Roadhouse Blog

2011-10-12T19:24:00.000-07:00

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

I've been occasionally checking in on some of the footage of the post-pubescent children who constitute the "occupy Wall Street" mass mooch-ins that are infecting various cities in America this week. Originally, I wasn't planning to dignify them with my valuable typing time, but then I started to wonder...could these human parasites actually survive in the world they want to create? I doubt it.
Let's assume for the sake of discussion that their vague-yet-hilarious demands were met, and suddenly the "rich" were forced to hand over their wealth for equal distribution among those unwilling to work for a living. With profit now off the table, there would be no reason for anyone to continue advances in industries including, but not limited to health care, energy, transportation, security, housing, or even food production. What's the worse that could happen? Right?
Obviously I don't claim to know what such a future would look like in any accurate detail, but logic demands a scenario somewhere between the Great Depression and Orwell's "1984".

Could a person solely dependant on others, live and thrive in a world that would in all likelihood demand resourcefulness, personal motivation, and testicular fortitude? Could this particular brand of riff raff meet those standards? It seems to me that having a personal philosophy that leads you to believe you have some claim or entitlement to other's wealth would make you a pretty successful thief or gang leader in a Road Warrior-esque, post revolution, progressive/anarchistic utopia. Except for one little problem. These over-feminized, hyper-sensitized, vegetarian, latte swillers don't have enough muscle, backbone, or sufficiently thick skin to last a week in the future of their own creation.
In fact, it's more likely that if these "men" were lucky enough to survive the riots, viral epidemics and famine in the early years of lib-topia, they would never be able to escape being gang-raped by marauding bands of motorcycle gangs. After all, a true "progressive" would never carry a gun to protect themselves. And a true "liberal" wouldn't even think of hunting deer for meat. I simply assume that an un-armed, physically weak nineteen year old boy with green hair, "skinny jeans" and a Che Gueverra T-shirt, might be at a slight dis-advantage in the food chain of the future.

Just what does a parasite do when there is no more blood, or no more host? What do those who depend on hand-outs do, when there are no more hand-outs to take? Who do you steal from once you've made everyone poor? Once you kill the cow, where do you get your milk?
Oh well, I've never accused the left of being "forward thinkers". I guess they better just hope that "Bubba the biker" has a gentle side.

2011-09-13T18:23:00.000-07:00

DANCING WITH THE FRAUD

One of the bonuses of being a truck driver is that I get to meet a wide cross-section of people every day. Inevitably, this exposes me to many varying opinions relating to any given subject. One such subject has risen in popularity lately with the announcement that Chastity Bono is going to be a contestant on "Dancing With the Stars". As expected, and according to plan, the resulting controversy about her appearance on the show sparked headlines and commentary from pretty much everyone in the media, as well as some of my co-workers.
You can safely assume what some of the more common thoughts on Chastity might be, but the theme I find most interesting comes from the "unsure" crowd. These are your friends or relatives who know that there's something wrong, but can't quite put their finger on it, let alone explain it. Thankfully, I'm here to do the heavy lifting on this one.

The reason there's a problem with Bono's appearance on the show is not so much that she's gay...it's because she's a fraud. The last time I checked, with the exception of actors playing a role, undercover police work, or Halloween costumes, pretending to be something you're not is a form of deception. And also the last time I checked, deception was something that was supposed to be frowned upon. I can assume Bono was the producer's choice because Bernie Madoff is currently...indisposed.
You see, Chastity Bono is no more a man than I'm a seven foot tall black guy. Sure, I could have my skin dyed, or take melanin injections, but would that change the fact that my family tree hails from parts far north of Africa? Does "feeling" like I should have been born a seven foot tall black man justify having femoral extensions implanted into my legs to make me taller? What does it say about the ethics of any doctor who would do such a procedure?
What if I decide that I "feel" like a police officer? Does that give me the power to arrest someone?
There are many accomplices taking part in this fraud. Starting with Chastity, a woman pretending to be a man, then having the audacity to expect and demand that everyone play along. Then, anyone who enabled or played along with the charade. This list includes anyone who refers to her as "him" or "Chaz", and ends with any member of the medical profession who had a hand in the mutilation of her body.

It's very simple folks. You play the hand you're dealt in life. If you're dealt a penis, you live life as a male, because that's what you are. If you're dealt a vagina, you live life as a woman. To do it any other way is to live a lie.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get ready for my NBA tryout.

2011-08-08T19:20:00.000-07:00

CURING THE CULTURE

First, I'm not dead, I'm a Dad... and a husband. Since my last post, life has dealt me some interesting hands that have kept me from my blogging duties. Not to worry though, aside from a hale storm/tornado giving our house a good ol' fashioned ass whoop'n, and a work schedule that went into hyper drive at around the same time, everything has been going pretty well at the Roadhouse...house. And thanks to taking the time to research my choice in homeowners insurance policies when I bought our home ten years ago, the storm damage was well covered and since fixed.

I've written often about how being a conservative is not always easy. Let's face it, part of the mass appeal of liberalism is that it requires little in the way of intellect, foresight, reason, or personal ambition. On the flip side, conservatism is based in the idea that an individual is duty bound to pull his/her own weight, handle his or her own problems and do everything in their power to not put themselves in a position where they would need to depend on or mooch off of others. As expected, actually living this philosophy usually means some type of work and/or sacrifice.
Case in point; recently, we had a major problem with Mrs. Roadhouse's car. As opposed to taking it to the dealership, or "certified" mechanic, I opted to fix it myself. After all, that's what a conservative would do. Especially one who actually knows what those things under the hood do.

No do-it-yourself car project would be complete without a trip to ye-old auto parts store. For many shade tree mechanics, a parts store is also a place to socialize and catch up on local gossip. On this day, another local guy came into the shop as I was waiting for my parts. The conversation turned to what new venture he was starting, as he is known to be involved in various different enterprises. He told the guys behind the counter that he was getting into raising honey bees. I was not really paying attention to any of this until he proudly proclaimed that the government was going to give him $1000.00 per hive.
At that moment he had inadvertently pressed my "on" button. I calmly turned to him and said "I think you meant to say that WE are going to give you $1000.00 a hive...right?" as I motioned to everyone in the store. While looking at me as if I just grown a second head, he asked me what I meant. I reminded him that the government can not spend one plug nickel on anything, until it takes it from someone else first. I suggested to him that by rights, everyone in that store would be entitled to some of the honey from the hives we would be helping to finance, and we would be anxiously awaiting our first jar. Un-amused, he took his quarts of oil and left the store.

This incident, coupled with our government's child-like understanding of free market principals and the actual role of government supports my theory that nothing is going to change for the better in America until we break our addiction to Uncle Sam's ever-helping hand being expected to wipe our ever-dependant rear ends.

2011-04-06T15:33:00.000-07:00

ARE WE SUPPOSED TO FORGET...?

One of the great things about the Internet, books, magazines and newspapers is that they are a permanent record of opinions, ideas, and things that happened in the past. In recent weeks, I have come tho the conclusion that the Obama administration has either forgotten this, or they are simply to arrogant to care.
After September 11, 2001 I, like many others here in America became fixated on the news and what was happening around the world. Speaking for myself, that hasn't changed. Though I don't watch the news to the extent I did nine years ago, which lead to the FOX NEWS icon being permanently burned into the bottom left corner of my TV screen, I still pay close attention to what's going on out there. And though I don't have the photographic memory of my lovely wife, I do recollect a few things from recent years. One such thing is the war in Iraq.
From nearly day one, the media amplified the talking points of the anti-American left. We were treated to daily doses of screeching pacifists comparing President Bush to Adolph Hitler, and the invasion of Iraq to imperialism. We were told that going to Iraq was going to create more terrorists. We were told that despite the broad coalition of countries who were helping, it was still a "unilateral" invasion. We were told that despite the finding of mass graves, known use of weapons of mass destruction, the invasion of Kuwait, attempted assassination of a sitting President, support of terrorism, and active attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein was no threat to the United States.
Flash forward to today and the "whatchamacallit" we're doing in Libya. Don't get me wrong, you will never hear me complain about Mohmar Quadafi being taken out of power...but. Where are the accusations of being "bogged down in a quagmire"? Why no cries of this being an "illegal invasion"? Where is Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan? Who's whining about "exit strategies" now? Where are those ever-pennywise Democrats that were so concerned about cost of the war in Iraq now? Are fighter planes and missiles free now?

Personally, my issue regarding Libya is less about the total and absolute hypocrisy from the left, and more about the apparent "let's see what happens if we do this" approach we seem to be taking there. It's one thing to help the townsfolk fight back against an infamous street gang such as the "Bloods". But what if there was a pretty good chance that most of those "townsfolk" were actually made up of of members of the "Crips", and/or "MS-13"? Imagine being that U.S. fighter pilot who's job it is to take out Quadafi's forces, but you know in the back of your mind that in all likelihood, you're actually helping the Taliban, or Al Queda take over another Middle Eastern country. On top of that, you can also assume that according to our justification for going to Libya, we'll be going to Syria, Yemen, Darfur, and every other totalitarian society on the globe in the next few months as well. After all, it wouldn't be fair to only pick on Libya, when so many other countries treat their people so much worse. Right?
Such moral dilemmas are part of the reason I have so much respect for our military. Following orders that you know are going to bite you in the ass later is just one of many indignities our military are forced to put up with. If it were me in that fighter plane, I think I'd be tempted to just say "screw it" and pull the eject lever. That's the difference between someone serving in the military, and a civilian puke like me.

2011-03-22T18:49:00.000-07:00

LOVE THY BULLY

When I sat down this evening in hopes of pounding out a brilliant think-piece about America's latest bout with Libya, I realized immediately that it just wasn't going to happen...at least not tonight. I did make a half-hearted attempt, but putting such massive amounts of hypocrisy, incompetence, and short-sightedness into one article was going to take more time and patience than I happen to have tonight. For now, "ROADHOUSE ON LIBYA" will have to wait. In the meantime, I offer the following substitute.

In recent months, it's been hard to miss the growing trend of anti-bullying messaging in the media and throughout my daughter's school. When President Obama referenced bullying in one of his many "let's talk about this so you won't focus on my total lack of competence" speeches last week, I knew I had to address the topic. And as usual, I will be taking a road less traveled on the issue.
Let's face it, being bullied is no fun. Yes, I do speak from experience. The effect it can have on your dignity and self esteem can be devastating and emotionally crippling. On the other hand, being bullied can be a lesson in life that you will draw on for the rest of your days. The choice is almost always that of the "victim".
As with most problems in life, liberals are under some weird impression that lots of your money, legislation, regulation and public service propaganda campaigns will somehow magically end bullying. Even if bullying could be ended with the wave of a hand, Jedi mind trick style, I think it is in our children's best interest if we take a minute to ask if bullying actually should be stopped.
Consider this. What lesson does a child take away from a scenario where he/she is bullied, and an all-powerful third party steps in and saves the day? Did the child learn self-reliance and the value of knowing how it feels to overcome adversity? No, he/she learned how to be totally dependent on some other person or group, reinforcing and solidifying his/her low self esteem.
Now, what lesson does the same child take away from being allowed or even forced to handle the bully on his/her own terms? Win or lose, the child will never be 40 years old, still living with the regret of not at least trying to stick up for themselves.
Personally, being bullied was probably the most influential factor in shaping my personality to this day. I don't even remember how many months I suffered, fearing my bus ride to middle school because of my bully. Thankfully, I had parents who were wise enough to push me into standing up for myself. So one day, shortly after he started his daily routine of pushing me around, my bully was met with a fist in the face, resulting in his blood on the bus floor. From that day on, he never bothered me, or anyone else on that bus again.
As far away as that day is now, I still reflect back on that particular bus ride whenever I have a challenge to face in my adult life. Call it survival of the fittest, call it natural selection, or call it the school of hard knocks, but my bully has saved my self esteem and maybe even my life many times over in the decades since that encounter. Looking back, I realize that being bullied was probably the best thing that ever happened to me.

2011-03-17T18:39:00.000-07:00

HUMILITY 101

Since the devastating earth quake and resulting tsunami, followed by impending nuclear disaster in Japan, there have been many lessons to be learned. As a distant observer nestled in my comfy country home hear in America, I have the luxury of picking and choosing what to take away from the tragedy in Japan. I could focus on the many political angles, or question the wisdom of building nuclear plants in known earthquake zones. I could focus on the media's complete and total incompetence in their reporting of the situation in there. Or I could simply distract myself from the devastation with basketball brackets and trips to Rio DeJinerio (like some people have chosen to do).
Rather, I am going to stick with my usual ROADHOUSE BLOG m.o. of seeing things just a little bit differently than most folks. Regardless of any religious or theological tendencies you may or may not have, there is one lesson that you are duty-bound to learn from what's happening in the land of the rising sun. The lesson is a simple one: You (we) just ain't "all that".
While you were considering the long term global effects of what particular type of light bulb you were going to purchase, there were tectonic plates beneath your feet considering what particular day they are going to shift, causing your entire house to be swallowed by a massive undiscovered fault line.
While you were wringing your hands at the checkout line because you had to decide which method of grocery bagging would have the least effect on the mating habits of some obscure species of field mouse in the year 2053, a nearby body of water was contemplating surging across the shoreline, destroying everything you ever loved.

The point is, you can worry about whatever unproven, fraudulent, over-hyped, yet-to-actually be witnessed, future faux-disaster you want to. But just remember this, as we learned last Friday, your recycling bin will not save you from twenty million gallons of water and debris rushing toward you at 100 mph. There is no natural disaster that will be impressed that you drive a Prius.
In short, we are small. As a species, we are so insignificant in the grand scheme of things, that we are really not in a position to waste time preparing for theoretical dilemmas. Considering the size, scope, and longevity of Mother Nature, it seems to me that we would be better off spending our time, money, and energy preparing for things we actually know can happen. Maybe the climate will change to an un-sustaneable level because I bought the wrong light bulb, maybe it won't. But in the meantime, I know for a fact that there will be volcanoes, floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, droughts, and swarms of angry man-eating locusts sometime between the end of time, and the next thirty seconds. Maybe we should concentrate on some of that.

2011-02-26T10:25:00.000-08:00

COLLECTIVE BULLYING

I've been watching the events in Wisconsin for the past few weeks, and I am reminded of the fact that we have a long way to go in the fight to fix our educational system. On full display for everyone to see is a broken public school system run by the same people we are supposed to entrust our health care to...our government.
Rather than put my own personal spin on ground that's been well traveled over past couple of weeks by bringing up the cowardly democrats who fled like rats to avoid doing their job, or connecting the dots from President Obama to the labor unions, or whining yet again about the unfair coverage and blatantly bias coverage by the media of Governor Walker's fight to balance his state's budget, I'm simply going to boil this all down to a philosophical discussion. How's that for a run-on sentence?

Ask yourself the following question; Do the rights offered in this country apply to every citizen, or only the well connected? To ask me, you would hear me tell you that our rights apply to everyone, to ask a union representative, you would hear a well worded tap dance designed to distract you from the fact that he/she believes that the rights of a union member overrides and usurps that of an employer or the amount of money that employer has to work with in their budget during any given fiscal year.

Much like the big kid who would threaten "swirlies" unless you forked over your lunch money, unions threaten "strikes" unless you fork over wages and/or benefits that the free market would not otherwise provide under normal circumstances. At this point, the typical union member would proudly say, "Exactly, unions raise the standard of compensation for workers!". OK, but what happens when that artificially inflated level of compensation can no longer be afforded by the employer? Answer: Your employer either shuts it's doors, or bills the tax payer for a bailout as in the case of GM and Chrysler.

Worse yet, the difference between the car industry bailouts and what's happening in Wisconsin is the fact that in the case of the auto industry, the divide is between "labor" and "management". Labor being guilty of bullying their way to compensation packages that would eventually bankrupt the manufacturer while inflating the price of the car, and management being guilty of letting them, and then having the nerve to assume the tax payer should foot the bill. Yet in the case of Wisconsin, the divide is between labor being guilty of bullying their way to compensation packages that would eventually bankrupt the state while harming the quality of the children's education, and the tax payer being guilty of earning a paycheck and trying to provide for their family in the middle of a government induced recession. It's ironic that in both disputes, the tax payer is the one expected to fork over the cash.

As a conservative, I am duty bound to accept the rights of all people, even if the rights of others might not be in my best financial interest. That means I realize that when I pursue a particular job, it is the right of the employer to offer the terms of the job, and it is my right to accept them or not. It is my right to go elsewhere in search of employment, and it is the employer's right to offer an unreasonable compensation package that will result in him/her not being able to find quality employees, ultimately resulting in failure of his/her business. So says the free market.

For me to come to the negotiating table with a third party who's sole purpose is to win me "extras" that this particular job would not usually entitle me to, says a lot about me. It says that I can not stand on my own two feet, and that I have trouble navigating life without some powerfull third party holding my hand. It also says that I am starting from an adversarial position regarding my future relationship with my employer. It also tells you that I am not very forward thinking, because I do not recognize the exponential costs of my demands, and their inevitable result...unemployment. So says liberalism.

Lost in the haze of the Wisconsin debate are thousands of kids who are not being taught, by teachers who routinely claim that they teach because they "love children and love to teach". I guess that's as long as they pull down a salary and benefits package that would be the envy of any truck driver on the interstate.

2011-02-06T18:52:00.000-08:00

YOU'RE HIRED...not!

Last week, while playing with my son, the phone rang. The caller ID read: "PA SENATE". Ever the pessimist, I almost didn't answer it, assuming it was some sort of robo-call, or plea for donations by someone's lower tier staffer. The curiosity got the best of me, so I answered it. As it turns out, it was actually my State Senator Rich Alloway. Still the pessimist, I was waiting for him to ask for a donation, but he didn't. Instead, he just wanted to call me personally to tell me how much he enjoyed reading my book.

You see, some time back, he was speaking at a local fund raiser, and after some coaxing from my wife, I attended the event and gave him a copy of my book. Senator Alloway's call was very sincere and we had a great conversation about the media and general politics. After his call, I could feel my ego inflating. After all, it's not every day that a State Senator calls you for no other purpose than to say he's a fan of your work.

As pure coincidence, Alloway was to be hosting a job fair at an events center here in my home town. I decided to stop by and introduce myself in person. I'm glad I did, because though Alloway recognized me right away and couldn't have been a cooler dude to talk to, the event itself turned out to be worth the frozen/Arctic trip into town on it's own.
I've been to job fairs in the past, but this was easily the biggest one I have ever attended. Being there as an employed truck driver allowed me to observe the event as an outsider. After all, I wasn't there to find a job.
As I watched the variety of people wandering aimlessly throughout the boothes manned by various trade schools, community colleges, and local industries, I realized two things. One, you know unemployment is too high when a job fair in a rural area such as this can draw a crowd this size (1000+people). And two, you could easily split that crowd into two groups; those who want a job, and those who don't.
Those who wanted a job were easy to spot. They were comprised of people who went the extra mile to look their best. Dress pants, and pressed shirts for the men, dresses and heels for the ladies. All carrying some sort of folder containing a portfolio and resume. In this group there was also a sub-strata. Those who wanted a job, but weren't going to get one because they sabotaged themselves before they even left their house.
These were the folks that took the time to wear the right clothes, prepared the right portfolios, but couldn't find a convincing way to hide the "flaming skull with rotting flesh" tattoo etched into their neck. Not to be out done, there was the guy who realized all too late that the giant disks that usually plugged half-dollar sized holes in his earlobes were probably not going to help his employment situation, so he opted to ditch the disks and went with the "I want my earlobes to look like soggy onion rings" look.

Moving on to those who had no intention of finding work. They were easy to spot as well. Many in this group moved in packs. Bringing friends and family and looking like reject extras from a bad rap video, these folks weren't even trying to be discreet about their agenda. They were there to grab job applications so they can fill them out as a requirement for unemployment benefits and welfare.

All in all, braving the elements to experience my town's job fair extravaganza turned out to be not only a great chance to see slackers and go-getters in their full glory, but it was also a good chance to push my son around in his stroller and make fun of people.

2011-01-10T18:43:00.000-08:00

LIL' GANGSTAS

Maybe the reality that confronts me daily in the form of newly issued grey hairs is finally sinking in. Maybe I actually am out of touch. Maybe my intellect has not yet reached a level that would allow me to properly contextualize any form of entertainment popularized after 1987. Maybe I actually am an over-protective parent. Or, maybe there is a segment of society that cannot muster enough fore-sight/long term speculative reasoning ability to recognize a bad idea when they see one. This segment is known as the "clueless parent".

First, in the interest of full disclosure, it has been brought to my attention that my following opinion could be mis-interpreted as some sort of racial prejudice. So, to set the record straight...it is not. Please withhold judgement until the end of this piece.

Recently, my six year old daughter was in our living room when she decided to start dancing. This is not unusual because she has lots of energy and loves to dance. The problem was the particular dance she was doing. Cross between the ticks of someone who suffers from cerebral palsy and something I would commonly see on the dance floor of bars I used to frequent before I met my wife, this "dance" concerned me enough to ask my daughter what she was doing.
She explained that she was do the "tooty-ta" dance. After further inquiry, I learned that it was something she was taught in her first grade class, and it turned out to be a video that I was able to find on "You-Tube".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qULd3d_gDCg

As a father, I am told that one of my duties is to protect my children from things that might harm them or things that might not be in their best interest. I am also told that my wife and I are responsible for whatever our children turn out to be as adults. On both points, I am in total agreement.
In the year 2011, the ever-growing list of things I need to protect my children from includes but is not limited to the following...bees, germs, snakes, pedophiles, sharp objects, traffic, drugs, pimps, prostitutes, stripper poles, and negative stereotypes disguised as cute, harmless little dances for children.

Call me crazy, but I have a bit of a problem with my kid being taught to emulate the mannerisms of people who refuse to wear clothes that fit properly, and can't seem to figure out which end of the hat is the front. Top that with comically large gold medallions and non-sensical lyrics and viola! A brand new gangsta rapper in training. Every parent's dream.
As for the racism angle, not so fast. My prejudice against rap music runs both deep and wide, and for many reasons to be written about in a future article. But this has nothing to do with skin color. It simply has to do with musical tastes. And for those who doubt my sincerity, I offer my CD collection as exhibit "A". It contains the following artists: Buddy Guy, John Lee Hooker, Muddy Waters, Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Wonder, Miles Davis, Taj Mahal, Ray Charles, Bo Diddly, BB King, and a whole list of other black musicians who know how to make music with actual instruments, as opposed to electronic sampling programs.

As for "tooty ta", it has no apparent educational value for kids of any color.

2010-12-29T19:11:00.000-08:00

LAST RIGHTS

Throughout history, one of the identifying features of a civilized culture has been the respecting of a dying man's last request. Whether a matter of law, policy, or unwritten rule, the seeing-through of the deceased's last wishes has usually been considered a noble act reserved for the closest of kin or best of friend. Then came liberalism.

Where common sense and general decency dictate that your property is exactly that-your property, liberalism dictates that your property belongs to the government, who allows you to "borrow" it until the moment of your death, at which time they have the right to reclaim it. At least, that seems to be the logic behind the idea of the "death tax".
Consider this. Assuming that you are a law abiding citizen, during your time on this Earth, every paycheck you ever earn is taxed before it even touches your hand. Then, everything you ever purchase is taxed...sometimes redundantly. By rights, (and the constitution) anything left over is supposed to be yours. Consequently, it is supposed to be you who makes the decisions regarding who will inherit what's left over. But, as with all other decisions in life, liberals believe that your last request should be left to that Goliath of bureaucracy we call "the government".

I say "Why stop there"? If the government is entitled to decide who gets your money when you die, then why not the rest of your stuff? After all, who are you to decide who gets your family photos? Pets? Clothes? Beer stein collection? Books? Baseball cards? Etc, etc...

With liberalism having such a "death grip" on our life...and death, it's easy to see why it is no longer a custom to place pennies on the eyes of the dead.

2010-12-05T19:04:00.000-08:00

TARGET: GOLDEN GOOSE

As a rule, I try not to re-hash topics I've covered in the past. But with the current state of our economy and congress' child-like understanding of both the cause of it, and solutions to it, I felt a refresher coarse might be in order.
As congress fights among themselves about whether or not to extend the current tax rates, or raise taxes on certain, but not all citizens of America, it occurs to me that in the future, we might want to consider a basic aptitude test as a requirement for being allowed to run for public office. Until that day though, all I can do is offer my free economic lessons and hope that prospective politicians take full advantage of it.

I'm going to make this short and sweet. If you think raising taxes on "the rich" is going to help the economy, you are wrong. First, it's not fair to tax one citizen at a different tax rate than another. Especially when it's done for spite, jealousy, or simple ignorance of economics. Second, if you want to "create jobs", who better to do that than the people who actually do the most hiring? I mean really! Who hires more people? The X-Box addicted, 87' GEO driving, Mamma's basement living welfare case? The small business owner who's business has never actually required the hiring of more than thirty people? Or the "rich fat cat" who's enterprises require a minimum of two thousand associates to staff adequately?
Who is more likely to purchase big ticket items like boats, cars, pools, planes, summer homes, or turn one condos at Charlotte Motor Speedway? The welfare case? Mr. Small Business? Or the rich guy? Considering that those big ticket items do not grow on trees, where do you suppose they come from? You guessed it, the American worker. That is assuming that their manufacturers haven't fled the country trying to escape excessive taxation...irony.
So though it may bother you that some rich jerk just bought his third 120 foot yacht, you need to remember that the purchase of that yacht employed hundreds of people and fed many families. From everyone who works for the yacht company to the guy who scrapes the barnacles off it's hull, and everyone in between...people made money from the rich guy's indulgences.
Reducing the rich guy's ability to indulge himself via higher taxes might make you feel better, but it ain't going to put food on the table of the guy who assembles yacht engines.

Third, the age old rule of "S#&% rolls down hill" applies today just as it always has. That means that even though I might not be rich, my boss is. And when his taxes are raised, I'll give you one guess as to who is actually going to feel the pain of it. Be it a smaller cost of living raise, reduced benefits, or another year without new equipment, I'll be the one who takes the hit. You see, rich guys don't just buy yachts, they buy entire fleets of new trucks for their companies...unless the cost of those trucks goes up due to taxation. Keep in mind that an unsold truck brings NO tax revenue, but trucks sold at a reasonable/less prohibitive tax rate will bring tax revenue.

They are supposed to be teaching this stuff in schools. So why is it up to me? I should be in bed by now!

2010-11-06T19:15:00.000-07:00

NOW, THE HARD PART

First, I would like to address the state of Maryland. You were robbed. Though I'm not usually prone to conspiracy theories, and I rarely rely on anecdotal evidence, I must say that in my un-scientific opinion..."You got jacked Bro!".
If I am not to assume that there were some sort of electoral shenanigans that produced an O'Malley/Mikulski win on Tuesday, then there are only two other possibilities. Maryland voters are so embarrassed by their desire to vote democrat, that they refuse to put O'Malley/Mikulski signs in their yard, or there is a densely populated part of Maryland that is not shown on any map and can not be seen from any road, and just happens to vote primarily democrat.

You see, as a truck driver, I cover all points of Maryland. From the Eastern Shore, to the mountains of Garret Country and everywhere in between. From Baltimore to Cumberland and Waldorf to Rockville, there has been one thing that stands out above all else in recent weeks. The ratio of Ehrlich signs over O'Malley's has easily been 20 to 1. It's been nearly impossible to swing a dead cow without hitting a giant 4x8 Ehrlich sign, but finding an O'Malley sign has been akin to a game of Where's Waldo.
Between this puzzeling observation and O'Malley's reference to illegal aliens as "new Americans" in a debate, I have to assume that there is something fishy going on in Annapolis.

Second, I would like to address California. You guys are just screwed. At this point, your best hope for the future of your state is that the San Andreas Fault finally gives-way and allows California to slide on out to sea.

On a more serious note, there are many lessons to be learned from the election of 2010. The most most important being that there are few things more valuable on this Earth than education. Not necessarily an education certified in some over-priced, ivy-league, snob-o-torium, but the sort of education one receives through life experience and a willingness to apply rational thought to an issue when there's no one around to impress. It was the regular folk out there taking the time to educate themselves on issues like health care, taxes, government spending, and illegal immigration who saved the day on November 2nd, 2010...not the smug-ocracy from Harvard and Yale.
We also need to understand that this election was not the victory we should be celebrating. Yes, I understand the need to do a naked "happy dance" on the front lawn to revel in the defeat of Nancy Pelosi. Yes, I understand the scope of Republican/T.E.A. party wins on every level of government from national to local. And yes, I do understand the satisfaction we felt when the liberal/main stream media was forced to announce the election results to the world, while trying not to look like they just swallowed a turd (Matthews and Olberman couldn't quite pull it off).
But the larger point is that even thought this was a massive electoral victory, it was really more of a successful job interview...and now we actually have to do the job. A better analogy might be that this election is mearly a solid foot-hold on a beyond vertical climb, up the icy rock face of Mt. Everest, while competing climbers are allowed to shoot you with B.B. guns.
We may have thrown the Obama agenda off track for the moment, but the battle is just now getting started. As evidenced by election results in California, Nevada, Maryland and Delaware, we still have a long way to go before we can safely say we've defeated socialism in America. We have many debates and Congressional votes ahead that will need to be won. We have millions of hearts and minds to win. There are literally millions of people out there who are in dire need of a complete ideological/philosophical over-haul...and we have less than two years to do the job.
In short, this is no time to celebrate. It will be after the liberal/progressive agenda is stigmatized and ridiculed out of the main-stream that I will crack open "the good stuff" and propose a toast.

2010-10-21T19:10:00.000-07:00

NPR'S LOSS...OUR GAIN

In support of Juan Williams, I have decided to re-run an article I wrote in February of 2009. I sure hope NPR and George Soros think they've got their money's worth by firing Williams. Rather, I do believe they've just thrown NPR's "thought police" agenda head-long into the national spotlight for everyone to see.
I guess Teri Gross can officially call her show All Liberal Things Considered.

WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE

No, this is not a "photo-shopped" picture designed to shamelessly plug my book. It actually is me with the Juan Williams of FOX News and NPR. Mr. Williams was lecturing at Shippensburg State College, which is mear minutes from the Roadhouse homestead. As a long time fan of Williams, I couldn't justify missing an opportunity to meet him. As a conservative, I often disagree with Juan's assessment of issues facing our nation, but what sets Williams apart from the liberal herd is not his opinions, it's his personality.
Since I first took the red pill and was drawn into the "Matrix" that is the world of politics, I've seen many political pundits hock their wares across my television screen. Among the liberal media are platoons of snarky, elitist "intellectuals" who never miss a chance to bash conservatives with little more than school yard shin-kickery. Through it all, one guy has stood out to a point where I frequently ask my wife, "Why can't the rest of those jerks be more like him?" That guy is Juan Williams.
The topic of his speech was "Eyes on the Prize: The Truths of American Race Relations". Admittedly, I was expecting Mr. Williams to be a bit more partisan, given the college setting and no cameras rolling. I actually told my traveling companion (AKA, my father-in-law) that we would probably be doing a lot of eye rolling during his lecture. I was wrong.
Like true statesmen of a time pre-dating focus groups and Neilson ratings, Williams spoke of racism in terms that were both fair and accurate. He spoke of personal responsibility or lack there of in the black community. He spoke of Dr. King's message and how he might relate to society today if he were still alive to witness things like gangsta' rap or modern day poverty. He reminded us that even though there is more work to be done, people in general have come much further in their attitudes towards racism than they are usually given credit for. He advocated more communication between ethnicities, and how important it is to keep the conversation going.
Amazingly, he did this without blaming George Bush for all the ills facing the black community, and without throwing verbal pitchforks at those of us on the "right". Unlike just about every liberal talking head I have ever heard, Williams managed to speak for an hour, and take questions from a predominantly "left" audience without making me want to throw produce at him. In fact, I really can't think of one thing he said that I disagreed with. Spooky huh?
After his speech, he did a book signing. He was every bit the respectable American in person that he is on the TV. I told him that I don't always agree with him, but I consider him to be a true statesman. I gave him a copy of my book and he was even gracious enough to let me get a picture of him holding it...his idea.
Juan Williams...a class act, and proof that being a liberal doesn't mean you have to be a nut-job.

2010-10-19T18:25:00.000-07:00

THE FAT LADY DIDN'T SING YET!

Maybe it's my repeated exposure to the lessons of Aesop's Fables which I've been reading to my kids for the past six years. Maybe it's my eternal "glass half empty and leaking rapidly while teetering on the edge of the table" way of looking at life. But in any case, I must tell you that I refuse to adopt the current general consensus that the Democrats are going to go down in flames via a Republican tsunami in this year's mid-term election.
Fore-gone conclusions may be fun to consider, especially when there seems to be so much circumstantial evidence to support them. Polls might be a blast to track and calculate. But I would caution everyone hoping to end the current nightmare to remember a few things.
Only two short years ago, this very same country elected a man with no verifiable experience, connections to enough radical, anti-American communists to start a baseball league and a legislative resume more hazy than my recollections of my 21st birthday (thanks alot Coors brewing company).

In those two short years, the media has yet to loosen their lip-lock on Obama's hind-quarters. In those two short years, Obama supporters have had time to rally funds and organize. In those two short years, political and legislative efforts have been made to help insure a Democrat victory. And I think it's safe to assume that in those two short years, the number of people who've had a political epiphany and come to their senses is probably less than overwhelming.

It's not that I'm trying to pee in our own Cheerios, I just want us to remember who we're up against. Team Obama is a conglomeration of bullies, radicals and well connected union leg breakers. To them, cheating, lying, distracting, and winning "by any means necessary" is part of the job description. My point is that it is way to early for anyone to be breaking out bottles of champaign and making assumptions of any kind (I'm looking at you Dick Morris).
Let's wait until that fateful Tuesday night to decide if we should be toasting our victories or drowning our sorrows. In the meantime, we need to fight this political battle as if our very life depends on it...because it does.

2010-09-10T18:41:00.000-07:00

GREAT BALLS OF FIRE...or not.

In the weeks following the dueling controversies of the Ground Zero Mosque and the burning of Korans by some "weak on follow-through" preacher from down south, much has been said about Americans being "Islam-o-phobic". My old school Webster's dictionary defines phobia as "a persistent illogical fear". Being acrophobic myself, I can relate to a having a fear that could be considered "illogical"...except for the whole "plummeting to a horribly violent death, resulting in your guts being splattered about the ground like a busted water balloon" thing. Other than that, a fear of heights is pretty irrational. But what about Islam-o-phobia?

Is Islam-o-phobia really a phobia? I don't know, is it "illogical" to fear a religion that has been conquering empires since pre-biblical times? Is it "illogical" to fear a religion combined with a system of government that sanctions female genital mutilation and honor killings...in the year 2010 no less? Is it "illogical" to fear a religion that calls for the violent death of anyone who does not convert to it?

Is it illogical to fear a religion responsible for the September 11th attacks, the first World Trade Center bombing, The USS Cole bombing, Lockerbie, Munich, Iranian hostage crises, embassy bombings, British subway bombings, Marine barracks bombings, Fort Hood, DC sniper attacks, Danny Pearl and Nick Burge beheadings, Spain train bombings, Somalia, Serbia, etc, etc?

Obviously, as Americans we are simply over-reacting in our skepticism toward the agenda of the Muslim community. Be that as it may, I have decided that logical or not, I am Islam-o-phobic.

I break it down this way. When a person of any-or-no faith at all depicts Jesus or the Bible in an unflattering way (see Comedy Central), the most they have to fear from a Christian is a good ol' fashioned forgiving, and maybe a prayer or two. Yet when someone says (or draws) something showing Allah or the Koran in a negative light, it's time to strap on the bomb vests or break out the beheading swords. And another thing. Has anyone noticed that there seems to be no Hindu-phobia, Bhuddah-phobia, or even Satan Worship-0-phobia in the world? I wonder why that is? Oh, that's right, those guys don't see blowing up schools as a way to please thier various diaties.

2010-09-04T19:25:00.000-07:00

LIFE, LIBERTY, AND LANDSCAPING

Leave it to me to have an entirely different take on the 8/28
"Restoring Honor" rally that I and a co-worker attended last week. As expected, I was impressed with the turn-out, and the general attitudes of everyone I saw there. I found no fault with any of the speakers, their message, or even the accommodations for such a mass of people. But as I and my former Marine, fellow truck driving traveling companion walked through the crowd, one thing stood out as a constant, nagging, negative observation...THIS PLACE WAS A DUMP!

Some of you may remember my article chronicling my trip to Washington DC for the 9/12 Tea Party rally last fall. At that particular event, my excursion was limited to the northernmost end of the National Mall. While I was there, I had spent most of my time in the middle of the mall talking to people, as opposed to critiquing the mall itself. This latest trip was different.
At it's southernmost point, the National Mall is a mix of wooded areas, ponds, monuments, and small rolling hills, with any number of bushes and shrubs throughout. Sounds pleasant and picturesque, right? Not so much.
You see, I forgot to mention the many areas that I would best describe as some sort of cess pool/swamp-like spring situation, and the countless ankle-breaking, basketball-size holes that dotted the grounds. Then there was the Reflecting Pool.
Being a naive American, I assumed that the Reflecting Pool and surrounding ponds were filled with water. WRONG! Apparently, these features are being used as temporary holding sites for an un-identifiable liquid, best described as something that might be leaking from Monty Burns' nuclear power plant, and kept secret with the help of "Fat Tony" and Mayor Quimby (Simpsons fans know what I mean).
I can also assume that no part of the trillions of dollars in current Federal spending has been allotted for the purchase of weed eaters. I mean really. The National Mall is visited annually by hundreds of thousands of people from around the globe. It is supposed to be inspirational and project an aura of both power and elegance. Between you and me though, the landscaping at my house makes the National Mall's look like a pile of puke.

To be fair, until 9/12/09, I hadn't been to Washington DC since Reagan was in office, so I am not blaming Obama for this one. For all I know, the Mall might have been looking this way for the past twenty years. Still, that's no excuse to have the beacon of freedom for the entire world looking (and smelling) like a truck stop bath room.

2010-08-22T19:34:00.000-07:00

COLOR COMMENTARY

One Saturday, Fred decided to take his sixteen year old daughter Jane car shopping. Her grades were good, and she had been holding down a part time job, so he felt she was worthy of her own set of wheels. Not yet in the first mile of their shopping excursion, Jane let out an ear piercing shriek proclaiming that she had found her ride of choice. "That one, that one right there!" she screamed.
Slamming on the brakes, Fred sailed into the otherwise vacant lot where the only vehicle present was a 1987 Ford F-350 diesel crew cab truck, complete with dual wheels and contractor's "shop body". Unsure, Fred asked his daughter if he had missed the car she was bellowing about. He had barely stopped his pick-up when she jumped out, ran across the lot and hugged the old Ford work truck as if it were her long lost soul mate.
Naturally assuming that this was his little girl's idea of a practical joke, he reminded her that their time was limited and asked her to get back in the pick-up. But Jane persisted, proclaiming that this hulking mass of metal, rust, and oil leaks was exactly the vehicle she both needed and wanted. Realizing both that she had never picked up a tool in her life, and that she was hoping to major in English literature (not masonry) after high school, Fred felt obligated to start asking some questions.
He asked Jane if she knew what kind of fuel mileage this truck was probably going to get. She proudly said that she didn't care. He then asked if she understood how difficult this truck was going to be to park. She acted as she didn't even hear him. When he asked if there was any practical purpose for her to own such a vehicle, she said "No, but who cares?"
Humoring her insanity, he suggested they call the number and see if they can arrange a test drive. She laughed and said "No way, why bother?". Upon further inspection, he noted to her that all six tires were bald, and the passenger door's glass was busted out. Again, his daughter ignored his observation.
Amazed at her ignorance, and short-sightedness, Fred impatiently asked her why on God's green Earth would she ever want such a colossally impractical vehicle to get from home to school in? Jane looked at him as if he had three heads, and after scolding him for being so incredibly ignorant and narrow minded she said "Are you kidding? Can't you see? It's BLUE!!!"

This story may seem unlikely and ridiculous in it's substance, but it's a perfect analogy to the liberal progressive's idea of advancement and hiring on the basis of "diversity".

2010-08-13T19:19:00.000-07:00

ROADHOUSE ENDS TERRORISM

In order to solve the issue of terrorism as soon as possible, I have decided to submit my anti-terrorism policy proposal today, rather than keep it in my pocket until my inevitable election to the U.S. Presidency. The following is a practical, effective formula designed to end terrorism in timely, efficient and economical manner.

POST INAUGURATION ANTI-TERRORISM PROPOSAL

Effective-immediately following swearing in ceremony.

Day one: I instruct the Joint Chiefs of Staff to launch a mass-media campaign including but not limited to leaflet drops, E-mail, radio broadcasts, text messages, and co-opted television spots across the entire Middle East. The message will be simple:

Attention: Due to the latest terror attacks in the name of Islam, the United States will be implementing the following response. As of today, every coalition soldier killed of injured in Iraq or Afghanistan will be replaced by three more soldiers.

Henceforth, our mission objective will no longer be to replace, or modify in any way the governments of any country or province in the Middle East. As of today, our mission will be to kill terrorists, and suspected terrorists. The United States reserves the right to enter any country harboring terrorists, and will use all resources to kill them and destroy their capabilities.
The United States will be implementing new rules of engagement. In short, if we have reason to believe you are a terrorist, we are going to kill you. If we have reason to believe you are helping terrorists, we are going to kill you. Any building known to contain a terrorist will be considered a priority target...including but not limited to mosques and/or madrases. Terrorists will be considered priority targets at all times...including but not limited to when they are among "civilians". We suggest distancing yourself from those you suspect of being a terrorist. It would also be in your best interest to assist coalition forces in the search for terror suspects, as we will be utilizing our newest anti-Islamic terrorism munitions.

I am directing the U.S. Army to deploy our new "pork round" technology. Starting today, every bullet, mine, rocket, bomb, missile, and grenade in our arsenal will be impregnated with pork fat in it's inner core. The pork will be extruded from pigs that have been raised by female Baptist preachers, and blessed by Jewish Rabbis.

We will no longer consider it our responsibility to replace or rebuild any infrastructure damaged as a result of our incursion. Remember, if you don't attack us, we won't attack you.

Regarding our current occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. There will be a timeline for our departure, and it will be set by the United States...not the U.N. Until said deadline, the aforementioned countries will have the opportunity to convince the world that it actually wants to control it's own destiny. In the event that such aspirations are not demonstrated, our deadline will stand, and the resulting power vacuum will be filled by whichever entity wants it most. Human rights abuses and oil will no longer be a consideration of the United States as we will be drilling and refining our own oil and protecting our own civil rights with the help of the United States Marine Corps.

Those not wanting to live under Taliban or Al-Queda control will be given the opportunity to apply for asylum and U.S. citizenship after a lengthy screening process. In return, they will be obligated to work for the U.S. tax-payer through a supervised sponsorship program where they will earn their citizenship and resulting benefits until the day of their full citizenship.

We regret any inconvenience as a result of our new anti-terrorism policy, but then again, we didn't ask anyone to fly planes into our buildings either.

2010-08-11T19:29:00.000-07:00

...BUT I UNDERSTAND.

In the interest of full disclosure, I must reveal my one true fear in life...air travel. I do realize that for a most people flying is as routine as eating at McDonald's. For me, flying in anything under any circumstance is a crippling nightmare. Hence, I simply won't do it. So in an odd and irrational way, I have always had a certain admiration for anyone brave enough to board a plane. By my weird way of looking at it, you could be Jeffrey Dahmer and I would still be able to respect you for having the stones to fly. Those who fly for a living have always fascinated me. It stands to reason that these people would have to understand the law of averages alone makes their job particularly risky. Yet, they still go to work. Couple that with an increasingly whiny and belligerent public, and you have the makings of a potential emotional powder keg.

As a truck driver, I can relate to dealing with the public, while still having to maintain a professional attitude as you wear your company's logo on your chest. Representing your employers and keeping cool under pressure can be one of the hardest parts of driving an eighteen wheeler. So when I heard the story of the flight attendant who "lost it" and went off on the passengers on his plane, only to then deploy the emergency ramp, and go home, I knew I had a kindred spirit out there.
This guy is my new hero. He did something that most of us only dream of doing, and did it with style and passion. Really, grabbing the six pack of beer on his way to the chute was genius in it's simplicity, putting the cherry on top. In this summer of oppressive heat and an even more oppressive government, I had to wonder just how many of us will be "going stewardess" in the coming years.
I'm not saying what he did was right...but I understand.

2010-07-16T19:24:00.000-07:00

EAT THE POOR

In the years since I jumped into the political arena, I have noticed a common tactic used by the left...sympathy. Like Yoda's light saber, progressives wield sympathy with deadly precision for the sole purpose of manipulating your emotions, and ultimately your wallet. The reigning champion in the competition for our sympathies is undoubtedly "the poor". Be ye a minority, a female, a homeless person (bum), or immigrant (legal or otherwise), the one common denominator in your list of exploited "plights" is probably going to be "poverty".

Realizing this, I have decided to submit for your approval my plan to end poverty. If for no other reason than to take it off the table once and for all so it can no longer be used as a distraction in substantive issue debate. But before we examine my plan to end poverty, we will first need to define poverty.

If you possess any of the following, you are not poor:
cell phone
X-Box
I-Pod
20" rims
flat screen TV
case of beer
pack of cigarettes
new "tats"
car
roof
toilet
bed
shoes

You see, "poverty" is when you have nothing...including options. But in America, does that really apply to you, or anyone else? Does a poor person in America really have no way to get by without their government giving them money that's been taken from those who choose to work for a living? In an age where it actually pays to not work, I think I have found a more practical and motivating answer to poverty in America.

Benjamin Franklin once said that the best way to help the poor, is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty. With that in mind, I submit the following solution.

Step one would be to end all forms of government sponsored welfare. This would include unemployment compensation, food stamps, W.I.C., etc. etc. After all, without welfare, there can be no welfare fraud or dependency.

In the place of welfare programs, I suggest we bring back the concept of "poor houses". Because we are a prosperous and generous nation, I do believe in the concept of a safety net for those who fall on hard times. But there is a difference between a "safety net" and a king-size, Sleep Number bed with satin sheets, feather pillows, and accompanying personal masseuse. The purpose of a safety net is to do nothing more than save your life, not enhance and indulge it's every demand. A safety net is not supposed to be comfortable, let alone evolve into a lifestyle. When a trapeze artist falls off the wire and hits the safety net, he doesn't make himself at home, order a pizza, and fire up his X-Box on that net. No, he immediately gets off the net, climbs back up the ladder and tries the stunt again.

I assert that a "poor house" is the perfect safety net for those who's lives have hit the skids. You see, my poor house would cost the tax payer a fraction to operate compared to the bottomless pit our current welfare system has become. That's because people would only go there if they absolutely had no other option in life. And when they got there, they would bend over backwards to get back out. Here's why.

Once registered at your local poorhouse, you would have access to three healthy meals a day, but they would be bland, without variety, and washed down with water only. You would have access to medical care, but only the same no-frills care given to prison inmates, and no elective procedures at all. On the up-side, you would also have access to a library specifically stocked with self-help and vocational books, thus helping you to be a more attractive candidate to a prospective employer, as well as a better citizen in general.

You will also have access to our grooming department where you will be issued all things essential to making a good impression. A grooming consultant will be on hand to assist you. Your consultant will be advised to ridicule you for the following; baggy pants, backward hats, body piercings, tattoos above the collar bone, sagging pants, and wearing women's jeans if you're a male.

This facility will be safe, efficient and maintained at the highest standards of cleanliness. Our staff will be trained to the highest standards of professionalism. As part of their training, they will be taught to do everything in their power to assist you in your attempt to get back on your feet, but in a short, snarky manner. This is due to the idea that being in a poorhouse is supposed to be an unpleasant and humiliating experience, therefore motivating you to make sure you never need to return. In keeping with that theme, your bed will be automated to shorten by one inch for every day you stay following your first six weeks there. At that point, your food will then be served cold, as will be your showers.

The facility's ambient air temperature will vary at random, but always ten degrees away from the standard 70 degree "room temp".

In conjunction with the introduction of these regional poor houses, I suggest we start a national campaign to re-associate shame and humiliation with being poor. Particularly if your poverty is simply a result of your own laziness and bad decisions. Part of the problem with poverty today is that there is no longer a stigma attached to it. Today, it is assumed that if you are poor, it is probably the result of someone else making you that way, making you the victim by default. In reality, it was probably some decision you made that brought you to the steps of my "facility".

My advice...get a job, keep it, and don't spend beyond what that job provides. Stick with that, and you'll never experience the splendor of a poor house.

2010-07-01T19:15:00.000-07:00

ROADHOUSE SAVES THE GULF

Yes, I know. It's been quite a while since my last article. Sometimes life has a way of filling your days and weeks, especially with two kids, a wife, an unpredictable work schedule and the final stages of a home addition. But enough about me.

As I've been watching the events in the gulf go on and on like some sort of continuous hybrid of a Three Stooges short and a Michael Bay action adventure movie. Unfortunately, this flick has too few heroes and way too many villains. But for the purposes of this blog, I am going to skip the political aspect of this nightmare and simply offer some solutions.

Keep in mind, I am not an engineer, but that's never stopped me from throwing ideas around until I found one that worked. As for the stopping of the leak, I submit the following ideas to anyone reading this who might be more credible in the field of structural engineering:

1. Jam a cone-shaped solid steel plug into the pipe and repeatedly drop a massive weight onto it until it stops the flow. The deep sea robots currently on the scene can guide the plug into position until time to drop it, and the weight can be guided similarly.

2. Construct a massive steel "can" to be placed upside-down over the leak. Pile solid steel ingots or massive boulders on top of the can until it sinks far enough into the sea floor to seal the oil accumulating inside. The "can" could even have an access valve near the top for collecting oil under controlled circumstances. A tall enough "can" pressed far into the sand with enough weight on top would have to eventually overcome the pressure of the oil flow.

3. Drill a new pipe as close to the leaking one as possible. Drill to half of the pipe's current depth. Lower into the new pipe the most massive, NON-nuclear explosive charge that will fit into it. Then, fill the pipe with sand and detonate the charge. I would have to assume the sea floor would cave in around the pipe and seal the flow of oil.

THE CLEAN UP

To expedite the restoration of the Gulf, simply turn the process into a contest. The President should hold a news conference where he announces a five million dollar prize (tax free) to the individual American who can gather the most oil from the gulf in a two week period. The only rules would be that their method must be deemed safe by the Coast Guard, and not interfere with other contestant's efforts. The "Oil Derby" can be repeated as often as necessary until the gulf returns to a life sustaining condition.
In addition, all oil gathered can be sold on the open market by those who gather it at whatever price they can command.

This plan has muti-fold benefits. One, free labor. Two, competition spawns innovation, so it stands to reason that rednecks across the land will be inventing and field testing new and exotic ways to separate oil from water. Three, as an armada of contestants descend upon the Gulf, they will need places to stay, and food to eat. This solves the problem of revenue lost in the Gulf's tourist industry since the disaster struck.
The "Derby" can be televised and even produced by the guys over at "The Discovery Channel". Mike Rowe can narrate, and even present the first winner with their comically large prize check.

Could any of my ideas work? Maybe, maybe not. But so far, they're better than anything I've seen so far.

2010-05-03T19:10:00.000-07:00

THIS AGAIN... REALLY?

First, an update on the status of ROADHOUSE BLOG. For the past month, I have been busting my hump trying to build an addition to casa de Roadhouse for the next generation of right wing extremists I'm trying to raise. In short, 2 kids + one kid's room equals a problem that requires mucho denero to rectify, and little time or energy left to slay liberalism at the level of quality my readers would expect. As I near the end of this oh-so torturous home improvement adventure, I am hoping to be putting the hammer down and getting my humble blog back into the "big hole" (high gear) in the next few weeks.

As expected, hiring a contractor was part of the plan, and not something I was looking forward to. I found that the "word of mouth" method worked best. After all, a recommendation from a friend or family member carries more weight than an Internet listing by people I've never met. In the process, I found that there are two types of contractor, those who hire illegal immigrants, and those who don't. Those who do are easy to spot. They will be the ones who don't call you back after you tell them that the police will be called if there is even the slightest suspicion of their employee's immigration status being fraudulent.

Yes, "fraudulent". This brings us to my brief tutorial on immigration. For those of you who still don't get it, here is why it's wrong to be here illegally. First, you're trespassing. Second, you're a tax evader. Third, you're an identity thief. Fourth, you have not been screened for communicable diseases. Fifth, your criminal record has not been checked. Sixth, you have not agreed to take a loyalty oath, or learn our customs, laws, or language. Seventh, you're a drag on every single tax payer funded enterprise known to man. Eighth, you are spitting on every immigrant who has ever taken the time and made the sacrifices to come here legally. Ninth, you are an unfair advantage over every employer who has the decency to abide by the law by not hiring you. Tenth, until the unemployment rate is 0%, you are not actually needed.

You see, to not make a distinction between legal and IL-legal immigration is akin to seeing no distinction between buying a new Corvette and stealing one. This is not rocket science people. It's not racism either. If you are here illegally from Sweden, you are just as wrong as someone from Mexico, China, Pakistan, or jolly old England. Go home, go back to the end of the line where you belong, and come to our country the right way. Then, and only then, I will welcome you with open open arms, bearing a frosty cold Coors in one hand, and a hearty handshake in the other.

2010-03-22T18:56:00.000-07:00

I BLAME MYSELF...and YOU

If ever there were a case to be made for education reform in America, it was Sunday's vote for health care reform. That being said, there is plenty of blame to go around. First, I blame myself. Though I've become known in my social circles as "that guy who wrote that book about politics and junk", I rarely go out of my way to talk to people...let alone start conversations about our government. Not that I assume my contributions to a political discussion would move mountains, my reclusiveness has done nothing to help for sure.
It was also me who chose to pay little-to-no attention to my civics teacher in High School, or the world around me in my early adulthood. I was the one who until September 11th, 2001 crafted my ideology from narratives I saw in liberal sitcoms and stand-up comedians. Before that awful day, I was the one who decided to invest my time in beer and video games. All the while, people in positions of power were plotting elaborate schemes designed to erode the freedoms I was taking for granted. But I was not alone.

What about you? And what about now? Before you go swinging that finger of blame around, take a look in the mirror. When exactly did you start giving a crap? Do you "go there" with your friends and family, or do you keep the peace by not bringing up certain topics?

As with all history, it's water under the bridge now. The question we all need to ask at this point in the game is, did we learn anything from our experiences? Rather than dwell on our past mistakes and indifferences, we need to get our collective asses in gear and prepare for tomorrow. If you have kids, teach em'. Teach them about the founding fathers and our constitution, because their schools certainly won't. If you don't know about those things, then teach yourself! Go to the library. Read a book. If you have a liberal friend or relative, instigate em'. Don't be insulting or rude, but show them where they're wrong. Remember, you might have been a liberal idiot once yourself.

If we're going to right this ship, we are all going to have to start venturing out of our comfort zones. We are all going to have to make our existence here count. Sure, it would be fun to see the look on a liberal's face when their socialist utopia falls apart, and we all love to say "I told you so"...but. It's our world too. When they screw things up, they take us with them. Our new mission needs to be all about saving liberals from themselves, before they get us all killed.

2010-02-20T19:19:00.000-08:00

THE ECONOMY EXPLAINED

Listening to liberals try to explain our current economic situation is alot like listening to a four year old trying to explain how airplanes fly. The irony to that is that flight is much more complicated and harder to explain than economics. But for the sake of the liberal readers that occasionally frequent my humble blog, I will explain the basics of free market economics.

The free market is actually less of a "system" and more of an expression of humanity and it's aversion to oppression. To put it simply, it's a matter of buying and selling the things we want/need, for reasons and priorities of our own choosing.
Like the fly in the ointment of all liberal concepts, it is the human condition that drives our economic system. If we were robots, we would require only the most basic of needs and no wants. If we required a car for transportation, the simplest of automobile would be all that we'd ever need. And being robots of coarse...we would never complain. Enter humanity.

As humans, our requirements are different, and so are our tastes. In fact, the idea that we even have tastes and/or opinions at all is what separates us from the robot world. A robot could care less what kind of car he drives to work, or what kind of power drill he uses when he gets there. But a human has a whole set of priorities unique to his individual needs. Maybe he is tall and needs a certain amount of leg room. Maybe he has three kids and needs a four door. Maybe he has small hands that require a drill with a particular style of grip. Maybe he likes to fish on the weekends and needs a truck to pull his bass boat.

It is this individuality that spawns our free market system. For all of our differences, there must be a way to cater to those needs and wants...hence, the entrepeneur. For every Tom, Dick, or Harry with a personal preference, there is someone out there with a way to provide for their needs. Tom likes hoagies? Enter, Subway and Quiznos. Dick likes Burgers? Enter, McDonald's and Burger King. Harry likes trucks, but his wife likes station wagons? Enter, the SUV.

In America, the common denominators between the buyer of goods and the seller of goods is both freedom and liberty. The buyer has the ability to make decisions based on the things important to him/her alone. Be it quality, convenience, or symbol of status, your reasons for purchasing something are as personal as any other part of your life.
The seller has the ability to make the decisions that result in the production of the things the buyer wants/needs. The seller makes decisions based on quality, cost, and competition.

Oh yeah, competition. Another part of the human condition. Again, since the robot could care less about quality, competition would really not be a factor in meeting it's needs. But humans need and want more than just a slab of meat between two buns. We need the Big Mac. We need the five dollar foot long. We need the stuffed crust pan pizza and the Chevy Tahoe with 33" tires for blasting through snow drifts.
It is competition that demands higher quality. After all, there would be no need to improve on the cheeseburger, if there were no other companies to compete with. The Mustang would not be nearly as cool of a car if there were no Camaro forcing Ford to innovate in order to stay ahead of the curve.
How does any of this relate to jobs? Well, unfortunately, cars and burgers do not grow on trees in some magical mystical forest. They are produced...by people. For those people to produce their good or service, they need to hire other people. This is what's known as "job creation". Now, if you were to create an environment that is hostile to this system, you might experience something known as "job destruction".
You might be wondering what could cause a hostile environment for employment. Glad you asked. Imagine you are the owner of a company that makes buggy bumpers. You've just heard your President tell the nation that he plans to raise your taxes in order to implement some pet project that nobody wants. He follows that by promising to create new regulations and standards that will increase the expense of running your business. Are you supposed to ignore him or assume he's bluffing? Or will you more likely take his word for it and take the appropriate measures to prepare for increased overhead? Knowing that the cost of your buggy bumpers will go up resulting in fewer sales, do you think it would be a good idea to throw caution to the wind and hire ten more people, or trim the cost of running your business by laying-off five people.
In addition to you, your customers heard the same message from the President and have decided to cut their spending in all areas in preparation for higher prices at the register. This results in fewer orders for all goods and services as well as their related transportation, warehousing, and retailing. You see, just because your President promised to not raise your tax rate which happens to be below his arbitrary $250,000 line, that doesn't mean he won't be raising the taxes of the people who produce the products you use. A nickle more for a tube of Chapstick here, or a dime more for a box of Pop Tarts there tends to add up after a while. Both costs passed onto you (the consumer) to make up for the cost of someone's brilliant tax increases or job creation stimulus bill.
And let's not forget your boss (if you're lucky enough to have one). Since he falls on the wrong side of the President's fiscal "line in the sand", what do you suppose he's going to do? He's looking at your up-coming Christmas bonus on one hand, and a promise of whopping new taxes on the other. You do the math.
He's looking at your request for a new company vehicle on one hand, and a rising cost of doing business due to up-coming "cap and trade" regulations on the other. Again...you do the math.

I'm not trying to say that Harvard didn't have an excellent business program when President Obama was studying there, but I am saying that business wasn't his major.

2010-02-09T18:59:00.000-08:00

RANDOM ROADHOUSE

Cruising around the blogoshpere has lead me to some interesting writing concepts over the years. Not the least of which is the chronicling of random thoughts by the author. One such blogger over at My Voice on the Wings of Change recently inspired me to try this myself. I'm sure I won't be adopting it as a regular format, but I thought it might be cool to try something different for a change...so here we go.

Thought #1: The movie industry relies way too much on CGI today. Yes, flicks like "Cars" and "Toy Story" are fun to watch and are impressive in their detailed animation, but these movies are not trying to mesh with reality. They are just a better quality cartoon and little more than that. Hollywood oversteps their use of computer generated imagery when they rely on it alone, as opposed to simply using it to enhance a scene. Gone are the days of stuntmen and special effects artists. Now, we have CGI cars being chased by CGI monsters. The art of film and cinematography is being shoved aside for the sake of speed and commercial efficiency.
Between that and the guy who will inevitably talk during the movie, I have fewer and fewer reasons to buy an increasingly expensive movie ticket.

Thought #2: Al Gore needs to be strapped to a chair in my front yard, wearing Bermuda shorts and a "wife beater" for a duration of time to last no less than one hour. After he experiences the two feet (and counting) of snow and mid-teen temperatures that encompass my reality for that hour, I will be willing to listen to his views on global warming.

Thought #3: Abortion has been making the news lately, so I would like to clarify some mis-understandings about "pro-lifers" and our position on the topic. There actually is a clear distinction between our views on abortion vs. our views on capital punishment. An unborn baby has not yet had the ability or opportunity to abuse their right to live, unlike a murderer. An aborted baby has not been afforded their right to due process or a trial by a jury of their peers, unlike a murderer. We see no line in the Constitution that decrees your rights do not exist until the severing of an umbilical cord.

Thought #4: The only way I could give President Obama the benefit of the doubt is by considering the following theory. He is actually a double agent of sorts, and mearly posing as a radical socialist, anti-American, naive, narcissist. In realty, he saw the folly of liberalism at an early age, and devised a complex scheme to infiltrate, and eventually lead liberals and Democrats to their own political demise. His plan to expose liberals in Congress and show in living color the horrors of socialism to an America that was previously happy to remain un-informed, is nothing short of brilliant. And as of yet, his execution of it has been masterfull.
Just a theory.

Thought #5: Snow is no longer "fun".

Thought #6: Pop Tarts - still the perfect food.

Thought #7: To call liberals "retarded", is to give the retarded a bad name. I'd be insulted too if someone compared me to a liberal.

2010-01-21T18:39:00.000-08:00

RIGHTS AND ABILITIES

Today, in a five to four ruling, the Supreme Court finally decided that all men are created equal...even rich men. After lifting the restrictions on the amount of money a corporation can give to a political campaign and when they're allowed to run ads prior to an election, the Supreme Court all but sealed the fate of "the McCain/Fiengold act" which has made mince meat of the first amendment since it's inception.
As expected, the left is having a tantrum. Why? Because of the long held liberal myth that corporations are nothing more than conglomerations of robotic non-human entities from a far away galaxy who's only purpose in life is to destroy the lives of poor people. Believe it or not though, corporations are actually comprised of American citizens who just so happen to own businesses. That's right, American citizens. Not robots, not elves, not space aliens, and not in-animate objects under the control of some OZ-like character hiding behind some massive green curtain. Corporations are nothing more than groups of people who share a common interest, as well as the same Constitutional rights as we "poor folk".

The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee our rights assuming only that you meet a specific income guideline. It guarantees ALL of us the same rights, regardless of whether you're dirt-poor broke, or the CEO of a major investment firm. And like ALL of us, the American CEO has the right to free speech. That means he/she has the right to purchase a prime time spot to air his multi-million dollar ad campaign for or against any candidate at any time.

This is when the liberal would say "But that's not fair, some people can't afford to buy ads on TV, and that could lead to corruption!". OK, can you point me to the line in Constitution that guarantees the right of the people to "afford", well...anything? To afford something has to do with personal ability, not personal rights. As for corruption, as long as a human being is involved, their could be (not necessarily will be) corruption. As for fairness, it is absolutely fair because both the rich and poor man have the right to purchase air time and speak their mind. The only difference is that one may not have the ability.
Another argument against this ruling is that only the opinion of "the rich" will find it's way into the public discourse. Really? You mean the opinion of a rich person like Al Gore? Or like George Soros? Maybe you mean the opinion of rich guys like Rush Limbaugh or Mitt Romney? I'll see your Barbara Streisand, and raise you one John Voight. How about I trade you one Ted Turner for a Rupert Murdoch? Just what is the opinion of a rich person?

Thankfully for us, these issues were sorted out a long time ago by a group of both rich and poor guys known as our founding fathers. They explain it all in a little piece of parchment called the Bill of Rights.

2010-01-19T18:57:00.000-08:00

BOSTON SAVES AMERICA AGAIN

As of the writing of this article, Scott Brown is being projected the winner of the Massachusetts special election. As I type, I can hear Martha Coakley giving her concession speech in the background as my wife puts my son to sleep for the night. Though I realize the fight to save our country is far from over, I will be able to sleep a little better tonight knowing that there may be more "common sense" Americans out there than I originally thought. Considering my concern for the future of my children, and my recent bout with ideological "war weariness", I believe this is just the shot-in-the-arm I needed.

Already, excuses are being made, as well as bizarre suggestions as to what Democrats should do to save their quickly sinking ship. One genius says that this election means that Democrats need to be more liberal, and another thinks it's a mandate against Republican policies. Brilliant!
As for this particular political pontificator, I think this election says many things, not the least of which is that the Kennedy machine has a broken crank shaft and a cracked block. The voters have responded by buying a whole knew car.

I read this election as a sign that ALL states are "in play" now...and every Democrat candidate up for election in November, or 2012 just crapped their pants. If this election were in Maryland, or West Virginia, it might be mildly newsworthy, but this happened in MASS-A-FREAK'N-CHUSETTS! What state is more traditionally "blue" than Massachusetts? None! What Senate seat has been more solidly liberal than Ted Kennedy's? None!

The message has been sent to Obama, the unions, A.C.O.R.N., Congress, and the media...you ain't "all that", and your agenda is living on borrowed time. Another lesson that some should learn from tonight's events is that if you see Barack Obama coming down the street to give you a hand with your campaign...RUN! RUN LIKE THE WIND!

2010-01-11T19:07:00.000-08:00

OUT OF OUR COMFORT ZONE

I credit this post to my wife. She once asked me why I love her. I told her that one of the things that draws me to her is also one of the things that annoys me the most. In short, she has a way of dragging me kicking and screaming out of my comfort zone. If it were not for her, I would most likely be a uni-bomber-esque hermit of some sort (minus the whole mail bomb, and violent tendencies thing) living in a shack in the woods.
Though a life of seclusion and absolute privacy still appeals to me, I am grateful for my exposure to other aspects of life I would have otherwise never experienced. This exposure has made me a better person, if for no other reason than I learn something from each new thing that Mrs. Roadhouse "suggests" I try. This got me to thinkin'.

If my formerly liberal way of thinking could be so transformed by simply being exposed to other people, maybe other liberals are simply suffering from a lack of exposure to the other side of the coin as well. In my first book, I wrote that I do not think liberalism is some great "conspiracy", rather nothing more than an institutional mind set. Consider the following.
If there is such a thing as a "core" to the poison apple of liberalism, it is surely the large metropolitan city, namely New York, Chicago, L.A., Seattle, etc., etc. Here, liberalism can thrive for one main reason...insecurity. Face it, we all have insecurities, but unless you live and work along side a few million people every day, you might not be as pressured to confront them.

Case in point - me. I am the original "country mouse". I live well outside of a small farming town, and I drive big rigs for a living. If I so choose, I can go for days without interacting with anyone, with the exception of my family. And in my "culture", it is a social norm that everyone understands that your opinions are your own, and you are not entitled to agreement from anyone. We are under little pressure to hold a particular opinion, because most of us simply don't care what the other guy thinks. As a result, opinions tend to vary in the country, and social standards are dictated by common sense, not popularity.

For the "city mouse", none of this is the case. In the city, space, quiet, fresh air, time, civility, and freedom of movement are all but non-existent. To assume that this alone would not have an effect on one's mentality would be naive at best. For one thing, "city mouse" rarely has time to collect his/her thoughts and just think. Try finding a quiet spot to simply "chill" for a few hours in the city. Somewhere where there is no noise, elbows, or thumping music is akin to an oasis in the desert. This leaves little opportunity for "city mouse" to mull over the validity or merit of his/her opinions.
Then there is the never ending peer pressure city folks suffer from. Sure, you can wear a bone through your nose and pink leotard on the street and probably not get many strange looks. But try quoting Patrick Henry in a corporate break room and see how fast you can be ostracised. Over time, the prevailing viewpoint on any given issue tends to be considered the norm. Not because it makes sense, but because no one took the initiative to dispute it for fear of being looked at as a freak. After all, standing out in a crowd of three thousand (my town's current population) is one thing, but a crowd of over one million is a whole other story.
Couple all this with the fact that the bulk of our media is rooted in these cities and charged with distributing information to the rest of us, and you have a recipe for intellectual disaster across the nation.

It is my belief that if those closet conservatives who reside in the city were more willing to speak out, it might be harder for liberalism to infect the rest of us. It's time for them to get out of their comfort zone.

2009-12-29T19:34:00.000-08:00

ROADHOUSE HITS A ROADBLOCK

Since my last article, I have been experiencing a world-class case of writer's block. At first, I thought it might be due to an accumulation of stresses that come along with the holiday season. This is probably not the case.
Rather, I think it is the simple fact that every morning, I wake up to find America being "knee-capped" in some bold new way...by our own leaders no less. This has a two-pronged effect. One, I don't know where to start every day. Too many controversies, too little time. Each one more disturbing than the last. And two, my cynicism meter resembles that of a cartoon pressure gauge just before the coyote gets blown to bits.
It seems that I am in a daily struggle to keep on truckin' with my mission to promote conservatism to all who will listen, and just chuckin' it all and let everyone learn the hard way what life in a liberal utopia will be like. Then I look at my kids and remember why I still give a flying crap.
So, barring my bout with rantus interuptis, I will be blogging on.

2009-11-18T19:09:00.000-08:00

G.I. JOE vs PERRY MASON

America took yet another kick to the groin this week thanks to the Obama administration's decision to turn battlefields into crime scenes. When those of us on the right joked last year about Obama forcing our men and women in a war zone to read Miranda rights to captured enemy combatants, and collect evidence while interviewing witnesses on the battlefield, we were accused of "fear mongering". But, here we are.

Though volumes could be written about why bringing foreign, non-citizen terrorists to America for trial in a civilian court is a bad idea, I'm just going to write about some of the more obvious ones. That is, obvious to me and anyone who has ever watched an episode of Law & Order, but apparently not obvious to our Attorney General Eric Holder.

1. These people are not American citizens, were not caught in America, and are thus not entitled to our Constitutional rights.
2. Any first year law student will be able to get them off the hook because they were not read their rights prior to detainment, nullifying any evidence that may or may not have been collected at the scene.
3. Now that we know they have been "tortured" (glorified cold showers), any confession will be claimed to have been gotten under duress...nullifying that too.
4. Because life in an American prison can be considered an upgrade compared to the living conditions of the typical Muslim terrorist, their worst case scenario of being caught will be to have "three hots", a cot, a roof, a toilet, a new Koran, a new prayer rug, and free health care until their lawyer gets them off for reasons one, two, and three. This alone will be a Godsend to terrorist recruiters.
5. Now terrorists will be able to use the courts and consequently the media as their own personal bully pulpit.
6. Now terrorists will be able to use prisons as their own personal recruiting offices.
7. Our intelligence community will be subjected to having their methods and agent's identities entered as evidence, leaving them open to prosecution and public exposure.
8. The Uniform Code of Military Justice will be pretty much obsolete and redundant.
9. Every U.S. soldier, Airman, Sailor and Marine will need legal training or hire a lawyer to ride shotgun into battle with them.
10. From now on, our best chance to defeat our enemies is to hope they die from laughing so hard at us, that they won't have a chance to fly planes into our office buildings or shoot up our Army bases.

2009-11-07T19:27:00.000-08:00

FORT HOOD ATTACK

Because of there not being enough hours in the day to blog, write a book, call and E-mail Congressmen to remind them that we are not China, work a 50+hour a week job, feed and diaper a one year old, teach and entertain a five year old, maintain a house and two vehicles, and still be a respectable husband and father, I am going to make this post short and sweet.

All Muslims are not terrorists, but with little-to-no exception, all terrorists are Muslims. Yes, once upon a time, there was the I.R.A. Yes, we had the no-longer-an-issue Timothy McVeigh. And who can forget the abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolf from years past. But let's put this into some perspective. These exceptions were not a result of massive culturally-institutionalized insanity. Even as widespread as the I.R.A.'s reach has been over the decades, their irrationality was based in what they saw as political desperation and a need to fight a perceived oppressor. And in recent years, they have renounced violence as a viable way to further their cause.

On the other hand, you have the Muslim extremists. Here's a group of nut jobs that have been plying their trade for centuries...literally. Now I don't claim to be an expert on Islam, but when your "rap sheet" goes so far back in history that it's actually mentioned in the Bible, I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of your religion and it's motives toward everyone else.

Muslim terrorists do not see themselves as members of a country, or even a particular group. They see themselves as martyrs for Allah...period. Sure, they join groups, and they claim certain citizenships, but their drive and passion for death comes from their religious beliefs. All other allegiances are secondary, and only serve to allow them to kill more infidels (you and me). They cannot be reasoned with, and they see it as their mission and duty to Allah to kill as many non-believers as possible as a pre-requisite to enter their promised land.

If after September 11th, we still can't grasp this concept, then we are practically begging for more and even greater such attacks as Fort Hood and September 11th. When U.S. malls, and schools become part of the ever-growing list of Islamic terrorist successes, just remember...Roadhouse tried to warn ya'.

2009-10-21T18:43:00.000-07:00

BOOK EM'

Last week, I was lucky enough to swing a work day short enough to take my daughter to her kindergarten class' "book fair". For those who aren't familiar with such a thing, a book fair is when your local elementary school brings in a book vendor to hock their wares to raise money for the school. My daughter and I were looking forward to this event, and she already knew what she wanted to look for before we even left the house. What was supposed to be a fun evening out with my family, quickly went down hill...I should have known.

For reasons I have yet to discover, my little girl has taken a big interest in space, specifically the solar system. So as we walked into the book fair, I was on a mission to find some really cool books about the planets and stars. It wasn't long until I started to hear a make-believe "mission control" relaying the message; "Huston, we have a problem" in my head.
I've known for some time now that public schools are but a few steps away from allowing your children to be raised by monkeys for the better half of the day...but the reminder I was experiencing was more than I needed to see right now.
As I searched and searched, dodging all sort of snot dispenser, and their accompanying "parents", I began to think someone was playing a trick on me for some 21st century version of Candid Camera...no such luck. After asking the lady running the book fair and seeing her own efforts to find just one, it became clear that there was not one book about the solar system to found at this book fair.
This sparked my curiosity, so I looked to see what else might be missing. Also M.I.A. were any books related to our nation's founding, basic civics, or history in general. With the exception of books concerning the animal kingdom, there were very few books about science at all.
"But Roadhouse, what kind of books were there at this book fair?" I thought you'd never ask. If you are fans of "SpongeBob", they got'cha covered. "Harry Potter"?. No problem. Those of you raising teenage girls will be happy to know that there were volumes of "Hannah Montana" books and related "swag" (at an elementary school). And for those of you who have the foggiest idea of what a "Pokemon" is (don't ask me), you can rest easy knowing that there books, toys, and all manner of paraphernalia to explain it.
If the racks and racks of every kind of dragon slaying, spell casting, vampire dating piece of crap book weren't enough, this book fair just wouldn't have been complete without the at least six different books about President Obama that I saw displayed. Washington? Zero. Lincoln? Zippy. Jefferson? Zilch. But Obama? SIX!

After taking a few minutes alone to go to my "happy place", I calmed down enough to ask the lady in charge who decides what books make it onto the shelves. She gave me a look that told me that she knew exactly what I meant, and why I was not happy, and assured me that unfortunately it was not up to her. She then explained to me that her company has decided to focus on putting books that are "big sellers" on the shelves...as opposed to books that actually teach kids something of value. By that logic, I guess we should hope that "Mien Komph" or "The Anarchist's Cookbook" don't start selling big numbers again.

On the up side, we decided to forgo the government option, for the private sector, and will be looking for a book about space at Barnes & Noble...where you can also by a copy of my book, I'm Not Hitler! What You're Not Allowed to Know About the real "Right Wing".

2009-10-09T18:33:00.000-07:00

I.O.U.'s GOOD ENOUGH FOR NOBEL PRIZE

To be fair, I am not going to blame this one on President Obama. As usual, I woke up this morning wondering what "fresh hell" the media or our government was going to heap onto us today. And as usual, I was not disappointed.
I was just finishing with getting my daughter ready for school when my wife called out from the living room, "You've got to be kidding...they gave him the Nobel Prize". At that point, pretty much all you can do is crack a glib/sarcastic smile and continue trying to master the skill of pony-tail tying...a skill no truck driver should ever need, but hey-my daughter likes her hair that way.
Of coarse they would give him a Nobel Prize. After all, when your list of recipients includes Yasser "Jihad" Arrafat, Jimmy "Misery Index" Carter, and Al "Chicken Little" Gore, why would you not add Barak "Spread the Wealth" Obama to the mix. Then I heard the convoluted reasoning behind the decision to nominate him, and I almost drove off the road with laughter. The "promise" to stop nuclear proliferation and bring change to the world? Really? A "promise"?
If a "promise" is all it takes to win a Nobel prize, then let me throw my hat into the ring for next year's round right now. I figure with the current criteria for winning a Nobel prize, I will have no shortage of competition. Let's face it, just about anyone can win one now...me, the average two year old child, house plants, Cartman from "South Park", and Sea Monkeys. After all, we've all done about as much to create "peace" as Obama has. But I must say, I truly believe that I may have an edge over any competition I might face in next year's running. I have some really cool promises.

1. I promise to bring world peace, and interplanetary peace as well. (I'm a "big picture" kinda guy).
2. I promise to bring back 8-tracks and "The Muppet Show".
3. I promise to bring Subway, KFC, McDonald's, and Pizza Hut to Ethiopia.
4. I promise to invent donuts that make you thinner and smarter.
5. I promise to bring Micheal Jackson back from the dead...with his original nose.
6. I promise to prove to the world that rap music makes you dumber.
7. I promise to outlaw droopy pants and sideways hats.
8. I promise to create a car that runs on good intentions and "BS", so liberals can have a cheap way to get to around.
9. I promise to make it rain coffee every Monday morning.
10. I promise to make President Obama actually read the Constitution.

I really shouldn't make fun of this too much, after all, let's look at all of Obama's Nobel Prize-worthy accomplishments so far.

Victory in Iraq...not.
Victory in Afghanistan...not.
Stopped Iran's nuke program...not.
Israel/Palistine problem solved...not.
Crime in Chicago ended...not.
Increased value of the dollar...not.
Caught Bin Laden...not.
Decreased deficit...NOT!
Struck fear into the hearts of our enemies...not.
Helped Darfur...not.
Lowered unemployment...not.
Brought world peace...not.
Brought peace in his hometown...not.
Brought peace to the average water cooler political discussion...not.
Learned how to spell "peace"...maybe.

2009-10-05T19:18:00.000-07:00

THIS JUST IN!...ROADHOUSE STILL NOT A RACIST

In the recent weeks following the September 12th "T.E.A. party" protest in Washington DC, a common theme has been popping up in the mainstream media. Apparently, if you disagree with the President, you are by default a racist. OK, let's examine that concept.

From a mathematical perspective, the numbers just don't add up. Exhibit "A" would be the fact that Obama was elected, and by a healthy margin. That means that more than half of the country was willing to set aside the color of his skin on election day. From that we can conclude that up to that point, the majority of the nation was not racist...or at least not anti-"black".

Exhibit "B" would be the fact that Obama's approval ratings were in the high 60% range at the beginning of his term and stayed there for a matter of weeks.

Then something happened. According to the "left", otherwise known as the "media", a massive demographic shift began to take place. Apparently, a secret mass migration of white supremacists to America occurred at the exact same time as a secret mass exodus of Obama supporters from America. Making this even more insidious was the fact that the white supremacist were so adept at hiding their beliefs, that not one media outlet has been able to actually capture them in the act of saying or doing anything that could be legitimately construed as "racist".
It's as if you are to believe that everything President Obama has been doing would be just fine, if only he had a little less melanin. If he were white, we'd be totally cool with him taking his good old time with a plan for Afghanistan, as our troops flounder and die there without strong leadership from their Commander In Chief.
If only he were white, the massive debt he's creating for our children's children for the sake of his socialist ideology wouldn't even cross our minds.
It's definitely the color of his skin, and not his willingness to project American weakness and call it "foreign policy" that really gets under our skin.
That's right, we're all racists, and he's just an innocent black guy being hassled by "the man".

2009-09-13T19:06:00.000-07:00

MR. LEASURE GOES TO WASHING- TON

First let me say that I am very happy with the turn-out for the 9/12 march on our nation's capital. I have no idea how to gauge the size of the crowd, so I'm not going to try. You see, protests, rallies, and marches are really not my "cup of tea" usually. This is mainly due to the fact that unlike the liberal/slacker crowd that usually populates a typical protest, I happen to have a job. Rather than make unsubstantiated claims as to the size of the event (an old school lib tactic), I am simply going to say that there were more people there than I have ever personally witnessed at any one place in my entire life.
My "tea party" experience was definitely worth the time and money, for one reason. Hope. Irony of ironies is the fact that even though I am an eternal pessimist who on any given day has no faith what-so-ever in his fellow man, I actually came away with a sense that maybe all is not lost. As I scanned the seemingly endless "mob", the first thing I noticed was the diversity of the people attending (yet another irony). I saw both young and old, white and black, male and female, and according to their dress...every level of income. The second thing I noticed was that even though things went into overdrive and were relatively dis-organized as the bus dropped us off to join the march, the mild chaos of it all did not stop everyone from being polite and respectful.
As we marched, people went out of their way to say "thank you" to the police that were keeping watch. As opposed to the leftists that usually throw batteries at them and toss fire crackers under their horses. They thanked the veterans who were in attendance. They helped the older folks and handicapped negotiate some of the curbs and rough patches on the National Mall.
But the thing that stood out most was the total lack of arguments and/or heated discussion, let alone flying fists or use of hand cuffs.
Admittedly, I had no idea what to expect as the bus crossed the Potomac, but I was ready and willing to "throw down" with some ACORN scum if I had to. But throughout the whole day, I didn't even see one ACORN T-shirt.
I would also like to give a "shout out" to Al. Al was a guy who lives in DC and happened to be riding by on his bike. For some reason, of all the people there, he decided to stop and ask me about my home-made T-shirt slogan and the general purpose behind the gathering. Though he admitted being a supporter of Obama's health care proposals, he was extremely polite and engaging to a fault. With no detectable sarcasm of condescension, he asked lots of questions and offered reasonable and well though-out counterpoints to many of my ideas and comments. As we debated the pros and cons of our differing political perspectives, I had hardly even noticed that we had been standing in the middle of the Mall for nearly two hours debating the issues.
Though I doubt that neither Al nor I managed to change each other's minds on the issues, I left the discussion refreshed to know that there are still people out there who can dis-agree with you and still be both respectable and a good conversationalist.
I am still offended that our government has put us in such a position that we feel we need to give them a piece of our mind in person, when we should be home playing with our kids, but all and all, this trip gave me a little bit of hope for our future. Not pointless political slogan "hope", but good old fashioned "reason to get out of bed hope".

2009-08-29T19:16:00.000-07:00

TED KENNEDY

OK, I must admit that it was not an easy decision to write about the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy. On one hand, I am a true believer in not speaking ill of the dead. On the other, as my wife would tell you, I am a stickler for putting things into perspective. My decision to write about Kennedy came as I watched our ever-reverent and respectful military carry his coffin to it's final resting place in Arlington National Cemetery this evening.
As I watched, I thought how ironic it was that Kennedy was being carried by and soon would be resting for eternity among, the very same people he tried so hard to ruin throughout his long career. Then it hit me. There is a difference between speaking ill of the dead, and reminding people of the painful truth about the dead.

Now that the media has decided that using Kennedy's death to further an agenda is fair and tasteful play, I figure it is both fair and tasteful for me to return their volley. His body was not yet cold when we began to hear prominent lefties ask that we pass their fascist health care bill because "Ted would have wanted it". Well, excuse me for not laying awake at night worrying about what Ted Kennedy would have wanted.
He didn't worry about what Mary Joe Kopechne wanted as she drew her last breaths, alone, in the dark, under the water. He didn't worry about what the military wanted as he voted down weapons system after weapons system. He didn't worry about what the founding fathers wanted as he voted against constitutionalist Judges and for liberal nut-jobs to be placed on the bench. He didn't worry about our military in times of war as his Senate floor rhetoric was of more help to our enemies than to our troops. He didn't worry about President Reagan as he committed treason during the cold war by conspiring against a sitting President with our cold war enemies The Soviet Union. He didn't worry about the waitresses he was known to sexually harass along with his Senate drinking buddy Chris Dodd.

I'm sorry that this man was stricken with cancer. I feel for his family and would have never wished him such a prognosis. But truth be told, he was an alcoholic, sex offending, cowardly communist who wouldn't have understood the tenants of our founding documents if he had ever sobered up long enough to read them. During his long Senate tenure, he did more to damage this country than history books will ever be willing to tell us. His legacy should be judged for what it actually is, and not what a bunch of people yearning for "Camelot II" wish it was. His death is worthy of use as an add campaign against drunk driving, or date rape...not for use as a tool to destroy health care for generations to come.

2009-08-17T19:06:00.000-07:00

CASH FOR CLUNKERS

Yes, I know. I've been slacking in my blogging duties, but a week of vacation and two children will do that to ya' from time to time. Besides, if New York Times columnists can take a few weeks off, so can I. Now, on with the blog.

I'm sure by now, we all know about the Democrat-born "Cash for Clunkers" program, so I will skip the basic tutorial explaining it. Rather, I will explain the unintended consequences of it and why it is comically short-sighted. In fact, Hellen Keller is laughing in her grave about how everyone but liberal Democrats could have seen the pitfalls of this program.

To most, cash for clunkers is a just another government program to be exploited and taken advantage of until it is realized how much it's costing us all. But to me, it's a lot more personal. You see, I'm a "car guy". That means my interest in the automobile goes beyond my need to get from point "A" to point "B". I have had a love of cars and trucks since I was in diapers. Having a mechanic for a father resulted in exposure to the inner workings of the combustible engine at a very early age. Today, when I see a car, I see more than just a machine. I see a personality. I see an expression of the American individual. Liberty allows you to choose the vehicle that most fits you as an individual. Your needs and your wants are the only factors that matter when buying a car in America. Well, maybe your wallet might have a thing or two to say about it too.

For a true "car guy", seeing the bigger picture resulting from the cash for clunkers program is more than a little depressing. First, you have to drive by the car dealerships on your way to work and see lots full of perfectly good cars and trucks, knowing that they are going to be crushed and sent to China for scrap. So when China finally decides to pull the plug on us because of our retarded fiscal policies, it will probably be that clunker you traded in that will have been melted down and turned into the ballistic missile that will be targeting your home town.

Then, you get to know how so many cheap cars and trucks being taken off the market will do nothing more than raise the price of used cars for everyone. So now, the single mother of three will have to find some way to afford a newer mini-van, as opposed to the cheap one she could have normally purchased.

For me, the final insult can be seen parked under my carport in a current state of dis-assembly. In earlier posts, I have mentioned the '72 Chevy pick-up that I have been slowly restoring (with all my "free time"). Currently, it needs an engine. Now that the used V8 engine has been sentenced to execution by the Obama administration, my search for an affordable "350 small block" just got that much harder. Thanks a pant load President Ass!

So, for those of you who actually believe that this program will ultimately be a good thing for the environment, understand this. I am the type of guy who will likely save a few extra pennies and buy a NEW v8 engine for my '72 4x4. Now, rather than simply recycling an existing motor resulting in little-to-no "carbon footprint", you can all go to bed and think about how Mother Earth will be raped and pillaged to provide the raw material to create my fossil fuel swilling behemoth. You can cry over the energy spent to mold the molten iron to make the heart and soul of my creation. You can cringe at the thought of milling lubricant spewing from a chemical plant, purely for the benefit of...ME. You can dream of the fuel being spent to deliver my 350 to my front door.

I promise to dedicate the first grassy field I'll be tearing to shreds with my finished monster to Obama and his "green" eyed minions.

2009-07-27T19:35:00.000-07:00

WHY OBAMA-CARE WON'T WORK...EVER

Rather than write about the politics and failed media coverage of President Obama's health care plan like everyone else has, I've decided to do what few others have. I am simply going to explain why it will never work.

1. There will be a shortage of Doctors.

Many existing Doctors are not going to want the government telling them how to run their practices any more than they all ready do. They will also have beef with the government regulating how much they can charge and under what circumstances. They know how the government will be telling them who will be worthy of what treat too and probably won't want that on their conscience.
Prospective Doctors will be in short supply too. Think about it. Why would you go through 10-12 years of schooling to be a Doctor, just so you can be a government employee? Who wants to be a part of a profession that will most likely garner you a salary that is already in the crosshairs of the Obama administration ($250,000 and above)?
Any Doctor willing to stay on as a part of Obama's plan will be too busy to provide the quality of care that Americans have become accustom to. Now that health care will be "free", every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a hang-nail or runny nose is going to want to take advantage of their new "right" of nationalized health care by trying to see a Doctor every time they have a tummy ache. But can you blame them? After all, look how much we're going to be paying in taxes for this monster. The attitude will be one of two things: "Hey, free health care! Let's all go to the Doctor!" Or, "Hey, I'm payin' for this crap, so I might as well get my money's worth!"

If you think a hospital waiting room is crowded now, wait till you see one under socialized health care. It's really no different than what you might expect if McDonald's announced that they would be giving their food away for free...long, long lines, "get em' in-get em' out" style quality, and overworked staff.

2. Competition

One of the great things about free market health care is the fact that if you're not happy with an insurance plan, or company, you have the option of shopping around the many others competing for your premium dollars. The end result is lower prices and better quality service. That's because no one wants to lose a customer to the competition.

Under a government health care program, competition won't exist. Not because of any specific policy or clause in the legislation, but by simple attrition. For one thing, many (if not all) employers will simply drop their employee health care plans now that the tax payer will be shouldering the burden. This alone will be the death of many insurance companies.
The companies left standing will have the privelege of competing with the U.S. government. This is akin to putting the referee in the game as a player. The guy who makes the rules and has final say on who went "out of bounds" is now your competition.
This would be fair if private citizens (insurance companies) had the power to impose and collect taxes when money gets tight, write legislation favoring their outcomes, appoint officials that will see things their way, or enforce laws at their discretion.

3. Rationing

There will be rationing of health care, because there will be no choice. The laws of human nature as well as supply and demand will force it to become a reality. There are simply too many people who will be going to the Doctor's office for every little sniffle to be accomodated by the diminished pool of Doctors. The demand will simply be too high to be met by the supply. Rationing will need be imposed either by policy and legislation, or again...attrition.
Your age, weight, habits, and eventually even your value to the "collective" will be factors in whether you have access to health care.

4. It's unconstitutional.

I challenge anyone reading this to find anywhere in our constitution the part that empowers the government to take over our health care system...or any other private industry for that matter. Our founding documents were written for the sole purpose of preventing the government from doing things like this.

5. Quality control.

When your "government issue" Doctor amputates the wrong leg, who are you going to sue? Now that he no longer has a private practice, what is his incentive to go the extra mile to provide superior service? After all, now that he/she's working for Uncle Sam, he has no competition. As a government employee, his reputation is really not that important anymore, because as long as he meets his federal standard, or knows how to scam the system, he will still collect his paycheck.

7. Fewer innovations.

Now that the government has targeted those making $250,000 or more, and regulated the industry to the point of negative return, what will be the incentive of a pharmeceuticle to take the risk of developing a new drug? After all, now that we've deemed "profit" to be a sin, would we really want them to be successful anyway? Now that he has to answer to the full weight and power of the U.S. government, what Doctor in his/her right mind is going to step out on a limb and experiment with a new and ground breaking, yet risky medical procedure?

8. Beuracracy

Let me get this straight. We want the same people who brought us the I.R.S., D.O.T., F.E.M.A., Amtrak, D.M.V., the 9th Circuit Court, medicare, medicade, social security, and our current immigration policy to be in charge of what kind of health care our loved ones can get? Really?
The same group that gave us the $400.00 hammer and our current tax code are now going to be in charge of reducing the cost of health care? Really?!

If ever there were a situation where people needed to put aside their political affiliations and use basic common sense to make a decision, this is that situation. It's time to see the big picture and accept the unintended consequences of this nightmare. The alternative is to wait and see how this plays out. Then when people start dying, we can sit around and wonder how this all happened and what we're going to do to fix it. By then it will be too late.

I found this site to be pretty informative about the specifics regarding the current health care bill being rushed through Congress. http://blog.flecksoflife.com/2009/07/19/the-hc-monstrosity/?dsq=13769492#comment-13769492

2009-07-11T19:45:00.000-07:00

YARD SALE UNIVERSITY

What better way to spend a day off from work than to get up early in the morning, lug an assortment of various card and picnic tables into your driveway, and then proceed to haul every useless item in your possession out into the blazing sun for the whole neighborhood to enjoy? Yes, I'm talking about that staple of Americana...the yard sale.
At the "urging" of my wife, I was lucky enough to experience such a delightful event just yesterday. Though the entire "take" from our little venture wouldn't buy you a pair of shoes at the discount store, I did come away with a lesson worth passing on to others.

One of the first things you notice when having a yard sale is the diversity of people that somehow find your junk interesting. There seems to be no common thread regarding economic status, gender or...hygiene. People just show up for their own reasons and rummage through your stuff in hopes of finding lost treasure.
After many mini-vans and economy cars had come and gone purchasing a dollar's worth here and fifty cents worth there, a brand new Cadillac Escalade Hybrid came rolling in. The very well dressed lady who was driving it seemed like someone who might be more at home at Nordstrom's than here at "Roadhouse-Mart". As she proceeded to set the purchasing record for the entire day by taking an assortment of my wife's knick-knacks, trinkets, and bobbles off our hands, it dawned on me that this was a perfect example of why I don't resent "the rich".

After a stream of looky-loos, and penny-pinchers, this lady was single-handedly making our yard sale worth having. OK, maybe that's a generous exaggeration, but you get my point. On a very small scale, our tiny yard sale demonstrated the importance of affluence.
Think about it. If you own a store that sells widgets, who would you rather see walking through your door? A poor, penniless homeless guy, or J.P. Moneybags? This same principal applies at all economic levels. It is the "rich" man who buys the widgets...in bulk. It is the "rich" man who hires the employee and provides them with a paycheck along with an array of benefits.
When a truck factory or a lumber mill begins to slow down due to a bad economy, do the workers there hope to get a call from that guy who sleeps in the dumpster behind Hardee's, or from the guy who owns three yachts and two villas in France?
Has any business owner ever said to him/herself "Gee, I sure do wish some dirt-poor, broke people would show up right about now"? No.

I just think it's ironic when people complain about poverty and unemployment, yet vilify those who put people to work. The liberal is offended that someone would own three yachts, but forgets about the family who's father works for the yacht manufacturing company as a rail polisher. They forget about the kid working at the marina where one of these yachts are docked, trying to earn his tuition for college. They forget about the diesel mechanic who maintains the yacht's two Caterpillar motors, and his wife who needs a new car.

At the end of the day, it was the rich lady driving a vehicle I would never be able to afford who provided my family and I with the means to have a nice dinner out, and ice cream sundaes for dessert. Rather than be jealous or resentful toward this lady, I invite her to come to our next yard sale and relieve me of all our junk...because I love ice cream.

2009-07-05T19:34:00.000-07:00

GET EM' YOUNG

Being a Dad has some lesser known advantages. One is being relieved of all that cumbersome spending cash that once weighed down my wallet pocket when I walked down the street, and another is having a legitimate excuse to watch cartoons.
The other morning I was watching cartoons with my daughter when during a commercial break, they ran an "animated short". This is a 15-30 second cartoon usually intended to teach a lesson of some sort to the kiddies. These "shorts" might relate a message about sharing one day, or manners the next. On this particular day, the message was, well...I'll let you decide.

The scene opens with two cute/cuddly characters passing a ball back and fourth on a blank field of white. Then a third not quite as cute/cuddly character comes along and takes their ball, and then proceeds to poke a hole in it, letting all the air out. He then walks away, leaving the two with a deflated rubber pancake.
The two then take the useless mass, stretch it out, and play "jump rope" with it, at which point the story ends.

What is this supposed to teach my kids? How to let someone get away with treating you like crap? How to get used to being taken advantage of? How to be a victim? How to be polite to bullies? How to deny yourself justice? How to allow a criminal to keep hurting others? How to empower the tyrant?

Seriously, If the message was "how to deal with adversity", then they could have just as easily had the ball deflate via a poke from a sharp rock or stick, as opposed to a bully getting his jollies. But they chose a bully scenario for a reason...to teach our kids the liberal "virtue" of pacifism. Let's not teach our children to stand up for themselves or others. No, no, no. Let's teach them how to be good little push-overs and compliant little worker bees. Let's not teach them about justice or consequences. No, no, no. Let's teach them that bullies and tyrants will stop being bullies and tyrants, so long as you let them do what they want to you.

The only one I can think of that would benefit from promoting such a concept would be someone (or group of someones) that aspires to control others with as little resistance as possible. I wonder who that might be.

2009-06-28T19:24:00.000-07:00

"IMPORTANT" NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED

HEADLINES:

"Micheal Jackson Dead At Age Fifty", "Micheal Jackson Dead!", "King of Pop Dies", "Jackson Family Mourns Passing of Micheal", "M. J. Found Dead", "Jackson Dead!", "M.J. Passes", "Jackson Found Dead!", "World Mourns Jackson Death!", "Tragic Death of Pop Icon", "Entertainment Legend Dies", "World Shocked By Death Of Micheal Jackson", "Questions Surround Jackson Estate", "Nation Mourns Death Of King Of Pop", "Nation Shocked by Death of M.J.", "M.J. Dead!", "Rest In Peace Micheal", "Doctor Questioned In Jackson Death", "Micheal Jackson's Tragic Death", "King of Pop Dead At Fifty!", "M.J. Dead At Fifty", "Some Bill Or Something Passes In Congress" (page 8-C...below the fold).

Even a truck drive'n, terminally white, no-talent, redneck like myself can appreciate the historic musical achievements of Micheal Jackson. Face it, hits like "Off the Wall" and "Thriller" can even be heard blasting from a certain eighteen wheeler driven by your's truly on occasion.
Jackson's death following such an "unusual" life is without a doubt newsworthy, but let's be reasonable. Once the announcement of his death is aired, it's time to move on to issues that actually will effect your life. On the same day that Congress narrowly passes a bill that will in all likelihood destroy our nation as we know it, all of media decides that the only thing worth talking about is the death of a guy who sang songs and danced.
Media reports on every channel were streaming into the newsrooms as if we were waiting to see Jackson spring back to life and moonwalk out of the Coroner's office. I think it's just great that we live in a world where average people can name you no less than three Micheal Jackson albums off the top of their head, but have no idea what the term "cap and trade" means. But after watching the media coverage this week, it's no wonder.

Priorities People!!!

2009-06-21T19:33:00.000-07:00

...AND IRAN...IRAN SO FAR AWAY!

On any given day, I dread turning on the news because I am sure to see something that makes me want to build a bunker and teach my family tactical defense techniques. With so much of humanity willing to turn a blind eye to tyranny and the loss of their own liberties, there is just so little to root for lately. Think about it, if your favorite baseball team decided to walk off the field and forfeit the game because they just didn't feel like getting dirty or risking an injury, then who or what would you root for? Sadly, this is the mentality of a growing percentage of people these days. "Conflict resolution" and moral relativity have taken the place of knowing right from wrong and acting decisively. Add apathy into the mix and you end up with a nation of pointless do-nothing robots willing to offer themselves to any dictator or thug that happens to talk his way into power.

Enter Iran. Since I started paying attention to the world around me (September 11, 2001), I have heard more often than not about the oppression of the younger/more "moderate" Iranian youth that are being held down by the Mullahs and ruling class of Iran. As one who generally does not trust Muslims, I admittedly have been very skeptical of these claims. I may have to change my tune.
As I see the footage being smuggled out of Iran via "Twitter", and other Internet venues not currently being shut down by the Iranian "government", I am reminded of America's own rough road to freedom. Though our particular situation may have been slightly different, the underlying desire for freedom is one we should all be able to identify with.
As I watch these young Iranians try to express their want of basic liberty while under the guns of radical tyrants, all I can do is root for the underdog and write in their support. I can only hope that our own administration's lack of willingness to support them does not result in an over-confident Iranian revolution that is ultimately put down via rifles and grenades. You see, after years of President Bush's support of their cause, the Iranian youth may have chosen a poor time to launch their first salvos toward freedom. I fear that they have not gotten the memo that the "new guy" in all likelihood will probably leave them out in the cold, resulting in a massacre, followed by intense resentment of more promises not kept by the "ugly Americans".
As President Obama focuses his attention on how to ruin our health care system, there are people out there willing to give their lives so that they may break free of their government's grip. We on the other hand try to find new ways to have our government tighten theirs.

Go figure.

2009-06-03T19:03:00.000-07:00

SOMEBODY CALL A DOCTOR!

This article is a little late in the offering, but hey, it's my blog therefore my schedule. A few weeks ago, the Obama administration publicized it's intention to reverse a policy which allowed Doctors to exercise their right to refuse to perform some "medical" procedures that they might find morally reprehensible.
To understand just how tyrannical this reversal is, you first have to understand that Doctors are American citizens too. That means that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights just like any other citizen. Essentially, this decision takes the power of a Doctor to run his own practice as he sees fit, and hands it directly to some bureaucratic government "committee" at the point of a gun (yes, the police and/or government officials that would be charged with enforcing this policy will most likely be armed). Not to mention the fact that Doctors take an oath to "do no harm".
Though the reversal is an obvious attempt to subvert the pro-life movement and "weed out" Doctors who don't tow the pro-infanticide line, abortion is not the only "procedure" this decision calls into question.
Consider this, a mother brings her 12 year old daughter to a plastic surgeon in hopes of getting her breast implants. An ethical doctor would immediately refuse the operation, but under this new policy reversal, he wouldn't be allowed to refuse. Maybe a crack addict comes into a Doctor's office in hopes of having some of his less vital organs removed so that he may sell them for crack money. According to President Obama, the Doctor will have no choice but to perform the operation.

Considering President Obama's "hope" of socializing our health care system, I have to wonder if he's really thought this one through. You see, under socialized health care, Doctors are already going to become an endangered species without taking their ethical decision making power away. So couple this reversal with the idea of turning private practice Doctors into government employees, and only one question comes to mind. Why be a Doctor?
Really. Why go through all those years of medical school, make all those personal sacrifices, and go to all that expense so that at the end of the day you will be nothing more than a tool to be used at the government's beck and call.
I can't imagine working so hard to become a Doctor, when you would have so little control over your own professional destiny. To have so many of your decisions made by bureaucrats, regardless of their ethical merit, success, or viability just doesn't seem worth the effort.

2009-05-27T19:25:00.000-07:00

...AND JUSTICE FOR SOME

One of the less exciting but probably most important issues facing America today is the nomination of Supreme Court Justices by our President. Let's face it, a majority of the present day Supreme Court has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peal (as my Grandfather used to say).
Obama's pick of Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice is very telling. Not for the reasons most bloggers are talking about today, (mainly her liberal leaning record) but for Obama's criteria for nominating her. Empathy. How can you be impartial if you're empathetic? There is a reason that statues of "Lady Justice" are always depicted with her wearing a blindfold. There is reason for the slogan "Justice is blind". When you wear a black robe and hold the fate of some one's or even an entire nation's future in your hands, you are duty bound and constitutionally required to NOT be "empathetic".
Realizing that five minutes had gone by without holding a press conference, Senator Charles Schumer ran over his grandmother and pushed a pregnant woman out of the way in order to get his mug in front of camera to support Obama's nomination. For my liberal readers, that was a joke. Schumer's criteria for Supreme Court Justice was stated by the horses mouth as follows;

"Judge Sotomayor meets three very important standards in filling this Supreme Court vacancy—excellence, moderation and diversity".

Excellence? Isn't that a matter of opinion Chuck?

Moderation? Is that in the constitution? Can you "moderate" law, or case precedent?

Diversity? Is that in the constitution? Does Sotomayor's judicial "excellence" reside in the color of her skin? The color of her hair? The color of her eyes? The particular type of genitalia she happens to have? Or are we celebrating diversity of thought? Like when the you applaud the diverse opinions of all Americans...as long as they're liberal. Right Chuck? Get it? "Right"?

Consider this. You get on a commercial jet airliner and they're expecting some bad weather during your flight. You are informed that your pilot was hired because of the color of her skin and the fact that she is a female. She was also given consideration because of her "empathy" for people who refuse to fly. You ask the flight attendant if the pilot actually knows how to fly a plane and she goes into a long flowery speech about the pilot's "compelling life story". You insist that she tell you the pilot's qualifications and are immediately called a "racist" and escorted off the jet way. Two hours later, the plane crashes into the sea.

A President with actual experience (or one that doesn't hate America), realizes that the nominee's knowlege of and adherance to the constitution is really the only criteria he needs to be concerened about.

2009-05-21T19:27:00.000-07:00

MY CUP RUNNETH OVER

When I started this blog, it was more or less an experiment that my wife suggested I try. I had just published a book and was in need of an outlet for my newly acquired interest in writing. You see, I assumed that after I wrote the book, I would no longer have an interest in writing. I was wrong. In fact, I found that my writing no longer consisted of just one project that I was hoping to complete for the sake of being able to say that I've published a book for my children to read someday. Now, I was writing for me, for my own enjoyment and hopefully for my readers as well.
In the early days of this blog, I had very little trouble deciding what to write about. Election season was just getting fired up, and I found it pretty easy to ride the wave of whatever topic was making the headlines on any given week, and throw in a few of my personal favorites to keep my blog from looking like all the others. I never wanted people to assume that they would know what I'm going to be writing about from day to day. I like to keep them guessing.

But now, I have run into an unexpected problem. While most writers wrestle with traditional "writer's block", not having anything to write about, or not knowing what direction to take the story. I think I've found a new "block" that seems to be equally frustrating. My brand of writer's block is having too much to write about, and not enough hours in the day to put it all down.
As I did my objective best to watch President Obama's speech today regarding the closing of Gitmo and the use of water boarding, I realized that I could write for days on end about the past few months alone and still not scratch the surface of this man's naivety and incompetence. In my wildest dreams, I could never have foreseen a United States President being so wrong on so many issues that I wouldn't know where to start in writing about them. He has successfully created a creative log jam in my head.
Just this week, I have articles stored in my head about abortion vs Notre Dame, Joe Biden's attempt to break the all time "foot in mouth" world record, Dick Cheney being the most mis-represented man in history, Nancy "I shouldn't have slept through the briefings" Pelosi, the coming shortage of Doctors in the new era of socialized health care, the new Dems and gun control...and that's just this week alone.
I feel like Lucy Ricardo in the candy factory. For me to do any justice to the topics I want to write about, I am going to have to hire a staff of writers, ignore my wife and children, or write another book. The first two options are probably not the way to go. Writing another book seems to be the most reasonable choice. So many of today's issues can not be covered properly in rapid-fire blog form, and I have too much to say and I am way too opinionated to be satisfied with writing a few paragraphs about the destruction of my country.

2009-05-13T20:27:00.000-07:00

TORTURE

Ever since the infamous pictures of the "atrocities" being perpetrated against those poor innocent farmers held at the Abu Graib holding facility in Iraq, the topic of torture has been a favorite of lefty bloggers and talking heads.

The Abu Graib scandal broke smack dab in the middle of the writing of my first book a few years ago. Knowing I was going to include a few words about the incident, I had to do some research on the topic. I searched the Internet and scoured the magazines and newspapers in search of these pictures I had been hearing so much about that were supposed to include barbaric acts of torture, I kept running across the same photos of naked terrorists and laughing Army soldiers.
I kept waiting to see pictures of red hot pokers being applied to exposed genitals, toes being smashed with hammers, or brass knuckles being used to beat suspected terrorists into submission. But these photos never surfaced. Just more pictures of terrorists being humiliated by female soldiers or intimidated by barking dogs. This is what all the hysteria was about?

My first reaction was to question the mildness of the tactics being applied at Abu Graib, then I remembered who we're dealing with. This particular enemy is trained to endure typical acts of physical violence. So when you pull out the Karate chops, they are not impressed. If you want to get intel from a radical Islamic terrorist, you need to wound his pride. That means utilizing the ultimate acts of shame and degradation as taught in their own culture...ridicule by a woman. Bamboo chutes under the finger nails may or may not get you what you need to know, but threaten to send pictures of non-burka covered Western women pointing and laughing at his "junk" to all his friends and family, and your captured terrorist will probably tell you the pin number to Bin Laden's bank account.

Flash forward to present day. The libs have gotten their collective panties in a wad over "water boarding". A field tested and result driven practice that involves making a terrorist believe that he's going to drown by dunking him upside down under water. Not actually drown, but make him think he's drowning. Of course on top of that, there is the ultimate acts of barbarity, loud rap music and/or turning the AC up or down too far for comfort.

For those of you libs out there who haven't quite figured out the difference between torture and what we actually do to terrorists, I have devised a little exercise that should help clear it all up for you.
The next time you hear of a tactic used by our military to get life saving intelligence from an enemy who's peace-time home-life includes such practices as genital mutilation of their daughters, ask yourself the following question: "Would I or could I voluntarily endure this tactic for $1000.00?" If the answer is "yes", then it's NOT torture. If the tactic will likely result in re-constructive surgery, colostomy bags, years of physical and/or psychological therapy, or a prosthetic limb, then you might be talking about legitimate torture.
I'm sorry, but I just can't classify something that I might do on a dare after a few beers on a Friday night out with the guys as "torture".
If you want to see torture, give me a half an hour with one of the I.E.D. planting cowards in my garage and I'll be glad to demonstrate to everyone what real torture is. I have a "bitchin' set of tools" (to quote Spicoli from Fast Times...) and a wild imagination.

2009-05-01T19:41:00.000-07:00

LIGHTNING ROUND

It's been a busy week at the "Roadhouse"...house. So I'm going to take a slash and burn approach to some of the more prominent issues of the past few days.

Arlen Spector:
Good bye! Good Luck! Good riddance! Keep thinking that Republicans have moved too far to the right. You wouldn't recognize a real conservative if one beat the crap out of you in an upcoming election. Oh, maybe you would after all.

Scare Force One Flyover:
Sooo much irony here. What should New Yorkers expect from a guy who is completely clueless about terrorism and it's origins? Not to mention his terminal arrogance. You would think that the city largely responsible for his election would immediately assume it was "His Hopeness' " plane and not panic in the streets thinking it was another terrorist attack. Haven't they heard that our enemies love us now that President Bush is gone?

Swine Flu:
Told Ya!!! How many times does the left have to be told to close the border? "Slow-bama" says that closing the border now would make no sense because the virus is already here. Oh really? My question to him (since the brilliant media failed to ask it) is; WHAT ABOUT THE NEXT VIRUS, COLLEGE BOY?!!! What about the infected ILLEGALS who haven't crossed over yet? Now do we understand why immigrants are supposed to be screened for communicable diseases before they enter the country?

2009-04-23T19:17:00.000-07:00

THANK YOU NOTE

Dear President Obama,

Just a note to say "thank you" for your tireless efforts in supporting our cause. As I am sure you know, our organization has been around for a long time, and we've had many obstacles along the way. Though we have many members, not everyone is "on board" with our program. Some are just not as receptive to our agenda as others. This alone has made our success more difficult and challenging, but our persistence and resolve have carried us a long way. Now, with your help, many of the hurdles we've encountered over the years have been removed in most cases, or reduced in others.
Your predecessor was not "down" with our cause and proved to be a major impediment to our goals. Whenever we would try to put together a new project, he would find some way to throw the proverbial "wrench" in our works. It seemed that no matter what direction we would turn, he and his associates would be there waiting to deter our progress.
When we heard of your election, it was like a breath of fresh air. A collective sigh of relief could be heard throughout our organization. We knew that our efforts to assure your election were not going to be in vein, and regret that we could not do more to help your campaign.
Thanks to the policies that you have already instituted, our group has seen a major resurgence in both recruiting and "R & D". Your proposed policies have given us the shot in the arm we've needed for some years now, and our hopes for the future have never been brighter. Your cabinet appointments along with those of other key positions were nothing less than a Godsend to us. It's so nice to finally have people in American government who are willing to get out of our way and let us do our work without us having to constantly worry about interference by those who see things a little differently than us.
Rather than detail our plans for the immediate future, we thought it would be more entertaining to implement them un-announced. We can only hope that you will be able to witness our plans coming to fruition personally. We want you to experience the result of your cooperation first hand.
In closing, we are finding it hard to put into words our eternal gratitude for your help in regenerating our hopes and allowing us to work harder to meet our goals. So we would simply like to say "thank you" from the bottom of our hearts.

Sincerely,
Al Queda

2009-04-14T20:14:00.000-07:00

TEA OR KOOL-AID?

I must admit, on the issue of tomorrow's planned "tea parties", I am torn. Given the direction of our nation in recent months, I agree with the premise of a massive public uprising of some sort, but I'm not sure about equating the events of April 15th with the tea party of pre-revolutionary war Boston.
First of all, the original tea party was much more than a group of people marching around holding signs in hopes of being noticed by the media or government "leadership". The Boston tea party was a group of men who stormed private property and violently took over cargo ships and destroyed their freight. By some accounts, some of the ship's crew were even tarred and feathered.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not speaking out against what our forefathers did back in the day. I support their historic actions and realize their necessity. My point is to remind you that there is a difference between an organized peaceful protest on public ground reserved by permit, and a group of armed men dressed as Indians raiding a foreign vessel and dumping it's cargo into the harbor.

Second, as someone who has been witness to the tactics of the left for some years now, I can predict a few things about tomorrow. The George Soros crowd will be in full force in hopes of disrupting an otherwise peaceful demonstration of political differences. I predict that there will be Obama-bots masquerading as white supremacists and religious fanatics in hopes of making the conservative movement look like a bunch of nut jobs. I can also look into my crystal ball and see them trying to incite some sort of violence among the crowd as well. I hope this doesn't happen, but let's be realistic.

Third, the media is going to spin this as they see fit, according to their agenda. If two million people show up and protest peacefully, the media will claim that a "few thousand radicals" showed up to oppose President Obama's message of hope in a time of healing. Then there is the obligatory media interview of the most toothless, in-articulate, angry American loudmouth they can find, so as to paint all conservatives as back-woods rejects from the cast of "Deliverance".

Fourth, President Obama does not care how many people show up or what they have to say. He sees us as ignorant, un-educated, peasants who are beneath him in both stature and intellect. He believes...no, knows that he is better than we "commoners" and has no regard for anything we believe in. If he or his administration pays any attention to these tea parties at all, it will be purely by accident, or for their own amusement.

I hope the tea parties are a success and draw millions of Americans. I hope they make an impact on the people we've elected. I hope the media reports the events accurately. I hope the infiltrators fail in their mission. But a wise truck driver once told me "Shit in one hand, and hope in the other, and see which one fills up first".

2009-04-09T19:21:00.000-07:00

MR. OBAMA'S NEIGHBORHOOD

Fred was a popular, college educated man. Like all humans, he wasn't perfect, but in most instances, his friends and neighbors knew that he could be counted on to help out in a pinch. Fred lived in a remote community far from any metropolitan city, and secluded in a mountain valley. The size and remoteness of his town made the hiring of a police force both impractical and impossible. Because his neighbors were friendly and respectful of each other, this was never an issue, even when there were disagreements among the citizens. Yet even though there were no police, the people had all agreed to form a watchdog group of people from the neighborhood, just in case there were ever any "trouble".
Fred's life was moving along smoothly until he started to notice things about his next door neighbor Bill. Every day when Fred would come home from work, Bill would give him the finger. When he asked him why, his Bill replied, "I want to". Not wanting to cause a scene, Fred went on with his daily routine.
Weeks later, he learned that a few years ago, Bill had attacked another neighbor across the street with a baseball bat, breaking his nose and an arm. He also found out that Bill had a history of violent outbursts and a criminal record to back it up. Fred was informed by a mutual acquaintance that Bill had a collection of firearms, knives and other assorted weaponry, despite his prior felony convictions that prevented him from legally owning them.
Fred opted to leave well enough alone and ignore his neighbor. This worked for a while until his friend was hired to fix an appliance in Bill's house. Fred's buddy informed him that while he was working on Bill's fridge, Bill decided to brag about how he was planning to kill Fred and take his house. Though neither Fred nor his friend had actually seen the alleged weapons, they knew Bill was claiming to use them to kill Fred and anyone else who gets in his way.
Fred had the bright idea to ask the watchdog group to do something about Bill. At a town meeting, there was a great debate about how best to deal with Bill. After all, he had threatened others in the town and was known to be prone to violence. The debate went on. Some argued to raise his neighborhood "block association" fees. Others suggested they blockade him from the local supermarket. One guy suggested they call the authorities, but was quickly reminded that in their remote location, there was no such thing as authorities. He was then reminded that they were the authorities.
Fred's family were beginning to get scared. They knew (or at least assumed) Bill was serious, yet Fred made few if any attempts to defend his family. When his son asked him what they were going to do, Fred told him that he was going to reach out to the neighborhood for help yet again by encouraging them to help out. Fred's son reminded him that the neighborhood consisted mainly of pacifists and cowards that were not interested in getting involved, but Fred carried on.
His son then suggested that they get a gun and install a security system, but Fred had a "better" idea.
Fred proudly and defiantly proclaimed that he was going to set an example for the rest of the neighborhood by "reaching out" to Bill. He truly believed that all he needed to do was build a metaphorical bridge and extend the hand of friendship, and Bill would respond in kind. The fact that Bill believed it was his duty to God to kill Fred went right over Fred's head. The fact that Bill had already killed Fred's dog and chopped down his wife's favorite peach tree meant nothing to him.
In an effort to appease Bill, Fred went a step further. In an act of good faith (in his mind only), Fred took the locks off his doors and windows, and even threw his sharp knives and meat cleavers away...just to show Bill that he meant him no harm.
Days later, Fred and his entire family were found shot, stabbed, and bludgeoned to death in their livingroom. They say Bill could be heard laughing hysterically as Fred and his family begged him for mercy while the neighbors hid in their homes and tried to ignore the carnage.

In case some of you haven't figured it out yet, this story is an accurate depiction of President Obama's national security policy toward those who are sworn to destroy us.

2009-04-06T19:09:00.000-07:00

NORTH KOREA SHOWS US THEIR DONG

This weekend, as President Obama was smack in the middle of his "Let's see how many ways I can embarrass America" tour, North Korea decided to make a statement of their own to the civilized, and not-so-civilized world. Disregarding various treaties and resolutions, North Korea launched their "Taepodong-2" missile.
There are many ways to look at this situation. The media sees it as just another nutty guy playing with his harmless toy in an attempt to gain credibility on the world stage. The Obama administration sees it as the UN's problem...not the free world's. As if the missiles are going to fall strictly on the UN building if push ever comes to shove. Our enemies see it as a good indicator of Obama's character and will...or lack there of. Ironically, I see it the same way.

Much like a fifth grader running to his Mommy to solve his bully problem, Obama called upon the UN to take action after the missile launch. Worse yet, he did it on foreign soil, and in public. Oh yeah, this was after he blamed his own country for the financial woes of the world, again on foreign soil.
You'll have to pardon North Korea for not being reduced to a quivering mass of fear and anxiety at the thought of having to face the wrath of the United Nations. After all, look at the long list of UN military successes and resolved conflicts throughout history. OK, better not look too hard at that particular list.
What President Obama fails to realize, is that the rest of the world is watching how we deal with North Korea. Iran, Syria, China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, and any number of rogue terrorist groups are getting an idea how we are willing to respond to North Korea's call of our bluff. Obama has shown them through his proposed cutting of military spending and his reliance on the UN for national security that he does not have the will required to stand up for the safety or sovereignty of America.

Could you really blame someone for taking a poke at us sometime in the very near future? Should we expect them to risk waiting till after the next election cycle? Would their cause be better served by attacking us after a "pro-military" "pro-war" candidate is elected, or before? I'm not advocating for an attack of our nation, but I do fear that a serious wake-up call is needed as soon as possible. Unfortunately, since September 11th, 2001 didn't do the trick, I fear that it is going to take something a bit more extravagant.

2009-03-28T19:38:00.000-07:00

PRESIDENTS DON'T...

Presidents don't go on late night TV shows.
Presidents don't "reach out" to terrorists.
Presidents don't enter the oval office without a jacket and tie.
Presidents don't complain about being "couped up" in the White House, especially in their first few weeks in office.
Presidents don't flub the oath of office.
Presidents don't even consider making soldiers pay for their own medical care.
Presidents don't have time for "brackets".
Presidents don't plan to cut military spending in a time of war...or a time of peace.
Presidents don't plan to cut weapons development in a time of war...or a time of peace.
Presidents don't publicly blame previous administrations for their problems.
Presidents don't "market" their policies via TV and radio commercials.
Presidents don't encourage class envy or threaten the use of their office to get back privately contracted bonuses from private citizens, especially when they knew about them beforehand.
Presidents don't embarrass the nation by giving a gift of DVD's to British Priministers.
Presidents don't advocate socialism (nationalized - health care, banks, car manufacturers, insurance companies, etc. etc.).
Presidents don't promote hoaxes like man-made global warming.
Presidents don't grant constitutional rights to foreign terrorists.
Presidents don't take constitutional rights from babies in or out of the womb.
Presidents don't spend the tax payer's money as if it were in limitless supply.
Presidents don't spend more time in front of the camera than in front of their desk.
Presidents don't believe in "spreading the wealth" from the achievers to the slackers.
Presidents don't appoint tax cheats to any position.
Presidents don't giggle about America in recession.
Presidents don't need to have the media hold their hand and wipe their noses for them.
Presidents don't institute socialism, they destroy it.
Presidents don't distrust the free market.
Presidents don't assume the government is smarter than the American people.

Presidents don't do any of these things...until now.

2009-03-17T19:36:00.000-07:00

SPARE ME

Am I the only one who sees what's going on here? Insurance giant AIG takes tax payer money for the purpose of staying in business because the government deemed them "too big to fail". After being bailed out, they continue to grant multi-million dollar bonuses to their executives. Consequently, Congress and the new administration are "outraged" at the audacity of AIG to spend tax payer's money in such a way. According to the media, the people are even more outraged and are sharpening their pitch forks as we speak.

Now, let's look at the real story. Yes, AIG did take the money. Yes, they did pay their executives fat juicy bonuses. But unfortunately for the Obama camp, this happened because of provisions spelled out in Obama's own stimulus bill. Don't get me wrong, I always think it's a good idea to throw a piece of legislation together at the last minute, and pass it without sufficient study, especially when it will involve trillions of dollars and risk the future of our nation. But maybe someone should have read this particular legislation before they gave the green light to the public shaming of a private American corporation.

You see, the bonuses paid to AIG executives were the result of contracts signed before the bailout. That means that AIG was obligated under the law to pay them out. But it gets better. The provisions that allowed them to pay these bonuses which are spelled out in the stimulus package, were actually written by the same people who are faking "outrage" today. The usual suspects, Frank, Pelosi, Dodd, etc...love those Democrats.

If these people were only pretending to be mad at AIG, this really wouldn't be much of a story. Unfortunately, they aren't stopping there. Like lemmings, there are both Republicans and Democrats that have taken the bait of moral outrage and are offering ways to "get even". Some are suggesting that the bonus money be taxed at a rate as high as ninety percent. One New York Attorney General has demanded under deadline and subpoena the names of those who received the bonuses. A sitting President has publicly shamed and threatened private citizens with the full power of his office. Obama spoke of AIG not abiding by the principals of this nation (paraphrased). Really? I was not aware that breaking contracts was an American principal. I was also not aware that reaction on the basis of emotion by Congress and the office of the President was an American principal either.

We've gone beyond the subtle stoking of class warfare, and are now entering the world of George Orwell's "1984". The fact that the government is majority share holder of ANY private company is bad enough, not to mention unconstitutional, but when they threaten to use that power to make collective business decisions for that private company, then we're all in trouble.
Besides, wasn't the goal of the stimulus bill to stimulate the economy? Why should the government care which American citizen happens to spend the stimulus money, so long as it goes back into the economy somewhere? They're acting as if these bonus recipients are going to light the money on fire when they get it, as opposed to spending it on something like cars, boats or houses.

Years from now, after most (if not all) businesses are taken over by the government, we can all sit back and marvel at how we showed those evil rich people a thing or two...as we're standing in line hoping they don't run out of our government issued food rations. Hope you like potatoes.

2009-03-10T19:31:00.000-07:00

LIFE IS CHEAP

Not satisfied with simply peeking into Pandora's box, this week President Obama decided to go ahead and rip the lid off of it in yet another decision designed to show how sophisticated and compassionate he is compared to the evil President Bush. Yes, I'm talking about stem cell research. Part of the problem with this particular issue is the mass-lack of education of the people on the topic. So here is a very basic tutorial to bring you up to speed.

Stem cells are like the building blocks that our bodies are made of. As technology advances, it is hoped that these cells can be programmed to regenerate faulty organs or even entire nervous systems. It is believed that the cures for cancer and even AIDs will be found via stem cell research. For the record, I believe this myself.

So, what's the problem? Well, there's a little problem with how you go about getting these stem cells. Stem cells can be found in more than one place. They can be found in living adult bodies by taking samples of skin tissue or even bone marrow, without harm to the donor of course. These are known as "adult stem cells". They can also be found in the blood found in the discarded umbilical cords of newborn babies, also without harm to the donor. These are known as "cord blood stem cells". Sounds pretty cool so far...right? Now for the controversial part.
Another place these cells can be found are in human embryos. These cells are called "embryonic stem cells". For those of you who slept through biology class, an embryo is a person in his/her earliest stages of life. Yes, I said "person". An embryo is not going to grow to become a tree, a toaster, or an I-pod. It's going to grow to become a person, assuming there are no complications in development.
At this point, the un-informed (liberals) might assume the stem cell controversy is just another case of "Bible thumpers" trying to define when life actually starts. Though that is an issue, it's not the issue...at least not for me. My issue is what I call "people farming".

A few years ago, there was a moderately successful movie that starred Ewen McGregor and Scarlett Johansson called "The Island". The premise was that there was a corporation who's clients would supply them with DNA in order for them to grow, stock and "maintain" identical twins for later use as organ donors, according to the need of that client. These "donors" are kept alive in a facility and completely unaware of their purpose thanks to an elaborate system of lies and facades controlled by the corporation. As you can imagine, the corporation falls apart when the truth is discovered after the escape of Ewen and Scarlett's characters.
It was early into this movie when I realized that Hollywood had inadvertently provided us with a brilliant case against the use of embryonic stem cells. Though the "big screen" version of the consequences of treating people as parts bins may be a tad exaggerated, it does vividly force you to consider the ethics of such a thing.

I would like to think that there are not people out there who would look at embryonic stem cell research as a way to make a fast buck...but I know better. I would like to think that there will be no pharmaceutical companies that will offer money for embryos, or women willing to accept such offers...but I know better.

Now that we have decided that embryos are little more than "raw material" to be used at our disposal, I have to wonder what the next step will be. Where will the line be moved to next? Fetuses? Infants? Toddlers? Teens? At what next point do we decide that a person is too old to be used as a guinea pig under the false premise of "the greater good" or "science"? Who will get the honor of making that decision?

Also, keep in mind that it is only the media and leftist politicians who imply that conservatives are against all forms of stem cell research. Truth be told, we are for stem cell research, just not the type that requires the death of another person.

2009-03-05T19:39:00.000-08:00

I WANT HIM TO FAIL TOO!!!

In recent weeks, I have watched in awe as the bulk of the mainstream media has tried to destroy the credibility of conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh. For what? Daring to say that he hopes President Obama fails. From Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel lying about Limbaugh's comments on the media circuit, to Obama himself suggesting to Congress that they stop listening to him, this is my first recollection of a Presidential administration publicly trying to destroy the career of a private citizen. I guess that since President Obama has solved the economic crises, terrorist threat, Middle East crises, crime, illegal immigration, unemployment, AIDs, and other various problems facing us today, he finds himself with an abundance of time to devote to picking on those who see things differently than him.

So, what about Rush's comment? He said he wants Obama to fail. What's so controversial about that? I want him to fail too. Not only do I want him to fail, but I want him to fail so miserably and mired in such embarrassment that no other socialist will ever dare to try such an agenda for the rest of time. I want his name to be synonymous with failure and defeat. Nothing personal though.
To understand why anyone would want to see an American President fail, you need to understand what that particular President hopes to accomplish. It's not that I want him to fail as a person, husband or father. I want his agenda to fail. Most importantly, BEFORE it has a chance to have it's inevitable effect on our nation.
Think about it. Do you want socialized health care to be instituted here? Of course not. Do you want "cap and trade" to be instituted here? Of course not. Do you want the military's budget to be cut? Of course not. Do you want your second amendment rights taken away? Of coarse not? Do you want America to become part of some global union? Of course not? Do you want higher taxes or their resulting price increases? Of course not. Do you want terrorists to think their tactics will gain them legitimacy? Of course not. Do you want our economy to fail due to policies that make no fiscal sense? Of course not. Do you want to be unemployed? Of course not. Do you want to be left defenseless against enemy missile technology? Of course not. Do you want to see "card check" forced onto the business community? Of course not. Do you want to see unlimited abortions without parental consent? Of course not. Do you want to see amnesty for illegal aliens? Of course not. Do you want to see the incentive for people to pay their mortgage disappear? Of course not. Do you want to be forced to pay other people's mortgages? Of course not.

You know, come to think of it, I can't think of one thing that I want the Obama administration to succeed at.

2009-03-03T19:05:00.000-08:00

WHAT THE MARKET IS TRYING TO TELL YOU

In the interest of full disclosure, I must tell you that I am no Wall Street genius. I'm still the lovable truck driver/hack writer that I've always been. That being said, the market is not nearly as complicated as people make it out to be. Playing the market can be very tricky, but watching and reading it is not that complex.
Think of the Dow, S&P, and NASDAQ as the voice of our economy in general. Other indicators such as gross domestic product (GDP) and the unemployment rate are also a good way to tell where the economy stands, but they lack the immediacy of the market. Unlike the market, the GDP and unemployment rates are not updated daily-let alone hourly, making them a "lagging indicator" and subject to many more factors over a longer period of time.
If you want to know how your economy is feeling that particular day and even that particular minute, the market is your best "bet" (no pun intended).

So, what is the market telling us today? Well, let's just say that if markets could talk, ours would be begging for mercy. The market is not happy...because it's terrified. The market is shaking in it's boots because it sees what's coming. It sees the seizure of capital by government. It sees the nationalization of industry. It sees the coming of universal (socialist) health care. It sees bailouts. It sees banks not being able to recoup their investments when they are no longer allowed to foreclose on defaulted loans. It sees people knowing they can get away with not paying their mortgages. It sees higher taxes for those who provide jobs, so consequently it sees that cost being passed onto the consumers...ALL the consumers. It sees that resulting in more layoffs, higher prices and business closings. It sees fewer "big ticket" items being purchased. It sees how the new leadership villainizes successful achievers, and profit in general. It sees expansion of welfare diminishing the incentive to loin the workforce. It sees trillions of dollars being thrown down a bottomless government pit with no "hope" of stimulating growth, or prosperity for anyone other than government entities. It sees the socialist agenda gushing from the White House. It sees the intervention of government into every facet of the private sector through excessive regulation and bailouts. But most of all, it sees no reason to be optimistic.

As the new administration goes out of it's way to make this the most business repellent country on the face of the earth, there are still those who are holding onto the whole "hope/change" mantra. Unfortunately for them, they too are going to enjoy the consequences of fiscal naivety. For now though, they are quite comfortable with the child-like notion that President Bush had single-handedly screwed up the economy so bad that the market is incapable of moving on, or that his predecessor is is incapable of fixing it without destroying it first. They're totally cool with Obama doing ten times as much of the same things that Bush did to create this "crises" in the first place, namely spending the tax payer's money. They have no problem dismissing the fact that Obama has ascended to the Presidency at almost the exact same rate as the fall of our economy.

You see, liberals somehow believe that the business community became successful by being stupid, or by not understanding how things work in the real world. They blindly follow a man who's never run a lemonade stand, and brush off the concerns of people who've built empires as "greed" or whining. Rooted in simple jealousy and bitterness, Obamoids scorn the businessman and support those who would make it harder - if not impossible for him to operate his business, then they turn around and complain when jobs become scarce. Insanity.

So for those of you who were shocked to see the DOW go into the six thousands yesterday, all I can say is "strap in...you ain't seen nothin' yet. My prediction is: 5000's by the end of March. Barring any major attitude adjustments at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue of course.

2009-02-27T19:50:00.000-08:00

MORE FUTURE HISTORY

Back in October, I told you about the time machine I built from parts borrowed from washing machines and an old Mack truck. I only fire it up once in a while because time travel can be risky, and sometimes your experience can be traumatizing. Since I have been a bit overwhelmed by the amount of things to write about, what with the "new guy" taking his Presidential sledge hammer to our founding father's great works, I thought I'd take another trip into the future. You know, just to take a peek at what lies ahead. Big mistake!

This time I decided to set my destination for ten years into the future. My time machine only allows me to travel through time, it does not allow me to travel to different locations. So my report is limited to what I saw in my own home town and what I could learn from the media of the year 2019.

As I walked around my hometown, the first thing I noticed was the poverty. I double checked my instruments to make sure I hadn't entered some sort of parallel universe...I hadn't. I could tell it was my town, but it looked dirty, and run down. There were few people walking around, and the few that there were had sullen looks on their faces and shabby clothes. There were very few cars and the ones that were actually moving were rusty and beat up.
The other thing that struck me were the posters and billboards that seemed to be placed in such a manner as to make it impossible for you to look in any direction without missing one. Each had a different depiction of a greying Barack Obama. All flattering, and most on a field of red. I hadn't seen anything like this since the old pictures I used to see of Saddam Hussein, or the ones of Mao and Stalin from High School history class.

I decided to find out what happened. I went to what used to be a family restaurant, but now resembled some sort of soup kitchen you would see in the inner city. I sat down next to someone and told them I was recently released from the hospital after suffering an extended coma. Yeah, it was not the best cover story, but he bought it.
I asked what the deal was with all the Obama signs. He said, "Didn't you hear? He is our 'Dear Leader', he is our President." I asked how he was still President after his two terms. "Two terms?" he said. He then told me how in Obama's first term, he had amended the constitution to allow unlimited terms for President of the United States. After his Supreme Court nominations were approved, and with the support of a liberal Congress, there was no one to stop him.
I then asked what happened to all the people that used to live here. He said, "Many died in the war of 2012. Others died of what they called the 'new plague'. You see, when we tried to merge with the European Union via the United Nations, there was a revolt. The people formed militias and splinter groups of armed citizens trying to save the nation. Having mixed allegiances, many in the military opted to either stay neutral and not fight. Many joined the revolt in hopes of defending the Republic. This forced Obama to utilize the remainder of his military to put down the revolt with heavy armour, air strikes and martial law. They had nearly succeeded in stopping the 'American insurgency' until they showed up. The world had been watching our upheaval and decided to take full advantage. The Russian and Chinese coalition trained and armed Muslim factions from around the globe to infiltrate and then sabotage key infrastructure in America. Since our industrial abilities had already been depleted to non-existence by years of naive fiscal policies, it was impossible for us to rebuild or maintain military superiority."

"Wait a minute" I said. "If a Chinese/Russian coalition has taken over America, then how is Obama still President?" He looked at me as if I should have already guessed. He then explained; "Are you kidding? Obama did everything but personally open the door for the commies to walk right in and take over. They left him in charge because they knew he sympathized with them and he could convince the masses to comply with the new 'leadership'. Now we live to support the state".
Though I was stunned to hear of this horrifying turn of events, I asked him about the "new plague" he mentioned earlier. He told me how the new plague was really not that bad of a virus compared to many mankind had dealt with in the past. Apparently the real problem was a shortage of Doctors and medicine. You see, after our health care system had been taken over by the government, fewer and fewer people wanted to become Doctors. Going to school for eight to ten years to become a government employee, as opposed to having a private practice of their own was just not that appealing. The double whammy came when the pharmaceutical companies were taxed into un-profitability and consequently forced to close their doors.
Obama had made good on pretty much every one of his original campaign promises, but the people were too short-sighted to see the consequences of his agenda. They were so enamored by his style, that they didn't bother to consider his substance.
Anyway, this virus which during any other time could have been treated with anti-biotics spread like wildfire through the urban areas first, then on to the rest of the population. Over three million people in the US alone died within the first month of the outbreak. A year later, two thirds of the world population had perished.
I then asked what had happened to the restaurant that used to be here. He told me that after the first round of tax increases, the family that owned the place could no longer afford to stay in business, especially since most of the customer base had lost their jobs. He told me to take notice how there was no cash register here now. That's because the government had nationalized the food industry and now "distribute" food without charging the people. At first, I wondered how bad that could possibly be. Then I saw what was being served...potatoes and onion soup, with stale bread and water. Proving once again that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
At that point, I had seen and heard enough. I said "Good bye" to my futuristic friend and ran as fast as I could back to my time machine.

I'm not really sure if this destiny can be changed, now that I have witnessed it, but I do know that being right about someone or something is not always everything it's cracked up to be.

2009-02-19T20:09:00.000-08:00

WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE

No, this is not a "photo-shopped" picture designed to shamelessly plug my book. It actually is me with the Juan Williams of FOX News and NPR. Mr. Williams was lecturing at Shippensburg State College, which is mear minutes from the Roadhouse homestead. As a long time fan of Williams, I couldn't justify missing an opportunity to meet him. As a conservative, I often disagree with Juan's assessment of issues facing our nation, but what sets Williams apart from the liberal herd is not his opinions, it's his personality.

Since I first took the red pill and was drawn into the "Matrix" that is the world of politics, I've seen many political pundits hock their wares across my television screen. Among the liberal media are platoons of snarky, elitist "intellectuals" who never miss a chance to bash conservatives with little more than school yard shin-kickery. Through it all, one guy has stood out to a point where I frequently ask my wife, "Why can't the rest of those jerks be more like him?" That guy is Juan Williams.

The topic of his speech was "Eyes on the Prize: The Truths of American Race Relations". Admittedly, I was expecting Mr. Williams to be a bit more partisan, given the college setting and no cameras rolling. I actually told my traveling companion (AKA, my father-in-law) that we would probably be doing a lot of eye rolling during his lecture. I was wrong.

Like true statesmen of a time pre-dating focus groups and Neilson ratings, Williams spoke of racism in terms that were both fair and accurate. He spoke of personal responsibility or lack there of in the black community. He spoke of Dr. King's message and how he might relate to society today if he were still alive to witness things like gangsta' rap or modern day poverty. He reminded us that even though there is more work to be done, people in general have come much further in their attitudes towards racism than they are usually given credit for. He advocated more communication between ethnicities, and how important it is to keep the conversation going.

Amazingly, he did this without blaming George Bush for all the ills facing the black community, and without throwing verbal pitchforks at those of us on the "right". Unlike just about every liberal talking head I have ever heard, Williams managed to speak for an hour, and take questions from a predominantly "left" audience without making me want to throw produce at him. In fact, I really can't think of one thing he said that I disagreed with. Spooky huh?

After his speech, he did a book signing. He was every bit the respectable American in person that he is on the TV. I told him that I don't always agree with him, but I consider him to be a true statesman. I gave him a copy of my book and he was even gracious enough to let me get a picture of him holding it...his idea.

Juan Williams...a class act, and proof that being a liberal doesn't mean you have to be a nut-job.

2009-02-17T19:36:00.000-08:00

BIG BROTHER AWAKENS

If there is one underlying theme to the modern Democrat party, it has to be irony. In yet another scheme designed to spin our founding fathers to maximum RPM in their centuries old graves, some members of our allegedly representative Congress have stepped out onto the limb of totalitarianism and advocated for the "fairness doctrine". For those of you who don't know, the mis-named "fairness doctrine" is anything but. Rather, it is a way for the government to destroy one of our founding principals...freedom of speech.

In a nut shell, the fairness doctrine is legislation designed to force the press to give equal time to both sides of an issue in their coverage. Sounds good, huh? Not so fast there Hot Rod. Time to apply some brain juice to the subject. First, who ever said that there are only two sides to a story or only two opinions on any given topic? Second, there is a little thing called the Constitution of the United States. You see, there's this little thing in there called the First Amendment. It states as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You would think that those who are sworn to defend the Constitution would actually understand it as well...but apparently not. Don't get me wrong, as a conservative, no one is more disproportionally represented in the media than those who advocate my philosophy, but as an American citizen who knows how to read, I understand the implications of forcing another person to voice my opinions under penalty of the law. Do I consider it a kick in the crotch that Keith Olberman and Chris Mathews rarely give a fair shake to the right? Yes. But for me to propose government intervention that would control the content of their shows would make me an accessory to the destruction of their right to free speech.
That's what makes so little sense to me though. Why do Democrat talking heads want to institute something that would be as much of an abomination to the left as it would be to the right? After all, if producers of shows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are forced to air liberal view points equally, then host like Ed Schultz and Allan Combs would be forced to air the view points of the right under the same legal precedent. Do they consider that when they promote democrats on their shows?
Sure, I would love to debate Ed and/or Allan on the national stage, but not at the expense of their right to produce their own show as they see fit.
Some believe that the fairness doctrine would be limited to AM talk radio, but not so. Once that precedent is set, it will be used for cases in all corners of the media. That means that CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and even lesser known publications like the Mother Earth News or High Times will be required to present points from the right side of the issues.
Since it seems to be mainly the "fringe left" who are in favor of this unconstitutional garbage, I have no choice but to question their sanity. Between conservative talk radio hosts being obligated to debate and consequently destroy their liberal counterparts on a daily basis, and liberal hosts being forced to air conservatism for a change, it turns out that the "fringe left" are the ones who would suffer most in the long run under the fairness doctrine. Political suicide, or simple masochism? You decide.

Imagine the government forcing McDonald's to start selling Whoppers, or Ford to start selling Chevy's on their lots. Actually, that last one might be a bad example, now that the government is going to be the controlling interest in the "Big Three", they might be doing that soon.

2009-02-09T19:26:00.000-08:00

HEY BIG SPENDER

It'll never work. That's really all you need to know, but for the sake of credibility, I will explain in more detail. First, I think it should be considered a "clue" when even President Obama himself tells us that this "stimulus bill" is not going to work right away and will be a hard pill to swallow. Hey, here's a wacky thought, if you know your own plan sucks, why not try one that doesn't.
Second, if the plan for creating wealth and prosperity in a lagging economy were as easy as spending massive amounts of money, then I think it's safe to assume that we would all be filthy rich.
Third, the business community did not get to where they are by being retarded. They know how to create wealth and prosperity, and they know that this is not the way to do it. Why do you think the DOW has remained in a low level holding pattern since Obama's election? It's because they know better than to invest or spend significant amounts on new development when Obama has more or less declared war on the free market. They are in panic mode waiting to see how Obama is going to stick it to them next. Not only are they not going to invest, but they are going to tighten their belts in hope of weathering the coming Obama storm. We see this already by virtue of layoffs and other cutbacks.
Fourth, so much of this bill is nothing more than pork and earmarks...you know, what Obama promised he would not have in his administration? Of coarse, there is always the chance that Frisbee parks and ATV trails create more jobs than what I realize.
Fifth, I remember how not too long ago, Democrats howled about the massive deficit spending that was happening during the Bush administration. They whined obsessively about how it will destroy the economy. Now that they are in charge, deficit spending is brilliant. As if all laws of economics have somehow changed, simply because of who resides in the White House. Basically, they want to "double down" on the same thing they used to make fun of Bush for doing.
Sixth, by the time most of the proposed public works projects proposed in the bill actually see broken ground, we will be driving flying cars, and roads will be obsolete anyway. People forget about appropriations, union negotiations, arbitration, the bidding process, land acquisition issues, material procurement, planning, societal impact studies, environmental impact studies, inevitable litigation etc, etc. The bureaucracy alone will take ten years to sort out.
Seventh, the first stimulus package didn't work, so why would a bigger one do the trick?

If one trillion dollars will fix the economy, then why don't we spend two trillion? Better yet, let's spend ten trillion and dominate forever. It defies logic to think we can spend our way out of this.

The day after this bill passes, if the DOW goes up 1000 points or more, I'll eat my Bush/Cheney hat.

2009-02-05T19:52:00.000-08:00

"I SCREWED UP"

Yes, nothing instills confidence in your country's leadership than hearing your President say to the entire world "I screwed up"...in their SECOND WEEK. The real shame of it is not so much that a sitting President would say such a thing on camera...purposely, but the real kick in the head is why he did it.
Not to buck a trend, Barack Obama decided to appoint yet another Clinton left-over that would eventually be discovered as a tax cheat. Even after Tom Daschel was publicly outed as being hypocrite/tax dodger Obama continued to stand by him. Only after Daschel took himself out of the picture, did Obama admit his poor choice of appointment. The obvious question then becomes; If Daschel had not taken himself out of the picture, would Obama have kept him on despite his aversion to paying the same taxes that he so vigorously forces us to pay? Well, if Timothy Geithner and Hillary Clinton are any indication, I must assume that he would have. Now that Daschel has pulled the ripcord, will Obama tell Geithner to hit the road? No.

In his zeal to destroy America in record time, Obama has already confirmed my worst fears in only two weeks. He has demonstrated a complete lack of ethics by appointing and nominating one crook after another to the most important positions in government. This could also be an indicator of his intellect, and maybe even a total contempt for this country.
Then there is his "green lighting" of nationalized health care for children, which confirms my suspicion that he's a communist in moderate sheep's clothing, or just an idiot that doesn't understand the free market.

In any case, it's good to know that when I "forget" to pay my taxes this year, I won't have to worry about the media villainizing me. Apparently, I can count on them to cover for me and not ask too many questions that might make me look bad in public.

2009-01-28T19:22:00.000-08:00

WEEK ONE

After the 08' election results, we on the "right" were "encouraged" to to take the high road and give our new President a chance before making rash judgements about him and his agenda. Ever the "bridge builder", I had every intention of putting myself on "simmer" until President Obama had time to settle into his new digs. This was my plan, even after his cryptic, racist, pro-socialist, cult gathering, otherwise known as the inauguration.
As with many good intentions, my plan was not meant to be. In fact, you could say that our new President didn't even give me a chance to give him a chance.

Before Obama's followers could fully digest the Kool-Aid that that they had so obediently engorged themselves on last Tuesday, the Hope-Meister-in-Chief set out to destroy America. Maybe or maybe not on purpose, but either way, through hateful intentions or simple ignorance, the results are the same.
During his first week in office, Obama used his new executive power in much the same way a toothless hill-billy might use his new fortune (won via lottery ticket). He's making all the wrong decisions and will ultimately be worse off than before his win fall. And his friends will continue to love him so long as they continue to believe that he will be able to "spread the wealth around".

So let's take a look at some of the President's brilliant decisions so far, in no particular order.

1. Closing Gitmo
This is a new level of stupid not yet found on any chart. Closing it is bad enough, but closing it without having a "plan B" is borderline retarded. First, it sends the message to our enemies that we were wrong after all for having the audacity to defend ourselves from terrorists, or to stop Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. Second, giving constitutional rights to foreigners picked up on a foreign battlefield is ironically...unconstitutional. Third, you send the message to our troops that they will be needing a law degree to fight a war. Fourth, you are telling the terrorists that the easiest way to gain access to America is to get picked up on the battlefield. And who better to recruit for your jihadist cause than American prison inmates?

2. Re-instituting abortion funding for people in other countries
Well, if you're into infanticide, I guess this is something you can really get behind. Even better if you're into forcing other people to pay for it.

3. Interview on Arab television
Nothing shows that you understand the Middle East better than going on an Arab TV network and telling them that you are going to continue to support Israel. He probably swatted bees nests for fun when he was a boy too. Nothing shows the strength and resolve of America better than trying to reason with terrorist countries IN PUBLIC in the middle of a war you're allegedly trying to win.

4. Stimulus package
Does this really need an explanation? More money for infrastructure projects that won't see the light of day for years to come, food stamps, unemployment benefits, and hypothetical jobs rooted in technologies that do not yet exist and have yet to gain a market. On top of putting more environmental restrictions on an already ailing auto industry.

At the rate he's going, I'm going to need to hire a staff to keep up with him.

2009-01-26T19:55:00.000-08:00

BRONSON: BETTER THAN THE NRA

Just a short blog tonight. Obama's first week in office is proving to be real test of my writing skills. There's just too much dangerous liberal idiocy being instituted at the hands of Barak Obama for me to cover in the little free time I happen to have tonight. I would rather take my time and sort it all out properly in the coming days. Stay tuned.

Instead, I would like to tell you about my evening at home alone with my four month old son. One of the benefits of having a totally dependant infant to take care of is the TV time I get to catch up on while feeding him. Tonight was no exception. My view of choice turned out to be an oldie but a goody. "Death Wish" with Charles Bronson is a movie that I have probably seen at least a few dozen times in my lifetime. I haven't seen it in a long time though, and that's probably why I saw it in a different light when I watched it tonight. In fact, the last time I watched it, I'm pretty sure I was in my early twenties, and liberal as the day is long. Now, I have a family.
In my book, I tried my best to write a chapter that explained in easy to understand terms exactly why a person has the right to defend themselves against the criminal element. I used analogies, parables, along with good old fashion common sense and reasoning to make the case for our Second Amendment rights.
As it turns out, I would have been better served to just tell my readers to watch Death Wish. I was only four years old at the time, so I can only guess that this movie raised alot of eyebrows at it's original opening. But I have seen no other movie that better explains the positive effect that a firearm can have on the populous when they are free to carry one.
If you're still a little fuzzy on your right to protect your family, I urge you to watch this movie.

2009-01-20T12:42:00.000-08:00

DID YOU HEAR THAT?

When I woke up this morning, I wasn't really sure how I was going to react to President Obama's inauguration speech. I had every intent on taking the high road by not letting my fears of his upcoming term cloud my impression of this historic event. If for no other reason than respect for the office. I wanted nothing more than for this day to go by without an "incident" and to maybe even see or hear something that might assuage my fears a little. As it turns out, that was not meant to be. If anything, I'm more scared for the future of this country than ever before.

Keep in mind that I experienced the inauguration via radio, inside the cab of an eighteen wheeler, as opposed to on the TV, but I don't think it would have helped if I were standing at the podium myself.

After purposely tuning out the "pre-game" shenanigans, I started listening just as Aretha Franklin started to sing "My Country Tis of The". I've been an fan of Aretha's singing since I was old enough to understand music at all. By far, this was not her best performance. I did my best to not take that as a bad omen, but to no avail.

Then President-elect Barak Hussein Obama took the stage, and it was all down hill from there. Really, is it too much to ask of a party that has spent eight years pillorying a man for his improper pronunciation of words to nominate someone who won't verbally rape the Oath of Office of the President of the United States? Would that really be asking too much? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the MSM will be questioning Obama's intellect just as they did Bush for his less than stellar mastery of the English language. I can't wait to see the parade of stand-up comedy routines and impersonations centered around Obama's gaffes. No double standard there.

After the oath came..."the speech". There were many carefully veiled themes in "the speech" that I picked up on immediately. The first part of "the speech" seemed to be an effort to remind us all how awful it is to be living in America, and how the only ones we should blame is the Bush administration. Because as we all know, the liberal Democrat Congress and past liberal policies couldn't possibly have anything to do with our current predicament.

Following that cheery and uplifting note, he went on to tell us how WE are going to have to sacrifice and hard choices to fix this country. Oh really? I thought that's why the people elected you Barak. According to what I read on my paycheck stub every two weeks and property tax assessments, I seem to be "sacrificing" quite a bit already thank you very much. And to pay for Democrat legislated taxation and liberal government spending across the board, I've had to make plenty of "hard choices" as well.

Another theme I spotted was the "we can't fix it without the government's intervention" concept. Oh really? The last time I checked, It government intervention that got us into this mess to begin with by telling banks who they could and couldn't lend to and telling auto manufacturers what kind of cars to build. Then by throwing endless stacks of the people's cash at problems that have nothing to do with lack of funds to begin with. Topping that off with the government perpetrating the man-made global warming scam on us.

In reality, the last thing we need is for the government to have yet more tentacles reach into places where they can be of no logical use.

One of my personal favorite themes was the "I'm the Messiah, so if you don't agree with me, I'm not going to listen to you" theme. In flowery Presidential language, Obama more less told us that there's no point in resisting his power, if you are going try to explain to him why his plans will not work, he will consider you a partisan obstacle to his agenda and ignore you.

I knew long ago that when this day came I could expect a platitude-a-palooza and few if any details or specifics about how to fix the problems we allegedly face. What I did not expect was to be the victim of a racial slur on behalf of my President...during his inauguration ceremony.

After what I can only describe as incoherent rambling mistakenly referred to as "a poem" by some woman whom I've never heard of...came the closing "prayer". I want my readers to think back to everything I've ever written about Pastor Jeremiah Wright. Remember back to when when I tried to tell you that when you sit in that church for that long, something is probably going to rub off.

LOWERY: "Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their neighbors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask You to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around; when yellow will be mellow; when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white would embrace what is right. Let all those who do justice and love mercy, say amen."

Just what "right" are whites as a whole not embracing? How is this not "judging by the color of one's skin". You know...what Dr. King fought and died to end? This is "change"? Does this statement even make sense as a black man is walking unchallenged into the highest office in the entire world?

What should we think about this "prayer"? Did Obama learn anything from the Wright/Fleager scandal? Does he have anyone checking out what is going to be said on his behalf at the most publicized event in the history of the world? Does he have any friends or associates that aren't involved in some sort of controversy?

The inauguration as a whole was an embarrassment. The wretched excess and expense of the event in such troubled financial times, the blatant media bias, the gawdy commercialism of a Presidential inauguration as if it were a Super Bowl game, the total over-exposure of Obama himself as if he were some sort of messianic figure, the dis-respect shown to the Bush administration by the masses as they graciously departed the White House, all gave me an urge to find a bottle of Southern Comfort and hide in the basement.

2009-01-16T19:51:00.000-08:00

ROADHOUSE DON'T FLY

WARNING!!! Before you read this, if you are a frequent flyer, I urge you to just skip this post all together.

Much like Mr. T's character "B.A. Barakas" from the iconic 80's TV show "The A-Team", I would have to be unwillingly and unknowingly knocked out if I were ever expected to set foot on an air plane...or any other aircraft for that matter.

Aside from my "Achilles Heal" of severe acrophobia, I have also been cursed with a tendency to notice things that others don't. Though that's great for understanding the world of politics, it tends to be a big fat anchor around my neck when it comes to all things risky or fun. Case in point; air travel.

I will not fly for many reasons. First, they won't let me take my .45 on the plane. Trust me, when matched against a nut-job with a box cutter, my .45 and I will be victorious. Unarmed, it's a crap shoot. Second, I hate lines and crowds.

The biggest reason I will not fly is my complete lack of trust in humanity today. Me getting on a plane would go something like this. I walk toward the plane and the little mouse wheel in my brain starts to spin off it's axle. I imagine the hung-over airplane mechanic who recently had a fight with his wife about using the wrong bath towel. I picture him angrily pounding on some random engine part that isn't fitting properly. He then forgets to install the right washers that are supposed to hold the fuel injection ports in place.

My mind then drifts to the pilots. Are they in that particular cockpit because they have decades of experience and are considered "indispensable" by the airline? Or are they there because some liberal, affirmative action/quota policy that requires the hiring of pilots of a certain ethnicity, as opposed to a certain competency?

I think of the factory worker who forged the engine mounts of my airplane. Is he a worker who actually takes some pride in his job? Or is he a union worker who does nothing more than what his contract calls for, regardless of how it effects the bottom line of his boss's company? Worse yet, is that worker an illegal alien who holds a fraudulent Social Security card that hides a record of arrests for drug smuggling and child porn?

I know, I know...you are more likely to get hit by lightning than be in a plane crash. But I don't stand outside in lightning storms either. And I know that more people get into car crashes than ever do plane crashes. Yeah, but how many people ever survive a plane crash? I've been in several car and motorcycle crashes in my lifetime and walked away from every one...so far (knock on wood). How many people do you know that have ever survived a plane crash?

If you still don't understand why I won't get on a plane, I suggest you ask the following people their opinion on the subject: Buddy Holley, Ritchie Valens, The Big Bopper, The better half of Lynnyrd Skynyrd, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Patsy Cline, Randy Rhodes, John Denver, Davey Allison, or Amelia Earhart.

2009-01-14T19:08:00.000-08:00

WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

Traditionally, newly elected Presidents wait until after their inauguration to get entangled in scandals or demonstrate total incompetence. But today we are living in the age of "change", and that's exactly what we're getting.
President-Elect Obama has already demonstrated a complete lack of ability in delegating his authority by virtue of his appointments to various positions in his administration. From his first pick of Rahm Emmanuel of Fannie May and Freddy Mac fame, to the pro-war in Iraq one day and anti the next - Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. Not one to rest on his laurels, Obama decided to then fix the intelligence community that he has spent so much time criticizing by appointing a man who has absolutely no experience or back ground in anything resembling the intelligence community. Leon Pannetta - who better to put in charge of gathering intelligence in a time of war with a ruthless enemy than a guy who equates getting a terrorist wet (water boarding) with torturing one?
His appointment of Bill Richardson lasted about the same amount of time that it takes for me to warm a Hot Pocket. And the list keep on growing.
But my personal favorite is his recent appointment of Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary. Who better to head the IRS than someone who can't pay his own taxes? When his name was first mentioned as Obama's pick, I had never heard of him, but people on both sides of the isle had nothing by great things to say about him. My "Spidey sense" went into overdrive when I realized that he was liked by both ends of the spectrum.
This brings me to my next question. Where are all those bloggers and pundits who saw fit to criticize "Joe the plumber" for being behind on his taxes? Joe's only claim to fame at that point had been to ask "His Hopeness" a simple question (how dare he). His profession involved pipe fittings and ball valves, not the nation's financial future. Geithner is supposed to be the guy who's going to set the standard and lead this country out of financial Armageddon, yet he can't even manage his own taxes?
The worst part is watching the media and "Sir Hopesalot" himself try to downplay the relevance of Geithner's shenanigans. Yet Joe the plumber was unfit to mearly ask a question because of his tax situation.
No double standard there, huh? Keep in mind that I haven't even mentioned "Blago-gate" or Obama's economic speach last week where he basically told the world that he has no clue how the nation's economy works. It's going to be a fun four years.

2009-01-13T14:43:00.000-08:00

GUEST AUTHOR

The other day, I was making my usual rounds across the blogosphere when I was introduced to the concept of a "guest author" courtesy of one of my regular haunts - GO ZACK blog http://gozack.blogspot.com/. Being a rookie in the blog world, I had not heard of this before, but was impressed with the idea. In a world where our egos tend to do the driving, it seems to me that some humility, magnanimity, and basic generosity are traits we should all explore now and then. Having someone else take the wheel of something you put personal effort into seems to be a great way to that.
Though technically the following is not a an article by a guest author, it is actually a short essay I lifted from the comment box of my last blog. Written by "JMK" at Working Class Conservative blog http://workingclassconservative.blogspot.com/, it seemed to be too well written and too relevant to the subject to be relegated to the comment box of my blog. I offer JMK's comments as the perfect followup to my previous article.

JMK Wrote the following in response to my article "Break Over":
This is part of an incrementally increasing problem in my view.It's generational and it's generational because we are seeing the generational impact of the loss of our national "rugged individualism" and our respect for self reliance and Liberty with each passing decade. I can see the trajectory very clearly in my own family, my grandparents were incredibly self reliant. They not only "never asked for anything, " they never expected much" from their fellow citizens, whom they knew were as busy as they were, nor their government.
My Dad's generation was reared in the Great Depression, he fought in WW II and Korea and then came out and worked 38 years in the FDNY during the "riot years" in some of the busiest firehouses in NYC.That guy never had an easy day in his life and never expected less. While he wasn't quite as self-sufficient as my grandfather, who built his own house with a single friend, he was self reliant enough. It was that generation that made the first mis-step and they made it out of the best of intentions.
After WW II America's was the only economy left standing and times were good....real good. The GI Bill allowed millions of men who'd never been able to get into to College in the past, get in and go. In turn, they sought to make their kid's lives as easy as possible. Yes, there was discipline and chores and expectations, but they were the first generation to give more and expect less from their kids. After that, the flood gates opened. The generation that grew up in the sick 1960s saw "discipline as punishment" and saw "tolerance" and "not judging" as the highest moral dictates....and THEY raised a generation of, while not entirely, overwhelmingly spoiled, self-centered brats...and now some of those lost souls are breeding yet another generation that seems the least connected, the least self-motivated and most dependent and entitled YET!
The question is, where do we go from here? Will the coming economic tsunami intensify beyond our wildest imaginings - there are some DOPES who think the current economy is "the worst since the Great Depression", when it actually pales in comparison to the Carter years - taking into account how limited those imaginings are? And if it does, will it refocus us on the things that made America great - that self reliance, private property rights, individualism....OR will it result in a weakened generation simply surrendering and giving in to total dependency?
If it's the former, we may reclaim our greatness.
If it's the latter, we may well wind up serfs to a growing and avaricious Chinese empire...and deservedly so.

2009-01-06T19:07:00.000-08:00

BREAK OVER!

OK, the holidays are officially over. After my brief hiatus from the blogosphere, I think it's about time I get back into the mix. The problem is, I just don't know where to start. Sure, I could join the Frey and post something about "Blago/Burres/Obama-gate", but really...who cares? And who's really surprised anyway. I could post something about Israel going into Gaza. But once you've said "It's about friggn' time", what more is there to say? Instead of writing yet another op-ed about the world of politics, today I'm opting to touch on something a little more...cultural.

The week prior to Christmas I was in the middle of my traditional last minute approach to ruining the true meaning of the season by giving-in to the shameless commercialism that the Savior's birthday has now become, when I had an epiphany. There are too many idiots in this world. I'm not talking about the "common" brand of idiot; people who drive a Prius, fat people that drink 72 oz. diet sodas, or Obama voters. No, I'm talking about the new level of idiot known as the "self mutilator".

As I was searching the shelves of a well-known book store chain trying to find a children's version of "A Christmas Carol" I was approached by one of the employees who asked if he could help me find something. One look at this individual nearly caused me to reply "Yes, you can help me find my faith in humanity's ability to survive your generation's presence". But tis' the season, so I politely said "No" and went my merry way.

I would best describe this "person" as a parent's nightmare, adorned with all manner of tattoo, piercing and surgical modification. Beyond his "Flock of Seagulls" hair and his "flock of demented retards" clothes, his face was the most distracting...and depressing. His speech was afflicted by a tongue piercing, and his ears were weighted down with giant bolt-like hardware that protruded through holes the size of silver dollars in his earlobes. This was accented by a nose and eyebrow piercing. Despite his polite and helpfull manner, I couldn't help but wonder if it would be safe to give this individual access to my credit card. After all, according to his self inflicted "look at me" kit, judgement did not seem to be one of his priorities.

Before some of you label me "narrow minded" or "out of touch", consider this. Other than deep seated emotional issues or questionable psychological status, what drives a person to go to such lengths to draw attention to themselves? As a blogger and author, I want attention as much as the next guy, that is unless that "next guy" happens to have a bone in his nose and some sort of demon tattooed on his neck.

Judgement is a lost art. Fewer people practice it now more than ever, and our society is suffering the effects. When people act out like this, there is a message that they are sending to us. They are telling us that their parents dropped the ball somewhere along the line. That forces you to ask what else about this person did those parents drop the ball on? What other judgement issues are beyond this person's ability to comprehend? Can these people really be trusted to serve me and my family in a professional manner? If they are willing to disfigure themselves for the sake expression or attention, what else are they capable of when no one is looking?
This also says something about the people who are willing to hire these weirdos. Do they have no pride in their own business? If not, what else do they not give a crap about? Are they more concerned with looking "tolerant" than keeping a valuable customer base? Are they trying to make some sort of statement by hiring people with mental issues?

Is there anything "wrong" with this type of behavior. Probably not. But it does speak volumes about you when you are so uncomfortable in your own skin that you think it's a good idea to puncture it for no good reason.

I never did find the book I was looking for. But I did find my way to a bookstore where I didn't have to worry about losing my appetite...or my credit rating.

2008-12-21T16:49:00.000-08:00

THE CASE FOR PARTISANSHIP

If we (at least some of us) have learned nothing in the past few years, it should be that reaching across the isle is an exercise in futility. Call it "bi-partisanship", the "new tone", or just plain old civility, when you set out to make a compromise for the sake of "getting something done" you will always come up on the short end of the stick.

First, let's look at the word compromise. From our first years on this planet, we are taught that compromising is a good way to settle a dispute and work out differences. I disagree.

I have found that in most instances life presents us, whenever their is a dispute, only one party is correct in their assertions or assessments. Occasionally, both parties might be wrong, but after careful examination of the facts and evidence available, rarely are both parties right.
That means in order to make a fair compromise, one party is required to be a little more right, but another party is required to be a little more wrong.

Imagine two firemen arguing about how best to put out a fire. One fireman suggests that they throw water on the fire. The other fireman disagrees and suggests that they throw gasoline on the fire. They "compromise" and decide to throw both water and gasoline on the fire, all in an effort to get "something" done. Though the guy who compromised toward water is now a little more correct, he still throws his share of gasoline on the fire along with his compromise share of water.

The guy who was actually right in the beginning has acquiesced, and is now obligated to throw his compromise share of gasoline on the now raging inferno. The end result is the death of both firemen and an out of control fire that is now left to others to put out.

Had the party who knew he was right stood his ground, both firefighters would still be alive today. Unfortunately, he decided to engage in a "new tone", and by default he compromised his principals and everything he ever leaned about fighting fires. And for what?

He lived in a world where being wrong was no longer something to be embarrassed about. Media outlets commonly gave as much air time to those who were clueless as they did with with those who used common sense. There was no longer shame attached to being wrong. In fact, people were taught at an early age that every one is an equal and criticism is actually "hate speech". So now, even though he was right, it was acceptable in some circles to throw gas on a fire. So the other guy was considered to be equally qualified to make decisions and never questioned, nuch less ridiculed for being an idiot. When he spoke out, he was pressured to give in for the sake of getting something done.

Too bad for us that this mentality has infected our allegedly representative democracy. Our elected officials are more worried about being called a "zealot" or a "partisan" than they are about what actually happens to our country. Standing up for the principals that have a time tested track record of success and prosperity is no longer an option. If it doesn't bring high numbers in a focus group or opinion pole, it doesn't see the light of day.

Why do we do this? Do we ever get anything for our attempts to "reach across the isle"? No. Unless you count a bloody stump. Democrats learned this lesson decades ago, but we continue to insist on taking a punch and asking for another. In an age where it is getting harder and harder to tell a Republican from a Democrat, I can't help but wonder why we even have a party anymore.

Until we are willing to stand up for what we know is right and start dropping some ideological nukes on the liberal establishment, we are going to continue to lose elections and probably the nation as a whole. I'm looking at you John McCain!

2008-12-11T19:35:00.000-08:00

WHAT TO DO WITH MY OLD CHEVY?

Earlier this year I purchased a 72' Chevy pickup that I was hoping to restore. Some of you may recall a previous article I had written about it (GEARHEAD ZEN May 30th). Since then, many things have changed in this country. Not the least of which is the role of our government.

If you take the time to look at our founding documents, you will find many things. You will find a guarantee of your right to live, defend yourself, speak, etc, etc. You will find the limitations of government spelled out in pretty plain terms. You will also find the role that government is supposed to have in our lives written in the plainest of English. What you won't find is document, amendment, or enumerated power that designates our government any right to own, or control a car company. In fact, you will find no shortage of documentation that specifically prevents such things from happening. Despite these facts, the United States government is getting ready to jump head first into the automobile manufacturing business...at our expense of course.

As I made my deliveries last week, I listened to the auto manufacturers make the convoluted cases to Congress for a massive bailout via tax payer dollars. As I listened, I couldn't get past the fact that neither side had one word to say about the actual responsibility of our government. A real Congressman would have stood up and reminded everyone that the government has no legitimate right to get involved in private business matters such as this. He should have suggested that the only thing the government can do to help the car industry is lower taxes and stop trying to tell them what kind of cars they should be making, especially for such a bogus reason as global warming. Any self respecting Congressman would have given the third degree to union reps that were present to give their two cents. After all, it is unions that have caused most of this mess in the first place by making it so expensive to produce an automobile. In fact, this hearing should have never happened in the first place. But it did.

So now I am left with the question of what to do with my old Chevy. My family has owned Chevy's for years and never had a reason to complain. Today, I am embarrassed to have a GM product on my property. The nerve of that company expecting me and my fellow citizens to bail them out because they don't have the cajones to stand up to the unions is just more than I am willing to swallow right now. Will they recognize my contribution to their plight via taxation and send me a crate full of parts for my truck in thanks? No. Will they even send me a Goodwrench gift certificate? No. I/we get to pay for the handiwork of a bunch of UAW babies without so much as a new hood ornament in return.

The long and short of it is, I now get to feel guilty for purchasing more of their parts and eventually driving around in one of their products, or I get to take a bath on what I paid for the truck in the first place in addition to the time I've already invested in it.

All I know is, my other daily drivers (a Hyundai and Toyota) give me successful trips, not guilt trips.

2008-12-02T19:56:00.000-08:00

ROADHOUSE SOLVES THE PIRATE PROBLEM

Ok, really. Do I have to do everything around here? Is the new wave of modern piracy at sea such a brain teaser of an issue that we actually can't figure out how to stop it? How embarrassing.

This is not rocket science people! Equip ships with one of these, and train the crew to use it. After the first two or three shredded pirates are reported in the media, the concept will look much less appealing to up-and-coming "Jack Sparrows" out there. Problem solved. NEXT!!!

One note of caution. Make sure no one on your ship's crew is named Plaxico.

2008-12-01T19:34:00.000-08:00

BROTHER CAN YOU SPARE A GLOCK?

From my "personal anecdote" file: A few weeks ago, I decided that it was time to update my supply of personal firearms. Not because I felt a sudden need to frivolously spend money in the midst of a struggling economy, but because I believe my time to do so is running short. Having seen President-elect Obama's voting record regarding gun ownership, I predict that our Second Amendment right to defend ourselves, our property, and our loved ones will soon be placed firmly on his chopping block, just prior to it's untimely death. If I'm wrong, then I've just spent a pile'O money that wasn't in the budget this month for no reason. If I'm right, then I can tell my grandchildren how I was one of the last people in America to exercise their right to defend themselves. Either way...THANKS A PANTLOAD BARRY!

In my impromptu search for the right guns, I had a few criteria in mind. I knew that I would need to buy a gun that my wife could operate under pressure in the event that we had an "uninvited guest". We both learned this the day that she tried to shoot my .45 semi-auto. You see, like many women, she lacks the upper body strength to rack back a larger caliber firearm, which is a major safety factor. Though she can easily shoot my .22, it lacks the power to knock down an intruder effectively, especially if he's high on meth or something.
I knew I would want something that would have sufficient "knockdown" ability, ease of operation, and yet look intimidating enough to hopefully scare away, or scare into compliance anyone who would break into our home when I'm not there. Of course the predominant factor is the family budget.
Considering these options, I went shopping. To my surprise, I ran into an obstacle immediately...parking. My first stop was a national chain sporting goods store that has served our area for nearly ten years. That day, I could barely find a place to park ye' old SUV. To my surprise, there was no clearance sale or special event planned there for that day. No. As I made my way back the gun department, I was met by a sea of men who apparently read the same tea leaves that I did. Ever the class clown, as I made my way through the crowd, I said loudly "Is this where the Barak Obama fan club meeting is being held?" After the sarcastic laughter died down, I went on looking for the perfect gun for my wife and a new shot gun for myself. This was an exercise in futility because the crowd was so big and the unprepared staff was so few that I knew I would be waiting for at least an hour to even talk to someone behind the counter. Actually buying a gun was that day would be out of the question.
Over the next few days, I searched other stores and scoured the Internet, looking for the models I wanted. Keep in mind, I was not looking for an exotic hard to find firearm. I was looking for two of the most common guns known to man, a shot gun and a small tactical semi-automatic rifle. Everywhere I looked the same three words kept slapping me in the face...out-of-stock.
Eventually, after nearly giving up, I tracked down the guns I was looking for and was even able to get them at a reasonable price. This was no small task either because the price of firearms is going up as the demand for them rises. Like a kid at a candy scramble, I feel I was lucky to get the "candy" I was looking for. If I had been a little slower, I'm sure I would probably have been stuck with the firearm equivalent of those peanuts that are always left on the ground after the children have finished the pillaging of candy thrown from their sadistic parents.
Will my family actually be safe from the criminal element, now that they have an edge against it? I hope we never have to find out.

2008-11-26T19:37:00.000-08:00

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

At this time in my life, I have much to be thankful for. A beautiful wife, a wonderful daughter, and a new baby boy tops the list. Rounding out the top ten are, a job, health, two cars that still run despite assorted rust holes and oil leaks, a house, great neighbors, supportive family and a handful of trusting friends.
Being the night before Thanksgiving reminds me that even though I have less than optimistic view of the future, I need to remember that there are a lot of people who have it a lot worse than I/we do. My cars may be old and rusty, and my house may be small and in constant need of maintenance, but I know that there are people who can only dream of having such luxuries.

So I would like to take this time to wish all my fellow Americans a great Thanksgiving...even you liberals out there. Though I'm sure you libs wouldn't celebrate a holiday that commemorates the corruption and exploitation of Native Americans, I still hope you're able to enjoy a heaping helping of "Tofurkey" and bean sprouts. I wish you nothing but good tidings for your equally represented according to diversity studies and demographic research friends, and good cheer to your "formerly known as family" parental entities who probably oppressed you with their neo-con dogma.

I'm not sure what a liberal would be thankful for, or who they'd be thankful to, but here are some ideas:
1. Bush did not get re-elected to a third term.
2. A man with dark skin is President...because that really matters.
3. Women can still kill their babies.
4. Terrorists will no longer have to endure getting wet.
5. "Earning" money is becoming passe'.
6. That pesky constitution won't get in your way much longer.
7. Meth addicts won't have to fear being shot when they rob and rape your family members much longer.
8. Getting up in the morning to go to work will not be an issue pretty soon.
9. Those evil rich people are finally going to be "getting their's".
10. You can catch up with old friends while standing in the unemployment line.

2008-11-20T19:45:00.000-08:00

UNHOLY UNIONS

Once upon a time, our nation was smack in the middle of an economic revolution. New inventions, and technologies were developing practically by the hour. Couple that with a mass influx of immigrant labor to meet the increasing demand and the end result was an industrial community that was virtually un-regulated and a labor force that was ripe for exploitation. With no labor laws or regulations to protect the worker, the American worker had little-to-no way to obtain justice in the event they were injured or taken advantage of by employers.

To remedy this, the labor force organized and formed unions to give them leverage and a political voice. Eventually, the work of unions lead to legislation that provided safety regulations and a whole host of laws and agencies that provided the worker with some recourse for justice and a generally better work environment. This of coarse is a very basic explanation of the original purpose of labor unions.

In the year 2008, now that the American worker has the luxury of a list of options to find justice in the workplace, unions have all but run out of legitimate things to complain about. In stead, today they spend much of their time bullying corporations into giving them yet another week of vacation per year or adding aroma therapy treatment to their health care plan. Essentially, unions have gone from providing workers with a sorely needed path to justice, to transforming the once proud American work force into a bunch of cry-babies that think bullying is a legitimate method of problem solving.

Personally, I think it boils down to differing philosophies. One philosophy tells us that when a man opens a business, it is his business. He is the one who makes the daily decisions of how the business is operated. Who to hire, and who to fire... How much to pay, and why... And what benefits (if any) are supposed to be the decision of the owner. An employee has the right to work for that individual and the right to quit as well. As far as "collective bargaining" is concerned, the employee has the right to accept the wage offered under the terms presented or go else wear to work. Considering that the employer has to abide by the labor laws of the land, and the employee has the right to quit, file charges or litigate in the event of a dispute, this philosophy puts the prerogatives in their proper place.

The free market likes this philosophy because it provides it's own natural boundaries. If an employer treats his workers too poorly, he will find it hard to keep his doors open due to being sued, prosecuted, or plagued by bad publicity.

The union philosophy is much different. After having NOT taken the financial, and personal risks and sacrifices involved in starting a company, unions seem to be under the impression that they are entitled to make the business decisions at that company. If the owner of that company disagrees, the unions simply strike until they get what they want. Much like a baby throwing a tantrum until they get a bowl of gummy bears for breakfast, unions see no problem with irrational behavior or even good old fashioned bullying to get their way.

If an employer has enough and hires outside of the union, he runs the risk of litigation and even violent confrontations on the picket line. On his own property no less!

Probably the most frustrating thing about unions is the irony of their existence. The present day purpose of unions is to gain higher wages and more benefits from the employer. The problem is that the end result of union intervention commonly leads to what we see today in the auto industry...failure.
You see, the point of owning a business is to make money. When that is no longer possible, there is no longer a reason to keep the doors open. Part of making money is finding the correct balance between your cost of operating and your profit. Here comes the irony.
Unions tend to drive up the cost of operating the business while simultaneously driving down quality and production.
Think about it. How long can any company expect to remain profitable when unions continually force them to pay out more in benefits and wages, while demanding that the employees do ONLY what their contracts call for? It is not unusual for a typical union worker to have a minimum of five weeks vacation per year and pension plan that allows them to retire five to ten years earlier than employees of non union companies. This is all hashed out in negotiations between labor and management, all at great legal expense to the company. Yet union workers are always the most surprised when the company they work for ends up shutting down or going out of business all together. Basically, they end up "demanding" themselves right out of a job.

Then there is the general mediocrity that union labor generates. When you know getting fired will require your boss to jump over a whole marathon of legal and procedural hurdles, you tend to not worry so much about the quality or quantity of your production responsibilities. Compound that attitude company wide and your product can only suffer. Plus, with more money going to union demanded benfits and wages, there is less money to be put into research and development of the company product. Pretty good deal for the competition huh?

Let's not forget the political angle. Unions can always be counted on to support Democrat candidates, regardless of how the union worker or employer happens to feel. Did I mention that unions support these candidates with the dues these workers pay and by propagandising them in the workplace? That's fine as long as you're a union worker that happens to be a liberal Democrat. That's also fine as long as these union supported candidates don't draft legislation that will harm your company's profitability. You know, like higher taxes or more regulations. There's nothing like having union dues taken out of your pocket, only to have them given to the guy who is going to take more money out of your pocket via taxation. That's kinda like paying someone to rob you every two weeks.

These are just some of the finer bullet points of why unions are ruining industry in this nation, but trust me, there are plenty more where they came from. For now, remember to look for the union label. That way you'll know what products not to buy.

2008-11-18T18:45:00.000-08:00

WHERE'S MY BAIL OUT?

As the Democrat controlled Congress and rhino White House contemplate the best way to waste our hard earned dollars,we conservatives are again left with no other options but to watch and laugh, or cry, depending on your mood. If ever there were a better case against government intervention into financial matters, I have not been able to find it. On the up side, the current economic crises is a better real world example of the failure of liberalism than any hypothetical I could have created.
Follow along, because I am going to make this as simple and easy to understand as possible.

Years ago, the liberal policy of loaning money to those who were known credit risks under the red herring of "fairness" was legislatively forced onto the lending community. The inevitable result was the chaos we see today.
To "fix" this chaos, our government decides to impose the liberal policy of "bailing out" companies that they caused to fail in the first place. All at tax payer expense of coarse. Like all liberal solutions, this one came with unintended consequences.

Now that another liberal boondoggle known as "organized labor" has all but destroyed the American auto industry, the next logical progression is a long line of industries and institutions lining up to get a piece of the pie. Did I just take a verbal swipe at labor unions? You bet your over-extended hiney I did. In fact, my next article will explain in detail how unions are major players in the destruction of America.

As I watch the auto industry beg for money from our government, a wild thought occurred to me. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but I think it's entirely possible that there is a hidden agenda among the Big Three in their attempts to raid our wallets. This is only a theory so don't hold me to this.
What if Detroit isn't really trying to get our money? What if they are really trying to show the American people the devastating effects that unions have had on their industry? Could this actually be a ploy to recruit legislative help and public outcry in order to bust the union? Think about it. Legally, car makers are stuck with unions. This does not change the fact that unions are like cancer on their bottom line. So now that selling cars is no longer profitable due to the high cost of labor and excessive government regulation, this bail out could be a "hail Mary pass" to plead their case in front of the government without actually blaming them...as they should.

Though I wish this were the case, I know better. Besides, labor unions hold the pink slip on the Democrat party, so it would be a conflict of interest for a Democrat Congress to do anything that would harm the unions in any way. In fact, you wouldn't have to go to great lengths to say that Barak Obama & company are making yet another payment to the extortionist unions in exchange for their political support. I guess that's what counts for "change" in the minds of some people.

2008-11-15T18:53:00.000-08:00

PLEASE USE SPARINGLY

There will be many lessons learned over the next four years. How to prepare macaroni with government cheese. How to stop home intruders with course language and dirty looks. How to spend your free time without spending money after you get layed-off. And how to trade food stamps. But the most important lesson that we will need to learn starting right now is personal self discipline.
No, not spending discipline or child discipline, but something much more noble...learning not to over-use the phrase "I told you so".
I know, I know. Your thinking, "But Roadhouse, Obama is already stocking his administration with career politicians and Clinton people after months on end of reciting the "change" mantra". This is very true, and we all saw it coming (Obama voters not withstanding), but that's no reason to ruin one of the best comeback phrases ever spoken.
I told you so is one of those replies that people have a hard time responding to. That's because it's designed to both verify something that the user implies, while back-handedly demonstrating the short-sitedness and mis-guidedness of the one it's directed at.
My point is that it's going to be a long four years. I would hate to see the power of "I told you so" diminished due to being used too often. Like the phrases "I love you" or "Gee, you look pretty tonight", if you say it too much, "I told you so" starts to lose it's effectiveness and becomes just another common saying.
So this word of caution goes out to my fellow conservatives. Keep it in your pants. Fight the daily urge to give your Obama voting co-workers a big fat "Told Ya!" every time he does what we had predicted and tried to warn them about months ago. Save that particular phrase for the bigger and more important Obama predictions. Instead, switch it up a bit. Use phrases like, "What? You didn't see that coming?" or "What do ya think of him now?" Other good ones would be, "Well, you wanted change didn't you?" and my personal favorite, "Where's your messiah now?" (apologies to the late Edward G. Robinson).
Using these quality substitutes and even making up your own will help to get you through the next four years without diluting the meaning of a timeless classic.
Also consider timing. This is a very important factor in deciding when to use I told you so. If your neighbor happens to be an Obama supporter, don't say "I told you so" when you see him out front raking leaves. Wait till the next day when you see him on the un-employment line, or when he comes over to see if you have any canned goods you'd like to trade. Maybe wait till he's screaming out his window for your help in subdueing a meth addict that breaks into his house, after his second ammendment rights were struck down by Obama's Supreme court appointees. Definately an "I told ya so" moment.

2008-11-09T19:44:00.000-08:00

SO NOW WHAT?

Now that the election is over, and our collective asses are in a sling, (though fewer than half of the electorate realizes it) our side of the isle is currently contemplating what went wrong. Unfortunately for the powers that be, no one has bothered to ask me.
This is not rocket science. What went wrong was a short list of bad decisions and poor leadership. Too many people trying to please too many people. Our strategy was dead on arrival.

First, let me say that I do not blame the Obama camp for our loss. They did as anyone interested in victory would. They played to win, and they did. We can sit around and complain about media bias and dirty tricks till the cows come home, but in the end, we were more interested in getting votes that winning an election. Yes, there is a difference.

Rather than waste time dwelling on our mistakes, I would like to move forward with the "Roadhouse plan to whoop some liberal hineys in 2012". Those not interested in saving our country from socialism should just go ahead and click on outta here now.

THE PLAN

1. Stop taking the "black vote" for granted. We've been doing this for decades. It's no wonder blacks vote overwhelmingly Democrat. We can no longer write off an entire population of Americans and then cry when they vote for the other guy. The anti-gay marriage referendum in California should have been a clue to Republicans everywhere. The black community came out in force to elect Barak Obama, as is their right. When they did, they also took the opportunity to vote against gay marriage. I see that as evidence that there could be conservative gold in dem dar hills. Apparently, the Republican leadership has always assumed that blacks must be liberal because they always vote Democrat. That seems to be a tad short-sighted and seriously presumptuous if you ask me.

Be they liberal or conservative, they are Americans like you and me. They are entitled to the same opportunity to hear the other side of the story as anyone else. But rather than go to them, we brag about our "big tent" and wait for them to come to us. This is no longer an option.
If we are truly a "big tent" party, we need to go them and show their community what we have to offer. We have a superior product, but no one knows it because we're not there giving the demonstrations and making the pitch. Instead, the competition displays their wares in the black community everyday with no one else there to offer "the Pepsi challenge".
Will we be accused of pandering? Maybe, but we won't be accused of ignoring an entire community. Should we got to black communities because they are "black" communities? No. We should go there because they are American communities that are usually just written off for no real good reason. From now on, if our future campaigns do not include rallies, appearances and scheduled debates in the most urban of urban sections of major cities, then we deserve to lose.

2. Make education the catalyst for a real conservative agenda. This dovetails well with engaging the black community. For decades, Americans have been telling us that our education system is failing us, especially but not limited to the urban areas of the nation. This election was proof positive of exactly that. From prestigious colleges to inner city public schools, our education system is churning out ignorant, un-informed children by the thousands...maybe millions. These children then grow up to be citizens, and voters.
Think about it. If a diploma today was worth the paper it was printed on, then more than half of the voting electorate would NOT be so quick to accept socialism as a viable form of government. These people don't even recognize socialism, let alone fear it as they should. Lessons learned from history are virtually non-existant now. When half the electorate believes that raising taxes is good for the economy, you know you have a problem.
As a party, we should be calling out those guilty of destroying our schools. And we should be doing it in a very loud and public way. Which brings me to the next part of the plan to save the Republican party.

3. Be aggressive. Once, we were trusted with the keys to the castle, and we blew it. We squandered the public trust and fell for the stupid ideas of "compassionate conservatism" and bi-partisanship. First of all, conservatism is compassionate by definition. It needs no qualifier. And bi-partisanship is a myth that only Republicans fall for. Like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown, our party never fails to reach a hand across the isle, only to pull back a bloody stump. Our unwillingness to see the opposition for what they are - the OPPOSITION, has done more to destroy our party than any scandal or attack add ever could.
We need to stop trying to work with the other party, and start putting them on the defensive for a change. Sure, we don't have the luxury of help from the media, but then again, what have we done lately that's news worthy? Did we demand investigations or hold hearings when Democrats are found to have done something shady? No. We don't even mention it in most cases. Democrats can leak intelligence secrets to the media, and denigrate our troops on the Senate floor, but what do we do? We sit on our hands and let it happen rather than give these "statesmen" a verbal beat-down.

4. Stop feeling guilty. The Republican party acts as if the first thing we do as part of our morning routine is to try to convince people that we're not some sort of monsters. By doing this, we just end up looking weak and spineless. What do we need to feel guilty about? Is it our doctrine that says it's OK to kill babies? Is it our doctrine that demands we give constitutional rights to terrorists from other countries? Is it our doctrine that says a law abiding citizen does not have the right to protect their family? Is it our doctrine that seeks to make doing business harder in America? Are we the ones who constantly want to raise taxes on everyone?

You see, that's the whole point. If Republicans would just stick with the conservative ideology that the party was founded on, we wouldn't be wandering around like a bunch of lost children right now. Would it be a cakewalk? No. But it would give us direction, unity and a definable identity. When it was decided that our principals were going to be defined by whatever is popular on any particular week according to any particular poll, we pretty much sealed the party's fate. That reminds me.

5. Enough with polls and focus groups! In times of crises, people do not need popularity contests sanctioned by people with hidden agendas and designed to have specific outcomes. They need people of character and principal. They need a rock, not a mound of clay. Our leadership should not need a poll or focus group to know right from wrong. Right and wrong are not opinion based paradigms. That brings us to...

6. Stop pandering. I don't care who you are or where you're from, you are never going to make everyone happy. So don't try. The right decision is not always popular and not always easy. But that doesn't mean it isn't the right decision. A legitimate candidate should be able to stand in front of the Congressional Black Caucus and explain why affirmative action is racist. A legitimate candidate should be able to stand in front of a women's group and explain why a woman does NOT have the right to kill her baby. Where is the candidate who can stand in front of a group of auto workers and tell them how unions have ruined the American auto business? Maybe there is no such person, but we should be actively trying to find or groom such a guy/gal.

Over the next four years, how Republicans react to the liberal agenda that's coming down the road will decide whether they are going to ever be relevant again. If we lose again in 2012, it will probably be because of our reluctance to stand up for our own principals. Will we nominate a conservative "rock" or another lump of clay?

2008-11-05T19:48:00.000-08:00

THE DAY AFTER

I've had to do alot of soul searching in the past 24 hours. Granted, though I knew there could be no other outcome to this election, the one thing I had forgotten to factor-in was my own reaction to this tragedy. But as the reality of an Obama Presidency and it's consequences set in, I found myself getting more and more depressed. For those who don't follow politics or understand the dynamics of freedom and liberty, my reaction may seem irrational. In fact, South Park did a pretty funny episode about that tonight. But for the rest of you, I'm sure you can relate.
As I told an equally depressed co-worker today, if this had happened when I was younger I suspect that I would be far less fearfull today. I'm sure that after a few beers, I probably wouldn't have given a crap at all. But today, things are different. Now I'm a father and a husband. I have responsibilities. Now I have a family that depends on me to maintain a level head.
So as the daunting reality of our nation electing a socialist, anti-business, anti-defense President hits home, I realize that I have a decision to make. I can spiral into a depression that would render me useless as a father and a husband, or I can be a man about it. I've chosen the latter.

Though the incremental destruction of America will bring much "change" for the worse, I know that in my heart and mind, other things will be as true as ever...regardless of who resides in the White House.
I know that babies will still have the basic human right to live. I know that raising taxes will still not create prosperity. I know that terrorism is still not a legitimate method of resolving grievances. I know that people still have the right to defend themselves against the criminal element. The fact that Barak Obama disagrees with each of those truths, will not change the fact that they are truths.
If ever there was a time that I wish I were wrong about someone, it is now. But if history and Obama's own words and deeds are any indication, I fear that I'm not.

Being a Christian man demands that I take a long hard look at myself from time to time. Today, I see that I need to let go of my anger and disappointment in my fellow citizens. I also need to find forgiveness. For now, all I can do is pray that God will grant President-elect Obama wisdom, and humility before he implements his destructive policies. I pray that those who voted for him will have the good sense to carefully watch his actions and hold him accountable before he can harm the nation. I pray that people (ALL people) learn the lessons of history. But most of all, I pray that I am wrong about President Barak Obama.

2008-11-03T19:37:00.000-08:00

THE RULES

To all my Obama supporting readers that occasionally check in with my blog. If Obama wins the election tomorrow (and he probably will), I plan to be as magnanimous as possible if you still continue to frequent my humble forum. That being said, there are going to be a few closely enforced ground rules regarding any future comments you might leave here. The rules are as follows, and apply to Obama supporters only:

1. When the stock market crashes due to anticipated taxation and inflation, you will not be allowed to complain.

2. When corporations leave in droves taking their jobs with them, in order to avoid Obama's tax policies, this will be a "no complaint zone" for you.

3. If you happen to get layed-off from your job when your boss has to make cuts to pay Obama's taxes, complaints will not be tolerated.

4. Don't even think about complaining when the Iraqi people are slaughtered in mass by Iran, Syria or any other terrorist organization after Obama pulls us out.

5. I know there better be no complaints when terrorist "feel their oats" and start bombing schools and malls here in America.

6. Complaints about terrorism being legitimized and emboldened by virtue of "talks without pre-conditions" will be met with deletion by me.

7. When our constitution is rendered obsolete by Obama's liberal Supreme Court Justices, there better not be any complaining.

8. When the price of everything you purchase goes up thanks to Obama's inflation growing policies, I better not hear one complaint.

9. When it takes your child three months to get an MRI and have it diagnosed due to Obama's nationalized health care, just take your complaints somewhere else.

10. When crime increases ten fold due to the repeal of the Second Amendment, complain you will not.

11. When we are left defenseless by Obama's cuts to military and intelligence spending, complain to the hand.

12. When "eminent domain" is used to take your property so that it may be given to someone else, I would highly suggest you not complain.

13. When your union votes are no longer private, complain to someone who gives a crap.

14. When your thirteen year old daughter is allowed by law to have an abortion without your notification, just complain about it...NOT!

15. When the natural ends of socialism finally arrive at your doorstep (poverty, bread lines, martial law, political persecution, etc. etc.), complaining would be ill advised.

16. When you eventually realize that Obama's "rob Peter to pay Paul when Peter is a hard worker and Paul is a total slacker" policies are actually hurting everyone, your complaints will fall on deaf ears.

17. When you figure out that "hope" and "change" are not accepted as legal tender at the grocery store, you can put your complaints where the sun don't shine.

18. When it finally dawns on you that Obama does not actually have a magic wand that he can use to create jobs, your complaints won't be worth a bucket of warm spit here.

Please be aware that any deviation from these guidelines will result in me shouting "I told you so you gullible, naive, mis-informed, Moveon.org reading, Micheal Moore movie watching, non-history reading, non-deductive reasoning using, easily seduced by catch phrases and marketing gimmicks, non-Roadhouse believing idiot!!!" at my computer screen. As well as a a hearty Nelson Muntz "HA HA" from yours truly.

2008-11-02T20:42:00.000-08:00

I DIDN'T WRITE THIS, BUT I WISH I HAD

“…generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” ~ Barack Hussein Obama

Here is a brief history of Communism, and it‘s negative effect on the citizenry who have had to live under it’s oppression. It is vital to understand how dangerous it would be to allow any form of Marxism to attain a foothold in The United States of America.Let us be clear here, lest some take exception to my characterization of the Soviet Union’s governmental system as Communism. Communism, Socialism, and Marxism are varying extremes of the same concept.A rose, by any other name…If you know of anyone who needs to be educated about this evil, please share this post with them. Edit it accordingly if you feel the need. In 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published “The Communist Manifesto”, a book which has since become more or less the Socialist’s Bible. In it, Marx and Engels envisioned a society which would be, for all intents and purposes, truly equal. This profoundly idealistic system of government is best encapsulated in the famous quotation by Marx, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. "The society which Marx and Engels advocated proposed to eliminate the “divide” between the bourgeois and the proletariat, that is, the ruling class and the labor class. According to the Manifesto, capitalism creates classes among the citizens, and leads to the oppression and exploitation of the lower classes.
Communism, and socialism in general, is designed to cultivate a classless society in which everyone is truly equal, and such social problems as racism, sexism and oppression are eliminated. The core belief of Socialism hinges upon the idea that no man should be independent, but instead part of a “cooperative” group that wholly depends upon each other to accomplish the goals of the “Collective“.
Let me add here, also, that God has no place in Marx’s concept of Communism. Communism is a necessarily atheistic system.It is a noble idea, and, were it possible, would be a Utopian form of Government. A Government in which all citizens would have equal opportunity to become self sufficient. However, as was soon discovered, the Utopia of Socialism proved to be, and always will be, virtually impossible. Indeed, it was self sufficiency itself that was most problematic to this Utopian ideology.
In 1917, Vladimir I. Lenin took the basic principles of the Communist Manifesto, and bastardized them, creating through force, a Socialist government in Russia. This emergence of Communism, as a “legitimate” government, was accomplished during what is known as the Bolshevik Revolution, in which Lenin led a revolution against the czar, Queen Alexandra, catching the monarchy off guard during World War One.
After three years of struggle, Lenin finally took control. The revolution itself costs thousands of lives, but the following years proved to be much more deadly to Russia’s citizens. During the ensuing years, an increasingly paranoid Lenin instigated what is known as “The Purge”, in which thousands of Russian citizens were rounded up and placed in gulags (also known as “re-education camps“) in Siberia, where they were tortured, sometimes for decades and often resulting in a painful and prolonged death. Others were lucky by comparison. They were simply executed, often times without the formality of a trial, or even any evidence of wrong doing. People were routinely executed and tortured for very minor offenses. Naturally, what misgivings the Russian people may have had about this new system of government were effectively squelched. It became life threatening to complain about the government’s policies.
In all, it has been estimated that Lenin and his successor, Josef Stalin, exterminated 20 million or more Russian citizens, often for the crime of merely thinking negative thoughts about the ruling Politburo, which was by that time, a devastatingly repressive dictatorship. The Communist government was characterized by repression, oppression, and depression, both economic and physical. In the schools, students were indoctrinated into the Socialist theory of Government, and were instructed not to doubt the party’s stated intentions.
Eventually, any student that departed from the party line could have been punished, often by torture or death, depending on the severity of the perceived offense. In an effort to eliminate any possible dissent, citizens were encouraged to report any suspicious talk or activity by their neighbors and friends to the police, and were rewarded if they did, and often punished if there were any suspicions by the Government police that they knew about said offense but failed to report them. Newspapers were expressly forbidden to write about anything without approval of the state, under penalty of law. Citizens were forbidden to listen to radio and television programs that originated outside the Soviet union, and if discovered, were subject to be sentenced to abnormally long prison sentences. National Elections did not offer a choice of candidates. The only choice citizens had was between yes, do you affirm this candidate or no, you don’t. Ballots were open so election officials knew how one voted. Voting was potentially dangerous.
Children were trained for whatever occupation the ruling party deemed appropriate, regardless of the child’s aptitude or desire. For instance, a child may be blessed with a talent for art, but if the party decided the child should be a bricklayer, the child’s aspiration to art would be squelched in favor of creating a career as a productive bricklayer. Citizens were told what to do, what not to do, how much they were allowed to earn, where they could or could not go, and in many cases, with whom they could associate. And they were threatened with punishment if they failed to comply.
Every aspect of life in Communist Russia was intensely monitored and scrutinized. One could not trust friends, neighbors, or even family to keep secret anything expressly forbidden by the Communist party. No one was allowed to own property. No one was allowed to have more money than his neighbors. Anyone who was found to be hoarding any money, food, or goods not approved by the state had their money or property confiscated, and were often imprisoned. The people of Russia soon became ensconced in poverty, mostly because the Government leaders took more money from them through excessive taxation than they could afford to part with, and used the ill gotten gains to lead exceedingly extravagant lifestyles. Each person, whether educated or not, skilled or not, lived on a limited income. All people earned the same amount of income regardless of their abilities. And this income was not adequate to live comfortably. Meanwhile, the Russian leaders lived sumptuously off the labor of the ordinary citizens.
Karl Marx's concept of equality was ignored by those in power. This resulted in a lack of incentive and an apathetic attitude towards industriousness.And a pervading feeling of hopelessness.
In short, freedoms were limited to the point of absurdity in the interest of maintaining order. Other repressive Socialist systems of government, some better, some worse, still exist in some countries in the world, such as China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and Venezuela. Like the USSR, all have failed to create a successful working model of Marx’s idealistic vision of Utopia.
In China there is currently mandatory abortion. That's not choice. None can duplicate, or even come close to the freedoms we enjoy as free Americans. There are several schools of thought on the eventual cause of the failure of Socialism to live up to the ideals proposed by Karl Marx, but in the end, I would have to say that the root cause of Socialism’s failure is the fact that people are simply not wired to be equal. It is unfortunate, but true. While some people are ambitious, others are complacent. While some are hard working, others are lazy. Some people are content with things as they are, while others are continually striving for bigger and better opportunities.
All men are created equal, but no man can be coerced into equality. It is not the government’s right to dictate the dispersal of wealth to the people. Nor is it their right to deny basic human rights to any individual based on class distinctions and level of wealth.
Man has the inherent right to be what he can be, and no entity, regardless of intent, may usurp that right. And yet, this type of Government is exactly the type of government Barack Hussein Obama has in mind for the people of the United States of America. The words and phrases he himself has used in his speeches and interviews are damning evidence of his true vision for an American utopia. Words such as “redistribution” and “middle class” and phrases such as “Spreading the wealth” and “social and economic justice” are indicative of the kind of language employed by what I call “closeted Socialists“. Those are Obama’s words. He may win the election for President, and if he has the benefit of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress, many of the freedoms we now take for granted may be suppressed. He desires control, above everything else. He places utmost importance on personal power, rather than the power of a free society.
Indeed, a free society is in direct juxtaposition to Obama‘s aspirations. He wants you to be subservient to the state. The state, according to the typical Marxist, is to be your God. Mr. Obama may try to control our people, but he cannot control our minds. He may break our backs, but he will never break our spirit. Regardless, whatever transpires in the coming Presidential election, one positive remains: Americans will rise to the occasion. Despite being bruised, battered, and bloody, tyranny shall be defeated, and this nation, under God, will emerge victorious.

by Mark from "Casting Pearls Before Swine" blog

2008-10-31T18:52:00.000-07:00

FUTURE HISTORY

I've never mentioned it before, but in addition to being a Dad, Husband, truck driver, and hack writer, I am also an inventor in my spare time. My most recent creation is a computer attachment that allows me to retrieve blogs from the future. I built it with parts borrowed from old washing machines and a generator from a 73' R-model Mack. The following is a Roadhouse blog article from the year 2012.

In a shocking, yet ironic turn of events today, Radio and TV personality Tavis Smiley was indicted today under recently legislated federal fairness doctrine statutes. Forgive me for not crying my eyes out. Don't get me wrong, I supported his valiant effort to protest the fairness doctrine through the use of civil disobedience. His on-air broadcast of solely his own opinion was to be a gateway to a Supreme Court case that would overturn the Obama administration's fairness doctrine legislation. Unfortunately, Mr. Smiley forgot about the two leftist Justices recently appointed by President Obama. After carefully researching case precedents from both Germany and France, the Supreme Court ruled against Smiley and placed him under the custody of the state.

It is ironic that Smiley had so heartily endorsed Obama's campaign despite repeated warnings from the "right wing" regarding Obama's long list of socialist statements and associates. Smiley stood by as one conservative talk show host after another fell prey to the fairness doctrine, either through license denial, format change or prosecution. It was only after Smiley was fined for not allowing the appropriate amount of "opposing response" during an on-air discussion about the first amendment that he saw a problem with the fairness doctrine. In protest, Tavis Smiley returned to the airwaves the next day and publicly criticized President Obama's understanding of the first amendment. He was immediately arrested.

Now Smiley can talk all day long, but the only one who will hear him is his cell mate.

On the bright side, now that my blog has gone "underground" I get a sensation of being rebellious that I haven't felt since I was a teenager. My only fear is that if I get caught blogging without "opposing response" I will be sent to jail and not see my children. But now that the fairness doctrine is being applied to the blogosphere, I feel compelled to fight against it even more than before.
Another silver lining to the Obama cloud is that now that I've been layed off from my job, I get to spend more time with my kids and more time blogging as well. And why not? Since Obama has decided to "spread the wealth around" for the past four years, I don't need to work anyway. I just sit back and let the government checks roll in.

In other blog news, unemployment has surpassed 23% this week with no signs of pulling back. The Obama administration is scrambling to find out why. Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress have raised taxes three times this year alone and tightened regulation across the board on all remaining industries. Yet they can't figure out why so many companies have either gone to other countries or simply closed their doors. Duh!

Better still, now that inflation has driven the price of even the most common products through the roof, some former Obama supporters are asking when his "change" and "hope" policies are going to result in prosperity or even basic sustenance. When Vice President Biden was asked why toilet paper is now two dollars a roll, he was quoted as saying "Gird your loins" and walked away.
Now that the price of gas is $7.00 a gallon, some of the more liberal blogs are starting to criticize Obama for taking so long to bring us the wind/solar powered cars that he said would bring us "hope" and "change". They just don't understand why people aren't clambering to invest in such technologies while "Captain Tax-meister" is in office.

I said it way back in 2008, and I said it when Iran nuked Israel..."Liberalism is a mental disorder".