Getting out of bed is the first step to betterment.

“No more bed rest, going on errands for a friend or reading the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People to fulfill work requirements for welfare.

Under the law, states are supposed to have at least half of their welfare recipients in approved work activities or face cuts in funding of up to 5 percent. However, states have been on their own in defining those work activities.”

* * *

Government waste is everywhere. “Free” money allows for creative ideas on how to spend the Federal, or State tax dollar.

For instance, do you consider “bed rest” as work training?

How about getting treatment for drug addiction? Is that work training?

The time has come to reign in out of control give away programs that look good in press releases, yet harm both the taxpayers and the receiver of the government largesse.

Yesterday, Paul Harvey on his news broadcast (yes he is still around) had this article as a centerpiece–and he was laughing at the silliness of government “helping” people by counting “bed rest” as work.

Until government is honest with the taxpayer, why should the taxpayer be honest with government? Why should the taxpayer trust or respect government? The more the politicians promote this type of spending, the more honest folks will give up on the system. I believe this is one of the reasons voter turnout is so low, real people no longer believe it makes a difference as to who gets elected, government will continue to be grossly inefficient. (continue reading post »)

Less than a week after seven aspiring Muslims* were arrested in Florida as they plotted a massive terror attack on Chicago’s Sears Tower, hardly a word of the story can be found anywhere in the “mainstream” media. Nor was the event treated as earth-shattering news when it first broke.

Of course the liberal political machine and its media accomplices seek to downplay the horrific possibilities suggested by the incident, since doing so would not further their cause. The safety and security of the United States is clearly not high on their list of priorities, unless of course they think they can claim credit for improving the situation.

Throughout the Cold War, which was the last major threat to the future of Western Civilization, leftists ardently sought to undermine and ultimately to destroy any cultural and societal firewalls that might stand in the way of communist world dominance.

Fortunately for them, certain crucial institutions of the much-reviled “establishment” were unwavering in their dedication to the preservation of the American way of life, and communism was thus defeated. Leftists yet remain completely oblivious to the fact that, in the process, their own interests were being preserved and protected as well.

From Vietnam to Nicaragua to the massive American presence in Western Europe, this country’s efforts to thwart and stall the advance of communist tyranny proved to be the chief means by which Soviet dreams of world conquest were held in check.

Yet so far were these battles from American soil, and so obscured from the lives of the common citizen in this country were any accounts of the squalor and oppression inherent in communist states that liberals remained blissfully ignorant of the Pandora’s box they were attempting to open. They remain so to this day.
(continue reading post »)

AP reports: “A clash between police and patrons of an all-night diner here 40 years ago was once a forgotten footnote in history. For members of the transgender community, though, it was the start of their slow march toward widespread acceptance.”

And for special-interest liberal causes, the media continues its march towards hyperbole.

“Trans has become part of polite society,” said historian and transgender activist Susan Stryker, who spent years investigating the riot and making it into a documentary called “Screaming Queens.”

“You can’t be openly anti-trans the way you could before,” she said.

“Transgender” is an umbrella term that came into common usage a decade ago and covers cross-dressers, transsexuals and others whose outward appearance doesn’t match their gender at birth.

And the percentage of population to make this worthy of national news coverage remains insignificant. But this isn’t about news — it’s about the media promoting an agenda. To be clear: our position isn’t one of being “anti-transgender.” It’s purely a matter of disagreeing with the notion of establishing more “protected” classes of people. After all, in San Francisco, the rare conservative remains the only real “unprotected minority.” It’s life. We all must deal with it.
(continue reading post »)

This is a follow-on, of sorts, to Amy Proctor’s previous post. She makes several arguments, but one key point jumped out on me.

Amy asks this question:

“What is someone saying who burns the flag?”

As a military man, I have some thoughts on the subject and here’s my answer.

They burn Old Glory because they know that it offends so many of us to the core. If they were burning the flag in glee, I suspect it would be noticeable that the act is a happy event and a form of celebration. Yet, the hard looks on their faces, the venom in their speech, and the stamping on the flag in flames is exactly what it is — the flag is us.

If they could get away with it, they would be lighting us on fire and stamping us to death. That is what they are doing, make no mistake. There really is nothing there of any major substance, they just want us all to go away, die, expire, be null.

It is as basic as gutting you and I to the core.

And if I tried to defend the flag, which is my right and duty as a citizen of the United States of America, I would be arrested and thrown in jail for harming another person protesting. I am ex-US Air Force and I fought to keep the flag safe. No man, no team, no battalion is to leave our standard unprotected! If one must retreat, never forget the standard! Leave no man behind, and take our precious Old Glory with you — or be damned!

And, would there be any justice for me, the man that rescued Old Glory from being lit on fire and trampled?

Justice? (continue reading post »)

Because it’s like their job.

Reuters reports: “The municipal council in the liberal California city of Berkeley plans to give voters a say on a measure calling for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the mayor said on Wednesday.”

“A number of local governments across the United States have pressed resolutions urging impeachment, but the Berkeley city council’s goal is to be the first to put the issue directly to voters, Mayor Tom Bates said in an interview.

“This is basically giving the people a chance to talk, to join the debate,” Bates said. “The issues go way beyond impeaching the president. They go to safeguarding the Constitution. This administration has run roughshod over the Constitution.”

Cheered on by globe-trotting Iraq war protester Cindy Sheehan, who has moved to Berkeley, the council voted unanimously Tuesday night to have the city attorney review the measure to place it on the November ballot.”

As AllahPundit quips: “Gee, I wonder if it’ll pass.”

For sure, like gas.

By the way, did Reuters really describe Sheehan as a “globe-trotting Iraq war protester”? *puke* Obviously, they must be referring to her time hanging out with anti-American dictator Hugo Chavez in Venezuala or supporting military deserters in Canada.

Keep trotting, Cindy. Don’t stop. Don’t come back. And take more of your Berkeley friends with you.

UPDATE:
SeeDubya thinks “Berkeley is right” (heh)
ProteinWisdom: “The MOVEMENT speaks”

RELATED:
Berkeley Gives “Veterans Day” The Finger
Bay Area Celebrates “Liberal Bliss”

Technorati Tags: Cindy Sheehan, Berkeley, Liberals, Media

By one vote, the Senate rejected a constitutional amendment that would have given Congress the power to ban burning the American flag.

The following is a statement by President Bush:

“By showing respect for our flag, we show reverence for the ideals that guide our Nation. And we show appreciation for the men and women who have served in defense of those ideals.”

What makes burning an American flag offensive? Maybe it’s because the flag drapes the coffins of soldiers who’ve served under it. Maybe it’s because for hundreds of years men fought bravely for all the flag stands for. Maybe because we have such a rich history exemplified by the flag. Maybe it’s because the kind people who burn flags are also the kind of people who spit on soldiers returning from war, who run from civic duty and think being foul is being cool. Maybe it’s because our enemies burn our flag.

Or, maybe it’s because no one NEEDS to burn a flag to have free speech any more than I need to punch someone in the face to say, “I hate your views”.

It’s a slap in the face of Lady Liberty to burn a flag, and it’s always done by those who are by their “speech” saying, “We hate America”, yet they are protected by what they say they hate. The irony is offensive.

As a nation, we’ve gotten far enough from 9/11 that we can be jerks again. Who burned a flag after 9/11? Jihadists. Instead, as a sign of solidarity, love, pride and unity, we flew our flags here in America to show the world and ourselves that WE LOVE AMERICA.

What is someone saying who burns the flag? There is some speech so foul that it is NOT protected or else there would be no obscenity and profanity laws to prohibit speech that is inappropriate. If burning the flag isn’t inappropriate speech, what is?

Cross-posted at Amy’s Blog

Liberal activists dishonor pro-military ad, calling it “propaganda” and “trash”

The pro-troop organization, Move America Forward, unveiled a new television ad last week that thanks American troops for “a job well done” in the war on terrorism. The ad, entitled “America Thanks You” is currently airing nationwide on cable news channels (watch for it Thursday, June 29th between 5:00 - 7:00 PM Eastern on the Fox News Channel network during “The Big Story” and “Special Report with Brit Hume”). The commercial message has so far been seen by over 2 million American households.

The ad has created an uproar in the anti-war community, which is furious about the decision by networks to allow the ad to be aired. In phone calls, emails and posting on Internet websites the anti-war crowd has called the ad “propaganda” and say it shouldn’t be shown on American TV airwaves. Some posters have gone to the extremes, calling for the execution of President George Bush.

You can watch the ad for yourself and try and understand what exactly it is that has anti-war activsits so upset. Read a small sampling of the comments taken from the website where the ad is hosted online, to read the hateful comments from anti-war advocates. You can also post a comment to refute the attacks by liberal anti-war activists - just type your comment in at the bottom of this page.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, Cindy’s going on a hunger strike.

RELATED: These are the same people who…
Anti-Military Vandals Attack The ROTC
“Peace Movement” Is Not So Peaceful:
Photos from San Francisco
March of The Moonbats

Technorati Tags: Liberals, Anti-War, Subversives, Iraq, Military

via Newsmax:

“If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one,” a newspaper editorialized on September 24, 2001 — just 13 days after the terrorist strikes of 9/11.
. . .

That same newspaper has now betrayed the very operation it was then urging on the Bush administration. That newspaper, of course, is the New York Times, now rapidly taking on the role of Osama bin Laden’s reliable informant.

* * *

Publisher’s note: The Times wouldn’t have done this if Al Gore were in office. Instead, they’d surely be praising his valiant efforts at fighting terrorism on all levels, while at the same time single-handedly lowering the earth’s temperature to reduce global warming. That’s why it’s called liberal media bias.

UPDATE:
“That the press wouldn’t have better sense than to leak critical information on terrorists so that they know what we’re doing — that scares the devil out of me…

“In my opinion, that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy; therefore it is an act of treason … What you write in a war and what is legal to do for the federal government, or state government, whoever it is, is very important in winning the war on terror.” — Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.

RELATED:
U.S. Treasury To New York Times: “Irresponsible”

Technorati Tags: Homeland Security, NSA, Terrorism, NY Times, U.S. Treasury

You may have received these jokes in e-mail from your Dad. Someone at work may have said, “Hey, ya gotta see this joke!”

Well, here ya go, these just made me laugh! Gunn Nutt has moved to Semper Gratus, and posted these yesterday. I asked if I could steal ‘em and post here. Without delay:

2 Pigs in a Poke
As President Bush gets off the helicopter in front of the White House, he is carrying a baby pig under each arm. The squared away Marine guard snaps to attention, salutes and says, “Nice pigs, sir.”

The President replies, “These are not pigs, these are authentic Texas Razorback Hogs. I got one for Representative Jack Murtha, and I got one for Senator John Kerry.”

The squared away Marine again snaps to attention, salutes and says, “Nice trade, sir.”

* * *

72 Virginians
When Abu al-Zarqawi died, George Washington met him at the Pearly Gates. He slapped him across the face and yelled, “How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive!”

Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, “You wanted to end our liberties but you failed!” James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, “This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!”

Thomas Jefferson was next, beat al-Zarqawi with a long cane and snarled “It was Evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence.”

The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the terrorist Leader.

As al-Zarqawi lay bleeding and in pain, an Angel appeared. Al-Zarqawi wept and said, “This is not what you promised me.”

The Angel replied, “I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said?”

Cross-posted at Fix4RSO.com

When someone speaks the truth, he deserves to be heard. Below is a press release sent out tonight by Senator Abel Maldonado. In it, he clearly states that the just approved budget by the governor and the Democrats (with GOP votes to pass it) “moves California backward”.

I am a little surprised at this wording. The Governors Team has millions of dollars of ads on TV claiming Angelides would move the State backwards–yet Abel is now claiming that a budget bill, largely designed by the Governor, and soon to be signed by the Governor, moves the State backward–thereby nullifying the ad campaign of the Governor. I wonder why Abel is now taking on the Governor?

The Senator makes a very good point, this budget mandates a $4.6 billion deficit next year, after a $2.5 billion deficit this year. But, we all know that is not true. According to Senator McClintock, the 2006-07 deficit, in current revenue dollars is closer to $21 billion:

$2.5 “structural” deficit (fancy phrase for “they can’t control themselves”)
$7.5 billion “surplus” from last year
$10 billion or more in unfunded pension liabilities
$1 billion–or more in unfunded health care liabilities

On top of this, will be the principal and interest payments, if passed for the following:

$37 billion in the Governor’s Infrastructure bonds
$5.4 billion in water bonds (separate from the levee bonds)

Then you have:

$3 billion in solar bonds, passed by the PUC, not needing voter approval
$1 billion (or more) in revenue-leasing bonds for prisons proposed by the Governor.

Does anyone know of other bonds that the state will issue in the next 12 months? (continue reading post »)