Thursday, November 29, 2012

Quote of the Day - Jake Tapper Edition Part 2

 I guess that they could start providing us with information. That would be a new–
Jake Tapper's response when asked how The White House could make the press briefings more informative for the American public.  I just heart him.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Quote of the Day - Dick Durbin Edition


"Progressives cannot afford to stand on the sidelines in this fiscal cliff debate and to deny the obvious. Important critical decisions will be made soon that will affect this country for 10 years. I think we need to be part of this conversation, which means we need to be open to some topics and some issues that are painful and hard for us to talk about.
We have to look to reform and change that is significant, that preserves many of the values and programs that brought us to political life, and we cannot believe that merely ignoring these programs or not engaging is going to solve a problem."
Senator Dick Durbin speaking to an audience at The Center for American Progress.  

At least he seems to understand that their is a problem and not denying that the fiscal problems even exist.  Sadly, many in the progressive community are.   

Bill Bolling Statement on Leaving Governor's Race


Friends,
When I was growing up my dad was a coal miner and my mom waited tables. We didn't have much, but my parents instilled in me a love of Virginia. I never dreamed that I would one day have a chance to help lead this wonderful state, but thanks to you, that has been my privilege.
Throughout my 21 years in public service I have done my best to stand strong for our shared conservative values, while at the same time working with Republicans and Democrats to get things done in state government. I think that effort has been successful, and I hope you agree.
For the past seven years I have had the honor of serving as Virginia’s Lieutenant Governor, and it had been my intention to seek the Republican Party’s nomination for Governor in 2013. However, not everything we want in life is meant to be.
I am writing to advise you that after a great deal of consideration I have decided to suspend my campaign for the Republican Party's nomination for Governor of Virginia. Needless to say, this was a very difficult decision for me, and I know it will come as a surprise and disappointment to you, but I am confident it is the right decision.
Four years ago I decided to set my personal ambition to be Governor aside and join with Bob McDonnell to create a united Republican ticket. Time has proven the wisdom of that decision. Governor McDonnell and I were elected in 2009 by historic margins, and for the past three years we have successfully worked together to get Virginia back on the right track.
I had hoped that Attorney General Cuccinelli and I would be able to form that same kind of united Republican ticket in 2013. However, late last year Mr. Cuccinelli unexpectedly announced that he intended to challenge me for the Republican Party's nomination for Governor.
While I was surprised and disappointed by Mr. Cuccinelli's decision, I was confident in my ability to win our party's nomination for Governor in a statewide primary election, which was the method of nomination that had previously been adopted by the State Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia.
However, in June of this year the newly constituted State Central Committee voted to change the manner in which we will nominate our candidates in 2013 from a statewide primary to a closed party convention. While I did not support that decision, it had a dramatic impact on the 2013 campaign.
For the past several months my campaign team has worked hard to restructure our campaign to effectively compete in the convention process. While we have made a great deal of progress, I reluctantly concluded that the decision to change the method of nomination from a primary to a convention created too many obstacles for us to overcome.
In addition, I know how divisive conventions can be, and I was concerned that a prolonged campaign between Mr. Cuccinelli and me could create deep divisions within our party. The convention process would have forced Republican activists to take sides against their friends in local committees all across our state. The wounds that can develop from that type of process are often difficult to heal.
Conventions are by their very nature exclusive, and at a time when we need to be projecting a positive image and reaching out to involve more Virginians in the Republican Party, I am unwilling to be part of a process that could seriously damage our image and appeal.
While it may have been in my self-interest to have continued the campaign and done my best to win without regard to the consequences of those actions, I have never chosen to place my self-interest ahead of our Party's best interest, and I will not do so now.
I know that my decision will surprise most people and disappoint many people, but I'm confident it is the right decision. I hope that my friends and supporters, as well as those who have chosen to support Mr. Cuccinelli, will respect and appreciate the reasons for my decision.
It has been a great honor to serve as Lieutenant Governor of Virginia for the past seven years, and I wouldn’t trade the experiences and opportunities we have had for anything in the world. You helped make that possible, and for that I will always be grateful.
I look forward to serving the remainder of my term as Lieutenant Governor and as Virginia's Chief Jobs Creation Officer, and working with Governor McDonnell and the rest of our great team to build a better Virginia.
I want to personally thank everyone who has done so much to support Jean Ann and me over the years, and I especially want to thank the thousands of people who had already pledged their support to my campaign for Governor. Your support means more to us than words can express. My greatest regret in suspending my campaign is the thought that I have let you down.
In the coming days Jean Ann and I will be evaluating our future political options. I love Virginia and I value public service a great deal. I assure you that I will continue to look for ways to make a contribution to the public life of our Commonwealth.
I can tell you this, I intend to remain actively involved in the 2013 campaigns – perhaps not as the Republican nominee for Governor, but as a more independent voice, making certain that the candidates keep their focus on the important issues facing our state and offer a positive and realistic vision for effectively and responsibly leading Virginia.
Thanks again for your friendship, confidence and support. It is a privilege to serve you, and I look forward to seeing you soon in our travels across Virginia.
Sincerely,
Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling

Is it just me or does this reak of victimhood?  

Bill Bolling Drops out of VA Governor's Race

Lt. Governor Bill Bolling will officially announce he will not be seeking the republican nomination for the Virginia Governor's race in 2013.  

Wow, I am shocked and in disbelief.  It is rare that anything in politics truly stuns me, but this does.  

It isn't because I really support the guy, just that he has taken it for the team on several occasions.  Four years ago he decided not to run to give Gov Bob McDonnell a clear shot at the nomination.  This year, it is AG Ken Cuccinelli that has that clear shot.  

Now, there was no way he was going to beat McDonnell four years ago and since the state party had changed to a convention this spring instead of a primary, he had no realistic shot at again this year.  Which I am sure weighed heavily in his decision to drop his bid.  

The question becomes does he run for a third term as Lt. Governor?  The senate is tied, so it gives him pull.  (In Virginia, the Lt. Governor is its own race, and it is very possible that we could have split parties running the state). 

Official announcement is expected later today, I will update with the text at that time.  

Monday, November 26, 2012

A Special Day


Here is a Little Something to Add to your Christmas Wish List - Vagina Mouse


I guess no self-respecting feminist should be without one of these.  Notice the play on terms, G Point.  These people are repugnant.

Quote of the Day - Jaime Foxx Edition

"It's like church over here. It's like church in here. First of all, give an honor to God and our lord and savior Barack Obama."
No, there is no reason to think that people have a unrealistic view of who the president is.  My real question for Mr. Foxx is if he is such a savior, why has the black community's numbers of people living in poverty risen?  Why has the unemployment level reached almost double what it is in other communities?  Why has the broken educational system in black communities not been fixed?  

I have no problem with a black person feeling a sense of pride that we have broken that glass ceiling, what I have a problem with is that incompetence is not only acceptable, but praised as God like.  Oh, wait, I used the "I" word, just showing my racism again.  

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Extreme Parenting Part 5


I would not do this. This is a bridge to far for me. While I understand that her parents are trying to get her to see the seriousness of her actions, talking about your child's sex life in public is just wrong.  Jasmine is 15 years old.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Being Green

Being Green

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't 

good for the environment.



The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."



The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment f or future generations."



She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.



Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were truely recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.



Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags, that we reused for numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ensure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags. But too bad we didn't do the green thing back then.



We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.



Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.



Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.



We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then.



Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?





H/T Rose Marie

Sunday, November 18, 2012

An Open Letter to @McCainBlogette


Dearest Meghan:

I read you advice to the GOP about moderating or "evolving" as you put it.  You talked about social issues being the death of the republican party:
I know there are many out there, especially in the more conservative sphere, that regard me with disdain. I don’t fit into the traditional Republican box that the wingnuts who have hijacked my party think all Republicans should. For the last four years, I’ve been calling for Republicans to stop concentrating on social issues. I am a single woman in my 20s and that fact alone gave me the perspective that I don’t want to regulate a woman’s right to choice. I am pro-life, but because life is complicated, that choice is between a woman and her idea of a higher power. I believe if Roe vs. Wade were repealed, abortion would still go on. I care more about my economy, national security, and fiscal conservatism than I do about what other woman do with their bodies. It’s not my place, and I don’t believe it’s the government’s place, to make such decisions
Yes, Meghan abortion would still go on if Roe is repealed because repealing Roe doesn't make abortion illegal, it leaves it up to the states to decide.  As a person who is a republican you should be believing in states rights, as that is what is meant, in part, by limited government.  Limited government is part of the platform of the GOP.  You see I think that you agree on abortion when it comes to this, I too don't believe that abortion should be a question of religion.  I believe that abortion is an issue of personhood and the constitutional rights that a person has.  Remember that line Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?  It is a little difficult to pursue happiness if you are dead.  To me abortion is about science, not about God.  That question has never been answered in a court of law and I think it should be.  Does a human being get afforded the same rights under the law that an egg of certain birds gets?  I would like a court to answer the question why a bird egg  has more value under the law than a human being does?  They are laws in place that you will be fined and/or jailed for damaging the bird fetus, but a human being in this country isn't afforded the same rights.  I think there is something wrong with that picture.  Why don't you?  

You go on to talk about immigration issues:
  I think America needs a better immigration policy and immigrants who were brought here illegally as children shouldn’t be deported.
I too think that we need better immigration policy.  It is next to impossible for a low wage earner to come here legally from Mexico, but it will take those same low wage earners from other countries.  That makes no sense.  Those things needs to change and adapt to the work force that we have and the work force that we need.  I am first generation, so I know all too well about the advantages of immigrants coming to this country.  This country was built by them and has flourished because of them.  But I must ask you a few questions about your stance on "The Dream Act".  You say that children brought here shouldn't be deported.  But the questions that people with your view-point never seem to answer are as follows:
  1. Do we give those that came as children visa's but deport the parents?  If so, do you think these children/young adults are going to come forward if they fear that it means that their parents are going to be deported?  
  2. What about the ones that came here as children but are over the age restrictions that The Dream Act puts into place?  Do we deport the 32-year-old, but not the 29-year-old?  Or whatever arbitrary age that the law comes up with.  
  3. Do they get to cut in line in front of the people who have been in other countries going through the proper and legal process?  (As a relative of mine is doing)
  4. What do we do with the people who paid thousands upon thousands of dollars to go through the legal process?  Do they get their money back? If not, doesn't that mean we are not being "fair"?    
  5. How long before they are allowed to become citizens?  
  6. Will they be afforded the same rights as other immigrants and citizens of this country who can sponsor relatives to come here?  If so, doesn't that potentially quadruple the number of people we are giving amnesty to?  
  7. What do we do about border security?  If we don't secure the borders and every 30 years or so we give amnesty to people who come here illegally, why bother to have any immigration laws at all?  It is essentially becomes an open border policy.  
You see Ms. McCain it really isn't as black and white as your 20 something brain is led to believe that it is.  The issue is very complicated and people like you won't answer the hard questions.  That is the reason "right winged nuts" take the stand that they do.  Do you believe that America should have no immigration policy?  If so, doesn't that fly in the face of your desire to concentrate on national security?  A de facto open border policy is a national security issue, wouldn't you agree?  There can be no moving forward on this issue until the borders are secured.  Is the federal government making any real attempt to do that?  I think by the levels of crime in your home state that the answer to that question is no.  

I would think that one of the things that you are saying is that we should compromise and get good law for all Americans.  Forgive me if I am wrong about that.  But I get this feeling that I am not.  I am not blind to the fact that governing is about compromise.  But another thing that my not in my 20's perspective has taught me is that when you are entering negotiations you need to start in a place that is further than where you end up.  

Now, when you negotiate your contracts with MSNBC to bash talk about conservatives don't you start at a higher rate?  If so, why do think it is unreasonable for the republicans to do basically the same thing?  Because what I am getting from your essay is that we should be starting with a position that isn't much different from the democrats.  How exactly do you negotiate?  I hope you have an agent that is better suited to take care of your needs.  If not, you are doing yourself a big disservice.  

Another thing that you talk about is fiscal conservatism.  One of the things that leads to all the spending we do in this country is based on social issues.  That is another thing that your 20 something brain has yet to learn.  Fiscal conservatism requires discussion on social issues.  

You have brought "gay rights".  I don't care who someone loves.  But I do care what the gay right movement is trying to accomplish; a total dismissal of the biblical view of marriage.  That is bad and it must be punished.  My view-point is bigoted.    Many say that gay marriage will have no ill effects on society.  While it is too new in this country to gauge that, it has been around in Canada for more than 10 years.  A study has been recently released:
The formal effect of the judicial decisions (and subsequent legislation) establishing same-sex civil marriage in Canada was simply that persons of the same-sex could now have the government recognize their relationships as marriages. But the legal and cultural effect was much broader. What transpired was the adoption of a new orthodoxy: that same-sex relationships are, in every way, the equivalent of traditional marriage, and that same-sex marriage must therefore be treated identically to traditional marriage in law and public life.
A corollary is that anyone who rejects the new orthodoxy must be acting on the basis of bigotry and animus toward gays and lesbians. Any statement of disagreement with same-sex civil marriage is thus considered a straightforward manifestation of hatred toward a minority sexual group. Any reasoned explanation (for example, those that were offered in legal arguments that same-sex marriage is incompatible with a conception of marriage that responds to the needs of the children of the marriage for stability, fidelity, and permanence—what is sometimes called the conjugal conception of marriage), is dismissed right away as mere pretext.
When one understands opposition to same-sex marriage as a manifestation of sheer bigotry and hatred, it becomes very hard to tolerate continued dissent. Thus it was in Canada that the terms of participation in public life changed very quickly. Civil marriage commissioners were the first to feel the hard edge of the new orthodoxy; several provinces refused to allow commissioners a right of conscience to refuse to preside over same-sex weddings, and demanded their resignations. At the same time, religious organizations, such as the Knights of Columbus, were fined for refusing to rent their facilities for post-wedding celebrations.
They go on:
The new orthodoxy’s impact has not been limited to the relatively small number of persons at risk of being coerced into supporting or celebrating a same-sex marriage. The change has widely affected persons—including clergy—who wish to make public arguments about human sexuality.
Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks. Many of those who have persisted in voicing their dissent have been subjected to investigations by human rights commissions and (in some cases) proceedings before human rights tribunals. Those who are poor, poorly educated, and without institutional affiliation have been particularly easy targets—anti-discrimination laws are not always applied evenly.  Some have been ordered to pay fines, make apologies, and undertake never to speak publicly on such matters again. Targets have included individuals writing letters to the editors of local newspapers, and ministers of small congregations of Christians. A Catholic bishop faced two complaints—both eventually withdrawn—prompted by comments he made in a pastoral letter about marriage.
Reviewing courts have begun to rein in the commissions and tribunals (particularly since some ill-advised proceedings against Mark Steyn andMaclean’s magazine in 2009), and restore a more capacious view of freedom of speech. And in response to the public outcry following the Steyn/Maclean’saffair, the Parliament of Canada recently revoked the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s statutory jurisdiction to pursue “hate speech.”
But the financial cost of fighting the human rights machine remains enormous—Maclean’s spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, none of which is recoverable from the commissions, tribunals, or complainants. And these cases can take up to a decade to resolve. An ordinary person with few resources who has drawn the attention of a human rights commission has no hope of appealing to the courts for relief; such a person can only accept the admonition of the commission, pay a (comparatively) small fine, and then observe the directive to remain forever silent. As long as these tools remain at the disposal of the commissions—for whom the new orthodoxy gives no theoretical basis to tolerate dissent—to engage in public discussion about same-sex marriage is to court ruin.
Similar pressure can be—and is—brought to bear on dissenters by professional governing bodies (such as bar associations, teachers’ colleges, and the like) that have statutory power to discipline members for conduct unbecoming of the profession. Expressions of disagreement with the reasonableness of institutionalizing same-sex marriage are understood by these bodies to be acts of illegal discrimination, which are matters for professional censure.
Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action, for even if they only make public statements criticizing same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students. Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalized this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated.
You see Ms. McCain, the agenda as well as the outcome has much broader effects than simple "fairness".  You see people who have strong religious views; which I would hope you feel that they are entitled to, are being forced to not only accept something, but being stifled.  The right of parents to pass down those biblical values to their children are being threatened.  Tolerance requires that both sides accept opposing points of views.  What is tolerant about private citizens being sued to accept something that goes against their deeply held belief system?  I, for one, view marriage as primarily a religious institution that for some reason that the government decided to get involved with.  Mostly so they can raise revenue with fees for licenses and the like.  You say you don't want the government involved in issues between a person and their God higher power when it comes to abortion but have no problem with that same interference when it comes to marriage.  

So, I have a suggestion for you, take some of that hard-earned money that you have received bashing discussing people like me, go and buy yourself a new pair of Jimmy Choos for the occasion and march yourself to your local board of elections and change your registration.  Why wait?  

Thursday, November 15, 2012

So How Did That Racist Ronald Reagan Treat the Black Community? - Some Facts of How Blacks Fared Under President Reagan

African-American columnist Joseph Perkins took a look how Blacks fared under the Reagan administration and found that “on balance, the majority of Black Americans made considerable progress in the 1980s.” Among the facts he listed include:

• Total Black business receipts increased from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987, translating into an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent (compared to 5 percent for all U.S. businesses.
• Upwardly mobile cohort grew by a third under Reagan’s watch, from 3.6 million in 1980 to 4.8 million in 1988.
• the middle class constituted more than 40 percent of Black households by the end of Reagan’s presidency
• Between 1982 and 1988, total Black employment increased by 2 million, a staggering sum. That meant that Blacks gained 15 percent of the new jobs created during that span, while accounting for only 11 percent of the working-age population.
• The Black jobless rate was cut by almost half between 1982 and 1988. Over the same span, the Black employment rate – the percentage of working-age persons holding jobs – increased to record levels, from 49 percent to 56 percent.
• The number of Black professionals increased by an astounding 63 percent.
• Black college enrollment increased by 100,000 between 1980 and 1987
• The 1980s saw an improvement in the Black high school graduation rate, as the proportion of Blacks 18 to 24 years old earning high school diplomas increased from 69.7 percent in 1980 to 76 percent by 1987.
Not that this will stop the left from calling the right racists, but the facts need to get out there.  

These are the type of things we need to work on getting out to minority communities.  This is not pandering, but explain how our policies and belief systems benefit them.  The changing demographics in our country say that we need to do more outreach to the black and latino communities.  

H/T African American Conservatives.  

Quote of the Day - Bobby Jindal Edition


“No, I think that’s absolutely wrong. Two points on that: One, we have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote.”
“And, secondly, we need to continue to show how our policies help every voter out there achieve the American dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children an opportunity to be able to get a great education. … So, I absolutely reject that notion, that description. I think that’s absolutely wrong.”
Governor Bobby Jindal on Romney's comments that he lost the election due to entitlements and freebies that Obama's policies offer.  He goes on to say:
“Governor Romney’s an honorable person that needs to be thanked for his many years of public service, but his campaign was largely about his biography and his experience, and it’s a very impressive biography and very impressive set of experiences. But time and time again, biography and experience is not enough to win an election. You have to have a vision. You have to connect your policies to the aspirations of the American people. I don’t think the campaign did that, and as a result this became a contest between personalities.
We all know that I didn't think Romney was the best choice for the nomination.  One of the things that I did admire about the man was that he showed real class most of the time.  It is too bad he has decided to throw that out the window now that he has lost.  That just makes me question if he ever really had it at all.
I heard over and over again from people I talked to personally and over social media, that Romney did not give them a real reason to vote for him other than he was not Obama.  While that was more than enough for me, that doesn't mean that it would be for everyone else.

Jindal is 100% correct.  Here are some facts; the richest counties in the country voted for Obama.  Some of the poorest counties in the country voted for Romney.  Look at New Mexico and Nebraska if you don't believe me.  Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the country with very high levels of poverty.  When is the last time they voted for democrat for President?

Not every poor person takes money from the government.  Some are too proud or they don't feel right about it.  Some poor people vote GOP based on religious views and/or abortion.  Those issues are more important to them than getting freebies.

Until the GOP stops with this nonsense they will continue in the wilderness.  There are ways to talk about the entitlement culture that doesn't insult large swaths of people. Comments such as immigrants come here to take entitlements are not helpful yet you hear things like that from some in the far right on a regular basis.  You are not going to get people to understand how conservative beliefs will benefit them if they feel they are being insulted.

Governor Romney do us all a favor, go away.  You gave it your best shot and came up short.  Don't take a page out of the Al Gore page book and become bitter.  It will not help you let alone the GOP.

The Nuts are Out


A mother in Canada has taken her own nuttiness a tad too far.  Donna Giustizia, a mom of two is trying to get all the oak trees near her child's school removed because of nut allergies.  The school itself is nut free (which was mistake number one) but the school property gets acorns from the surrounding trees.  Her solution is to remove all the oak trees in the area.  

Now this from the director of Allergies and Asthma at New York University Hospital
“There’s no relationship between acorns and peanuts,” Bassett said. “If people have food allergies, they need to work with an allergists on prevention, avoidance and preparedness. People with food allergies need to be careful and have a plan.”
But this mother doesn't appear to be willing to give up.  She also says:
She appeared before the Vaughan, Ontario, City Council last week to plead for the removal of the trees, saying : “The acorns are not only presenting a risk to the tree-nut-allergic students, but it is also becoming a great cause of anxiety among all students with nut allergies.” Giustizia also said, according to The Star,   that “acorns can also be used to bully and torment children.
Luckily, she isn't suggesting that entire town cut down their oak trees, just the area near her child's school.  
So, the school system is preparing a report to address her issues.  For what purpose is beyond me.  There is no scientific link between acorns and human allergies to nuts.  So this school system is going to use limited resources and funds to research a problem that doesn't exist all to please one over protective zealous mother that doesn't have any idea of what she is talking about.  What I find so comical about her testimony is that she already prepared an alternative reason for getting rid of the acorns, as they are a bullying tool.  

If I were sitting on this school board I would be telling this mother to take those acorns and stuff them where the sun doesn't shine and I would charge her for the time that she wasted.  I am sick to death of people taking their obscure and often wrong ideas and expecting the entire world to bow down to what they want.  No child is going to die due to being near an acorn.  Get over yourself lady.  

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Saying Some Prayers - Amusing Bunni

The sad news is that blogger Amusing Bunni has only months left to live.  She has been given a diagnosis of end stage liver cancer and has only months left to live.  Bunni has gotten out of the politics side to blogging when the death threats became too much to handle, but she always has something "amusing" to say.

Please keep her, her family, and her beloved cat in your prayers.  If you can, go here to make a donation to help with the expenses as she is no longer able to work.  Modern medicine can only ease her pain at this point.

I hope that Bunni finds God's comfort while she is getting her affairs in order.  May God bless you in final months here on earth Bunni.

Monday, November 12, 2012

My Post Election Rant


Obviously I am very disappointed in the results from election night.  So much so, that I really have not had the heart to even write this.  But, Kathleen Parker got me out of that and quickly too.
The truth is, Romney was better than the GOP deserved. Party nitwits undermined him, and the self-righteous tried to bring him down. The nitwits are well-enough known at this point — those farthest-right social conservatives who couldn’t find it in their hearts to keep their traps shut. No abortion for rape or incest? Sit down.Legitimate rape? Put on your clown suit and go play in the street.
Equally damaging were the primary leeches who embarrassed the party and wouldn’t leave the stage. Nine-nine-nine, we’re talking about you, Herman Cain. And Gov. Oops? You, too. And then there were Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, who never had a real shot at the nomination and certainly could never win a national election, yet they refused to surrender to the certain nominee.
Did they have a right to persist in their own fantasies? Sure. But not if they were serious about getting a Republican in the White House. Thus, for months and months, Romney had to spend his energy and, as important, his money to prevail in the primaries against opponents who had no chance and who ultimately hurt him. During that same precious time, Obama’s campaign was busy pinpointing specific voters, practically learning the names of their dogs, and buying ads in niche markets.
Wow, so it is my fault.  Not that I am even "furthest right" when it comes to social issues. I have made no bones about it, I didn't like Mitt Romney as the nominee.  I have been saying for over a year that had he got the nomination he would lose.  I didn't even think that because of his wishy washiness on social issues.  To me social issues are not really the purview of the federal government, and I don't care which side is trying to make the case that they are.  You cannot legislate your sense of morality onto someone else, it comes from within.   That said, people still want to see that you have core convictions.

I also have seen many of the more moderate republicans all across social media blaming the tea party and SoCons.  Really?  I will say it again, I didn't like Romney as the nominee.  I didn't want to vote for him.  When push came to shove, I went out and I did it.  Not only did I vote for him, I went out and worked my ass off trying to get him elected.  I spent the final six weeks of the cycle on trains, planes, and automobiles crisscrossing the country from swing state to swing state.  I spent 7 to 8 hours per day knocking on doors, then spend another few hours making phone calls.  I did this in close to freezing temperatures and pouring rain one more than one occasion.  I slept in hotel that I had to keep changing rooms because of bugs.  Don't tell me that I didn't take one for the team.

Every Tea Party minded person I know personally did similar things as well.  Americans for Prosperity, one of the tea party umbrella groups, helped get people like me out to swing states.  Do you think that Romney was their initial choice?  Not likely, but we will never know as they don't endorse candidates.  But, you still saw them working night and day on the GOTV effort.  Like me, they understood the stakes.
Now, what did the squishy middle do?  Were they there?  Did the same people who are throwing this blame around at people like me get out from in front of their computers and make the same personal sacrifices that I made?  Many of the ones that I know didn't.  They sat around posting things through social media to people who already agreed with them.  Boy, that was helpful.

One thing that was proven without a doubt is that the moderate wing of the party cannot the presidency without the crazies from the far right.  To the people who believe that all life is sacred and is worth fighting for.  I will admit that some go too far for my tastes.  I refuse to engage with people who show horrific pictures of dead babies and ask me if I think it is ok to rip babies out of their mothers wombs.  That is emotional blackmail.  But, if you think that same tactic isn't used on the left you are sadly mistaken.  They take one person out 45,000 that has some obscure sob story and then tries to pass a law that forces everyone in the country to change their life in order to accommodate their plea of the day.  While of course the opposite is true as well.  But I am sick to death of hearing that I caused the loss of the senate and I am somehow personally responsible for Romney's loss.

I was there, I was in a tightly contested county in a swing state on election day.  No kidding, they had me knocking on doors that already had literature on it.  I called and told them that this was happening.  I was told to just keep going.  I walked seven miles on election day, going door to door.  At one point I had to find a woody area so I could go to the bathroom because I knew that one of the drivers wouldn't be able to get me in time, I was so far out from the victory office.  Luckily I had napkins with me.

After returning from day of door knocking I was making calls all day.  I was calling Minnesota.  You know what, 3 out 5 calls were wrong numbers due to bad area codes.  How the heck is that my fault?  Didn't the campaign bother to update the phone lists?  Apparently not.  The campaign is denying the story of software they created for the GOTV effort, but I can tell it was true, at least in Ohio.  It wasn't working properly.

Where was the Romney campaign in Wisconsin?  Why didn't they use the popularity of Paul Ryan as the hometown boy with the all the advantages they had with Governor Walker's grassroots efforts?  They didn't put enough resources in that state.  That is my fault how?

I am sick to death of hearing that my voice shouldn't matter in the party.  That my views are somehow less important than theirs.  That I should be giving up on my principles to tack left.  Because heaven knows that is what the democrats do when they lose elections.  They moderate.

I happen to believe that we need immigration reform in this country.  But I am not willing to sell out my principles in order to get it.  The facts are President Reagan signed immigration reform decades ago, did that help bring Hispanics into the party?  No it did not.  Did the democratically controlled congress keep their end of the bargain?  If they had we wouldn't have millions more in the country.  Read the law that Reagan signed Ms. Parker.  The borders were supposed to be secured.  The law was supposed to go after employers that violated the law by giving any additional positions to illegals, oh excuse me, undocumented workers.  None of that has happened.  So I am supposed to put my trust into the democrats doing the same again?  I guess if I am stupid I should.

What people like you Ms. Parker are really saying is that my views matter so little that I should be just cast aside.  Lets also take a stroll down memory lane of the past few GOP presidential candidates.  McCain, a moderate.  Dole, a moderate, Bush I who governed as a moderate and destroyed the yacht industry while president.  An industry that all these decades that has never come back, and never will.  Thanks to his "luxury" tax thousands upon thousands lost their jobs, companies went out of business, and America, once the #1 exporter of said yachts is now the #1 importer.  The industry died and it cost the tax payers millions and millions of dollars.  Yes, that is the leadership that the right should be looking for.

President Bush 2 is the only one of them that was ran as conservative unabashedly.  He was successful not just once, but twice.  Now, he still ended up with big government polices and spent money like a drunken sailor (sorry to all you drunken sailors) that has gotten us to the point where we are now.  Above and beyond all the money and the big government policies that President Bush promoted and acted upon during his presidency, his biggest sin was acting like you are suggesting.   He rolled over and allowed the left to control the narrative.  He didn't fight back on all the lies.  He felt that the presidency shouldn't be used in that way.  While in theory I agree with him on that.  I, to have a great deal of respect for the office of the presidency, but times have changed.  We have 24 hour news cycles and cable channels that do nothing but spit out a point of view and will use lies if necessary to promote their agenda.  That must be countered and countered hard.  His refusal to do it, is a big part of the reason we even have a President Obama.  So no, Ms. Parker I reject your advice.  The protection of religious liberties matter.  I will fight for them from shore to shore in this country.  The word marriage has meaning.  If gay marriage was simply about benefits, the problems would have been solved years ago.  If DADT tell was simply about serving in the military we would not have seen people in uniforms marching in Gay Pride parades this year, even though that is clear violation of military code of conduct.  You wouldn't see gay couples suing conservative churches to perform marriage ceremonies.  They are trying to say that my beliefs are bad, that there is something inherently wrong with them.  I don't care what a gay couple does in the privacy of their bedrooms, but I do care what they are trying to do to my church.  They want tax write-offs and hospital visitation fine.  But stay out of my place of worship.

Did it ever occur to you Ms. Parker that Romney was never able to make the connection to voters?  Did it ever occur to you that he never gave a coherent reason of why he should be president other than he wasn't Obama?  Now that was more than enough for me, but for the low information voter it wasn't.  Most people don't like change just for the sake of change.  They will dance with the devil they know.  That is part of human nature.  Did it every occur to you that people in this country don't want to elect someone who is wealthy as he is?  The left, that you seem all too willing to model after, has done a great job in creating a society that wealth is a bad thing, that people with money are ogres, evil, and someone who isn't compassionate.

People in this country want conviction Ms. Parker.  Romney didn't show that he really had that.  People want real conviction because it is a sign of leadership.  Stop blaming me and put the blame where it belongs, on the left who have convinced people that anyone that dares calls themselves a republican, or gasp even worse a conservative, lacks compassion and is racist.   Look in the mirror Ms. Parker, because you yourself have bought into that argument.

Friday, November 9, 2012

Ssh, Don’t Tell Anyone: transcript of the last phone call Petraeus made before he resigned – Satire


“Hey there, Cindy? This is David. David Patreus.”
“David, how are you? I haven’t seen you since college!”
“I am good thanks. Listen, I need a favor. You used to say I was cute…I need to resign before this whole Benghazi thing blows up, and I figure an extra-marital affair would be a good excuse.”
“Um…what do you need from me?”
“I don’t know how these things are done myself, but I put the boys on it. They are sending some photos of us leaving a hotel – we used Jessica Alba’s body, you’ll be very pleased. And we put some texts on your phone, and the package comes with a $200,000 book deal. How does that sound?”
“Okay I guess.”

“Good! I’ll make the announcement today. Oh, and if you tell anyone it isn’t reall, we’ll kill you, but that’s just standard. Have a good day! And thanks again. You’re a pal.”
~ Tom O’Brien

Thanks for the Pick Me Up

I got this via email.  I needed the pick me up, so thanks very much.


The GOP needs to do some re-examination. The re-examination I am talking about is going to be a little different than many on the far right who think Romney simply lost because he wasn't conservative enough. The demographics in this country have changed. The party needs to show these demographics what they have to offer. Something that some I know resist. It is time to rethink that.”

Thank you for all you have done and for your comments above. My children (high schoolers) were running late this morning because of our family discussion based on what you expressed.

I, like you, am conservative. Some say VERY conservative. I understand the demographics of the country have changed. I also feel that my conservatism needs to be married with the people in the Republican Party that aren’t AS conservative. It doesn’t mean that I will give up my conservative values, just that I appreciate the need to unify the party – somehow.

Please don’t be upset with me, but my observation is that, while appearing to support President Obama, Bill Clinton unified the Democratic Party. When I heard Bill Clinton speak, I felt that he wasn’t really on board with the President, but he could bring his party together to support him because the President had a “D” by his name. Bill Clinton’s job was to unite the Democratic Party - vote “D” no matter what. And even though Bill Clinton denigrated every aspect of what it means to be President and you would think he would be shunned, I think he did unite the “Ds”.

You have your finger on the pulse of conservatism more so than many of us (that’s why your blog is important). After you have time to digest the election, I would be curious to know if you think that the Republican Party may have been hurt by the PERCEPTION that we are not unified as a party. Also, who do you think would be able to appreciate how the changing demographics of the country is affecting the Republican party? I am going to chew on those questions myself.

Thank you again for all you do for the love of this great country.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Quote of the Day - Richard LittleJohn Edition


That’s why my money is on the Republican candidate in 2016 being Cuban-American senator Marco Rubio.
I watched Rubio electrify a Tea Party rally in Florida 18 months ago. He’s the most impressive young politician on either side of the Atlantic.
He could win and win big. But only if enough of his fellow Americans are prepared to start asking what they can do for their country, not what their country can do for them.



Wednesday, November 7, 2012

President Obama Wins Re-election

I do have a great deal to say, I am just don't have the time to say it know.  I am finally going home after doing what I could in swing states.  

I said over a year ago had Mitt Romney gotten the nomination, it would be an Obama win.  I still did what I could, but I think it was baked in the cake from the day he got the nomination.  

I did stay up to watch President Obama's acceptance speech.  LOL.  Wow.  He and the people who voted for him are delusional, truly delusional if they believe one word of what he said.  

Romney gave a classy speech.  He is a good man.  I just don't happen to agree with him politically.  I wish him well with whatever he chooses to do with the rest of his life.  

The GOP needs to do some re-examination.  The re-examination I am talking about is going to be a little different than many on the far right who think Romney simply lost because he wasn't conservative enough.  The demographics in this country have changed.  The party needs to show these demographics what they have to offer.  Something that some I know resist.  It is time to rethink that.  

Note, not congratulating The President isn't an oversight.  

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Some Election Day Music

Get out the Vote.  We have a unique system, make sure that you have had your voice heard.

Monday, November 5, 2012

A Funny Get Out the Vote Story


Funny story – So I was out door knocking in a pretty rural area. People with small farms. The street is very long, and the houses were up off the street and VERY long. So I was walking up this driveway, which was uphill. Some guy drives up to me on his tractor and asked me what campaign I was with. I told him the Romney campaign, and he told me I could stay. LOL. Then he told me that he already voted. Then he asks me if I needed to go to one of his neighbor’s house. I looked on my list and said yes. He literally picked me up, put me on his tractor and drove me over. He told me it was too far to walk. I have never been on a tractor before. I am burbs girl. It was great. Sorry I was alone and wasn’t able to get a picture. Best memory of month travelling around to swing states.
I am in the ultimate swing county in OH.  This county may just decide who will be our next president.  It is said to be decided by less than .001%.  So which me luck that I can get the Romney voters out to the polls over the day and a half.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Some More Democratic Creepiness - "Hail Obama"

Sorry, but I won't be hailing anyone except for Jesus.  

How can anyone in their right mind vote for someone who elicits this type of following?  Doesn't the name Hitler ring a bell to these people?  


Crowd for  event in Daytona now chanting "Hail Obama". Wow, just wow

The Ugly Politics of a Tragedy


New Jersey and Parts of New York City are quite literally a disaster area.  Hospitals are without power after the back-up systems also failed.  The National Guard had to carry the patients out to relocate them to another hospital that can give them care.  There is little power, train stations are flooded, tracks are littered with debris (such as boats), some track is simply missing.  There are people in  New Jersey that have lost most of what they own.  Think about that, all their family photos, mementos, their keepsakes of people who have passed away; things that can never be replaced.

Chris Christie is being given sh*t about saying that President Obama has been available and given him the resources he needs to help the citizens of his state rebuild their lives.  I am floored.  This is how far people are willing to go to play politics days before a presidential election?  A very sad state of affairs, very sad.  No, it is shameful.

While of course going to survey the damage is nothing more than a photo-op, but the reality is this; had he not gone and done that photo-op he would be lambasted for that.  Sadly, we have gotten to the point in this country that no matter who is president when these tragedies take place they are a in a no-win situation; damned if they show up, damned if they don't.

Tucker Carlson has gone as far as to say that Christie can't stand Romney and he is saying this to get back at him for some reason that he doesn't clearly define.  Others have said he is positioning himself for a run for the presidency in 2016, therefore it is in his interests for Governor Romney to lose.

It wasn't all that long ago that people were talking about Christie was going to be the VP pick, and what a mistake that would be.  Christie was a supporter of Mitt early on, giving him calls of RINO for turning his back on the more conservative candidates.

Lets look at the facts, Christie has travelled around the country to campaign for Mitt.  It seems to me that people are taking their hatred of President Obama out on Christie.  The truth of the matter is, the president does very little when it comes to a disaster.  Most of the work is done on the state level.  The president signs a declaration of major disaster that allows FEMA to start flowing federal money into the state.  But the real work is done by NGO's such as The Red Cross, The United Way, and countless others.  The calls for the National Guard comes at the state level.  The federal government can do nothing without permission at the state level (Remember Gov. Blanco during Katrina dragging her heals?).

Yes, there is an election in five days.  Yes, I personally believe that President Obama being re-elected would be a horrible for this country.  Yes, Governor Christie is not a conservative.  None of that changes the facts that we should be thinking about the people who are living in the aftermath of the storm before we think about the politics of it all.

I think that the people who are criticizing Christie who is dealing with an overwhelming situation should STFU.  He is the one that is walking around looking at the affected areas with the residents and listening to their tears and stories of grief.  I watched a little of it on the news yesterday and I had tears streaming down my face watching this woman talk about the things from her deceased husband and son that were lost.  She is devastated.  While it is true that she should be grateful that she survived, it doesn't make her loss any easier to deal with.  Her emotions are raw.

I was appalled at how the left politicized Katrina and turned President Bush into a murderer and uncaring monster to score political points. I am equally appalled that it seems the right is bound and determined to do something similar to Governor Christie for simply saying that President Obama has helped to give him the resources he needs.

This is not about politics.  This is about a tragedy of almost biblical proportions.  Real people are in pain, almost sixty people lost their lives, the temperatures in that area are dropping in the overnight, and these people are without heat and basic necessities.  The water systems are not working correctly in some areas, which can cause major health problems.  People are living in makeshift shelters, trying to get over the trauma of losing most of what they own.  There will be people who will be unable to work and will not get paid.  In these times when people are already struggling to pay the bills, think of the long-term effects that can have on their lives.

Get over yourselves.  This isn't about politics, this is about helping your fellow-man.  If you are unable to help, then the least you can do is shut up.  This is a time to come together and do what we can to help those who have lost everything.

Instead of complaining, donate to The Red Cross here.

This has just furthered my belief that politics are ugly and downright inhumane.
Related Posts with Thumbnails
 
Google Analytics Alternative