SENORE OBAMMA

I'm trying very hard to not let my blog become just another outlet for Obamma-bashing. Unfortunately, B.O. keeps saying things that are fit for nothing more than ridicule. Today was no exception.
He claimed to not understand why people want English to be the official language of America. For once, he said something that I agree with...he "don't understand". While lamenting his puzzlement, he said that he too believes that immigrants should learn English and then went on to claim that "they will". I don't know what planet he's talking about, but here on Earth immigrants (especially Hispanics) are making little to no effort to learn our language. But that's for another post.

Today, I would like to offer my teaching services and explain to Senator Obamma why some of us "bitter clingers" want English to be our official language.
First, I don't have time to learn the hundred-or-so languages of the many people who immigrate here. I doubt that the rest of the population does either. Wouldn't it make more sense to require our new citizens to each learn just one new language?
Second, if you look at all of our founding documents, they are all written in one language. Would you like to take a guess as to what that language is? If you guessed French, you are a big fat loser. If our founding fathers would have wanted Spanish to be our official language, they would have written the Declaration of Independence in Spanish.
Third, though there are people from around the globe who are bi-lingual, the most popular second language spoken in other countries is English. There is a reason for that. People recognize English as the language most likely to help you become successful in life. It allows you to have an advantage over non-English speakers because it is the key to navigating in so many countries.
Fourth, it's just the best way to get so many people from so many places on the same page with their new countrymen. In my line of work, I see it all the time. I might be working with three different people from three different countries, but we can all communicate because we all speak the same language...English.

I guess B.O.'s vast experience in the Senate (143 days) did not provide him with the understanding that pretty-much any average truck driver like myself seems to have. Maybe Obamma should learn a few things about the country he wants to be President of, before he lectures us about what we need to learn.

SAN FRANCISCO CITY HALL

I Didn't write this, but I like it enough to pass it on.

(Morning at San Francisco City Hall): "Next." "Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.""Names?" "Tim and Jim Jones." "Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance." "Yes, we're brothers." "Brothers? You can't get married." "Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?" "Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!" "Incest? No, we are not gay." "Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?" "For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects." "But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've beendenied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman." "Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim." "And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?" "All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married." "Names?" "John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson." "Who wants to marry whom?" "We all want to marry each other." "But there are four of you!" "That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship." "But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples." "So you 're discriminating against bisexuals!" "No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples." "Since when are you standing on tradition?" "Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere." "Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!" "All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license." "In what names?" "David Deets." "And the other man?" "That's all. I want to marry myself." "Marry yourself? What do you mean?" "Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!!!!!

DIVERSITY

Every now and then, I like to throw out a random topic that may or may not be making the media rounds. Tonight's is diversity.

Diversity is one of those things that sound good on paper and appeals to those who aren't burdened by thought. The diversity police tell us that certain groups of people need to be represented in certain quantities in order to...well, I'm not really sure exactly why. Something to do with equality I think. But that really doesn't make sense. After all, we are not all equal. Some of us are tall, some are short. Some of us are male, others are female. Some of us can lift heavy objects, others can do calculus. There are nice people, and mean people. There are motivated folks, and total slackers. Even with only these few factors, how would you go about pigeon-holing these differences into neat little groups?

Add in other factors such as personal preferences, athletic ability, personality, or personal philosophy and then you have an impossible combination of diversities to sort and segregate. So even with such an impossible equation of human differences, guess how a typical liberal decides to divide us up. Skin color and/or gender.


Of all the ways to figure out who may or may not be best to fill a certain role, liberals choose something as pointless as the color of one's skin. Then, when a biological difference may actually need to be considered, liberals turn a blind eye.

Think about it. Imagine being being put into a burning building. Your only means of rescue is a panel on the wall. The panel has two buttons. One marked "male firefighter", and the other marked "female firefighter". Which would a reasonable person choose? The "male firefighter" of coarse. Especially if you're around the 200 lb area. A 200 lb liberal would get hung-up on political correctness and push the "female button"...and along with the petite firefighter, burn to death.

If the buttons were marked "black firefighter" and "white firefighter", it wouldn't matter which one you push. Or does it?

That might depend on whether or not affirmative action was involved. If not, your chances of being pulled out of the fire are probably even. If so, your choice is not as clear. Affirmative action demands that people be considered for jobs and other acceptances according to the color of their skin, not the content of their character...wait a minute. Didn't someone have a dream about that very thing never happening again? Oh yeah, Dr. Martin Luther King.
You see, affirmative action sends a mixed message to everyone involved. First, it tells the black man that he's a victim, simply by being born. It then assumes that a black guy couldn't possibly make it in life on his own merit. But then it also assumes that a black guy can excel in any role simply by being put there via affirmative action. So when he arrives at a job or class that he was never properly trained for, his less-than-stellar performance is automatically chalked up to blacks being less capable. In reality, he was probably no more or less capable than anyone else, he was just sped through the system to accommodate some vague diversity scheme.
In the real world, affirmative action is nothing more than a government imposed policy that does nothing more than insult blacks by implying they are in need of help...therefore, inferior. Of course, this does nothing to advance relations between blacks and whites.

Diversity should never be a goal. By rights, it should be nothing more than an interesting happenstance. In fact, if you're truly not a racist, you won't consider it at all.

As I listen to Senator Obamma try to sound educated on the issues of the day, I can't help but wonder where he would be today had affirmative action never existed. After all, his total lack of merit, understanding of the issues, and qualifications would have kept him far away from the Senate. But I'm sure that I am wrong about that, because that would mean that the Democrat party is inherently racist. And that would be crazy talk.

SUICIDAL HOLLYWOOD

As I navigate the choppy waters that is the current economical situation in America, I try to find new and better ways to save money. This stands to reason because I am the sole "bread winner" of our growing family. That means that my wife and I are getting pretty good at stretching a dollar. In short, we spend on the necessities and cut out the rest. Though having to exist on a very tight budget is very stressful at times, I have found solice in the fact that what goes around comes around.
For decades, Hollywood has decided that is their obligation to preach their gospel from the silver screen. If a new liberal trend surfaces, they just have to make a movie that is designed to brow-beat you into towing their convoluted line. When that doesn't get your attention, actors use the bully pulpit of their celebrity to impose and promote their morality (or lack there of) on you.

Call it Karma. Call it pure irony. Hollywood may have finally shot themselves in the foot. You see, in the past decade or so, Hollywood has been trying to convince us that by our very existence, we humans are going to destroy the planet through man-made global warming. Sometimes, it may be a simple line or two written into a script. Other times, global warming is the main plot of a block-buster movie. As a result of this constant obvious and occasionally subliminal agenda being injected into our movies and TV shows, our elected officials decided to take the liberal bait.
So now we have $4.00 a gallon and rising gasoline. We have abundant oil resources that we are not allowed to touch. The price of food is rising because of the ethanol debacle. All culminating into the perfect storm of economic crises for regular folks.
Today, "we the people" are being forced to budget as we never have in most of our lifetimes. The irony is in how we budget. If given the choice between spending on food, gas, or entertainment, entertainment gets the ax. That means that people can no longer afford to rent movies, let alone drive to the video store. We buy fewer if any CDs. And we don't even consider actually going to a move theater. The merchandise connected with a movie is now expendable as well.
Then there is the other back-lash of what we opt to do in our spare time as opposed to giving money to Hollywood. Reading, walking, bike riding, socializing with friends and family are bound to make a comeback. Scrabble and Monopoly may start to become popular again.
With a more active, healthy, and mentally sharp population, Hollywood may become obsolete and dare-I-say, lame.
And it's not beyond the realm of possibility that people might just get angry enough about prices to do a little investigating as to just why it's happening. If that ever happens, Hollywood itself could become the next "evil" character. After all, they do have a supporting role in our current situation.
Now that my former CD and DVD money is going into my fuel tank, I can honestly say that the old adage still applies, especially to Hollywood.

Be careful what you wish for.

SAFE FOR NOW

Yes, today was a good day. But knowing what I do about liberal tactics, I think it would be a bad idea to get too comfortable in our Supreme Court victory regarding the right to bare arms. For starters, it was a victory by one vote. That means that nearly fifty percent of our ruling Justices have no idea what the constitution they are sworn to uphold says.
When I wrote my book, I got quite an education about the importance of decisions made by the Supreme Court. I had no idea just how a person's everyday life is effected by who sits on the bench. That's why I wrote an entire chapter on the Courts and put it at the end of the book for maximum resonance.
For those of us who pay a little more attention to things since September 11th, today was less of a victory, and more of a wake-up call. It was also a learning experience. I learned that our liberties are hanging by a thread. I learned that there are a lot of people that would actually prefer to have no coarse of action in the face of a crack-head that breaks into their house at night. I learned that there are people out there who have no problem leaving their wives. daughters, and grandparents defenseless in the face of muggers, rapists, gang-bangers, and other assorted debris. I learned that the Mayors of New York City and Chicago are bloomin' idiots following their comments after the ruling.
Most importantly, I learned that I finally have a reason to put a "John McCain" sign in my front yard. Considering the age of some of our Supreme Court Justices, you can bet that the next President will be nominating at least two new Justices during their term in office. Granted, I do not know for sure that McCain would nominate Justices that understand and respect our constitution, but I am sure that Obamma would not. That alone makes it a question of simple logic. Either open the door that you know confines a tiger, or the one that might confine a tiger.

Yesterday, I was ready and willing to either sit this election out, or write-in Fred Thompson's name. Today, I almost lost one of my most basic rights as a human being. Therefore, all I can say is, "GO McCAIN!"

WHEN A WAGGING FINGER JUST WON'T DO



In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court will be looking at the Washington DC ban on firearms. Their decision will in all likelihood have wide ranging effects on our rights, regardless of how they rule. If they uphold the ban, we will know that our rights are in jeopardy and the decision will be used to expand the ban across the nation. If the ban is lifted (and rightfully so) it will mean that these Justices actually can read the Constitution and will lead to bans in other states and cities being lifted. Either way, this decision will be a real nail-biter.



Let's take the Constitution out of it for a second. Let's look at the right to carry a firearm as a simple human rights issue. Do you have the right to protect yourself? Do you have the right to protect your family? Even a liberal would have to say "yes". But a liberal would suggest that you can talk a criminal out of harming you. Others would say that you don't need a gun to protect yourself. They might suggest taking Karate or carrying pepper spray. That's all well and good if you're attacked by an unarmed assailant who isn't high on meth. But what if he has a knife or a gun? What if you're a seventy year old woman or handicapped? What if your children are with you?
In liberal utopia, gun restrictions keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and criminals don't use knives, clubs, tire irons, pipes, bricks, brass knuckles, ice picks, candlesticks, or other random objects to commit crimes. In the real world, they do.
As a resident of the real world, you have a right to protect yourself and your loved ones. The most efficient means of doing so is with a firearm. In many cases, just the sight of one will make a criminal run the other direction without a shot being fired at all. The deterrent factor of a .45 semi-automatic is a magical thing. Deterrence carries over to those who don't even own a gun as well. Providing that the town you live in allows people to carry a gun. Think about it. If you are a rapist, are you more likely to set up shop in a "gun free" city, or a city that allows people to pack some heat? After all, you know that the odds of your next victim carrying a gun are slim to none due to the laws of that city. In a "right to carry" city, you might get your head blown off. Hence, the high crime rates of all cities that ban firearms.
Maybe I would have a different outlook on guns if I were able to afford a gated community home, and a security detail...like Congressmen and Supreme Court Justices.

Tim Russert

One of the most annoying things I can think of is the complete lack of objectivity and total devotion to liberalism displayed by the mainstream media today. As if on cue, you can count on softball questions being asked of liberals, and an inquisition of conservatives by pretty much every political pundit you can think of. The sole exception to this media "rule" was Tim Russert. If anyone ever came close to being a true "fair and balanced" interviewer, it was Tim.

As respectable as he was regarding ethics in media, I respected him for his devotion to fatherhood. His books and subsequent book tours gave me an inside look at a man who spoke of fatherhood as something to be admired. This is rare today.
As a father and a conservative, I am no stranger to how we are portrayed in movies and sitcoms. We are the out of touch simpletons who are totally clueless about what their naturally genius children are pulling on them. In commercials, we are the ones who would be lost if it were not for our brilliant wives stepping in before we make a bad decision. OK, that one might be accurate, but you get the point.

Russert was able to use his relationships with his father and son to remind people that fathers serve an important purpose in the shaping of our personalities. He spoke of the work and rewards of being a father. I have never heard anyone explain the complexities of fatherhood in such a realistic, accurate way. After listening to Russert talk about his life experiences and being a Dad, I realized that he was the one guy in the media who "gets it". He understood the distance and stoicism associated with many fathers. He understood the lack of ambiguity and "grey areas" that make up the mind-set of many fathers. He understood unspoken bonds between fathers and sons. He understood how sometimes the simplest little things can be life changing lessons for children passed on from their fathers.
Best of all, Russert was able to convey these concepts in a simple, concise way that just oozed with sincerity. Another rare thing these days.

Tim Russert was an all around good guy and he will be missed.