Of Pit Bulls and Hockey Moms

You know the difference between a Pit-Bull and a Hockey Mom?

Lipstick... Sarah Palin

This was, arguably, one of the best ad lib moments of the 08 presidential campaigns. If you do not count B. Hussien's stuttering and searching for words trying not to say what he believes.

I know that Palin has stepped down as governor of Alaska. I know that there is a lot of speculation about why she has done this. I will offer my own humble opinion in this article and do my best to support with facts the suppositions i will advance.

Look at the joke that was told by Mrs. Palin and that will give you a clue. The comparison of Pit Bulls and Hockey Moms was not an accident then and the meaning still applies now. Mrs. Palin stepped down in an effort to save her family from the Maelstrom that they were not ready for. Let’s take a look at some things that support this.

Google Sarah Palin ethics complaints and you will get around 744k hits. Of course this includes news stories and hit pieces by 'news' outlets from the huffington post to cnn to the major 'news' networks.

According to The Christian Science Monitor

Alaska’s response to ethics allegations and requests for information concerning the conduct of soon-to-be-ex-governor Sarah Palin has cost the state $1.9 million...

All 15 ethics complaints against Palin considered so far by Alaska’s Personnel Board have been dismissed, though one resulted in a settlement requiring the governor to reimburse the state for travel costs incurred by her family...

...the governor and her husband are struggling with legal bills that exceeded $500,000.

Yes, there is a defense fund set up that will pay some of those costs but it will not cover all of them. The frivolous and petty ethics complaints have become a distraction for Mrs. Palin and that is no way to spend the time of the governor. Then lets look at the jokes and stories told. there is no end to the hypocrisy and the hate leveled at not only Mrs. Palin but her family. SO WHAT if she has decided she no longer wants to put her family through the meat grinder that has become public life on the Conservative side of the isle. If that is the only reason then you have to respect that decision.

It is said that the Conservatives are the only group that eat their wounded. If there is an allegation of impropriety we resign. If we don't resign we are ostracized. If a Dem is indicted or accused of a crime that actually ENHANCES their resume. We have kicked out, shut out and ostracized so many effective leaders that we don't have many left.

Maybe she has committed political suicide, i am not convinced that she has. Is she out of the public eye? No. Is she through with politics? Maybe. I can guarantee we have not seen the last of her, not by a long shot, and those on the left are scared.

Sarah Palin's Resignation

I, for one, am sadly disappointed in Sarah Palin. Her decision to leave office was, in a word, dumb. It’s almost as if she’s in a competition to out-stupid herself.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a Republican. I was as hopeful and pleased as any of us that McCain chose her. I was thrilled to have her on the ticket.

But she was a one-trick pony and that speech at the RNC was all she had in her. From then to now, she has been on a long, steady slide into buffoonery. And Friday she hit the grand slam of stupidity. At a quickly and poorly arranged press conference, where state troopers oddly kept half the press away, she resigned her governorship in a rambling, disjointed and indecipherable speech.

Halfway through her first term as governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin is quitting, which makes me wonder who she’s spent time with on the Appalachian Trail. Or who’s blackmailing her. Or who’s offered her a million-dollar job. Or something... because there is no way on God’s green earth that what she did Friday makes any sort of sense at all. She gave no reason, she made no sense, it does nothing but make her look like a bigger fool than even Tina Fey thought she was. Part of me wondered if she was having a breakdown.

Let me repeat, I’m not a Sarah Palin basher. I was as enthused as anyone when John McCain picked her. The notion of someone who seemed to be a true conservative being on the Republican ticket was both surprising and exciting. I loved the fact that she was a hunter and an angler and a businesswoman, that she owned trucks and guns, that her husband was a real man and a normal guy. I was glad to see one of us getting ahead.

But she turned out not to be ready for prime time. She also took quite a beating. Seeing that she was the only excitement on the Republican ticket, the Democrat news media attacked her viciously. Following the It-Worked-With-Cheney plan, the Democrats made her personal destruction their strategy. They don’t refute ideas, they destroy and marginalize the people who communicate ideas. She was mocked, ridiculed and dismissed. At every turn, she was made to look like a joke. Unfortunately, she lived up to it.

And though the same Democrat news media had taken to calling her a leading prospect for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, she was never a contender, which was assured Friday. Who is going to vote for a candidate who barely filled half of a gubernatorial term? When a candidate runs for office, there is an implied pledge that if you vote for them they are actually going to serve. Anyone who walks away from office for no good reason, with almost half of the job left to do, is not a free spirit, that person is a quitter. And when that decision and that announcement are made rashly and without explanation, your temperament certainly doesn’t look presidential. To run down to the lower 48 now and begin campaigning for 2012 would show Sarah Palin to be someone who puts her own ambitions ahead of her duty, it would show her commitment to actual service to be pretty low.

There was a negative magazine article about her last week, and then a series of rehashed newspaper articles that talked about Republican sniping, but if that heat chased her out of the kitchen, she had no business being there in the first place. Granted, she made the announcement in the middle of non-stop Michael Jackson “news,” and on the legal-holiday Friday before Independence Day – things which reduced the amount of coverage she would likely receive – but being the second Republican governor to do something really goofy in two weeks is not a smart move.

And inexplicably resigning your office in the wake of the scandal involving the South Carolina governor is going to make some people wonder if something sleazy has been afoot. It was just insane. It mystifies the country, it cheats Alaska, it embarrasses her family.

I just don’t get it.

After two years of running a state that has fewer people than 87 American counties, she is packing up her hair spray and going home. I wish her luck, but I don’t want anybody to be confused about the future of the Republican Party. As much as the Democrat news media wants to appoint Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin as the Republican Party’s leaders, the people are its leaders. It’s not one of the preening many who will determine the direction of the Republican Party, it is the people – the plain old salt-of-the-earth people who belong to the Republican Party or vote for its candidates.

The Democrat news media wants to define the Republican Party as a series of politicians or pundits who can be ridiculed and demonized. But that’s not what the Republican Party is. The Republican Party is a collection of values living in the hearts of the types of people who made this country strong and free. The Republican Party is the living commitment in the American people to the values of the Founders of our nation and the Framers of our Constitution. It doesn’t really matter who represents or advances those values, just that they get represented and advanced.

Sarah Palin made a great speech at the RNC. If the months since have taught us that we don’t want a speech giver, they haven’t done a thing to change the fact that we liked what the speech contained. The Republican Party is about principles, not personalities. And though the personalities will change, the principles will not. At least not if the Republican Party wants ever again to be successful or useful to the cause of American liberty.

So let Sarah Palin be dumb. In a free country, you can do that. What we need to be focused on is trying to keep this a free country.

True local Hero in DesMoines

This guy is a HERO and HUMBLE watch these two videos and thank God that such men exist.

Sorry i cannot get the videos to embed and you will have to endure the adverts.

Video of the rescue

Interview afterwords

The Truth About Welfare

You’ve seen it before. You go to the store to pick up a few items, or to do your regular shopping. You get to the check-out and in the line you notice the person paying. They pull out this card. It is definitely not an ATM card from any bank you recognize. It’s a welfare card.

It used to be food stamps. Before the welfare department came out with these quick and easy (debit like) cards, welfare recipients were given food stamps. Initially, in 1962, the FSP (Food Stamp Program) developed by the USDA distributed stamps or coupons with dollar denominations that were used to purchase food. This goes back even further when farms had surplus. The concept of the “food stamp” came from using orange or blue color coded stamps that provided certain benefits. When there was farm surplus, it was given out as “welfare”.

The problem is that the program has changed and is no longer used as intended. The welfare recipient you see buying food isn’t making nutritious and economically sound decisions at the grocery store. They’re buying expensive, prepackaged foods like Lunchables, pizza rolls, ice cream sandwiches and candy bars. It’s twenty dollars worth of crap and extravagance, which, by the way, comes the tax money from people who originally got that money the honest way. They earned it.

The current welfare system is built on theft – the theft of money through taxation that pays for welfare, and the theft of self-reliance that is perpetrated against the “beneficiaries” of welfare. The ruin of America will be able-bodied welfare recipients buying pizza rolls and ice cream sandwiches with other people’s money.

Welfare recipients today, on the whole, are frittering away unearned money on foolish and extravagant “food” purchases - steak, lobster, subs, roasted chicken, prepared foods, chips, dip, soda pop, ice cream, sugar drinks, and expensive breakfast cereal - while activists go on TV to say that poor people can’t afford to eat healthily, and are consequently fatter, and need more government-funded health care.

What a bunch of malarkey. They don’t need more, they need less - of everything. If the government is going to feed those who won’t feed themselves, there should be significant and positive restrictions, to deter waste and to foster frugality. Teach people to make the most of what they have, not to blow their allotment on crap.

The fact is that, in America, people can eat very cheaply, but not if they’re buying seven Lunchables for dinner. Instead, they waste the money so generously given them on non-essentials and on expensive convenience or prepared foods. When you are on welfare, there should be no treats – just the basics - which can be tasty, wholesome, nutritious and inexpensive. A 20-pound bag of potatoes doesn’t cost that much. Neither does a 10-pound bag of rice or a variety of store-label canned vegetables. Round steak and ground chuck can be had fairly reasonably, especially if you buy on sales days and in good quantity. If you’re smart, a food dollar will stretch.

Welfare should be an emergency condition of living, from which you would want to escape as quickly as possible. By creating a false living standard and allowing people to live off the dole as though they were self-sustaining only encourages idleness and a lazy society.

The type of foods purchasable with welfare money should be dramatically reduced to nothing more than inexpensive meat, potatoes and rice, vegetables, bread and dairy. No extravagance, no treats, no rip-off foods.

Either do it by programming those cards to only pay for certain types of items, or by creating welfare sections in supermarkets, where appropriate generic products are available and can be purchased with welfare cards. Either suggestion would substantially increase the buying power of welfare recipients, or open the door to reducing the cost to taxpayers.

Even if a fraction of the money now wasted on welfare food could be recovered, the benefit to recipients and taxpayers would be huge.

We should abandon the ridiculous notion that the “dignity” or “rights” of welfare recipients would be hurt by restricting what they can buy with the taxpayer’s dollar. If they want ice cream and pepperoni rolls, let them get a job. It’s not that hard a concept.

It may also pay to look at going back to giving those on the dole commodities, instead of money. We know how to distribute rice and powdered milk to foreigners; maybe we should try the same thing with our own people. And we may also want to explore the idea of having them work for what they get. Welfare recipients can perform services such as picking up litter on the roads, sweeping the floors at city hall, stapling papers in the courthouse - anything to return the dignity of work to the culture of welfare, anything to help them bear the burden of their own support. The way we do it now is a shame.

It is an immoral disservice to both groups – those who have it taken from them and those who have it given to them. It promotes waste and fraud. It destroys dignity and builds mutual resentment. It squanders the wages of the producers to satisfy the rich and unrealistic tastes of the idlers.

What mystifies me is why the people who run our government can’t seem to figure this out.

Iran

I know, this has been here for a couple of days with no text. Kind of a reminder, a reminder to me that there are people fighting and dying on the other side of the world for what we are giving away hand over fist... Freedom. Not a very popular subject right now I mean how can we focus on ANYTHING but the death of a famous pedophile. Seriously what could be more important than a former star dying of cancer or a comedian dying of natural causes? Yes they were famous, in one case infamous, but they are people that have no impact on the world or its function.

There is a fight on the other side of the world in which people just want their votes to count. They want the freedom to select their own leader. Granted the supreme leader and ruling council have vetted and approved all of the candidates they were voting on but there at least was the illusion that the people were able to pick the man they wanted to lead them. Well that illusion was stripped away when the ruling council decided they were firmly in control enough that they could claim millions of paper ballots were counted in the 2 hours after the polls close. 115% of registered voters were able to cast ballots in that election. ACORN must have been manning the polls and registering voters.

Atrocities are being committed, People are fighting for independence and we are more worried about celebrity death than we are the struggle for freedom. How many of you remember the run up to the 1981 presidential elections? We had a weak president (Jim Carter) that was unable to keep our country safe from foreign aggression and unable to assert enough of a presence and project enough power that hostages were taken in Tehran, Iran and we could not get our people out. Ronaldus Magnus (Ronald Reagan) was elected and the mullahs in Iran decided they should let them all go.

All the blustering and threats came down to the fact that they knew they didn’t have the forces to stand up to the might of the US if we decided we were going to go in and take back what is ours. In Carter, we didn’t have anyone that was willing to exert that pressure. In Reagan we did.

So what do we have here and now? Master Obama, it seems, is just like Clinton on foreign policy in that he tends to put his finger in the air and do what is popular. This, coupled with his domestic policy of, apparently, destroying the private sector, makes this man one of the most dangerous in our history. Now we have a state sponsor of terrorism that is in the process of imploding and we cannot even voice our support for those wanting freedom. If we as a nation, cannot stand up and support the causes that deserve that support… we will fail just on the constipation that will result from the lack of moral fiber in our system.

PBS has Banned God

Given the piss-poor quality of just about all television programming, our family does, with great scrutiny, watch the Public Broadcasting Station on occasion. I have to be careful, however, with the liberal rhetoric on Sesame Street. I don't want to have to explain why Bert and Ernie are now partners. It's enough to try explaining the whole "Cookie Monster" confusion.

In case anyone is unaware, PBS provides some "educational" and science based programming at taxpayers’ expense. Basically, it’s welfare TV.

Well, in the last 10 years or so, PBS has been ratcheting up their liberal standards. The latest is their move to forbid “sectarian” programming. More specifically, they want God to leave PBS and head to the Internet. The new policies say if you are going to be a PBS station, you can’t have any religious broadcasting. PBS has decided that it will not allow its affiliates to carry any religious shows. If anywhere on their schedule, at any hour of the day or night, a religious show is aired; they are kicked out of PBS.

THAT color isn’t allowed in the rainbow.

This was an issue earlier this week when it looked like five long-time PBS stations were going to be excommunicated for having religious shows. In every instance, this programming went back for decades, but in the new world of acceptance, tolerance, diversity and multiculturalism, religion is, of course, unacceptable.

Four of the stations run what most of us call Mass For Shut-Ins. Every week, a priest comes out to the studio, says Mass, and it is broadcast. Traditionally, this has been for people who were unable to get to church, typically because they were ill or elderly.

Somehow, this offends the liberal minds at PBS. Somehow, an hour of that in the week violates their standards and cannot be tolerated.

The fifth station was KBYU – at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.

BYU is owned by the Mormon Church, and for years, KBYU as broadcast devotionals, and excerpts of speeches from the Mormons’ big twice-a-year General Conference. These are religious talks. They are broadcast in a community comprised of a very high percentage of Mormon people. They’ve been doing it that way for decades.

And PBS said it had to end.

Somehow, this offends the liberal minds at PBS. Somehow, an hour of that in the week violates their standards and cannot be tolerated. The new policy states that stations involved must begin the process of moving their religious programming from their TV product to their Internet product. That means that PBS wants the stations to figure out a way to get the shows off the air and onto the web. Instead of tuning in, they want people to have to click in, which, while terribly fashionable, is not practical. No matter what your 13-year-old tells you, people are more prone to watch TV on TV than on some other medium or device.

So what should we make of this, and what should we do about it?

Well, we should see all the talk about diversity for exactly what it is – bull crap.

The political correctness that permeates this most-liberal of all television networks demands what it is not willing to give. In the name of diversity, it enforces orthodoxy. Instead of parity, it wants priority. While preaching tolerance, it practices intolerance. Its species of inclusion does not include the mainstream.

A network that would angrily denounce any sort of “censorship” for its “journalists,” clearly practices censorship on its affiliates. While it claims to practice unrestrained freedom in its work, it refuses any such freedom to programmers or believers.

And once again, religion is discriminated against in American society. Worse, this discrimination is done at taxpayer expense. In a world where the marketplace supports hundreds of channels, PBS still clings to the lie that society somehow needs one channel to provide their standards of programming at the expense of the taxpayer.

Well, it doesn’t. Somehow Nova and Big Bird would still be ridiculously profitable, even if they lost their PBS welfare check.

The bottom line is this: Religious people should return the favor. If they are not welcome on PBS, then PBS shouldn’t be welcome in their homes, their pocketbooks or voting booths.

If PBS can’t give religious people anything, then probably religious people shouldn’t give PBS anything. Maybe it’s time to stop donating money and maybe it’s time to contact politicians and have them stop donating money as well.

Resist the temptation to donate during the telethons, even if they DO put the best shows on during their campaigning, just to get you to pay.

If you think PBS should ban all religious programming, then support PBS. If you think PBS is wrong to impose this blanket ban, and then oppose PBS.

It’s as simple as that.

Liberty

I would like to bring something to the fore-front.

Liberty's husband has come down with a virus that is suspected to be the H1-N1 or 'swine flu' and they are in need of your prayers. the kids are helping as much as they can but a mother/wife's job is never done as you all well know.

Update 6/17/2009
the verdict is in and it is not swine flu. that is a good thing but Dan is still really sick. please remember them in your prayers.