Sunday, April 6, 2014

The French

Ive recently been having what to do with someone who originates from France. Jokes about France and Frenchies are always highly appropriate, but due to my recent camaraderie with a Frenchie, I'm on a bit of a roll...


 Q: What do you call a French man killed defending his country?
 A: I don't know either, its never happened!

Q: Why do French people always wear yellow?
A: To match the color of their blood!

 Q: Why do the French never perform “the wave” at a soccer game?
 A: Because, that’s a gesture reserved for use only in time of war.

 Q: What is the most useful thing in the French Army?
 A: A rearview mirror, so they can see the war.

Q: What's the best place to hide your money?
A: Under a Frenchman's soap.

Q: Why don't they have fireworks at Euro Disney?
A: Because every time they shoot them off, the French try to surrender.

 "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." —General George S. Patton

 "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." —Norman Schwartzkopf

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Fort Hood

Though we don't yet know the full story, I would like to point out that military personnel on the base are not allowed to carry weaponry. Only senior officers and MPs while on duty. This lack of trust is despicable. If they are good enough to serve our country they should be trusted with firearms to protect themselves. It is insane that even in bases in Afghanistan soldiers are not allowed to carry arms, thereby opening themselves to "insider" attacks...

Monday, March 24, 2014

Burning Bodies

Earlier today The Telegraph  broke a story that in England there were clinics burning the remains of aborted babies to heat the building. Any normal human being shudders when reading such a story. It makes one wonder where society has fallen? One also wonders what happens to the millions of babies aborted here in the U.S? Do they get the same treatment? The Kermit Gosnel case showed very clearly that there is littler oversight in the industry. Can it be our tax dollars are paying for babies - the most defenseless member of society to be both killed and burned? This story literally conjures up the Third Reich....

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Rand Paul Vs Ted Cruz

One of the biggest questions facing conservatives is who they prefer as the presidential nominee for 2016. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are definitely the two front runners. Chris Christie is a RINO who has lost a ton of support ever since he helped Obama win in 2012. Bobby Jindal is another strong contender, who will be interesting to watch. The main two though, are definitely Cruz & Paul.

Personally, I support Paul. The reason is that while Ted Cruz does stand for excellent ideals and will definitely make some big changes, I really doubt that he can actually change the direction of this country. Sure, taxes will be cut as will some discretionary spending. The military budget, however, will be increased to make up for any of those cuts. Essentially, Ted Cruz would be like any other republican president, cutting the left's pet programs while propping up his own. He will be a bit more conservative than someone like GWB, but overall he wont make any big changes.

Enter Rand Paul. Paul, like his father before him, truly stands for freedom & liberty. He truly aims to change the direction this country is heading in, and has the ideas and potential to do so. Shuttering the fed, closing the dept of education, lowering taxes, ending NSA wiretapping, reducing American imperialism. All the above will truly redesign our nation and help us face and be stronger to meet tomorrow.

Monday, March 3, 2014

Jewish Pride

Bibi Netanyahu always sounds excellent when speaking at the White House or UN. He stands up strong for Israel and says what needs to be said. If only his actions always matched his words.

(Though, I didnt like how he said Iran cannt have any MILITARY nuclear capabilities....That extra word there shows that Bibi's red lines are kinda similar to Obama's...)


Monday, February 24, 2014

Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The leftist media is making a big brouhaha about the recent amendment to Arizona's RFRA. They are completely distorting what the act actually is, and turning it into this horrible anti gay conservative scheme. To set things straight:

First off: all the legislator did was pass an amendment to an already existing law which allows people to turn down business due to their religious beliefs. Not once in the entire amendment does it say anything about gay or same sex people. To put the amendment in perspective:  It is saying that a Jewish person can turn down business which would involve working on Saturday, without having to worry about someone claiming discrimination.

Second: There is a major caveat to the last sentence in the previous paragraph. That is that even with the passage of this act, the "offended" party can STILL sue and claim discrimination. All this act does is offer a basis for the defense, which will then be up to the judge / jury to decide if RFRA was applicable in the case.

Third: Most importantly, this act does not discriminate against gay people, even if it was really the law the MSM makes it out to be. Looking at the two "famous" discrimination cases involving gay people: there was the photographer and the baker which refused service for a gay wedding. Repeat: WEDDING. Neither the photographer nor the baker had / has any issue serving gay people outside of the context of a same sex marriage. Being gay does not interfere with anyone's religious beliefs. Anyone can live their life the way they want. The issue arises when a religious person is asked to partake in an event which is against their beliefs, in this case being a same sex wedding. It is this that RFRA comes to prevent. It doesnt not want a religious person to have someone elses lifestyle and beliefs imposed on them.

I really hope that Gov Brewer has the cojones not to veto this bill. The fact that RINOs like John McCain have now come out against it is motivation enough to support it. While some conservatives feel the timing wasnt the greatest: I put this to them: If not now then when? Yes we are heading to 2014, but immediatly after that will be 2016. Every day that we wait is a day someone's religious beliefs are trampled on. That should never happen in the land of the free and home of the brave.

Monday, February 10, 2014

The Argument for Government Sponsored Contraceptives

Today at work, one of my coworkers found out that her 16 year old niece was pregnant. To make it more interesting: this girl's mother had her when she was 16! Her mom raised her as a single mother, living off of food stamps and other government funded welfare programs. Her now pregnant 16 year old daughter is bound to do the same. This all got me thinking: how would things be different if the government paid for contraceptives?

As a libertarian, the first thought is utter repulsion. The government should have nothing to do with such things. But after chocking back that thought and coming to terms with the fact that the government will be involved with people lives in a way I dont agree, it boils down to what is the lesser of the two evils?

Upon first glance, there seems to be a whole wide range of issues which would be solved if contraceptives would be more readily available. Teen pregnancies would drop. This would eliminate a whole host of issues. 1) There would be fewer kids raised on welfare, thereby saving the government billions of dollars. 2) Fewer teenage pregnancies means fewer single moms. Crime rates in both the African American & Hispanic communities would plummet, as kids would actually have some parental guidance. 3) It would lower the abortion rates.

Then reality sets in. Would people truly use the contraception if it were provided? I wager not. Most of these pregnancies are by stupid kids, and providing contraception would not change anything. The only people who would actually take advantage of the more readily available contraceptive would be people the likes of the woman Rush Limbaugh called a slut, ie Sandra Fluke. I see no reason why government should be paying for HER contraceptives, as there is no reason why she cant pay for them herself. Finally, the whole argument for the subsidized contraceptives falls under the argument Mike Huckabee made a few weeks ago, which the left tried distorting. The Governor made the argument that Democrats d not trust women to be responsible and care for themselves, and therefore try thrusting all these incentives and free programs at them. It is a very good argument. Do we really think these people are so irresponsible that we need to literally spell everything out and hand it to them on a silver platter? While I truly believe that at least in the two above mentioned communities, "rednecks"  and when dealing with teenagers that the answer is yes, the problem is that we are then back at square one. If they are so irresponsible, they wont take the stuff even if its handed to them on a silver platter.

The conclusion is therefore, that government should simply stay out of it all. No contraceptives, no welfare and no abortion. If people would know that pregnancy wasnt "disposable" though abortion, they would think twice before messing around. If welfare wasnt so readily available, more people would be working instead of slacking off, drinking, sleeping around, and creating more babies to be raised on welfare. I rest my case.