men more than I ever did when I was younger, and wish I could do what they do. Alas, that's not my lot in life, apparently. Nevertheless, I still find ways such as this to express my support for all things America, and it seems to satisfy that desire enough to allow me to get on with other things in life.

To this day, however, I cannot understand those who blame the military for our (indeed the world's) problems. Clearly they simply do not understand what it is to be in said military, or to be in combat overseas, away from family and loved ones, sometimes for years at a time, with only the occasional letter or care package from home to link that brave soul with his civilian life back home. I don't claim to understand what it's like to be a soldier, but I do know what it is to lose those you love, having suffered, as everyone does, the death of a close relative or two. Do they not understand that they owe these soldiers their very lives? It's thanks to people like those belonging to the Greatest Generation that we are able to go to work in peace and safety, and spend that off time with our family and friends without fear of a mortar attack or ambush from the side of the road.

And so I ask this simple yet poignant question: Have you forgotten? Do you not remember that horrific scene of Towers One and Two crumpling to the ground like two houses of cards? Do you not remember the anguish that those families went through, and are still going through? If not, I seriously recommend a trip down Memory Lane. I just took one, and though not a pleasant trip, it did remind me of why I started this blog in the first place.

Thought Police. Coming to a State Near You

2011-02-23T11:41:00.000-08:00

The Other McCain has a truly disturbing story on his site that I only just got wind of. Apparently a judge Kessler has decided that "it is a matter of pure semantics to say that someone who chooses not to purchase health insurance is not acting." As McCain says in the post, paging George Orwell.

This is truly frightening to me, and even though I know the law will have to reach the supreme court before the final decision is made, what really scares me is that there are people working in our federal courtrooms who can actually twist the meaning of our most important founding document so horrifically that someone can actually be lead to believe that making a decision through thought is the same as acting on that decision. If this ruling is not overturned eventually, the floodgates will have opened. What then stops the federal government from regulating absolutely everything we do at any given time for any given reason? Nothing, that's what. One of the comments on McCain's site does lend a bit of humor to the situation which helps keep things in perspective for me:

"As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power."

Oh this could be SO much fun. Let's try it with other Constitutional provisions:

"As previous Eighth Amendment cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. thoughts, there is little judicial guidance on whether a punishment that makes someone feel bad can constitute cruelty."

"As previous Freedom of the Press cases have all involved physical publication, as opposed to mental publication, i.e. ideas, there is little judicial guidance on the scope of First Amendment exceptions such as libel apply to the general police power against Badthought."

"As previous War Powers cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power."

"As previous Electoral College rules have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether deem-and-pass can apply in this context."

Legal Insurrection as well has something to say about this. Via the Other McCain:

Our thoughts are now actions. There literally is nothing the federal government cannot regulate provided there is even a hypothetical connection to the economy, even if the connection at most is in the future.

A new Twist for Motivation Monday

2011-02-21T08:44:00.000-08:00

Usually this is the day that I post a little cheesecake in a shameless attempt to garner more traffic to the blog. However, today I think I'll try something a little different, and post a few things in the coming weeks that personally motivate me or that I find particularly inspiring. Also, in honor of the recently-celebrated hundredth birthday of Ronaldus Maximus, known to everyone else as President Ronald Reagan, I'm posting this:

May he Rest in Peace

End the Fed Becoming a Rallying Cry?

2011-02-14T13:08:00.001-08:00

This is a decent article. Definitely worth the read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/12/AR2011021202409.html

A Motivational Valentine

2011-02-13T23:11:00.000-08:00

In recognition of the holiday, here's an old school pinup my better half found for me to post for all you loyal readers to enjoy.

Now not Smoking is Illegal? EPIC FAIL!

2011-02-13T15:53:00.001-08:00

I really can't add anything to this analysis. Just that this is exactly why I don't trust politicians of any stripe unless they've earned that trust.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/02/transportation-secretary-ray-lahood.html

Candidates in 2012: My thoughts.

2011-02-09T11:05:00.000-08:00

Many are speculating about the political landscape of 2012. Here are my thoughts on our current crop of potential candidates:

Paul Ryan: Hack Wilson goes into great length to defend this choice, and I must say his record does look promising. He's been a staunch defender of the constitution all through the health care debacle, for one, and his limited government philosophy is definitely appealing to me. I'll keep an eye on this one.

Mike Huckabee: I read his book on the 2008 presidential campaign and his run for the White House and while a lot of his policy ideas rung true with me, I have to say that his record as governor of Arkansas won't appeal to the lower taxes crowd, since he balanced his cuts in spending with a tax increase or two here and there. His stance on religious views is appealing as well, but honestly we don't even know if he'll run yet, so while I'll keep an ear open, I'm not too sure he'll be a factor in this year's run.

Mitt Romney: One word spells doom for this man and any potential bid for the White House in 2012: ROMNEYCARE!

Michelle Bachmann: If she does decide to run, this woman has an incredible chance to become Commander in Chief. Bachmann is a Tea Party favorite, hated by the far left for believing in things like the Constitution and limited government, has a sterling record of conservative policies, and is nice to look at to boot. I'll probably be labeled sexist for that last, but I don't care. Names don't hurt me anymore.

Sarah Palin: Potential abound for the girl from Alaska, but the far left will do everything in their power to make sure she loses the nomination, much less the general election. I'm hopeful that she runs, and if she does run I WILL vote for her should she receive said nomination.That said, I'll probably vote for whoever gets the GOP nomination, since I refuse to vote for Obama even on pain of death.

Hook, Line, and Sinker

2011-02-01T00:23:00.000-08:00

This is how easily the world seems to be buying the situation in Egypt as a real chance at democratic reform. I've already posted previously about how I believe, as well as many of my fellow bloggers, that this is a replay of Jimmy Carter's disastrous handling of the '79 Islamic Revolution, wherein the Shah of Iran, a tyrant and despot supported by the U.S., was overthrown and replaced by the Ayatollah and his mouthpiece, Ahmidenijad. Add to this our support of the corrupt Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai and, coupled with our support of Mubarak, a man who has tortured family members and willingly tortured innocent people for the crime of running against him for president, or has ordered the internet shut down throughout the region to prevent the spread of information. To be fair, that first was in part due to U.S. urgings. Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse our part in propping this guy up for thirty years. I've always seen the American flag as a symbol of freedom. I still do. I always will, because I know that at its heart, it always will be. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case with most Middle Eastern countries (in fact I think Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has a favorable opinion of us, or had one, anyway.)

The Middle East has been a powder keg for decades. Centuries, even, if you go back far enough and connect the dots. the pro-Western Shah was deposed by radical Islam, Iraq was under the control of radical Islam until George W. Bush sent in the big guns, and still could potentially crumble if things go bad. This, though, these riots breaking out first in Tunisia, then in Egypt, as well as in Jordan, Yemen, and who knows where else? This has the potential to change the balance of power not just in Europe or the Middle East, but in Russia and China as well. Already, the Russian Federation and the People's Republic are the two most powerful players in that area of the world. Now we have the Muslim Brotherhood fomenting rebellion and unrest in Egypt. Whether they're behind the other rebellions or not remains to be seen in my eyes, but if they are, they could very well be well on their way to accomplishing their goal of restoring a unified Muslim Caliphate, which would leave the Middle East under a form of government not seen since the Middle Ages.

Let's be realistic here. The people of Egypt do in fact have a chance at real democracy being implemented, but not as easily as the pundits in America seem to believe it is. We in this country seem to take freedom for granted. Like John Adams before us, we seem to believe that democracy is the rule because to us, it's the obvious thing to do. This is not the case in the Middle East. Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there was only one democracy that even came close to being a government of, by and for the people: Israel. Now Iraq is taking its first fledgling steps into that area of the political spectrum and it's proving to be a bumpy ride. Until that began, however, the idea of democratic government was, and still is, seen as downright blasphemous. Government by the people? It's laughable to them in large part because they still hold to the theory of the Divine Right of Kings. To them, the people don't choose the leaders, Allah does. And the leaders do not serve the people, the people serve the leaders. This is, obviously, a completely backwards idea in the eyes of many in the West.

If the situation in Egypt is to have any chance at improving in a way that serves the best interest of the United States and her allies, most notably Israel, then we have no choice in the matter. We must support the people of Egypt and let them know that we will stand with them against any tyrant, Muslim Brotherhood, Mubarak, or otherwise, We must, as John F. Kennedy declared in his inaugural address to the nation in 1961, "support any friend" and "oppose any foe to ensure the survival and the success of liberty." This seems to be somewhat lost on our president, however, who it has been pointed out, cannot even seem to utter the word "democracy" even as he throws out such buzzwords as "reform" and "freedom". Don't get me wrong, he should be mentioning those things as well, but it will all be for nothing if he doesn't use that all important D word while he still has a chance to do so.

Still, as I realized after watching a video at The Other McCain, I came to realize that this is just another attempt by the Obama administration to vote "present" and play both sides in the hopes of coming out somewhere in the middle. This will not bode well for our Dear Leader, as that is exactly the kind of stance that Jimmy Carter took when dealing with the Shah! History repeats itself boys and girls, and never exactly the same way. These events playing out now could have a significantly WORSE outcome than the Islamic Revolution did if my above analysis is correct.

Let's hope it's not, however. The last thing we need is a unified radical Islamic Caliphate consolidating power in the Middle East. If and when that does occur, it'll bring us one step closer to World War III.

Some Motivation Monday Should Ease the Pain...

2011-01-30T19:02:00.000-08:00

Well, I'm having a bit of trouble with this week's Motivation Monday. Not because I can't find any hotness to display, but because of a story I found recently by way of Little Miss Attila. A GOP sponsored bill could potentially make Internet Service Providers legally obligated to hold onto search histories that would later be reviewed by police. *sigh.*. Well, maybe there's hope. The article doesn't mention who sponsors or co-sponsors the bill. It only mentions that in the GOP controlled House, such legislation could pass the House with much less difficulty than before. Personally, I hope this bill is killed in committee, if indeed it still remains in committee. No word on how far it's progressed yet. Also, this isn't just a GOP thing. The article specifically mentions that a Democratic congresswoman was the first to propose such legislation. RINO alert? You betcha. Fortunately, I know just the person who can stop this craziness if she ever gets into the White House in 2012:

You know I'm right.

Tingles is at it Again, Boys and Girls...

2011-01-29T19:42:00.000-08:00

That's right, my friends. Chris "thrill up my leg" Matthews, by far the dumbest political pundit on TV now that Olberman is gone, has decided to revive the tired meme of "everything is Bush's fault, even the stuff he didn't do.". This time he's being blamed by Matthews for the outbreak of anti-dictator protests in Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen. Via The Other McCain:

“Leading off tonight: Unrest in Egypt. Proving the Iraq war wasn`t needed, these protests in Egypt, as well as in Yemen and Tunisia, are all aimed at dictators supported by the U.S. The demonstrations have not yet turned anti-American, but they could. These are the events the Bush administration hoped to encourage by lying about weapons of mass destruction and invading Iraq.”

I'm apparently late to the party on this one, because That Mr. Guy was ahead of even Robert Stacy McCain in pointing out Matthews' idiocy:

Yep, you just knew that Chris “Tingles” Matthews would find some way to blame George Bush for the recent riots in the Middle East. What is up with this guy? He’s a one trick pony. Bush has been out of office for two years now. I’d say that the “blame Bush” meme has just about been worn out. I’d bet if Obama stubbed his toe getting out of the shower, Tingles would figure out some way to blame Bush for it.

The video above is also courtesy of That Mr. Guy. I'm just floored that someone like Matthews has a TV show where he can spout this garbage. When will he meet Olbermann's fate and be booted off the air?

Muslims vs. Secularists...True Change or False Hope?

2011-01-29T15:54:00.000-08:00

I'm probably one of the youngest people commenting on this particular event, and giving it this particular comparison, given that I was born at the tail end of the Carter administration, but this issue in Egypt seems very similar to me to the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979. Then again,I could be completely wrong and this could be a good thing, but demographics involving Egypt don't paint a pretty picture. Via AllahPundit at Hot Air:

In Egypt, 30 percent like Hizballah (66 percent don’t). 49 percent are favorable toward Hamas (48 percent are negative); and 20 percent smile (72 percent frown) at al-Qaida. Roughly speaking, one-fifth of Egyptians applaud the most extreme Islamist terrorist group, while around one-third back revolutionary Islamists abroad. This doesn’t tell us what proportion of Egyptians want an Islamist government at home, but it is an indicator.

In Egypt, 82 percent want stoning for those who commit adultery; 77 percent would like to see whippings and hands cut off for robbery; and 84 percent favor the death penalty for any Muslim who changes his religion.

Asked if they supported “modernizers” or “Islamists” only 27 percent said modernizers while 59 percent said Islamists…

Granted, that last one there is a clear majority, but still, that leaves a nice chunk of undecided who could influence some of the Islamist supporters, but that's about as likely as Nancy Pelosi seeing the light and espousing the views of Ronald Reagan. Still, one can dream. And the picture isn't all doom and gloom, either, if these preliminary reports from Hot Air are any indication:

Even as pockets of protesters clashed with police, army tanks expected to disperse the crowds in central Cairo and in the northern city of Alexandria instead became rest points and even, on occasion, part of the protests as anti-Mubarak graffiti were scrawled on them without interference from soldiers.

“Leave Hosni, you, your son and your corrupted party!” declared the graffiti on one tank as soldiers invited demonstrators to climb aboard and have their photographs taken with them…

In another central Cairo square on Saturday a soldier in camouflage addressed a crowd through a bullhorn declaring that the army would stand with the people.

“I don’t care what happens,” the soldier said. “You are the ones who are going to make the change.” The crowd responded, “The army and the people will purify the country.”

The army, according to Allah, and several other sources, has been siding with the protesters the vast majority of the time during which the protests have taken place, even despite, as noted above, clashes between the two entities. If indeed the protesters have the support of the army, then at the very least battle lines will be drawn, and if the Muslim Brotherhood, as many say, are serious about seizing power, we could have another Islamic Revolution on our hands, with Mubarak playing the part of the Shah.

The more optimistic part of me says that this will play out anpd Egypt will emerge stronger and more pro-democracy than before, but the cozy ties that the supposedly pro-democracy leader of the protests has with the MB make me wonder. All in all, if we get another Iran, it's going to be bad.

Ronald Reagan, a Man Among Men

2011-01-28T19:54:00.000-08:00

I'm not quite old enough to remember the Reagan administration, having been born just a few months before he replaced Jimmy Carter as our chief executive. Throughout Reagan's eight years, I was nothing more than an infant. I wasn't even aware of the political situation in the world until the months leading up to the 2008 election. In a few days we'll be celebrating the Great Communicator's 100th birthday, and though I believe Ronnie would be most concerned about the state of the country now, I also believe that, true to his faith in the human spirit, he would have embraced the grass roots movement known as the TEA party and their commitment to government accountability. To that end, I've decided to post a couple of videos I found highlighting some of the Great Communicator's greatest moments, as well as his funniest. And now, without further ado, here it is, the very best of Ronald Reagan:

Rubio Refuses toJoin Tea Party Caucus...Good for him!

2011-01-24T22:11:00.000-08:00

I was going to make this a comment at The Conservative Lady's blog, but found myself going on longer than necessary, so instead I'll make it my next post. Apparently there's some hubbub from the Tea Party about Senator Marco Rubio of Florida refusing to join the Tea Party Caucus. Some don't care, but most are either in agreement with him or not, making arguments for and against depending on their point of view. I personally question the need for a Tea Party Caucus at all. After all, aren't we always worried about slippery slopes and all that?

I mean, look, before you know it there'll be an official Tea Party National Committee, and it'll be nothing more than a shadow of its former self, much as the GOP is now. The people who ARE on the caucus, as far as I know, are Michelle Bachmann and a few others. That gives me some hope that the caucus won't be corrupted, as Bachmann appears to be one of the few with a steel spine. However, one never knows. Even with solid conservatives like Bachmann, sheer numbers could overwhelm her and the other voices on her side until the caucus becomes little more than another front group to make the politicians look like they're working for us when they really aren't.

That being said, I think Rubio is doing the right thing in this regard. Just because he's not on some caucus doesn't make him any less of a Tea Partier than he was when he was running for Senate, remember. After all, we're all Tea Partiers in some way, aren't we?

With the Loss of Olbermann, the Left Attacks...Beck?

2011-01-24T10:12:00.000-08:00

We've all heard by now that Keith Olbermann has now proven NOT to be as indispensable as he once thought, when Fox's Glenn Beck rightly predicted that after the Comcast merger, in light of actually bringing an audience to MSNBC, the cable giant would give him the ax.

Well, they did, and boy howdy has the left gone insane. Granted, they go insane every time certain conservatives so much as open their mouths, so it's not entirely unexpected, but good grief! To hear some of these people you'd think the world was coming to an end because the arrogant demagogue that was Keith Olbermann turned out to be a giant with clay feet.

n what I view as nothing more than Olbermann therapy, Media Matters for America, Politicus USA, and other left leaning "news" outlets are crowing incessantly over Beck's recent drop in ratings. Apparently half of his audience has abandoned the show in favor of other entertainment sources, but whether those viewers will return once those other shows go the way of the dinosaur or end their current seasonal run remains to be seen. To hear the left tell it, however, Beck's career is over and done with, despite having a solid base of followers much as Rush Limbaugh does. Never mind the fact that Keith Olbermann had only a few tens of thousands of viewers compared to Beck's 1-2 Million, of course. Things like facts don't matter to the left, as we all know.

That said, the left won't be rid of their conservative pariah as quickly as they might wish. Beck's radio show is still going strong, along with his web log and website. Coupled with the fact that he does still bring in enough viewers to keep him on the air, methinks the celebration of victory among the lefty moonbats is yet another premature emotional high that will only end in disappointment for them.

Update on Supreme Court Decisions Enabling Federal Judges to Ignore the Constitution

2011-01-24T00:32:00.000-08:00

A comment was left at my first post about this issue:

Hi. I am William M. Windsor. The report of what the Supreme Court has done is 100% valid. The decisions in the THREE actions filed at The Supreme Court are all easily accessed from the SCOTUS website -- http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx Just enter windsor, william, and then see 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690. These were original actions filed in The Supreme Court, and the justices were asked to declare that federal judges do not have the right to void and ignore the Constitution, the law, and the facts in cases. They refused to do so. They had THREE opportunities to tell their fellow judges to uphold the Constitution, and they refused to do so. They heard the case, and refused to tell judges to honor the Constitution!

The federal court system is corrupt. That's the issue. I have received calls and emails from close to 1,000 people, many relating their own stories of judicial corruption. A lot of normal law-abiding Americans are trying to keep our country from being a police state due to the tyrannical acts of federal judges who do whatever they want. The mainstream media won't touch this story because they are afraid of the judges. It will take people like you with your blog to educate the public. I believe this is the biggest crisis America has ever faced. Please see www.LawlessAmerica.com for lots of facts. If you have any questions, just email or call.

Thanks,
William M. Windsor
bill@LawlessAmerica.com

Any who have information regarding efforts to stop this monstrous practice please let me know so I can let others know in turn. Meantime I will be checking his sources and facts to be certain of what's going on.

Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.

Has it Really Been 200 Posts?

2011-01-23T20:04:00.000-08:00

This week's Motivation Monday hits a milestone for me. Good gravy does time ever fly! When I started this blog, it was never intended to become the Conservative fortress that it has become. Back in 2005 or so, when I was attending MTI College in an attempt to suck out my soul and become a trial lawyer, I was only using it as a journal to record my personal life and achievements on my way to becoming a soulless lying douchebag er...lawyer. That being said, I have now decided to work towards a more "everyman" type of career, perhaps in automotive repair or something equally rewarding in terms of hard work and results. On the side, however, like a tights-wearing vigilante with a secret identity, I fight tooth and nail to prove that freedom still exists here in the USA. It occurs to me, however, that I've been remiss in acknowledging those who inspire me to continue in my quest to annoy people by telling the truth as I see it, so I'm using this post to do just that, with a special treat for those who scroll to the bottom

Special thanks go to:

The Other McCain, for his linkagery and his Rule 5 Sunday. Keep the babes comin', Stacy

Just a Conservative Girl, for providing my better half with an extra follower in her own blog, as well as stopping by mine every so often.

That Mr. Guy for finding my whining and moaning about liberals interesting enough to add to his blog roll

Fuzzy Logic, for becoming one of my 34 followers and providing well thought out insight into both sides of the spectrum, not just the conservative side.

Little Miss Attila, for having an awesome net alias, as well as providing excellent reach around material

The Conservative Lady, for her awesome videos involving Ronald Reagan, whose accomplishments are fast becoming the stuff of Conservative and American legend and folklore.

Legal Insurrection, for being a solid voice of reason amidst the sea of chaos that is the legal world, and his staunch opposition to Palin Derangement Syndrome

And last, but most certainly not least, my own better half, whose bored mind certainly provides me with interesting stories and adventures day in and day out.

And as a final act of celebration, a Rule 5 style pic of Gemma Atkinson:

If This is True...

2011-01-23T13:11:00.001-08:00

Then we're in for a lot of trouble. The article is from CNBC.com. Will continue following and update as necessary:

ATLANTA, Jan. 18, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that serves to allow judges to void the Constitution in their courtrooms. The decision was issued on January 18, 2011, and the Court did not even explain the decision (Docket No. 10-632, 10-633, and 10-690). One word decisions: DENIED.

Presented with this information and massive proof that was not contested in any manner by the accused judges, at least six of the justices voted to deny the petitions: "There is no legal or factual basis whatsoever for the decisions of the lower courts in this matter. These rulings were issued for corrupt reasons. Many of the judges in the Northern District of Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit are corrupt and violate laws and rules, as they have done in this case. The Supreme Court must recognize this Petition as one of the most serious matters ever presented to this Court." The key questions answered negatively by the U.S. Supreme Court was: "Whether federal courts must be stopped from operating corruptly and ignoring all laws, rules, and facts." By denying the petitions, SCOTUS has chosen to sanction corruption by federal judges and to allow federal judges to void sections of the Constitutional at will.

William M. Windsor has been involved in legal action in the federal courts in Atlanta since 2006. Windsor was named a defendant in a civil lawsuit (1:06-CV-0714-ODE) in which Christopher Glynn of Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, swore under oath that Windsor did a variety of things including the crimes of theft and bribery. Windsor stated under oath that Christopher Glynn made it up and lied about absolutely everything that he swore. Windsor then obtained deposition testimony from Glynn and the other managers of the Maid of the Mist boat ride, and they admitted, under oath, that charges against Windsor were not true.

Despite this undeniable proof, 32-year federal Judge Orinda D. Evans declared that the grandfather of three should not have fought the lawsuit, and she forced him to pay a fortune in legal fees of Maid of the Mist. Windsor appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but federal judges Dubina, Hull, and Fay rubber-stamped Judge Evans' ruling. Windsor then took his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices said the appeal was not worthy of their consideration (cert denied).

After attempting to get the case reopened with new evidence that proved fraud upon the courts and obstruction of justice, Judge Evans and Judge William S.

Duffey committed a variety of crimes and violations of Constitutional rights, as did judges with the Eleventh Circuit. All of this was detailed for the Supreme Court.

Windsor says: "I have discovered that the federal judges in Atlanta, Georgia, Washington, DC, and the justices of the United States Supreme Court function like common criminals intentionally making bogus rulings against honest people while covering up the crimes of their fellow judges. I have been contacted by people from all over the country and around the world with their stories of judicial corruption with judges all over the U.S.

"My charges have been totally ignored by the United States Attorney's Office, the FBI, and Congress. I do not believe there is a shred of decency, honesty, or Constitutional rights in our federal courts. In my opinion, we now live in a police state. Judges are free to do absolutely anything they want. Our laws are meaningless. Your life savings can be stolen by a federal judge, and they have no risk in violating every law in the books.

"In my opinion, this is the most serious issue that our country has ever faced. Our rights have been stolen. And the mainstream media refuses to cover this story because they are afraid of the judges. Heaven help us.

"I believe our only hope in America is if the masses become aware of what is taking place. I am writing an expose, and my book will be available at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and on amazon.com soon. The publisher will decide if the title is Lawless America or Screwed, Glued, and Tattooed." For more information, see www.LawlessAmerica.com.

Contact: William Windsor, +1-770-578-1094, bill@lawlessamerica.com SOURCE William M. Windsor www.prnewswire.com Copyright (C) 2011 PR Newswire. All rights reserved -0- KEYWORD: Georgia INDUSTRY KEYWORD: BKS SUBJECT CODE: LAW

TIme for Another Good Idea, Bad Idea

2011-01-23T12:46:00.000-08:00

No, this is not a post about the Animaniacs, as awesome as that cartoon was back in the nineties. The title of the post is, rather, an attempt at deciding whether the long known about decision of Jim DeMint to boycott CPAC (along with other senators) in order to protest the attendance of GOProud is a good or bad thing. It really depends on the outcome, which we will not know about until it actually happens. Some, such as That Mr. Guy, are afraid that such a boycott, along with Michelle my Bell Bachmann giving the TEA Party response to the President's latest upcoming SOTU speech, will give the Democratic minority in the house enough momentum to return for a second shot in 2012.

I do not believe this to be the case. While I also do not know whether the boycott of CPAC is a good or bad idea, I do know that the movement that has gathered steam over the last two years has more motivation than the actions of a few senators. Besides, isn't the whole point of the new Conservative movement to give long silent conservative voices the chance to speak out about their views, whatever those views might be? Most might not agree with Demint's decision, but it's still his decision to make, and he'll suffer whatever consequences result from it. Personally, I think he has a lot of sand for making a statettment like that, and I would vote for him if I could, with that being part of the reason.

Upon reflection, the boycott of CPAC is a minor issue, and is therefore a distraction. DeMint might not speak there, but that won't stop him from using the senate floor as his forum, or any of the wildly successful conservative opinion shows on Fox News, or for that matter, whatever liberal TV talk shows invite him on (though I don't know why they would).

Remember, people, this isn't about the gays, or any one particular group. This is about the country as a whole, and one boycott cannot be used to completely derail every other issue on the table. Keep your eyes on the prize, fellow tin-foil-hat-wearers. Don't be distracted!

A Letter

2011-01-17T10:42:00.000-08:00

AN OPEN LETTER TO STATISTS EVERYWHERE

by Capitalism on Monday, January 17, 2011 at 10:23am

Dear Statist Friends:

I know, I know. You’re already objecting to my letter. You don’t like the label “statist.” You don’t think of yourselves as worshipping government; rather, you think of yourselves as simply wanting to help people, with government being your preferred means to achieve what is usually a very worthy end. “Statist,” you say, is a loaded term—a pejorative that suggests an over-the-top affinity for the state.

Well, let’s wait and see how the term stacks up after you’ve read my whole letter and answered its questions. Meantime, if you have any doubt about whether this missive is directed at you, let me clarify to whom I am writing. If you’re among those many people who spend most of their time and energy advocating a litany of proposals for expanded government action, and little or no time recommending offsetting reductions in state power, then this letter has indeed found its mark.

You clever guys are always coming up with new schemes for government to do this or that, to address this issue or solve that problem, or fill some need somewhere. You get us limited-government people bogged down in the minutiae of how your proposed programs are likely to work (or not work), and while we’re doing the technical homework you seldom do, you demonize us as heartless number crunchers who don’t care about people.

Sometimes we all get so caught up in the particulars that we ignore the big picture. I propose that we step back for a moment. Put aside your endless list of things for government to do and focus on the whole package. I need some thoughtful answers to some questions that maybe, just maybe, you’ve never thought much about because you’ve been too wrapped up in the program du jour.

At the start of the 1900s, government at all levels in America claimed about 5 percent of personal income. A hundred years later, it takes something approaching 40 percent—up by a factor of eight. So my first questions to you are these: Why is this not enough? How much do you want? Fifty percent? Seventy percent? Do you want all of it? To what extent do you believe a person is entitled to what he (or she) has earned?

I want specifics. Like millions of Americans planning for their retirement or their children’s college education, I need to know. I’ve already sacrificed a lot of plans to pay your bills, but if you’re aiming for more, I’m going to have to significantly curtail my charitable giving, my discretionary spending, my saving for a rainy day, my future vacations, and perhaps some other worthwhile things.

I know what you’re thinking: “There you go again, you selfish character. We’re concerned about all the people’s needs and you’re only interested in your own bank account.” But who is really focused on dollars and cents here, you or me?

Why is it that if I disagree with your means, you almost always assume I oppose your ends? I want people to eat well, live long and healthy lives, get the prescription drugs and health care they need, etc., etc., just like you. But I happen to think there are more creative and voluntary ways to get the job done than robbing Peter to pay Paul through the force of government. Why don’t you show some confidence in your fellow citizens and assume that they can solve problems without you?

We’re not ignorant and helpless, in spite of your many poorly performing government schools and our having to scrape by with a little more than half of what we earn. In fact, give us credit for managing to do some pretty amazing things even after you take your 40 percent cut—things like feeding and clothing and housing more people at higher levels than any socialized society has ever even dreamed of.

This raises a whole series of related questions about how you see the nature of government and what you’ve learned, if anything, from our collective experiences with it. I see the ideal government as America’s founders did—in Washington’s words, a “dangerous servant” employing legalized force for the purpose of preserving individual liberties. As such, it is charged with deterring violence and fraud and keeping itself small, limited, and efficient. How can you profess allegiance to peace and nonviolence and at the same time call for so much forcible redistribution?

Don’t invoke democracy, unless you’re prepared to explain why might—in the form of superior numbers—makes right. Of course, I want the governed to have a big say in whatever government we have, but unlike you I have no illusions about any act’s being a legitimate function of government if its political supporters are blessed by 50 percent plus one of those who bother to show up at the polls. Give me something deeper than that, or I’ll round up a majority posse to come and rightfully claim whatever we want of yours.

Why is it that you statists never seem to learn anything about government? You see almost any shortcoming in the marketplace as a reason for government to get bigger but you rarely see any shortcoming in government as a reason for it to get smaller. In fact, I wonder at times if you are honestly capable of identifying shortcomings of government at all! Do we really have to give you an encyclopedia of broken promises, failed programs, and wasted billions to get your attention? Do we have to recite all the workers’ paradises that never materialized, the flashy programs that fizzled, the problems government was supposed to solve but only managed into expensive perpetuity?

Where, by the way, do you think wealth comes from in the first place? I know you’re fond of collecting it and laundering it through bureaucracies—“feeding the sparrows through the horses” as my grandfather once put it—but tell me honestly how you think it initially comes into being. Come on, now. You can say it: private initiative.

I’ve asked a lot of questions here, I know. But you have to understand that you’re asking an awful lot more in blood, sweat, tears, and treasure from the rest of us every time you pile on more government without lightening any of the previous load. If anything I’ve asked prompts you to rethink your premises and place some new restraints on the reach of the state, then maybe the statist label doesn’t apply to you. In which case, you can look forward to devoting more of your energies to actually solving problems instead of just talking about them, and liberating people instead of enslaving them.

Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Reed
President, Foundation for Economic Education (www.fee.org)
(Based on an essay originally published in FEE's journal, "The Freeman," in December 2000

This was originally posted by the Facebook page "Capitalism" on Facebook

Teenagers: Stupid when I was one, Stupid now that I'm Not

2011-01-17T10:27:00.000-08:00

That Mr. Guy has an interesting post that he picked up via The Other McCain, involving two teenagers that have been charged with a crime for making a fake Facebook profile involving another student and posting lewd messages, including "as many of you know, I'm a huge whore". An excerpt from the news article in question states the following:

Two Florida girls are facing cyberstalking charges for allegedly creating a fake Facebook profile in the name of a fellow high school student and placing obscene photos on the page . . .
[O]ne of the suspects, Taylor Wynn, 16 . . . admitted creating two fake Facebook pages “as a joke because she thought it would be funny.” Wynn said she was once friends with the unnamed victim, “but they do not like each other now.”
Wynn told probers that a second girl, McKenzie Barker, 15, created the image showing the victim’s head atop the naked body. Wynn reportedly copped to placing a photo of an adult male’s erect penis “by the victim’s face” . . .
[T]he victim . . . told a deputy that she had been subjected to “numerous incidents of teasing and ridicule” as a result of the Facebook hoax. One of the fake pages . . . included an assortment of disparaging comments, including an “About Me” claim that, “As you may know, I am a huge whore. I love dick so much.”

The two students claim that it was just a prank, yet now they're being charged with cyberstalking. The article does not say whether they will serve any time, or what their punishment will be at all, but I'm hoping the shame and guilt is enough to at least make these two think about what they've done and change their behavior quickly while they're still young enough to do something about it.

He had a Dream.

2011-01-17T10:06:00.000-08:00

In recognition of MLK Day, I've decided to post his most famous speech. Hat tip to Musings of a Vast Right Winger for the vid:

Motivation Monday!

2011-01-16T15:25:00.000-08:00

Some say this pic was too sexy for Twitter. What do you say? In the comments forum, please.

New HHS Motto to be "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"?

2011-01-16T14:03:00.000-08:00

I haven't been able to follow the news as closely as normal the past two weeks due to lack of a computer. I just happen to have gained permission to use the one I"m on now, at least for today. Ah, well, not that it matters. While I was searching for stories to rant and rave uncontrollably about, I find this little gem.

The story, in short, involves a couple who, with help from various volunteers in Houston, Texas, have been helping to feed a group of homeless people in their hometown at their own expense, including time and money. Apparently, however, Heath and Human Services, Big Brother's ministry for dealing with, ostensibly, healthy lives for all of us Americans, has deemed that the couple is not allowed to serve the food that they serve, unless they have Big Brother's permission in the form of a permit. A spokesman for HHS put it like this:

Anyone serving food for public consumption, whether for the homeless or for sale, must have a permit, said Kathy Barton, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Department. To get that permit, the food must be prepared in a certified kitchen with a certified food manager.

The regulations are all the more essential in the case of the homeless, Barton said, because "poor people are the most vulnerable to foodborne illness and also are the least likely to have access to health care."

A permit? Really? Why on Earth would anyone need a permit to serve food to the homeless? Barton goes on to explain that the regulations are "absolutely essential, especially in the case of the homeless" because they are more susceptible to food borne illness. Is this true? Maybe. I haven't done the research so I don't know for certain. What I do know is that these people were doing a good thing and have now been punished for it. Note, also, that ever popular Big Government narrative that the food must be prepared in "a certified kitchen with a certified food manager". What the heck? What qualifies in their mind as a certified food manager? What, for that matter, qualifies as a certified kitchen? When did everything we eat, cook, and drink come under the purview of Kathleen Sebelius and her government lackeys?

Oh, apparently the location they were on is on city owned land. Still stupid, stopping the homeless from getting help just because they don't have a pretty little piece of paper that gives them permission from on high, but it does prove one thing: the bureaucratic morass of insanity is what gummed up these works, not any maliciousness on the part of anyone that I'm aware of. What really gets my goat, though, is that according to the article these people had been doing this for over a year and only now are the suits getting involved. What took them so long? If it was such a horrible thing wouldn't someone have told them to stop long before this?

Fortunately this isn't the end of the help that the family involved is giving to these people. Even now they're searching for a way around the wall of red tape they've run into, perhaps working through a local church or another such thing.

Here's to hoping they find what they're looking for.

Westboro Baptist Church Agrees not to Protest Funeral of 9 Year Old

2011-01-12T21:29:00.000-08:00

Sounds like good news, doesn't it? I thought so at first when I read it. Then I actually read the article. Apparently there's a little caveat to their agreement not to protest. They will renege on the protest idea if, and only if, they are given airtime on a local Canadian radio station to express their downright hateful views of all things American, from it's soldiers to its would-be-first-ladies. This is, I'm afraid, a necessary price to pay. As long as they're not ruining the funeral of the girl I'd be willing to give them the air time, despite my absolute disagreement with everything they supposedly stand for.

Too bad they didn't seem to feel the same way about the federal judge,or anyone else who died during that madman's shooting spree. Plans to protest those funerals appear to be underway even now.

Motivation Monday!

2011-01-10T00:01:00.000-08:00

It's that time again, boys and girls. Here for your viewing pleasure (and my traffic-increasing pleasure) is another Motivation Monday pic to get you through the week, and decided to head into the realm of steam punk.

Also, you may or may not have noticed the donate button in the corner. I'm strapped for cash and in need of means to purchase a new vehicle. Every little bit helps, so as R.S. McCain is fond of saying: "Hit the freakin' tip jar!"

First they Came for the Firearms...

2011-01-09T19:56:00.000-08:00

Well, I can't say I didn't see this coming. Not even a day after the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the gun-grabbers are already trying to use it as justification for taking away our God-given second Amendment rights. Carolyn McCarthy, a long time advocate of gun control, has unveiled new, draconian legislation that, if passed would (she says) protect people. How? I don't know. She hasn't offered any details. This, more than being told what's in the bill, scares me. Let's set aside the fact that she's capitalizing on a tragedy to further an agenda. Let's set aside the fact that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun (or training only the likes of Chuck Norris have).

McCarthy wants to pass a law that makes it harder for people with mental instabilities to own weapons. Nothing too frightening about that idea, right? However, the next line in the article is what caught my eye. "No one should be allowed to own stockpiles of ammunition such as were owned by the 22 year old gunman." What? No one should be able to own ammunition? Does no one else see how ripe for abuse this idea is? If someone starts trying to tell people how much ammunition they can own, that means only one thing: That they will know exactly how much ammunition is out there. That's the only reason to do something like this.

My previous post went on and on about how we needed to stop capitalizing on this tragedy. When I see something like this it makes my blood boil.

Is This Righteous Fury or just Plain Anger?

2011-01-09T16:28:00.000-08:00

I can't tell. All I can tell is that ever since the story broke about Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords being shot by an unhinged gunman in Arizona yesterday, I've seen both the best and the worst humanity has to offer. I've seen vitriol on Twitter from the likes of none other than Hanoi Jane Fonda. I've also seen some of the most heartfelt well wishes come out of the internet that I've seen in quite a while. I've also had to deal with those on both sides who blame either the left or the right for this insane act of violence that claimed the lives of almost 20 people, including that of a nine year old girl.

THIS MUST STOP! We cannot point the finger at each other and try to shift blame simply because we believe we're right and the other side is wrong! This is not the time to blame either Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Paul Krugman, or anyone else! The only one responsible for those deaths and injuries as happened in Arizona is the one who pulled the trigger. Plain and simple, end of story. Now there are plenty who will disagree. There are those who will continue to whine and moan about one or the other side or whether or not we should repeal the second amendment because of this, or even that the shooter did us a favor by taking her out.

I will not be one of those people. I will not be drawn into the "left vs. right" issues. I will not use this to further the cause of conservatism or liberalism because, frankly, that is an insult to the memories of those who died, as well as to the work the congresswoman did before this terrible incident. I've already posted on this, trying to find good news amidst all the chaos and disorder this incident has caused, but I've found precious little. At least they know that she has a good chance of retaining the majority of her brain functions because the bullet actually missed the geometric center of her brain.

To make a long rant short, please people, do not fall into the trap of arguing right v. left over this! It's not about that! Whatever the Congresswoman's politics, whatever the shooter's politics, the fact remains that people were hurt yesterday. Not just those that the gunman targeted, either. The families of those who died and were injured in the attack are no doubt going through horrendous amounts of grief and rage at having been violated in such a fashion. What needs to happen now is that people need to come together and do what they can to help those people, even if it's just a few kind words on Facebook or in a letter. If that is what is done instead of constantly trying to point the finger, the family will be much better for it and will find it much easier to navigate the storm of grief that they are now forced to endure.

As of this writing, the Congresswoman is expected to recover. Can we not focus on that instead of the negatives?

A Bright Spot in Dark Times

2011-01-09T13:59:00.000-08:00

It seems that, through the grace of God, there is reason to hope in the case of Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona Congresswoman who was shot by Jared Lee Loughner yesterday. The doctors believe that she will recover, and retain the vast majority of her brain functions due to the realization that the bullet did not strike the geometric center of her brain. The family is no doubt overjoyed by this news, and it furthers my hopes as well that the woman will recover and continue serving the people as she has done in the past. Read the full story here.

The Elite in this Country are Definitely NOT British, it seems

2011-01-08T17:23:00.000-08:00

Looking at the reaction of the left in light of the rise of the Tea Party, one would never surmise that we descended from those tea-loving crumpet eaters, the British. Let me give you an example of what I mean:

Just a Conservative Girl has posted on the tragedy involving the representative who was shot in Arizona today, and has linked to a tweet by none other than Hanoi Jane herself, Jane Fonda. The traitorous Hollywood liberal had the audacity, as many on the left have had since the Tea Party gained steam, to blame the violence against the Arizona Democrat on the Tea Party itself, all without evidence to support the claim. She is joined in this endeavor by none other than Paul Krugman of the New Snark Times. Here is the tweet from Fonda:

Progressive Arizona Rep Gabrielle Giffords is shot. In her ads, Sarah Palin had her targeted in a gun site. Inciting to violence.

Fonda is referring to a map that shows districts wherein there were candidates for re-election that Palin sought to unseat in last year's elections.

Never mind that the ads in question was put on the air over a year ago, in preparation for the elections. Never mind that people are responsible for their own actions and that not that many people do something just because someone tells them it's okay. And never mind that the map Jane Fonda refers to was a SURVEY MAP and the markers were SURVEY MARKERS, used typically to target potential ore deposits in preparation for mining. But then, that's typical of the leftists in Hollywood and in Washington. They think we average Americans are too stupid to know any better when people use metaphor and hyperbole to make a point. Why else would they think we're nothing more than pawns of the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh? At least that insult tells me that they think we're capable of obeying commands. Paul Krugman doesn't even allow us that much intelligence, given how many of his columns have found eloquent and flowery ways to use the word "stupid" when referring to Americans.

I read his column, though it kills brain cells each time I do, and I am not surprised at all that Krugman, before anyone knew anything about the shooter, even his name, Krugman was out there blaming the Tea Party and the right wing for a deed that they are completely innocent of. Conservative Girl explains:

Paul Krugman couldn't even bothered to wait until more information was known before they decided to weigh in and blame the right for this horrifying act of violence. Krugman came out with his statement before the name of the shooter was known and what the press was reporting was that he was a war vet. There is enough information about the shooter now for Krugman to realize that this is a matter of a very delusional young man who didn't seem to have grip on reality. In one you tube video he is burning the American flag, in other he has a diatribe about the constitution and mind control.

Now I know Krugman doesn't like the right, but come on. Even he can't be THAT lazy...well, maybe he can.

Can we please just let the woman recover without turning her near death experience into a political pissing contest that tries to prove whether Liberalism is superior to Conservatism? Please?