Bizarre liberal dichotomies about food and the environment

It has been another tough week.  I have been working a lot, my husband is training for a new job (fingers crossed) and I hear these news stories as I am running around and I just scratch my head and then pour it all out on you.

So, this week, Obama banned the use of wood burning stoves.

Hunh.  That got me thinking, liberals are all into nature, growing your own food and stuff, right?  What could be more natural than chopping down a tree and burning it to keep warm?  But, we can't do that anymore.  We had a wood burning stove in the house I grew up in out in the sticks.

We also had a huge garden.  I didn't think there was anything hip or cool about getting all of our fruits and vegetables from the garden.  I thought it was a lot of hard work.

But, now it is all cool and hip to "buy and eat local."  It is trendy for restaurants to grow food and then serve it while you look at the garden.  I have another word for that:

Home.

But, what about all of the people who live in the city and don't have any land?  How can they grow and eat only local food?

Our interstate trucking system is the envy of the world.  We transport goods and services that boggle the mind.  But, remember, Obama is destroying that system.  So, the rich will continue to be trendy and hip and buy local.  But, when the cost for fresh fruits and vegetables goes the roof because of Obama's fuel efficiency standards for trucks, what will everyone else do?

Are you seeing the dichotomy that I am seeing?

So, back to what started this whole thing - banning wood burning stoves - we can't use coal to power plants (even though China opens a new coal fired power plant each week) we can't warm our homes with nuclear power (although the French are toasty in their chateaus with nuclear powered heat).  Heaven forbid we even dreamed of fracking for more gas, oil is "dirty and unsafe."  Now, burning trees is illegal.

Um, what exactly are we supposed to do to heat our homes?

Here is the ultimate liberal dichotomy - how can they keep saying that they want to help Americans when they are completely destroying every possible source of energy that we possess?

They screamed that "Bush went to war for oil!"  But, we have all the oil we could ever need right here and they won't let us get it and they absolutely won't let us transport it.

The liberals war on energy, all forms, including wood, is going to completely crush what is left of our economy.

Bizarre liberal dichotomies

I try, I really try to understand liberals, I do.  But, I just don't get it.  So many of the things they believe don't make any sense.

I am a Christian (just in case you didn't pick up on that yet) and I love everybody because that is the way I roll, ok?

Liberals are totally obsessed with the gay community.  That's fine, as I have mentioned before, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.  What people do is their business.  That is a uniquely conservative perspective by the way.

Liberals also seem to be infatuated with Muslims.  They aren't crazy about Christians, but, Muslims are cool.

With me so far?

Don't Muslims hate gay people?

I saw a black preacher on the news the other night who was furious about Obama's support of the gay community.  So, some black people aren't crazy about gay people either.

Hmmm.

Liberals don't like the military much, or Christians and a lot of our freedoms are being taken away.

Here is the problem with the liberal philosophy - it can't ever reach a logical conclusion.

America is the ONLY PLACE THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN where a Muslim family, a black family, a Christian family and a family with gay parents could all live on the same street in peace.

It is because of our military and those Christian values that the scenario I just described can happen.

Don't they know that?

Once Christianity is crushed and our military is impotent, where can all of these diverse groups of people ever hope to live in peace?

A step by step guide to weakening America

It is so brilliant in its completeness.  Not a single area of American exceptionalism has been untouched by Obama's hand of destruction.

Our only hope is a landslide victory in 2014, kinda like the one we had in 2010.

So, let's take a look back at our demise and see how it all happened.

The first thing that Obama did was extend unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 99 weeks.  No one was asking for it.  But, he did it.  BAM!  Now, millions of people just stopped looking for work.

Easy.

Next, Obama quietly, with his pen and phone undid all of the 1996 welfare reforms and took away all work requirements to qualify for food stamps, welfare, etc.  By 2012, the number of people taking these entitlement programs skyrocketed.  Abuse of the system is legendary.  But, any attempt to tighten the system, put the work requirements back in or just to reduce fraud are called, "racism" and "taking food from starving babies."

Brilliant.

It really is a miracle that he has so much free time for golf because don't forget the scandals - Benghazi, the IRS, the NSA and Obamacare's lies, costs and devastating failure.  Yet, still that pesky idea that big government can solve problems persists.  The public relations campaign against capitalism has worked perfectly.  Even after the government botched up Obamacare in every conceivable way, the notion that the government can solve problems persists.  Why?  How?

Now, the welfare state is firmly in place, done, check that off.

While doing all that, he went around the world apologizing for how awful America is.  The world is now a much scarier place.  Our enemies have been emboldened.

And, now, we lay down our arms.

Check!

In just 5 short years, the transformation of America seems to be complete.

Capitalism has been demonized, businesses and jobs have been crushed by government regulations and taxes, the people have lost hope and we are making ourselves defenseless.

All with brilliant efficiency and speed.

I don't care who you are or what you believe, but go out and vote in 2014 for fiscal conservatives.  Please, it really is our only hope.

Harry Reid says that stories are untrue

Harry Reid is now saying that the horror stories about Obamacare are untrue.

Just like Obama blaming Fox News for all of his scandals, (Which were all phony by the way!) Reid actually blamed Americans for Prosperity for hiring actors to make up stories.

Hunh.

So, the guy that I met the other day with a goiter the size of a small child on his carotid artery who was denied Obamacare...

He was an actor posing as a hard working store clerk and he made it all up?

I am sorry, but anyone who still believes in guys like Harry Reid needs to have his head examined.

That is not made up.

Eat Vegan Make Peace

No, I haven't gone soft.  I am still a 100% redneck conservative.

I saw that on a license plate today:  Eat Vegan Make Peace.

I am really struggling here, because if you have watched the news, ever, you know that as a conservative Christian, I am inherently stupid.

But, I saw this, and it made me think.  A reader was explaining to me today that Obama is disarming us because he believes that if we are weak, the world won't hate us so much.

The idea of walk softly and carry a big stick is not part of the current philosophy.  Peace through strength is, also, not part of the current military strategy.

 Eat vegan, make peace.

Ok, so that means no more killing of animals.  Put down your steak knife.  Stop believing in the Judeo-Christian ethic and people will stop hating us.  Stop eating meat and there will be peace.

What a bunch of total malarkey!  If that is not the biggest pile of horse poo, I don't know what is.

God gave the animals to Adam to take care of and TO EAT.  (Judeo-Christian) There is no greater evidence that God exists and He loves us than bacon.  Fry up a pound of that greasy goodness right now.

Go on.  I'll wait.

There is nothing wrong or "un peaceful" about eating meat at all.  The only way you can believe that is by totally rejecting the Bible and everything that all Jews and Christians believe.

Peace doesn't come from not eating meat.

Peace also doesn't come from laying down all weapons.  This naive idea again rejects the teachings of the Old Testament.  There are people who hate us and want to kill us because of our religion, because of our freedom.

Laying down OUR weapons won't create peace.  Our enemies are loading their guns and laughing.

Eat Vegan Make Peace

The perfect bumper sticker to explain absolutely everything that is wrong with our country.

A win for the first amendment

Well, the freedom of the press anyway.  Freedom of religion is still on the chopping block.

But, this is excellent news.  Yesterday, I posted Jay Sekulow's article about the FCC monitoring newsrooms.  Apparently, it isn't going to happen now.  So, in complete fairness, I am posting Mr. Sekulow's article about this great news for the freedom of the press.

Here it is:

Once again, the Obama administration attempted to get what it wanted through its often-used strategy of intimidation and executive overreach.

This time, though, the American people responded quickly and forcefully, and sent a powerful message to the White House: No, not this time. Americans stood up and said this unconstitutional power play isn’t going to happen.

Last week I told you about the Obama administration’s latest effortto monitor and limit free speech – the FCC’s effort to study and determine what America “needs” to hear.

Throughout this administration, the entire “alphabet soup” of federal agencies has mobilized against the president's perceived political opponents.

This FCC effort, called the “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” would have sent FCC monitors into newsrooms around the country, tasked with interviewing station owners, managers, and journalists – asking questions about the station’s “philosophy” and even inquiring about specific editorial decisions.  This represented an unprecedented attack on the freedom of the press.

The chilling effect was obvious. The FCC happens to control the broadcast licenses for much of the news you watch, read, and hear. 

How could stations refuse to cooperate? 

How would they react if the FCC disagreed with their editorial choices?

Fortunately, however, the American public is growing increasingly fed up with the administration’s government overreach. Within 48 hours an online petition at the American Center for Law and Justice gained more than 70,000 signatures in opposition, and outrage spread from media outlet to media outlet.

By Friday afternoon, the administration – caught red-handed – backtracked. The FCC issued a statement:

"To be clear, media owners and journalists will no longer be asked to participate in the Columbia, S.C. pilot study. The pilot will not be undertaken until a new study design is final. Any subsequent market studies conducted by the FCC, if determined necessary, will not seek participation from or include questions for media owners, news directors or reporters."

In other words, the study won’t happen, and any future study won’t include monitors in the newsroom.

It’s a victory, to be sure, but I doubt the administration has learned its lesson.

For almost two full years, my colleagues and I at the ACLJ have been battling an IRS that targeted and harassed Tea Party and other conservative groups. The IRS was caught red-handed (like the FCC), and it apologized. It said it ended the targeting scheme.

Yet the IRS is unreformed. It deceived the American public when it said the misconduct was over. In fact it still hasn’t granted recognition to some 501(c)(4)’s, including one group that’s been waiting since 2009.

But that’s not all. Even as the IRS was targeting the Tea Party it was plotting the second phase of censorship, drafting regulations so draconian that they could even limit mention of the president’s name during a political campaign. 

These rules are so oppressive that they’ve united left and right – with the ACLU joining the ACLJ in opposition to the Obama administration censorship agenda.

Throughout this administration, the entire “alphabet soup” of federal agencies has mobilized against the president's perceived political opponents. The FCC wants to target newsrooms, the IRS targets conservatives, the Department of Health and Human Services  targets Christians, and the Department of Justice targets reporters.

It’s a troubling strategy that the Obama administration routinely employs. Here’s the scenario:  First, the administration seeks to take action through constitutional or regulatory overreach. If officials get caught, they apologize. Then, they pull back -- even if it's a partial retreat -- later, when they think no one is looking, they try again.

We’re now past the midpoint of Mr. Obama’s presidency, and his legacy is already emerging. 

First and foremost, of course is the monstrous failure of ObamaCare, a program that is breaking our health care system. Much of the damage can be undone, however, with the right election results in 2014 and 2016.

It will be more difficult to undo the second part of Mr. Obama's legacy: the drafting of the entire federal bureaucracy into one party’s political machine – using its vast scope and power to suppress dissent.  It's a legacy of lawlessness that will have ramifications for years to come.

A blizzard of litigation can help stem the tide, but more fundamental reform may be necessary. Until that reform occurs, Americans will be hard-pressed to trust the good will and impartiality of the very government they fund. It's a government they can no longer trust, led by a president who selfishly puts politics ahead of the American people.

There is hope, of course. There is always hope. Last week's victory teaches us that government bureaucracy can sometimes be forced to retreat.

The journey of a thousand miles – the journey to reclaim our fundamental freedoms – began last week with a single, important step – a victory over the FCC.

Jay Sekulow is the Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which represents 41 groups in a federal lawsuit challenging the IRS targeting scheme. He hosts a daily radio show – Jay Sekulow Live! – carried on more than 850 stations nationwide, including Sirius/XM. Follow him on Twitter@JaySekulow.

Deep cuts to the military

"I don't care who you are, that's funny!"  Larry the Cable Guy

"It doesn't matter who you are, THIS ISN'T FUNNY!"  Me

Seriously, it doesn't matter what race you are, what religion, what economic level, even what political party you are in - this latest horrendous decision by the Obama administration is the worst so far.  And, every single one of us should care.

Obama has finally decided to save money!

He is going to slash our military, crippling our capability to defend ourselves from people who wish to harm us for generations.

Of course, cuts have to be made somewhere, but entitlements programs won't be touched by the Obama administration.  (Unless, of course, it is Medicaid, they robbed Medicaid for Obamacare.)

It is clear that giving unlimited entitlements actually doesn't help people.  If you still don't believe that, please take another look at Detroit.  We are currently on the same path as Detroit, bankruptcy due to entitlement programs.

Anyone can get a handout from the federal government now regardless of age, ability, health.  There are no requirements.  There are no work requirements.  No drug test, no background check, just free money.

If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day.  If you give him a fishing pole, he will eat for life.  I am a fishing pole kinda gal.  But, of course, the fishing pole guy catches a lot of fish.  He then sets up a fish taco stand on the beach and becomes a Republican.

But, now, why is that so bad?

Let's recap.  Entitlement programs are bankrupting our country.
You don't need a background check to work for the federal government, so criminals are working for our government.
Obama is disarming American citizens.
People with terrorist ties are allowed in the country AND
Our military is being crippled.

And, you STILL think that Obama is helping the country.

This is a recipe for disaster.

I think that we can expect a big disaster, and soon.

The death of the first amendment

The Obama administration has always lamented the fact that Fox News presents fair and balanced coverage of him and his various foibles.  The administration is currently planning to silence criticism in news rooms across the country.  I was so distressed when reading this article, that I decided to just post the whole thing.  There was no way that I could write it as well.

So, here is an article written by Jay Sekulow on the Obama administration's plans to kill the free press:

The FCC is launching a new study, taking upon itself the task of deciding what news the public “needs” to hear, versus the news the public wants to hear. The agency will conduct a “General Population Survey” that will “measure community members’ actual and perceived critical information needs.”

Got that? What you think (perceive) you need to know is different from what the government says you need to know.

Next, the FCC will send monitors to newsrooms across the country who will ask questions regarding the “philosophy” of the newsroom, inquire about possible conflicts between reporters and their bosses, and even determine how much influence each individual has in deciding what to report.

Does that kind of government inquiry sound familiar? Are we not less than a year removed from an IRS apology for inquiring about the internal workings of conservative groups?

Last week, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who believes the government has no role in how a certain story is covered, disclosed in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed the existence of the new FCC plan that will ostensibly “study” how media organizations report the news. 

Here’s Mr. Pai:

Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

The news was jarring, so I downloaded the FCC’s “Research Design” and read it for myself.

How reassuring that the federal government is devising new ways to violate the privacy of reporters, editors and their employers.

What I found was even more disturbing than what Mr. Pai reports.

If radio and television stations resist coughing up confidential employee data (including demographic information) to aid the FCC monitors, the study also (on pages 10 and 11) provides helpful “strategies” for obtaining information -- even when employers and their Human Resources departments refuse to cooperate.

How reassuring that the federal government is devising new ways to violate the privacy of reporters, editors and their employers – all to make sure news outlets are providing Americans with the news the Obama administration says they “need.”

The roadmap to censorship is clear. Expect this study to show that some news organizations are failing to cover the “right” stories – thus failing to give the people what they “need.”

Then, the FCC – which owns the airwaves – will propose to swoop in and fix the “market failure” by making sure that Americans learn what they “need” to learn – regardless of their own preferences.

And what does the FCC prioritize? If its list is any indication, it prioritizes the “environment” far above the “weather,” while war news barely makes the list.

So I suppose when storms are brewing it’s more important that I learn about carbon credits than where a tornado might touch down? And just don’t you worry about what’s happening in our war against jihadists.

Given the Obama administration’s consistent and publicly-expressed loathing for Fox News, expect to see the news lineup the Obama administration says America needs to look a lot more like MSNBC’s nonstop coverage of climate change and “bridgegate” than Fox’s rightful focus on lost American lives in Benghazi.

From its inception, the Obama administration has proven that it’s not only intolerant of critics, but that it will use the full power of an increasingly partisan bureaucracy to intimidate Americans and rein in dissent. The administration turned the IRS on the Tea Party, it unleashed the Department of Justice on wayward reporters, and now the FCC is preparing to snoop into America’s television and radio studios.

In an era of divided government, it’s sometimes difficult to stop Obama administration excess, but this call to action should be easy: Under no circumstances should the House of Representatives allocate even a single dime of taxpayer money to authorize or empower government monitors in any newsroom in America.

The free press is at stake.

Jay Sekulow is the Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which represents 41 groups in a federal lawsuit challenging the IRS targeting scheme. He hosts a daily radio show – Jay Sekulow Live! – carried on more than 850 stations nationwide, including Sirius/XM. Follow him on Twitter@JaySekulow.

Charity

Why do liberals hate it?

I have been thinking about this for a while now.

Liberals are supposed to be tolerant and want to help people, but they seem to disdain charity.  This is new to me and I want to give you some examples.

Steven Colbert was recently mocking Bill O'Reilly for auctioning off his notes from his Obama interview. The proceeds went to charity.  Maybe that was the problem, O'Reilly donated the proceeds to the Fisher House, which benefits veterans.

During the 2012 election, former Ohio governor, Ted Strickland, ridiculed Mitt Romney in a speech.  Well, of course he did.  But, this time it was because Mitt filled up a semi with donated goods and had them sent to New Jersey for victims of Hurricane Sandy.  Ted ripped Mitt apart for that.

What?!?!?  How can anyone fault anyone else for donating relief to people who need it?

And, famously (or infamously) during the same election, it was revealed that Joe Biden gave just 1.5% of his income to charity.  While the Romneys gave a staggering 29%.

See?  I have been thinking about this for a while.

Obama is outright attacking the Little Sisters of the Poor, a charity organization that provides hospice care to the dying.

He has been trying for years to take the tax deduction for charitable contributions away.  (Schedule A,  1040, people.)

I just keep scratching my head and thinking, "Why? Why do liberals seem to dislike giving to charity?"

Well, they love taxes.  They want to raise taxes on absolutely everything all the time.

And, lots of charity organizations have their basis in Christianity.  The Salvation Army, Goodwill, churches all serve up some Jesus with the soup and free underpants.

Liberals don't seem to be too keen on religion, well, the Christian one, anyway.

Is that it?  Do they want to do away with religion and charities?  If they take away the tax deduction, people will be more hesitant to donate to charity.  Taxes keep going up.  Pretty soon, the government will be getting all of the money that used to go to charities.

Hmmmm.  Then, the government will give the money to whoever it wants to.

Is that where we are headed?

Is that why so many liberals mock charity?

Union loss

Boy, it has been a busy week.

This week in Chattanooga, Tennessee the UAW suffered a great loss.  Workers at the Volkswagen plant voted against the United Auto Workers.  They had the audacity to vote against becoming unionized.

In typical, graceful fashion, the powerful union blamed the loss on a vast right wing conspiracy.

Ok, that is Hilary's term for Bill's affairs.  :)

But, seriously, they actually blamed Republicans for people choosing to not join the union.

What?!?

The Volkswagen plant allowed the UAW into the plant to present their case to workers.  Believe me, they wouldn't have sent in their second string presenters.  They probably pulled out all of the stops  and gave their best possible presentation to the workers to sell the idea of joining the union.  As they should, there is nothing wrong with making their case.

So, the union had full access to the workers and were allowed to give it their best shot.

Um, Republicans weren't allowed into the plant.  Unless, conservative values were smuggled into the plant illegally, in the minds of workers.

The benefits of unionization were presented, in as one-sided a way as any argument could possibly be presented.  Kinda like the way liberalism is presented on MSNBC.

And, the workers voted against the union.

Is it possible that people aren't as dumb as big organizations think that they are?  Is it possible that hard working people can take care of themselves?

For the last five years, we have had the idea of dependency shoved down our throats.  Success has been demonized, work is now something that we choose not to do.  Big government and big unions - are they really for workers?

Could people be starting to see that maybe they aren't?

John Kerry's senseless rant on "Climate change"

John Kerry is out representing American interests as Secretary of State.

Snort...

Kerry gave a speech a few days ago in Jakarta, Indonesia.  During the speech he mocked people who don't believe in global warming.  Isn't that nice?  No more logical, reasoned debate.  Anyone who doesn't believe in global warming is a "flat earth" idiot.

Have any of you been outside lately?  Has anyone noticed that this is the coldest, snowiest winter EVER?  Remember those global warming scientists who got stuck in the ice, for a week?

Global warming hasn't been proven, at all.  That is why they sometimes call it "climate change."  Sometimes, it is really cold.

So, Kerry described global warming as the apocalypse and actually said that the threat of global warming is worse than the threat of terrorism.

Now, it is time for a visual montage.  Imagine people throughout the world listening to that and laughing.  Keep going around the world in your head, you have seen enough montages, you can do it.  A few people are checking their magazine clips to be sure that they have enough ammo and laughing their heads off.  Now, after the world has been annihilated by TERRORISM (and they call us fearmongers) imagine people in those stretchy, space age-y suits watching an old clip of Kerry's speech...

And laughing.

And, what, Mr. Kerry, exactly, is the government supposed to do about the weather?  Honestly, does taxing the American middle class into oblivion really make the planet more stable?  Does government intervention REALLY have an impact on global weather patterns?  News flash: people in France are warm and cozy in their nuclear powered homes.  China is building coal fired power plants faster than Obama can close them down.

How does regulating the American energy supply and increasing the cost to ordinary Americans impact, in any way, global weather?

If anyone can answer these questions, please let me know.

Meanwhile, while the left demonizes progress, let's think back to how things were, just a little over 100 years ago.

People went everywhere by horse.  This was before Ford invented the car, (1905 ish) and before MacAdam invented, well, macadam (around 1910) streets were made of mud and horse poo.  Just think of all that mud and horse poo on shoes and the bottoms of pant legs and dresses.

Yuck.  Think of all the disease spread around everywhere.

Ok, here is another one, people used to burn coal in their homes.  I know, my house in the hood has a coal chute.  Think of all the coal fumes and black ickiness that people breathed in every day!  When the technology for electricity to be produced at coal fired plants came around, wasn't that better than people breathing in all of those coal fumes all the time?

Well, I think that we have things a whole lot better now than we did then.  Horse poo and coal breathing deaths have dropped dramatically.  Currently, our environment is so clean that bacteria has had to adjust to survive.

What is my point?

We have advanced in the past 100 years.  The climate hasn't changed significantly, it just hasn't.  If you insist that it has, fine.  I won't call you names.  (Although, I am pretty sure that I was called a bad name and am offended).  But, any minuscule change has been caused by THE SUN.  Changes in weather based on man made activity is minuscule, at best.  Overwhelmingly, the effects of man made change have been positive.  Technology, efficiency, ingenuity and invention have helped the world.

Should we get rid of the sun? Or progress?  Hey, I know let's get rid of excessive taxation and the burden that regulation is putting on American energy.

How about that?  Nothing that we do will change the weather, but we could make American families warmer and at a lower cost.

A love letter to the stranger at Great Clips

Dear Woman Who Works at Great Clips,

Thank you for giving my daughter a snappy haircut that made her feel like a princess (for $7.99!)

But, I really am writing because I want you to know something else.

Well, you were, um, nice.

It's not earth-shattering, but there it is.  Your kindness meant the world to us today.

So, dear woman at Great Clips, please keep right on being nice to people.  You have no idea what kind of positive impact you have on people, just by being nice.

Thank you for being nice to us, keep on being nice to people and we will see you again, soon, at Great Clips.

Sincerely,
Redneck

Bode

There has been a lot of hype about Bode Miller's interview after his history-making medal performance in Sochi yesterday.  (Or was it the day before?)

Let's walk through this Redneck style, shall we?

Bode came down the hill and sealed his place in history as the most successful American alpine skier EVER.

Back story - Bode burst onto the world ski scene in 2002.  Bode (pronounced Bo-dee) was raised by his hippie parents in a house with no electricity and running water.  They didn't do it because they were poor, they did it because they wanted to and they loved to ski.  So, little Bode got on skis with his parents by the time he could walk.

Where else in the world could you live like that and produce one of the world's greatest athletes?  In what other country could the ultimate achiever in a sport be raised in this way?

Back to now- The interviewer in Sochi the other day, asked how Bode felt.  He mentioned that it had been a tough year.  The interviewer, a friend and fellow skier, mentioned, by name, Bode's brother who died this past year.

Now, I know a lot about Bode, but didn't know that his brother died.  The interviewer, gently, acknowledged something that Bode himself alluded to, but most viewers wouldn't understand.  Basically, she clarified the situation for viewers in a caring way by mentioning Bode's brother, by name.

Let me tell you this - when Bode started to cry, I started to cry.

Maybe I see something different than other people see.  I see an American success story.  I see a man who, just by falling in love with a sport, became the greatest skier our country has produced and in the most unusual of circumstances.

In the face of unbelievable hardship, the loss of his brother, Bode continued to train and perform at the top of his game and came out on top of the world.

Most people would have quit.  Most people would have taken a year off.

Not Bode.

How about you?

Get ready for food prices to go up, again

I swear I couldn't make this stuff up.  I couldn't think of creative, inventive ways to destroy the American economy and middle class if I tried.

Obama must have a team of experts who come up with this stuff.

I wish I did.  Ok, I want my house to be 20% prettier, I want to be 45% skinnier and, oh, I would like to have 30% fewer zits.

Obama is now going to demand fuel efficiency standards on heavy pick-ups and 18 wheel semi-trucks.

Ever seen an elite liberal driving one of those?  Imagine an elite liberal.  Oh, I got one!  Nancy Pelosi.  Now, imagine her getting the seat wiped off, placing her Prada shoe on the running board and hauling her pants suit into an 18 wheeler.

Sigh.

Anyway, that will never happen, elite liberals HATE heavy pick-ups and semis because they are all used for WORK.

I can hear it now, "But, Redneck, what objection could you possibly have to fuel efficiency?  Your bandana is too tight."

I don't have a problem with fuel efficiency.  Of course, no one should.  And, my headwear is fine, thank you.

BUT FUEL EFFICIENCY SHOULD COME AS A RESULT OF TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT NOT BE FORCED BY GOVERNMENT TYRANNY.

Henry Ford had a dream - to put a car in every American driveway.  He did it, didn't he?  He did it with the greatest technological advancement at the time - the assembly line.

How might the story have changed if the government demanded a Ford in every driveway?

Hunh.

You have to understand this - memorize this - Obama's last fuel efficiency standards, in 2011, cost the industry $8 billion dollars.

I am serious, at cocktail parties, this will be you, "Did you know that Obama's 2011 fuel standards cost the industry $8 billion?  Oh!  Cheese doodles, I love those things..."

Where did the $8 million dollars come from?  You, of course.  You paid $1 more for every loaf of bread for the last 5 years.  Those DiGiorno pizzas went from a cool $5 to $6.98.  That is lot more money for that yummy.

Prices will go up, period.

Next, fewer trucks will be on the road.  That means fewer goods will be produced, fewer goods will be sent out on trucks, fewer goods will be sold.  And, remember, the price of all those goods is going to be higher.

Not only will producers be effected, trucking companies will be hurt and truckers will lose their jobs. But, Obama doesn't care does he?  He sees that as being free from "job lock," right?

This is just another way for Obama to destroy the American economy.

Happy Presidents' Day

Well, it may not be the happiest Presidents' Day ever.  Not for me, anyway.  Not for a lot of people.

I won't keep you in suspense any longer, my favorite president was our 40th, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Reagan was our greatest president because he had conviction.  His convictions were based on his beliefs and his beliefs guided his life.

Not only was Reagan a devout Christian, he was a humble man.  He was honest, he had integrity, he had courage, grace and character.

Think about some of the adjectives that I have just used:  humble, grace, character, courage, integrity.

Wouldn't you like to see more of that in our politicians today?  (Humble!  Snort!)

I read an article today about "elitist liberals" and it got me thinking.  Have you ever heard of an elitist conservative?  No, not really.  Maybe a hard working conservative or a "self made" one.  Only liberals talk incessantly about all of their causes and ideas, but never actually help anyone.  They talk about helping the poor, but look down on the poor.  They talk about helping the middle class but disdain the middle class.

I see our political elite in Washington as being greedy, self serving, and, basically, the exact opposite of Reagan.

At Reagan's funeral, I remember Katie Courie talking about how, despite our differences, we all "stood together" to defeat communism.  That is laughable.  The elite, liberal media HATED Reagan.  They called him a stupid cowboy.  Hey, they called George W a stupid cowboy, too.  Why?  Why did they hate him so much?

At the time, liberals loved communism and laughed at Reagan.  They are doing the exact same thing right now with Al Qeada.  Elitist liberals, who claim to be tolerant, won't tolerate anything except their slim, strict word view.

Here is why I love Reagan, miss the way our country was then, and wish that things could be different today.

I was shopping today at a middle American department store, you know, the kind elite liberals hate.  The kind of place that sells quality items at a low price.  The guy checking out our items was so nice, it was unbelievable.  We got to talking, he had closed the store the night before and opened it back up that morning.  He was working HARD.  That whole "being free from job lock" has totally stuck in my craw all week and pretty soon, we were talking about Obamacare.

Get a tissue.

This guy pulled down the neck of his sweater and showed us an apple-sized cyst on his neck.  HE WAS DENIED OBAMACARE.  Wait a minute, Obamacare was supposed to help the uninsured.  It was supposed to help people, people JUST LIKE THAT.

This was a living, breathing human being I was talking to today.  He wasn't a statistic or a number, he was a person.

The cyst is on his carotid artery.  HE COULD DIE AT ANY MOMENT.  He is waiting to have the surgery to have the cyst removed, WAITING FOR HIS INSURANCE APPROVAL.  Ladies and gentleman, that is called a death panel.

That is one person in one place in America.  How many other people need to suffer, need to die so that Obama can have his signature legislative achievement?

So, I am shedding a tear tonight.  For me, for the hard working man I met today, for Reagan and for America.

Happy Presidents' Day.

The safety net or being free from "job lock"

Ok, I understand that I have been a little bit snarky lately.  I am really upset.

My husband lost his job.

There, I said it.

Closely coinciding with this shocking loss of not only employment, but our corresponding hopes and dreams, the latest Obamacare disaster has been revealed.

An estimated 2.5 million more jobs will be lost as a result of the tax and burden on our society, Obamacare.

In a stunning display of sheer lunacy, democrats are spinning this latest crap as a good thing.  They are actually saying that people will be freed from "job lock" and will be able to "pursue their dreams."

Hunh.

See, for the past two weeks, I haven't been pursuing my dreams. I have been pursuing job sites and our bank statements to see how long we can make it while we look for jobs day and night.

Who out there actually believes that losing your job frees you to go out and be creative?  Choosing not to work isn't freeing, it is lazy.  Choosing to live off the government is anti-American.

We do have a safety net and it is a good thing.  It is there to help people out when they need help, through no fault of their own.

That is really important, it is supposed to be there when you need it.  It isn't there for people to just choose not to work and to choose to let other people who choose to work pay for their stuff.

But, it is supposed to be just that, a bouncy, springy net.  You are supposed to bounce back up, get OUT OF THE NET, and keep right on flying.

You aren't supposed to keep bouncing forever, watching your tootsies go wriggling in the air with each bounce.

Anyway, I have been working non stop and haven't had time to blog.  But, don't worry, I have plenty to rant about.

The pen and phone

Obama recently proclaimed that he will govern by executive order.  He said that he "has a pen and a phone" and will govern without the consent of congress if necessary.

What is scary about this?

Well, a lot.  But, usually the president has, at least, taken the trouble to hide his lawlessness behind lies or incompetent yes men.

Now, unencumbered by ever having to run for office again, he has no fear of the people, Republicans or even members of his own party.

I recently read a 4th grade primer entitled, "The Constitution and You."  The book clearly outlined the separation of powers.  The framers of our constitution feared a tyrannical government, which is why they definitively separated the powers of government among the executive, legislative and judicial branches.  The system is so easy that a nine-year-old can understand it.

Were the founders of our country fear mongering lunatics?  No, they left a tyrannical government to set up a new form of government which was controlled by the people.  So, they knew what they were doing when they separated those powers - they did it on purpose to curtail the activity of an out of control branch.  In recent decades, there has been a fear of activist judges legislating from the bench.  But, now, we can clearly see which branch is abusing its power - the executive.

Thank goodness the House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans.  They have been able to frustrate some of Obama's progressive, liberal agenda.  But, he is tired of that.  If Republicans won't roll over and play like he wants, he will take his pen and phone and stompy foot into his Oval Office and do whatever he wants.

Let me be quick to say that the president does enjoy executive privilege and all presidents have used this privilege during their tenure.  (No one has used it anywhere near as many times at Obama.) But, it is there and it exists for a reason.

If a law needs to be clarified or explained, the president can issue an executive order for that.  The executive order is meant to support or uphold the law (like judges are supposed to do) NOT REWRITE THE LAW.

One of the most egregious acts of Obama's reign of tyranny is his penchant for rewriting Obamacare over and over again at his own whim.  He has re-written the law over a dozen times.  These changes didn't help or improve the law, they didn't support the law.  The changes have frustrated the law, have brought insurance companies close to ruin and have only made this albatross law harder to comprehend and navigate.

Let's be clear - he isn't allowed to do that.  This should be as scary for Democrats as it is for Republicans.  What if a conservative president is elected next?  Will Democrats and MSNBC stand by quietly while he or she governs with only a pen and a phone?  I don't think so.

Clearly the media does have a role in this lawlessness.  I think that if a Republican were to destroy the constitutional separation of powers the way that Obama has done, there would be media outrage.

But, Obama had better be careful.  Right now, you have a pen and a ballot and we can all send a big message to Washington this November.  

Joni, Krauthammer, from Chariots of Fire to Brokeback Mountain

How did we get here?

I have been thinking a little about Joni Eareckson Tada recently.  (Evangelical Christians pronounced her name Johnny Erickson in the 80s, just sayin'.) In 1967, she dove into a lake and became a quadriplegic.  Confined to her wheelchair, Joni began to paint by holding the paintbrush in her mouth.  For over 40 years, she has been a source of inspiration to people around the world and a champion to disabled people everywhere.

Her story is similar to Charles Krauthammer's.  After a diving accident which left him paralyzed, Krauthammer went on to finish his medical degree and is a Pulitzer Prize winning author.

Joni and Charles have learned to look outside their bodies for inspiration.  Locked into a body that no longer works the way it should (or they would like) they see much more.  With their minds they have been able to forge lives that most of us only dream of.  In no way have they allowed their limited physical abilities to hold them back.

Joni has been in the news recently.  Her openly Christian, academy award nominated song, "Alone Yet Not Alone"  had the Oscar nomination revoked.

Is this the only way to get hard working people in middle America to take time away from their families to watch the real 1% fawn all over each other and give themselves awards?  By attacking Christianity?

Hmmmmm.

The nomination was revoked because the song writer "campaigned" for votes.  Even I know that everybody does that.  So, I see this as a pretty blatant attack on Christianity.

There is a point to this, bear with me.

As recently as 1981, the academy awarded the Oscar for best picture to the openly Christian film "Chariots of Fire."  Now, Christian films are not being nominated while films like "Brokeback Mountain" are held up as pinnacles of achievement in film.

What has happened to us in just over 30 years?   See how I have to keep saying "openly Christian?"
Like it should be a secret?

Here is what I think has happened.  We look to our bodies as the be all and end all of everything.  Elevation of the mind has been put second to elevation of the body.  Some people call it the "dumbing down of America."  Religious people are seen as stupid.

Concerned with only the body, we have somehow lost our dignity.  There is no dignity in talking about sex all the time.  It is course, base and low.  Sorry, but it is.

What if that were all taken away and you were left, in your body, broken, with only your mind left to sustain you.  Where would you go, what would you do?

Would you look beyond yourself and the limited-ness of your body?  Would you be like Charles Krauthammer and Joni Eareckson Tada?

I hope that I would.

Bruno Mars

I can't believe that it has taken me this long to write about this.  Let's just say that there have been some issues in the redneck house and believe me, you will hear more about it than you ever cared to.  Stay tuned.

Anyway, did Bruno Mars do a fantastic job at the Super Bowl halftime show?  He sang (or lip-sync-ed, I don't care) great, danced great, looked great.  I think this is the first Super Bowl halftime show in a generation or so that didn't have a scandal or "wardrobe malfunction."

As he was singing, I could enjoy it and didn't have to shield my children's eyes.  So, I noticed that he sings a lot of songs that I like and didn't know that he sang them.  Does that ever happen to you?

So, I did a little research on little Bruno. (He is 5'5" and his real name is Peter Hernandez.)

Did all of you hear that?  Research, I research every piece.

He has another song called "The Lazy Song."  The video is very funny and not suitable for audiences of all ages.

It goes kinda like this:
"Today I don't feel like doing anything,
I just want to lay in my bed."

(Thank you so much, Bruno, for the correct use of 'anything'  but it should be 'lie'.)

Bruno can have a lazy song and spend one day lying in his bed or dancing around in his living room with  all of his friends wearing monkey masks because:

ALL OF THE OTHER DAYS BRUNO WORKS HIS LITTLE TUSHIE OFF!

Rest is an option, a joy really, after you have worked hard.

Our society has recently made rest or laziness seem to be a positive lifestyle choice instead of what it is: laziness.  The loss of your job is now, according to Jay Carney: an opportunity to pursue your dreams.

I can't help it, I have to say it again.  What?!?!?

Bruno knows it is being lazy because he is probably pretty far from being lazy.  If he was feeling a little tired on Super Bowl Sunday, he still had to put on his gold lame suit and dance his butt off and lip sync into that microphone for all he was worth.

He could take some well deserved time off the next day.

Work is good, it is fulfilling.  We all need to work.  Then, we can enjoy our rest.

Otherwise, just like Bruno says, we are being lazy.

Columbia

 Have you seen this before?  I have over the years.  I don't know if it is real or fake.  It would be pretty easy to fake one, I would think.  But, it is weird that Obama won't release any of his records, like every other president and presidential candidate has done.

So, the last name is his step father from Indonesia's last name, right?

Here is the thing - liberals wouldn't consider it a bad thing to lie and say that you are from Indonesia and get a free Ivy League education as a foreign student.  They would see that as a clever way to get something for free.  Of course, never acknowledging that it isn't free at all, someone has to pay for it. But, the someone isn't them and so they don't care.

They may call it social justice.

The only people who are upset that someone would get a free college education paid for by our tax dollars is poor white people in middle America who pay for it,

Like me.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

From Russia With Love

Ah, Russia.  Journalists have always loved Russia.  Well, they liked it a lot better when it was communist.  But, they still like it.

It is interesting that journalists traveling to Sochi, Russia for the Olympic winter games are appalled by the accommodations.

One journalist was told not to put the hotel water on her face because it is "dangerous."  The journalist then tweeted pictures of water that looked more like a rich, robust pilsner than tap water.

From toilets that can't handle the flushing of toilet paper to the absence of shower curtains (that is very common even in Western Europe) the lack of basic necessities in the RESORT TOWN of Sochi is shocking.

Is it possible that we in America enjoy a higher standard of living than in, say, Russia?

Maybe.  What do you think?

Obamacare will kill over 2 million jobs

According to a non-partisan report from the Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare (I can't bring myself to call it the Affordable Care Act, that is just loony) is going to cause the loss of 2 million more jobs.

The White House quickly held a press conference to taut how wonderful this job loss will be.  In an unprecedented act of lunacy, democrats called the loss of over 2 million jobs:

... people "will be empowered to make choices about their own lives and livelihoods," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday. 

What?!?!?

I am trying to use my words, but I can't come up with any.  So, I have to just keep using direct quotes.

"At the beginning of this year, we noted that as part of this new day in health care, Americans would no longer be trapped in a job just to provide coverage for their families, and would have the opportunity to pursue their dreams," he said. "This CBO report bears that out, and the Republican plan to repeal the ACA would strip those hard-working Americans of that opportunity."

I can't figure out how anyone can imply that job loss is "freeing" and an opportunity to pursue dreams.

Can you?

Completely out of touch

Ok, we have recently learned that Hilary Clinton hasn't driven a car since 1996.

I fully believe that if I walked up to Harry Reid and said, "Mr. Reid, how much is a candy bar?"  He would have absolutely no idea.

I also believe that when someone put a piece of paper under Nancy Pelosi's nose and said, "Mrs. Pelosi, in order to make Obamcare work, millions of young men will have to pay $200 a month for premiums and a $2,500 deductible."

She probably said, "Oh, great!  That is nothing, they can afford that."

Since she is a billionaire, she then went to Neiman Marcus and spent $2,500 on shoes and $200 on lunch.

She has absolutely no idea that young men can't afford a $200 a month premium and a $2,500 deductible.  Young men have ZERO health insurance costs.  They would never forego beer and video games to pay for health insurance.

These liberal politicians are completely out to touch.

Fox News to blame for Obama's ills

I am trying to understand this, I really am.  How can anyone blame a news organization for the actions of a president?  Especially the president himself!

I have heard people, over the years, blame Fox News for having the audacity to report news, even news that is unfavorable to our savior, Obama.

But I can not grasp the concept of how it can possibly be Fox News' FAULT for all of the things that Obama has done.

He actually said to Bill O'Reilly, during the pre-game Super Bowl interview, that reporting on Obama's various and myriad scandals is what makes people believe them.  Somehow, in some twisted way, Obama sees all of his "scandals" as Fox News' fault?

Really?

I just don't get it.

Let's take the IRS scandal.  Remember that?  Since 2010, the IRS has used its power to torture and silence political opponents of the Obama Administration.  In May, a clearly distressed president declared that this targeting was wrong and he would get to the bottom of it.

Since then, he has called the IRS scandal a "phony scandal."  And, in his interview with O'Reilly, he said that there wasn't a "smidgen" of corruption at the IRS.

Well, glad to hear it.  But, what is the investigation that is currently underway of the IRS for?  What is the deal with that then?  Hmmm?

Let's think for a moment.  If a Republican president was using the IRS to target and silence political opposition, what do you think would happen?  The New York Times would be all over it.  (Note, lane closures on George Washington bridge).  There would be outrage, it would be on 24 hours, non-stop, 7 day a week coverage.  Heads would roll.  There might even be an impeachment.

But, no.  In this case, the IRS targeting of conservative groups, well, that is Fox News' fault.

We can do this all day.

Let's talk about the murderous terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012.  For 7 hours, brave men and women fought to save our embassy and its workers from a terrorist attack.  During the siege, 4 died.  Help was an hour away.  That help was told to stand down, to the peril of: Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

That alone would be enough, if it were a Republican president, for non-stop, round the clock coverage of this atrocity.  It might even sway a presidential election.  But, that's not all.  The administration made up a story, the notes with talking points that have been changed are out there for everyone to see.  The administration then went out and intentionally lied, calling the terrorist attack a protest to an anti-Muslim video.

Can you even imagine if a Republican president was caught lying like that?

Of course we all now know that the Obama administration, in its efforts to fight terror, (I thought Al Qeada was on the run?) has been spying on every single one of us.

Can you imagine what would happen if a Republican president did that?

We have now wasted billions of dollars on Obamacare and the Obamacare website.  The website still doesn't work.  Only about 200,000 people WHO DIDN'T PREVIOUSLY HAVE INSURANCE have been helped by Obamacare.  This is merely an expansion of Medicaid.  But, what happens when there are no doctors left who accept it?  (See Detroit post.)

But, no worries, keep moving, there is nothing to see here.  No scandals, no corruption.  Yes, the carpet does look a bit like Mount Everest with all of the stuff underneath it.

But, don't worry about it.  It is all Fox News' fault.

Progressivism kills

I will never understand why liberals call anything that they don't agree with "hate."  Then, while condemning anything that doesn't fall in line with the strictest progressive liberal view, they can spew as much hate as they want.

That is why it is so interesting and timely that this was in my inbox this morning.

Thank you, Mary!

It is so true, that despite all of the good intentions of liberals, that their policies fail, time and time again.

There is no liberal argument that can be supported to a positive conclusion, just look at Detroit...

FEBRUARY 1, 2014 4:00 AM

Progressivism Kills

Detroit is not healthy for children and other living things.

By Kevin D. Williamson

There are many horrific stories to be told about the implosion of Detroit, once the nation’s most prosperous city, today its poorest. There is the story of its corrupt public institutions, its feckless leaders, its poisonous racial politics, its practically nonexistent economy, the riots that have led to its thrice being occupied by federal troops. The most horrific story may be that of the death of its children.

Detroit has the highest child-mortality rate of any American city, exceeding that of many parts of what we used to call the Third World. The rate of death before the age of 18 in Detroit is nearly three times New York City’s, and its infant-mortality rate exceeds that of Botswana. The main cause of premature death among the children of Detroit is premature birth — the second is murder. While the city’s murder rate among adults is nothing to be proud of, more horrifying is the fact that between 30 and 40 children are murdered in Detroit in a typical year. Some of those children are nine-month-olds killed by rifle fire in their beds; some are budding criminals in their late teens — and each of those situations offers its own unique horrors. So dangerous is the city that children are being armed by their parents, which has predictable consequences. “I work in the Wayne County Juvenile Court, and these children are obtaining guns from adults,” children’s-law attorney Lynda White told the Detroit News, which has been conducting an in-depth investigation of how Detroit’s children are dying. “They’re obtaining guns illegally from people who are supposed to be responsible and people who are supposed to protect them. And if that person who has a huge influence in your life is giving you a gun, some of them tend to think it’s okay to carry it. And they’re being told, ‘You need this for your protection, you live in Detroit.’”

Detroit represents nothing less than progressivism in its final stage of decadence: Worried that unionized public-sector workers are looting your city? Detroit is already bankrupt, unable to provide basic services expected of it — half the streetlights don’t work, transit has been reduced, neighborhoods go unpatrolled. Worried that public-sector unions are ruining your schools? Detroit’s were ruined a generation or more ago, the results of which are everywhere to be seen in the city. Worried that Obamacare is going to ruin our health-care markets? General-practice physicians are hard to find in Detroit, and those willing to accept Medicaid — which covers a great swath of Detroit’s population — are rarer still. Worried about the permissive culture? Four out of five of Detroit’s children are born out of wedlock. Worried that government is making it difficult for businesses to thrive? Many people in Detroit have to travel miles to find a grocery store. This is the endgame of welfare economics: What good is Medicaid if there are no doctors? What good are food stamps where there is no food? What good are “free” schools if you’re so afraid to send your children there that you feel it prudent to arm them first?

Detroit is what Democrats do. The last Republican elected mayor of Detroit took office during the Eisenhower administration. The decay of Detroit is not the inevitable outcome of the decline of the automotive industry: The automotive industry is thriving in the United States — but not in Detroit. It isn’t white flight: The black middle class has left Detroit as fast as it can. The model of Detroit politics is startlingly familiar in its fundamentals, distinguished only by its degree of advancement: Advance the interests of public-sector unions and politically connected business cronies, expand the relative size of the public sector remorselessly — and when opposed, cry “Racism!” When people vote with their feet, cry “Racism!” When the budget just won’t balance, cry “Racism!” Never mind that the current mayor of Detroit is the first non–African American to hold that job since the 1970s, or that, as one Detroit News columnist put it, “black nationalism . . . is now the dominant ideology of the [city] council” — somewhere, there must be a somebody else to blame, preferably: aged, portly, white, male, and Republican. No less a fool than Ed Schultz blamed the straits of this exemplar of Democratic single-party rule on “a lot of Republican policies.” Melissa Harris-Perry, “America’s leading public intellectual,” blames Detroit’s problems on its conservatism and small government, oblivious to the fact that Detroit maintains twice as many city employees per resident as do larger cities such as Fort Worth and Indianapolis, and three times as many as liberal San Jose.

The result of all that municipal “investment”? For children newborn through age 18, Detroit sees 120 deaths per 100,000 each year — a rate 26 percent higher than second-place child-killer Philadelphia. That’s nearly two and a half times the rate in Los Angeles, which isn’t exactly a leafy suburban paradise. Every time our progressive friends come to us with another idea for transferring wealth from the productive economy to them and their friends, they scold us: “Think of the children!” But those who resist their efforts to do to the country at large what they have done to Detroit are thinking of the children.

There used to be a popular bumper sticker reading, “War Is Not Healthy for Children and Other Living Things.” War is hell, Detroit merely hellish. The difference is, we don’t send children off to war.

— Kevin D. Williamson is roving reporter for National Review.

Imperialism

We are taking another field trip to 4th grade today.

Remember the last time we visited real history?  We were studying the Industrial Revolution and unions.  (See previous 4th grade history post.)

Now that industrialization has happened, we are moving on to Imperialism.  This is the period in history when world powers set out to conquer unclaimed lands for their own.

This time in history is what currently drives our president's thinking.

See, when Imperial England took over India and parts of Africa, some people didn't like it.  They are anti-colonials.  They think that any country (like England) who tried to colonize other countries (like Kenya) is inherently bad, took advantage of the indigenous people and should not have any wealth as a result of this improper colonization.

Obama's father was an anti-colonialist.  He disliked England and the white people who he believes unfairly colonized in Africa.

Interestingly, Obama's half brother disagrees.  He believes that England helped countries like his.

I digress.

So, as we are studying today in history, England, France and Germany were in a drive to create overseas empires.

Our history book is also kinda trying to lump America in there as an Imperial nation.  But, we weren't an Imperial nation and we never have been.  We were one of the colonies!

As those Western European super powers set out, intent on world domination, the US was engaged in the development of small kitchen appliances.  We were never Imperial.

The history book goes on to describe the period of American ingenuity that ensued during the Imperialist time.

They were out there conquering, we were here making toasters and mixers and, well, small kitchen appliances.

Americans have benefited first in the fields from our unprecedented ingenuity and then in the kitchen and the home.  Europeans still can't afford refrigerators that are bigger than a dorm fridge.  Most don't have dishwashers or clothes dryers.  Socialism prevents them from having all of these things.

Can you even imagine not having those things?

When people tell you that we are an Imperial nation, tell them we aren't.  Because we aren't and never have been.

We are a country of industry, ingenuity and the greatest prosperity and standard of living the world has ever known.

And, small kitchen appliances.

Poo on the puppy bowl

Why is Michelle Obama ruining the puppy bowl?

I feel like I am going to throw up my Doritos.

Is nothing sacred?  Doesn't she have anything better to do?  Why does she have to be on the puppy bowl?

Seriously!

That damn pen

I guess that it is my optimistic nature, but I keep having these glimpses of hope.  Recently, it has seemed as though people might be starting to understand that Obama is a liar and that he is wrecking the country.  I was starting to get excited about 2014.

Then, he came out with that whole, "I have a pen and a phone" and I will do whatever I want speech.

It is upsetting that he doesn't even feel compelled at all to conceal his lawlessness.  He will put it out there in the open for anyone to see.

But the darn thing must have run out of ink because, inexplicably, that pen is incapable of signing the permit for the Keystone pipeline.  I understand that the permit is buried under glossy invitations to MTV parties, speeches, and autographed pictures of Beyonce on the president's desk.  But, find it and sign it.

A state department report was just released which determined that the pipeline will have no major impact on the environment.  Meanwhile, thousands of men and women who need work are waiting, struggling to keep food on the table while Obama rubs his shiny pen on his sleeve.

Open the pipeline and allow the explosion of American ingenuity to be released.  Weren't you screaming, "no war for oil!"  When Bush was in office?  Well, let us be energy independent now.

It won't bother you at all, it won't hurt you one bit.  You won't even notice it.

But, the rest of us will, in our wallets.