Saturday, November 24, 2012

Ann Coulter's Short-Sighted Vision

The only small mind in Ann Coulter's world is her own.

In her column last Wednesday, she blamed everyone in the conservative wing of the Republican Party for Romney's loss. One person she didn't blame was Romney.

Now let me be clear: This election was rife with fraud. The corrupt Chicago machine was at it again. There were enough statistics in key states pointing to voter fraud, either by human surrogates, machine tampering, or both. So much that there should have been a demand for a recount in some of the swing states. But of course there wasn't – the GOP is a squishy bunch – like Romney, they don't want controversy. And race was involved: They weren’t about to go against a black man and Obama knew it. Not a problem for the other side: It was all over the Twitter-verse before the election that there would be riots and violence should Romney win. And, anecdotally, since Romney and Ryan were playing to packed houses, while Obama was speaking to half-empty venues, it's highly suspicious regarding the numbers Obama pulled out of key states.

But Ann doesn't mention this either. No, she puts blame on exactly where it doesn't belong: the tea party and other conservatives who weren’t all-in with her political paramour.

Conservatives used to think Ann was conservative, but obviously she’s been drinking the water too long up in New York. (Remember when Arianna Huffington was a conservative?) Of course being a conservative can be lonely in places like New York and California. It will probably be just be a matter of time before she’s also a bitter, old former conservative writing a liberal blog. Unfortunately, we saw the beginning earlier this year. Not only was she head-over-heels for the moderate Gov. Romney, she campaigned to get the verbose, pro-gun control Gov. Christie for his running mate. She made vicious attacks on real conservative, Newt Gingrich, like a jealous ex-wife. Newt may not have been in a position to win and certainly had baggage, but no one could deny that he would have kicked the pants off Obama in the debates!

Romney is a nice man—I think most can at least concede that. He’d make a great neighbor. We know he was apparently a shrewd businessman. He is a hard-core moderate: Even after knowing the majority of people were against Obamacare and states were in rebellion, he promised to repeal and replace Obamacare. (No one said they wanted a replacement—just to get rid of the damn thing.) He wouldn't challenge the president enough, even on the campaign trail. There were a laundry list of topics he could have used to attack this administration that were left untouched. After a slam-dunk first debate, he turned into Mr. Nice Guy again, instead of pressing his advantage. He tried to moderate to fit his audience and that is a mistake—no one can trust you when they don’t know where you really stand. Not sure if that’s because he had bad advice or if he was just not up to laying waste to the unprepared president. We need a candidate that can overcome the fraud as well as the democrat candidate. In at least one way, Romney is exactly like McCain and Dole: He is a loser.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Don’t Let the Left Silence You – Food for Thought

It's interesting that, according to Michael Moore on the election, "Hate lost yesterday." He and others on the left spewed some of the most vile hatred at President George W. Bush the eight years he was in office. What was that — constructive criticism?

But no, now that they won, conservatives are criticized for not being "good sports." No, being a good sport is something you teach your kid in Little League. You don't stand by and watch your country destroyed so you can be a good sport.

One thing that disturbed me on Facebook and Twitter today is when I saw people who would do anything to avoid conflict between their friends. You see, they have friends on the left and the right and don't want to make anyone angry. With relatives, keeping the peace is another matter – you're stuck with them, although it can make Thanksgiving dinner awkward. But it got me to thinking: How can you not care what your friends believe in? That you’d rather have “peace” in the house instead of dealing with the problem? That, for the sake of being nice, you’re willing to say nothing—no matter what they say about your beliefs? It's not like you're just playing for rival teams and come together afterwards to have a beer. Liberals have some seriously disturbed ideas on how the world should work. Suddenly, after eight years of bashing Bush, they want us to be nice and get along—and keep our mouths shut because they won, after all.

Liberals, by their nature, thrive on emotion—they are incapable of logic no matter how much education they’ve had. Everything is based on how they feel, which is why you can’t get a logical reason on why they support something. They support it because it makes them feel good, not because it actually does good!

Unfortunately, conservatives tend to fall for this line. Some are weary of the fight and fighting is not their nature. The media and the left tell them that they're mean and who wants to appear mean? I've been told that I'm mean or words to that effect. One woman I didn't even know called me passive-aggressive and greedy because I didn't like Obamacare. Then she proceeded to accuse me of pointing fingers when I told her I thought she was a typical liberal who doesn't care about helping anyone, except with other people's money. But see, that's what the left does — they accuse you of the very thing they're doing. They resort to name-calling, then accuse you of name-calling when you stand up to them. That's the way they shut you up — don't let them!

But it made me think — can (or should) a conservative even have liberal friends? I can only speak as a conservative; some liberals may feel the same way toward having conservative friends. But being a true liberal goes beyond the normal differences friends have — it affects their behavior. So even if you don't discuss politics, unless you have a very distant friendship, you're going to come into conflict. They are going to make a comment to one of their liberal friends on FB or post a cartoon derogatory about conservatives and their (your) values. They're going to express some liberal talking point that will drive you mad — usually along the lines that it "was all Bush’s fault." Or they’ll support legislation that’s drives the county toward the fiscal cliff like a lemming.

You're eventually going to slip and either try to argue logically (which never works) or simply make an enlightening comparison between lemmings and liberal ideas. Then they'll hit you with it: You're just mean! They, on the other hand, are liberal and therefore, they care. It doesn't matter if they've ever done a damn thing for anyone else, or if they just applauded the use of other people's tax dollars. Liberals, by their nature, thrive on emotion—they are incapable of logic, no matter how much education they’ve had. Everything is based on how they feel, which is why you can’t get a logical reason on why they support something. They support it because it makes them feel good, not because it actually does good!

And how are you going to handle that? Are you going to allow them to play the passive-aggressive tune and snap back into line? Or will you tell them to go fuck themselves? They're counting on the former — they want you to be a nice, passive friend — someone who’s pleasant (for a conservative), while they tear down your beliefs behind your back, or even in front of your face. They count on that you won't fight back because you're a "nice" person. I'm telling you now: There's nothing wrong with debate or disagreement. You can’t lead or educate others if you don’t speak up. Don't be a doormat for liberals. Don't let them oppress your opinion or roll over. We may have lost, but there is nothing wrong with righteous anger! If anything, many conservatives need to practice expressing what they believe and standing up for those beliefs in the face of the liberal mindset.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

A Country Divided?

We are no longer a country who can "agree to disagree"—we are now at each other’s throats. We snipe at each other on Facebook and Twitter. We try to hold our tongue at the office or seek out allies we can voice our opinions to safely. If you go back over to the Real Clear Politics map and look back through past elections you can see how we've become more and more fundamentally divided just in the past 30 years. Instead of being rational, some people make excuses for their politicians like it's their hometown football team who got caught in a foul. They ignore and excuse them like a mother screaming at the police for arresting her “innocent” child for the 50th time.

The press has largely gone from the investigation arm, to the propaganda arm. You can find more objective reporting in blogs and by independents these days—which not surprisingly, are hated by both the politicians and the so-called “real journalists.” Politicians on both sides want to keep us divided so we go after each other, instead of calling them out for the sneaky business they're up to. Journalists no longer just report the news, they openly seek to influence it. They both look down on the majority of the populace as too stupid and uneducated and who must be spoon-fed and taken care of by an overprotective Big Brother. Bills are no longer written by the elected, but by the special interests. It's no wonder politicians can't tell us what's in them until after they made into law—they're spending more time raising campaign funds and running for office instead of actually writing the thousands of pages of laws they pass every year.

The more people who get what they didn’t earn, the angrier they are when someone tries to take it away. Give a child a bunch of toys and then tell them they aren’t going to get any more and watch them throw a fit.

I blame them and I blame the press. But I also blame the lazy public who refuse to lift a finger to educate themselves about what's going on. As long as your politician throws some money you're way, you remain coddled and asleep while the country goes down. And who's fault will that be if the country implodes financially? People will point the finger to Washington. But don't blame the politicians or the press—look in the mirror. Because it's you. You who couldn’t be bothered to look at what a politician does, not just what s/he says at election time. You who’d rather sit down than stand up. You who can’t be bothered to make an informed vote. Yes, you who watch The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with John Stewart instead of searching out the truth. It’s not always easy to find, but it’s out there. You who refuse to look at the overall well-being of your country and the massive spending going on and only care that your state gets a piece of the pie.

Because we are closer to Greece than you think, my friends. We are at the tipping point. But in our case I fear we could easily turn into a second civil war. The more people who get what they didn’t earn, the angrier they are when someone tries to take it away. Give a child a bunch of toys and then tell them they aren’t going to get any more and watch them throw a fit. But allow a child to work and earn what they can and buy their own toys and you have a more responsible child who is more secure because they are dependent on themselves, not others.

The generation that came out of the Great Depression and WWII were called the Greatest Generation. Unfortunately, they did not all pass these lessons on to their children and grandchildren. Within a few short years we went from a generation of self-sufficient and independent to the Me Generation fighting over our toys and expecting them to be provided to us. We went from the people who pursued happiness to those who demand it. Nearly fifty percent of the population now pays NO federal income taxes. Eventually someone is going to have to tell a number of them that there will be no more free toys.

Friday, April 27, 2012

Thanks to White House Support, Egyptian Islamic Law to Allow Sex with Deceased Wife

We know republicans don’t support women’s rights like the White House does, right? Especially things like reproductive rights. So it’s a good thing that the White House supports governments like those in Egypt. They took out Mubarak and made sure those nice Muslim Brotherhood guys got in. So what is the women-supporting, Islamic parliament doing now?

They about to pass a law that allows a husband to have sex with their dead wife for up to six hours after death. Hey, Sandra Fluke, how about that for reproductive freedom? Well at least at that point, they don’t need to worry about their health care plan providing birth control.

But that’s not all: They are also lowering the marriage age of girls to 14 so they can combine child rape with arranged, forced marriages. They’re also getting rid of laws about guarantee of education, employment for women. Don’t want them to get any ideas in their heads.

Don’t forget it’s THIS White House that supported the overthrow of Mubarak and the establishment of an Islamic parliament. Similar to when Iran’s Shah was overthrown, Egypt, once a country friendly toward the US and Israel is now going back to Sharia laws and furthering the oppression of women.

But remember, according to this administration, it’s the republicans that are anti-women….

Saturday, April 21, 2012

George Zimmerman Case: Stand-Your-Ground vs. Self-Defense

Media pundits covering the George Zimmerman shooting of Trayvon Martin usually mention Florida's stand-your-ground law and the unlikelihood (their opinion) that Zimmerman will be able to use it as an affirmative defense.

This law is puzzling: Why not just claim self-defense? IANAL, but from what I've been able to glean, in Florida's version, the stand-your-ground law expands self-defense and allows for a pretrial hearing. If a judge finds the defendant legally stood their ground, even with deadly force, they are immune, not only from criminal prosecution, but civil as well. Case closed. Whereas, even if Zimmerman is found not guilty or the jury believes he acted in self-defense, the Martin family still could come back and sue Zimmerman for the wrongful death of Trayvon. Regarding the stand-your-ground law, the statue for Florida reads (highlighting mine), in part:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

So, to my layman thoughts, even if George initially followed Martin and even if that alone could be seen as provocation, Zimmerman could claim stand-your-ground if: It can be shown that George then turned and walked back toward the car (perhaps through the 911 tape) and was attacked by Martin.

Zimmerman had a bail hearing last Friday. The media made a big deal about the bond ($150K) and Zimmerman's apology (risky, but IMHO, brilliant). What was even more significant was the apparent admissions by the prosecution that they didn’t have evidence either to answer who started the fight or that contradicts Zimmerman's claim that he was walking back to the car when attacked. Certainly their response brings into question the 2nd degree murder charge. But, at this point it, looks unlikely that Zimmerman will be released based on the statute and without a trial, simply because of the judicial fear of what would happen in the streets after such a ruling.

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Bugged by Starbucks?

The Beetlejuice that's scaring folks today isn't a Tim Burton movie. For some, it's finding out that Starbucks started using crushed beetles to color their strawberry frappuccino, strawberry smoothies and other items. Specifically, they used the female Cochineal, a insect with the appearance of a tick that lives off cacti plants and produces a substance called carminic acid. This substance is refined and used to make red carmine dye. Once used in the coloring of fabrics, it was approved for use in food products and makeup by the US Food and Drug Administration. However, in early 2011, the FDA required that food or cosmetics containing the die needed to express it on the ingredient label.

Vegans, vegetarians and others were upset upon finding what they were unknowingly consuming. A company barista, who was vegan, alerted a vegetarian web site and sent a photo of the ingredients in their strawberry sauce. Starbucks released a statement saying they would be reviewing alternative ingredients. The press release read, "While it is a safe, sterilized product that poses no health risk, we are reviewing alternative natural ingredients."

Really Starbucks--why not just really go au naturel and cut out the dyes, whether "natural" or artificial, plus any synthetic flavoring. How about just sticking to strawberries?

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Who is the Real Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman?

After almost two weeks of seeing the innocent, smiling face of a 12-year-old Trayvon Martin, very different photos are starting to emerge of the 17-year-old. The latest photos of a more “street” Trayvon, show him sporting tattoos and a gold “grill” on his lower jaw, pulled from his MySpace page. In addition to MySpace, he had a Twitter account with username, “@NO_LIMIT_NI**A”. His mother is claiming people are trying to smear her son’s reputation, although stories seem to be balancing the story of a straight-A student, perfect child that his parents understandably want to maintain. It is a view of a teen who was having trouble at school who was suspended ten days in February for allegedly having an empty bag in his backpack that contained a pipe and marijuana residue. In fact, Trayvon was staying at his father’s house during the suspension.

Also released has been an updated photo of George Zimmerman, presumably by his lawyer. Previously, the media had shown (and in most cases, is still showing) a 2005 photo when Zimmerman allegedly had been arrested on unknown charges, which were later dropped. Once again, the media manipulates the audience by showing five and seven year-old photos, one of a young, innocent boy and the other of an unshaven man in jailhouse orange. Both photos were used to give a deceptive impressions regarding what each man was about.

Updated photos of Zimmerman and Martin

The media have ridiculed Zimmerman’s description of Trayvon acting suspiciously and possibly on drugs. Now, because of the suspension for drug paraphernalia, there’s evidence that was possible. Was Trayvon’s body tested for drug use? In October, he was caught in possession of a “burglary tool,” a flathead screwdriver and 12 pieces of women's jewelery that he insisted didn’t belong to him and had been previously suspended for skipping class.

Besides the race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, you have the New Black Panthers who put out a “Wanted Dead Or Alive” poster, offering a $10,000 reward for the capture of Zimmerman, who is in hiding and yet to be charged. You may remember these characters from the 2008 election when they were shown via video intimidating white voters who showed up at the polls. Of course, Eric Holder, the new US Attorney General, did nothing. In fact, only last week, a video surfaced where Holder spoke about getting women to brainwash kids against guns. A gun control lobby, The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, wrongly claimed that Zimmerman still had the gun used to shoot Martin.

The bigger picture is this: You would think members a race who were so clearly targeted with intimidation and public lynchings themselves a few decades ago would never stoop to the same level of hatred and rush to judgment. They are pushing the same vigilante justice they accuse Zimmerman of dealing. There are some cooler heads trying to reason with a better nature, including the Rev. C. L. Bryant, a former NAACP leader, GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain and Deneen Borelli, African-American conservative commentator.

Then you have director Spike Lee who idiotically tweeted what he thought was Zimmerman street address to his over 200K followers. That address turned out to belong to an elderly couple who have nothing to do with Zimmerman. Now they live in fear because of their being linked to the case and even having their address displayed at public protests. This is one case I’d LOVE to see go to court--I hope they sue the crap out of Lee and anyone in the news media who disseminated that information. Marcus Davonne Higgins, a 33-year-old Los Angeles man, who originally sent out the information should do jail time for not too subtle threats of, “FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT & TOUCH HIM” to his 4,000 ‘friends’ on Facebook and holding up signs with the address at protests.

And for all those trying to blame the right-wing for all this: Zimmerman is apparently a registered democrat.

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Obama Plays Race Card in Martin / Zimmerman Case

Obama inserted himself into another highly confrontational case this week. This one involving a 17 year-old black teen and an adult white/Hispanic male. Unlike many in the news media, however, this piece will not pass judgment on the guilt or innocence of either Mr. Zimmerman or Mr. Martin.

Last time this president involved himself in a police matter, he accused a white policeman, Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley, of racism when he detained Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. who was entering his own house, after a neighbor reported a possible burglary in progress. Instead of simply showing his ID, the professor became confrontational and was arrested for disorderly conduct. That charge was later dropped, but ignited a discussion on whether police were racial profiling. Obama criticized the arrest and arresting officer. The neighbor, Lucia Whalen, who had called 911, was also tagged as a racist, even though it was later shown she never mentioned the men as being black when calling 911. Obama had a beer summit--although he never apologized directly to Sgt Crowley for his remarks. He said he hoped it would be a “teachable moment.” (Lucia wasn’t invited.)

Now Obama has jumped in the middle of a fatal shooting. Trayvon Martin, 17, was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. That is not in dispute. What is disputed is if this was a case of self-defensed, as claimed by Zimmerman, against an allegedly unarmed teen. The media immediately portrayed George Zimmerman as the racist killer of a black teenager, who was merely walking home with a bag of Skittles and a soda. The media emphasized Zimmerman was white, even though his family said he is Hispanic. The police report also described Mr. Zimmerman as white; the media was either ignorant or chose to ignore the fact that often Hispanic people are labeled as white if they have a “white” surname. They didn’t let the fact that Mr. Zimmerman and his family identify with their Hispanic heritage get in the way of stirring the pot, claiming he was a racist, white man from a rich neighborhood who shot an innocent black boy.

Now, one day after President Obama inserts himself into the case by saying that if he, "had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon,” it’s reported police have a witness who backs up Zimmerman’s self-defense story. This, as yet unnamed, witness collaborates Zimmerman, who said he was attacked first by Martin.

In a partial release of a 911 tape, you can hear the operator tell Zimmerman, affiliated with the neighborhood watch, not to follow the suspicious person (Martin) he’s reporting. Later in the tape (not released), screams are heard. Although law enforcement believe the screams came from Zimmerman, it becomes a subject for debate on many TV shows whether it’s actually Zimmerman screaming or Martin. The witness claims that the screams did come from Zimmerman and that he was on the ground, being beaten by Martin.

The only thing that’s certain is no one fully knows what happened except Mr. Zimmerman and now, possibly, a witness. The media, who is fond of reminding us how we shouldn’t rush to judgment, certainly didn’t follow their own advice. If this had been the wild West, they would’ve been the gang of vigilantes out in front with the rope to hang Mr. Zimmerman from the nearest tree. They are the true racists, both for ignoring Zimmerman’s family and continuing to label him as white, assuming he must have been the aggressor and that the young, black teenager was a victim of “walking while black.”

President Obama is having another "teachable moment"--he's again teaching us he likes to play the race card. What he is teaching is to remind, in particular, the black minority of racial tensions, even manufactured ones. Like the case with Fluke, he's also using it as a distraction from his abysmal record: the economy, the failure in the war on terrorism and the Supreme Court about to weigh in on Obamacare.

The media also does not want the public to think of Zimmerman as anything but white; it makes the story more controversial if Zimmerman is portrayed as a non-minority. It would make things more difficult for Obama when he goes to court the Latino vote if he’s seen as pitting the Hispanic community against the black community. No doubt we’ll see Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the other media hogs racing to Florida to stand with the family in front of the TV cameras. George Zimmerman is in hiding, reportedly because of death threats. Rallies and prayer vigils are being held for Trayvon Martin and his family. Pressure to try Zimmerman already being expressed and could ignite communities if he is no-billed. But no one, except the families involved or the community, cares about future repercussions, not the President, the outsiders taking advantage of a charged situation and certainly not the media.