Monday, June 30, 2008


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.

Saturday, June 28, 2008


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.

Thursday, June 26, 2008


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!"

Friday, June 20, 2008


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 Congressmen and Supreme Court Justices.

Monday, June 16, 2008

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.

Monday, June 9, 2008


It was all fun and games when the left simply scorned those of us who drive SUV's and occasionally vandalized such vehicles. We all sat back and laughed as they tilted at their windmills and generally showed themselves to be the fools that they are. We assumed that the rest of the world saw them as illogical weirdos as well. We were wrong.
In reality, they were getting press, and gaining social acceptance. Still, we laughed. Why wouldn't we? After all, everyone knew why the SUV makes such a great vehicle...right? Apparently not.
So now that the left has successfully priced the cost of operating an SUV beyond the reach of most people today, I feel it is my duty to explain to the left exactly why many of us drive SUV's in the first place.
Contrary to popular belief, it has nothing to do with any sort of inferiority complex or image issues. It has everything to do with practicality. First, there is this thing called S-N-O-W. It's this white stuff that falls from the sky and makes the road slippery, and tends to pile up on the road in rural areas where plows don't get to right away. Despite the presence of snow, some of us still need to go to work, and get the kids to school, get the groceries, or even go to the doctor's office. You see, snow has it's own schedule.
Another factor in purchasing an SUV is towing capacity. Some people like to boat, or ride dirt bikes. Others like to ride jet skis, or race cars. Still others do landscaping, lawn maintenance or light excavation work to make ends meet. All of these activities require a vehicle that has enough power and stability to haul extra weight and still bring the family, friends or co-workers along for the ride.
Personally, for me the most important reason for owning an SUV is my family. I am one of those wackos who actually like their family. I also have a basic understanding of physics. You see, I have no way of knowing what type of crash my family may or may not ever be involved in. But I do know that I would like them to survive it.
Consider the following scenario: You are forced at gun point to be put into a vehicle that is in the path of an 80,000 pound big rig. You are told that this truck is going to ram you, and if you live, you will be given a million dollars. You are given the option of being put into a Prius or a Hummer. Which one do you pick?
Then there is the "real world" environmental reasons for owning an SUV. Which causes more environmental damage? The manufacturing and maintenance required in owning two vehicles to cover your many needs, or just one that can do everything that you might require.
Probably the most obvious reason for me to own an SUV is really pretty simple. I just want one. Isn't that enough? This is still America...isn't it?

Thursday, June 5, 2008


Now that the Democrat primary has finally come to a close (maybe), I think it is safe to start taking a more critical look at the policies of the opposing party's candidate. This is no easy task due to Barrak Obama's lack of legislative track record and total lack of experience in any of the areas that a President needs to be familiar with. When asked about any given issue, Obama's favorite retort is to make some vague comment about hope and change. This too makes Obama's plans and policies even more of a mystery.
Admittedly, he actually has spoken about some of his views, but usually in a candid moment when he thought the public at-large was not going to hear it. This is usually then followed by some sort of explanation that makes even less sense than the original comment. And he actually does have somewhat of a legislative track record. That is, if you count his many "present" votes in the Senate. I've tried that whole "voting present" thing with my wife regarding decisions we've needed to's not as well received as in the Democrat party.
Beyond the hypnotic, repetitive use of the words hope and change, it's pretty hard for the average "Joe" to tell you what Barrak Obama has in store for this nation. So taking those words at face value, let's see what Obama's campaign is all about.

Hope. Hope is a word. It may even be considered an idea. But is it a plan? Well, that probably depends on who you are and what you're "hoping" for. Hitler "hoped" that he could rid the world of Jews. Jeffry Dahmer "hoped" that he could find another young man to torture kill and eat before he got caught. Bin Laden "hopes" he can kill more infidels. On the other hand, there are many of us that "hope" the government will stop trying to pull every last penny out of our pockets to spend on scams like man-made global warming.
Is hope a verb? I guess technically, but if you try to "hope" your spare tire onto the hub when you have a flat, you're not going to get very far. Have you every tried to "hope" the grass to get cut, or a bill to get paid? Can you send the electric company an envelope full of "hope"? How far will your car go with a tank full of "hope"? Are we going to "hope" the terrorists will have a change of heart before or after the next attack? Hope is one of those things that people do when the have completely run out of ideas.

Change. Change is a word too. Unfortunately, it's a bit of a mysterious word unless you identify what you're changing from, and most importantly, what you're changing to. If you jump out of the frying pan and into the fire, you have made a "change". If you go from being able to afford gasoline, to needing to ride a bicycle ten miles in the snow just to get to work, then you also have made a "change". If you go from being a sovereign nation, to just another part of a giant global bureaucracy lead by dictators and tyrants, haven't you made another "change"?

In a world where catch-words are all we need to be inspired, here are some of mine:

rule of law
the constitution

Wednesday, June 4, 2008


If you would have told me a year ago that I would be rooting for Hillary Clinton to win...well, anything, I would have assumed you had escaped from some "facility". But here we are a year later and that's exactly what happened. Don't get me wrong, Hillary would make an awful president and a general election victory for her would probably drive me to a "facility". That being said, what was done to her in the Dem primary was nothing short of "dirty pool".
Normally, I would be rejoicing in her treatment as being a case of "what goes around comes around". But not unlike "Jules" in Pulp Fiction, I find myself in a "transitional period" lately.
I have known for sometime how low the liberal establishment will go to protect their power, but it is a rare thing to actually witness them eat their own. And when it happens, it's really not as satisfying as you might think. It's kinda' like watching an animal eat it's young. You know it's what they do naturally, but that doesn't make it entertaining.

Thanks to the Clinton campaign, much has been said about sexism over the past few months. So I would like to clairify my position on the topic. First, it is not Hillary's "plumbing" that would make her a bad president. It is her policies. I could care less what gender my president is, as long as they have conservative ideals. Hillary is a liberal. Her policies are a virtual carbon copy of Obamma's, and I think he will be an equally awfull president, despite posessing a penis.
Will Hillary quit? Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I would like to see her stick it out to the bitter end. I would even support her in an effort to take it to the Supreme Court.

In a perfect world, Hillary will learn a valuable lesson after experiencing the media's biased wrath for a few months, but I doubt that will happen. At least we now know that the old attage is true; there is no honor among theives...or Democrats.