Shall we talk about this?

So it’s been awhile. I’ve been around. But living as red in a very blue area has taken it’s toll.

We’ve done ok the past eight years. I am not thrilled with the abuse of executive order power, insurance is at an all time high price wise, and there has been countless apologizing for America over these years. Time will tell exactly how the Obama presidency will be remembered, because hindsight is always so much better than living in the moment. I’ve lived in a place where my opinions and thoughts are marginalized, discounted and flat out disrespected. I in no way think I understand the plight of the oppressed and I have a heart for those that live in a truly marginalized system. But we made it.

Hilary didn’t win. You have to deal with that now. It bites to lose. But there can only be one winner. Take heart, because you are still breathing. The world did not end. Your family is still safe at home. Your children are as safe as they were yesterday. Because right now … Obama is still in office and nothing has changed. Campaigns bring out the worst in everyone.

Don’t be mean to me. I don’t desire to talk about my vote because frankly it’s like convincing you to change your religion. I want to, but it’s a losing battle. If you wonder why so many non-Hilary voters were quiet look at how you are treating us. It’s pretty bad.

What I need you to know is voting against Hilary does not mean -.

  1. I am against a woman president. In fact I would support a woman. Just not this woman. (Maybe 8 years ago instead of Obama, but right now no) This is not a sexist decision for the majority of us. Don’t make it one.
  2. I am not against other races in office. It’s great we had the first president of color. Why make it a race issue. Race, gender, which state you are from having nothing to do with your qualifications to run. Calling me names NOW for not being a Democrat and assuming I am racist is making me frustrated.
  3. I am not for rape. I can’t even believe I have to say this one. Seriously? That’s an argument?
  4. I don’t believe having Trump as President will make my children think that bad behavior is ok. If we are playing that game Bill would make it ok to have affairs and hey, it’s not sex. Semantics.
  5. I am not an uneducated hillbilly. Voting against Hillary does not make me a moron or mean the education system has failed. FYI – stats say 2/3 of the country doesn’t have a college diploma. Do that math … that’s not new. I am educated and I don’t support her style of politics.

The rules have to apply across the board, not when it’s just your candidate that lost. In fairness this was going to be a hard election no matter what. People have been insanely divisive and downright mean. Why? We all live here and need to get along to continue the progress being made for equality for all.

And for anyone still wondering how to explain this to your children. Start with someone has to win, and someone has to lose. There are no trophies for second place. You are loved and the world will continue. Don’t put more onto your children than they are developmentally ready for. (And you know what that is, because you are smart enough to read this) But this is what I read today about “kids” that I liked best (and I don’t know this woman, just liked what she said):

Y’all. Stop asking “what will we tell the children?” Our children’s main concern should be who they are going to sit with at lunch or who to play with on the playground. 

If the children are so scared because of the outcome of this election, maybe there needs to be a reevaluation of what they are seeing and hearing at home on WHO to put their trust in. On WHO to lean in to. Little minds can’t and shouldn’t be expected to process adult issues. 

I’m very actively the spiritual leader in my little family, my girls learn about building trust with God and boldly loving Jesus from watching me learn how to do it. I’m not saying this to boast, I’m saying this because if they see me panic about our country, and put all my faith in a corrupt government, it won’t matter what I tell them. They will follow suit. And a panicky and fearful foundation in the home can take years and thousands of dollars in therapy to unlearn. 

Love God. Love Others. The instructions are clear. And for the love of all things, stop scaring the children.

Know that all of us here on the other side of the political spectrum are ready to see what this brings us too. It is for us to lose now. I believe Trump will be surrounded by a strong and competent group of advisors. I believe that everything you have heard thus far does not mean he will be taking us to war tomorrow (because he can’t, he isn’t in office until January).

The market rallied today, so can we. Take heart. There are elections again in 2 years. We’ve been waiting awhile and lets see what happens.

November 10, 2016 at 12:26 am Leave a comment

Wait’n for the Other Shoe to Drop

The political poetess is back. This time she sent me this awesome piece of poetry.

“ Wait’n For The Other Shoe To Drop “- to Obama

( To the tune of ‘Winter Wonderland’ )

( This may not be the right time the year for the tune, but it is NEVER the right time of year for Obama….)

Freedom Rings!… Are ya listening?
Oh, you’re mad….And you’re bristling!
You’ve got a loose screw,
We already knew
We’re wait’n for the other shoe to drop

We know you really pushed it with this Health Care
Really rammed the Bill right down our throats
Gotta watch you sneaky liberals closely
We saw what all you did to get the votes!

Go ahead….You conspire!
We all know…you’re a liar!
You’re plans are all made,
Your friends have been paid,
We’re wait’n for the other shoe to drop!

Now you’re going after Arizona,
Really sucking up to Mexico!
I’ll buy for you a ticket South, muchacho !
And promise not to cry if you’ll just GO!

Hmmm, what’s next?….Cap & Trade!
The USA…is gett’n laid!
The bribes have not ceased
More palms will be greased
We’re wait’n for the other shoe to drop!

In this Country we are gett’n snowed, man!
It’s fun to see who’s noses are so brown!
We’re chomping at the bits for Twenty-Twelve,
So we can run your carcass outta town!

Spend and spend…yes, we wonder
Why your bent…on putt’n us under
Your leaderships bad!
Looks like we’ve been had
We’re wait’n for the other shoe to drop!

You did nothing with the BP oil spill
Just lots of mumblings that we all resent
I guess you’ll have your usual clever answer
It’s blame it on the previous president!

Freedom Rings!…Can ya hear it?
Only YOU…have need to fear it!
You’ll try, I‘ve no doubt
Bring more
CHANGE about,
We’re wait’n for the other shoe to drop!

September 26, 2010 at 6:27 pm Leave a comment

Can We Just Leave McDonalds Alone

If you read my previous post about the absurd policy being implemented by Santa Clara county regarding Happy Meal toys then you will understand my complete irritation with the fact that a watchdog group is now suing them because of the toys. While I am not surprised by the lawsuit I am very angry. There are so many fallacies and just plain dumb arguments being made in this discussion that I truly don’t know where to start.

I was reading a piece by the LATimes. In the article they said that the “Shrek” toys lure children into restaurants were they are then likely to order food that is too high in calories, fat and salt. Ummm. Most kids don’t take themselves to McDonalds. Last time I checked my 10,8&5 year olds had to have someone else take them anywhere they went.

My next favorite line was this one, “McDonalds is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children. Their use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits childrens developmental immaturity.” This is from a guy named Stephen Garder who is the litigation director. So let’s think about this one . . . The toys in happy meals are undercutting my parental authority? I exercise my authority when I choose to either take them to McDonalds or NOT! It’s my choice. I am the parent and I make the choices. If I chose to give the toys to the dog that would be my choice. I exercise my parental authority all the time and don’t need a legal watchdog group trying to make choices for me.

But what be the best part of the article is this tidbit: “in April Santa Clara County supervisors won praise from nutrition advocates but ridicule from many conservatives when they voted to ban toy promotions . . .” Say what? So the conservatives are anti-nutrition? Right. I totally want my kids to eat junk food. Just like all my conservative friends. That’s all we talk about. Obviously Ms.Bernstein at the LATimes thinks so. Well here is why the conservatives “ridicule” the ban. It’s because it’s an invasion of our parental rights. It is a step into our personal live by the government to tell us what choices to make. It is a slap in the face to what is easily one of the more brilliant marketing strategies of a company. Instead of placing blame on the 0 calorie toys why not push harder for alternative foods? Why not recognize the steps the chains have taken in the past few years to have healthier options? Why are people who don’t ever eat at a fast food restaurant telling the rest of us what we should do?

The answer seems to be to have more government influence and control on our everyday lives. We knew when this horrible ban was voted on that it would not be the end of it. We knew it would trigger a chain of events that would bring a bandwagon of experts waiting to make our decisions for us. And that is why the conservatives ridicule the ban. I would also like to say I find it hard to believe that there are no non-conservatives against this too.

I think I might have to go feed my kids mcDonalds tomorrow now and maybe I’ll buy a few extra toys too.

June 23, 2010 at 4:01 am Leave a comment

Happy Meals . . . not so happy in Santa Clara

So in what might be one of the most absurd pieces of legislation that I have ever heard of some of the children in Santa Clara county (the county we live in) will no longer be able to get a toy in their meal. The county voted today 3-2 to ban the toys in an effort to curb childhood obesity.

I just learned about the proposal yesterday when visiting my local McDonald’s. With an even bigger shock that the vote was today. If I had been able to go to the council meeting this morning I would have been all over it trying to understand this faulty logic.

The ordinance would prohibit restaurants from giving away toys with kids’ meals that are high in fat, sugar and calories. The ban’s reach will be very limited. It will only affect restaurants in the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County such as San Martin. (from Mercury News)

Before I get on my issue with the childhood obesity relationship to toys, I am still trying to understand that they limited the ban to unincorporated areas, that with the exception of Stanford, are all less developed and more rural areas of Santa Clara county. I have not been able to locate the text of the this ordinance yet, but am still searching for it.

Now onto the toy = obesity debate: When I choose to take my non-obese children to McDonald’s for dinner, it is my choice. I do not do it for the toy. They are usually cheap and wind up broken or thrown away anyway. I go eat there because the convenience factor for me those days is worth it. I need to feed the children quickly and get where we are going. My daughter eats Kraft Macaroni, apples, and milk from Burger King. I would feed her that at home. So how is getting a toy with the food going to change what people are feeding their children? It’s not. The people who don’t go to fast food restaurants because the food is not healthy (which don’t get me wrong I don’t believe it is all that good for you) are the same people who won’t go there anyway regardless of the toys. And even if this did pass in my area it would not stop me from continuing to drive through on nights when I need a quick meal from my children. The obese children are not a result of fast food restaurants alone. In the brief portion of Food, Inc that I was able to make myself watch, I had to turn it off because I was going to have to stop eating altogether if I continued, profiled a lower-income family that shows how they purchase processed, convience foods or go to fast food restaurants because the healthy non-processed foods are more expensive and on their limited budget or food stamp that cannot afford enough food to feed their families. However, the cheaper processed food provide their families with a full belly after a meal and stay easier on their budget. Is this right? No. I think a reform of the Food Stamps program might be in order to try to increase the ability of the families to purchase healthier food items. So all that said, the people who are “obese” who feed their children at McDonald’s are going to continue to do so because it is cheaper and easier. The toy was just a bonus.

AND from there where does it stop? Stop selling X-Boxes, DS systems, ban Dinosaur Chicken or anything else deemed unhealthy or contributing to obesity in stores? Ultimately this is a parenting decision. You cannot make someone be a good parent. There is no one size fits all direction book for raising or feeding children. It is time for the government to stay out of my house and yours too.

In case you are from the area and were wondering Supervisors Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss and Dave Cortese voted for the ordinance. Supervisors Don Gage and George Shirakawa opposed it. The ordinance will return to the board May 11 for a final vote. It will take effect 90 days after that.

I will be at McDonald’s and Burger King Wednesday night for our weekly dinner on the way to Cub Scouts, happily having the right to still give my children the toy that comes with their meal should I choose too. And if you happen to live in an unincorporated area, then I invite you to come to the fast food chains in the rest of Santa Clara county and continue giving your children toys if you choose, since it is YOUR choice.

Oh yeah as an FYI – you did know you can just go in any buy the toy separately too. I have done that before when we wanted a toy and did not want to eat there. So what’s to stop the affected stores from simply selling them for a quarter with your happy meal purchase?

April 27, 2010 at 8:06 pm Leave a comment

Seditious Stretch

In the past couple weeks I started hearing a new term that I had to look up. I love new words. This term is “sedition” or “seditious” depending on who was using it and the context of the sentence of course. So as any other good internet user would do I googled it and read about sedition on Wikipedia (and some other sites too.) So before I do on my discussion about the absurdity and total idiocy that this new attack is let’s go with a definition of the term.

Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protestdemocratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).

Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one’s state. Sedition is encouraging one’s fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one’s country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws. (from my handy dandy Wikipedia reference)

So now that the term has a meaning to me, I wanted to know what sort of legal standing the term has for prosecution or actual precedent. And here is what you find there:

In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, the fourth of which, the Sedition Act or “An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States” set out punishments of up to two years of imprisonment for “opposing or resisting any law of the United States” or writing or publishing “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” about the President or the U.S. Congress, but specifically not the Vice-President. This Act of Congress was allowed to expire in 1801 after the election of Thomas Jefferson to the Presidency. He had been the Vice-President at the time of the Act’s passage.

In the Espionage Act of 1917, Section 3 made it a crime, punishable by up to 20 years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000, to willfully spread false news of the American army and navy with an intent to disrupt their operations, to foment mutiny in their ranks, or to obstruct recruiting. This Act of Congress was amended Sedition Act of 1918, which expanded the scope of the Espionage Act to any statement criticizing the Government of the United States. These Acts were upheld in 1919 in the case of Schenck v. United States, but they were largely repealed in 1921, leaving laws forbidding foreign espionage in the United States and allowing military censorship of sensitive material.

In 1940, the Alien Registration Act, or “Smith Act“, was passed, which made it a crime to advocate or to teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. It was often used against Communist Party organizations. This Act was invoked in three major cases, one of which against the Socialist Worker’s Party in Minneapolis in 1941, resulting in 23 convictions, and again in what became known as the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 in which a number of pro-Nazi figures were indicted but released when the prosecution ended in a mistrial. Also, a series of trials of 140 leaders of the Communist Party USA also relied upon the terms of the “Smith Act” – beginning in 1949 – and lasting until 1957. Although the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the convictions of 11 CPUSA leaders in 1951 in Dennis v. United States , that same Court reversed itself in 1957 in the case of Yates v. United States, by ruling that teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation. Although unused since at least 1961, the “Smith Act” remains a Federal law.

Laura Berg, a nurse at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in New Mexico was investigated for sedition in September 2005[13] after writing a letter[14][15] to the editor of a local newspaper, accusing several national leaders of criminal negligence. Though their action was later deemed unwarranted by the director of Veteran Affairs, local human resources personnel took it upon themselves to request an FBI investigation. Ms. Berg was represented by the ACLU[16]. Charges were dropped in 2006[1].

On March 28, 2010, nine members of the militia Hutaree were arrested and charged with crimes including seditious conspiracy.[17]

Now where this gets interesting is that Cheney, Palin, Beck, and the Tea Party movement have all been labeled as bordering on seditious, if not already being called seditious. The fact that the question the current direction our administration is heading and dare to disagree with it is considered a horrid offense. During Bush’s time in office let’s think about all the people who should have been brought up on Sedition charges then. Why was sedition not mentioned when the shoe was on the other foot?

This ranks right up there with you automatically being labeled racist if you don’t like Obama. Since when is it not okay just to not like the policies of the administration. The last eight years it would seem that the Democrats had ample time and loud voices to demonstrate their displeasure. Did that make them racist? It is time to stop the bias in these types of settings. It is not okay for it to be all right for the left to oppose the Conservative agenda but not vice versa. The rules apply to all even if you don’t like the message. I would also like to point out to the person who wrote this fine commentary, even if by some miraculous re-writing of law and whatnot your totally out of field comments calling for the arrest, incarceration, and execution for treason, sedition and conflict of interest of Cheney and other people you deem as seditious individuals, did you happen to notice that even if they were ever actually charged and found guilty your desired punishment for them is by no means, in no way, a punishment that was ever an accepted form of punishment for sedition? The obvious disdain and dislike that commentaries like this one have for other Americans and their right to have an opinion is just flat-out wrong. You are free to not like Cheney. Just like I am free to not like Obama, and to be clear I don’t like his policies. Since I don’t actually know him I can’t say I don’t like him. I can’t say that I would like him if I did meet him. And if you want to talk treason . . . maybe another time.

And for a final thought on sedition, just in case you want people tried on this – check out the Montana Sedition Project site. It is amazing what happened to the people who were tried and convicted there. But it is also here that you find precedent and court decisions regarding the law and acts labeled seditions. Since we know that in court prior decisions and findings create precedent for future cases check this out:

In 1969, in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the high court set forth the current standard for punishing seditious speech. A person cannot be criminally punished for urging the use of force or for urging that laws be broken “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite…such actions.” In other words, mere words, unless intended to immediately provoke lawless action, and likely to do so, cannot be punished by the state. Had such a standard been in effect in 1918, no sedition law would have been enacted. (from the Montana Sedition Project)

Before you write and inform me that this was a case involving the KKK which I do not agree with, I am merely pointing out this ruling because it provides the basis for the current way cases of sedition are handled.

And just in case you were wondering none of the people or groups being labeled as seditious are inciting violence. In fact the Tea Party movement has been found to be peaceful, what you might say? They are NOT violent. They are just normal every day people who disagree. The fact that you would associate peaceful opposition as terrorist groups is immature, inflammatory, and an outright untruth.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free. Ronald Reagan

Additional links:
Andrew Sullivan Agrees With Klein’s Sedition Comments
Lets talk about sedition shall we?….

April 26, 2010 at 5:37 pm Leave a comment

Pot Calling Kettle

Today I am venting about a pet peeve of my mine.

People who do the exact thing that they complain about.

So to elaborate. You know that I will listen to any rational discussion about politics. Acknowledging that I most likely will not change my views, but am curious as to how other people rationalize their viewpoints. But what kills me is the hypocrisy of the complainant. I have family,  friends and acquaintances who do not share my political views. And with them I choose to NOT get into the argument (unless pressed and if they are erroneously misinformed). But it drives me crazy to read their facebook status updates. I know they think I am just as “uninformed” as I know they are. The problem comes down to the act of following. Believing something just because you heard it on TV and not reading and researching for yourself.

One of the most recent frustrating conversations I actually read involved the Tea Party movement. “If you want to see supposedly educated people making fools of themselves, look at some pictures from these Tea Party rallies, especially the homemade signs they make. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad that they actually believe this crap. It’s very sad that people have not learned to think for theirselves but just follow anyone that comes along.” Now really this just made me laugh and I stayed very clear of this. But can we say Hello Pot. I have no idea why we are making fun of homemade signs, that doesn’t even make any rational sense. Did they want people to buy signs? Where do you think rally signs come from? And I love the generalization that the Tea Party people are uneducated that alone should make us a bit angry if it weren’t so funny. But the best part was the part that says that we don’t think for ourselves and we just follow anyone that comes along. I mean really. Hello. Does the name Barack ring a bell? I am guessing they never saw this video?

This is not some statement on race. This is simply showing that some people (note I am not saying ALL) followed Obama out of blind obedience and adoration as opposed to actually learning the issues and knowing what people stand for. There is a great discrepancy between fact and perception in Washington. Choosing to not believe anything you hear on Fox is just as ridiculous as only believing what you hear on MSNBC (which is a crazy channel in my opinion). So back to my point it makes me crazy to hear ignorant people assume that people in the Tea Party movement have no idea what they are standing for. They do. They are against the expansion of government. They are for states and individual rights. This is not rocket science (although reading the bills might be sometimes). They are for honesty and integrity of our elected officials. Not people who say things like “we’ll find out what’s in the bill after we vote for it”.

The current generation we are raising of those who feel they are entitled to something from our country besides life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is amazing. The desire and the lust for handouts and the audacity to think that you are owed anything other that what you work hard to earn is crazy. Hard work and dedication will get you far. And if you want to debate the American dream with me here, the dream is to be able to have food on your table, clothes to wear, and a place to live. Not to have two BMW’s in the driveway, a summer and winter home, and an American Express Black card. The system is not perfect but what is. Social entitlement programs are a mess and should be totally redone to do a better job to actually help families and provide an exit strategy. They were not meant to be a way of life, but a way to get your life in order.

Anyway, enough of my ranting for today.

April 21, 2010 at 5:10 pm Leave a comment

What a Day.

So after you get past the fact that today is Tax Day. The deadline that so many of us wait until to file our income taxes. I filed ours last night, so I am right there with the running late people. Not quite as bad as people who drive to post offices open until midnight to get theirs postmarked in time, but still on the late side. But heck, we owed money and who “wants” to pay any earlier than necessary. We pay A LOT in taxes already and paying even more is painful. So my title for today is about the downer that today is and I still need to read up on how the Tax Day Tea Parties went. I did not get to attend one this year since there was no daytime rally near me and with my three kids (age 5,8,10) I don’t think taking them out after school when they are already getting a crabby and tired anyway was a very good idea. But I was there in heart.

So my big reason for posting tonight. I have an acquaintance on Facebook who posted a link to a CNN article regarding Obama issuing hospital rights to gay and lesbians as well as widows/widowers and members of certain religions. The post was in reference to what the “Red States” will say about this and making some commentary as to what kind of comments Ann Coulter will make. Personally I have no issues with people have someone with them in the hospital. I have no issues with the gay community being allowed to be with each other in the hospital. This would be the same stance I would take on a heterosexual couple who were not married but in a common-law marriage. My issue is simply with gay marriage. Marriage to me is reserved to be between a man and a woman. There is a much deeper significance to me in the sanctity of marriage.

So personally I don’t think there will be a huge backlash on this issue. And if there is, it will be because people view it as a give an inch take a mile thing, but I don’t think it should be. I think going out looking for a fight with the “right” will not always result in what the “left” is looking for. The big bad right, you know us right-wing extremists stay at home moms who drive soccer carpool are not the big bad boogie man. The generalizations are amazing.

April 16, 2010 at 4:31 am Leave a comment

Palestine on the mind

I have been going to the Speaker Series from Calvin College (via satellite of course) this January. There have been some very interesting topics. I go partly to avoid driving home in traffic and to get some intellectual speaking that is a bit different from simply watching the news. I quite enjoyed listening to the warden from a penitentiary in Louisiana and the story of a survivor of the holocaust in Rwanda. (and the guy who was totally for Free Enterprise and entrepreneurship vs statism. but given where I live I might have been the only person in the room who appreciated him.) A number of the these topics are available online still if you are curious. . .

Today was the final speaker – Archbishop Elias Chacour, a Palestinian Archbishop in Israel. He was actually rather funny and cracked quite a few jokes. While I did miss some of his points, mainly because when he started touting how our country had done such a great thing electing a former “slave” race to the president (please don’t quote me exactly on that one, but that was the basic jist of it) I quickly began searching online for how Palestinians feel about Obama. Because obviously this guy is anti “W”. He actually made reference to George Senior and seemed to almost like him, but did not like the younger. Anytime a topic goes here and I have the chance I will do some searching and reading, and in this case since I was in the back room with my iPhone I decided to search. What I found was an interesting article from this week regarding Obama and the Middle East.

Highlights (and things I was not totally aware of) being:

Among the factors that made the first 12 months of Obama’s presidency better for peace prospects (for those of us who want a two-state solution) than previous years:
* There was less violence both between Israelis and Palestinians, and between Palestinians and Palestinians, than there has been for years.
* 2009 was the first year without any successful suicide bombs against Israel for a long time.
* The Palestinian security forces in the West Bank have finally started to behave as a security force rather than as a terrorist group.
* There was strong economic growth in both Israel and the Palestinian territories relative to most of the rest of the world, for which 2009 was a bleak year.
* A Likud leader recognized the principle of an independent Palestinian state.
* Benjamin Netanyahu made the most sweeping freeze on Israeli settlement building in the West Bank since 1967.

– from National Post

Also states that Obama to be the most naïve president regarding foreign policy, which I would tend to agree with. Not only naïve but unpatriotic. So the United State is starting to see that he is not getting things done, how long will it take for the approval rating of the rest of the world to follow suit . . . time will tell.

January 27, 2010 at 6:39 am Leave a comment

Its Not About Us is it?

January 27, 2010 at 6:22 am Leave a comment

Out of hiding

I admit it. I have been avoiding all things political. Well, not really. I have been working with a few groups on some new conservative websites – GippersList – think conservative Craigslist, doing business with like-minded folks. Cool Conservative Gear – some feminine pretty conservative apparel, and a few other random things. I manage to get myself involved in lots of things (have trouble saying NO) and my current situation has me working on the yearbook at my children’s school AND 1/2 of the book is due February 1st. Got to love crunch time.

I was thoroughly excited by the Scott Brown win and do believe that regardless of what cloud the White House has their collective heads in, this seat in Massachusetts going to a Republican was not a referendum supporting the Obama agenda. It was in fact the polar opposite. Listening to Obama and his toy puppet Gibbs talk about how this vote was really supporting the change Obama wants when clearly Brown campaigned against not for all of these policies. But I digress . .  I am very excited to see where it goes with mid-term elections and am looking forward to seeing sweeping Republican wins across the country. While perusing the blogosphere yesterday I read this little article that quotes Obama as suggesting the reason that this will not happen during his term in office as it did to Clinton is 1994 is simply because – “‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ So apparently Obama’s head is getting a little inflated these days . . . (the article is an interesting little read about the 1994 loss of mid-term elections and some commentary by Senator Berry – I quite enjoyed it)

My other blog read yesterday was regarding the potential for subversion of the legislative process by the current Democrats to pass the Health Care bill before seating Brown to get it done. I am not saying that they are doing this, simply that it is not something I would put past the untrustworthy souls that seem to be the ones ramming the bill through the hardest. And should they actually do this, it would be a very scary thought because they would be circumventing the actual procedural way that our laws govern these types of things. Curious. Personally I hope they seat Scott Brown and throw the Health Care Bill as it is away. Spend more time actually trying to create jobs instead of rewording what the stimulus bill did not do so that the White House can pretend that they actually have affected the employment numbers, when in reality they have had little to no impact on them. But again all smoke and mirrors.

See you soon and hopefully more regularly.

January 27, 2010 at 6:14 am Leave a comment

Older Posts

Blog Stats

  • 70,528 hits