Thursday, June 30, 2011

2012 Scare Tactics Via New Media

You can always tell when the Left is getting nervous. Crazy stories start popping up. Like back in 2004 (or was it '08?), Charlie Rangle introducing a bill to re-introduce the draft and then insinuating Republicans wanted the draft re-instituted. The story spread through the MTV crowd like wildfire...

I guess the fact that a new poll has President Obama LOSING to a generic Republican candidate has Dems freaking out a bit. The scary stories have already begun...

Like this one I saw on Facebook yesterday...

Outcry in America as pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges. Of course when you actually READ the (UK) article, you find that the girl in question MAY be charged because she was a total drug addict and lost her baby when it was close to being born because of her junkie ways. her family is most likely seeking the charges to find a way to have the court require some sort of birth control implant for the 15 year old drug addict...

But, the link was instead accompanied by this message:

"The implications are quite frightening! A nursing friend of mine who works in Alabama was telling me of a case from her hospital."

(Amazing..."a Alabama" --The beginning of all good urban legends....)

Those crazy R-Wingers will put you in jail if you have a miscarriage. Jesus, and it's only June 2011...what's next?

Can The Double Standard Be Disputed?

Imagine that each and every one of the things Obama says here came from Bachmann --or better yet, Palin.

Liberals would be surprised to hear Ann Coulter's reaction to this video when Sean Hannity played it for her last night:

"[Obama's] articulate and bright. Even articulate and bright people stumble sometimes."

Wow, Ann Coulter more gracious that I've ever heard anyone on the Left. And, apparently unlike the Left, cognizant of the fact that smart people make mistakes. Namely, Michele Bachmann. She has multiple degrees including a Juris Doctor and a Master of Laws. She is also a TRUE public servant -- putting her money and time where her mouth is and proving a home and care to 23 foster children. Pretty amazing...

(More great gaffes....)

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

File an IRS Complaint Against Media Matters

"Media Matters, the George Soros-backed legion of liberal agit-prop shock troops based in the nation's capital, has declared war on Fox News, and in the process quite possibly stepped across the line of legality.

David Brock, MM's founder, was quoted Saturday by Politico promising that his organization is mounting "guerrila warfare and sabotage" against Fox News, which he said "is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”

To that end, Brock told Politico that MM will “focus on [News Corp. CEO Rupert] Murdoch and trying to disrupt his commercial interests ..." Murdoch is the founder of Fox News and a media titan with newspaper, broadcast, Internet and other media countries around the world.

There is nothing in the Politico article to suggest that Brock, who was paid just under $300,000 in 2009, according to the group's most recently available tax return, plans to ask the IRS to change his organization's tax status as a 501(C)(3) tax-exempt educational foundation..." (Read the Entire Article)

And, forget about NPR, this IRS violation is in addition to the fact that Soros & Brock's Media Matters is subsidized by YOU the taxpayer!

It already infuriates me that some pastors have the liberty to use their pulpits as a political soapbox and still maintain their tax free and tithe deductible status...let's not allow George Soros and Media Matters that same luxury:

Pre-Filled for Media Matters: IRS Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form 13909

T-Paw 2012!

Well, you all didn't tell me he played hockey! That really changes things... ;)

Monday, June 27, 2011

Michele Bachmann...Your Thoughts?

Michele Bachmann is set to formally announce her bid for the Presidency this morning in Iowa. Bachmann is a three-term Congresswoman, so we have a record of her votes (and there's more meat there than just stating 'present').

It's been said over and over by the MSM that she "appeals to the social conservatives" and that she's an "outspoken Tea Party member/supporter." These things are dirty words with the MSM. She probably scares them as much as Palin does. Watch for her to be torn apart by the harpies (and not just the gals on The View) over the next couple of weeks.

I never know where to put myself when people talk about socially conservative or socially liberal. I am 100% against abortion, but I am an advocate of drug legalization and equal rights under the law for gay couples in the form of civil unions. Though personally, I hold the belief that 'traditional values' creates healthy families.

I digress...

On paper she looks GREAT. She's vehemently pro-life, pro-small business, and pro-free market. She's against re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine and net neutrality. She's for limiting new taxes and cutting existing taxes to grow small business and jobs. (You can view her voting record here on Michele Bachmann: On the Issues)

Though, there are some negatives. She was for DOMA (which, in my eyes, goes against the Libertarian spirit of the Tea Party). And I'm not sure how vetted she's been... What will the MSM dig up on her? Will she be the Christine O'Donnell of this election cycle. I hope not. So far, all I could find was a list of 10 "crazy quotes" that many of the Lefty sites are posting. None of them are that bad, many are from 4+ years ago and all taken out of context. If this is the worst they've got, I think she'll fare just fine. So, aside from DOMA, I think I like her.

Caption It...

Friday, June 24, 2011

Politics of the Military

Lately I have noticed that almost all of the active military and veterans I meet that are women...are also liberal (or say they're liberal...could they really be liberal and serve their country by going to war?).

I did a little reading last night and saw that there has been a shift away from most (65% -75%) troops being registered Republicans as they historically were. I am wondering if this shift is mainly due to the women?

I have been told that most military members have similar (or "Typical") personality makeups when taking the Myers-Briggs. They are often times ESTJ. Basically orderly, conservative, rule-oriented joiners. I wonder what the women are scoring?

I would assume that most Democrats that would enlist are moderates, but the women seem to label themselves as liberal. But wouldn't liberals hate them as much as they hate any Conservative male military member?

I am not making any pronouncements...just wondering out loud...

King Richard :(

Dear Jpck:

It seems the Philadelphia Flyers West Coast L.A. Kings are getting our Mike Richards. I don't know much about Wayne Simmonds and Brayden Schenn...but, sitting here, the day after our GM traded away our top scorer AND OUR CAPTAIN...all I can say is these boys better be good!

We also locked down Ilya Bryzgalov (a move I am quite happy about).

We'll miss you Richie!!!!

Caption It...

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Obama's Reelection Bid

So, I can't talk about the speech last night because, well, I didn't watch it. But, I did read that the Obamatrons and the HuffPotians are "largely disappointed" with the President's Afghanistan plan.

I guess that might be part of the reason that only 3 in 10 people are "sure" they'll vote for Obama in 2012.

Or, maybe it's because Obama has presided over the loss of over 7 million jobs, wiping out every job gained since the year 2000.

Legalized Drugs Save Lives?

If drugs were legal (or decriminalized as it were) --would things like this still happen?

"Following a three-day manhunt, a 33 year old unemployed Army veteran was arrested today for allegedly killing four people at a Long Island pharmacy, and later identified as the shooter by a witness in a police lineup, authorities said.

Laffer's experience with guns, police sources said, would explain how he could allegedly unleash the massacre at Haven Drugs Pharmacy before walking out with a bag loaded with prescription painkillers." (source)

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Obama vs. Tim Thomas

What Will You Be Watching Tonight? -Part II
The President's Afghanistan Speech
The NHL Awards on Verses
The Critics' Choice Television Awards
None of the Above free polls

Much like the last time I posted a poll like this, I will not be opting to watch the political offering. Instead, I will be over on Verses watching Ian Laperrière win the Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy (fingers crossed!!). So, if anyone that's watching the "we're pulling out of Afghanistan in hopes of reviving my reelection campaign speech" tonight and feels like jotting down a few thoughts for a post tomorrow...I'll love ya for it! :)

Illegals' Will to Work

Guest Post from Alix In Wunderland:

So, I recall Free0352 defending vigorously illegal amnesty, and honestly, I'm on the proverbial border fence about it.

Logically, and practically, it makes sense, as the work is being done. However, the drain on the tax system (and Free would no doubt skewer me on that topic) has been considerable, and we've gotten a fair amount of extra crime as a side benefit. Now, of course, it's a moot point in Georgia, thanks to tougher, new immigration policy.

But this article is a damning and embarrassing support to Free's argument...entitlement mentality trumped by the sheer will to work, effectively beating us at our own game. So, I ask, what are we going do when the rubber meets the road, because this is NOT going to work.

Caption It...

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Guest From the Left: J. Marquis

"Rootin' Tootin' Rick"

I heard tonight that only four percent of Texas citizens want
to see Governor Rick Perry run for president.

What are they trying to tell the rest of us?

"Not only has Perry courted the radical wing of the religious right for years, he has a history of bucking responsibility for tough problems by invoking God. For instance, while Texas was facing a historic drought and rash of wildfires, Gov. Perry extolled Texans to “pray for rain,” as he tried to cut funding for the agency battling the wildfires..." (Think Progress)

(You can read J. Marquis daily at: Major Conflict)

Monday, June 20, 2011

Life Without Lawyers

In case you missed this week's Stossel "Life Without Lawyers"

Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI

Over the years I have blogged so many times about the negative impact of injury lawyers on our society. Spend one day in front of the television watching non-cable channels and you quickly see where the sue-instead-of-work entitled mentality is born and bred.

Remove most lawyers (and then public transportation) and you begin to create a better America almost instantly...

And in case you missed Chris Wallace V. Jon Stewart, here it is.

Caption It...

Friday, June 17, 2011


Turned 3 years old today!

NC Becomes the Third State to De-Fund Planned Parenthood

"We're not preparing to limit the scope of our services or to turn patents away," Paige Johnson, the Vice President of Public Affairs for Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina said on Thursday. "We are preparing to fight this in court and we think we'll prevail - that we'll get an injunction immediately." (source)

Whenever this debate arises, and the left screams about 'family planning' money being stripped from unsuspecting women...and money for pap smears and STD testing down the drain, and I immediately think of dealing with my spoiled pre-teen. The teen that is given many acceptable guidelines yet refuses to compromise/adhere to them. And then tells everyone you "said no."

Planned Parenthood could keep every cent of their entitlements running IF they stopped abortion. They could continue offering contraception, and check ups and testing and educating. Just not the killing part. Seems pretty simple. If they're so concerned about the HPV girl and the teen that can't get condoms anywhere else...why leave them hanging in an 'all or nothing' scenario?

Kind of speaks volumes, doesn't it?

(And how aggravating is that picture...why in the sam hell should NC taxpayers pay for your damn birth control?! Reach into your fake Louis Vuitton and pay for it yourself or don't have sex...)

Just a Thought

There is a lot of poor science in the world regarding differences in income between men and women. You read stuff about how woman earn so many percentage points of what a man makes in a particular field.

So Bob, a male accountant with Company X, earns $135K per year while Sally, a female colleague, earns $120K per year. OMG, she only earns 89% of what he earns even though both have 22 years of experience!

What the article might not describe is how many years with the company each has, whether there have been interruptions in the career track, etc.

What is very common in this scenario is that Bob went to work with Company X immediately after college and has worked there the whole 22 years, while Sally worked at Company L for the first 5 years after graduating and took the next 6 years off before returning to work at Company X. Although she has 22 years as an accountant, only 17 years has been continuous with Company X and there was a 6-year break in employment.

Do you think both of these accountants should make the same amount or is it reasonable that Bob’s choice should earn him more that Sally’s choices? In my experience, raises, promotions and bonuses are often related to time with the company. Is this what you have seen?

I can anticipate the comments from the estrogen replete crowd (and you know who you are).
Sally should not penalized for taking time off to raise a family!
Sally contributed to the world by raising kids!

Before you flame on me, note that I have not stated my opinion, merely asked for, and predicted, yours.

Now that you hate me, tell me this, would your opinion regarding Sally change if the workplace absence was not related to raising kids?

Caption It...

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Guest Post by Freakchylde

Stream of Consciousness Remarks on the CNN GOP Debate

Off the top:

Michelle Bachman needs platforms, she's too short around those guys.

As a listener to Dan Savage, Santorum needs to change his last name.

Gingrich made the only political punch during the opening intros.

I don't like the fact that they're limiting things to soundbytes.

Started with Cain, regarding job stimulation. I don't know how feasible his mini-plan is, but he's in the right direction with focusing on the private sector instead of the public sector. Santorum seemed focused on oil. Him and Pawlenty focused on Obama being wrong and talking about fixing things (no fixes). Romney is playing conciliatory and not answering the question.

Bachman pulls the first distraction of the night with her announcement that she filed for the race.

Ron Paul toots the free market horn and avoids the question (which was what 1 thing has Obama done right). I do give him credit for the lack of grandstanding.

Bachman stumps on the Healthcare question and doesn't actually say how she'll get rid of it, just that she will.

Romney gets a point from me for his separation between State and Fed on the Mass. healthcare law. Pawlenty loses one for his avoidance in answering King's question about "Obamneycare".

Bachman is spending too much time grandstanding and half answering the question.

Paul manages to slam Geitner and Obama's policy without mentioning either of them, in answering a question on how to bring jobs back to the US. Pawlenty thinks fair trade is most important with regulatory burden secondary. Bachman manages to get lots of nods from the other candidates with her slam against the EPA. I completely appreciate that pretty much everyone agrees to right-to-work.

Paul rails against government intervention in the economy. Good consistency on free markets. Cain did good on explaining his conflicting stance regarding TARP shows logic instead of hindsight flipping.

Totally agree with Paul that money needs to be cut from foreign assistance and wants an all-out opt-out program.

Bachman just sold herself to the social conservatives, no applause for that, but she did get kudos for stating it's not the President's job to tell a state how to regulate social issues. Cain and Paul get points from me, particularly Paul for saying the gov't shouldn't be in the business of marriage, period. The rest stuck with the social party line.

I wanted to add to Freakchylde's thoughts and say that I can now definitively say why I don't like Mitt Romney. At one point during the debate, he told the crowd that the Bruins were up 4-0. For a split second I got excited (no politicians ever talk about hockey...), then instantly it registered that it was Romney saying it and I didn't believe that he actually cared about the game. That was all in a split second. That doesn't bode well for a Presidential candidate.

(You can read freakchylde daily at: Freakchylde's Playground)

2nd GOP Debate Results?

Who won/came off best last night?
Herman Cain
Tim Pawlenty
Newt Gingrich
Rick Santorum
Ron Paul
Michelle Bachmann
Mitt Romney
Timmy Thomas free polls

What's up with Pap smears, anyway?

Why has the medical community told women for so many years that they need an annual Pap smear? What exactly is a Pap smear and what is it for? Who really needs them and how often? When can you stop getting Pap smears? Why do the recommendations change?

A Pap smear is a test for cervical cancer. The examiner takes a sample of cells from the surface of the cervix and they are stained and examined under a microscope. Most Pap smears are done in asymptomatic patients and are considered screening tests.

The cervix is the portion of the uterus that extends into the vagina. In a “total hysterectomy”, the entire uterus, including the cervix, is removed. In a “partial hysterectomy”, hardly ever done any more, the fundus, or body, of the uterus is removed and the cervix remains. Contrary to popular usage, the difference between a total/partial hysterectomy has nothing to do with whether the ovaries are removed.

When we started doing Pap smears, we knew that cervical cancer was one of the leading cancers in women, but we didn't know what caused it or why some women were more likely to get it than others.

We began to learn more about the epidemiology, or the distribution of cervical cancer in the population. We learned that women who never had vaginal intercourse had very low, although not zero, risk for cervical cancer. It became obvious that risk factors included multiple partners, early age at first intercourse, etc.

Finally, we learned that the presence of human papilloma virus, HPV, was a risk factor for the disease. We further learned that certain subtypes of HPV increased risk and that other subtypes were not associated with increased risk. HPV is sexually transmitted.

So, the initial recommendations were based on incomplete information and these changed as we learned.

When I trained in the late 1980’s, we recommended starting Pap smears following first intercourse or at age 18, whichever came first, and performing them annually after than. When to stop was not defined.

In the early 1990’s, it became clear that we were doing far too many Pap smears.

The recommendation regarding the first Pap smear changed to age 21 because it is very rare to get cervical cancer prior to age 21, no matter what your risk is. This is because progression from the pre-cancerous state to cancer is very slow. The goal is to detect the pre-cancerous state and treat this before cancer develops. There is plenty of opportunity to do this with beginning screening at age age 21.

The same logic (slowly developing pre-cancerous state) supports screening less often than every year. During her 20’s, it is reasonable to screen every other year. After a few negative screens, especially in a low risk woman, it is reasonable to screen every 3 years.

At some point, to be determined by a woman and her physician, screening less often is reasonable. By age 65, a woman in a mutually monogamous relationship with a history of negative screening Pap smears could consider stopping Pap smears altogether. If her situation changes, such as introduction of a new sexual partner, she should consider resuming screening.

At any age, if a woman’s uterus/cervix is removed for benign (non-cancer) reasons she can discontinue Pap smears. This would include hysterectomy for fibroids, pelvic pain, abnormal bleeding, etc. Obviously, if a woman no longer has a cervix, she has no risk for cervical cancer.

Why do some physicians still recommend annual Pap smears? A friend of mine who is an OB/GYN said she recommends them “to get the woman in for her annual exam.” Whether she actually needs an annual exam is fodder for another post.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Second GOP Debate

What will you be watching tonight?
The GOP debate on CNN
Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals
Neither free polls

If the Primary were today and you had to pick from debate candidates...
Herman Cain
Tim Pawlenty
Rick Santorum
Ron Paul
Newt Gingrich
Michele Bachmann
Mitt Romney free polls

View From the Left: J. Marquis

Ups & Downs of Oil

I thought this was Ed Schultz pointed out that in July 2008 the private sector only created 9,000 net new jobs. That was the month during the Bush administration when gas reached it's highest price levels.

So, I would say that the 83,000 produced in May 2011 certainly doesn't look so bad in comparison.

(You can read J. Marquis daily at: Major Conflict)

Caption It...

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

White Flight

The 2010 census figures have shown a major shift in Philadelphia's racial makeup. Approximately 263,000 white folks have moved from Philadelphia to surrounding suburbs in last 20 years. (And truthfully, if the Philadelphia Police and Fire Departments didn't require a Philadelphia residence I can guarantee you that number would be a lot higher.)

"The city's white population dropped by nearly a third, 263,254 people, from 1990 to 2010, representing a larger numerical decrease "than the entire population of Buffalo, N.Y.," according to a report released yesterday by the Pew Charitable Trust's Philadelphia Research Initiative.

Northeast Philadelphia, particularly the lower Northeast, saw a significant drop in whites. The Northeast declined from 92 percent white in 1990 to 58.3 percent white in 2010. At the same time, the black, Hispanic and Asian populations grew..." (source)

As I read this article, I couldn't help but think of the 60 year old man from Nebraska that I recently met. He came to Philly a few months ago for a business meeting and couldn't contain his excitement as he admitted he had just seen "his first Black person in real life." SIXTY YEARS OLD! Given that I've lived here my entire life, that's wild to me. My first favorite teacher was Black. My first best friend was Black. We had more Black foster babies than I can remember...yet that guy, a Lib that lives in a lily white state, is telling me *I'm* a racist because I went to a Tea Party or two. Really?

Divided Country

Wow. Almost HALF the country believes in redistribution of wealth by way of high taxes.

But...What's VERY, VERY interesting about this new Gallup Poll is that the exact number that said they believe in HIGHER TAXES on the rich is 47%.

Coincidentally, 47% is also the number of American households that pay NO TAXES at all. Hmmmmm.... So, the no-to-low earners want money they didn't work for. Shocker.

Tuesday, June 07, 2011

MSM Forced to Let Up on Palin Because of that Weiner

The media must be SO annoyed that they have to stop talking about Sarah Palin "stealing Mitt Romney's thunder" (like they really give a crap?) and her Paul Revere "mess up" to talk about representative Weiner NOT HAVING TEXT WITH THAT WOMAN. Damn that Tweeting Weiner.

I think it rules personally...Weinergate AND Palin obscuring Romney's announcement. He should look at it as foreshadowing. So easily obscured is not good for a presidential candidate.

And as for Rep. Weiner...ugh, dude, the wife was way over your pay grade and you're still a dog...

Guys Dig Other Guys? Surprise, Surprise.

That's the gist of this new survey:

Women Who Use 'Guy Humor' Get All the Guys.

"What do guys want? Themselves, apparently.

Or at least someone who has an identical sense of humor. According to a study of 331,138 eHarmony male users, the style of humor that men most appreciate from a woman is "sarcastic," followed by "juvenile", "geeky" or "raw." (eHarmony defines those last three as "guy humor.") While all of these terms are frustratingly vague, we can't help but feel that they are describing our little brother. And somehow that's sexy?

Come to think of it, we're not that surprised that men are attracted to women whom they feel can riff off of their "That's What She Said" quips and Judd Apatow-inspired jokes. We're just surprised that these women exist..." (source)

Of course, being a girl that loved Howard Stern, hockey, Harleys and muscle cars, I guess I totally qualify here. That being said, I don't know that I agree. I think many men find girls like me intimidating as a partner. I don't squeal at the sight of a spider or mouse. I do my own yard work, pump my own gas, and carry my own packages. I could eat lunch during an autopsy and can real in a 13 lb fighting Bluefish with the best of them. And yes, I've been known to throw out a 'That's what she said' when it can't be avoided...

I think guys do love girls like a buddy. I think they want the spider-squealers as a love interest. It makes them feel more needed...

Caption It...

Friday, June 03, 2011

A Soldier, UBL and Lip Singing in Grand Rapids

  • Submitted by SoLow:
    "An Army staff sergeant home on leave in southwest Florida chased down a suspected bank robber and held him until authorities arrived.

    Eddie Peoples was at a Bank of America branch in Sarasota with his two young sons Tuesday when a man walked in with a handgun and demanded cash from the tellers, officials said.

    Peoples told the Sarasota Herald-Tribune he sprang into action after the man, identified as 34-year-old Matthew Rogers, threatened his sons.

    "The only thing that went through my mind was, 'Don't let them get hurt,'" Peoples told the paper." (Soldier home on leave thwarts Fla. bank robbery)

  • Submitted by Jpck:
    "The children are celebrating and taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden, but make no mistake about it, this is a win for the adults. This will give Obama a short-term boost in the polls, but I submit after a few days or weeks of liberal celebration, reality will start to sink in for more and more Americans.

    Now by adults, I mean folks mature enough to understand that the world is a mean place ruled by the aggressive use of power and that the only way to stop evil from ruling is for the good guys to use more power and to use it more aggressively.

    And by children, I mean the overgrown juveniles who refuse to understand this reality as it is and who like to think the Muslim world adored us until Bush-Cheney and Rumsfeld came to power. Long before election day of 2012, this will become evident." (OBL's Death a Victory for the Adults)

  • Submitted by Swede:

  •'s been a demanding week...BUT am I the only one that is way to immature to sit through a 'Senator Weiner's twitter' story?