Saturday, January 30, 2010


Well, I'm back!

My laptop, Li'l Lappy, crashed last Tuesday, taking all my files down in flames. Don't you just hate it when that happens? Fortunately, the most important stuff on my computer, my photos, are also all on cd's so I didn't lose them permanently when LL went kaput. The music I lost is also fully replacable. Whew! Today I took Li'l Lappy back to the rental store I got him from and he was repaired and restored to nearly like-new condition. Hooray!

I'm so glad to be back in business. Being away from the computer for nearly a week was like going through withdrawal. I didn't know what to do with myself not being able to plug into cyberspace. And that was kind of...scary. I don't want to get "addicted" to the computer. I think from now on I'm going to set aside one day a week to be computer free. That way I hope to bring a bit more balance to my life. Still, it really is good to be online again. I missed y'all, but now I'm back.


Saturday, January 23, 2010

What Now?

It's been four days since the huge upset in the Massachusetts Senate race with the victory of Republican Scott Brown over Democrat Martha Coakley. We conservatives/Republicans have danced in the streets, and it's been fun watching the Dems/libs' stunned and shocked reaction to Brown's victory. But now that the dust is beginning to settle I've been asking myself, what now?

What now for Republicans? What now for Democrats? What now for America?

I don't have the answer to those questions but I do think that we conservatives/Republicans shouldn't get too gleeful about what happened in Kennedyland last Tuseday.

Massachusetts is the bluest state in the Union. I just don't believe that the voters there experienced a massive conversion to conservatism on election day. Massachusetts voters were angry and frustrated and they sent a stinging message to Washington. But we conservatives need to make sure we correctly understand that message so we can build on it properly. And we must not make the mistake of counting the Dems/libs out.

As much as I hope for a Democratic bloodbath in November I don't believe it's a shoo in just because of what happened in Massachusetts. Right now Dems are reeling and confused about how to proceed in the wake of the Great Massachusetts Rebuke. But I feel that will change. The Dems/libs will regroup and come out swinging. A lot can happen between now and November 2010 and November 2012. Any positive change in the country, especially in the economy, could make the Dems bullish again. We conservatives musn't loose sight of that. Now's not the time to rest on our laurels. We have to stay on the offensive. The Democratic counterattack is coming. We must be ready.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Upset In Kennedyland

I was wrong. Massachusetts has shown that it's NOT too blue to do the right thing.

In an upset almost as historic as the election of Barack Obama, Massachusetts--home of the Kennedys and the bluest state in the Union (with the possible exception of Vermont)--elected Republican Scott Brown to the Senate seat left vacant by Ted Kennedy's death.

I can't believe this. Neither can the Dems. They've just watched their filibuster proof majority vanish and their great hope for health care "reform" right along with it. That's just too cool.

It's late and I'm tired, so this will be it for the election right now. I will go to bed with the estatic sentiments of my blogging friend Angel ringing in my ears: Woohoo! We got Massachusetts!

We damn sure did!

Sunday, January 17, 2010


I never thought that any part of the liberal lame stream media would ever give Sarah Palin a break. Their hatred for her borders on maniacal. Imagine my utter shock then when I saw Sarah and her daugher Bristol portrayed positively on the cover of the January 25 issue of In Touch entertainment magazine. I was further surprised by the quote that was also on the cover, in all capital letters no less: "WE'RE GLAD WE CHOSE LIFE." Incredible! A positive take on Sarah Palin AND the pro-life view. I suspected there had to be a catch to this, but there wasn't.

The interview in the magazine was refreshingly fair and even sympathetic. Sarah and Bristol Palin talked candidly about how they are handling the less-than-ideal circumstances life handed them. There was no attempt by the magazine to spin what they said into something negative. Sarah wasn't called a bad mother because her teenaged daughter got pregnant. Bristol wasn't called a hypocrite for advocating abstinence, as well as safe sex, to young people. Sarah Palin tackled the hypocrisy question. She said that Bristol wasn't being hypocritical by telling teens to look at her life and learn from her mistake. I agree with that. And the family photos really were heartwarming, just like the cover blurb said.

In Touch magazine did an excellent job with this story. Sarah Palin was portrayed as what she is: a normal human being facing unexpected challenges with dignity, courage, and faith. Kudos to In Touch. Now if only the rest of the lame stream media would get a clue.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Too Blue

In less than a week a key election will take place in Massachusetts to fill the Senate seat left empty by the late Ted Kennedy. The candidates are Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican challenger Scott Brown. The most recent polls I've heard about have the race neck and neck. The Republican actually has a Massachusetts.

But that's just it. This election is taking place in Massachusetts; and while I'd love to see Scott Brown win I just don't think he will. I can't and don't share the optimism of Sean Hannity, for example. He's been acting almost like Brown has already won. He's been down right giddy about the prospect of the Dems losing their filibuster proof majority. Now that would be wonderful! But I'm not popping any champagne bottles, yet. Scott Brown may get within an inch of winning but I don't think he'll be able to pull it off. Massachusetts is just too blue. And that's just too bad.

Saturday, January 09, 2010

People Of Faith

One of the fundamental characteristics of the Left is it's disdain for religion, especially Christianity (but not Islam; religions that inspire their followers to kill Americans are A-ok). Liberals love to mock people of faith, i.e. Christians, and proclaim their commitment to reason and science as the sources of their understanding of the world. No trusting in revelation for them! How interesting, then, to find that liberals themselves are not only people of faith, but the irrational kind of people of faith: those who put their faith in man. And that man is Barack Obama.

While watching Fox News and listening to talk radio I've seen and heard left-wingers expressing the deepest faith in their Anointed One. Liberal pundits and deluded Democrats from Bob Beckel to Alan Colmes are absolutely convinced that Obama is virtually infallible and is saving the country. Seriously.

Bob Beckel, a Dem strategist who appears regularly on Sean Hannity's show, has said at least three times that Obama has saved the economy. Last year Kirsten Powers, another Dem strategist and Fox News regular, said Obama's anti-terrorism policies made her feel "very safe". Ellis Henican, a Newsday columnist and, like Beckel and Powers, a Fox News pundit, was giddy with optimism about Obama's America on a recent episode of The O'Reilly Factor. And it's not just prominent liberals who worship the Big O. Ordinary, no-name ones do, too.

On Michael Medved's talk radio show a Black woman called in incensed that Medved had criticized Obama. She credited Obama with saving her and her unemployed husband's personal economy, even though her husband lost his job after Obama took office. When Medved pressed her on that fact and the dismal state of the national economy, this woman claimed Obama said things would get worse before they got better. And she was certain that things would get better. No matter the reality, Medved's caller saw Obama as the bringer of nothing but good. And, as we've seen, she's not alone in that opinion.

So, how do we explain this phenomenon? Beckel, Powers, Henican, Medved's caller, and the rest of the liberal horde aren't basing their assessment of Obama on the facts. Double digit unemployment, multiple terrorist attacks, ballooning deficits, none of that has any bearing on liberals' judgment of their Messiah. For them it's all about faith. Faith in Barack Obama.

Obama's far-left ideology coupled with his race make him the perfect savior to liberals. Whatever happens in the real world is irrelevant to their view of him. Obama can only do good and be good because that's what the progressive paradigm says. Liberal people of color are endowed with an innate wisdom and moral purity totally absent from even liberal Whites. Whites, however, can access this wisdom and purity by doting on non-Whites. Hence, Obamamania. It will occur to few liberals to question this paradigm, no matter how much Obama screws up. He's Black, he's liberal; therefore, he can do no wrong. Liberals just know it. No facts necessary.

People of faith indeed.

Thursday, January 07, 2010

Bush Must Be Laughing

When Barack Obama became president much of the country acted like Jesus had returned to earth. Obama's inauguration was worthy of a god and we were promised that his mere presence would save the country. Well, it's almost a year later and a bit of reality has set in, especially for Obama himself.

On inauguration day last year, and during the presidential campaign, nobody believed more in Barack Obama than Barack Obama.

Obama really believed that he would usher in a new America. He would be the post-racial president and bring Americans together. He would close Gitmo and instantly renew America's reputation abroad. He would win friends by acknowledging how rotten America is, thereby showing humility. He would give health care to all Americans and illegal aliens without raising the deficit by one penny. And he would stop terrorism through the force of his charm alone. He would bring hope and change , and the entire world would flourish. What a difference a year makes.

In twelve months Barack Obama has learned some hard lessons. He's learned that his left-wing base won't give up using race to divide people. He's learned that simply being popular abroad doesn't automatically translate to tangible benefits for America. He's learned about the fickleness of the electorate, who will love you one minute and hate you the next. He's learned that charm won't stop terrorism. He's learned that "hope and change" is really just a slogan, not a blueprint for governing. And he's learned that blaming his predecessor for everything wrong is starting to wear REAL thin. In short, Obama's learned that it's easier to campaign for president than it is to actually be president. Which explains why Obama has never stopped campaigning.

There's someone out there who could've warned Obama about this and offered him help. Instead, that someone can now sit back, watch, and say to himself, "I told you so."

Bush must be laughing.

I know I am.

Sunday, January 03, 2010

New Year, New Look, New Name

No, you have not made a mistake. You are at the blog formerly known as PoorGrrl Zone.

First, a belated happy New Year to my blogging friends! Hope you all had a wonderful holiday and that the new year will be exceedingly blessed for you!

Now, on to the blog.

Why the new name? Well, things change. Your outlook changes. Your mood changes. Your opinions change. Your circumstances change. You change. And when that happens the things in your life change, too.

When I began blogging I originally intended for my blog to be personal, sort of like a journal online. I just wanted to express my thoughts and feelings, but those thoughts and feelings gradually became more and more political and less and less personal. I'm not sure why that happened, but it did. Hence, I've felt for quite a while that the name PoorGrrl Zone, chosen for a personal blog, didn't fit the political blog that emerged. A new name was in order. It took a while to find one that fit but around mid December one popped into my head. I decided to wait until the new year to unveil it, so here it is: Sinistra's Bane. Cool, huh? And what does it mean, you ask?

Well, like I said, my blog became more and more political over time. My politics are right of center. Very right of center. I don't know why but I've had a visceral animosity to the Left virtually all my life. I hate the Left. I hate the political Left, the economic Left, the academic Left, the cultural Left, and the religious Left. I hate them all. And I wanted a name for my blog that reflected that.

Sinistra is Latin/Italian for "(on the) left". It's also where we get our word sinister from. The Left is certainly sinister. Bane is something that causes death or ruin. So, Sinistra's Bane can be loosely translated as "causing death or ruin to the Left". That's what I want to do. Ruin the Left. Crush it. Defeat it once and for all. I want to drive a stake through its heart so it'll never again rise from the dead as it has been wont to do. That's what Sinistra's Bane means.

I hope my regular readers like my new name. The url,, will stay the same, at least for now. So those of you who have me in your blogroll will only have to change the name, not the web address too. Again, I hope you like the new name and the new look. I do. They say who I am, and I am not ashamed.

Happy New Year!