My Personal Rants, Raves, and Ramblings

Yet another reason that everyone should carry a gun at all times, including Mothers!



Luckily for the rapist the Supreme Court has ruled that he will not face the death penalty for his crime against this young girl - which I might note is a crime that is impossible to make full restitution for.

Click the image to watch the video.

And we want this man to be our next President??? God help us!

There are too many nuances in this three minute bite than I have time for right now. Take a listen and see what you think...

Wow... unbelievable and very sad. I rode this ride just a little over a month ago... and I'm not sure what would compel someone to want to go inside the fence like this.

A friend just sent me a link to this image... and it's so true (unfortunately). Obama might as well pick Karl Marx (or the closest person to his beliefs) as his running mate.

Yay!

Click here for the full opinion from the Court

Other info can be found on SCOTUSBlog.com

UPDATE: Video added

I thought the reason that we couldn't use cell phones and such in the air was because it would cause "communication problems" for the plane. What changed???

lol... I love this response to MoveOn.Org's recent TV ad!



Original MoveOn.Org "You Can't Have Alex" ad...

Made your home a more dangerous place to live??? This is absurd... when will the people rise up and say "ENOUGH!"? Politicians now believe that they should tell us what type of light bulbs we HAVE to use... what next?


(Congressman Ted Poe (R) TX - May 13th, 2008)

Hat tip, my friends over at "Give Us Liberty"

lol...

A sign of the times???

"...because the American public is not terribly, theologically literate, they hold contradictory views, because they haven't thought deeply or been taught deeply about their faith traditions..." - Rev. Eugene Rivers



Related story - Religious Americans: My faith isn't the only way

Just watch the first 3:15 of the video, if you want to remain inspired. ;)



From the National Republican Senatorial Committee

Wow!

A second-time burglary victim gave a would-be thief more than just a fright Saturday evening, police said.

The south Fulton County homeowner shot and wounded a teen breaking into his townhouse in the 6200 block of Flat Trace, near Union City, police said.

"The guy hears the front doorbell ring" just before 6 p.m., Fulton County police spokesman Scott McBride said. "When he goes down to answer it, a 16-year-old kicks in his back door."

The man went for his gun, fired twice at the teen and hit him once in the arm, McBride said. The youth ran, and the man chased him into a nearby wooded area and lost him.

Click here to read the rest of the story.

"Rep. Maurice Hinchey clearly knows little about how supply and demand works in free markets, but the New York Democrat gets high marks for candor on the basic assumption underlying his party’s approach to high gas prices: “We [the government] should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.” Hinchey’s comment should be viewed in the broader context of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s second-guessing of oil industry decisions about where to drill, and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s preference for a “more gradual” pace for spiraling gas prices. The Democrats’ fundamental policy is this: Washington politicians and bureaucrats should have the power to ration energy, set energy prices and regulate how energy is used … everywhere. It is a prescription for a vast new government intrusion into everyday American life.

Note the progression in the Democrats’ energy arguments. Step one has been evident since the dark days when Jimmy Carter donned a sweater and appealed to the nation to accept a future of energy scarcity, even as he and the Democratic Congress imposed a windfall profits tax that drove oil production down and gas prices up. They also created a stifling blanket of red tape and environmental litigation that has since been steadily made thicker still. That made it far more expensive to search for and produce oil, and effectively put off-limits more than 90 percent of federal lands and offshore areas thought to hold billions of barrels of new oil reserves and trillions of feet of natural gas."

Click Here to read the rest of the editorial.

Michelle Malkin points out an interesting fact that Congress isn't the only ones who have banned drilling for oil. The White House has an Executive Order banning it as well! Yet will President Bush rescind that order??? Or will he just continue to blame Congress for it's inaction and ignore his own inaction?

Here is an excerpt of her comments...

"You’ll notice that I didn’t blindly, wildly applaud President Bush’s remarks yesterday calling on Congress to lift its offshore drilling ban. (Full speech text here.)

Better late than never, of course. But let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that this is leadership. Or that the Democrats bear 100 percent of the blame for inaction.

There are two bans on drilling–one by Congress and one by an White House executive order put in place by President Bush’s father. Why won’t the son revoke that order NOW if he truly believes expanding American oil production by increasing access to the Outer Continental Shelf is an urgent priority. I quoted the Institute for Energy Research last week: “Mr. Bush, Tear Up That Offshore Drilling Ban.”

Click here to read the rest of her post.

And 'doesn't plan to endorse John McCain'...



As an editorial note, the second viewer question is from Bill Greene, not "Paul Greene". :)

Nice... our nominee is campaigning on Socialism.

"But he also takes aim at top corporate executives with big salaries and excessive severance packages.

"Americans are right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEOs ... bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders," he will say, adding that some of those chief executives helped bring on the country's housing crisis and market troubles.

"If I am elected president, I intend to see that wrongdoing of this kind is called to account by federal prosecutors. And under my reforms, all aspects of a CEO's pay, including any severance arrangements, must be approved by shareholders," he will say."

Click here for the entire story

Rush's take

My wife just sent this article over to me and I love it!! I think Mr. Scott does an excellent job (mixing humor with truth to convey his message) of describing the current condition of our society and it's view on Home-Schoolers. It definitely gives one pause to think about their own views on the subject of Education. As well as considering “Who’s Standard” you will use when determining how you educate your children (by God’s standard, or by the State’s)?

SONNY SCOTT: Home-schoolers threaten our cultural comfort
6/8/2008 9:39:01 AM
Daily Journal

You see them at the grocery, or in a discount store.

It's a big family by today’s standards - "just like stair steps," as the old folks say. Freshly scrubbed boys with neatly trimmed hair and girls with braids, in clean but unfashionable clothes follow mom through the store as she fills her no-frills shopping list.

There's no begging for gimcracks, no fretting, and no threats from mom. The older watch the younger, freeing mom to go peacefully about her task.

You are looking at some of the estimated 2 million children being home schooled in the U.S., and the number is growing. Their reputation for academic achievement has caused colleges to begin aggressively recruiting them. Savings to the taxpayers in instructional costs are conservatively estimated at $4 billion, and some place the figure as high as $9 billion. When you consider that these families pay taxes to support public schools, but demand nothing from them, it seems quite a deal for the public.

Home schooling parents are usually better educated than the norm, and are more likely to attend worship services. Their motives are many and varied. Some fear contagion from the anti-clericalism, coarse speech, suggestive behavior and hedonistic values that characterize secular schools. Others are concerned for their children’s safety. Some want their children to be challenged beyond the minimal competencies of the public schools. Concern for a theistic world view largely permeates the movement.

Indications are that home schooling is working well for the kids, and the parents are pleased with their choice, but the practice is coming under increasing suspicion, and even official attack, as in California.

Why do we hate (or at least distrust) these people so much?

Methinks American middle-class people are uncomfortable around the home schooled for the same reason the alcoholic is uneasy around the teetotaler.

Their very existence represents a rejection of our values, and an indictment of our lifestyles. Those families are willing to render unto Caesar the things that Caesar’s be, but they draw the line at their children. Those of us who have put our trust in the secular state (and effectively surrendered our children to it) recognize this act of defiance as a rejection of our values, and we reject them in return.

Just as the jealous Chaldeans schemed to bring the wrath of the king upon the Hebrew eunuchs, we are happy to sic the state’s bureaucrats on these “trouble makers.” Their implicit rejection of America’s most venerated idol, Materialism, (a.k.a. “Individualism”) spurs us to heat the furnace and feed the lions.

Young families must make the decision: Will junior go to day care and day school, or will mom stay home and raise him? The rationalizations begin. "A family just can't make it on one income." (Our parents did.) "It just costs so much to raise a child nowadays." (Yeah, if you buy brand-name clothing, pre-prepared food, join every club and activity, and spend half the cost of a house on the daughter’s wedding, it does.) And so, the decision is made. We give up the bulk of our waking hours with our children, as well as the formation of their minds, philosophies, and attitudes, to strangers. We compensate by getting a boat to take them to the river, a van to carry them to Little League, a 2,800-square-foot house, an ATV, a zero-turn Cub Cadet, and a fund to finance a brand-name college education. And most significantly, we claim “our right” to pursue a career for our own
"self-fulfillment."

Deep down, however, we know that our generation has eaten its seed corn. We lack the discipline and the vision to deny ourselves in the hope of something enduring and worthy for our posterity. We are tired from working extra jobs, and the looming depression threatens our 401k’s. Credit cards are nearly maxed, and it costs a $100 to fuel the Suburban. Now the kid is raising hell again, demanding the latest Play Station as his price for doing his school work … and there goes that modest young woman in the home-made dress with her four bright-eyed, well-behaved home-schooled children in tow. Wouldn’t you just love to wipe that serene look right off her smug face?

Is it any wonder we hate her so?

Sonny Scott a community columnist, lives on Sparta Road in Chickasaw County and his e-mail address is sonnyscott@yahoo.com.

Appeared originally in the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, 6/8/2008, section 0 , page 0

Taken from DJournal.com

Way to go Janet Reno!! Because of you, there is another brain-washed kid that has been officially added to the ranks of the Cuban Communist Party.

How would I feel if my SS was 'tied up in the Dow Jones'? Incredible! Because then the bureaucrats in Washington, who can't even manage their own restaurant wouldn't be "managing" MY money!

"Year after year, decade upon decade, the U.S. Senate's network of restaurants has lost staggering amounts of money -- more than $18 million since 1993, according to one report, and an estimated $2 million this year alone, according to another.

The financial condition of the world's most exclusive dining hall and its affiliated Capitol Hill restaurants, cafeterias and coffee shops has become so dire that, without a $250,000 subsidy from taxpayers, the Senate won't make payroll next month.

The embarrassment of the Senate food service struggling like some neighborhood pizza joint has quietly sparked change previously unthinkable for Democrats. Last week, in a late-night voice vote, the Senate agreed to privatize the operation of its food service, a decision that would, for the first time, put it under the control of a contractor and all but guarantee lower wages and benefits for the outfit's new hires.

The House is expected to agree -- its food service operation has been in private hands since the 1980s -- and President Bush's signature on the bill would officially end a seven-month Democratic feud and more than four decades of taxpayer bailouts."

Click here to read the rest of the article.

It's ironic the Liberals are opposed to privatization in other sectors of the government, but when it comes to them having "subpar" food and having to pay more, well that's over the line!

However, some of the liberals were honest and showed the hypocrisy of their fellow liberals actions...

"But Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), speaking for the group of senators who opposed privatizing the restaurants, said that "you cannot stand on the Senate floor and condemn the privatization of workers, and then turn around and privatize the workers here in the Senate and leave them out on their own."

If you don't know the story of my wife's family, you must go read her post for father's day! What a blessed story of sacrificial love, faith, and loyalty.

My father's love
"Once upon a time, a handsome young man named David and a beautiful young woman named Melissa became man and wife. Just over a year later, in June of 1981, they welcomed a daughter into the world. They named her Christie."

Click here to read the rest of the story.

“And as to the Cares, they are chiefly what attend the bringing up of Children; and I would ask any Man who has experienced it, if they are not the most delightful Cares in the World.”

—Benjamin Franklin

Related: Congressman Kanjorski responds to incident.

“I may have overreacted when this person stuck a camera in my face. But I feel like it was one of those ‘gotcha’ moments in politics, and my comments were misrepresented,” Mr. Kanjorski, D-Nanticoke, said in a statement.

I know, this story is a week or so old, I just forgot to actually post it.

"Bob Barr's Libertarian presidential campaign is poised to play a serious role in this year's elections, with early polls showing him taking away enough votes from Sen. John McCain to give Democrats a chance to win states that should be safely Republican.

Polls in Georgia and North Carolina over the last two weeks show Mr. Barr winning 8 percent and 6 percent respectively of the presidential vote, and in both cases helping keep likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama within striking distance of Mr. McCain in those states — which, taken together, account for more electoral votes than Florida, Pennsylvania or Ohio.

"Barr does throw a monkeywrench in Republican plans in states people otherwise take for granted as Republican states," said Matt Towery, a former political adviser to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and CEO of InsiderAdvantage, an Atlanta-based polling and political analysis firm that conducted the Georgia poll. "

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Some have noted that Barr will perhaps become reviled and disliked by the conservative-right. However I beg to differ. I believe that people are desirous of limited government and will open their arms and hearts to anyone who preaches that (even if it's with a libertarian slant). Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a libertarian! I have very large conflicts with their core philosophies, even though I do agree with a lot of their outcomes, we just differ on how and why we get there. :)

So to conclude, I believe that Bob Barr will have an impact on the 2008 elections, just as Chuck Baldwin will. Why? Because the Republican party has lost the desire (nationally) to be the party of limited government.

"DeKalb County police are looking for two home invaders who tied up a wife and husband in their house Wednesday afternoon.

The incident happened around 3 p.m. in a neighborhood near Emory University, police said. A woman living in the 2800 block of Laurelgate Drive on the DeKalb side of Atlanta pulled into her driveway to find two men waiting.

"They somehow forced their way into the house and tied her up," police spokesman Marcus Hodge said.

The woman's husband was tied up with her. Police were unsure if the husband arrived home during or after the home invasion. There also were three children in the house; it was not known if they, too, were bound."

Click Here to read the rest of the article.

A little late tribute to our veterans of D-Day.

Didn't he watch John Kerry in 2004?



btw... Here are a few more Obama gaffes.



And the media says that GWB can't speak! :)

And your sins will find you out... :)

Looks like the D.C. gun ban is working out really well...

"Starting on Saturday, officers will check drivers' identification and ask whether they have a "legitimate purpose" to be in the Trinidad area, such as going to a doctor or church or visiting friends or relatives. If not, the drivers will be turned away."

"The strategy, patterned after a similar effort conducted years ago in New York, is not airtight. There are many ways to get in and out of Trinidad, not just on the one-way Montello Avenue. And pedestrians will not be stopped, which is something critics say might render the program ineffective.

"I guess the plan is to hope criminals will not walk into neighborhoods," said D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large). "I also suppose the plan is to take the criminal's word for it when he or she gives the police a reason for driving into a neighborhood."

So instead of arming the law-abiding citizens... let's disarm them so that they are even more vulnerable!

"One of Lanier's plans, the Safe Homes initiative, has yet to get off the ground because of a community backlash. The plan, announced by Lanier and Fenty at a news conference in March, called for police to go door-to-door in crime-ridden areas and ask residents whether they could go inside and search for guns. Residents and some council members voiced concerns that homeowners would feel intimidated by police. Lanier backed off, but said she plans to move forward soon by having residents call police to set up appointments."

Click here to read the full article

"A 13-year-old girl was shot Friday in a Gwinnett County home invasion and robbery, police said.

A pair of robbers forced their way into an apartment on Noble Forest Drive near the Peachtree Corners area around 5:45 p.m., Gwinnett County Police spokesman David Schiralli said.

A family of four was at home, and the two robbers demanded the wallet, car keys and money from the father.

"One of the two [robbers] shot, and struck the victim's 13-year-old daughter," Schiralli said. "

Click here to read the rest of the story

What do those two issues have in common you ask? Well according to John Lott, quite a bit. It's an interesting piece...

"Are women really discriminated against in politics? Sen. Hillary Clinton surely thinks so.

Indeed, she believes this year's presidential campaign has shown that sexism limits women's influence in politics. She claimed last week that "every poll I've seen shows more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman [than] to vote for an African American."

It's possible that Democrats are particularly sexist, but with women making up the majority of voters, one would think that politicians were ignoring women at their own peril.

In 2004, women made up 54 percent of voters. At least through early February of this year, women made up a much greater share of Democrat primary voters — accounting for between 57 and 61 percent of the vote in primaries and caucuses.

But whatever difficulties Clinton might be having, it seems that the policies adopted are much more important than who puts them into action, and the evidence indicates that women have long gotten their way.

Academics have for some time pondered why the government started growing precisely when it did. The federal government, aside from periods of wartime, consumed about 2 to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) up until World War I. That was the first war in which government spending didn't go all the way back down to its pre-war levels. Then in the 1920s, non-military federal spending began steadily climbing.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal — often viewed as the genesis of big government — really just continued an earlier trend. What changed before Roosevelt came to power that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage.

Click Here to read the rest of the article.

Click Here to read Rush's take.

All in an effort to "protect the American people".

And of course if liberals had their way, you and I wouldn't be able to protect our wives and children like this officer did. Why? Because we aren't "authorized law enforcement".

Click Here to learn more about Matt and Click Here to donate to his campaign.