Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Obama Deck?

Dear President Obama:

I am one of the oft-referenced 'middle class' folks that you politicians are constantly claiming you are going to help out. You know, those of us that have enough to get all our bills paid, but since we pay all our bills we don't have much left after that.

We had too much money to get a free ride to college, but not enough money to dig ourselves out of that student loan debt.

We have good enough jobs to have health care, but we have to pay into it so that takes up the little that is left over after we pay our student loans.

We have enough money to have to buy all our own milk, cheese and food in general. But food has gotten so expensive that after student loans, health insurance and grocery shopping...we are pretty much tapped out.

So, since we didn't get the free ride to college, and we don't qualify for MedicAid, and we don't get food stamps (Hell, we can't even partake in the Obama-phones!)...

And, since it's our money that is providing all these things to people other than ourselves...

We have nothing left.

So, I got to thinking... Since I saved you $80K on college, tons on Medicaid, even more in food stamps and even forfeiting my Obama phone... I want a deck. It's a simple request. Actually, how about just some Obama Wood to make the deck. Because of your policies, we have no money to go out and this way we can enjoy ourselves at home. We have no money to eat we can BBQ on the deck. We don't have money to send our kids to camps to keep them busy over the they can hang with their friends on the deck.

So, what do you say...can I expect my delivery of Obama Wood?


Mr. President?



P.S. This is dedicated to all my Republican friends that have been slowly slipping into the "I gotta get mine too" mindset. I don't care if they're all doing it. It's wrong.

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

News Flash: Republicans Still Suck.

Why, oh why, have Republicans let Hillary skulk into the shadows after the Benghazi debacle?! Why are they letting her lick her wounds, mend and regroup?! And why am I ALWAYS questioning the "leadership" decisions of the GOP these days?

This is why I have been so frustrated. There really is no party that represents me.

The Liberals are like a Borderline Personality Disorder group therapy session.

The Democrats are basically Rush's much-talked-about "Low Information Voters" that refuse to see their party is being run by the BPD group.

The Libertarians have pretty much jumped the shark with the Conspiracy crap.

And, the Republicans have become master appeasers trapped in the group think bubble they always accuse Democrats of being in.


Hillary should have been summarily taken out of the 2016 talk immediately after Benghazi. There is NO excuse why the Secretary of State that had Americans die on her watch (orders?) (because of secret CIA gun trade?) should be in the 2016 discussion!!!!!!!!

I have always wanted to live somewhere that had a pond in the back yard that freezes and now...what's the difference between the US and Canada...? Well, except free ice time for my kids...

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Together and Armed...

So, not only did AB get to meet and share a meal with Free0352, FreeWIFE and FreeMOM last time she was in Michigan, this week she got to go shooting with Free:

And guys, if these pics were not intended for public consumption...ooops. :)

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

A Truthful Talk About Race

I couldn't help but shake my head as I stood in my kitchen the other day and watched Obama's remarks, in response to the Trevon Martin verdict, about women clutching their purses.

I'm not going to get in to the case...only into Obama's proclamations that ranged from his would-be son "looking like Trevon" to him actually being Trevon at one point.

I am quite sure that I have been in more Trevon-ish neighborhoods than Obama has. If you compare my childhood and his...where I went to school and where he did...I am pretty sure I come out on top in Street Cred.

I grew up in a family with 5 children and countless foster children all living on a Philadelphia fireman's salary. As you can imagine, funds were not abundant. I took public transportation (SEPTA) to school through neighborhoods that I am pretty sure have no Hawaiian equivalent. The Hood, if you will.

Women don't grip their purses when they see a Black teen in the neighborhoods I traveled through because, well, everyone was Black.

In 8th grade I used to take 3 buses to get to school. My second transfer was at Broad & Olney. Each day I would walk by a group of Nation of Islam 'evangelists' equipped with a bull horn. EVERY SINGLE DAY as I walked by them, they yelled into the bullhorn, "THERE SHE GOES. THE WHITE DEVIL. THE BLONDE HAIRED, BLUE EYED, WHITE DEVIL. TAKE HEED MY BLACK BROTHERS!" I was 14.

How's that for a terrifying race experience for a young teen, Mr. President?

In a Popeye's Chicken not too terribly far from my house, my mother and I were refused service. Because we were white. And we were told so.

Would that ever happen to a Black mother and daughter in 2013?

Despite these and many similar incidents, I have never blamed any race for the ignorance of a few.

It was not the remarks booming through a bullhorn or two racist cashiers at a chicken joint that ever prompted me to lump "Blacks" together as a group. It was the reaction to the Zimmerman trial and Obama's ensuing remarks that finally pushed me to go there...

To go to the "THEY."

"THEY" will stand behind anyone that's Black. Thug or no. Murderer or no. And that IS a difference between us.

And that's sad. No, of course not all, but the majority.

Don't celebrate Trevon.

There are TONS of WORTHY Black teens that deserve that recognition. Give it to them, not Trevon.

Celebrate Temar Boggs and Chris Garcia:

That's what has been the biggest travesty of this trial/debate for me...Well, that and the complete media black out on the actual facts of the case...

Monday, July 22, 2013

Always Love to Hear Bill Whittle's Take on Things...

My 14 year old knew all about this...I had never heard of it...

From Urban Dictionary: Lean

To create Lean, a popular drink originated from Houston Texas, you require the following for the original formula:

-Promethazine w/Codeine VC <- Sizzurp (active ingredient) -Original Sprite Soda <- Mixing ingredient (although different flavors of sprite are now used, such as sprite remix) -Jolly rancher candy <- Flavor additive Put it all in a styrofoam cup and enjoy. The codeine is mainly responsible for the euphoric feeling after drinking lean. Promethazine causes motor skill impairment, lethargy, extreme drowsiness, as well as a disassociative feeling from all other parts of the body, specifically the stomach and digestive system. If it doesn't have promethazine w/ Codeine, it isn't real sizzurp. The mixed drink combination known as "lean", is normally the color purple, due the added ingredient sizzurp, which is originally a dark purple syrup. There are other colors of sizzurp which can be added to create lean, but the purple is the true sizurp Lean does not contain ANY form of alcohol, crushed pills, or other liquids in general. Dat lean got my thoed.

Dat lean got my swervin.

"Mayne... hol' up... I got too much lean in my cup..." -Quoted from a popular song found in the south

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Helen Thomas 1920-2013

Republished from July 02, 2009

The Left Turns on Helen Thomas

I'm no fan of Helen Thomas. I think she's crass and rude and she looks like a crazy cat woman... (Though I have to admit to finding the HBO documentary about her, Thank you Mr. President, Helen Thomas at the White House, quite interesting...)

That being said, she's been a member of the White House press corpse since Washington was president and (even though she's an avowed Lefty) is pretty consistent about posing tough questions regardless of the political affiliation of the current administration. At the beginning of the era of O it looked like there was a Prez that might have smitten even Helen...

But yesterday, in light of the fact that Obama's latest "town Hall" meeting was STAGED (and chessmom, even the NYT says so!), Helen Thomas actually challenged the administrations claims of transparency (along with CBS's Chip Reid).

"Following a testy exchange during today’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.

“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.

“When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you,” Thomas said.

“I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well--for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.” (source)

As would be expected, the Kos Kids are turning on her for daring to throw the Nico Pitney (HuffPo) controversy into the mix...

Who would have thought that it would be ol' Helen Thomas that would have ignited a tiny spark of respect for journalism in the Era of 'O'...

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Guest Post by Crabby Old Man

Learn From the Enemy

I have expressed my extreme annoyance before with conservative ideological purists who vote for some third party candidate that they should know cannot win the election or else throw a tantrum and not vote at all.

I remain convinced that we conservatives need to follow Bill Buckley’s advice and always vigorously support the most conservative ELECTABLE candidate.

I leave my reaction to the reader’s imagination when we got the final (probably fraudulent) results of the November 4, 2008 Minnesota Senate Election Results:

Al Franken, Democrat, 1,212,629 (41.99%)

Norm Coleman, Republican, 1,212,317 (41.98%)

Dean Barkley, Independence, 437,505 (15.15%)

The November 3, 1992 Presidential Election Results made me pull my hair out:

Bill Clinton, Democrat, 44,909,806 (43.0%)

George H.W. Bush, Republican, 39,104,550 (37.5%)

Ross Perot, Independent, 19,743,821 (18.9%)

And then there were the November 6, 2012 Presidential Election Results:

Barack Obama, Democrat, 65,899,660 (51.1%)

Mitt Romney, Republican, 60,932,152 (47.2%) (3.9% loss)

Some farmer math:

2008 turnout 61.6% - 2012 turnout 58.2% = 3.4% difference

3.4% + 58.2% = 61.6% (tie?) (higher turnout = win??)

It may run against the grain of a lot of people to vote for the least of evils, but look at what throwing the election to the worst of evils has got us! Look at all the damage the clowns currently controlling the executive branch have done. Consider the left wing hacks Clinton and Obama have appointed to the judiciary. Is there anyone who thinks that the military has been improved by having had Slick Willie and Comrade Hussein as Commander in Chief? How much has the conservative agenda been advanced by handing the country over to the left rather than the moderates? The conservatives have leverage with the moderates. They have none with the left, particularly the far left.

The belief that the country will experience a conservative epiphany after suffering under leftist rule is beyond ridiculous.

No one doubts that the Democrats bicker among themselves, but they demonstrated that they have the party discipline to unite behind their candidates and WIN. The Republicans need to learn from the enemy and do likewise.

Monday, July 15, 2013

Guest Post by Crabby Old Man

I have long favored decentralized government rather than the larger, centralized one favored by the political left. I’d say that the history of the schools is an example supporting the idea that small and decentralized is better.

The Federal involvement in running the schools started gathering steam in the 1960s. Prior to that, schools were funded and controlled at the state and local level, with the local school board looming very large in the scheme of things.

Does anyone think that the cost of schools has not increased very dramatically since the 1960s? Does anyone think that the ratio of administrators and other staff people has not greatly increased relative to classroom teachers? Does anyone think that the average level of student achievement has improved in proportion to the increased cost? Most importantly, does anyone think that student achievement has improved at all? HOW MANY THINK THAT STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT HAS ACTUALLY DIMINISHED?

I did not provide sources. There is a lot of material available. I thought it much simpler for those who do not agree to say so and provide the sources that support their position.

I can think of other examples of why one should be extremely skeptical of larger and more intrusive government generally. For one thing, there is mission creep. For another, the programs NEVER go away. Here are a couple of examples:

First Example: Income Taxes

In response, Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment (ratified by the requisite number of states in 1913)…


This should caution anyone listening to an argument that the cost of whatever will be borne only by the “rich” who can easily afford it. It will be “free” to everyone else. Note that the 2013 tax rate for the lowest category is higher than the 1913 rate for the richest category, and has been since 1941.

Second Example: Farm Price Supports


“In other words, consumers are paying $1,650 in order to benefit producers $550. For this reason, price supports are considered inefficient.”

This Source together with this Source illustrate how good intentions can create very costly government dependent constituencies that NEVER go away.

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Guest Post by Free0352

On the George Zimmerman trial.

You never know what a jury is going to do. I sat through nearly a hundred jury trials when I was a court bailiff. Most lawyers never sit through that many trials. And I got a better seat in the trial than the lawyers because I was the bailiff. I got to hear what the jury said during deliberations. The lawyers don’t get to hear that through the door like I did. Heck, even the judge doesn’t get to hear that. And speaking of judges, I got to hear what they thought too. Most judges talk to the bailiff, we're their right hand men after all. The lawyers and the jury would kill to hear that, but they can’t. Only the bailiff hears it all. Because of that, short of hiring a jury consultant I’d say court bailiffs are your best experts on juries and judges there are. So let me tell you the one thing I learned about juries in the three years I sat outside listening to them.

You can’t predict what the hell they are going to do.

Juries are made up of people. And people are random, arbitrary and often dumb.

When you hear the screwed up stuff juries decide cases on, you often start to question the jury system. After you see a guy convicted because the jury wanted out of deliberations to go watch the playoffs or a person acquitted because they didn’t like the victim’s wife, you get a little concerned for the criminal justice system. And yes, I saw both those jury findings happen in my time.

But try as I might, I can’t think of a better system and nobody else can either. 12 - or in the case of Florida’s non-capital cases 6 - random people selected out of a pool by the attorneys that represent the parties to the case are the best anybody can come up with. I’ve seen what a system where judges decide guilt looks like. Japan has a 99.8% conviction rate. No thanks to that system. So what’s left if not professional judges? 12 (or 6) random citizens is who. And I’ve yet to find a way to ever predict what those 12 random people are going to do.

I’ve also learned something else. It is not a court of justice it is a court of laws. Let’s say that together.

It’s not a court of justice it’s a court of laws.

Justice is something that occasionally happens in a court. If you’re looking for justice in court, keep looking. You won’t find it. It is not about the way you think it should be. It’s not about being fair, it’s not about making people happy. It’s about the law. It’s a system by lawyers, for lawyers. The only decision makers in the process who aren't lawyers are the jurors, and that is precisely why they are there.

So this post is about the Trevon Martin, George Zimmerman case better known as The People of Florida vs. George Zimmerman. I wrote a while back that I wanted to see a trial before I made up my mind either way. And now I’ve seen the trial. I’ve seen the evidence the jury saw. As usual I have no idea what those 6 women are going to do. But I do figure that since I said I’d say what I thought when the time came, I’d better go ahead and share my conclusions for what they are worth. You might agree, you might not. That’s fine either way. Law isn’t a popularity contest, and I’m telling you the truth about law. Contrary to popular belief, the truth doesn’t always set you free; sometimes it just hurts.

So we’ll look at what we’ve seen or at least what I saw. What I saw, is that both the Defendant (Zimmerman) and the Victim (Martin) used deadly force in this incident. Deadly force defined by law is “That force which to a reasonable person would be enough force to cause death or great bodily harm.” That is a cut and dried legal definition and both victim and defendant met it. Zimmerman is an obvious case. Shooting someone is always considered deadly force. It’s a little more complicated on Martin’s part. But he did meet it. We have eye witness testimony that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and we have the pictures to prove Zimmerman got his ass kicked. Now you might say –especially my Army and Marine Corps buddies– that simply having a person down on the ground whooping their ass isn’t tantamount to shooting them. You could say that, and under the law you would be wrong. Your personal opinion of this is of total irrelevance. It isn’t a court of justice, it’s a court of law remember?

Case law specifically states that if an assailant has a person in a helpless position that prevents the victim from escaping - such as performing a ground-and-pound on them – then that is deadly force and that deadly force in turn is legally acceptable. The definition is worded so that the attacker doesn’t have to kill the victim or even injure them. There must only be THE POTENTIAL of killing or seriously harming. If you’ve ever kicked someone while they were down, or held someone pinned and then hit them, under the law that is tantamount to shooting them. That's aggravated assault and battery at minimum, and at most attempted murder. Courts have even ruled that a person restrained by the seat belt in their car is by definition held in a helpless position just as if they were tied to the seat with a rope. Bear that in mind the next time you punch somebody repeatedly who is buckled up because at that point they can legally shoot you dead.

So – like it or not – both the defendant and the victim used deadly force. So now... as far as law is concerned, it goes back to little kid rules. We have to ask who started it just like your second grade teacher used to. Just with a lot more at stake. Deadly force is sometimes authorized by law. Sometimes that is cut and dried. Like when a 300 pound axe murder is kicking down a 120 pound woman’s door and she puts both barrels of the shot gun into him. And sometimes it’s not so cut and dried as in the Zimmerman case. If Zimmerman didn’t have a scratch on him, this would be open and shut murder or at least manslaughter. But at some point before Martin’s death Zimmerman got struck over and over by Martin while he was down on the ground. We have eye witness testimony to that fact and the wound forensics on Zimmerman to back that narrative up. That is both eye witness and physical evidence. So the crux of this thing becomes; Who initiated force? That is the guilty party and determines Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence.

Some have said that Zimmerman carrying a gun equates to motive. Sorry it just doesn’t. Concealed carry is legal in Florida with a permit and Zimmerman had one. Following someone too - even against the advice of 911 dispatchers - is not a criminal act. For deadly force to be ruled self defense it has to be shown that the attacker was an eminent threat to the defender’s life. Unlike shooting someone or pounding their head on the side walk, following someone never killed them. Someone following you may indeed by creepy; it isn’t tantamount to pulling a gun out and pointing it at you which indeed would be grounds.

So we are left with the question, who initiated deadly force? Martin or Zimmerman? Here’s the deal. After all the testimony and evidence… We. Don’t. Know.

There are no witnesses or evidence as to who threw the first punch so to speak. The evidence hasn't shown us if Zimmerman drew down on Martin and Martin was reasonably defending himself. It hasn't shown us if Martin saw Zimmerman get out of his truck to look around and confronted him physically for following him. In short, nobody knows for sure who started it except George Zimmerman, and he didn’t testify one way or another.

And that my friends, is the definition of reasonable doubt.

Like it or not, we have a presumption of innocence in our criminal justice system. When in doubt, a jury is instructed to side with innocence because we PRESUME the Defendant is innocent unless it’s beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty.

Now if I were talking to George Zimmerman, I’d slap his silly ass and call him the moron he is. He got himself into a lot of trouble, somebody died that didn’t need to, and he didn’t do concealed carry advocates like myself any favors. I think the man was an overzealous prick. But if I were on his jury, that reasonable doubt would be staring me in the face. And it’s not a court of justice guys it’s a court of laws. So I would vote to acquit with a very bad taste in my mouth.

Will this jury of 6 random women vote the law or not? Part of the answer to that is another reason we have a jury system. The jurors can totally discard the law if they feel it is too unjust. There are no grounds for appeal because the jury didn’t go your way on the law. Will this jury of 6 random women do that? I have no idea. I’m not the bailiff listening outside the door on this one. But if it were me - all I can say is I believe in reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence. So I couldn’t vote any other way, no matter how I feel about George Zimmerman. And before you complain too loudly about it, remember that same presumption of innocence and standard or reasonable doubt in criminal trials protects YOU just like its protecting George Zimmerman. Before you suggest we throw it away, remember you might need it some day.

Friday, July 12, 2013

Guest Post by Zelda

It's Not About Your Vaginae (NSFW)

In case it has escaped notice, much of the pro-abortion argument is focused on vaginas (or vaginae for the Latin-minded). And it must be. For to couch it in anything other than the most introspective of terms (and really, can you get any more introspective than your own internal genitalia?) means that we must confront human rights abuses too gruesome to even contemplate. So despite appearances:

It is far easier to preserve one's sanity by dancing around in vagina costumes, chanting "Hail Satan," and reciting bad poetry to the ill-used orifices than to acknowledge the stark reality that this:

Is Not A Vagina.

And this?

Also Not A Vagina.

And this?

Again, Not A Vagina.

The above Not A Vagina is actually Kermit Gosnell, an abortionist convicted of murdering the little girl in the picture above his. He was also convicted of killing a woman and rather savagely injuring some vaginas. He was also allowed to operate for decades without regulation in spite of multiple complaints. And in an age of ever increasing government regulation and surveillance, this might make one pause to ask whether the entire debate is actually about women's health.

Because that is, of course, the predominant argument for legalized abortion. Women's health. Now pardon me if I've missed something, but Gosnell's abortion clinic doesn't strike me as particularly healthy. Landfills are cleaner.

So when a bill comes up for consideration that would prevent legal back alley butchers like Gosnell from killing women and murdering children in conditions that would make Sub-Saharan Africa blush, you'd think the pro-abortion supporters would joyfully don their vagina costumes and do the traditional Dance of the Twittering Labia, but. . . well . . . no. No. It seems they are upset about this. It's better for women to go to fiends like Gosnell because otherwise they might have to go to fiends like Gosnell. Logic! Science! Evolution! Vagiiiiiiiiiiinas!

So here is the truth. No one cares about your poor, sad vaginas. No one. Do with them what you like. Use them, abuse them, pet them, poke them, take them out for steak dinner at the Elk's Club. No one cares, except for nice religious people who think you are of such intrinsic value to Almighty God that you ought treat yourself with respect and care where every aspect of your life, including your fertility, is concerned. But they're deluded.

No one else cares what you do with your vagina. Just don't kill babies.

Monday, July 08, 2013

The Meeting...

All of you old timers will appreciate this...

As I type this, Free0352 and AB (my sis) are finally meeting face to face. There is a restaurant in Michigan right now that is housing the blog twins... I have to say, I'm a bit jealous.

(Can't believe this happened in 2005!)


Tuesday, July 02, 2013

Guest Post by Foxy Wizard


In 2009, I was working as an Admissions Representative for a private college in Houston. This small institution was part of a large, publicly traded chain of schools. Part of my benefits package was a health care plan.

I was reasonably healthy, so, when the national rates went up, yet again, I decided to opt out. My rates for a single man were about $600/ month and rising. My deductible was $3000, so even when I used the plan for doctor visits I had to pay out of pocket because of the high deduction.

Just for kicks, one day I went on-line to shop for health care. I was amazed there were scores of plans ranging from $120/month to $500/month. All had a much lower deductible, accepted pre-existing conditions, and were with well known companies, like Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, Aetna, etc.

How can this be, I thought? How can I buy cheaper health insurance on my own than through my company?

The answer is Texas has Tort Laws in place, which limit the amount of a settlement in a malpractice case. Also, Texas has a frivolous lawsuit law, which forces the person who files the lawsuit to pay the legal expenses for both parties if they lose that suit. Add to that the fact that insurance companies cannot sell insurance across state lines, and you can see how these companies were able to offer me affordable rates.

Enter the Affordable Care Act. On Christmas eve, 2009, while you and I were busy with family and friends, this monstrosity was passed. Remember, Obama said we would be able to keep our health plan if we so desired, we would balance the budget, and our rates would actually go down. However, by June of 2010 there were no more affordable plans. My rates skyrocketed to $900/month within half a year. Then the school closed and I was laid off.

Now we come to the present. No one even pretends that you will be able to keep your health care plan. Millions have already lost their plans. No one pretends costs won't go up. Costs have already skyrocketed and are projected to go up even more. Certainly, with Obama running $1.5 trillion deficits, no one is pretending it will balance the budget.

So, we are told to take our medicine, so to speak, cuz if we don't, we're racists. Or something.

And, according to a recent report issued by the IRS, the least expensive family plan will be in excess of $20,000/year. My question is this: what will happen when millions of Americans discover they simply cannot comply with the new law?

Foxy Wizard

(The Washington Post: Democrats are trying to suppress the confusion and hide the cost of ObamaCare)