Monthly Archives: October 2008

Got a few minutes for Fred?

 

He’s a smooth talkin’ man…and it helps that he’s absolutely right!

I love Fred Thompson.  I keep thinking of him saying “The Russians don’t take a dump, son with a plan”

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Politicians

What about the children??

Doing it to for the children

Via Redstate.com

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Issues

Public Discourse and the 1st Amendment

Police prepare for unrest

Republican HQ Manager’s Home Shot Up Over McCain Signs

The fact that my first amendment rights only apply if I agree with you and if I don’t, I can be the target of violence is sad and disturbing.

Luckily, the second amendment still applies (at least for now).

I have a weapon and I will use it.

Leave a comment

Filed under In the news

"Gov. Palin – Who are you wearing???"

Much ado about the Palin wardrobe brouhaha

Is this worth the time the MSM is spending on it?  Only insofar as it allows them to pile on once again.

Here’s my opinion.  Sarah Palin is a governor of a remote (geographically speaking) state.  Her wardrobe is sufficient for the type of business she does in Alaska, and she has access to laundry and dry cleaning facilities whenever she needs them.

However, she’s plucked out of Alaska a few short weeks ago; offered the Vice President slot on the McCain ticket and is “put on the bus” right after the announcement.

What’s her schedule?  Endless appearances – several per day.  Informal and formal functions which require different wardrobes.  Nights on the bus or in a hotel room and out again the next morning.  While she may be able to rinse out her pantyhose, I doubt she has time to wash, fluff and fold her dirty laundry.

I’ve been in a job where I did a lot of traveling.  A lot.  It’s not fun and it’s not convenient. 

So Sarah Palin received money to bulk up her wardrobe – good and, so what?

As far as the amount she spent on that jacket or suit, please.  If she had grabbed something off the rack at Penney’s, she’d get criticized for looking wrinkled or frumpy or lacking fashion-sense.   She’s dressing in well-made clothes (which hold up better and fit nicer) and she’s getting pummeled for that. 

“Why do you need to pay for it?” Forest told CBS News from her boutique Susanna Beverly Hills saying that most designers would offer to clothe a candidate for free.

“It’s an honor, you are going to design for someone who could be the president of the United States,” noting that the exposure any designer would get from dressing someone as famous as Clinton or Palin would be worth much more.
The Los Angeles Times reported earlier this year that Senator Clinton’s custom made pantsuits from Forest were worth about $6,350 a piece retail. Clinton’s spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment.

If Palin had clothing donated by designers (as if that would ever happen) she would be accused of forsaking her ‘down home’ image or cozying up to the rich…she can’t win and if the uber-lefties can’t at least acknowledge that, they aren’t being honest.

I wouldn’t mind if Sarah Palin came out in jeans and a tee shirt, but that’s not the expectation for high profile women.  A male politician can wear a flannel shirt and Levi’s at a barbeque and people call him homey and say “he’s just like me”.  A woman does it and she’s called unprofessional.

There doesn’t seem to be the same outrage at Hillary Clinton being provided $6,000.00 pantsuits or actresses who get millions of dollars per picture walking the red carpet at the Oscar’s or Emmy’s not paying a dime for that gown they are wearing.

Please…can we move on to something of substance?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Duct tape zone, In the news, Media, Politicians

Frankenstein – Researchers take the next step

In another sign of the times and another display of the devaluation of human life:

Lawmakers back animal-human embryo research


The lower house of parliament approved legislation Wednesday allowing scientists to create animal-human embryos for medical research, in the biggest shake-up of embryology laws in two decades.

The full story is here.

While I understand all too well the hope that this gives some people dealing with devastating diseases, it opens the door to more horrific experimentation and further devalues human life.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Issues, Politicians

Words have meanings – Socialist does not mean black, but doofus still means doofus

 

As further evidence that the left wants to control your life and shape the direction of humanity – whether you agree or disagree; whether it goes against your values or not; whether it goes against the Constitution or not – it is now apparently inappropriate to call a thing what it is.  Wrap it instead in the cloth of prejudice to inflame your minions.  No dissent permitted…this is our future under the left.

Webster defines socialist:

Main Entry:

so·cial·ist 

Function:

noun

Date:

1827

1: one who advocates or practices socialism2capitalized : a member of a party or political group advocating socialism

— socialist adjective often capitalized

— so·cial·is·tic   adjective

— so·cial·is·ti·cal·ly   adverb

Webster defines socialism:

Main Entry:

so·cial·ism 

Function:

noun

Date:

1837

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Source document here.

Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black

By Lewis Diuguid, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

The “socialist” label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization; Paul Robeson, a famous singer, actor and political activist who in the 1930s became involved in national and international movements for better labor relations, peace and racial justice; and A. Philip Randolph, who founded and was the longtime head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and a leading advocate for civil rights for African Americans.

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

Shame on McCain and Palin

Lewis Diuguid – Doofus!

Main Entry:

doo·fus 

Function:

noun

Inflected Form(s):

plural doo·fus·es Etymology:
perhaps alteration of 1goof

Date:

1960

slang : a stupid, incompetent, or foolish person

Yep, Doofus.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Duct tape zone, Left and Right, Politicians

Doomsday scenario – a peek inside your future

 

The Wall Street Journal has a pretty somber story here focusing on what happens if the current batch of liberal Democrats in the Congress can set the agenda, unchallenged, within an Obama presidency.  It’s worth reading in full – highlights below:

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or ver

y close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven’t since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

Medicare for all. Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. …The Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

The business climate. “We have some harsh decisions to make,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. …The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill…

Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is “card check.” Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. … The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not.

Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for “the rich,” substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security…

The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending… Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy…

  Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the “community organizer” left…Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards… The tort bar’s ship would also come in… The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get “net neutrality” rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

It’s always possible that events — such as a recession — would temper some of these ambitions…

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today’s left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for “change” should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

Leave a comment

Filed under Left and Right, Politicians