Quote(s) of the Day - Welfare Recipients Edition

- “I’m here trying to get some Obama bucks. That‘s what I’m doing, trying to get some Obama money.”  (No such thing as Obama money.  It is people who work for living that give this money.)

- “I want a check.” (Then go get a job.  That is how I have always gotten mine.)

- “Tell me why you like Obama.” — “Because he gives me stuff.”  (Actually, I give you stuff with my tax dollars.)

- “Who you going to vote for?” — “Obama.” — “Why?” — “Because he’s black.” (yet, I am the racist.  I didn't vote for him because he is a marxist.)

- “When was the last time you actually worked?” — “About half a decade”  

- “You’re a perfectly healthy young man, why aren’t you working right now?” — “My background. Once you go to jail it’s hard to get a job.”  (I will admit that a criminal record does make finding a job more difficult, but not impossible.)

- “Why should my tax dollars be going to you?” — “My ancestors came here to help build this place — my ancestors, slaves.”   (Have you ever met a slave?  I don't think so.  It long past time you let this go.  It has nothing to do with your life today.)

- “Do you really want to work, or do you just want to get a free check?” — “I just want to get a free check.”  

Quotes from welfare recipients in New York City given to none other Alexandria Pelosi.  Yes, that Pelosi, Nanny's daughter.  Maybe now Ms. Pelosi, you can sit down with your mother and make her see how dangerous the policies that she has pushed on the American people really are.  

I don't bash all people on welfare.  Some are down and out, some are too ill to work, some truly are just using this as helping hand while they are out of work.  But far too many have made this a way of life, then look at themselves as victims.  The welfare system is broken.  We are not helping people, we are creating an environment of entitlement that is getting harder and harder to break.  

Another sick thing is that she was advised not to run this clip on television by people at HBO.  Heaven forbid we tell people the truth.  Any wonder why I don't get HBO anymore?  

H/T to The Blaze

RPV Announces Dates for 3 GOP Debates for Open Senate Seat

RPV is pleased to announce the dates for our three U.S. Senate Primary debates.

• Saturday, April 28th at 3pm - Roanoke
• Friday, May 11th at 6:30pm - Hampton Roads
• Friday, May 25th at 6:30pm - Northern Virginia  

Specific locations, formats, and other details will be announced in the weeks ahead. All candidates who qualify for the June 12 Republican primary ballot will be invited to participate. Candidate certification for the June 12 ballot is scheduled to be completed no later than April 3 at 5 p.m. 

Dharun Ravi Found Guilty - Facing 10 Years in Prison

Today a jury has found Dharun Ravi guilty of intimidation, spying, and witness tampering among other charges in the events that led up to the death of Tyler Clementi.  Clementi was an 18 year gay college student who jumped off the George Washington Bridge after a tape of him kissing another man was streamed and commented upon on twitter.  This case had garnered national attention about cyber-bullying and gay-bashing among teenagers.  

What hasn't been made clear in much of the news coverage is that Tyler was out of the closet.  He told his family that he was gay.  Ravi had also met his boyfriend before the taping took place on one previous occasion.  A text that was sent to Tyler around the time he jumped from Ravi said the following:

"I've known you were gay and I have no problem with it. In fact one of my closest friends is gay and he and I have a very open relationship. I just suspected you were shy about it which is why I never broached the topic. I don't want your freshman year to be ruined because of a petty misunderstanding, it's adding to my guilt. You have a right to move if you wish but I don't want you to feel pressured to without fully understanding the situation." 

No one knows if Tyler read the text before he jumped to his death.   


There are also other parts of this story that are not getting a great deal of media attention.  One being that his mother was having a difficult time accepting her son being gay.  She was saddened to learn that he wouldn't be getting married and starting a family. She loved her son and wanted to be part of his life, but her dreams for him were not going to be as she had envisioned.  She needed some time to make that adjustment.  Another point that isn't getting enough media coverage in all of this is the fact that the school bears some responsibility in this death as well.  


Tyler went through the proper channels to get a room change.  While it isn't easy to change rooms once a semester is underway, it would seem to me that they could have at least tried harder to understand that boy's discomfort with living with a guy that was spying on him.  It wouldn't have been any more pleasant had the video showed him kissing a girl.  The act of his privacy being invaded doing something so personal is enough that they should have realized that these two young men could no longer share a room.  I would also think that the school would have been justified in kicking him out of the dorms for what he did.  


Tyler didn't leave an explanation as to what motivated him to take his own life.  Was it his mother's disappointment?  Was the fact that people at school had confirmation that he was gay, or was it the school not being willing to help him get out of his living with someone who was spying on him that made him think that jumping off that bridge was the better alternative?  We will never know since he is not here to answer those questions.  But we do know that none of these things were something so terrible that he couldn't have gotten beyond them had he given it some time.   


What we also do know is that a young man will be facing 10 years in prison for a hate crime that it seems to me wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Don't get me wrong, he needed to be charged with a crime.  But I am not sure that him spending his 20's in prison is an effective use of our resources.  


This case is indicative of why I find hate crimes to be a bad idea.  You can not ever know for sure what is in someone elses heart and mind at any given moment.  Tyler's death is a tragedy, we just compounded it by this outcome.  


I hope that Tyler's family can get a measure of peace now that this trial is over.  

Homeschooling Reaching the Black Community

A dirty little secret that you won't find out about from the U.S. media (shocker, I know) is that more and more black families are turning to home schooling in an attempt to give their children the education that they deserve.  While I am sure it is very difficult in the more urban areas where the public schools are especially atrocious, it is still a growing trend.  Another thing many are probably not aware of the existence of is a homeschool cooperative dedicated to the black community.

 Monica Utsey, who runs a home schooling co-operative for African American children in Washington DC, says: "African-American mothers, especially those who have boys, have a lot of trouble in the school system. The way the classroom is designed is more conducive for girls."
For her, though, the main motivation was cultural - she wanted her sons to learn about their African roots and not "to believe that their history begins with slavery"

Another words, she doesn't want her sons to be taught that they are victims who have no real chance of succeeding because of a racist society that is America.  Derrick Bell will be rolling over in his grave.  How will the left indoctrinate these young sons who are taught they are equal human beings and have the same opportunities that their white counterparts have, they just have to work for it? Oh Al Sharpton, watch out, you may not be able to make a living peddling fear anymore.

It is true that homeschooling is not something that will work for every family.  Some parents don't have the discipline, the qualifications, and some children do well in a public school environment.  I know someone who has one child in public school and homeschools the other.  Her son was just not doing well in school and his teachers were not communicating that to them.  They pulled him out and have him at home.  She works full-time, but works from home most of the time.  He does much of his school work online and if she happens to be away from home she can log in and watch his progress.  She told me the difference is night and day; he is learning --eager even--and is much happier.  Her daughter has excelled in the public school and is a very social young lady, homeschooling wouldn't suit her personality.  It is a situation that works for their family.  It is the essence of choice.  Not every parent who has that choice will pull their children out of public school.

Of course that destroys the narrative that the public school system will crumble.  More homeschooling will make the public school system better.  Competition is a good thing.  If they need to compete for the dollars they make sure that they are giving an added benefit to the parents who are making that choice.  One of the things you hear unions complain about all the time is the fact that the class sizes are too large (they are right, they are in most cases) this will also help with this problem.  The teachers will have smaller classes and will be able to give more attention to the individual students.

Another topic that has come up with these homeschoolers is how they resent that teachers now are only teaching to the test (Thanks Sen. Kennedy and President Bush).  The evil of No Child Left Behind has left children behind.  The school systems are under so much financial pressure to keep and/or improve test scores that the joy of learning has been taken out of the equation.  I am sure it is no joy for the teachers either.  But students are suffering because of this piece of lousy legislation.  Parents are seeing for themselves that their kids are losing motivation:

It was not the violence, or even the fact that he was being bullied, that finally led to the decision to remove Copeland from his public school in what she describes as a "really bad area" of Washington DC, but the fact that he was "losing his love of learning".

Of course this little boy was learning his love of learning - which by the way, is innate in a child - if he is being bullied, seeing violence, and being taught only to a standardized test.

The shift to homeschooling has been much slower for the black community than for the white.  They are under even more pressure to keep pretending that the public school system has their child's best interests at heart:

"For the African-American community there was a huge amount of pressure against it, because in America, the grandparents of today's home-schooled children fought for desegregation of schools. They thought, 'The public schools are going to save us,'" he says.

But Dr Ray, who regularly interviews black home-schoolers as part of his research, says attitudes are changing fast - and it's also a lot easier today for black families to try it than it was 20 years ago, he points out.
Joyce Burges, co-founder of National Black Home Educators, who home-schooled all five of her children, aged 16 to 35, says the practice is growing "exponentially" in the African American community.
"The failings of public schools have caused all of us, whether we are white or black, to come up with creative ideas about how we can educate children.

It is way past time that the black community push back and stop accepting the failing status quo that has become our public school system and take matters into their own hands.  Stop listening to the stories of the past generation that believed that it was going to be public schools that solved the ills of the black community.  Access is meaningless if the school is failing.  Your children will be much better off for it.

H/T Jammie Wearing Fool

A Little Twitter Love Note

 Do you like being a homophobic, racist cunt? Yeah, probably. Guess what? You're losing.. 70% under 30 favor gay marriage. Fuk u 

 @mdshelnutt is his name.  Stop by and say hello.  He says he is doctor from Portland.  


I just love the tolerant and open-minded left don't you?  


We need to name and shame.  


I am Breitbart

Quote of the Day - Tamara Holder Edition

“I think it’s a compliment of sorts.” 

Tamara Holder, liberal and feminist, when asked if the term MILF (Mothers I would like to F^^K) was acceptable to say about Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.   


What sort would that be?  

Some Early Evening Humor

Freedom of Speech and the Slippery Slope

While there always have been and always will be discussions on free speech, it seems to be at a fever pitch of late.  Rush Limbaugh calling a law student a slut, Bill Maher and his constant attacks on conservative women, a presidential candidate weighing in a new television show, the looney left's drive to remove Rush from the airwaves and to even have him prosecuted are all in the news.

Gloria Allred is on yet another crusade this time to see Rush stand in front of judge because he called Sandra Fluke a bad name. Seriously?  C'mon do you how many bad names I have been called since I starting blogging?  I am not interested in seeing the people responsible for it arrested.  I am on record saying that Rush was wrong for using that language.  Rush has since apologized for his poor choice of words.  The boycott attempt to push his sponsors from dropping his show has been a failure.

There is a push on the right to get the Obama to return the $1 million donation from Bill Maher to his super-pac.  Legally speaking, Obama has no control over that.  Of course we all know that there are ways around that, but legally he can't ask them to return anything.  There are "walls" between the candidates and the pacs.  The courts have ruled that money going to a super-pac is a form of free speech.  Agree or not agree, it is now the law of the land.

Does the left really have the right to tell a company who they can and cannot advertise with?  I don't think they do.  They are private companies, they can use their advertising dollars anyway that fits their business model.  Of course boycotts are part of the American fabric and allow an individual to make their choices as to whom they spend their money with.  But I, for one, do not have the time or the desire to listen to such shows like Ed Schultz to figure out who his sponsors are so I can boycott them to prove my point.  I do that by not watching and occassionally mocking him on my blog when he says something even more stupid than normal.

The ABC TV show GCB has even raised the attention of Newt Gingrich:

"Here's to show you the biases of the elite media, look at the new show that's on that has the word 'Christian' in it and I want you to take the exact name, drop out Christian and put in Muslim."

What he says is true.  The outcry for a show named GMB would be loud enough to be heard around the world.  But, I have to ask would he be joining in at that outcry?  Is it simply because it is Christian that upsets him?  One of the stars of the show, Kristin Chenoweth is a self-described Christian. Her view of the show is:

"There's a difference between making fun of something and having fun with something, and we do the latter."

I have not seen the show, nor do I plan on ever seeing the show so I can't say for certain if she is right or not.  But I do know that the book was not mocking Christianity.  It was mocking the way people use church as a social event and how some women never grow up and still live out the same fantasies that they had back in high school, and the conflict that causes in the lives of the people around them who do want to move beyond it.  I received the book as a gift during a chick lit secret Santa thing I went to, and I enjoyed the book and didn't find it offensive.  Although, I admit, I don't normally offend all that easily.

My point being that we are coming dangerously close to ignoring our freedom of speech rights in this country.  This constant back and forth about who is allowed to say what and the price they have to pay for it when they say it.  Look there is no law saying that we have freedom of speech as long as you are not offended by it.  You will be offended by the speech of others.  There are very few universally shared values in the U.S..

Bill Maher is offensive to me as conservative and as a woman.  Many women on the left find him to be equally offensive.  But, does that mean he is not allowed to participate in the political process?  I don't think it does.  Had it been anyone else that gave a $1 million check the chances are we wouldn't have heard about it at all unless we went through and looked up the donors.  Depending on how this pac is set up, they may not even have to disclose that information.  That mistake in the law is a post for another time, but my point being that it is only because he is so publicily offensive that we even heard about it.  I am sure their are plenty of other people who have given to Obama's pac that I would find equally or even more offensive and their is no outcry for them to give them their money back.

As much as I don't like Bill Maher, it is not my place to say that he isn't allowed to involve himself in the political process.  I certainly wouldn't want someone to say that to me.  I am sure that my writings have offended at least some people.  But as an American citizen I have constitutional rights.  Just because I don't like someone or disagree with their beliefs doesn't mean that I get to say someone else has to limit theirs.

The question we must ask ourselves is that do we really want to censor each other's speech?  Isn't their another more effective way of getting our points across?  The Constitution protects all Americans, not just the ones we agree with.

Rick Santorum - My View

I got into a twitter debate yesterday with a big Santorum supporter.  It is very difficult to share your feelings 140 characters at a time.  I think many know that I don't like Rick Santorum.  Or I should say I don't want him to the nominee let alone be president.  I only met the man once and that was at the Virginia Tea Party Convention when I was sitting at the bloggers table and got a chance to talk to him.  I did not really take that chance since there were others with him at the time that I wanted to speak to more.  He probably is a very nice man, he seems like he is.  But we are not voting for prom king.  We are voting for someone who has a great deal of influence on the direction of our country and with the ages of some of the justices on the supreme court they could have a legacy that will last decades.  

Rick Santorum's voting record speaks for itself.  He has voted for expanding government time and time again.  He said he took one for the team on No Child Left Behind.  I am not naive, that happens in politics all the time.  I don't like it, but it does.  The real problem that I have is that he later said he thought it would work.  Why?  No Child Left Behind was just one more big government, one-sized fits all overreach that never had a chance of helping our broken education system.  Dismantling the board of ed should have been the focus, not increasing it.  No one that voted for that boondoggle ever bothered to consider very rural school districts in such places as Alaska.  They don't have another school down the street to go if their local one fails.  Are we supposed to bus children 100 miles a day to the next closet school?  Ridiculous.  NCLB was and continues to be unconstitutional.  So please don't tell me that he votes based on the constitution, clearly he doesn't.

  

I have had conversations with a few other bloggers about him.  Some are willing to admit that he has a big government record.  One of the bloggers here, Fuzzi, and Pete over at the DaTech Guy have said as much.  I admire that they are not denying it.  DaTech Guy and I had a back and forth over it at CPAC.  His take is this, that Santorum realized that is part of the reason he lost his re-election bid, realizes he made a mistake, and learned his lessons.  OK.  That is great if you believe that.  I just am not buying it.  

Lets move onto one of his debate performances.  Many of which were displays of defensiveness and whiny behavior.  I was told by his supporters that was due to him being ignored in many of them.  True enough, but that didn't seem to change once he was being taken more seriously.  Romney was hitting him on his support for the unions.  I actually loved his answer. He said that his state was a pro union state and he was representing the people who sent him there.  While I think that those people are wrong, he was doing his job.  Then he had to keep on going.  This is where he lost me.  He then went on to say as president he would have a different role.  He would support national right to work laws.  Really?  Where in the constitution does it say that is a federal issue.  No where.  He would have an even lesser role as president than as a senator.  While I would love to see all 50 states have right to work laws, it isn't the place of the federal government to make it so.  Those are decisions that should be left to the states.  If you don't like living in a state that isn't right to work, move.  That is how the framers set things up, we get to make decisions with our feet.  If we don't like the government in one particular state we can move to another.  I am huge supporter and defender of the 10th amendment.  I don't see that he is.  

His passion on social issues is commendable.  He is very much in love with this wife and that shows.  I like that.  That shows stability to me.  There is no doubt that media is especially focusing on his social views.  He has complained that the media keeps bringing things back to his social views. I am not buying that either.  In a speech that he was giving he brought up Obamacare's mandates in regards to prenatal testing; specifically having amnino's being covered.  First and foremost, I don't think there is a rash of women unable to get the test if it is deemed medically necessary.  So why the mandate is necessary I don't fully understand.  There are some that say the reason is a push for abortions on babies that are found to have Down's. The media didn't bring up this topic; he did.  It was done for one reason and one reason only, to bring the topic back to abortion.  Obamacare is nothing but 2K plus pages of mandates.  We all know that, even the people who are for that know that.  I will admit that abortion is not a push button issue for me as it is for some.  I personally believe making it illegal won't solve the problem.  Of course it will cut down on the numbers, but it won't change hearts and minds.  Only promoting a culture of life will do that.  Demonizing women who make the choice to end their pregnancies is not the way to go about it.  Many on the pro-life side seem to disagree with me and say and do things that to me, are a demonization.  You can disagree, but that is my view.  But back to the amnio.  There studies done of the abortion rates of babies with Down's are very small, but most importantly are very localized.  There is a doctor who moved from one region of the country to another.  Her original practice had very high rates of these babies being aborted.  When she moved to another location in the country (Pittsburg) the rates went down dramatically.  There is a great deal of evidence that one of the factors in the decision in ending the pregnancy has to do with the support systems and the resources that are available to the families in their local communities.  Apparently in the Pittsburg area there is a higher population of Catholics and more resources for special needs children and adults.  Limiting access to the test will do nothing to stop those numbers.  When asked about this test again he said something like well of course they can have them.  Well, gee thanks Rick.  But I don't think you get make my medical decisions for me or for anyone else.  Isn't that what I we are fighting for about Obamacare?  Yeah, if it were up to him that test would be done away with, and that scares me.  That scares me as a woman and as a special needs mom.  That test gave me time to prepare for what I was going to be facing and more importantly what my little man faces.  I was able to look into therapy and educational options. But even more importantly if that test is not widely available it will actually increase the amount of abortions not decrease.  The blood work that is done as a normal course of pregnancy has a very high rate of false positive results; almost 50%.  If a woman is pre-disposed to ending that pregnancy she may well be ending the life a perfectly healthy baby due to some spike in blood work that nothing to do with the health of the baby.  I know someone who went through a week of hell after having a blood test coming back with a positive result.  Her son is perfectly healthy.  More information is a good thing, not a bad one.  There are also life saving surgeries performed on babies in utero as result of finding about health issues after this test.  Yes, there is bad with it, but there is also good.  The issue of mandating the coverage of the test is a completely different issue.  You want to decrease the amount of abortions performed on special needs children, then work in local areas to increase the amount of services available to the families.  You also need to lift the stigma that goes along with babies.  People are afraid.  Not just of the costs, but of what is going to happen to that child after they are gone.  It is frightening as a parent to think about not being able to protect your child and not knowing if there will be someone to care for them when you are gone.  Parents also wonder how will affect their other children.  The issues that run through your mind when you are told this are numerous and overwhelming.  Help parents deal with those issues.  People need to see for themselves what joy a special needs child brings into their lives as well as the lives of their families.  That test does more than just cause abortions.   As a parent to two special needs children, one of which did get surgery in utero he should be well aware of it.  

Another statement of his that I find frightening:

"We say to Mom that you tell us the wrong name, and we'll bring that guy in and we'll do a blood test and that's not Dad, you lose your welfare benefits,” he said at another event that same day in New Bloomfield. “You lose your welfare benefits ... Not till you tell us another name, but till we find out who Dad is, we establish it. 

This is a quote from an article on lefty website in an attempt to smear him.  So, I went and found three other sources that have it quoted the exact same way and done at the time that he said it.  What exactly is conservative about forcing people to give blood to the federal government?  Sorry, no way, no how.  I believe in welfare reform.  I think that welfare has hurt families.  It has institutionalized poverty for many in this country.  Does he think that forcing men to give blood to the federal government is going to stop that?  You want to know why so many young girls from welfare families have babies at such a young age?  They don't see another way out.  Welfare is a system that is set up to fail and to keep you living that way.  It isn't designed to help you get out.  The original purpose was to be a safety net until people could get back on their feet and it has failed miserably.  You want to help people get off welfare then one of things we need to do is prorate the benefits so they can get a better paying job without losing everything.  I went on a tour of the Capital with Congressman Gohmert of Texas several months back.  He used to be a judge.  He told us that one of the reasons he decided to run for congress was because of all the welfare fraud he saw.  Young women who didn't see any other way other than to commit fraud to get more money.  You can live on welfare.  You have what you need when it comes to the basics.  You can even afford some of the little extras, but not very many.  But you won't be able to do is save enough money to get yourself off.  Of course there are exceptions, but generally speaking welfare will keep you in the same place that you started in.  We need to give these families, especially young women, other alternatives; such as a better education and the belief that they can go to college and start a career that will lift their families out of poverty.  All this statement does is make them feel that are being demonized.  Demonizing people will rarely bring about the desired result you are seeking.  I do agree that if you bring a child into the world you should be responsible for it.  I do agree that fathers need to step up and help raise their child both financially and emotionally, but to require blood work is way over the line.  Just think about what else that dna info could be used for.  Sorry, I pass.  This is big government run amok.  

I could go on, but I am out of time.  Bottom line is this, yeah I think he believes in right-wing social engineering.  (Yeah, Fuzzi, I know you hate this term) but I do.  I firmly believe that he thinks that the federal government has a role in raising families, deciding morality, and making decisions that are to me, none of their darn business. 

Convince me I am wrong.  And if you decide to use the really ineffective tactic of calling me names, your post will be deleted.  I am not brainwashed, stupid, or unable to see the truth.  I have my own set of values, and by the way, I didn't get them from the federal government nor would I want to.  It isn't their role.  

Hey Jay Thomas, Meet Mrs. Joel Pollak

The liberal drive by media is all in a tizzy about vetting Obama and the Breitbart video of our dear president embracing the views of a man, who at the very least, has outside of the mainstream views on race relations and what the white community feels towards minorities.  Jay Thomas, for reasons that I can't explain, was asked to join in on the conversation on CNN between Joel Pollak and Soledad O'Brien on Critical Race Theory and the video of President Obama asking people to embrace the views of Derrick Bell, the late professor behind this theory.  


Maybe, just maybe, before you call someone a racist and ask them if they are afraid of black people you should  find out a little about their personal lives.  Since his wife is black, I have this feeling he isn't afraid of them.  But, what do I know, I am just some raaaaacist tea bagger.  

Bring.It.On. - ShePac Hitting Back at Left Wing Hypocrisy and Misogyny

I know one of the women involved with She-Pac.  You go girl.  The war on women is alive and well alright; from the left on any women who dares to be conservative.

Quote of the Day - Charles Ogletree Edition

“It was a big joke, if you watch the tape, the audience is laughing when I’m laughing.”

Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law Professor and friend of President Obama backing away from his claim that he hid the recently released video.

Yeah, the joke is on the American people who didn't know who they were voting for.

Welcome to Obamaville--Homelessness on the Rise

While there are no updated stats to give exact rates, this gives a pretty good indication.  What is sad is that only two local stations reported this story.  People in this country need to open their eyes to what is going on, homelessness is on the rise.  Everything is going up; food and gas prices.  For some, there is only so much that they can cut because they are already living so close to the edge.  If gas prices truly do rise to $5 a gallon for most Americans, more and more of these tents cities will be popping up.  Be grateful for what you have.  

Let Breitbart's Vetting Begin - President Obama Harvard Protest Speech

Is there anything in this that would make a true blue democrat not vote for this man?  No, they like all this nonsense.  Victimhood is part and parcel of the left.  


Would this have given pause to people in the middle who feel no real allegiance with any party?  I think it would have, especially if they did the research on who this professor really is.  But thanks to the media not doing their jobs four years ago we will never know.

Isn't The Tea Party Standing Up for the Constitution?

As you may have figured out I am very active on social media.  I am on every presidential candidate's email list, I get emails from all types of conservative groups, and I have twitter and facebook accounts as well.  I get all kinds of things sent to me about the conservative movement.  Many of which mention the constitution.  I have been doing reading and going to different events to learn more about the constitution.

So I was very surprised today when I was told that The Tea Party Mission didn't include the rally that is being held on March 23 to preserve religious freedom.  The posting I put up on this rally was removed and I was given a warning for breaking the "rules".  Really?  I would like to know what exactly I have been doing for the past three years then.  Wasn't the entire point of learning more about the constitution was to be able to elect officials that would actually follow it?

I am in agreement that social issues are not necessarily the purview of The Tea Party, but how exactly do you separate an issue of the first amendment and The Tea Party?  The entire reason we are in the place that we find ourselves in now is because the federal government has been trampling all over our constitutional rights for several generations now.  The federal government has grown well beyond what the founders ever intended.  As such they involve themselves in things that are none of their business and are better left for the states and local governments to decide.  When they do this they waste more and more of our resources in terms of time and money as well as stripping our freedoms away; bit by bit.

The Tea Party was also formed to let our government know that we were no longer going to stand and allow them to take more and more of our freedoms away.  Mandating to the church that they have to violate their consciences in order to provide free birth control is all about freedom.  It doesn't matter what you personally feel about birth control and/or abortion because they are not the issue.  This is strictly a first amendment issue.  It is just being discussed in terms of birth control and women's health.

You need to ask yourselves if the government is allowed to take this protected right away from the church what is next?  If the Tea Party isn't going to stand up and protect this then they may as well just fold up the tents and go home.  Because we are done.

And your thoughts on the matter?

Quote of the Day - Mike Malloy Edition

“Their God … keeps smashing them into little grease spots on the pavement in Alabama, and Mississippi, and Arkansas, and Georgia, and Oklahoma, you know, the Bible belt, where they ain’t gonna let no goddamned science get in the way, it says in the Bible, blah blah blah blah blah. So, according to their way of thinking, God with his omnipotent thumb reaches down here and so far tonight has smashed about 20 people into a grease spot on highway 12, or whatever the hell highway they live next to.”

Radio Talk Show Host Mike Malloy.  You know part of the tolerant left and up for the Humanitarian of the Year.  

DC Blogger Tribute to Andrew Breitbart - Video

Saturday night there was a blogger get together to pay respects to the late Andrew Breitbart.  We were asked not to quote anyone or release any video. There were many speeches by people the knew Breitbart very well and shared their stories.  Anita Moncrief gave a very touching speech about how Andrew helped her after all the attacks from the left after she exposed the voted fraud being done by ACORN.  Stacy McCain also gave a great speech on the evening.

I found an official video of the evenings events.

Enjoy:


Andrew Breitbart Tribute Video from Ben Howe on Vimeo.

Rush Changing the Narrative

There are many on the right who are very unhappy, to say the least, about Rush Limbaugh issuing an apology for calling Sandra Fluke a slut.  They shouldn't be.  The anger should be directed at him using the word in the first place.  Above and beyond how derogatory the word is towards women, it changed the conversation; and not in a good way.

I understand what Rush was trying to do.  He was pointing out the irony of her claim.  But the truth is we know nothing about this woman's sex life.  If you are thinking to yourself that you do, then when is the last time she performed a sexual act?  How many partners has she had in the past six months?  Is she heterosexual or homosexual?  Chances are you know none of the answers to these questions because she never discussed her sex life and what type of birth control (if any) that she uses.  She discusses the topic in a more generic conversation and talked about countless "others" who tell her their stories of woe.

What Rush and everyone else needs to be concentrating on is the first amendment.  The government trying to dictate to a church what is and what isn't protected by the constitution, not her sex life.  Seriously, are you all that interested in her sex life?  I am not.  I could care less what she does in her bedroom. As long as it done by consenting adults, it is none of my concern.  What is my concern is how she is trying to push her will and her view-point onto the Catholic Church and Georgetown University.  She chose that school for a reason.  She went there specifically to try to force them to change their policy on birth control.  She did this before Obamacare and the mandates were even an issue.  She has been working on this for almost three years.

Look, birth control isn't the issue.  I have used birth control in my life (which I paid for myself) and I can guarantee you no one will be accusing me of being a slut.  Newsflash; not all conservative women are virgins when the get married and therefore use birth control.  Newsflash;, not all conservative women are looking to have large families; so they use birth control.  The issue is does the federal government have the right to force a religious institution to go against the doctrines and teachings of the church that has been around for thousands of years?  These church teachings have been in existence long before the U.S. was ever formed.

The left set the trap and we conservatives walked right into it.  This isn't about sex, it isn't about birth control, it is about liberty.  We need to do ourselves a favor and stop talking about this woman's sex life and deal with the fact that she is trying to push her will onto the rest of the country; regardless of the constitutional protections that are in place.  We need to stop playing their game.  They wanted to paint conservatives as a bunch of people who think anyone who uses birth control is some sort of sexual deviant who needs us to tell them how to live their lives and what drugs they can and cannot put into their bodies.  That is a battle we cannot, should not  and will not win.  Americans don't want the right telling them how to live their lives anymore than they want left doing it.  What Americans want is their freedoms and liberties to be protected.  Our job is to tell them that they are being ebbed away by an over-reaching, ever more powerful federal government in the guise of discussion on birth control.  If we keep the discussion on birth control and Ms. Fluke's sex life they don't see that they are giving away their liberties willingly in exchange for a $9 pack of generic birth control pills.

Quote of the Day - Condi Rice Edition

“If you are taught bitterness and anger, then you will believe you are a victim. You will feel aggrieved and the twin brother of aggrievment is entitlement. So now you think you are owed something and you don't have to work for it and now you're on a really bad road to nowhere because there are people who will play to that sense of victimhood, aggreivement and entitlement, and you still won't have a job.”

Condi Rice.  


I heart her.  I so wish she would run for office one day.   


Linked at Right Truth.  Thanks, Debbie

Quote of the Day - VA State Senator Watkins Edition

 “I’m a God-fearing, God-believing Christian. … If any of us think that we own the property, you better take a close look inside you, because God and Mother Nature own everything.”

John Watkins arguing on the VA state senate floor against a bill that protects VA property owners from an overbearing government seizing property to give to corporations.  This bill is in reaction to the Kelo decision in which the Supreme Court took a private homeowners property to give to another business for them to develop in the hopes that it would raise additional tax revenue.  The last I heard this property is still vacant after the homeowner had her home ripped from her by the state of CT.  This bill did pass.  

Sadly, this man is a republican.  Will anyone stand up and mount  a primary challenge against this man?  One could only hope.  

Can anyone say Agenda 21?  

H/T Right Side News