Tuesday, December 29, 2009


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.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009


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.

Saturday, November 7, 2009


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'.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009


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".

Friday, October 9, 2009


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.

Monday, October 5, 2009


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".

Sunday, September 13, 2009


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".

Saturday, August 29, 2009


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.

Monday, August 17, 2009


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.

Monday, July 27, 2009


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

Saturday, July 11, 2009


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.

Sunday, July 5, 2009


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.

Sunday, June 28, 2009



"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!!!

Sunday, June 21, 2009


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.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009


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.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009


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.

Thursday, May 21, 2009


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.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009


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.

Friday, May 1, 2009


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?

Thursday, April 23, 2009


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.

Al Queda

Tuesday, April 14, 2009


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".

Thursday, April 9, 2009


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.

Monday, April 6, 2009


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.

Saturday, March 28, 2009


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.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009


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.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009


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.