So wait... just which one is President again??

Last week, Obama held a press conference, asked Bill Clinton to help him out and then ditched him at the podium to go to a party.

Sounds like some sort of bad sitcom. I heard this and I swear I started channeling Pelosi - "Are you serious?? Are YOU serious??". He never ceases to shock me. I know he has no class and I know he isn't even remotely prepared to handle the job of the Presidency, but he just lowers that bar on an almost daily basis.

And what's even more flabbergasting is the number of liberal talking-heads that think the move was genius. Can you imagine the reaction they would have had if Bush had held a press conference with his Dad and turned things over to him to go to a golf game or whatever. They'd be calling for his head.

So I get that Obama has both sides mad at him and he freaks out because he can't handle it, so he figures they will listen to Clinton and drags him into the mix. This is a bad move. People from both sides are going to be mad at you - it's just apart of the job. But what's also apart of the job is taking the lead, communicating with people and trying to compromise. It's apart of being a leader - you take the good with the bad. If everyone's mad at you, you do your best to smooth things out and most likely, they will respect you for having the guts to do so. But Obama chose another path and dragged Clinton into it. They stand at that podium and it reminds me of a 3rd grade group presentation, where you have to stand up in front of the room with your friends for support because you are scared. So they appease the press for a little bit because Obama says he's turning things over to Clinton because he has a party to go to and his wife is waiting. Things go from bad to worse.

I can't believe the number of things he does that I'd get fired for if I did them at my job. My boss would never stop screaming (after she got over the shock first) if I plunked someone down in my office and told them to take over things because I was late for a party. But that wouldn't happen, because I have more tact than that.

I'm sure he has a very active social life with parties and golf games and guzzling the gas by traveling on Air Force One, but his job should be his main priority. And press conferences are apart of that job. Parties can wait and people will understand. Don't place someone else to stand in for you, especially behind the Presidential Seal. Clinton is no longer President (although he was quite thrilled or appeared to be enjoying it - maybe because this action proves Hilary right that Obama can't handle the job) and should not be placed in that position.

This type of action IS NOT the mark of a leader. It's classless and tactless. It shows that this job is not a priority for him and emphasises his arrogance in that he believes his personal life is more important than his professional life.



"But...uh...you are in good hands." Disgraceful.

A little hard work never killed anyone (except maybe a few liberals...)

 One of my fellow teachers announced today that she has decided to be a Republican because "how easy would life be to go around believing all you need is hard work to succeed"?

 And how did she get where she is - luck? I know that I'm where I am today by my own merit and effort. And I realize some luck comes into play, but it's mostly 99% hard work and 1% luck. Sometimes you even make your own luck. Sometimes you are only in the "right place, right time" because you placed yourself there in the first place.

I have worked hard for everything I have. And yes, I'll be the first to admit that sometimes positive things in my life have fallen right into my lap, but have ultimately occurred because my hard work had placed me in the right place/right time for those "lucky" things to happen to me. I don't really believe in the type of luck brought to you by fairies in the night.

People tell me how "lucky" I was to have saved up money to pay for my surgery back in April. Luck had nothing to do with that. I saved that money and worked hard to do so.

And any successful person is the same way - talk show hosts, business owners, bloggers, athletes, singers...  They put everything into their work and stay completely focused on it. And they make their own luck. (And don't complain if they don't have any)

If you aren't where you want to be in life, then most likely that's because of you and your choices in life. Not luck (or lack thereof).

Insanity at the Restore the Sanity Rally

Seems Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert had their "political" rally today. No one can tell if it was legit or a joke (probably more of a joke, considering it involved those two).

But some have used it as a rallying cry against Tea Partiers. "Take THAT, Tea Baggers!", "It's soo refreshing that they can ACTAULLY spell and have teeth!!" and other colorful phrases have popped up on my Facebook Friends' Feed. Someone posted pictures of people at the rally with signs that read:

And to all of them, I'd like to say that no one has proposed eliminating taxes all together. I know taxes are part of being an adult, cheeky guy on the left, but when 50% of the people don't pay taxes and the top income earners are paying over 60% of the taxes, we have a problem. Especially when the jobs aren't coming from that bottom 50%. Tax the upper income earners (the business owners) more and they'll pass it down to their customers. They'll also be able to hire less, creating less jobs.

And I don't care if Obama claims that he'll only tax those making over $150,000. Guess what happens when he doesn't have enough money for his schemes and there are no "rich" people left? He'll go after those making less than $150,000. And no, this isn't a scare tactic. I've said it before and I'll say it again - open that door and allow the government to take money from one person and you have allowed them to take from EVERYONE. Don't you get it? It doesn't matter if you make $150,000 or $25,000 - there's always going to be someone who needs your money more than you do, according to the government and they are going to take it from you.

On that note, what is mine is mine and no one is going to take it from me. Call me selfish, call me whatever names you want. I agree with the quote from the character Hank Reardon from Atlas Shrugged: "Because it's MINE. Do you understand the word?". It's none of the government's business if I earn $10,000 or $100,000. And they have no right to take more money from me just because I "can afford it" just because I have a savings account or 401K., I donate to whom I want when I want and the government isn't going to force me to donate my money to the homeless over a cause that I deem important. Whether I want to spend all my money on gumballs or store it all in the bank is my business (as long as I don't ask others to bail me out). Ask me to help you out and I probably will. Force me against my will to help someone that will not help themselves and I'll get an iron grip on that money. I think I've earned the right to be selfish with my money - what part of mine don't you understand?

Besides, I'm willing to bet that those three pictured don't pay taxes in the first place.

Is the Media Adding Gasoline to the Anti-Muslim/Anti-immigrant "Fire"?

So nice to see so many stories in the media on and after 09/11 about how anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant we are as a nation.

Caught two such articles on MSN.com this morning:

"Muslims face growing bias in the workplace"    and    "Americans' suspicions frustrate Muslims"

and it made me wonder if the media is to blame for perpetuating this myth that America is an anti-Muslim/ anti-immigrant nation?

Now I don't doubt some bias and discrimination happens to them, but somehow I don't think it occurs as wide-scale as they would like us to believe. So this "anti-Muslim" attitude the media attributes to the opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque and the one yahoo down in Florida with a 50 member church. Can you REALLY use those two examples to charge the United States as a whole with an anti-Muslim sentiment? NO!

First, the Mosque at Ground Zero - I don't care if people wanted to build a Mc Donald's there; I'd still be offended and think it didn't belong. The only things that should be built there are the two towers again and a memorial for the victims. Nothing else. No nightclubs, no churches, no restaurants - NOTHING ELSE.

And secondly, the creepy mustached dude from Florida, threatening to burn the Quran - the media created that freak show. All the needed to do was ignore his nonsense and it would have gone away, but they had to give him attention and give it to him again, so his story blew up on the national stage. There was no reason for that to get that far. The media blew it up more than they needed to because they hoped to link him with Tea Partiers.

As for the media claiming "anti-immigrant feelings are on the rise" - the majority of us ARE immigrants ourselves, children of immigrants or (great) grandchildren of immigrants. Doubtful we'd be anti-ourselves or anti-family. I have yet to hear someone say "I don't like immigrants. They all need to go home and don't belong here". Now I know A LOT Of us immigrants, children of immigrants and (great) grandchildren of immigrants are anti - ILLEGAL immigration. We're not mad at the fact they are immigrants - we're mad at the fact that they chose to ignore rules that the rest of us had to follow and are getting rewarded for it. That's all. Nothing to do with race, culture, home country origin or mother tongue. It's like if I stood in line for 8 hours to get into a concert and someone cut in the front of the line. Not only did they let him in, but gave him a front row seat and a free drink. And then on top of everything, I was called names for objecting to his 5-star treatment when I bought an expensive ticket for my last-row seat and paid $10 for a sip of soda. I don't care if he's white, black, tan, orange or a woman - that's not going to change the reason why I'm mad.

Now I may be blinded by my whiteness (as my liberal friends like to say), but personally, I don't see ANY anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant sentiments, aside from what I see on the news. Again, I don't doubt it happens - as it does to ALL of us at one point or another. I just feel that the media blows it out of proportion, as they do with all things, like with "racism". It's unfortunate that for awhile now, perhaps even before I was born,  the news doesn't report the news, but chooses to perpetuate their own news.And it's sad they use those people to further their own agenda. It's even sadder that those people don't even realize it.

The media, like the Obama Administration, is working hard to pit us against one another. It's harder to hold them accountable if we're all distracted with squabbling over petty things like children and unfortunately, it's working. The media knows how to play us well and we're falling for it.

Doggone It!

Well, we complain about Obowma being too dependant on TelePromtors, but then when he goes off-script, we hear gems like this: "They talk about me like a dog".



I think he's been hanging around his loose cannon VP friend too long. Sorry, Barry, you are wrong - I LIKE dogs. They are loyal, a good judge of character and protect those they love - can't say that about you or your cronies. Now I do talk about you like a snake, but if the snake skin fits... All I see those liberals doing is slithering through Washington, hiding under rocks when we are looking for them, barring their fangs and spewing venom.

I like what the Republican Strategist said in this article: "The president thinks he's been treated like a dog by Republicans and Congress. He should probably stop treating them like a fire hydrant".

But I have a problem with his "scripted words" as well - "Building our economy on a new foundation" just rings of communism to me. Tearing down our old economy, saying it doesn't work and using it as an excuse to shove a whole new structure in there. Any economist will tell you that you can't "strengthen the middle class" by destroying the upper class. And "taking on some powerful interests" - gotta love his code words. He never comes out and says it directly, but everyone knows who he's talking about. He indicates those "powerful interests" aren't happy with him just because they've been in power for a long time and they don't want him challenging them. "They aren't always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That's not in my prepared remarks, it's just - but it's true". Gawd, is every "speech" going to be about how he's getting picked on??  I'd almost rather he DID play golf all the time... I'm sick of his whining. And you don't have no right to regulate Wall Street. "They aren't happy about it, but it was the right thing to do" - isn't that what he said about Obamacare? And did he really say "ending tax payer bailouts for Bush... er... for Wall Street once and for all"?

By the way, it was less than a week ago that Obama said he wanted to renew the Bush Tax Cuts, but it seems that wasn't exactly true....

Just Some Thoughts...

So all of this fuss about Obama's "true" religion is a complete waste of time. I don't care if the man worships the moldy piece of cheese in his fridge. However, I DO care if he lies about it and uses his stance to punish those who are lactose-intolerant. And I don't care about his personal views about the Ground Zero Mosque; he has no right to butt in about it. By backing it, or at least expressing support of it, he only further polarizes the issue.

And I don't care just how many times the President chooses to go on vacation, unless he uses our tax dollars to do so. Better for him to go off to Camp David or something than bowing to foreign leaders and embarrassing us in other countries. I know the man is an utter disaster, but we have to pick out battles.

Chris Matthews said what???

Guess Chris Matthews isn't getting "tingles up his leg" anymore from the President...  'Bout time this was said by a member of the "Professional Left". But he's right... and I can't believe I'm saying that about Chris Matthews - it seems wrong somehow. I seriously thought I must have fallen over and died to hear those words coming out of his mouth.(And for the record, I kinda felt the same way with the "thrill up the leg" comment... although a different kind of disbelief for that one)

But Obama seriously has a problem with those TelePromptors. It's beyond an addiction now. Does he REALLY use those to talk to people in his office? C'mon now... that CAN'T be true.... If a right-wing talk show host said that, I'd think he was joking. And at least the President put the TelePromptor in front of him, so his head didn't bounce side to side, like he was watching a tennis match this time...

So Chris Matthews, way to go, buddy! I first clicked on the video out of morbid curiosity, but I was floored by those comments. I seriously hit the "replay" button 5 more times after watching it the first time. Wish I could have heard those comments from the other people on the show. Wow... just wow...

Obama's Two Speeches

Gotta love Boortz calling Obama a "narcissistic boob". Much cuter than "arrogant SOB".

Anyways, so Obama gave two speeches in the last couple of days - one on the economy and one on Iraq.

First the one on Iraq:
Great, so he's announcing he's pulling the troops out of Iraq. Dumb move to a) announce it out loud where enemies might hear and take advantage and b) walk away before the job was finished. But we've known he's intended to do this for awhile and both dumb move related arguments have been hashed and rehashed.

But my problem is what else he said in his speech. He indicated that now we can concentrate on the economy, rather than the war:

"To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jump-start industries that create jobs and end our dependence on foreign oil.”

Now that scares me. "We MUST GIVE all our children the education they deserve"??? That's a HUGE red flag for me. Not only because he's sounding like FDR, but that phrase makes me think of Universal Healthcare for schools. I don't think he's talking just public elementary, middle and high schools here. But we knew that all along, didn't we? Yes, let's give education to everyone and lower the accomplishment of those that earned it.

And ditto with the other part of that sentence: "We must give... all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy". Since when have you ever been given a skill? All of my skills I either learned or earned. Given, my ass. But the big thing to read in that sentence is: UNIONS. It's the only way they can distribute skills to the workers and keep a tight leash on them. Think about it - if the government "gives" you a skill, then they can tell you where to work, how long and for how much. Don't give away your freedom so easily - go out and build your own skills. And btw, "global economy" doesn't sit well with me either. I hear that and I think Globalization. I think something like the Euro, only combining currency from Canada, Mexico and the United States.

But again, nothing new.

His last line sent chills through me and echoed of Atlas Shrugged:

"We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs."

Which assembly lines? Government Motors?  Won't have much innovation if you keep taking it from the inventors and entrepreneurs and distributing their wealth.

Second speech on the economy:

Okay, well first things first... I wonder what was up with him tapping the mike asking if the reporters could hear him - TWICE in the first minute of the speech. I heard no sound problem at my end. As one person in the comments asked, "Did he get lost?".

"It took a decade to dig the hole we are in". Ha... sounds like a not-so-subtle paraphrasing of "I inherited this mess". Not that he's exactly wrong on that (unfortunately). It's probably taken many decades to dig the hole we are in - probably before I was born, in fact. But that doesn't change the fact that Obama just dug a little faster than everyone else.

(And on a totally insensitive, immature and unrelated note - I'm glad he actually has notecards to read off this time, but can he pick either notecards OR telepromptors? I mean, every 3 seconds, his head is bobbing side to side or looking down. Right side, look down, left side, look down... Geez, I'm getting kind of sea sick over here, not to mention distracted and I'm not a minute and a half into the speech yet... )

Ok..."That's why my administration has pushed forward to repair the damage done to the middle class over the last decade".  So....#1 just rehashing the same line as before... yeah, yeah...we've heard it before and #2 Doesn't the "last decade" INCLUDE your administration? Just sayin'...

Whoa, whoa... wait. Did he just say "EXTENDING the middle class tax cuts"??? But I thought that's what got us into this mess in the first place... I thought they only helped the "wealthy"?? Does anyone else remember Reid and other democrats whining about that not  too long ago??

"Congress' 1st job should be making it easier for small business to grow and hire"??? Didn't ya burn the bridge on that one when you passed Obamacare? And when you passed the Wall Street Reform? And when you tax people (read: small business owners) earning more than $250,000? And what you attempted to do with the Card Check bill?

"Unfortunately, this bill {referring to the jobs bill} has been languishing in the Senate for months, held up by a partisan minority that won't even allow it to go to a vote"

Hmm, wonder who he could be talking about here?? Can't imagine... Some evil group of people that don't want small businesses to expand or want to allow them to cut capital gains taxes for them, which they might not pay anyways... "That makes no sense", he says. Those meanie Republicans don't want us spending money we don't have. "This bill is fully paid for." Oh yeah? Like the Obamacare bill and all of the others? Paid for by what? Money from your stash?? "It will not add to the deficit". I hear that and think of a good title for a kid's book - 'It will not add to the deficit' and other lies my government told me. Is this man even capable of telling the truth??

OMG! I LOVE this one:
"There is no reason to block it besides pure partisan politics"
Really now? No other reason? Just like there's no other reason to disagree with Obama besides racism. Nice logic. No pork that you guys stuffed in there to discover just how painful a fire ant's bite is or why a fly is attracted to trash. WSJ claims that this "paid for" jobs bill will cost $80 billion. How has $80 billion just lying around somewhere? And I guess we should be asking where he got it, too. Who knows what other goodies are hiding inside?

He says small businesses don't have time for political games (then stop playing them, Mr. President). And even went on to say that he saw a story that small businesses were putting a hold on hiring and expanding, just to wait for this bill to go through. Um... wrong bill. I'd wager that they are putting hiring and expanding on hold due to another bill... Obamacare.

"Holding this bill hostage" hahaha wow... strong language. Wait, I think I'm beginning to understand - I think someone mixed up these speeches. The first one, supposedly about Iraq, was really about the economy and this second one, supposedly about the economy, was about demonizing and attacking people against his agenda. Almost sounds like a campaign speech for his jobs bill.

"It's got to get done"... "A full scale attack". Oops, sounds like they are going to ram it through again... Geez, I love politics and everything, but I am SO sick of hearing this windbag speak. Same speech each time, just modifies it a little. You'd almost think he didn't need the telepromptors anymore. After all, I think the rest of us have gotten his speech patterns down:

"Remember, this mess was here when I got here. We're going to have to break a few eggs to bake a cake, so we need to spend to get out of this mess. But don't worry, it's all been paid for. Those that tell you otherwise are just trying to make my job as President harder by blocking my bills for no other reason except to be mean. I don't play these type of games, but they are forcing me to. It's never my fault; always someone else's. So I don't know why these people are blaming me - they SHOULD be thanking me! We just need to work together to get things done, but don't expect me to work with you. I'm the President - you should be working with ME. After all, it's all about me and my accomplishments, not yours or the United States'. Thank you."

Maybe I should go into Presidental speech writing... haha

Obama and Arizona's Immigration Law

H/t to Gateway Pundit

“What we can’t do is demagogue the issue. And what we can’t do is allow a patchwork of 50 different states or cities or localities, where anyone who wants to make a name for themselves suddenly say I’m gonna be anti-immigrant and I’m gonna see if we can solve the problem ourselves.”

First of all, Obama, the States were originally set up to govern themselves. Federal government came secondary to state government, but you should know that since you are a Constitutional Scholar, right?

Secondly, you arrogant SOB, it's about protecting ourselves not "trying to make a name for ourselves" that this Arizona law was passed. No one is "Anti-immigrant" just because they want people to come into this country LEGALLY.

I personally laugh heartily whenever a liberal calls me "anti-immigrant". Oh yeah? My mom's an immigrant, as was my Grandmother and Aunt on her side. As was her grandparents and uncles on her father's side. And guess what? They all came in LEGALLY. I think the world of immigrants that come to this country legally and work hard. It's not fair to people like them to wait for citizenship for 7-8 years, while others sneak in the country illegally and get freebies. Heck, it's not fair to us that were born here.

And P.S., Obama, we the states will continue to pass our own laws to do jobs that you refuse to do. One by one, we will pass laws to knock out illegal immigration if we have to and one by one, we will pass laws to pull the plug on your Obamacare.We WILL solve the problems as long as you turn a blind eye to them. Do the job you were elected to do and we wouldn't have to pass laws like this.

The Mosque at Ground Zero

This issue has rubbed me the wrong way since it first came up and now today, a panel has approved for it to be built, apparently against popular opinion.

Personally, I agree with the opposition - it's an insult to all Americans, especially those that lost their lives in the attack or to family members who lost someone. And this PC gobbledygook about "fostering relations between Americans and Muslims" is pure BS. If they really believed all of that hot air that comes out of their mouths, then they wouldn't feel the need to call people "racist" or "bigot" when they oppose something like this. You know something stinks when someone can only call you names and not defend their position.

Seriously, whenever you raise your voice and ask just why this group wants to build a mosque on Ground Zero, instead of building a memorial or something to those that lost their lives, and what are their reasons for it, they scream "Racism!". Can't even talk with people any more... Ask someone a question to get information and you get called names.

(Wouldn't that be a hoot to turn it around for once and just have a hissy fit when a liberal asks how you are? Scream "racism!" and run away. They'd think you lost your mind...)

Ok, but back to the situation at hand. Seriously - why would they want to build a mosque on Ground Zero? Talk show hosts, like Boortz, claim it's because Muslims build mosques on places they have "conquered". Now I've tried to look that up and can't find it anywhere except on right-wing blogs. Anyone know if there's any truth to that?

I feel the liberals are all in favor for this due to being PC and not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings - nothing more. (Much like the "profiling" in Arizona) It's not about human rights or religious rights. It's the "everybody's equal and we can't keep score during a kids' baseball game because someone's feelings might be hurt" mentality.

Saw a great quote in a WSJ op-ed piece:

"many believe that Ground Zero should be reserved for memorials to the event itself and to its victims. They do not understand why of all possible locations in the city, Cordoba House must be sited so near to there"

Totally agree. Explain to me in a rational, adult manner why this Cordoba House should be built at Ground Zero instead of a memorial and I'll be willing to listen. Help us understand. Call me names as your "explanation" and I'll refuse to listen.

And the op-ed piece continues, with another great point:

"Many New Yorkers and Americans will conclude that the radical interpretation of Cordoba House's purpose is correct. That belief will undermine what you have articulated to be Cordoba House's core mission. Rather than furthering cross-cultural and interfaith understanding, a Cordoba House located near Ground Zero would undermine them. Rather that serving as a bridge between Muslim and non-Muslim peoples, it would function as a divide.”

You claim this center's purpose is to strengthen Muslim and American relations. But it's not helping your cause by ignoring what people want, saying this is the way things are going to be and insulting me because I disagree. That's going to hurt relations, not help them.

Is it just me or is the strategy of the Cordoba House (shoving things through against popular opinion and calling the opposition names) something straight out of the Obama play book? Is this really the way things are going to be from now on in this regime?

Catering to the Lowest Common Denominator: The Slow Reading Movement

When I was in school, I remember how much emphasis the teachers placed on speed reading. We were constantly being timed or using tips and tricks to improve our reading times. I'm an avid (and 'rabid') reader - there is nothing I enjoy more than to curl up with a good book, so my reading speed is naturally fast just due to practice. I never liked how teachers were so fixed on speed-reading. I think one should read at a pace that is comfortable to them. Granted, when it comes to second language learning, I can see how you would want to increase your reading speed in order to become more fluent (or at least sound that way). That also just requires practice of reading over and over and over again. No tips, no tricks, no timers - just practice. And I really disagree that speed readers are more intelligent than other readers. If anything, I think that speed readers attained their speed through practice of reading books, magazines, newspapers and/or whatever they could get their hands on and therefore introduced themselves to new ideas. THAT is what adds to a person's intelligence; the speed reading is just a side effect and not really related at all.

As much as I disliked teachers preaching about speed reading, I was horrified to learn this week about the Slow Reading movement. (Wish I was kidding) Seems society and teachers have done a 180 and now believe the way to go is Slow Reading. Apparently the premise is that we are so focused on doing things fast, that we miss the important things in life. And I don't disagree with that. There is a time and place to stop and smell the roses, but in the real world, if you do that all the time, you will be left behind. For instance, for dinner choices - home cooked is a much better option than fast food (and tastier/healthier too). But taking your time on a project for work, not such a good idea.

And the same for this "slow reading" stuff - sure, slow down for technical books, non-fiction science, computer books what have you. They are very dense with information should be read at a slower pace than a fiction novel. But to snail read through a light-hearted fiction novella is rubbish.

In the Seattle Times, the executive humanities editor at Havard says there's a world-wide reading crisis (I agree there) and thinks there should be a "revolution in reading". Yes, encourage people to read more. Don't encourage them to read slowly.


For the most part, I think this whole slow reading nonsense is nothing more than pandering to the lowest level so they don't get their feelings hurt. It's some sort of extension of "everyone's a winner/let's make everyone feel good" rubbish that they are spreading through schools now. Or the "Did I read the bill? I'm a Senator - I don't have time for that" attitude in Congress. I don't care if the students read fast or slow, just as long as they read, but don't you dare make a person feel bad about being a speed reader.

In the Newsweek article, there were some gems of quotes:

"But mostly the “movement” is just a bunch of authors, schoolteachers, and college professors who think that just maybe we’re all reading too much too fast and that instead we should think more highly of those who take their time with a book or an article."

So yes... now reading 50+ books in a year is no longer an accomplishment. And pretty soon, they'll be telling us to think highly of people who don't read books at all. We all just need to slow down, enjoy ourselves and melt all of those fast-moving neurons while we watch American Idol. I'm being sarcastic (mostly) and I get what they are saying about taking your time and not treating reading like a race, but the article goes on...

"Instead, Newkirk says, schools should encourage old-fashioned exercises such as reading aloud and memorization. He says that when he uses these exercises in his college-level classes, his students thank him and tell him that it helps them concentrate, unlike the surfing they do online."

'Reading aloud' in college? Are you kidding me? I had a professor who did that and I was bored to tears. College kids know how to read already (I hope)! Helps them concentrate, my foot.

Then an author of a book about slow reading  (does that seem odd to anyone else? An author promoting slow reading...? Yeah, encourage people to read less and slower and they won't be buying as many of your books... Or maybe he only has the one book and he doesn't care. I don't know...), John Miedema says:

"Slow reading is about bringing more of the person to bear on the book."

Huh? What kind of BS is that? What does that even mean exactly - relating more to the book by reading slower? Sounds pretentious to me...

And then the author admits there isn't any scientific backing to his idea.

"When you bring more of the person to bear on the book -or maybe more of the book to bear on a person in a sense - you develop a more intimate and rich relationship with the information that builds richer memories and richer intelligence."

Believe me, I have a relationship with my books and the information in them. I collect books like some women collect shoes. They overflow my bookshelf, camp out on my bedside table and accompany me to work. And the ones I have, I usually read multiple times. I have rich, fond memories of books I read when I first started to read and many, many more since then. Don't tell me that I don't properly enjoy books because I'm a speed reader. I may read fast, but I comprehend what I read too. It's comfortable to me - slow reading is not and it is distracting. And to claim that it builds a "richer intelligence" after you admitted that there's no scientific evidence to support your idea is poppycock. Reading alone builds intelligence; don't try and promote your idea with silly claims that have no basis.

The author of the article concludes that he's going to start "slow reading" and the worst thing he can think of happening from doing so, "is racking up a few overdue fines at the library". And this after admitting that he placed "in the middle of the pack" in a speed reading test. Sounds like speed reading envy to me.

And another load of BS related to reading: "Liberals Read More Books than Conservatives". Is that why books by conservative authors are always in the top of reading lists (Amazon, New York Times Bestseller)? Or how about books that recommended by Glenn Beck are on back-order by Amazon for months? And why did a certain 50-year-old, 1000+ page book (Atlas Shrugged) suddenly jump to the top of reading lists, sell-out in bookstores around the country and cause libraries to order more copies? Yeah, no liberal I know read any of those... Publications like Newsweek and liberal newspapers are going bankrupt due to lack of readership... Hmmm... just who reads more than whom?

Financial Reform and Scott Brown

I was disappointed to hear Scott Brown sided with them on this financial reform. Just goes to show that not only to we need to vote out the lazy "you-don't-actually-expect-us-to-read-the-bill-do-you?" and "let's spend more to get out of debt" types, but we need REAL conservatives. Those that will cut spending or cut back on government. Granted, Scott Brown may have been better than the alternative, but we need to stop voting for the lesser of two evils. We need to get some people in Washington that actually want to represent us first ahead of their career.

Back to the financial reform - no doubt we need it, but government isn't the way to do it. They have no business regulating Wall Street, no matter how harmless it may seem. This bill was co-authored by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. If those two names don't send up alarm bells, I'm not sure what will. Those two are always up to something and it's never pretty. This Pelosi/Reid/Obama/Frank/Dodd crowd is only after one thing and it's not hope, change or helping anyone out. It's usually about power and how they can it away from us. And with swine like Frank & Dodd crafting a bill, you can almost be sure it'll come with a nice heaping side of pork.

Pork like this little tidbit, which I have no idea of how it pertains to "financial reform":

"Section 342 of the bill calls for an "Office of Minority and Women Inclusion" to be established in each of 29 federal bureaus and offices."

Seems like it calls for a sort of affirmative action for jobs? It even goes further:

"The regulations appear to go beyond ensuring that discrimination in hiring decisions does not occur. Instead, it requires assurance of "fair inclusion." Furchtgott-Roth says it will pressure companies to find and hire minorities even if one hasn't applied for a specific job."

"FIND minorities even if one hasn't applied for a specific job"??? WTF? So 30 qualified people apply for a job and it just so happens that none of the are classified as a minority. So that means the company will turn away all of the candidates that applied, leave the job open and go out to find a random minority, just to fill a spot?

And even though as a woman, I'm apparently included into this whole deal, but I want a job that I'm qualified for - not because I was the first woman the hiring manager ran into at the supermarket. How insulting is that?! And what the hell does this have to do with financial reform?

Oh I get it now - this affirmative action rule isn't for all companies, it's just for federal offices and other financial-related companies that do business with them. That includes:

"29 federal agencies and all financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants, and providers of legal services who do business with them."

And let's not forget those firms' sub-contractors as well - "including office-cleaning crews, paper-shredding vendors, office-party catering firms -- if they wish to do business with the government."

Well, okay, so I stand corrected. That's kind-of sort-of financially related in a Seven Degrees of Separation sort-of way... No idea of how that's supposed to help the financial institutions, other than making them go bankrupt. But if you think about it, I guess it could be considered "reform", although it's certainly not the good kind...

I know I don't want to do business with a company who hires based on race or gender, rather than based on qualifications. Certainly don't want someone handling my money like that. Shameful that the government is forcing them to and probably only so they can keep saying how many jobs they've "created or saved".

If the NAACP wants to stop racism, they should focus their attention at this bill, instead of wasting their time making up stuff about the Tea Parties.

So Sue Me

So the Federal Government actually sued Arizona today. I honestly thought it was an empty threat - I didn't think they'd actually do it. Their stupidity never ceases to astound me.

This lawsuit reminds me of the type when people sue McDonalds for making them fat. The United States just sued itself for enforcing a law that it refuses to uphold. Confused yet? Yeah, me too. I never saw this episode of The Twilight Zone before. We must have really hit our head hard when we fell down that rabbit hole. Geez... is there going to be a day where I don't wake up with a confused face, saying "WTF? Is there something in the water up in Washington? How are they competent enough to dress themselves in the morning"?

Oh, but the best part about this lawsuit is that the government didn't sue because of discrimination or racism or profiling like they were all screaming about earlier. Oh no, they are suing Arizona because their immigration law, according to the New York Post, "usurps federal authority". Excuse me, what? Did I really hear that correctly? You are kidding, right?

So the Federal government won't do the job it's supposed to do by protecting our borders and you know, actually making illegal immigration illegal.So Arizona steps up and passes a redundant law and the US sues them for "usurping federal authority"? It sounds like the script to a really bad movie. Heck, that wouldn't even be believable in a movie script...  It just blows my mind. I'm at a loss for words.

I do like this:

"State Sen. Russell Pearce, the principal sponsor of the bill co-sponsored by dozens of fellow Republican legislators, denounced the lawsuit as "absolute insult to the rule of law" as well as to Arizona and its residents."

Thank you, thank you, thank you, State Sen. Russell Pearce. And let me add, it's an insult to the residents of the rest of the US too. (At least, the ones of us that HAVEN'T lost our minds).

This lawsuit makes the federal government sound like a bunch of spoiled, whiny kids - "You took away my authority, so I'm gonna sue you". And who is going to pay the legal fees? Us, the Taxpayers, no doubt. Great, more money that we can't afford to spend. I personally think the lawyers and people in the government who are behind this lawsuit should pay out of pocket. No donations, no taxes, no gifts. You want to waste our time and money by suing yourself, go ahead. But do it on your own time and with your own money. I hope the judge in this case is wise enough to throw it out.


And have I mentioned how much I love Gov. Brewer? I wish Sonny, the Governor of GA, was more like her. I wish more Governors were like her. Look at this quote from her that I found on CNN.com:

""Today's filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds," Brewer said in a statement. "These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.""

Another 'Thank you, thank you, thank you'! Another person in government who actually gets it! Good for her!

And you just gotta love this! More language from the brief:

"[its] mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives."

"Will conflict with and undermine the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities"??? What "careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities"??? The Federal Government has NO immigration enforcement priorities (except maybe amnesty...and yeah I can see the Arizona law being in conflict with that 'careful balance'). What a load of crap. Hope those lawyers and politicians are wearing knee-high boots to wade through that.

And B.S. Alert:

"The law also has 'the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.'"

Obviously the lawyers suing Arizona haven't read the law either.

Wow, for being speechless about this, I could certainly go all night. We can be puzzled by this and scratch our heads at it. We can get angry and get frustrated at the government for this. We can joke about it and poke fun at the government, but the bottom line is that things like this are currently and will ultimately tear our nation apart. I'm afraid at what consequences this holds  for us. It seems laughably absurd for the United States to sue itself, but it's no laughing matter that we are headed down the road to separation.

And on a final note - those lawyers and politicians who think that this Arizona law is unconstitutional... Read Article IV- The States, Section 4:

"Section 4 - Republican government


The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."


So wouldn't you say failure (and refusal) of the Federal Government to protect one of its states against invasion and violence is unconstitutional? Maybe it'd be time better spent to sue itself for breech of contract. That's a lawsuit I can get behind.

For further blog reading:

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/07/feds-sue-arizona-complaint-here.html
http://selfevidenttruths-euripides.blogspot.com/2010/07/feds-file-suit-to-stop-arizona.html
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/07/obama-administration-sues-arizona/

Politically Incorrect Monday

RT @talkmaster

Happy 4th of July!

In remembrance of the celebration of our independence and in-between all of the hot dogs and fireworks, I sat back and reflected on what this country means to me, and lamented on the direction it is heading.

Everyone is celebrating today, but are they really celebrating independence? Do the people who want health care for everyone really honor independence? How about the people who think the government should take over and nationalize everything - do they respect independence? And the people who want to 'fundamentally transform' this country - do they really want independence? I think a big group of people out there, waving their flags and watching fireworks doesn't really know the meaning of the word and that's sad.

Here's a refresher from http://www.dictionary.com/:

"in·de·pend·ence   /ˌɪndɪˈpɛndəns/ Show Spelled[in-di-pen-duhns]

–noun


1. Also, independency. the state or quality of being independent.

2. freedom from the control, influence, support, aid, or the like, of others."

And unfortunately, a third definition, which is sadly (and ironically) listed as archaic:

"3. Archaic Sufficient income for comfortable self-support; a competence."


Some of us were lucky enough to be born here. Others of us worked hard enough to come here legally and adopt this country as their own. No matter how we got here, we are living in the best country on Earth. If you want something and are willing to work hard enough to get it, you can. The land of opportunity. The land of dreams.


Our ancestors and the Founding Fathers believed in this country so much that they risked their lives for it. If you haven't watched the HBO mini-series about John Adams, you need to watch it. It gives an insight of not only John Adams, but other Founding Fathers and the birth of our country. The king wrote a letter saying they were committing treason by wanting independence from England and they would be killed as traitors. They looked at one another and agreed to do it anyway, fully knowing what the consequences of their actions might be. That spirit is rare these days.

They passed down this great country to us and entrusted us to guard it, just as they did. Perhaps with not the same life-and-death situation, but definitely with the same spirit. But we relaxed and put too much displaced trust into the government. We fell to sleep at the wheel. We have not be vigilant as we needed. The situation we are now in did not happen overnight. If we look back in history, we can see shadows of this nightmare forming back with FDR and the New Deal, and perhaps even before then. Our country has been 'fundamentally transforming' for a long time and just recently we became aware.

I believe we can save our country. It's the place I and so many others call home. It's the place where my ancestors gave up everything to move to so they and their descendants could have a chance at a better life. I'm not giving up yet. It's our turn to stand up for our country now. As Herman Cain says, "We are the Defending Fathers".

We've been doing a great job with the letter writing to our representatives, the Tea Parties, writing blogs, writing to the editors of newspapers, and tax protests. But we need to do more. More letter writing, more Tea Parties, more people writing blogs, more writing to the editors of newspapers, more tax protests. Form constitution study groups, talk with your friends (especially the more liberal leaning ones).

This I believe is one of the biggest problems we are facing. It's not that we're not loud enough or not doing enough - it's that not everyone is listening. The media and the liberal politicians have turned off the liberal voters so much that they aren't listening to our message.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."  - Abraham Lincoln

As long as we are divided and fighting about little things or calling each other names, we will never save this country. The liberal politicians know that and they are using it to their advantage. They are egging them on and trying to drive us apart. Now I know, there are those that you will never convince no matter how much you try, but even if you talk to 5 of your liberal friends and get one to listen, then that's a start.

I heard a good quote on Beck's radio program this week, which is very scary yet very true: "Socialism happens one teacher at a time". We can turn that around, however, and save this country - one person at a time. Talk to everyone you can. Not in a confrontational manner or an angry one. Just in a calm, rational way, using just the facts. Or dare one of your lifelong liberal friends to a town hall meeting or Tea Party - no one can resist a challenge.

"Not racist. Not Violent. No longer silent."

Enough of the "us vs. them". Enough of the labels. No matter what we believe, we are all still Americans. No matter who we are or where we came from or what color our skin is. We are all Americans.

And yes, there will be some who honestly believe that our country is heading in the right direction right now. They believe that the United States is too powerful and it's time to give someone else a turn. They value countries like Cuba or Venezuela over our own and believe we should be more like them. Those are the people we will never convince and for them, here is a quote from Samuel Adams:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

In other words, we won't hold it against you if you love it so much that you want to move to Venezuela or Europe. But we WILL take it personally if you try to change our country and take it away from us. This is the United States of America and we will do our best to keep it the way the Founders intended.

Shameless Plug

Fan me on Facebook!

The Overton Window and The Internet "Kill Switch"

Just started reading Beck's The Overton Window. I'm about 5 chapters (about 20 pages) in so far and I'm not kidding when I tell you that it scared the socks off me so bad. I threw the book down, told my dog that we needed to pack and run for the hills. It was quite a War of Worlds radio drama type situation.

Unfortunately, I hear that if I keep reading, that feeling will pass and it becomes more disappointing. We shall see. I'll write a review on it when I'm finished.

I love Glenn Beck, but sometimes I feel he's a bit of a conspiracy theorist. However, this news about a bill that gives Obama power to shut off the Internet in an "emergency" has me a little more than nervous.

The news of this is covered up by the oil spill and the anniversary of Michael Jackson's death, but it's moving quite rapidly through Washington. (Not to mention a few other things as well, such as the Disclose Act and Wall Street Reform)

But back to the internet "kill switch".  What are they drinking up there in Washington that they think this is a good idea? The internet is not owned by anyone and access to it is on many servers. And what kind of "emergency" does it justify giving someone this sort of power? NONE.

More of that "We're saving you from yourselves, but you are too stupid to thank us. We'll know what's in the bill after we pass it" B.S., right? I think poor President Obama's ego is sooo upset by all those nasty Tea Partiers calling him names. This like the Fairness Doctrine for the internet.

This thing is moving fast. I first heard about it last Monday and by Friday, it had been approved by the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Wonder if he plans to nationalize the ISPs next?

This issue has me appalled. I'm writing to my reps about stopping this monstrosity. Not sure what good it'll do, but not sure what else we can do.

Obama's tough talk against BP

Have you heard Obowma's latest comments on the BP oil spill? Can you believe the arrogance of this guy?

So the BP chief made some comments about the oil spill. Apparently he complained about how time consuming this whole oil situation was and how the overall impact on the environment will be minor.

King Obowma says if he was in charge of BP, this guy would be fired over his comments.

I don't doubt that for a second. Obowma fired the heads of GM when he took it over and there's no doubt in my mind that ultimately, the government intends to take over BP using this disaster as an excuse to do so. Obowma is a spoiled little brat. He just had a tantrum on Matt Lauer's TODAY program and he's going to get his way: he's going to fire this guy, just because he didn't like what he said. We are heading into very dangerous times indeed if we allow the government to fire someone in a private company just because they didn't like what they said. Don't think we are safe just because we aren't the head of a company - if it can happen to the BP chief, it can happen to us. Remember that.

Does this mean we can fire Obowma and his cronies for things that they've said and have done against the American people?

-Calling American citizens against his take-over of healthcare "right-wing domestic terrorists"
-Obowma telling us to sit down and shut up
-Giving a foreign President a standing ovation when he critizies one of our states (and wearing bracelets to support those actions)

By the way, King Obowma wants all of us to know that he was there from "day one..., talking to fishermen in the rain", even before us "talking heads were even paying attention". And he spends time talking to experts "because potentially have the best answers" (Really? James Cameron, the director of Titanic has the best answer? Was David Copperfield busy or something? Come on now, even Obowma can't believe that.)

Now the really classy part of that quote:

"We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick"

Someone needs their mouth cleaned out with soap. Geez, first Biden drops the f-bomb and now Obowma has this little gem. Is it too much to ask for some class from the people who supposedly represent us?

Nice "tough" talk, Obowma. Although, I thought it was cute when he mentioned he didn't want to talk to BP, because he was "interested in actions, not words". So are we, Mr. President, so are we.

Arizona

So I know I'm a little late to this game, but I had a few thoughts on Arizona's tough "new" immigration law.

My only issue with it is that it's redundant. It's IDENTICAL like the Federal immigration law, that has been in place since 1940. Arizona only needed to be redundant because the Federal Government didn't do their job to protect Arizona's borders, so Arizona took it upon themselves. Good for them, I say.

And of course, this makes the liberals scurry around like cockroaches do when you turn on the kitchen light - "It's profiling!", "It's racist!". (You know, their usual knee-jerk broken-record responses to anything...)

OF COURSE it's profiling. What are you going to do - waste taxpayer time and money sitting at the Mexican border waiting for Irish immigrants to cross it illegally? Better bring a book because you are going to wait for a very loooong time.

We have a serious problem with people crossing the MEXICAN border illegally. This is a border we share with MEXICO. The people who are coming across it are MEXICANS. It's really not all that hard. Maybe we should sit down with the liberals and train them with a "Where's Waldo?" book. "See? We're looking for that tall man with the red and white striped hat." I'm surprised they haven't accused the "Where's Waldo?" books of profiling.

And our dear Apologist-in-Chief, Obowma, had this charming thing to say about Arizona (found on Bill O'Reilly):

"If you are a Hispanic-American in Arizona, your Great-Grandparents may have been there before Arizona was a state. But now suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out for ice cream, you are gonna be harassed. That's something that could potentially happen. That's not the right way to go."

Sorry, Mr. President, but my B.S. meter has gone off the charts. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the President of the WHOLE United States, all 57 of them? What are you doing admonishing one of the states in your country? Arizona is not a misbehaving child that you think you can talk down to. It's an equal member of our United States. You don't turn your back on a handful of states just because you disagree with them or they didn't vote for you. That's not what a leader does.

And this crap about not having your papers with you? I'm an American citizen and I need to carry my ID with me when I go out, for safety and other purposes. If I'm pulled over while driving a car and I don't have my license on me, I'll get fined. I don't think it's different for anyone else.

No "harassment" going on here, either. You can only be stopped if you are doing something illegally. (Hmmm, and an afterthought - is it considered "harassment" for someone to barge into your country, tell you what languages you should speak and what holidays you should celebrate? And order that you should give them free food, free health care, and free daycare because they are only trying to provide for their family? Is that "harassment", Mr. President? Like I said, just a thought...)

Now L.A. has approved a boycott of Arizona. Laughable, to say the least, but scary at the same time. One city in the United States of America boycotting a state in the same country. And our President, "The Great Uniter", stays silent. NOW is the time to speak up! NOW is the time , if any, to chide them and say, "No. We will not divide our country over this".

We are headed for disaster. States will continue to stand up for their rights, Obama will admonish them and other (Obamafatuated) states will boycott them with Obama saying nothing. It will rip this nation apart. We are headed for a divide and Obama is pushing us apart.

The greatest wealth is health. ~Virgil

I've had my own adventure in the health care system lately. Fortunately, it's nothing too bad, but it gave me an insider's look into our health care system and I'm even more determined to fight to save it than ever before.

I've had sinus infections on and off for years and really never thought much about it. Never really had the same doctor over the years either and they kept putting me on antibiotics. I started going to a family practice where I have the same doctor all the time and he thought there was something more to these sinus problems. Not to mention, I also suffer from migraines. We had been trying to treat those directly, but it seems that perhaps the problem came from my sinuses.

He was concerned enough to send me to a ENT (Ear, Nose & Throat) specialist, who recommended allergy testing and sinus surgery. I'll admit - the news floored me when I first heard it, especially since I had a bad phobia to needles, blood and doctors. I am proud to say that I am no longer afraid, due to frequent doctor visits, an x-ray, two CT scans, 40 shots for the allergy testing, blood tests and the surgery itself, which was two weeks ago last Thursday.

I am feeling fine now. Some stuffiness in the nose and get really tired easily. But I have learned that my fight isn't over yet. I also have a staph infection on top of the sinus infection and will need antibiotics administered through an IV to get rid of it completely.

Fortunately, I do have medical insurance through my job and it's one of those "Cadillac plans" that Obowma and his buddies hate so much. I was surprised to find out I had one, but looking up the definition of "Cadillac Insurance Plans", you might also be surprised to find out you also have one through your job. It doesn't take much and surprise, surprise - it's not only the big fat cats on Wall Street who have them. Not that I ever believe the words that come out of liberals' mouths, but never thought I had one either.

So even with my evil-rich, fancy pants Cadillac Insurance Plan, I still have to pay 10% of my procedure. Even still, it's going to cost me over $1000 out of pocket. My liberal co-workers are outraged! They said "they can't do this to you!" or "how dare they suck every penny out of people just to make them better" and other nonsensical things like that.

Doctors don't work for free. I know that may come as a shocker to most liberals. And the doctors' jobs aren't to bankrupt people out of their money. These procedures are EXPENSIVE - my bill had $18,000 total on it. They use high-tech machines to ensure your safety. I had image-guided endoscopic sinus surgery, where they use a combination of pictures from a CT scan, a tiny camera on the end of a stick, tiny flashlights and tiny scalpels all up the nose. It's all done through the nose, so there's no noticeable scarring on the outside. The camera and CT scan are used so the doctor can see exactly where he is inside of the sinuses. He goes into the sinuses right behind the eye and the sinuses near the brain - two VERY sensitive areas. One wrong move and you are blinded for life or are leaking brain fluid.

Sinus surgery used to have to be performed through incisions in the cheeks, that left the patient deformed for life. Endoscopic sinus surgery was introduced in the 1960's, but wasn't widely used until the 80's (according to ehealthMD.com). Look how far medicine has advanced in just 30 years! THIS is what that money pays for! They aren't purposely taking every dime we have just to be mean. These procedures are expensive and our money also goes towards making advancements for the future. I think it's absolutely amazing how far the medicine field came in just a short time. I also think how unfortunate it is that Obowma and his cronies want to stop that.

And just look at the CT scans alone! That's a high-powered camera that takes pictures of different layers of your body and puts them into a 3-D image. How cool is that? They used to do evasive exploratory surgery for things that a simple CT scan can do now. I'd much rather have a CT scan, thanks. Expensive machine, but safer for the patient (not to mention that it's neat to be able to look at pictures of your head!)

Hey, apologist-in-chief - guess what? I went in for sinus surgery and came out in one piece. The doctor didn't take off my foot, in order to get more money. (Or should that be, take off my nose in order to get more money?)

As for the money it will cost me, I'm not concerned. I had some saved up for a rainy day and I guess the rain shower just came rolling in. I'm disappointed to see the majority if it disappear all in one chunk, but I'm happy that I can concentrate on just my health and not worry about being in debt over this too. I told my Mom, "How lucky am I to have all of that saved up" and caught myself. Luck had nothing to do with it; I saved that money for years. If all of this ends up making me feel better and I am able to contribute further to medical advancements, I'm more than happy to pay the doctor the money he so rightfully earned. (Yeah, that's right - EARNED, an evil term to liberals. He didn't steal, take or cheat for that money; he earned it. The day I went in for my surgery, he had 10 scheduled. I'll say it again - he earned it. Probably works 50-60 hours a week, at least.)

We need to fight to get Obamacare repealed. I don't care if it might be too late. As long as there's a chance, we need to fight to keep our health care system out of the hands of the government. We will lose all of these advancements if we do not. Other people with sinus problems (and anyone else with chronic diseases) will be left out in the cold - there won't be enough time or money to treat them all. As afraid as I was through this whole process, I knew in the back of my mind that I needed to keep pressing forward so as to not give the government the chance to stop my treatment in the middle.

Our health is the most precious thing we have and no matter what the government mandates, I will not give them the power to choose what treatments I can or cannot have. My life and my health is just that - MINE. I will fight to keep my rights and I will fight for my doctors to keep theirs.

And a quick little PSA - if you aren't feeling well and it's gone on for a long time, PLEASE don't ignore it. I convinced myself that my problems were "normal" and it was just apart of "getting old". Go get it checked out while you still have the freedom to do so. 9 times out of 10 it will be nothing and just cost you your co-pay and a little bit of your time. But that one time out of 10 it might be something more serious. And yes, it's scary to find that out and go through all of the procedures to feel better. But if you don't, it might cost you your life. Not knowing and worrying about it will be worse than any procedure you may have to go through. If a wuss like me who was terrified of doctors, needles and blood can do it, so can you.

They said what??

So Al Gore has surfaced once again, and has declared all of the recent snowstorms to be a result of his darling Global Warming. (And someone needs to inform Al that his logic doesn't quite work, as snow is cold and warming is quite the opposite). "Don't believe the white lies", he says. Don't worry, I don't believe your lies, but I believe the white snow that I can see out of my window.

All of his followers are just as logically-challenged. Earlier this year, I read in the January 18th's issue of Newsweek a quote from a scientist that just baffled me:

"It's part of natural variability. We'll still have record cold temperatures. We'll just have fewer of them."

And the tag line underneath:

"Gerald Meehl, A scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric research in Boulder, Colo., on how the cold front that blanketed much of the United States doesn't disprove global warming."

What?? And there it is again - cold and warming in the same sentence, stating one doesn't disprove the other. What's next? Stating that just because our feet are on the ground doesn't prove gravity? C'mon now, God gave you (or most of you anyways) a brain; USE IT!

Now Al Gore says we've had the second highest record temperatures globally in January this year. Psst, Al? We just had our FOURTH snowstorm this winter in Georgia. We're usually lucky to have one at all. I think we even had one in January. Last month, all 50 states were recorded to have snow at the same time. This is THE coldest winter that I ever remember having. I'm calling BS on you, Al.

---

And onto the second TSW? moment of the week comes to us from Andy Stern from the SEIU. (You know, I'm beginning to get the same reaction, like an eye-roll or an eye twitch, whenever I hear about the SEIU, just like I do with the ACLU or PETA.)

Apparently, he's been in the news before back in September of last year... Charming guy.

And now he has said this:

"Now, how do we distribute wealth in the country? And this is sort of my last big point. And clearly government has a major opportunity to distribute wealth. Through tax policies, through minimum wages, through living wages, the government has a role in distributing wealth or social benefits like Medicare, Medicaid, certain health insurance."

My mouth literally dropped open when I heard this on the radio. He's not just the President of the SEIU, as Obama appointed him to be in charge of his fiscal commission. Do we really want the guy who wants to distribute wealth running a fiscal commission? No, Barry, no - that's like letting an arsonist in charge of your fire safety team. Just no.

Hey, at least Andy's honest about his viewpoints. It's more than I can say about Obowma and the majority of his friends.

And Andy Stern - I know you think you are entitled to our money, and I know you want universal health care so bad that you can taste it (not to mention the check card bill). But, WE THE PEOPLE do not want it and will do whatever we can to prevent people like you into forcing it down our throats. And that money you are drooling over? IT'S MINE; hands off. Distribute your own wealth, if it's that important to you, but DO NOT tell me what to do with MY money and don't force it away from me at the point of a gun.

WE THE PEOPLE will not give you or the government the opportunity the distribute our wealth, our health care or our freedom.

Politically Incorrect Monday

In honor of the Superbowl this past weekend, I'm posting this Audi commercial that poked fun at the environmentals....er - environmentalists. Unfortunately, I can see them actually doing something like this one day... Scary enough as it is...

Politcally Incorrect Monday

Apparently, the Octuplets turned one the other day. Normally I wouldn't care, but it gives me the perfect excuse to post this:





In case you aren't familiar with him, the singer is Brian Haner (aka Guitar Guy). He tours around with Jeff Dunham (the puppet guy with Achmed the dead terrorist). You can see "Guitar Guy" on Jeff Dunham's Very Special Christmas Special. Comedy Central plays his shows all the time. Both are very, very funny...and offensive. But hey, that's why they are funny. If you are offended, don't watch them.

The O'Reilly/Beck Bold Fresh Tour

So after two failed attempts at trying to get tickets at two sold-out theaters, I finally found tickets to the Bold Fresh Tour on my third try. The theater was 20 miles away, and the ticket was $25, but I felt it was worth it. Sometimes after being constantly bombarded by liberal name-calling in the real world everyday, you need to take two hours out to get re-energized by listening to some of the biggest & loudest conservative voices and hanging out with other like-minded people. Don't know about you, but being surrounded by liberals all the time, sometimes I feel isolated. That's why I like events like these and the tea parties - they remind me that I'm not alone.

Anyways, O'Reilly and Beck were an absolute hoot. Everyone was laughing so hard. First Beck came up on stage alone, then O'Reilly and they finished together, asking questions of one another. I won't spoil the whole thing, because I really recommend that you see if for yourself. Plus, tickets are cheaper for the the encore this Tuesday. It'll temporarily relief the anger you feel from BO's campai-- I mean, SOTU speech last week.

I must say I absolutely adore Glenn Beck. Oh, I think he's a little nuts and has a horrible case of A.D.D., but that's part of his charm. He's fun and entertaining to watch. (Not to mention he balances out Mr. Serious O'Reilly) He really knows how to work a crowd.

Like I said, I won't go into everything they said, as I don't wish to ruin it, but some of the funnier moments:

Beck said he was so distracted during Obama's SOTU speech and didn't know which distracted him more - at the things the President said ("Wait, did he REALLY just say that?" Beck said) or "Ren and Stimpy sitting behind him". Said Biden was doing some sort of pantomime act and Pelosi looked like he would just before getting hit by a truck... only with a smile.

Beck continues to make fun of Pelosi, even when it's both him and O'Reilly on the stage.
O'Reilly finally says, "C'mon now, quit making fun of her. What would you do if she called up and said you were really hurting her feelings? Would you stop?".
Beck pauses, looks at O'Reilly like he has lost his mind, laughs and matter-of-factly says "No".
So O'Reilly says, "I know she's a little strange, but come on..."
Beck laughs again and says "Wait, wait, wait. Mr Objective is even saying she's a little strange? Wow..."

Great show - what a treat. I'm really glad I went, even though I felt a little in the minority (I was one of the youngest people there. Ah well...).
I hope they extend their tour and maybe stop by Atlanta. I'd love to see those two in person.

Rush's letter to Obama

H/t The Conservative Lady

Good for Rush. Glad to have him as a voice for conservatives. He has said everything I'd like to say to the President. I get tempted to write him a letter after his speeches, especially those in which he puts down people that don't agree with him or blames Bush (and come to think of it, I think that includes ALL of his speeches...haha)

I've never seen a president put down his own people as much as this one has. It's digusting and arrogant (oops, does that make me racist now?). I can literally feel my blood pressure rising, just at the mere sound of his voice. I've got an involuntary eye tick, whenever he utters the words "this mess I've inherited" or something like it. I've rolled my eyes so much at all of the lies he tells, that I'm afraid of what my mother used to tell me - that they really will get stuck that way.

But for now, I will take a break from my frustrations and will hopefully see O'Reilly and Beck's Bold, Fresh Tour tonight on the big screen. I'm looking forward to it. If you aren't able to catch them in person or catch them at a movie theater tonight, they are having an encore presentation Tuesday, February 2nd. It's playing at select locations, so check for locations and times in your area.

Politically Incorrect Monday

A political cartoon I found in the AJC this morning:

And the song the cartoon's referring to-

Although I'm no fan of American Idol, this guy's got a point... I love Simon saying "I've got a horrible feeling this song's going to be a hit"! Got to admit, the song IS kind of catchy.

Those liberals look like fools with their pants on the ground!

Happy Anniversary, Obama!

And how better to celebrate it than with Scott Brown's win!

Too bad Obama's sore about it...but, hey, that's what happens when you hit your 1st anniversary - it means the Honeymoon ended awhile ago! I wouldn't be pleased either if it meant the end of the thing (healthcare) that I've staked my whole Presidency on. Kind of confused why he's surprised though... Well, then again, this was the same guy who was surprised by the Tea Party people protesting taxes and the increasing size of government.

Other liberals seem to be sore about it as well. Poor Barney Frank can't play with the big boys, so it's time to change the rules of the filibuster. Odd how he didn't seem to have a problem when the liberals had their 60 member supermajority...

John Kerry had his feathers ruffled over "bullying and threats" and "intimidation tactics". Does anyone really listen to this guy anymore?

Even Keith Olbermann had words of love for Scott Brown. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr Olbermann, but isn't that "hate speech"? You'd be among the first to call for a conservative talk show host to step down if they had said the exact same thing about about a liberal candidate.

The liberal facebookers were also a bit steemed:
"Last night it was reported that the GOP has a good shot at getting the seat up in Mass. tonight and breaking the fillabuster(sp). Related, the average stock for the healthcare companies shot up today. Makes you realize who REALLY wins..."

Those who REALLY won due to Scott Brown's senate race:

People who work hard to pay for things important to them, like health care.
People who don't think they need health care and don't want to be forced to buy it.
People who don't think health care is a "right".
People who deserve more actual transparency in government.
People who don't want lifelong governmental control forced down their throats.


I hope this is a wake-up call for those in Washington running again in 2010. This race was supposed to be a shoe-in for the Democrat. Don't know about you, but I can't wait for 2010 if this is a sign of what is coming next.