Saturday, July 22, 2006

Arnold- Been around the Kennedys TOO long?

Reading through the Yahoo! News a couple of days ago, I saw an article about Arnold Schwarzenegger giving authorization for a $150M stem cell loan. In case you have been completely sheltered from the news lately, let me refresh your memory...

On Wednesday, President Bush vetoed expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and the next day, California Governor Schwarzenegger authorized the $150M loan.

With this action, he is really going against Bush's veto, but what it shows me is that Politics becomes about gaining popularity especially with an election coming up. Think I'm crazy? Bush's ratings are down, Schwarzenegger is coming up for re-election and Stem Cell Research is huge in California. Arnold wants to separate himself as much as possible from Bush. Thus, Bush loses more approval in California, while Schwarzenegger gains more. He truly has been around the Kennedy's way too long. To me, this is obviously more of a political (What will get me more votes) move, than "Let's jump start the Stem Cell Research."

In the beginning, I greatly liked Schwarzenegger as a Governor but his actions (Distancing away from Bush) sways my opinion greatly. Unfortunately this is an example of what politics is about, be in favor or against whatever topic the popular vote will lean towards. Doing this, the chances are better for re-election.

People have talked about making it possible for Schwarzenegger to eventually be able to run for President of the United States, personally I do not think this will ever happen because he is not a U.S. Born citizen.

There was a time I would have guaranteed you my vote for him if he was to run for President, but now...I'd definitely need to re-evaluate my choices.

Anyway, I want to know what you think about the move, what your opinions on stem cell research are, and how you think this could influence the image of Schwarzenegger not only with the Republican's, but also with the U.S.?

Friday, July 21, 2006

Liberal Media BIAS...this ones for blogger GREG

So, we've had some kooks post some blogs on this site that said I was completely incorrect about the Media being A.) Liberal and B.) Biased towards Republicans. Here is one quote by "Lefty" Greg...

"Nowhere in anything you've written here, is there an argument that the newsmedia IS indeed liberal. If you are going to insist on facts then you should offer some yourself."

"HA! And you think it follows from this that the media carries a liberal bias?"

What can I say? Today thanks to CrankyRight I was directed to a news article which was titled, "U.S. Opposed to Cease-Fire with Hezbollah". Read that title again and then imagine reading further past the title, until you get to a quote by Tony Snow which goes something like this...

"We'd love to have a cease-fire, But Hezbollah has to be part of it. And at this point, there's no indication that Hezbollah intends to lay down arms."

O.k. for the Liberals reading this, take the title of the story...combine it with the White House spokesman. Does this make a whole lot of sense? It's about as clear as mud, unless you realize the MEDIA IS TRYING TO DISCREDIT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

However, many people who just read the Headliners would truly think and believe that the U.S. was opposed to a cease-fire. Now don't we look like the big, bad bully who will not back down until every muscle is flexed.

So, if Greg is reading this, which I really hope he this argument enough for you? People...if you truly think the media is unbiased, do us all a favor...

Go outside, find the biggest Oak tree around...wrap your arms around it and continously beat your head against it. WE will let you know when to stop.

I hope the Liberals reading this will respond...I look forward to your weak responses.

Here is the link so you can read this "Caca" too...

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Folks, here is another story from the AP...this concerns Israel and Lebanon and the war currently happening. I look forward to your comments and debates.
  • Israel hints of full-scale Lebanon attack
  • Bush stays with word...vetos Stem Cell Research

    I wanted to post a link, have you read the story and get your thoughts and opinions on the story. The article is about George W. Bush coming through with his promise to veto Stem Cell Research.

    Do not feed the birds, Ducks...or the Homeless!!

    This is a great story coming out of Las Vegas where if you give food to the homeless in one of the parks, you could land some time in jail. This ordinance was passed on Wednesday which bans "providing food or meals to the indigent for free or a nominal fee in parks." *The ordinance defines an indigent as a "person whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive assistance" from the government under state law.

    The ACLU of Nevada has stepped in calling the ordinance "blatantly unconstitutional, unenforceable and the latest attempt by the city to hide and harass the homeless instead of constructively addressing their plight." The ACLU is made up of a bunch of Liberal WHACKS.

    I agree with the City ordinance because this is an attempt not to repress the homeless but to give them incentive to try and get back on their own feet. The problem in the U.S., is the Liberals and their policies. They want people to "need" their assistance because as long as there are people "needing" assistance, they can almost guarantee on votes. That is assuming the people using the Government actually vote. My guesses are these "unfortunates" (Liberal term) do not vote and are not even registered.

    How can you honestly blame anyone for trying to make someone else better? That's another problem that I have, too many people wanting hand-outs and not enough people with their hand-up.

    This society that we live in is only going to continue to get worse as long as the Government remains these people's bread winner. I am not just talking about the homeless, I was in Property Management and there was a resident whose viewpoint was, "I need another kid so I can get more support, more sex, more support". In case you are wondering, it was not section 8. To make a long story short, she was evicted because she had too many people living in the apartment...let me rephrase that, she broke occupancy standards because she had too many kids (who all had different last names). The Occupancy standard was 6 "human heartbeats" for a 3 bedroom, she had 6 kids and her living in the 3 bedroom apartment.

    I wish more cities would take this initiative, get these lazy bums off their asses and make it where they have to better themselves. We need to cut-off the support we are giving them because they have been taking advantage of the system for years now.

    Do not get me wrong, there are people who need assistance. Take for instance my mother, she is in her 60's, is not in the state of health to be able to work, thus she receives Government income. There are many cases such as hers', and there are many cases in which the people have figured out they can beat the system. My conclusion is this, there are good and there are bad and unfortunately the bad paints a horrible image in my eyes and many others' eyes pertaining to the Government programs offered to the "poor". I use the word "poor" loosely because there is a difference in being "poor and cannot help yourself physically, mentally, etc." and "poor- I is just lazy and want that there Government check each month".

    I believe this is a trend that we are going to have to continously deal with, people using the Government. What makes me angry is the people who defend the "unfortunate"...No, let's clarify something, there is a difference in being "unfortunate" and just plain ol' L-A-Z-Y.

    Again, it goes back to the Liberal concept of incorporating "thinking" and "feeling". Once again, I do not care what they "think" or how they "feel", because they let this concept blind their judgments.

    Folks, I look forward to your opinions and comments, post away!!!

    Wednesday, July 19, 2006

    McKinney makes news officers involved.

    In case you haven't heard, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has been forced into a runoff campaign after she failed to capture more than 50% of the vote. The re-election was her first since her scuffle with a Capitol Hill police officer.

    I've read the story about her scuffle, read the story about the election and I just wonder how many people are upset about the special treatment she has received with the entire "scuffle with a Capitol Hill police officer". Could this be what has lead to her overwhelming support dwindling down to an almost dead-even race with former Dekalb County Commissioner Hank Johnson?

    Let's focus upon this, any normal person (no political or "celebrity" status) would have been thrown in jail lickity-split. For McKinney, not the case. The incident occured March 29th, yet a verdict was not reached until June 16th, 2006. Do the math, that's almost 3 months since the "scuffle". Can you say "unfair treatment for a member of Congress?" Like I said, any normal person would have already had their trial, would have been CHARGED for assault of an officer and would have some kind of misdemeanor crime.

    Not so for McKinney and she proclaimed it was "Racial profiling" on the account of the officer. What the hell? That's one of the problems with Liberals and their way of thinking. I truly believe that Liberalism is a MENTAL DISORDER. It is always someone else's fault, never the fault of the individual. What I also love is the fact that Liberals did not refer to her as an Individual, but referred to her as a member of the African-American Minority of the U.S. What's the deal with relating all people as members of groups and not as individuals?

    Anyway I want to know what you think, and as always I look forward to your comments.

    Tuesday, July 18, 2006

    Corruption catches up with Missouri Democrats

    According to the Kansas City Star, "The Federal Election Commission has imposed a $20,000 fine on the Missouri Democratic Party for violating federal campaign finance laws during the 2002 election."

    This fine is not the first within the last year for this fine political party from the "Show-Me" State. In 2005, they (MO Democratic Party) paid $110,000 to resolve allegations stemming from the 2000 election.

    In case you have not seen this, "the party received $188,295 in excessive contributions and failed to report the transfer of part of that money to the party's nonfederal campaign accounts." They must have Former-Enron employees putting in some time for the party.

    Liberals reading this- don't worry, I realize that the Republicans have had similar instances for example in 2004 when they had to pay $128,000, however, the difference between the two parties is smart enough to realize You cannot get away with it more than once.

    I am curious as to the thoughts and opinions of those bloggers reading this, I look forward to all of your comments.

    Internet Gambling Bill (H.R 4411) posted for Semosupporter...

    I ended up receiving this message earlier today from Semosupporter:

    I would like to get everyones views on the bill that just passed the House that would put a ban on internet gambling (H.R. 411). Could you start a thread on this.


    Well, here is the initial thread, please follow the link and give us your opinions on the bill.

    Monday, July 17, 2006

    Bill Clinton...need I say more?

    "The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die"- Bill Clinton speaking to a crowd at a fund-rasing event for a Jewish Charity in Toronto.

    What?!?! Is what I am remembering true? Could it be that Slick Willie would actually grab a rifle to fight for Israel? Willie was out of his prime and talking out of his ass once again when he said this in 2002. He hid when he actually had a chance to grab a rifle, lay in a ditch and die for this country, but instead he headed for the hills of Canada.

    What this shows me, is Clinton is just as full of shit out of office as what he ever was while in office. Can you imagine what the World would be like if this would have happened while he was in office? 9/11, wow probably would have turned into Armageddon.

    It still amazes me how people's "Legend" (especially in their own words) grows as the years go by. Silly Willie, we already know you can't be trusted. Haven't you done enough damage as is?

    Sunday, July 16, 2006

    Liberal Media at their best...

    "We heard from many people that the news is just too depressing, now obviously we can't sugarcoat what's going on in the world, But there are cases where I believe we can be a little more solution-oriented..."- Katie Couric talking to Television Critics Association's Press Tour.

    I read this statement by Couric and the first thought that came to mind was...well, DUH! Too depressing, eh? It's not because of all that is going on such as the War in Iraq, Continous threats of Terrorism, the Price of Gasoline, the Price of Oil per barrels, etc. What makes it so depressing is that the majority of our major news outlets (CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NY Times to name a few) are all LIBERAL outlets.

    Couric says that they cannot "sugarcoat" what is happening in the world, but Dan Rather is proof that this so-called "sugarcoating" does happen. Case in point- his breaking story involving George "W" Bush and his time spent in the Texas National Guard.

    Liberals have for a long time and will for many years on put a "Leftist" spin on the news.

    *Flashback...Immediately following 9/11 the "Left" of our society supported our President and was extremely vocal in doing so. However, as time went by so did the support given to our Commander in Chief. This in my opinion is based on what they call, "Rallying around the Flag".

    *Back to Reality...Now we have Liberals who are calling for the Impeachment of "W". These same Liberals are those who overlooked the actions of William Jefferson Clinton. Why you ask? Because he was one of them. I mean, Monica Lewinsky was earning her "Presidential Kneepads" while "Slick Willie" was on the phone concerning whether or not to go to War. Then to make it even worse, he not only lied under oath to God, but to his Wife, to his Nation, and to the World. Clinton will not be remembered for what he did, but for WHO he did.

    Libs have what I call "selective memory". In case you are wondering, Selective Memory or "SM" occurs when an individual or individuals select what memories they want to possess. Case in point- the comparison of "W" and Slick Willie.

    How these Liberal Media outlets are going to be more "solution-oriented", your guess is as good as mine. Who knows, John Kerry's plan may have had the solution, however, since he never told us what this plan was, we will never know.

    Conservative Majority Suggested Reading

    Here is a list of our favorite books, if you have one you'd like to see make our list just send us an e-mail at

    Let Freedom Ring by Sean Hannity
    Deliver Us From Evil by Sean Hannity
    The Way Things Ought To Be by Rush Limbaugh
    See I Told You So! by Rush Limbaugh
    Godless: Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter
    How to talk to a Liberal (If you must) by Ann Coulter
    Slander by Ann Coulter
    Winning the Future by Newt Gingrich
    The Terrible Truth About Liberals by Neal Boortz
    The Fair Tax Bible by Neal Boortz

    Thanking Jesus seen as Court outburst?!?!

    In Honolulu, Hawaii, a man was held in contempt of court for an outburst of "Thank you, Jesus" after he was acquitted by a jury of abusing his son.

    What part of "Thank you, Jesus" can actually be considered as an outburst? This is America, stamped on our currency is "In God We Trust", yet a Judge took it upon himself to hold this man guilty for his actions.

    Fortunately for the man, the Judge later dropped the charge due to the man's trial lawyer not having enough time to inform of the court order that both sides were not to show emotion when the verdict was announced.

    Put me on the stand, if I am wrongly accused of something, you better damn well believe I am going to thank the Higher Authority for justice being served.

    As for the Judge, there are no excuses. Judges like this are quick to put someone in jail for giving praise to OUR Father above, but want to help others who have commited real crimes such as child molestation, rape or even killing other people. Most state they just need to be shown a little guidance, how about all JUDGES such as the one above, practice what you preach. You are the ones that need GUIDANCE, not God Fearing citizens of the United States of America.

    Sex Offenders & Their Punishment

    I just read a story were a 39 year old Virginia man was sentenced to 150 years in prison for sexually exploiting minors and running his own child pornography Web sites. Now this is not his first offense, because he had pleaded guilty in January to the production/distribution/possession and selling of child pornography. How many times will we let these PREDATORS commit such violent acts before we realize we need to be tougher on them the 1st time. Just think, we the tax payers will be providing for him for the rest of his life. This is our "Thanks" for what he has done to helpless children.

    It's sad, but it's true, the Liberal party has always been first to pipe up and say, "Everyone needs a chance, etc." Why is it that the Liberal party makes excuses for these sick "waste of yours' and my oxygen that we could be breathing"? The old saying in the Bible, "An Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth", does it mean anything at all?

    I think for those of you reading this that do not have kids cannot truly understand a parent's concern on this, but if anyone ever went near my little girl, daddy's little girl, and tried performing these acts, let's just say that my wife would be sending me care packages.

    What is the thought process that goes through these Pedophiles' minds? What is the thought process that goes through the minds of those defending them and their actions?

    150 years is not enough for his actions. He has robbed little boys/little girls of their childhood and innocence and I guarantee you that they will have a hard time having a "Normal" life later on.

    I want to know what you think, is 150 years the appropriate sentencing, should it be more severe or you do you think it is "fair"? I want your opinions, write your comments now!

    Here is the National Sex Offenders Public Registry Website where you can do searches in your area: