Trump For President?

Donald Trump wants to run for president. I wasn't keen on the idea of either a Trump candidacy or presidency. Then I watched The Donald's interview on The O'Reilly Factor last week and now I'm sort of liking the idea of President Trump.

What got me warming to the idea of Trump as America's Chief Executive was his largely forthright answers to Bill O'Reilly's questions. In particular, I was astonished that, without hesitation, Trump declared himself pro-life and anti-gay marriage. I'd always viewed Trump as a (stereo)typically liberal New Yorker. The reality that he takes the same position as I do on abortion and marriage was a refreshing discovery. And there were other refreshing discoveries to come.

In his interview, Trump revealed he's against illegal immigration and would militarize the border to halt it. He wants to deal decisively with China, saying he'd slap a 25% tariff on Chinese goods coming to America if China didn't stop manipulating its currency. Trump opposes the Ground Zero mosque, and his notion of what we should do in Iraq is really novel. Basically, he said we should take over the second largest Iraqi oil field and stay there. Trump said America needed to do what other countries do and keep what she conquers. There was no disdain toward or skepticism of American power in The Donald. President Trump won't go around apologizing for America and bowing to foreign leaders. All I can say to that is, yeah!

Did The Donald say--or not say--anything in his interview that gave me pause? Yes. Trump equivocated on Obamacare. He didn't say he opposed it, although he implied that other solutions, like individuals and businesses being able to buy health insurance across state lines, would work better than Obamacare. And Trump talked tough on Iran not getting a nuke but avoided saying how he'd stop that from happening. While I'm all for Iran not going nuclear, talking tough about it is useless. We've had that from politicians for years. What's needed is a bold plan including, perhaps, military action, and the will to carry it out. Trump's tough talk implied that he'd use force to stop Iran from going nuclear. If that's the case, I wish he'd been as forthright about it as he was on other things.

Oh, and Trump expressed some belief in the "birther" controversy which, I feel, could hurt his credibility among many voters.

Despite the few reservations I've listed here, I think I can take Donald Trump seriously as a candidate and even as president. I like that he's a Washington outsider. I like that he's a businessman who can tell the politicians how to really create jobs. And I'm thrilled with his unapologetically conservative position on two of the social issues most important to me. Yep, I think I can support a White House run by The Donald.

President Trump. It's sounding good.

"Sucker Punch" Rocks!

Hey friends! As most of you know, last Thursday was my birthday. To celebrate I took myself out to dinner and a movie. I'd done that two weeks prior to celebrate my birthday and saw Red Riding Hood, which was a disappointment. Not terrible, just not worth the full price I had to pay. So I decided to try the movies again, hoping to find one that was really good, and I did! It's called Sucker Punch.

Sucker Punch is great! How great? So great enough that I didn't mind haivng to pay full price for it; I'd pay full price to see it again, and I plan on buying it when it comes out on dvd. That's how great Sucker Punch is. That's how much I liked it!

Sucker Punch is cool, original, exciting, decked with great special effects, and suprisingly warm and thought-provoking. It has a moving twist at the end and, to top it off, a killer soundtrack! I won't say anymore as I'm not a skilled movie reviewer. I just wanted to do a post on how much I liked this film. If you want to have a blast at the movies this weekend, go see Sucker Punch. You won't be disappointed!

Here's a preview of Sucker Punch's awesome soundtrack. It's a video of the remake of Jefferson Airplane's classic, White Rabbit. I know, classics aren't supposed to be messed with, but leave it to Sucker Punch to get remake right. So here's White Rabbit, Sucker Punch style.

Happy Birthday To Me!

Today's my birthday. Woohoo! I'm 47 today. Wow! That's half a century! Kinda makes me feel old saying it that way, so I guess I'd better stop. Hee, hee. Seriously, this birthday is extra special because it's my first birthday as a cancer survivor. I am so grateful to see another birthday. I know that things could've so easily gone the other way. So I am very, very thankful. Thank you, God!

I didn't do anything really special for my birthday. I took myself out to dinner and a movie a couple of weeks ago and I'm going to do the same tomorrow. Actually, that is pretty special considering how tight my finances are right now. The movie I went to see on the 18th was "Red Riding Hood". It was just ok but it had a kick ass song in it. The song is called "The Wolf" and it's by Fever Ray, a band I've never heard of before. I'm including a video of the song on my birthday post. It was played during a celebration scene in the movie. I wish that scene was part of the video. Instead, all there is is a picture of Red. But it's the song, not images, I want you to focus on. So pull up a chair, relax, and enjoy!

"The Wolf", by Fever Ray



Told ya it kicked ass!

How To Handle A Liberal

Who knew we'd get a lesson in handlling self-righteous, bullying liberals from a young boy in Australia. Thank you, Casey Heynes!

Does Obama Want Gaddafi To Win?

Does Obama want Moammar Gaddafi to win the civil war raging in Libya? I'm pondering this question in light of the president's skittishness about imposing a no-fly zone over Libya.

Gaddafi's forces are crushing what had been a largely successful rebellion against his rule. The loyalists have superior equipment all around but one of their biggest strengths over the rebels is their air power. If that power could be grounded the rebels stand a chance of winning. A rebel victory would be good not only because it would free the Libyan people from a brutal dictator but also for a reason specific to America.

Moammar Gaddafi is a mass murderer of Americans. Before 9/11 and Al Quaeda Gadaffi had killed more Americans than any other terrorist. In 1986 he ordered the Berlin discotheque bombing which killed three US servicemen. And in 1988 Gaddafi masterminded the infamous bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland which killed nearly 200 hundred American civilians. If Gaddfi is overthrown he can be snatched by the US and put on trial for the Americans he slaughtered. That's the American reason why the no-fly zone must be imposed. It'll increase the likelihood of Gadaffi's fall and the chance of America snagging the butcher of Lockerbie. And I'm wondering if that's what Obama wants to avoid.

Barack Obama is a far-Left guy. Yes, he's done some good things in the War on Terror, but he's skeptical of American power and leadership, preferring to defer to the "world community". In fact, that is the "official" reason, articulated by Hillary Clinton, for his administration's reluctance to act first on the no-fly zone. There must be an international consensus on any action against Libya, Hillary Clinton said; America must not take the lead. With the "world community" in charge there's a greater chance that Gaddafi will crush the rebellion and stay in power, making moot any question of America apprehending Gaddafi. I believe that's the outcome Obama's hoping for.

Snagging Gaddafi and putting him on trial just doesn't mesh with Obama's worldview. In fact, being the far-Left guy that he is, it's safe to say that that would be a nightmare scenario for him. Obama would much prefer an end game that jibes with his progressive, "America the Bad" paradigm. So, does Obama want Gaddafi to win? In a word, yes. That would relieve him, at least partially, of the job of defending and avenging Americans, something he never really wanted to do. And he can save face by blameing his inaction on the "world community" which, in his paradigm, takes precedence over the needs of America. You see, in spirit Obama truly is a citizen of the world, just as he said in his Berlin speech in 2008. And those of you who voted for him thought you were electing an American. Silly you.

$3.29 A Gallon Gas?!?!

I can't believe this.

Yesterday evening on the way home from work gas was $3.18 at my favorite discount filling station. On my way to work at 5:30 this morning gas was $3.29 at the same filling station. Pardon my French, but, "WTF?!?!".

Yes, I know the Libyan crisis is partially responsible for the latest hike in prices at the pump, but gas has been rising for some time. When is all hell going to break loose over this? I mean, when gas prices were soaring just a few years ago the country was pissed off (pardon my French again). The price of gas was all anybody could talk about. That subject seemed to lead every news hour on tv. People eagerly supported exploiting America's domestic energy resources and "Drill, baby, drill!" was chanted across the nation. But now? Nothing. And I think I know why.

When gas prices were rising a few years ago Bush was still president. It was in liberals' political interest to hype skyrocketing gas prices--and anything else wrong in the country--then. They believed it would help them win in '08. The liberals got a boost from many ordinary Americans who were also fed up with Bush and expressed it in anger over the gas prices. Ordinary folks were truly upset about the pain at the pumps but liberals were engaging in manufactured outrage to achieve political ends. And it worked. Republican John McCain was defeated in the presidential election. Liberals got their man into the White House; now criticism and dissent were supposed to stop.

Liberals' guiding principle on Barack Obama's presidency is that he's not responsible for anything bad that happens on his watch. I beg to differ. Paying almost $4 for a gallon of gas is just as painful under a Black Democratic president as it was under a White Republican president. Again, I know that unrest in the Middle East is partially to blame for sticker shock at the pump, but only partially. Obama is to blame, too. He doesn't get a pass just because he's Black and liberal. Racial equality means people are treated the same, regardless of race. Right? So, if Bush was responsible for everything bad that occurred during his presidency, then so is Obama. And believe me, paying $3.29 a gallon for gas is bad. Very bad. Even under the Messiah.

Union Busting Or Party Busting?

I've been following the upheaval in Wisconsin, which is now spreading to Ohio, Indiana, and other states, and I think I've figured out what's really going on here.

Republican Wisconsin governor Scott Walker is being slammed for, among other things, making public sector union workers contribute to their health care plans and for limiting their collective bargaining power to wage and benefits issues. The unionistas are hysterically shrieking, "Union busting!", but I think they're really outraged about something else entirely. What's going on here isn't union busting but party busting, Democratic party busting.

It's no secret that unions are an extension of the Democrat party. For decades unions, public and private, have used their members' dues to finance the campaigns of Democratic candidates. The unionistas have done this while giving their rank-and-file members virtually no say in the matter. If you're a union member and you favor Republicans, too bad. Your money is going to elect the party you oppose. Governor Walker is putting an end to that.

A key change Walker wants in the union/state relationship is for the state of Wisconsin to stop automatically deducting public sector workers' union dues from their paychecks. In other words, Walker wants to give rank-and-file union members the choice of whether or not to pay upwards of $1000 a year in dues. If given that choice it's almost certain a high percentage of union members will opt out of paying dues. That would be financially catastrophic for the Democrats. The unions have been a cash cow for the Dems because of the dues paid by the members; take that away and the cash cow--and the Dems--become toast.

Wisconsin is broke. It's in the red to the tune of 3 BILLION dollars. Governor Walker says he wants sacrifices from the unions to help balance Wisconsin's budget. I believe that's true, but I also believe that Governor Walker knows that his proposal would severly hurt the Democrat party. I believe that hurting the Democrats is Walker's true objective and I say, more power to him!

In November the Republicans won an historic victory across the nation and they should use their new power the way the Democrats would had they won. Republicans have a shot at depriving the Democrats of their financial strength and helping to ensure their own re-election. They should take it. Union busting? No, this is PARTY busting and I say, BRING IT ON!

Ann Coulter On Conservative Gays

I love Ann Coulter. I know she often has a, shall we say, forceful tone but that's why I love her. Coulter is a fiscally and socially conservative, Christian woman and she's unapologetic and fearless about it. So, when I heard that Coulter had endorsed GOProud, a conservative gay group, participating in CPAC this year, I was surprised and a little concerned. I've always thought of support for the gay agenda as a social Left cause at odds with conservatism's traditionalism. When Coulter endorsed the Republican gay group I was afraid she'd turned against the fight for traditional values. I needn't have worried and the video below shows why.



I agree almost completely with Ann in this video. She says better than I ever could how you can be a "friend of the gays" without jumping on the gay agenda bandwagon. I've always felt that was true, but sometimes I get demoralized by the constant shrieks of "Homophobe!" flung at traditional people. Coulter shows how stupid it is to brand belief in traditional marriage, for instance, as homophobic. This is just what I needed to hear. I'm a social conservative. I believe in traditional values, especially traditional marriage. And I don't hate gay people. Thank you, Ann Coulter, for explaining that.

Where's Ben Jealous On This One?

If anyone wants to know where the real racism is in America, take a look at the video below. It'll shock you.



In case you didn't figure it out, these pleasant people are leftist radicals, the folks who're always angrily accusing conservatives of being racists. Here are White people calling for a Black man to be sent back to the fields, to be mutilated, to be strung up, to be hung. Where's Ben Jealous on this one? Why isn't he demanding that the Left expell these bigots from its ranks? Why the silence? If rhetoric half this hateful was merely whispered at a Tea Party rally Mr. Jealous and his leftists friends would've been all over it. White radicals, though, can spew rabid malice against a Black man without the liberal minority protectors batting an eye. Talk about things that make you go, hmmmmmm.

Here We Go Again

Brrrrr! I got so caught up in the big winter storm that's striking well over half the country and pushing temps in my area down to their lowest levels in decades, that I forgot that today is February 1st, the beginning of Black History Month. And I hate that.

I don't like Black History Month. I don't like any of these racial/ethnic history months, ethnic studies, etc.. Liberals would say that minority studies and history months are necessary to right past wrongs and enhance the self-esteem of minority people. I disagree. These things, in my opinion, undermine the whole idea of a shared American identity and are contrary to the spirit of Martin Luther King's assertion that people should be judged by the content of their character and not their race.

When we teach history in schools the accomplishments of Blacks and other minorities should be included as they actually happened, i.e. as an integral part of American history. If a class is learning about inventors, for instance, Black inventors should be included in the same way as White ones, i.e., without stressing their race. Teachers shouldn't emphasize Black inventors as Black inventors. That wouldn't be teaching kids history; that would be teaching kids to like Black people. And that's wrong...and racist. Schools should not promote one race over any other race, not even in the name of racial justice or equality.

If we want real racial equality then educational segregation has to go. We'll never create a colorblind society by constantly highlighting color. It's time to put content of character above race, for real. We can start by saying bye-bye to Black History Month and hello to American history. Period.

Shame

It's been a week since the deadly shooting in Arizona that left six innocent people dead and 14 others, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, wounded. It would've been nice if, during these seven days, the victims' families and the nation could've been left to mourn in peace. But that was not to be.

Before Arizona's dead were cold, before the survivors could be cared for, their horrific tragedy was being exploited by liberals for political gain. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik started the indecency by blaming the attack on "hateful rhetoric" from the "hard right". The national Left followed Dupnik's lead and began hammering away at the it's-conservatives'-fault theme. Not content to blame conservatives generally, liberals launched attacks on prominent individual conservatives. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Sarah Palin were all assigned blame. Leftists' political needs drove them to blame everyone but the shooter for the Arizona tragedy.

Shameful is the only word that describes liberals' actions in the wake of Jared Loughner's rampage. Actually there are other words--disgusting, crass, insensitive, self-serving, to name a few--that accurately describe liberals' behavior, but shameful describes it best. Shameful! Shameful! Shameful! It's impossible to have any resepct for liberals after this.

Obama tried to calm things down during his speech at the shooting victims' memorial on Wednesday. He stated that Americans need to use words that heal in our political discourse. Americans? Obama would've been more honest addressing his plea for healing words specifically to his liberal base. Hateful rhetoric is liberals' modus operandi. And then, after the shootings, they had the nerve to call for civility in the public debate. Monumentally hypocritical.

Liberals have no shame.

Massacre In Arizona

There has been a horrific massacre in Tucson, Arizona today. The killing happened at a supermarket where Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords was holding a public gathering. Representative Giffords, who has suffered a critical wound to her head, appears to have been the intended target of the shooter. Eighteen other people were also wounded and six people, including a 9-year-old girl and Arizona's chief federal judge, were killed. The suspected gunman, a 22-year-old man named Jared Louughner, is in custody. Loughner may have had an accomplice, whom authorities are looking for now.

This is a shocking, horrific, and utterly senseless tragedy. And the worst part is that there've already been attempts to politicize it. Pima county sheriff Clarence Dupnik blamed the shootings on "certain mouths" spewing "prejudice and bigotry". Gabrielle Giffords' father pegged the Tea Party as his daughter's enemy. The Daily Kos, a far-left blog, also imputed blame to the Tea Party movement for the killings. Fox News has also been blamed. This is the height of irresponsibility, especially in light of emerging information that Loughner was mentally disturbed.

The disgusting practice of trying to destroy one's political opponents by exploiting tragedy must stop. The rush to judgment by the Left was particularly unseemly. What we need to be doing is expressing our condolences to the families of the dead while earnestly praying for healing for the wounded. In short, we need to come together as Americans, blaming no one but the killer(s) for this incomprehensible carnage and drawing strength from our commonality. In the face of horrors like the massacre in Arizona we are human beings first, Americans second, liberals and conservatives last. We should have the grace and compassion to act like it.

Happy New Year!

Happy new year, friends!

Today is the first day of the new year, 2011. Of course, I've seen many new years come and go but this one is a tad bit more special than the previous ones. After battling cancer during the last half of 2010 I'm bringing in this new year with a new appreciation of life and health. One of the first things I did this morning was give myself a breast exam. I'm going to do them twice a month from now on. I have a renewed commitment to my health after the events of 2010. With God's help, NO MORE CANCER FOR ME!!!!

Dear friends, I wish for all of you the happiest, healthiest, most prosperous, and most blessed new year. 2011's gonna be a blast!

Merry Christmas, Friends!

The Christmas Shoes

This one gets me every time. It'll bring tears to your eyes too and, hopefully, remind you of what Christmas is all about and what we have to be thankful for all year.



Merry Christmas to all! Goodwill to those of whom God approves.

(And I finished my cancer treatments on Friday, December 17th. That was the BEST Christmas present ever!)

Why Isn't This Racist?

Well, the Chosen One worked out a deal with Republicans on the Bush tax cuts. Obama agreed to extend the cuts for ALL Americans, not just the middle class and, exchange, the Republicans agreed to extend unemployment benefits for some people for another year and one month. As compromises go, this one was pretty mundane to me, but not to Obama's liberal base, and that's the interesting part here.

Remember when the Tea Party movement first started? What was the movement accused of? Racism, right? Most of the Tea Partiers were White and that was supposedly prima facie evidence that their movement was anti-Black. After all, what motive but racism could White people have for criticizing America's first Black president? White criticism equalled racism; that was the formula, until just a few days ago.

Obama's agreement with the Republicans on the tax cuts has enraged his liberal base. Even now, they are in a virtual revolt against their erstwhile messiah. For the last several days White politicians have been all over the tv lashing out at Obama. And no one's accusing them of racism. Indeed, the very people who were sanctimoniously yelling, "Raaaaacist!" at the Tea Partiers for criticizing Obama are now yelling, "F--k the president!". But the Congressional Black Caucus, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Jeanane Garofalo are all silent.

This is solid proof that, for the Left, dissent isn't a right but a strategy to advance their agenda. And playing the race card is an intergral part of that strategy. Leftists originally saw criticism of Obama as a threat to their agenda and tried to discredit the critics by smearing them as racists. Now, though, Leftists see Obama's tax compromise as a threat to their agenda and are going after Obama for his heresy. But their angry revolt against the Chosen One will never be characterized as racist. You see, criticism of Obama or Blacks generally, is racist ONLY when it threatens the Left's objectives. That's why all those White liberals can unload on Obama without being smeared as haters. It's all about advancing the Left. And you actually thought liberals cared about stopping racism. Silly you.

The Guilt Tripped Rich

I'm sure everyone's heard about billionaire Warren Buffet saying that he and other megarich folks need to and should pay more in taxes. This has been on tv as if it were some sort of sacred pronouncement, but I'm not impressed.

If Warren Buffet wants to give more money to the government he's free to send the IRS as much of his income as he wants. Other the-rich-should-pay-more-taxes billionaries like Bill Gates can do the same. So, why don't they? Simple. THEY LIKE BEING RICH. If they didn't Buffet, Gates, and friends would give away all their money, but they won't. They love their wealth but they apparently feel tremendous guilt over it. So they anounce their support for higher taxes on the rich to try and assuage their guilt and look good to the public in the process. It's almost like their saying, "Hey middle America! We're the good rich. We know how bad we are for being successful and we want to pay for it by having the government take more of our money. So please, don't hate us!" Pathetic.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates don't seem to understand that if they want to assuage their guilt they should do more good for the less fortunate themselves. Certainly helping the needy personally would be more satisfying and meaningful to them than empowering impersonal state bureaucracies to do so. Buffet, Gates, and other super rich people most likely do have charities that they generously support. But they seem to think such private efforts don't qualify as guilt-assuaging good works. Only governmental confiscation of their excess income can redeem them.

Wealthy Americans who turn against their own success are akin to traitors. Their prosperity, which often had humble beginnings, highlights the promise of capitalism and the American way. Instead of extolling that reality they've opted for the counter message that success is a sin for which you must do penance, preferrably in the form of having the state take your money. Like I said at the beginning of this post, I'm not impressed.

Here's my advice to Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and all other guilt racked billionaires. If you feel that bad about being rich then get a good therapist or just give all your money away. But please stop calling the government down on yourselves while you're enjoying your wealth. That just makes you look like hypocrites and frauds. And that's something for you to really feel guilty about.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! Wishing all of you a wonderfully blessed holiday full of fun, food, family, love, and gratitude. Remember, we all have so much to be thankful for. Enjoy your day!

Just In Time For The Holidays

We've all heard about. Here's my take on what the TSA has in store for the travelling public just in time for the holidays.

I don't fly. I have flown in the past but I don't like it and haven't done it in about 10 years, so the TSA's new security measures aren't going to affect me any time soon. Still, I've been following the controversy and I think the body scans and pat-downs are a bit outrageous.

Yes, I want Americans to be protected from terrorism. As a supporter in limited government I believe that such protection is one of the federal government's few responsibilities, but the TSA's security measures just doesn't past the smell test to me. They're questionable on several levels.

First, the measures are just so intrusive. You have to submit to being virtually stripped by a machine or groped by a stranger in order to get on a plane. And if you refuse you can be fined $11,000! That's the second problem I have with this situation. The TSA is being quite heavy handed and arrogant toward the public. It reminds me of the way anti-Obamacare protestors were held in contempt by elected officials. Once again the government is copping an arrogantly paternalistic we're-going-to-force-you-to-do-what-we-know-is-best attitude. The TSA isn't listening to the people's concerns and that's creating as much anger as the intrusive security measures themselves.

The third problem with the TSA's new policy is that it puts TSA employees in an unfair situation. Imagine it's your job to "protect" the public by looking at the naked bodies of and/or fondling the "junk" of thousands of strangers. Now imagine that a lot of those strangers deeply resent what you're doing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that TSA employees could come in for some abuse from those strangers. Now, that shouldn't happen. The TSA workers are just doing their job and they shouldn't bear the brunt of the public's ire. Unfortunately, the government has put them in this unenviable position, and it could've been avoided if the feds had some courage. And that brings me to the most offensive problem with these security measures: they're a capitulation to political correctness.

Let's face it. The current admininstration is obsessed with not offending Muslims. So obsessed that it'll design "security" policies for Americans with "sensitivity" to Muslims in mind. Thus, the TSA's new security actions treat all fliers as if they pose an equal threat to America; they don't. Muslims--especially young, Middle Eastern, male, Muslims--are the likeliest perpetrators of terrorism today. But rather than acknowledge that fact the TSA implements anti-terrorism procedures so that Muslims don't feel--gasp!--profiled.

Ah, yes. Profiling! The most heinous act of racial oppression known to man, based on the way liberals react to it. Profiling Muslims is certainly worse than Muslims actually murdering Americans. Even if the profiling is based on behavior and not race, as the Israelis do it, it's still unacceptable to the PC whipped crowd. Why? Most likely because behavior-based profiling would still nab a lot of terrorist wannabes named Ahmed. So, the TSA strains to avoid profiling of any type, and opts instead to subject all American fliers to fondling and/or a virtual strip search. Fondling, strip searches, and privacy violations. All brought to you by your friendly federal government.

Just in time for the holidays.

Happy Veteran's Day. We Remember.

Here's a video for Veteran's Day. This video is 4 years old. I first saw it, if memory serves, on The O'Reilly Factor. It is one of the most moving tributes to our troops I've ever seen. If you don't tear up when you see it you're not human. It's called, "Remember Me". And that's what we should do, remember. And say, thank you. God bless our vets, living and dead, active duty and retired, combat and peace time. God bless them all. We remember.

"Remember Me"

Awwwwwww!!!

Sometimes you just gotta put the politics aside. Is this adorable or what?