Monday, March 19, 2012

Progressives care about the poor. NOT!

Mayor Bloomberg’s food policy hurts homeless—Jeff Stier -

Taking the whole "Food Nazi" to new levels. Bloomberg tells a synagogue that they cannot donate fresh food to homeless shelters. Supposedly for the health of the homeless. I love the whole idea, don't feed the homeless so they won't get fat. How ludicrous!

Somewhere along the way these progressive politicians have gotten it VERY wrong. And yet, they still claim they care more about the poor and disadvantaged. I am thinking not so much.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Racism or Patriotism?

The Democrat party in Tavares Florida was asked by a group of veterans to remove a flag bearing the image of Barack Obama, in violation of Florida statute and the US Flag Code. She reluctantly took it down and has now issued her statement to the press.

"Hurlbert said Tuesday's incident was the first time anyone had complained about the flag, which she received as a gift two months ago. "It leads me to believe that it's not about the flag," she told Fox "Certain elements cannot accept Barack Obama as president."

So in response to her flagrant use of the race card I had to tell her how I felt (a good progressive always wants to know how we feel about things).

Dear Nancy Hurlburt,

I am appalled that you would violate the law of the great state of FL by displaying the desecration of the US Flag, and then pull out the race card. Where in the blue blazes do you get the idea that you have a right to desecrate the flag by placing an image of the president on it, in violation of Florida Statutes > Title XVIII > Chapter 256 > § 256.05.

"Statute 256.05, which covers improper use of state or United States flag, or other symbol of authority, reads: "No person shall, in any manner, for exhibition or display:

"(1) Place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing or advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, color, ensign or shield of the United States or of this state, or authorized by any law of the United States or this state; or "

(2) Expose to public view any such flag, standard, color, ensign or shield upon which shall have been printed, painted or otherwise produced, or to which shall have been attached, appended, affixed or annexed any such word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing or advertisement."

And I am further amazed at the audacity to call the veterans, who asked you to remove this abomination, racist. Your lack of civility and unwillingness to compromise is what is fueling the class warfare going on in this nation right now.
Do not think of yourself too highly, you and anyone like you that thinks they can violate any law they want and then denigrate the good name of concerned citizens is the exact thing that is causing the class warfare. The concerned citizens, and in this case veterans, were asking that you not OFFEND them. But not only have you offended them with your abominable display but also by your uncivil words and actions after the fact.
You Democrats have become the bane of this nation not its savior as you would like to believe.

Unions prove that Act 10 works

"Dear Brothers:

“We write to express our grave concern that MTEA has asked their legislators to introduce and work to pass legislation which would enable MTEA and the Milwaukee Public Schools to enter into an agreement in which MTEA would make economic concessions such as those enacted by Governor Walker’s WI Act 10.

‘The undersigned believe that such legislation would be detrimental to our members’ best interests: i.e. our Districts would likely push for similar legislation, given the precedent established by MTEA. Further, we believe such legislation will have an adverse impact on all Wisconsin public employees. Such legislation will enable Governor Walker to claim victory of his policy to reign [sic] in public employee wages and benefits. Because he did not adequately fund education, we are all currently suffering. Allowing Governor Walker to make such a claim just before the recall election will prove detrimental to recalling him and, therefore, will only enhance his ability to further harm all Wisconsin public employees.

“We ask that you immediately withdraw your request for this legislation.”

The letter was signed by the following union representatives from Madison, Kenosha, Green Bay and Racine:

Peggy Coyne, MTI President
John Matthews, MTI Executive Director
Mary B. Modder, KEA President
Joe Kiriski, KEA Executive Director
Toni Lardinois, GBEA President
Keith Patt, GBEA Executive Director
Pete Knotek, REA President
Jack, Bernfeld, REA Executive Director

This is a copy of the letter sent to the Milwaukee School District after they had requested that the WI State Legislature give them an open window in which to renegotiate fringe benefits without nullifying their existing contracts.

So, what are the unions really telling us? "Such legislation will enable Governor Walker to claim victory of his policy to reign [sic] in public employee wages and benefits." Asking the legislature to renegotiate the part of the contract affected by the collective bargaining clause of Act 10 will give Walker points to use against them in the recall. "Allowing Governor Walker to make such a claim just before the recall election will prove detrimental to recalling him and, therefore, will only enhance his ability to further harm all Wisconsin public employees."

So the Milwaukee School District rushed a contract through which left them with a deficit of $10 million dollars in their pension fund, and now they want to renegotiate to cover that deficit without nullifying the full contract. And the unions don't want them to be able to make up the deficit through contract concessions. BECAUSE....

Act 10 worked,

it brought about the ability of School Districts to bring their contracts into line with the actual cost of doing business without union collusion. This letter is another example of the thuggery the unions are willing to commit to keep the school districts in line. Because the union have been used to using school districts against each other in the negotiation process, they feel that they can use this same tactic against the Milwaukee School District now to smack them back down.

In their own words, Milwaukee wants to "make economic concessions such as those enacted by Governor Walker’s WI Act 10." They themselves are admitting that ACT 10 has worked, is working and will continue to work. That is why they have to redirect the argument back to the collective bargaining that they lost. If they can re-frame the argument back to collective bargaining they think they have the moral high ground.

But as long as the school districts are thriving financially, the unions will continue to lose the argument...financially. And having only 15% of the working class in the public unions, they will continue to lose the argument as long as the taxpayers see the benefits financially as well. And their antics during the protests and their death threats to opponents have also weakened their position.

The unions, by their own admission, admit that Act 10 has done what it was promised to do. Make school districts better able to control their budgets, and save money. You heard it from the Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, and Racine Teachers Unions.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

First Amendment under attack

Your first amendment rights are being trampled to death here. So much for free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of petition. How long will it be before the conservatives are dragged from their homes to be sent to prison camps and re-educated? Not a day goes by that one more of our freedoms is wrested from our collective grasps. And the liberals are worried about a war on women, how about the war on the Constitution? When do we get to talk about your war on us?

And one other question, how would you feel if this same law was used against your side? Hillary? Nancy? Gloria? Debbie? Joy? Whoopie? Rachel? Soledad? (crickets)


US Constitution Article 2, Section 2 "The president shall be called Commander-in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States."

Everyone assumes that the President is the Commander-in-Chief by default, just by being the President. But the Constitution is very clear on this point, "when called into the actual service" what this basically says is that only when Congress declares a war is the Commander-in- Chief title bestowed upon the President.

This has been interpreted for centuries to mean that he is the Commander-in-Chief of the militia (the National Guard) when they are called into service. But the punctuation used would actually signify the clause pertaining to the militia as not the object of the subject; the militia clause would be an intervening clause used to modify the subject. Thus attaching the clause " when called into the actual service of the United States." to the subject and making it the direct object.

Okay so what does this mean in real time? Presidents are only called upon to be the Commander-in-Chief during times of military actions. Okay, so one can say that GW Bush became Commander-in-Chief once Congress declared war on Iraq and Afghanistan. But when Obama sent troops into Libya, no war declaration passed through Congress, thus Obama has not been appointed as the Commander-in-Chief of the military by Congress.

This also means that during times of peace, the Army and Navy are under the command of their Joint Chief within the Department of Defense, the militia under the command of their governor. The Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard fall under either the Army or the Navy for purposes of this clause. So how do we reconcile the command structure then? This means that during peace the president has only indirect command over the armed forces, through the Secretary of Defense. Each branch answers to the Joint Chief and decisions are made independently of the other branches. The Army doesn't need to answer to the Navy during peace-time, they can and usually do coordinate their efforts, but it is not mandatory. The Constitution made sure to recognize that they are individual branches, and not one branch of the same military.

It is only during military action that the Commander-in-Chief is called into duty to coordinate the actions of all branches of the military to achieve the military objective. Okay, lets address the whole Leon Panetta idea, that the US military is an arm of the UN.

Leon Panetta is the Secretary of Defense, he does have direct command over the armed forces, through each branch's Joint Chief. However, the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 8, better known as the war powers clause, gives all power over the military to the Congress. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common raise and support provide and maintain a navy; to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions."

So although Secretary Panetta has command over the armed forces, he does NOT have control over them. The founders specifically gave that control to Congress. Mr Panetta has no authority to order the troops into any kind of military action without authorization (and yes permission) of the US Congress. The United Nations has not one scrap of authority over our military. So for Mr Panetta to say, "You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress." is another direct usurpation of power by the office of the President.

I am left to wonder whether our President is really the Constitutional expert that his law degree would seem to signify. If I, a simple lay person, can read the Constitution and apply simple logic to it, then why do we need experts to tell us what we know in our hearts is NOT there. So a direct reading of the Constitution would have us conclude that President Obama is in violation of the US Constitution Article 1 Section 8 by his action in Libya. And as H. Con Res 107 states, would be "an impeachable high crime or misdemeanor under US Constitution Article 2 Section 4" when applied to the Leon Panetta action concerning Syria.

The US Constitution is very clear on this, the President does not have control over the military until such time as Congress calls him/her to become the Commander-in-Chief.

Friday, March 9, 2012


I can't recall the day it happened, it was a dark day in the history of my beloved women's movement. The day the Progressives took over and hijacked the women's movement. Being one of the old fashioned feminists was always hard work. We never questioned that it would not be easy, but we felt that we were fighting for the good of all women everywhere. We set out to prove that all women are capable of handling life on their own, we never questioned that it would be hard work. We knew it would be hard, we were setting out to prove that we do not need anyone but ourselves to survive.

But now the progressives have taken over and hijacked the whole movement. And now they have paraded one too many whiny little brats into the debate and the whole movement has been set back decades. We never once asked for anything to be handed to us free of charge, we never expected big brother to take care of us, we were dead set against any such hand outs. We wanted to prove to the world that we could do it on our own. And now with this stupid Fluke woman and her "I can't do it on my own, I need a man to take care of me" crying fit in front of the whole nation, what started out as a glorious exercise has been destroyed in one fell swoop. I am furious.

Remember when the women's movement was about equal pay for equal work? How in the world did it become this private clique that only the chosen few are invited to? When did it become okay to allow men to call some women MILF's and cunts? I thought we were fighting against the degrading of women. Only when you ogres start decrying the obvious assault on all women can you claim to speak for women. You have done more harm to the women's movement by your inaction.

I did not put in 30 years of sacrifice and hard work without any help from anyone to have the progressives tell me they appreciate what I did, but they will take it from here and tell me that I actually do need someone to make it, and they are the ones to tell me who that is. Well guess what, you silly little twits, the women's movement was about empowering women to stand on their own, to prove to the world that we were equal to men, that we didn't need any special treatment. But somewhere along the way, these progressive morons hijacked the movement and made it into some kind of imitation. The mantra now is, how can we get the government to take care of everything.

I am totally peeved that liberals like Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Gloria Allred, and Hillary Clinton have seen fit to redefine the women's movement into this monstrosity. This is the real war on women. And then they have the audacity to tell me that I am no longer wanted in the movement. If I don't believe like they do, that I am unfit to take on the title of "feminist." I am sorry to say to you that I am the original definition of feminist. It is you harpies that have mutated this beautiful movement and made it into some kind of bride of Frankenstein.

I mourn the day that our wonderful undertaking was commandeered and I am not happy about it. These twits do not speak for me. I want my movement back.

Thursday, March 8, 2012 - How To Get Anything Through TSA Nude Body Scanners - How To Get Anything Through TSA Nude Body Scanners

The TSA has soaked us for enough money already, and have provided us with no additional security,  but have violated our 4th Amendment rights.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012


I have just realized that I have a VERY big heart. I heard a woman on the radio saying she has gone through some horrible things in her life and it has softened her heart, and she has a soft spot for the poor, and the underprivileged. She claims that she has more concern and feels worse than anyone else for these poor people. I disagree with her. I don't think she cares more for people than I do.

For example:

I feel horrible for the Amish farmer in Wisconsin who had his farm raided by the FDA and may lose his farm and his livelihood because some government agency decided that the product he sells is not approved. And the organic farmers whose meal was destroyed by health inspectors.

I feel horrible for the elderly on Medicare whose benefits will be cut to pay for Obamacare.

I feel horrible for the veterans whose Tri-care benefits will be cut.

I feel horrible for the senior citizen who was made to remove her Depends to get through airport security.

I feel horrible for the young mother whose daughter was told her children's lunch didn't meet the government standards.

I feel horrible for patients who are told by their government insurer that a medication that could save their lives will not be covered.

I feel horrible for the Marine who was arrested because he wanted to know where to store his gun when he was in the Empire State Building.

I feel horrible for the teachers who win awards for excellence and then are laid off because the unions have to protect the tenured teachers.

I feel horrible for the parents who are told their school district cannot fire a teacher for surfing porn on the web while at the school, on school computers because he is in the union.

I feel horrible for the people of WI who saw the State Capitol building ransacked and broken into.

I feel horrible for the teachers who took a political stand for reform and then was threatened by the unions.

I feel horrible for the young girls and boys who try to sell lemonade outside their homes only to be told they need to spend hundreds of dollars to get a permit before they can continue.

I feel horrible for the property owners who are badgered to give up their properties for pennies on the dollar to make room for development.
Or just told they cannot live on their properties period.

I feel horrible for the women who take an unpopular stand on issues and have all kinds of unspeakable labels attached to them.

I have a VERY big heart. I cannot stand to see the citizens of this country treated like criminals in the airports, like interlopers on their own property, like morons who cannot take care of their own kids, like greedy back-water hicks who don't pay enough taxes, like ignorant rednecks because they attend church and carry a gun. The responsible citizens are called bitches and sluts because those good citizens have values.

I have enormous amounts of compassion for all the regular folks who just want to go to work, raise their kids, sell their goods, live on their land, want to pay for their health care, who deserve respect for serving this country, and who do a good job. I hate to see them being defamed and denigrated for being the kind of Americans they have always been. I feel for the rugged individualist, I feel for the proud mom, I feel for the military veteran, I feel for the cancer patient, I feel for the farmers, I feel for the down-trodden, I feel for the abused, I feel for the neglected.

I don't believe the progressives when they call me a racist, bigoted, homo-phobe who wants to throw old people off a cliff, who wants dirty air and dirty water, who wants fat kids, who hates immigrants, who wants women to be bare-foot and pregnant. Because I have a big heart. I have way more compassion for the little people who are being trampled by government intrusion, than you. So don't tell me I don't care, it is you who really doesn't care.

Saturday, March 3, 2012

What the T.E.A. Party wants

Being a late-comer to the movement, I have had a chance to do some outside research before putting my name on the line. As a little background I have never belonged to a political party, I was raised in a Democratic home, but have usually voted for the Republicans because I believe in small government. Okay ..... I admit the Republicans have failed me on this also, I am, and have never been, a fan of big government. My first presidential race was back in 1980, and I went to a primary rally in La Crosse, and got to see Bush and Reagan in person give speeches. I was so excited to vote, and I have missed very few chances in my lifetime. That being said, I am not new to politics, it is something I have actively followed for 30+ years, so I am no novice to the whole scene.
I heard about the T.E.A. party through the news and my fiancee, and decided that I liked their stand on the issues. The T.E.A. party platform is simple: control spending, downsize bureaucracy, return power to the people. I have met people who run the gamut in the social issues from true blue conservatives to left leaning liberals. But it has never been about the social issues, even though the mainstream media would like to pigeon-hole us as bigoted, homophobic, women-hating, greedy bastards. So when we threw our lots in with the Republicans during the election it came as no surprise to the media.
However, it did come as a shock to the Republicans. The insiders still don't know what we are about. They keep scratching their heads trying to figure out what we want. Well I am here to tell you what we want.
1. We want a return to upholding the Constitution. No individual mandates, no gun-control, TSA pat-downs, no wire-tapping, no Net Neutrality; we want the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 7th Amendment, the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment.
2. We want less bureaucracy. Close the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Department of the Interior, Housing and Urban Development, and downsize and combine the others. There is no reason for a Dept of Veterans and a Dept of Defense (they belong together), and fire ALL the czars. Put the power back into the Congress where it was supposed to be. Only when an elected official wields it can it be controlled by the populace. All these bureaucrats are unaccountable to the people, and that is unacceptable.
3. Cut spending! We are spending at a level we cannot continue, aid to foreign countries needs to stop, no more cowboy poetry grants (the NEA needs to stand on its own feet), no more funding of Planned Parenthood, no more government ownership of companies (i.e. GM), no more Solyndras, no more bailouts, no more stimulus.

That is the platform.

So what do the Republicans not understand? Why do they continue to insist that Mitt Romney is the only candidate that can beat Obama, when the mood of the country is "anyone but Obama"? We in the T.E.A. party are telling you, "Not Romney!" We might as well have 4-more years of Obama if we vote for Mitt Romney. Their policies are no different from each other. Mitt Romney is "Obama lite": all the policies without the bitter after taste. When we put forth Herman Cain, we were sending you a message, but you didn't listen. The T.E.A. party doesn't have a problem with racism, we just want a fiscally conservative version.
The sleeping giant has been awakened, and we will not go silently into that good night, even though the "establishment" Republicans would like it to happen. As a proud Independent, you should be courting me and others like me, instead you are handing us a squishy, wishy-washy, moderate Republicans version of Obama.
It is very simple, the T.E.A. party wants a fiscally conservative, Constitutionalist. Plain and simple.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Racism on Parade

This is completely insane. Obama announcing he is forming a group called African Americans for Obama. How incensed would the left be if George Bush had formed WASPS for Bush. Their screams would still be echoing 3 years after leaving office.
Why is it racism in one case but not in another? Just saying.