Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Women in Combat

I don't make a habit of weighing on in on veteran/military debates, as I have never donned the uniform. The women in combat debate is a unique one, and I find myself in agreement with many points on both sides. There was a girl at my gym that looked like a Viking. She was almost 6' and could bench press more than many of the men that worked out there. So what if a combat unit had a choice between her and a man that was 5'6" in Engineer boots and weighed 145 soaking wet?

I've read TONS on this from both perspectives...probably more than most due to other ventures I'm involved with. Though there have been quite a number of compelling arguments (and you all know that deep down I am a raging Femi-Nazi), I have settled upon the following as the most informative, rational and succinct. Something about her tale struck a familiar chord with me. I wanted to be a cop. Well, I wanted to apply for the FBI and needed 2 years as a cop. I am small, but fancy myself to be a pretty tough chick. I will throw myself in front of a puck without a second thought (Did I tell you all I'm playing ice hockey now?) and I would "die trying" before ever giving up... But, is that enough? Why die trying if someone else could do it without dying? I saw an episode of Cops (or a similar show) where an officer was shot because his partner (a bad ass Black chick) couldn't control the suspect and a male officer finally came in and subdued him with minimal effort. She was tough, but she was small. No training could amend that... It was that day I abandoned my law enforcement aspirations. I didn't think it was fair to endanger a partner as a means to an end...and I think that is why this article resonated with me so strongly:

"I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.

We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.

I saw the male combat units when I was in Iraq. They go outside the wire for days at a time. They eat, sleep, urinate and defecate in front of each other and often while on the move. There’s no potty break on the side of the road outside the wire. They urinate into bottles and defecate into MRE bags. I would like to hear a suggestion as to how a woman is going to urinate successfully into a bottle while cramped into a humvee wearing full body armor. And she gets to accomplish this feat with the male members of her combat unit twenty inches away. Volunteers to do that job? Do the men really want to see it? Should they be forced to?

Everyone wants to point to the IDF as a model for gender integration in the military. No, the IDF does not put women on the front lines. They ran into the same wall the US is about to smack into: very few women can meet the standards required to serve there. The few integrated units in the IDF suffered three times the casualties of the all-male units because the Israeli men, just like almost every other group of men on the planet, try to protect the women even at the expense of the mission. Political correctness doesn’t trump thousands of years of evolution and societal norms. Do we really WANT to deprogram that instinct from men?

Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a man to get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men…but not so nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s ten feet high, you have to be able to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.

Without pharmaceutical help, women just do not carry the muscle mass men do. That muscle mass is also a shock absorber. Whether it’s the concussion of a grenade going off, an IED, or just a punch in the face, a woman is more likely to go down because she can’t absorb the concussion as well as a man can. And I don’t care how the PC forces try to slice it, in hand-to-hand combat the average man is going to destroy the average woman because the average woman is smaller, period. Muscle equals force in any kind of strike you care to perform. That’s why we don’t let female boxers face male boxers.

Lastly, this country and our military are NOT prepared to see what the enemy will do to female POWs. The Taliban, AQ, insurgents, jihadis, whatever you want to call them, they don’t abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat women worse than livestock. Google Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca if you want to see what they do to our men (and don’t google it unless you have a strong stomach) and then imagine a woman in their hands. How is our 24/7 news cycle going to cover a captured, raped, mutilated woman? After the first one, how are the men in the military going to treat their female comrades? ONE Thomasina Tucker is going to mean the men in the military will move heaven and earth to protect women, never mind what it does to the mission. I present you with Exhibit A: Jessica Lynch. Male lives will be lost trying to protect their female comrades. And the people of the US are NOT, based on the Jessica Lynch episode, prepared to treat a female POW the same way they do a man.

I say again, I would have loved to be in the infantry. I think I could have done it physically, I could’ve met almost all the male standards (jumping aside), and I think I’m mentally tough enough to handle whatever came. But I would never do that to the men. I would never sacrifice the mission for my own desires. And I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if someone died because of me.

- Sentry"

Read the article in its entirety at

Though I agree with Sentry's assessment...I believe that instead of belittling and mocking their sisters that want to die equally along side them, veteran and enlisted men should be celebrating their determination and willingness to give their lives for their fellow soldiers/marines.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

I Call BullSkeet...

First there was this:

"President Obama tells the New Republic in an exclusive interview that he goes shooting during retreats. "Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time,” Obama said when he was asked whether he had ever fired a gun. The revelation seems to have caught the interviewer off guard: “The whole family?” he asked. “Not the girls,” Obama answered, “but oftentimes guests of mine go up there.” The president then went on to explain the “profound respect” he has for the “traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations,” saying that “those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake.” Obama went on to say he understands there’s a big difference between guns in urban areas and rural areas." (source

Then this (even Obama's devoted press core has doubts?!):

"If there's a photo of President Obama shooting skeet, White House spokesman Jay Carney isn't aware of it.

"There may be, but I haven't seen it," Carney told reporters Monday.Questioned about a possible photo, Carney said: "When he goes to Camp David he goes to spend time with family and friends, not to produce photographs." (source)

But, as Michael Savage reminded listeners last night, we have pics of Obama walking the dog...eating ice cream...eating wings, hot dogs, a bathing suit (ewww)... So, only skeet shooting was sans camera?

He also reminded listeners of this revelation:

"New York Times White House Correspondent Helene Cooper shared a scoop on "The Chris Matthews Show" over the weekend - she knows why President Barack Obama isn't eager to spend time at Camp David, the plush presidential retreat.

“I have figured out why President Obama does not like Camp David," Cooper said. "No golf."

Cooper said Obama “hates” going to Camp David, and she had never been able to understand why President Obama doesn't like going there until her most recent trip there with the Commander in Chief.

Said Cooper: “Everybody's going, ‘why doesn't he spend more time up there?’ ... No golf ... It’s all about the golf.” (source)

Did Obama's pandering finally catch up with him...or will his obedient gaggle of 'reports' cover for him again...?

Do you believe Obama goes skeet shooting? free polls 

Sunday, January 27, 2013

Two minds: Tyrant and Liberator

What would make me nervous about guns? Kids high on kat at checkpoints carrying AK-47s; that would. A guy in my martial arts class – we study gun defenses, thus study real guns –waving a pistol around like it was a Twinkie; that did. (I shut him down immediately, BTW.) But being in the same room with an Afghan war vet who has his pistol legally concealed and is sitting peaceably? Not so much. But, sooommmmeeee people.

Check this video from an Oak Harbor, Washington, City Council meeting. It is a bit long, though you should watch the entire thing, so here is a synopsis. It does not say what the comment period is about, but the citizen making comment disagrees with some prior comments and says we should teach children how to be safe around guns. He then says that he carries all the time.  Go to 2:08 to hear the absolutely silly remarks by one of the council members. At about 2:30, the Mayor asks the City Attorney for an opinion on questioning the citizen. The CA says there is not requirement for the citizen to answer. However, being an honorable and truthful man, he does at 3:06 in a spectacular way. From then on, we see a glimpse of the mind of a coward and nascent tyrant. The Mayor then makes an incisive query of the CA and follows with a stunning statement regarding rights of citizens and duties of elected officials.

An elected official who get it.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Guest Post by Free0352

"We cannot mistake absolutism for principle."
~Barack Obama

Obama wants to turn the idea of "absolutism" into a dirty word, a code word for "extremism." He wants you to accept the idea of "principles" as he sees fit to define them, as a code word for his will –his boot heel- that he wishes you live under. It's a way of redefining words, and the liberals are picking up on it. I reject it. So should every American.

We as gun owners and citizens face an ultimatum. We're told that to stop insane killers, we must accept less freedom. We're told that limits on magazine capacity or bans on 100-year-old firearms technology - bans that only affect lawful people - will somehow make us safer. We're told that wanting the same technology that the criminals and our leaders keep for themselves is a form of "absolutism" and that accepting less freedom and protection for ourselves is the moral choice. Think about what that means. Barack Obama is saying that the only way to make children safe is to make lawful citizens less safe and violent criminals more safe. Obama wants you to believe that putting the federal government in the middle of every firearm transaction - except those between criminals - will somehow make us safer. That means forcing law abiding people to pay excessive fees to exercise their rights. Forcing parents to fill out forms to leave a family heirloom to a loved one - standing in line and filling out bureaucratic paperwork, just so a grandfather can give a grandson a Christmas gift. He wants to put every private, personal transaction under the thumb of the federal government, and he wants to keep all those names in a massive federal registry.

There are only two reasons for that federal list of gun owners - to tax them or take them. And to anyone who says that's excessive, Barack Obama says you're an "absolutist." His code for what he really means to call you. A paranoid, bitter clinger.

When Barack Obama says, "we cannot mistake absolutism for principle," what he's saying is that exactness in language and law should be abandoned in favor of his personal will.

I've got news for Barack Obama and anti-gun liberals.

Absolutes do exist.

Words do have specific meaning, in language and in law. It's the basis of all civilization. It's why our laws are written down: So the "letter of the law" carries the force of the law. That's why our Bill of Rights was written into law, to ensure the fundamental freedoms of a minority could never be denied by a majority. Just because you wish words meant something other than what they mean liberals, you don't have the right to define them any way you want. Because when words can mean anything, they mean nothing. When "absolutes" are abandoned for a President’s whim, the U.S. Constitution becomes a blank slate for anyone's graffiti and our rights and freedoms are void. In that moment, the United States of America is destroyed and replaced by a monster. Liberals might think that calling us "absolutists" is a clever way of name calling and bullying without using names. But if that is "absolutist," then we are as "absolutist" as the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution ... and we're proud of it!

Remember; any liberal who gives you this label is an enemy of this Constitution and your mortal enemy. Anyone who does not recognize that freedom and the preservation of it is the primary function of government and would trade your inalienable rights for any price is un-American, wrong, and deeply amoral. It should be the greatest compliment to be known as an “absolutist” in the defense of liberty and human rights. And make no mistake, the right to keep and bear arms is a human right and anyone who opposes that right is as anti-human rights as the slave holders of old or the worst dictator.

Now our rights are under a vicious and illegal assault. I encourage all of you to join the National Rifle Association, which has long lead the vanguard in the preservation of our Constitutional Freedoms. Even if you are not a gun owner, I encourage you to join. Remember, words either have meaning or they don’t. If Barack Obama can take away or limit the 2nd Amendment, there is no limit to the rights he can trample. It is up to us to resist, and right now the best line of resistance is to join the NRA. For 25.00 you can fight back. Think about it.

Caption It...

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Guest from the Right: Free0352

From Jim Hoft on You Tube:

Rand Paul Doubles Down: Benghazi May Have Been Cover-up for Obama Gun-Running
"This afternoon Senator Rand Paul blasted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her ineptness during the Benghazi massacre. Paul said he would have fired her for not reading her emails from the Benghazi Ambassador before he was slaughtered by Islamists. Tonight Rand Paul doubled down and accused the Obama Administration of a cover-up for running guns to terrorist groups in the region."

From, Free0352 (who has been calling Benghazi a cover up since 24 hours after everything went down):

"It just amazes me that guys like Senator Paul don't get it yet completely. Its obvious. The "consulate" was CIA station house under State Department diplomatic cover so the agency could have diplomatic immunity. They were there to keep tabs on the Libyan rebels to gather intelligence as to their extremist elements, and likely to recover some of the toys provided them during the Libyan civil war. I mean really... do you think the State Department makes a habit of recruiting Navy Seals as diplomats or is that the CIA. Gimmie a break. This was a CIA op gone bad. The real person who should be on the stand about Benghazi is David Petreus as it was his op and he was busy boinking his biographer. Clinton instead should be answering for the breach in Egypt which was all her fault. She's just catching hell here for something she really had no control over."

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Guest from the Left: J. Marquis

How In God's Name Did We Survive The Past Four Years?

Here's a handy guide to nearly all the conspiracy theories that have been peddled about the president. Bet you didn't know he's been on the moon...

Chart: Almost Every Obama Conspiracy Theory Ever
"Fake birth certificates, ghostwriters, teleprompters, a teenage trip to Mars, and more of the most paranoid and bizarro Obama conspiracy theories out there."

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

"Peace for our Time"

"My good friends, this is the second time there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Now I recommend you go home, and sleep quietly in your beds." ~Neville Chamberlain, 30 September 1938

"We will support democracy from Asia to Africa, from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice. Not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes." ~Barack Obama, 21 January 2012

Who is this man's speech writer? Advisor? Hello? Beuller? Beuller?

Does this Administration really want any inferences drawn between Chamberlain's appeasement foreign policy and Obama...?

Caption It...

Friday, January 18, 2013

Guest from the Right: Rebel Yid

"Politics is About Persuasion”

Jonah Goldberg writes in Townhall, Time to Grow Up, GOP, 1/16/13.


The good is obvious. The ill is less understood. For starters, the movement has an unhealthy share of hucksters eager to make money from stirring rage, paranoia and an ill-defined sense of betrayal with little concern for the real political success that can only come with persuading the unconverted.

A conservative journalist or activist can now make a decent living while never once bothering to persuade a liberal. Telling people only what they want to hear has become a vocation. Worse, it’s possible to be a rank-and-file conservative without once being exposed to a good liberal argument. Many liberals lived in such an ideological cocoon for decades, which is one reason conservatives won so many arguments early on. Having the right emulate that echo chamber helps no one.

It’s still good advice. It’s not that the GOP isn’t conservative enough, it’s that it isn’t tactically smart or persuasive enough to move the rest of the nation in a more conservative direction. Moreover, thanks in part to the myth that all that stands between conservatives and total victory is a philosophically pure GOP, party leaders suffer from a debilitating lack of trust — some of it well earned — from the rank and file.

But politics is about persuasion, and a party consumed by the need to prove its purity to its base is going to have a very hard time proving anything else to the rest of the country.

(You can read Rebel Yid daily at Rebel Yid: Beyond Left & Right)

Guest from the Left: J. Marquis

Another Good Day For Wall Street

Wow, look what a toll this president has taken on corporate profits. I guess he just doesn't understand what it means to be an American.

Corporate Profits Have Grown By 171 Percent Under ‘Anti-Business’ Obama

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

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Using Children in Politics

So, flanking yourself with children in a live press conference is NOT using children but mentioning children in an ad is?

If the NRA ad in question showed pictures of the President's girls or even mentioned them by name, I might have a problem with it. But introducing the CONCEPT that a President whose children have 24/hr armed protection opposed protection of layman's children in schools is more than valid. The ad never even specifies what sex the "kids" are nor does it even say how many "kids" there are...and actually ends with a reference to ALL the kids of Congress.

A perfect example of the liberal manufactured rage we talk about so often came from Philadelphia's Mayor Nutter who called the ad, "reprehensible, disgusting, and outside the bounds of human dignity." Really? Like I said, the ad never names them, doesn't show their pictures or allude to which school they attend. So, "outside the bounds of human dignity," Mayor Nutter? How about having firemen in Philly working for 3 years with no contract? That's a bit more reprehensible, wouldn't you say?

But, what about this:

"Flanked by four children from across the country, President Obama today unveiled a sweeping plan to curb gun violence in America through an extensive package of legislation and executive actions not seen since the 1960s." (source)

It's okay to use real, live children to push an agenda, but not to use an idea of "kids" to push back against it?

There is an interesting petition currently on the WHITEHOUSE.GOV website that is up to 25,000+ signatures:

Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around them
"Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians."

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Currently Listed on Ebay...

Old school AR type assault weapon. Good in its day!

Assault Weapon- Caveman's AR15 (Assault Rock)

Guest from the Left: J. Marquis

Baby Steps Toward Sanity

Interesting to see what different states are doing on the gun control issue. It will also be interesting to see how much the effort intensifies after the next mass shooting. Or the first episode where a gun owner is overwhelmed by his own paranoia and goes on a rampage.

States Take Action to Prevent Gun Violence

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

Monday, January 14, 2013


I should have never watched 2016: Obama's America. I feel like I've had a little pit of dread in my stomach since that day. It's not overwhelming my life or anything, but it's there. And, now, all the things that people claimed we were "nutters" to suggest...are coming to fruition.

In 2004, I felt as if Bloggers could effect change. Citizen journalists exposing what the MSM would not.

In 2013, I feel like nothing can help the trajectory this country is on.

I admitted to The Man yesterday that I feel as if we should have some sort of fire arm in our possession...and, though I hate to feel like I have a tin foil hat on, preferably one that doesn't need to be registered by Big Brother.

He admitted that he was starting to wonder about some jobs he's been doing on National Guard sites and some strange goings-on he's seen...

Paranoid? Maybe, but it seems as if there's pretty good reason for that. Obama is a catalyst for my house anyway. He's also a life-sucker from this site...leaving me bereft of my normal fire.

Monday, January 07, 2013

Guest from the Right: Rebel Yid

Incompetent Conservatives

The January 2013 issue of Commentary asked 53 writers and conservative leaders What is the Future of Conservatism?

This is part of the response from Bret Stephens,

I know it’s a small thing in the scheme of the universe that Ashcroft should have been offended by a piece of statuary. It’s probably no big deal that Senator Marco Rubio professes agnosticism as to whether the Earth is thousands or billions of years old. Had Todd Akin of Missouri been elected to the Senate, his notions of reproductive biology would have had scant bearing on, say, his votes on defense. The fact that a considerable percentage of Republican voters believe Barack Obama’s college transcripts are the Da Vinci Code of his presidency is of slight consequence to the future of Western civilization. It makes little practical political difference that so many Republicans consider the theory of evolution to be a piece of quackery on par with, say, the teachings of Madame Blavatsky. The mysterious inability or unwillingness of so many Republicans to use the adjectival form when speaking of the “Democrat Party” is not an issue on which the fate of the Republic hinges.

But it adds up. To a greater degree than some readers of this magazine may care to admit, the conservative movement has grown prudish, crotchety, God-obsessed, conspiratorial, retrograde, and insipid. Somebody needs to stand athwart and yell “stop.”

I write this as someone who thinks the Obama administration is wreaking long-term damage on the United States at home and abroad. So it’s all the more depressing that the conservative movement and its organs in politics and the media failed to pass what ought to have been an easy test: winning a winnable election. If the GOP could not defeat an incumbent president who had saddled himself with high unemployment and the most unpopular legislation in modern history, how do they expect to defeat Hillary Clinton should she run in 2016?


If you went to the web page for a company you were considering transacting with and it stated objectives that appealed to you such as rapid order response and competitive prices you may give them a call. But if the receptionist was an idiot, the salesman was a fool and the credit clerk was rude, you would probably go elsewhere. This is how I see the GOP. They declare worthy goals and then put the execution of the goals in the hands of incompetents This is not to say they there are some worthy leaders, but there are enough fools that it becomes hard to attract voters.

(You can read Rebel Yid daily at: Rebel Yid: Beyond Left & Right)

Guest from the Left: J. Marquis

Another Elephant Uprising

I have to admit, it's pretty fun watching the northeastern Republicans throwing a fit about not getting their Hurricane Sandy money...

Sorry, East Coast Republicans, but this is your party too

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

Saturday, January 05, 2013

USA Hockey Wins the GOLD!

Congratulations to the USA Hockey team that just beat Canada, Germany, the Czechs, Slovakia and Sweden for the Gold in the World Juniors! Our goalie, John Gibson, is AMAZING!

The women's team plays Canada for the Gold in a few minutes. Go USA!!!

Friday, January 04, 2013


The Man got his first check of the New Year this morning and --though he is under Obama's magic $250,000/yr-- it certainly was much lighter than normal. He's pulling up old 'stubs' as I type, but he said at first glance his payroll tax and SS tax look to be substantially higher.


I know, I know. Obama will blame the Republicans for not dropping their collective pants and bending over in unison for a fiscal cliff deal.

(OT: I wish Obama and his supporters would watch/read this --Kos tried to debunk it and couldn't....)

So, given all this, naturally I was thinking about Obama's 2016 replacement. Everyone here knows I have lofty requirements for an ideal candidate...and he probably won't ever come to fruition.

But, I did happen across someone interesting that is making an appearance in the 24 hour news cycle.

New York State Senator Gregory R. Ball. Good looking guy, Valley Forge Military Academy grad, Air Force veteran, pro-life...and, you know, he had me at 'Puck:'


He's currently in the news for standing behind the decision by Putnam County not to disclose the names of registered gun owners.

Senator Ball: ‘The Journal News Can Kiss My White, Irish You-Know-What’

Anyway, our NY friends can let us know what they think of this guy. I just thought he should be on the radar...

Thursday, January 03, 2013

The Juxtaposition of Hollywood Celebs

A band of Hollywood celebs were recently featured in a PSA put together by a group called MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS. This group claims they only want to stop ILLEGAL guns:

"Protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, drug abusers, the seriously mentally ill and other dangerous people. Mayors Against Illegal Guns advocates for common-sense measures that will close deadly gaps in our gun laws and make sure law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to detect and deter gun trafficking. We have worked with more than 100 survivors and family members of gun violence victims in public campaigns to push for solutions from Washington."

Though, the PSA doesn't convey that "illegal gun" message. After watching the PSA, I wasn't sure at all what the celebs were advocating for....other than an ambiguous "plan." Most people aren't going to explore 3-5 different links the way I did...

And, therefore, the celeb message rubbed some folks the wrong way.

A rebuttal PSA was made that elucidates the seeming hypocrisy with these celebs that earn a bulk of their $$$ by portraying (glorifying?) violence (NOT work safe or small child appropriate):

I would like a "plan" for everything. But just stating that isn't very helpful. Probably should have donated the money it took to gather the celebs and make the PSA to the families of Sandy Hook...

John A. Boehner's Impending Vote

Should John Boehner Remain Speaker of the House? free polls 

Will John Boehner Remain Speaker of the House? free polls 

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

The List of Ayes by (R)'s.

Here is the complete list of AYES on last night's "Fiscal Cliff" (aka New Massive Spending Bill). Paul Ryan was amongst them...

House Votes 'Yes' on The Senate's 'Fiscal Cliff' Bill

Charles Krauthammer calls it a "complete surrender" to the Democrats.

It Seems This Artist Has Never Been To Philly..