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.

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.

Speechless.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Disclaimers.

“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.

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.