Tuesday, March 30, 2010

I hate unions.

They may have served a valuable purpose when created, but unions have outlived their legitimate usefulness, and evolved into nothing more than corrupt, criminal gangs. Don't believe me?

Take a look at what teachers' unions are doing: the last thing that should be done in the LA school districts is shortening the school year. The kids aren't learning to read, write, or do basic math as it is.

Or here, take a look at the latest scam that the SEIU wants to perpetrate on us. Looks to me like it's now time to take your retirement savings and bury it in the back yard.

Any political action group that swears to lobby to make unions illegal would get my support. And any politician that caters to unions emphatically does not.

You go, Granny!

God made all men, Samuel Colt made 'em equal.--anon.
If it weren't for her God-given, second amendment guaranteed rights, this little old lady might be dead. Too bad she didn't manage to hit the douchebag that put "boo boos where I didn't know I had a place to put boo boos."

Oathbreaker: exhibit ... I can't keep count.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."--Constitution of the United States of America; Article VI, section II

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."--Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment II
Obama plans to sign the UN small arms treaty--an administrative attempt to remove our God-given rights to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.

How does that work? I mean, if God has created us with the rights named in the Declaration of Independence, and protected by the Bill of Rights, how can the government believe it can take them away?

Simple: first, common (though wrong) legal opinion, connected to the above link for the second amendment, states "However, the States and the National Government can and do control the ownership and usage of firearms by private persons."

I don't see how anyone who can fucking read can get that from the Second Amendment: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The first half of the second amendment gives an example of why the amendment was written; however, it's the second half that is important. It cannot be written any more clearly than "shall not be infringed," which is why the government has been emphasizing the first half to justify the idea that this right is granted and controlled by the federal government.

Secondly, the Constitution itself makes treaties with foreign nations co-equal with Constitutional and federal law--and the UN small arms treaty has clauses that forbid the common citizenry to own firearms.

This treaty goes directly against our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights. And, since "Congress shall make no law...," they'll not just infringe upon our right "to keep and bear arms" through this treaty, they'll take them away entirely.

I pray to God that they aren't able to get this treaty signed until after the elections this fall. It takes a two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify any treaty signed, according to Article II, section II, clause 2. Without ratification, our Constitution does not recognize it as co-equal to Constitutional and federal law, which does not permit the circumvention of our Constitution.


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."--Constitutional Oath: Article II, section I, Clause 8
Barack Obama has broken the oath that he swore on January 20, 2009. He has not only refused to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, but has actively attacked the nation and document he swore to protect.

Every time he meets a foreign head of state, he bows--which illustrates that he believes that the sovereignty of this nation should be subordinated to that of every other nation in the fucking world.

Every speech he gives overseas (or to the UN in New York City) is an apology for all of the actions, past and present, of the nation he claims to have been born in, love, and lead.

Every action he's chosen to endorse goes against the best interests of the United States of America.

Every bill he's signed into law has been fully unconstitutional, both in the way it's been passed, and in and of itself.

He has not listened to we the people who elected him to office. He claims, and Reverend Sharpton claims, that we heard his message and elected him to do what he's done.

That is not true. We did not elect him because we wanted our sovereign nation to be subordinated to every other nation. We did not elect him because we wanted our nation's founding documents to be used to wipe his nasty, black, Muslim ass. We did not elect him to lead our nation into socialism.

We elected him because we didn't see any difference between his policy and those of John McCain, because he was younger, more charismatic, sounded better when he read the teleprompter. We elected him because we wanted to make history.

We elected him because he is black.

It doesn't matter why we elected him. It doesn't matter what he wants to think. What matters is that he swore the oath upon taking office, and he has broken his oath.

He is an oathbreaker. He must be removed from office. It would be best if he were impeached immediately, but since that is not likely, he must not be re-elected.

And we, the people, should file a class action lawsuit against him for breach of promise as soon as he is out of office.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

All I ever need to know...

...I learned from reading Robert Heinlein.

  1. Men are more sentimental than women. It blurs their thinking.
  2. Get a shot off fast. This upsets him long enough to let you make your second shot perfect.
  3. It has long been known that one horse can run faster than another--but which one? Differences are crucial.
  4. Nursing does not diminish the beauty of a woman’s breasts; it enhances their charm by making them look lived in and happy.
  5. A generation which ignores history has no past—and no future.
  6. A poet who reads his verse in public may have other nasty habits.
  7. Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of--but do it in private and wash your hands afterwards.
  8. If you don’t like yourself, you can’t like other people.
  9. All men are created unequal.
  10. Money is a powerful aphrodisiac. But flowers work almost as well.
  11. The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful.
  12. Dear, don’t bore him with trivia or burden him with your past mistakes. The happiest way to deal with a man is never to tell him anything he does not need to know.
  13. Darling, a true lady takes off her dignity with her clothes and does her whorish best. At other times you can be as modest and dignified as your persona requires.
  14. Everybody lies about sex.
  15. If the universe has any purpose more important than topping the woman you love and making a baby with her hearty help, I’ve never heard of it.
  16. Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed.
  17. Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up on the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. They should never settle merely for equality. For women, “equality” is a disaster.
  18. Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy.
  19. Rub her feet.
  20. If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for...but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong. If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.
  21. Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity.
  22. Another ingredient for a happy marriage: Budget the luxuries first!
  23. And still another-- See to it that she has her own desk--then keep your hands off it!
  24. And another--In a family argument, if it turns out you are right--apologize at once!
  25. Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
  26. The greatest productive force is human selfishness.
  27. Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors--and miss.
  28. A whore should be judged by the same criteria as other, professionals offering services for pay--such as dentists, lawyers, hairdressers, physicians, plumbers, etc. Is she professionally competent? Does she give good measure? Is she honest with her clients? It is possible that the percentage of honest and competent whores is higher than that of plumbers and much higher than that of lawyers. And enormously higher than that of professors.
  29. Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.
  30. Formal courtesy between husband and wife is even more important than it is between strangers.
  31. Anything free is worth what you pay for it.
  32. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity!


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson would be spinning in his grave, did he know what happened Sunday night. He'd be horrified by the way the federal government has been trying to hide their votes, and trying to hide how each congresscritter voted on what. I think he'd agree with those of us that feel that violence is becoming necessary to make the government listen to us, given that they're ignoring us when we speak without a brick through an office window. I think all of the Founding Fathers would.

And the current idiots in charge who voted against the interests and wishes of the people they serve--and make no mistake, they do serve us (or are supposed to)--should not be surprised that we are...displeased with their performance.

Currently, I'm less displeased with the Repubicans than I am the Dhimmicrites. I'm less displeased because, for whatever reason (power plays, morals and ethics, or what have you), they are calling for investigations into how the Dhimmicrites are gaming the power system, and are forcing vote after vote on mandatory Medicaid--keeping it in the forefront of all of our minds. I hope they can keep it up all the way through November, to keep it fresh enough in the minds of the mindless to get control wrested away from those who would control us all.

Yet more of the blazing competence we're going to come to expect.

It's not enough that the city of Pittsburgh, PA, has an unfair share of MRI machines (more than all of Canada), nor yet that there are imaging centers dotted here and there around the country, where you can shop around to find the best service. No, those must be properly and fairly distributed so that all of the people have a fair share, and the competent techs must learn to work for a slave's wage, because it's our right that they must serve us.

And it's only fair that things like this happen to all. We can't have some babies saved and others lost through uneven quality of care, can we? We can't have some doctors and imagery techs be competent enough to see when a miscarriage doesn't kill the baby when others miss seeing the heartbeat because it's hidden behind a blood clot. We can't have some paid well enough to make those who do the least amount of work they can get away with look bad. We must have shitty care for all.

It's like this:

If the predators and scavengers can't tell the sheep from the sheepdogs, then the sheep are safer. How else do you explain why a record 6 million are licensed concealed carry holders, but a lot of the violent crime rates in states with castle doctrine and stand your ground laws have dropped? How else do you explain why the highest crime rates are in places that have the most stringent gun control laws? How else do you explain why so many mass shootings are in gun-free zones, like schools, universities, and hospitals?

Even the sheep understand this principle (for the most part). How else would you explain the poll numbers from MSNBC, where nearly 80% of respondents said they felt safer with licensed concealed carry holders in the crowd with them?

It seems simple to me. Too bad much of the country can't follow such a simple logic chain, even when it's explained to them.

This woman needs to be put into a men's prison.

I can't think of any other possible just punishment for this bitch trading sex with the ten-year-old girl she was taking care of to a 67-year-old cocaine dealer for drugs.

About f***ing time.

Maybe more ships need to hire armed, private guards. The Somali pirates attack ships because (until now) they could do so without fear of being killed. Once merchants start killing them, they'll stop.

I needed to post something cheerful.

Update: Stupid Muslims. Why do they have to ruin everything?

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Agendas revealed.

The unconstitutional bill that was unconstitutionally passed in the House Sunday night is already making itself felt by way of coercive taxes on behaviors the government deems unacceptable. This goes a good way toward illustrating what Representative Dingle says about the purpose of the bill:

Did you hear that last? The federal government wants to control us.

Further, we're seeing previews of what awaits with the government's anti-life agenda at high schools across the country. Not only are our children being educated to hide their pregnancies and abortions from us, their parents, but their schools are aiding and abetting them in perpetrating this crime against life and childhood during school hours.

We are not taking this lying down. Many states are suing the federal government to overturn this unconstitutionally passed abridgement of our God-given, Constitutionally protected freedom. Others are suing merely on the grounds that there's no funding in place, no budget cuts elsewhere to cover the costs.

Nor are we the people silent:

We did not want this. And, Dear Leader, sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA, LA, LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU," does not excuse you from listening to the people that you serve. And that is another thing that you would be wise to remember: you serve us; we do not serve you. We are citizens, not subjects. You are supposedly the duly elected president, not the king. You must, by law, listen to us.

We are speaking. You are not listening.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

America is not Europe.

It occurred to me, Sunday night, that our government is stupid. Not just traitorous, not just oathbreakers, but downright stupid. I know they don't care about the results of their unconstitutional actions, but I really think they don't understand the scope of what they've done.

They don't understand that we, the people, who elected them to office to represent us (which they haven't done), are superbly angry. They don't understand that we do understand what they're doing, and we don't want it. They don't understand the significance that there are eighty million legal gun owners in this country, most of whom have read the Constitution. They don't understand that there are probably just as many illegal gun owners that are just as angry. They don't understand that we will not tolerate this naked grab for power, this abrogation of our rights. They don't understand that they're dragging us, full speed ahead, into another civil war.

And they don't understand that, when push comes to shove, it's highly unlikely that a military that they hate, that they call retarded, will side with them against the Constitution.

Most of all, they don't understand that Americans are citizens, not subjects.

I'm actually really scared. I don't want our nation to come apart at the seams. I want for us to find a way to overturn this evil perpetrated upon us that does not involve violence.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not a peaceful person. I believe that, while violence may not be the best option most of the time, it does work when it is needed. I don't know--it may be needed now--but I don't want to see another ten years of the winning half of the country crushing the losing half under vicious regulations and laws designed to show the world who the winners and losers were, as Reconstruction did in the nineteenth century. All that did was divide the nation further. I have friends who still swear that the South will never die, that Dixie will rise again.

What I want to see is for the citizens of the United States of America to stand up and remove the power-drunk, arrogant leftist dipshits that worked the system to turn us from customers to expenses. I want those twelve states that have already filed suit against the federal government's requirements that we are all to buy insurance to succeed. I want the rest of the states to sue to repeal this bad law on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional by Article I, sections 7 & 8.

I want to see every incumbent up for re-election in November lose. I want to see patriots sitting in Washington, D.C., rather than those who hate this country, are determined to tear it down, and rebuild it in the image of the Soviet Union.

I want my country back.

Friday, March 19, 2010

It's not just the so-called "Slaughter solution" that's unconstituitonal.

Many states--38 at one count--are planning to sue the federal government if it forces this mandatory Medicaid bill up our collective national ass. And, believe me, the government is not only planning to do so, but is trying to shield those voting "aye" on the sandstone dildo from the consequences of those votes.

That, right there is what makes the Slaughter solution unconstitutional. Article I, section 7, of the United States Constitution stipulates "But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively."

In other words, any "aye" votes must be recorded, by name, and released to the public. Otherwise, it goes directly against the Constitution. The Founding Fathers wanted the government to be held responsible for whatever it chooses to try to do.

Some so-called "experts" in Constitutional law claims that the laws and resolutions that states may pass against the giant sandstone dildo the federal government is aiming right for our national pucker are unconstitutional, since federal law overrides those set by the states; however, that sandstone dildo is, in and of itself, unconstitutional. Nowhere in Article I, Section 8 is congress given the power to rape the nation with this nine-inch-thick (it is 2200 pages) sandstone dildo.

So, what can congress do? It can:
  • Make money, take money, borrow money, and make laws about money
  • Build roads and post offices and other federal infrastructure
  • Grant copyrights
  • Punish piracy
  • Declare war, carry out war, raise and fund militias, armies, navies, et. al. to keep us as a nation safe and protect our national sovereignty
But nowhere in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to tell us that we must buy health insurance that covers x, y, and z, or be fined up to 2% of our income or $2200--whichever's greater--to be enforced by the IRS. Nowhere do I see the power to regulate the health care industry at all, not even under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, given that most states won't let their residents buy insurance from other states, for fear that their residents might choose to buy the Kia version of health insurance rather than the Cadillac or Mercedes Benz plans.

Nowhere do I see congress granted the power to legislate, regulate, and ration our choices in caring for our health as individuals. That power is, according to the tenth amendment, reserved to the states or to the individual.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

In a truly free-market economy, complete with competition, prices are set by costs, not greed.

Unfortunately for the nation, most don't understand that simple fact.

Medicaid has underpaid doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies for years. I've heard from several doctors that it pays about 60-80% of their price, which even doesn't cover their overhead. According to Reader's Digest:
Anatomy of a Doctor's Bill

Just how much of the $100 your doctor charges for taking 30 minutes to investigate your stomach pain goes into his pocket? After paying the bills, he gets less than half. The breakdown, according to Robert Lowes, senior editor at Medical Economics:

$3.50 for malpractice insurance

$3.50 for equipment, repairs, and maintenance

$6 for supplies, including gowns, tongue depressors, and copy paper

$7 for rent and utilities

$11 for office expenses, such as telephones, accounting fees, advertising, medical journals, licenses, and taxes

$28 for secretary, office manager, and medical assistant salaries and benefits

$41 Amount that goes into the doctor's paycheck

Over the course of a year, that adds up to $155,000, the annual salary of the average family physician. That number rose just 3.3% between 2002 and 2006, while expenses increased nearly 25% over the same period.

Keep in mind: none of this counts how much of that annual salary goes toward paying back student loans over a decade or three.

Well, similar things happen in pharmaceuticals. There are at least three chains of pharmacies in Washington state that have stopped accepting new Medicaid patients. Medicaid is only reimbursing those pharmacies for around 80% of the estimated wholesale price for the drugs--which is far less than the pharmacies pay.

And this is a problem. The less the government pays, one of two things happens: either the rest of us have to pay more, or the pharmacy goes out of business.

It's not all the greedy pharmaceuticals companies' faults, either. Some fair estimates of what a new drug costs to take from concept to sale hover in the upper hundreds of millions of dollars. Why? Because, out of their apparently high 18% profit margin (according to this, Fortune 500 companies' profits hover around 3%, on average), most of that "profit" is actually sunk back into the pharmaceuticals companies in research and development costs.

A few years ago, I read an article that contained a rough breakdown. I can't find it now, but what I remember went something like this: ten possible drugs might start out as a possible treatment for any given condition. Six are weeded out in lab tests--before the rats ever become involved--via computer models, and that's about a hundred thousand down the drain. Maybe four go on to the next stage--about two years in rodent trials--at about a hundred thousand dollars per drug. Say two more are weeded out--one's too dangerous, and the other doesn't have any noticeable effect. That's another two hundred thousand dollars down the tube, on top of the hundred thousand dollars spent weeding out the first six in computer modeling.

If you count the costs of the failed projects, both of those possibilities remaining cost about $250,000. Each. Per year.

And the next stage is even more expensive: five years' worth of testing in primates, at another $150,000 per year. Which is likely to weed one drug out as a possible treatment for whatever disease in question, but might well find another use for it.

Then comes the last stage: tests in humans, at roughly double primate testing costs, for about three more years. Most expensive of all, and they already know it works--what they're looking for now is minimum effective dosage, maximum safe dosage, side effects, and all sorts of other unpleasantness. Which brings our grand total for one drug's development up to close to a billion dollars.

The government keeps saying "We'll cut the costs." What they mean is that they'll try to cut what consumers pay by setting price ceilings--which, in turn, means that pharmaceutical companies will spend less, if any at all, on developing new drugs to treat our aging population's health problems.


More incompetence from state-run healthcare.

An English hospital has screwed up. Again.

A nurse was gluing a cut closed on a six-year-old boy's forehead, and dripped adhesive in his eye, gluing it shut, too. The hospital now requires (which implies that it didn't before) that, before forehead cuts are glued closed, eye patches have to be placed to prevent that from happening again.

And this is the type and quality of care that Dear Leader wants to gift us with.

What a brave new world that has such people in it!

Oops, my misogyny is showing.

Gloria Steinem recently gave an speech during which she mentioned that a lot of female activity, and female-oriented media have labels, and as far as she knows, there's no male equivalent to such terms as "Cougar" or "chick flick."

Umm...yeah, there is. Male equivalents of "Cougar*" are "sugar daddy" or "cradle robber." And male equivalents of "chick flicks" are called "action movies" or "documentaries." Duh.

Silly bint just doesn't pay attention to anything but her own vagina. Just like any other woman.

*A "Cougar" is an older woman who pursues younger men. One famous example of such is Demi Moore.

More violations of first amendment rights.

The first amendment to the Constitution states that we have the right to assemble, to speak our minds and our beliefs, and to worship as we choose. It doesn't give us those rights, doesn't grant us those rights. We are born with those rights. The government is forbidden from infringing upon those rights. All government, federal, state, and local.

This is an egregious example of government infringing upon the first amendment rights of a whole group, who happens to peaceably assemble in the homes of its members to study the Bible.

From persecution we came, to persecution we are returning.

And people wonder what's wrong with the world today.

He believes in you.

In Constantine, one of the exchanges between two of the characters (more memorable than the actress's character's name) went something like this (about 1:04-1:08):

The Vatican's lead exorcist says that many in many churches have fallen into a disbelief of the devil, allowing the devil free reign within their hearts, leading to such evils within the church as pedophilia.

They may have stopped believing in the devil--some simply don't believe a just and merciful God could permit the devil to lead people into sin and damnation, nor that He could permit something as awful as hell to exist in the first place.

God is just. Just as we, here on earth, punish those who break the law with incarceration, He punishes those who break the Law with eternal exile from His presence, with the Fallen as his wardens, and the shame of our own sins as a burning humiliation. That is, that's what would be for all, were it not for one thing: God truly is a merciful God. If He weren't, if He hadn't sent His son, there would be not one of us that was not headed in that direction.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Sounds like they need better background checks at the point of purchase.

I mean, I think the idea of selling off legal-to-own guns seized in crimes to legitimate dealers, perhaps to help with funding, isn't a bad one. So what if two guns used in "high profile crimes" come from that kind of a background? Two guns out of how many? And how did the crazies get ahold of them from legitimate dealers? Did their states just not have the "mentally unstable" question on the forms at the point of purchase?

I do not, in any circumstance, think that the police should be allowed to destroy legal (i.e., semi-auto only, with registration numbers not filed off, etc.), safe, working firearms, just to keep them out of the hands of those who might commit a crime. The vast majority of us won't, and destroying weapons instead of selling them to legitimate dealers keeps them out of the hands of the law-abiding more than it does the criminal.

Something I don't understand.

About a hundred years ago, our nation faced a major change: the women's suffrage movement. This movement argued that women were just as human, just as intelligent, and just as capable of rational thought as men, and that they were just as deserving of the natural human rights that'd just been granted to Negros. Until the suffrage laws were passed, women were basically chattel: they belonged to their fathers until they were married, then they belonged to their husbands. At no time did they have any rights that the men in their lives didn't permit. That included owning property, making (and keeping) her own money, suing and being sued in a court of law, bringing an abusive husband up on charges, and most definitely political speech.

That is no longer the case, and has not been since the nineteenth amendment was ratified. Because, once that passed, women were able to lobby and vote for laws that permitted them other rights.

I guess that must have changed at some point when we weren't looking, because there's no other explanation for this.

Seriously, with the passage of laws granting women the same legal rights as men, and preventing men from silencing their wives on political topics, how can being someone's wife curtail her right to free speech? I don't care if her husband is on the Supreme Court--she has the same rights to speak her mind and beliefs as anyone else.

And, if they're arguing that a woman who is not on the court will be able to politicize the whole court, tilting the whole court in favor of the Tea Party movement (which, to be frank, it should have been in the first place), then that means that the leftist members of the court don't have a brain amongst the lot of them.

Besides. The political hazing surrounding Supreme Court Justice Thomas's investiture did far more to polarize the court than his wife's activism could possibly do.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Never thought I'd hear an argument this lame.

Not even from High Priest Al Gore's crowd (which, incidentally, is far nuttier than the crowd following Scientology).

Seems that the Environmentalists are claiming that cocaine users are increasing global warming. According to the article, "for every few lines of cocaine snorted..., four square meters of rain forest is destroyed" to plant coca plants.

Rather than blame this on the drug users, why don't they blame the drug growers, and the pushers that addict the poor bastards to this particular drug? I mean, that's blaming the victim, not the criminal.

Wait...that's what political correctness does.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Methinks the laddy doth protest too much.

I'm no Catholic. I was raised in one of the many Protestant denominations in the nation, left the church I was born in, and kind of have been searching since. I settled with the Anglican church, a few years ago; however, I'm no happier with some of their views. Like their views on gay clergy. Or on their leftist-leaning hierarchy.

I do respect the Catholic church. I understand some of the reasoning behind some of the doctrine--especially behind the anti-abortion, and kinda sorta behind the anti-contraception (used as such--however, when contraception is used to treat conditions like PCOS and endometriosis, and certain practitioners are still against it, that's where a line between principle and unthinking dogma is crossed). Abortion kills an unborn life, contraception takes much of the timing out of God's hands and puts it in mortal hands (which invariably muck it up).

I will admit that I'm not big on the whole celibacy thing. I can kinda sorta understand why, according to what I've read about Catholicism in my search, the vow is there. I still don't agree with it, any more than I agree with gay clergy. I mean, first of all, how in the world is an unmarried priest who may have never even been in a relationship supposed to give credible marital advice? Married clergy do better, for the most part, because they understand on a gut level what kinds of issues couples face. All the theory in the world does not make up for a lack of practical application.

I do not, however, fault the vow of celibacy for the pedophilia in the church.

I can see where there might be a correlation: good young Catholic boy wakes up one morning, and realizes he might have an inappropriate sexual orientation (like toward someone of his own sex. Or toward those who are really pre-pubescent). Like any other good, God-fearing (and God-loving) young man, he's horrified. He doesn't want to be gay, or a pedophile, doesn't want to admit that he might be, so he tries to ignore the problem in the hopes that it goes away. Unfortunately for our young Christian, it doesn't. Our young Catholic believes God has given him this burden as a cross to bear, and thinks that, with the vow of celibacy, he won't have to think about it. That inappropriate, unacceptable desire will be gone.

Too bad for our young pervert that God doesn't like it when we run from the challenges he's placed before us rather than trying to deal with it or overcome it with his help.

I don't think that, if the Priest is supposed to symbolize Christ's role as bridegroom with the Church in the role of bride, allowing them to follow in the footsteps of the Anglican church with regards to sex is necessarily (or even at all) a good thing.

What the...?!?

I can kinda sorta understand why the IRS would be purchasing shotguns. It creeps me out, and I don't think a bunch of glorified accountants with delusions of law enforcement (or adequacy) should be permitted to purchase such, but it can be justified. Barely.

What cannot be justified is the Department of Education purchasing shotguns. Not unless and until they revoke those ridiculous "gun-free zone" policies that keep the teachers unarmed and get the kids killed.


A woman in England had been in and out of the hospital for nine months with a diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome. On her last visit, she was told she was about three months pregnant, and sent home. Three hours after that, she gave birth to a nearly-nine pound baby.

I don't know if the incompetence was just stupid staff, or if it was a staff winnowed down and made careless by too much work concentrated on too few people, but to miss a pregnancy for the entire nine months? Wow. That's a whole new definition of the term "oblivious."

Really? Does that mean I can put him in jail for something I find offensive?

Sean Penn is not a bad actor. He is, however, an idiot that obviously has not read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Nor does he use what little fluff he's got between his ears to reason out that, should the First Amendment not apply to everybody, it doesn't apply to anybody, and that he could just as easily find himself jailed for offending conservatives under a conservative president.

Thanks be to God for our Founding Fathers' foresight in forbidding our federal government from abridging our right to voice our opinions (and state facts) in the political arena.

Chavez is, in fact, a dictator. What's more, he's a Communist dictator in Russia's back pocket.

Racism, my ass.

I saw this story a couple of days ago, then again yesterday at Kickin' and Screamin'. Apparently, Wal-Mart is racist for marking down a Barbie that's not selling well. And, as Vilmar put it, the race-baiters are pissed off.

They obviously don't understand supply and demand. If two identical but cosmetically different items are produced at the same cost, but only one item sells well (for whatever reason), stores have to mark the other item down until it, too, sells, just to clear shelf space for more items that will sell at the initial price.

That doesn't make the stores racist. If anything, the shoppers are the ones mostly to blame for not wanting the black doll.

Personally, I'd've rather had the black doll. I think her coloring and dress are far prettier than the pale, blond, blue-eyed bimbo in pink.

Happy birthday to me!!!

I turned 31, today. My husband has gone to pick up my mom and my sister, and they're going to watch the boy while we go to the range. I've got a new toy to sight in.

The other best birthday present I could hope for would be for Barry, Joe, Harry, Nanny, and Hillary to drop dead because mandatory Medicaid got shot down once and for all. Or, hell, everyone on Capitol Hill to drop dead so we could get a total do-over.

Friday, March 5, 2010

This ain't right.

Unemployment rates are higher than they've been reported. That 9.7% they've been citing? Yeah, that doesn't count those who are discouraged and have quit looking, nor those that are working two or more part-time jobs to make ends meet, nor yet those who'll be shit out of luck once the census is done. According to other measures, the real unemployment rate (which still doesn't count census workers) is around 16.8%. Something tells me that after April, that number is going up. Especially with the extensions of unemployment payments and the new, punishing taxes the government is planning to implement that will likely hit small businesses harder than they will large corporations.

And here's another thing that really irritates me about government figures: they don't report that government workers get paid higher salaries than equivalent private sector workers. And get far better benefits. Which won't be taken away from them if mandatory Medicaid gets forced up our collective ass.

This is symptomatic of a government that wants to be the ony business in town.

Next thing we know, all our homes will have remotely-activated webcams mounted in them.

Dear Leader's administration is using the Patriot Act and the specter of a massive cyber attack to watch what we do on the internet.

I don't think there's any way this can end well.

The difference between terrorists and nut-jobs.

Terrorists attack civilian targets, aiming for large civilian casualty rates, like they did in New York City, the attack on the Pentagon (using a loaded civilian jet as a missile), and the attempted attack on the White House on September 11, 2001. Three thousand civilians died in those attack, with several REMFs killed in the Pentagon. Terrorists are made angry that we are free, affluent, comfortable, and don't have our assess in the air five times a day praying to their god.

Nut-jobs attack the source of whatever they think causes their discontent. Like the guy that rammed his plane into the IRS building (not that I blame him--I think a lot of us quietly cheered him on). Or this guy, who was planning a mass shooting in the worst possible place, and got killed for his trouble.

Honestly, these attacks are more than a bit troubling for me. They're symptomatic of a breakdown of the trust that our government framework is still solid.

Here we go again.

I've written about the damage that government welfare programs cause in individuals that are told they're forced to depend on them (see here, here, here, and here). The reforms signed in 1996 did a lot to get people who fell into the government safety net back on their feet and off of assistance as quickly as possible. Katherine Bradley of the National Review Online describes how that reform worked.

And how Dear Leader plans to try to reverse those reforms. That, combined with the extension of unemployment (again and again and again), I believe is designed to get as many people dependent upon the government as possible. The more people depend on the government for their income and livelihood, the fewer vote against the bread and circuses as the current administration works to turn us into the USSR in its heyday.

Indeed, once they get as many of us as possible put on welfare, they've already half succeeded. Mandatory Medicaid will put us closer. And if we let them take our guns, we no longer have a chance to keep any of our other freedoms.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Saw this about a week and a half ago.

A sixty-seven year old Vietnam veteran, when confronted by a twenty-something year old black thug and his 'hos, kicked the living dog shit out of the punk.

I've got some friends who I think could do just as well, if not better. And I really resent the bus driver throwing the one who was hit first off the bus without throwing the thugs off the bus, too--which let said thugs steal his stuff.

I wasn't going to post about this. Then I read a blog buddy's post that used the "N-word" in describing the video--one that had me dying laughing when I read his disclaimer about using the "N-word" in his post about this happenstance:

"Please be advised that BLACK people are not born NIGGERS--they earn the title."

Indeed, my friend. Indeed.

Not surprising.

Microsoft has proposed an internet usage tax to pay them back what they spend fixing the security holes in their flawed operating system. I am totally unsurprised. I'm also totally against it--not all browsers are Microsoft-based, and this says nothing about not taxing those that use, say, Firefox.

Then again, if that tax were laid only on Microsoft Explorer users, everybody else would switch to the better browser (not that Microsoft admits that they're only the biggest, not the best). If anything, I'd bet on some backroom dealing to make the taxes higher on those who use other browsers. After all, Microsoft works about as well, and about on the same levels of honesty, as the federal government.

How much do you want to bet...

...that both of these women refused to go through the security scanners because they were smuggling things on their persons? They were, after all, headed to Pakistan.

So arrogant.

A good number of Democrat revolutionaries have decided that, like Prohibition, they're going to force the sandstone dildo that is mandatory Medicaid up our collective national ass whether we like it or not. Because that's what's good for us, and we're too stupid to realize it.

Dear Leader has come right out and said that he plans to endorse use of the so-called "nuclear option" that the left screamed bloody murder about when Republicans mentioned that it was an option, and could be used, a few years ago. He's also trying to bribe undecided Democrats into following his agenda, even though it'd be the last thing they do in office. He says that the ends justify any means, up to and including the abuse of power that he's perpetrating on us.

The thing is, they're willing to sacrifice all to fully push this country into total dependence on the government. They're willing to sacrifice all now, in exchange for the absolute power they can grab once the economy and structure of this country has fractured to the point that the people can be convinced that it'll take a naked power-grab by the federal government to re-shape and re-build the country, and get it going in the socially correct direction.

Never mind that that socially correct direction has failed, miserably, everywhere else that it's been tried. And never mind that the voters will never go for it. Never mind that they're laying the tinder that the least little spark will set alight for another, bloodier Civil War than the one that was fought over states' rights with slavery as the topic out front.

And never mind that the competent parts of the U.S. military won't be fighting on the side of the current federal government. The correct path lies at their feet, and their false gods of socialism (both national and transnational), environmentalism, and political correctness will help them force the rest of us into the paths they choose for us, regardless of our ability to resist. Their gods are on their side, after all.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Really? I wonder why.

Economists are predicting that we're going to have another financial collapse, worse than the one we're wading through the aftereffects of.

I'm not surprised. The government, through it's "community organization groups" like the re-named ACORN, are forcing banks to continue the sub-prime loans to those who can't or won't repay the loans, just because they're minorities and not making the loans is racist.

Also contributing is the rational fear of a socialist government trying to control the economy by making consumers more dependent on government aid through financial carrots and sticks, regardless of the government's ability to pay.

Good reason to repeal Chicago's gun ban.

A home invasion killed three in one of Chicago's suburbs.

I don't answer the door to someone I don't know. And I have a gun in the room with me at all times, because my neighborhood isn't the best. I've never had to use it, but I am fully prepared to--the police department is a few minutes away, and there's no telling how quickly they could get here. They'd probably get here in time to either haul away the crying, cringing, perp on the floor, or clear away a body.

The family in Chicago did not have their God-given, Constitutionally-protected right to defend themselves because the politicians are more focused on keeping criminals safe than allowing the law-abiding to protect themselves without relying on government services.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010


This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work.”

The above was printed in an edition of The Federalist Papers.

I don't know about you, but I highly doubt most parents have the education levels or reading comprehension to read the beautifully worded justifications for the way our government was set up that our Founding Fathers put together, much less that any children would be interested in reading those documents. And I don't think I'd have much of a problem with my son reading them when he comes to a point where he can read and comprehend them. The values, morals, and behavioral standards held by our Founding Fathers are, with few exceptions (like the treatment of other races, and the withholding of rights from women), far better than those of today.

To tell you God's honest truth, modern (nonexistent) values, (lack of) morals and (low) behavioral standards should be what comes with a disclaimer. Perhaps this one would work:

"Warning: indulging in moral relativism, transnational progressivism, socialism, promiscuity, homosexuality, or any other behavior advocated by the political left is unhealthy for the mental, physical, emotional, sexual, and/or spiritual well-being of any who practice said behavior. Talk to your children about the values and morals that they should have that were demonstrated by our Christian Founding Fathers when they created the framework of government for this great nation."

No way this'll happen. Obama's not got the political capital anymore.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...
--Amendment XIV; Constitution of the United States of America

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
--Amendment II Constitution of the United States of America

The probable outcome of the Supreme Court examining Chicago's gun ban's constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment is scaring the left. The Brady bunch lost in D.C., and it looks likely that they'll lose everywhere else.

One opinion columnist suggests that it's time for the Supreme Court to be expanded, and that this is the president (and the time) to do it. After all, the anti-America agenda of the transnational progressivists (trannies) must be protected at all costs.

They, like most of the rest of the country's voters, have totally forgotten history. FDR tried to do this in 1935, with his attempts to increase his votes on the court by adding two votes to the four that were already in his favor.

He failed. Miserably.

Most of the American citizenry were violently opposed to much of his unconstitutional exercise of power--unfortunately, much of his agenda was upheld by a Supreme Court that started out similarly opposed, but came around through fear of the economy collapsing.

Obama is looking more and more like he's following in FDR's footsteps, rather than Lincoln's. Like FDR, Obama started out his first term in office America's golden boy. He was supposed to, like FDR, fix an economic mess left for him by a predecessor. He's tried to, like FDR, collect more power unto himself and his administration, by means constitutional or otherwise. Like FDR, he is opposed by a majority on the Supreme Court.

Unlike FDR, the American people are already waking up to smell the pile of horse shit they put behind the big desk in the oval office. It's happening fast enough that, without more unconstitutional seizing of power, he's not likely to be re-elected even the now-constitutionally-limited once more.

Monday, March 1, 2010

So. Al Gore and his global warming syncophants have blood on their hands.

A married couple in Argentina entered into a suicide pact over their fears of global warming. They shot their 2 year old son, and their seven month old daughter before turning the gun on themselves.

Worst of all, the little girl didn't die. She lay there alone, wounded, beside her dead family, for three days before someone found her. Three days in pain. Three days hungry and thirsty.

Those who perpetrated the hoax to gain political power need to be punished, and punished hard, for this and events like it.