Tag Archives: insanity

Congratulations Polygamists, Pederasts, Oedipalists, et al.: Your Case is Made, the Precedent is Set! Call the Wedding Planner!

By Gary P Jackson

In what is certainly the most egregious example of judicial overreach in our nation’s history, the Supreme Court created a “right” that has never before existed. [every state in the USA, and most countries, have put numerous restrictions on who may, or may not marry, and for good reason] By declaring marriage a “right,” The Court opened the door, not only for gay marriage, but for any and all unions that were heretofore unthinkable, and totally unacceptable.

Not since Dred Scott, which essentially said Negroes were not human, but mere property …. farm implements if you will …. and thus, had no constitutional rights whatsoever, and Roe v Wade, which was ACTUALLY about the right to privacy, but was interpreted as creating a “right” to slaughter an innocent child and call it a “choice” [which has led to the slaughter of at least 80 MILLION innocent children, including over 20 MILLION black babies, since 1973] has The Court got it so wrong, and the potential damage to civilized society so great.

As it did in Thursday’s ObamaCare [SCOTUScare?] ruling, The Court has essentially rendered the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, and the concept of state’s rights, null and void.

Full disclosure before we go any further. While I’m not exactly what you’d call an “enthusiastic supporter” of gay marriage, I have absolutely ZERO problem with allowing gays to marry IF it had been done legally, and with the blessing of the American people, not through judicial fiat and activism. In other words, a constitutional amendment that would forever define marriage.

Look for an upcoming post outlining a constitutional amendment that could, and would, satisfy most Americans and ease their legitimate fears of being persecuted for their religious beliefs, while still allowing gay marriage.

In the headline I mention polygamy, the act of marrying more than one person at the same time, and living in a plural relationship, not to be confused with bigamy, being married to more than one person, usually without the other participants’ knowledge of that fact. [though laws against this may be voided as well] I also mention pedophilia, and incestuous relationships. Many will scoff, but the fact is, the happy-happy, rainbows and unicorns, let’s all sing Kumbaya wording in Justice Kennedy’s majority ruling opens up marriage to include any paring, or combination of parings, one can think up. Wanna marry your pet goat? OK. How about your color TV or your toaster? Sure, why not! [you can thank Frank Zappa and Joe’s Garage for that imagery!]

Don’t laugh, in other countries, run by lunatics, people have been allowed to marry trees, cars, and other random things. Nothing like the government indulging the mentally ill!

And yes, the United States is run by lunatics too. The inmates have taken over the asylum!

Here’s the thing, the arguments used to claim gay marriage was a “right,” based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, can be used by ANYONE in a relationship that, until now, has been illegal, or otherwise forbidden by civilized societies.

Don’t laugh! People seem to want to laugh at and ridicule those who talk about “slippery slopes” and the “law of unintended consequences ,” but in most cases, we are usually right on the money. Sometimes it takes years to be proven right, other times we see it almost immediately!

For example …. Friday, while the Court ruling was still sinking in for most people, the left wing website Politico published an opinion piece by Fredrik Deboer entitled: It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.

The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.

Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.

That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.

In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?
Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.

Why the opposition, from those who have no interest in preserving “traditional marriage” or forbidding polyamorous relationships? I think the answer has to do with political momentum, with a kind of ad hoc-rejection of polygamy as necessary political concession. And in time, I think it will change.

The marriage equality movement has been both the best and worst thing that could happen for legally sanctioned polygamy. The best, because that movement has required a sustained and effective assault on “traditional marriage” arguments that reflected no particular point of view other than that marriage should stay the same because it’s always been the same. In particular, the notion that procreation and child-rearing are the natural justification for marriage has been dealt a terminal injury. We don’t, after all, ban marriage for those who can’t conceive, or annul marriages that don’t result in children, or make couples pinkie swear that they’ll have kids not too long after they get married. We have insisted instead that the institution exists to enshrine in law a special kind of long-term commitment, and to extend certain essential logistical and legal benefits to those who make that commitment. And rightly so.

But the marriage equality movement has been curiously hostile to polygamy, and for a particularly unsatisfying reason: short-term political need. Many conservative opponents of marriage equality have made the slippery slope argument, insisting that same-sex marriages would lead inevitably to further redefinition of what marriage is and means. See, for example, Rick Santorum’s infamous “man on dog” comments, in which he equated the desire of two adult men or women to be married with bestiality. Polygamy has frequently been a part of these slippery slope arguments. Typical of such arguments, the reasons why marriage between more than two partners would be destructive were taken as a given. Many proponents of marriage equality, I’m sorry to say, went along with this evidence-free indictment of polygamous matrimony. They choose to side-step the issue by insisting that gay marriage wouldn’t lead to polygamy. That legally sanctioned polygamy was a fate worth fearing went without saying.

To be clear: our lack of legal recognition of group marriages is not the fault of the marriage equality movement. Rather, it’s that the tactics of that movement have made getting to serious discussions of legalized polygamy harder. I say that while recognizing the unprecedented and necessary success of those tactics. I understand the political pragmatism in wanting to hold the line—to not be perceived to be slipping down the slope. To advocate for polygamy during the marriage equality fight may have seemed to confirm the socially conservative narrative, that gay marriage augured a wholesale collapse in traditional values. But times have changed; while work remains to be done, the immediate danger to marriage equality has passed. In 2005, a denial of the right to group marriage stemming from political pragmatism made at least some sense. In 2015, after this ruling, it no longer does.

While important legal and practical questions remain unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s ruling and broad public support, marriage equality is here to stay. Soon, it will be time to turn the attention of social liberalism to the next horizon. Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners. It’s time to legalize polygamy.


Conventional arguments against polygamy fall apart with even a little examination. Appeals to traditional marriage, and the notion that child rearing is the only legitimate justification of legal marriage, have now, I hope, been exposed and discarded by all progressive people. What’s left is a series of jerry-rigged arguments that reflect no coherent moral vision of what marriage is for, and which frequently function as criticisms of traditional marriage as well.

This is, sad to say, an incredibly well thought out argument, and one that can be made without the necessity of another court battle. Again, the precedent is set, not only for polygamy, but absolutely ANY relationship and union that has formerly been considered taboo and forbidden. Welcome to the brave new world where court rulings are based on feelings, rather than the Constitution, and common sense!

Let’s visit what Chief Justice Roberts wrote in dissent of the ruling, that strongly warns the ruling opens the door for polygamy: [emphasis mine]

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr. 23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J. 1977 (2015).

I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 6. But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

Think this is no big deal?

In September of 2014 a German ethics committee ruled that INCEST is a “fundamental right“: [emphasis mine]

Incest a ‘fundamental right‘, German committee says

Anti-incest laws in Germany could be scrapped after a government-backed group said relationships between brothers and sisters should be legal

Laws banning incest between brothers and sisters in Germany could be scrapped after a government ethics committee said the they were an unacceptable intrusion into the right to sexual self-determination.

Criminal law is not the appropriate means to preserve a social taboo,” the German Ethics Council said in a statement. “The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination is to be weighed more heavily than the abstract idea of protection of the family.

Their intervention follows a notorious case in which a brother and sister living as partners in Saxony had four children together. The couple had been raised separately and only met when the brother, identified only as Patrick S, was an adult, and his sister Susan K was 16.

Patrick S was sentenced to more than three years in prison for incest and the couple have since failed in their bid to have the guilty verdict overturned by the European Court of Human Rights.

The family was forced to live apart after the courts ruled that there was a duty to protect their children from the consequences of their relationship.

Two of the couple’s children are disabled, and it is believed that incest carries a higher risk of resulting in children with genetic abnormalities.

But the Ethics Council dismissed that argument, on the basis that other genetically affected couples are not banned from having children.

The Council said it based its recommendation on extensive research, in which it found many incestuous couples are forced to live in secret.

In one case, it found a woman was being blackmailed by her father and ex-husband, who threatened to depive her of access to her children unless she ended a new relationship with her half-brother.

Incest remains illegal in the UK and most European countries, although France abolished its incest laws under Napoleon I and there has been growing debate over the taboo in Germany.

Around two to four per cent of Germans have had “incestuous experiences”, according to an estimate by the Max Planck Institute.

But a spokeswoman for Angela Merkel’s ruling Christian Democrats indicated the government was unlikely to adopt the Ethics Council’s recommendations.

The abolition of the offense of incest between siblings would be the wrong signal,” said Elisabeth Winkelmeier-Becker, legal policy spokeswoman for the party’s group in parliament.

Eliminating the threat of punishment against incestuous acts within families would run counter to the protection of undisturbed development for children.

It’s not speculation that incestuous sexual relationships can lead to disability and abnormalities among children. Not just physical deformities, but mental deformities as well. Inbreeding was once the “in thing” among European royalty. Study up on the Hapsburg family. Aggressive inbreeding among this royal family led to a distinctive deformity of both the lips and jaws of their offspring, that still exist today. Inbreeding has effected the British Royals as well.

Included in the above article are links to these equally disturbing articles:

Marriage between uncle and niece is ruled legal by New York Court
29 Oct 2014

Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

10 Jul 2014

Father wanted over Australia’s worst incest case ‘hiding in UK’
30 Jun 2014

Switzerland considers repealing incest laws
13 Dec 2010

For those of you of the more libertarian bent, who are wondering why such a fuss, study up on the fall of ancient Greece and ancient Rome. Two civilizations that gave the world many great things and concepts, that crashed and burned because of their “if it feels good, do it” attitudes. These two great civilizations were destroyed by liberalism, of the sort America, and civilization, battles today.

Civilized societies have certain rules, norms, and taboos for a reason. These aren’t concepts that are willy-nilly and created on a whim. The need for these rules has been proven valid through thousands of years of human history.

America is the greatest civilization the world has ever known, but I’m afraid it is no match for the evil that is liberalism.

The slope is well greased, and we are about to slip down it at warp speed.

The American Experiment …. it was fun while it lasted.



Filed under In The News, Politics

Woman Who Set Herself on Fire and Blamed it on the KKK Remains in Critical Condition

By Gary P Jackson

Something not being widely reported in the America press is an attempt by 20 year old Sharmeka Moffitt of Louisiana to create a racial incident.

Moffitt, who told authorities she was attacked by three white men in hoodies, who then set her on fire, has been proven a liar, after the FBI had been called in to investigate a “hate crime.” Obviously the young woman suffers from some sort of mental instability. Who in their right mind would douse themselves in lighter fluid and then light themselves up?

It’s rather despicable she tried to blame this on whites, and a shame she’s burned herself so severely.

From Sky News:

A woman who told police she had been subjected to a racist attack in which three men set her alight and scrawled KKK on her car was lying, according to US investigators.

The wounds were self-inflicted,” said Kyle Hanrahan, a spokesman for the FBI’s Louisiana bureau.

Sharmeka Moffitt, 20, was seriously burned in the fire and remains in a critical condition.

She called police from a park in the town of Winnsboro on Sunday night and told them three men in white hoodies had doused her with a flammable liquid and ignited it.

The letters KKK, for the white supremacist organisation Ku Klux Klan, and a racial slur were scrawled on her car in what appeared to be toothpaste.

According to local media, investigators decided the burns were self-inflicted after finding Ms Moffitt’s fingerprints on a cigarette lighter and lighter fluid.

Louisiana’s KATC News reported her family had issued a statement saying: “Our family is devastated to learn the circumstances surrounding our daughter’s injuries.

While this was not the resolution we had expected, it is a resolution, and we appreciate the thorough investigation by the local and state police as well as federal agencies.

We are sincerely sorry for any problems this may have caused and wish to express our appreciation for the outpouring of love, prayers and support we have received from friends, acquaintances, church organisations and government officials.

The FBI was called in to assist local authorities because the apparent attack was initially considered a possible hate crime.

Classy response from the woman’s family, one can only imagine what they have gone through and are still going through.

This isn’t the first time someone has blamed an attack of some sort on whites, only to have been found out of having made the entire thing up, and created evidence themselves. And to be fair, there have been instances of whites claiming to have been attacked by blacks. Democrats pretending to be attacked by Republicans, and so on.

This is despicable behavior no matter who does it. It’s hard to imagine what kind of devious mind thinks they have to engage in this sort of behavior. It truly boggles the mind this woman would go so far as to burn herself up.

This makes it tough on people who are really attacked by evil doers. In her mind Moffitt may have thought she was “advancing the cause” whatever “the cause” may be, but in fact, she’s hurt the real victims of real crimes.

May God have mercy on her soul.


Filed under Uncategorized

Outrageous: Detroit Groundskeeper Fired After Properly Handling Loaded Weapon Found at Work

Groundskeeper John Chevilott, fired for doing the right thing

By Gary P Jackson

This is the damnedest thing I’ve ever heard of. A groundskeeper in Detroit finds a loaded weapon in the bushes, turns it into the police, as any good citizen would, but is fired for “having a gun at work.”

Of course, Detroit is run by radical liberals, so common sense need not apply.

This serves as yet an another example of why one should never place a liberal in any position of authority anytime, or anywhere. Nothing good comes from doing so.

The groundskeeper, John Chevilott, did the right thing. Some kid could have found the gun, and something very bad could have happened. Instead of being rewarded, or at least thanked, he’s fired.

A Detroit groundskeeper, who turned in a loaded handgun he found hidden in weeds while working, was fired by the Wayne County Department of Public Services, MyFoxDetroit.com reports.

John Chevilott, who is just two years shy of retirement, found the loaded snub-nosed revolver on May 3 when he and his crew were mowing a lawn in Wayne County. Chevilott secured the gun, waiting for police to drive by so he could hand it over to them.

But, according to the station, the Detroit police never did pass by, so Chevilott finished his work that day, drove the gun home and later that same evening turned it into his local police department.

He says the cops ran the gun and discovered the weapon had been stolen from St. Clair Shores in 2005.

They said I did the right thing getting it off the street,” Chevilott told MyFoxDetroit.com.

However, Chevilott’s superiors at the Wayne County Department of Public Services had a much different opinion. His foreman, who had knowledge of the situation, was suspended for 30 days, and after 23 years on the job, Chevilott was fired for violating department policies.

According to a Wayne County spokeswoman and the rules, employees aren’t allowed to possess a weapon on work property.

Chevilott says he didn’t bring a weapon to work. He found it on the job.

There is no policy. I’ve never seen a policy what to do if we find a gun out here. So, all I did was secure the situation to make sure nobody else got hurt or killed.

Read more here.

Chevilott did the right thing. The nut bags who run the county government did not. Anyone who thinks it isn’t a good idea for someone who finds a loaded gun to secure it, then hand it over to authorities doesn’t belong in the position they hold.

Same goes for someone who can’t make the distinction between bringing a gun to work, and finding one while at work. [and again, doing the right thing]

This is truly an outrageous situation.


Filed under In The News, Politics

Seriously? Obama’s Energy Department Offers $100,000 Prize To Create Mobile App That Already Exist

By Gary P Jackson

If there is any doubt that government is incapable of doing anything right, let this serve as a perfect example of why government shouldn’t be involved in most of the things it is.

As you know, at this point, there is a mobile application for anything, and everything. You name the activity, and someone has created an app that goes along with it. Not good enough for Obama’s Department of Energy though.

Instead of spending a few minutes searching the internet, the government drones decided to offer up a $100,000 prize to software developers to create one that will help people track their energy usage.

Never mind there are many such apps already in use. And never mind you get a summary of your monthly usage with your bill. Reliant Energy emails customers a weekly energy usage report. If a customer can’t track their energy usage using the multitude of tools already available to them ….

Taxpayers wonder why we are $15 trillion [plus] in debt. Stupidity costs, and these costs add up!

From the Daily Caller:

The Department of Energy announced Thursday a $100,000 prize for software developers to come up with mobile applications to tell consumers how much energy they are using.

But there’s already an app for that.

A quick scan of the iTunes and Android markets shows nearly two dozen existing applications that accomplish the same purpose — helping users keep track of their energy consumption at home.

The uMeter app, for example, allows consumers with Wi-Fi-enabled home energy meters to “manage and optimize their energy consumptions, in order to reduce their expenses and carbon footprint,” according to the description. Similarly, the Home Master app gives iPhone and iPad users the ability to control their lights and curtains from a mobile device.

You can define lighting scenarios and get real time information on energy consumption and energy savings,” the developers at Think Sample S.p.a. wrote at the iTunes App Store.

Facebook, the social media giant, released a similar app Thursday in partnership with the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council and software company Opower.

The apps Home Energy, Power Simulator, Our Green Home, pConsumpt, Electricity Cost Calculator, Watt, MeterClient, Saia S-Energy Manager and MEED also claim to provide similar services, and all were created by private developers, without the incentive of taxpayer money.

The Apps for Energy competition supports the president’s goals of helping consumers lower their energy costs and increasing public access to data by challenging our nation’s talented software developers to create apps that provide energy usage data in the most comprehensive and accessible formats,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement touting the competition.

Improving consumers access to data about how they use energy in their homes will help them save money on their energy bills and reduce energy consumption,” he said.

The apps would use information already provided by a group of energy and utility companies on their websites and repackage it for mobile devices.

The winning team will be awarded $30,000. Second place winners receive $15,000, and third place prize is $7,500. The Energy Department will also award applications that are built only by students. The winners will be determined by a panel of federal-government and public sector judges.

Shouldn’t there be minimum I.Q. and competency standards to work for the government?

I’m wondering if we even need a Department of Energy at this point.

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

Rubio Working on GOP Version of the DREAM Act for Illegals

By Gary P Jackson

Well that didn’t take long. Marco Rubio who is on some Conservative’s list as a potential vice presidential candidate, even though he says he’s not interested, is said to be working on an amnesty plan for the children of illegal aliens.

Just what we need, another program that rewards illegal behavior.

From CNS News:

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) says he is working to craft an alternative version of the DREAM Act that would allow younger illegal aliens who came to the United States “through no fault of their own” to stay here legally and, if they wished, get in line to become a citizen.

There is nothing that prohibits them from getting citizenship,” Rubio told the Tampa Bay Times in an April 3 interview in which he explained his plan.  “We just don’t create a new pathway. The bottom line is they would have a visa of some sort and like they and any other visa holder in this country can get in line and apply for residency. You have to wait in line but you get to wait in line in the U.S. legally.”

They would be here living, studying, working, while they’re waiting in line,” Rubio said. “We have a broken legal immigration system. Someone would say, ‘Well it’s going to take them forever to get residency.’ Well, that’s true of anybody. The system has to be modernized but that’s a separate topic. It doesn’t create a pathway to citizenship directly but doesn’t prohibit them from entering the regular pathway.

As it currently stands, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, commonly known as the DREAM ACT, which was first introduced a decade ago, would grant conditional permanent resident status for a period of six years to those who came into the United States illegally before the age of 16. After the six-year period, those eligible would be able to attain legal permanent status if they obtain an associate-level academic degree or serve in the U.S. military for two years.

The DREAM Act, while first introduced in 2001, has never had the support in Congress to become law.

Read more and see the video here.

In the video Rubio states there is “90% support” for this sort of amnesty for illegals. I have no idea where that number may come from. If support was that strong, this legislation would have passed Congress a decade ago.

I’m sorry, we’ve seen this movie before, and it doesn’t end well. Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Since that amnesty, the number of illegals have tripled. Yes, Reagan got hosed by the democrats, who never followed through with securing the border, and getting tough on future illegals, but frankly, Reagan should have expected no less.

We all feel for the children of illegals who “through no fault of their own” were dragged to America by their parents. But that is not the fault of the American government or the American people. It’s the fault of the parents who broke the law. These parents bear all of the responsibility.

The reward, of course, is these illegal aliens will be allowed to remain in the United States and taking advantage of all of the programs and benefits offered to Americans. This isn’t right. If they want to go home, and be placed on a list for consideration, that’s fine. But to allow them to remain in the country is outrageous.

Now if you want to “forgive” these children the sins of their parents, the answer is to send them home, but ignore their parents’ crime, and not hold it against the children if the apply to legally enter the country.

If anyone legally enters the country, there are already paths toward citizenship. Americans have always welcomed legal immigrants. They are all part of the melting pot that is America.

If America is to survive, we must secure our borders, and once that is done, rework our system of legal immigration. Make it more efficient. America simply can’t continue to allow citizens of other nations to come here, break our laws, and then be rewarded for it.

We also can’t tolerate politicians who would facilitate [and reward] more illegal behavior, which is exactly what something like the DREAM Act would do.

Senator Rubio and others pushing for this amnesty need to realize the serious consequences of their actions, and how something like the DREAM Act will be yet another magnet for illegals. It’s unacceptable and we simply can’t tolerate it.


Filed under In The News, Politics, Ronald Reagan

President Obama’s Latest Plot to Raise Gasoline Prices

By Gary P Jackson

This morning Barack Obama, standing in the Rose Garden, called on Congress to end what he called “subsidies,” in actuality, tax breaks, to the oil companies.

Now one could make the case that it’s not a bad idea to stop subsidizing, or giving tax breaks to a lot of energy businesses, but with near record high gasoline prices, the last thing we need is for the president to do something that would only cause those prices to go higher. You can bet any increase in taxes to Big Oil will translate to higher prices at the gas pump.

Let’s not forget, Obama promised that under his plan, energy prices would “necessarily skyrocket.” So far he’s keeping his word.

Thankfully the Senate voted and said “no thanks” to Obama’s plan.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama’s plea to Congress to end $4 billion in tax subsidies to oil companies was rebuffed Thursday as the Senate turned back a Democratic bill to repeal the tax breaks.

Moments after Obama made his election-year appeal in the White House Rose Garden, the Senate failed to get the necessary two-thirds vote to proceed to a measure that would have ended the subsidies. Obama had argued that Americans are getting hit twice — once at the gas pump, and once more by sending billions of dollars in tax subsidies to oil companies.

I think it’s time they got by without more help from taxpayers who are already having a tough enough time paying the bills and filling up their gas tank,” the president said. “And I think it’s curious that some folks in Congress, who are the first to belittle investments in new sources of energy, are the ones that are fighting the hardest to maintain these giveaways for the oil companies.

The Senate vote was 51-47, short of the 60 votes necessary. Two Republicans voted to procede to the legislation — Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. But four Democrats rejected the effort — Sens. Jim Webb of Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Begich of Alaska.

Prior to the vote, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell challenged Obama and Democratic leaders.

Is this the best we have to offer folks who are staring at $4 a gallon gasoline? A bill that even Democrats admit won’t do anything to lower the price of gas?” the Kentucky lawmaker asked.

Obama said oil companies are pulling in record profits and shouldn’t get taxpayer help when that money could be used on alternative energy. Obama, up for re-election, has sought to align himself with people frustrated by high gas prices.

Many congressional Republicans said cutting the tax breaks would lead to higher fuel prices, raising costs on oil companies and affecting their spending on exploration. Obama couldn’t end the subsidies when Democrats controlled Congress earlier in his term.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama would continue pressing for repeal of the subsidies.

That was an unfortunate vote,” he said of Thursday’s Senate action. Obama “won’t stop calling for this, it makes zero sense to have the American taxpayer subsidize oil and gas companies who are enjoying record profits.

Obama spoke before a crowd in the Rose Garden that included representatives from energy, business and environmental groups, as well as people who wrote on social media sites about how rising gas costs affected their finances.

As we know, raising energy prices also means the cost of everything else goes up. As transportation costs rise, so do food prices and prices on other essentials. So what Obama is proposing is going to effect every single American in a negative way.

One of the things Obama said in his speech today was that he was for “all of the above” when it comes to energy development, a patently false statement. We all know the regime has backed numerous failed “green” companies like Solyndra, Fisker, and of course, General Motors and the Chevy Volt. More taxpayer money has been wasted on these programs, and others, like ethanol, than the oil company subsidies. At least with Big Oil, we have something to show for it.

There is only one way to make America truly energy independent, and that’s to start using our own natural resources. We already know that we have at least 300 years worth of recoverable crude oil alone. We have like amounts of natural gas and coal as well. There is no excuse for us not to be energy independent. There also no excuse for the Obama regime’s misuse of tax payer dollars, rewarding cronies with Energy Department loans on projects that have no future.

I’m all for exploring alternative forms of energy, but the government has proven it is incapable of managing such an endeavor. It’s time for government to get out of the way, and let the free market determine what our best, most viable alternatives are.

BTW, it should be no surprise that Senator Obama was all for tax breaks for Big Oil. In 2005 he voted for $2 billion worth of the very incentives he now opposes. Check out RealClearPolitics as Obama’s Press Secretary, Jay Carney does a little shuck and jive for the cameras.


Filed under In The News, Politics

Shocker: UK Schools Ban Children From Making Best Friends

By Gary P Jackson

From the United Kingdom, a tale of the Nanny State going to far.

We always talk about the “slippery slope,” when expressing concern about government, when it starts down the path of social engineering. It started with not using red pencils to make corrections on school kids’ papers, because, you know, it might hurt their self-esteem to find out they actually had the wrong answer on a text. Then we stopped keeping score during kids’ games, and giving out trophies for just showing up. Heaven forbid we allow kids to learn the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat!

Now we have this coming from the British Nanny State. Schools are actually banning kids from having a “best friend” because they don’t want these children to “suffer” if the relationship ends. In other words, they don’t want these kids to experience life at all.

Thanks to the mental disease that is liberalism, we are raising a generation of kids that will be totally and completely dysfunctional in the real world. Absolutely incapable of dealing with reality. Thanks Nanny State!

Teachers are banning schoolkids from having best pals — so they don’t get upset by fall-outs.

Instead, the primary pupils are being encouraged to play in large groups.

Educational psychologist Gaynor Sbuttoni said the policy has been used at schools in Kingston, South West London, and Surrey.

She added: “I have noticed that teachers tell children they shouldn’t have a best friend and that everyone should play together.

They are doing it because they want to save the child the pain of splitting up from their best friend. But it is natural for some children to want a best friend. If they break up, they have to feel the pain because they’re learning to deal with it.

Russell Hobby, of the National Association of Head Teachers, confirmed some schools were adopting best-friend bans.

Read more here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Sarah Palin Not all That Pleased With Obama’s Insane Energy Policy [And Neither Are We!]

By Gary P Jackson

Energy is the lifeblood of any economy. No energy, no economy. Barack Obama’s energy policies, whether by design or sheer ignorance, will end up with America having less energy available, and Americans paying a heck of a lot more for it.

One of the reasons we support Sarah Palin so strongly is her expertise in the energy field. Her hands on experience is invaluable.

As Whitney Pitcher pointed out earlier, when President Obama gave his big energy speech, he couldn’t resist taking a shot at Sarah and her “Drill baby, drill” philosophy.

After hearing Obama’s uninspiring drivel, Sarah had a few choice words: [emphasis mine]

FLASHBACK: What We Were Saying One Year Ago About Obama’s Failed Energy Policy

It’s unbelievable (literally) the rhetoric coming from President Obama today. This is coming from he who is manipulating the U.S. energy supply. President Obama is once again giving lip service to a “new energy proposal“; but let’s remember the last time he trotted out a “new energy proposal” – nearly a year ago to the day. The main difference is today we have $4 a gallon gas in some places in the country. This is no accident. This administration is not a passive observer to the trends that have inflated oil prices to dangerous levels. His war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security.

Through a process of what candidate Obama once called “gradual adjustment,” American consumers have seen prices at the pump rise 67 percent since he took office. Meanwhile, the vast undeveloped reserves that could help to keep prices at the pump affordable remain locked up because of President Obama’s deliberate unwillingness to drill here and drill now. We’re subsidizing offshore drilling in Brazil and purchasing energy from them, instead of drilling ourselves and keeping those dollars circulating in our own economy to generate jobs here. The President said today, “There are no quick fixes.” He’s been in office for nearly three years now, and he’s about to launch his $1 billion re-election campaign. When can we expect any “fixes” from him? How high does the price of energy have to go?

So, here’s a little flashback to what I wrote on March 31, 2010, at National Review Online’s The Corner:

Many Americans fear that President Obama’s new energy proposal is once again “all talk and no real action,” this time in an effort to shore up fading support for the Democrats’ job-killing cap-and-trade (a.k.a. cap-and-tax) proposals. Behind the rhetoric lie new drilling bans and leasing delays; soon to follow are burdensome new environmental regulations. Instead of “drill, baby, drill,” the more you look into this the more you realize it’s “stall, baby, stall.”

Today the president said he’ll “consider potential areas for development in the mid and south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, while studying and protecting sensitive areas in the Arctic.” As the former governor of one of America’s largest energy-producing states, a state oil and gas commissioner, and chair of the nation’s Interstate Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, I’ve seen plenty of such studies. What we need is action — action that results in the job growth and revenue that a robust drilling policy could provide. And let’s not forget that while Interior Department bureaucrats continue to hold up actual offshore drilling from taking place, Russia is moving full steam ahead on Arctic drilling, and China, Russia, and Venezuela are buying leases off the coast of Cuba.

As an Alaskan, I’m especially disheartened by the new ban on drilling in parts of the 49th state and the cancellation of lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. These areas contain rich oil and gas reserves whose development is key to our country’s energy security. As I told Secretary Salazar last April, “Arctic exploration and development is a slow, demanding process. Delays or major restrictions in accessing these resources for environmentally responsible development are not in the national interest or the interests of the State of Alaska.”

Since I wrote the above, we have even more evidence of the President’s anti-drilling agenda. We have the moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico as well as the de-facto moratorium in the Arctic. We have his 2012 budget that proposes to eliminate several vital oil and natural gas production tax incentives. We have his anti-drilling regulatory policies that have stymied responsible development. And the list goes on. The President says that we can’t “drill” our way out of the problem. But we can’t drive our cars on solar shingles either.

We have to live in the real world where we must continue to develop the conventional resources that we actually use right now to fuel our economy as we continue to look for a renewable source of energy. If we are looking for an affordable, environmentally friendly, and abundant domestic source of energy, why not turn to our own domestic supply of natural gas? Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars, natural gas is an ideal “bridge fuel” to a future when more renewable sources are available, affordable, and economically viable on their own. It’s a lot more viable than subsidizing boondoggles like these inefficient electric cars that no one wants.

I’m all for electric cars if you can develop one I can actually use in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. But these electric and hybrid cars are not a quick fix because we still need an energy source to power them. That’s why I like natural gas, but we still have to drill for natural gas, and this administration doesn’t like drilling or apparently the jobs that come with responsible oil and natural gas development. They don’t have a coherent energy policy. They have piecemeal ideas for subsidizing impractical pet “green” projects.

I have always been in favor of an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy independence, but all-of-the-above” means conventional resource development too. It means a coherent, practical, and forward-looking energy policy. I wish the President would understand this. The good news is there is nothing wrong with America’s energy policy that another good old-fashion election can’t solve. 2012 is just around the corner.

~ Sarah Palin

As I wrote last year in an article entitled: Obama Asks: “If We Can Put A Man On The Moon, Why Can’t We Give Up Oil?” Here’s Why It’s Impossible, Obama’s blue sky, unicorns and rainbows outlook on “green energy” is right out of Fantasyland.

For one thing, after decades of spending billions to subsidize various “renewable” energy projects, we are actually using less, not more, of these sources of energy. In other words, they only exist because we waste billions of hard earned taxpayer dollars to keep them on life support. From the article:

In 1949 nearly 91% of America’s total primary energy came from coal, oil, and natural gas. The balance came from renewables, with hydropower being a dominant contributor. By 2008 the market share for coal, oil and natural gas, along with nuclear, had grown to 92.5% of total primary energy in the U.S. with the remainder coming from renewables.

Given the raging hype over renewable energy sources, those numbers, which are readily available from the Energy Information Administration, are remarkable. Over the past six decades tens of billions of dollars have been spent on renewable and alternative energy schemes such as wind energy, solar energy, corn and other biofuels, and electric cars. All have aimed at cutting our hydrocarbon use. And yet only nuclear power, which went from zero to about 8.5% of the U.S. primary energy over that time frame, has managed to steal significant market share from coal, oil and natural gas.

In other words, despite these huge investments, renewables’ share of the energy market has been shrinking. What’s happening? While conspiracy theorists may want to believe that Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Nuclear are stifling the growth of renewables, the simple truth is that coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear can satisfy the Four Imperatives: power density, energy density, cost and scale.

The Four Imperatives provide a simplified way to analyze the physics and math that rule our energy and its delivery, the latter better known as power. Before going further we must differentiate between energy and power. If you recall your high school physics, the definitions are straightforward: Energy is the ability to do work; power is the rate at which work gets done. Put another way, energy is an amount; power is a rate. And rates are more telling than amounts.

Read more here.

Like Sarah Palin, I’m one of those “all of the above” people, when it comes to energy. I like the idea of finding alternative energy, as long as it works, is cost effective, and doesn’t need a government subsidy to exist. With that said, there are very few of these things that meet that criteria …. yet.

In the mean time, back in 2008 The Kiplinger Letter published a report detailing just exactly how much oil we have: [emphasis mine]

The U.S. is sitting on the world’s largest, untapped oil reserves

— reservoirs which energy experts know exist, but which have not yet been tapped and may not be attainable with current technology. In fact, such untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand — at today’s levels — for auto, truck, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.

Read more here.

Bear in mind, that was written in 2008. Since then, estimates of our recoverable oil have been revised upward by a considerable amount. Whitney Pitcher covered this for us earlier: [emphasis mine]

As Governor Palin mentioned in her tweet, Alaska has billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. The Natural Petroleum Reserve in Alaska alone is estimated to have 53 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Arctic is estimated to have 90 billion barrels of oil and 1. 67 quadrillion (1,670 trillion) cubic feet of natural gas. For some perspective, that is 1,670,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas.

Those kinds of numbers make even Obama’s deficit numbers seem small! She also mentioned that other states have large amounts of resources as well. For example, the Green River formation in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah is estimated to have 1.5 trillion barrels of oil–6 times as much as Saudi Arabia. There are 3-4.3 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana. Those a just a few examples of the abundance of God-given resources.

Read more here.

I’ve written a lot about the potential of natural gas as a motor fuel. This is the cleanest burning fuel there is. There’s a reason why we can cook with it in our homes with no ill effects. The technology needed to run an internal combustion engine on natural gas is mature.

Compressed natural gas, as well propane, has been powering cars, trucks, buses, farm equipment, and more, for nearly a century. Rather than invest billions of taxpayer dollars on pie-in-the-sky ideas, we could start working towards a natural gas powered fleet immediately. Many other nations already have a good number of their cars running on CNG.

In fact, the timing has never been better. With modern computerized engine management, variable valve timing, and pressurized direct fuel injection, today’s engines are ideally suited for the conversion. Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors already offer CNG powered vehicles. It would take little investment to offer even more CNG powered models.

And for those who may be worried about the availability, the automakers have this covered as well, making duel fuel vehicles than can run on either CNG or gasoline. Hundreds of thousands of these vehicles are in state and municipal fleets right now.

Although they are expensive, you can even purchase a compressor unit that can be installed in your home garage. If your home has natural gas service, these units can compress that gas and fill up your car, saving you a trip to the station. Again, they expensive [around $5000] now, but as with every new technology, as more people buy it, the price goes down.

Oh, and with minimal investment, any existing store that sells gasoline, and has natural gas service, can install a CNG fueling station.

The bottom line is with little effort, we could have a truly “green” fleet, and we could do it using OUR resources, not anyone else’s. We could be truly energy independent. Oh, and natural gas is less expensive than gasoline.

In her post, Sarah talks about electric cars. These things are still glorified golf carts. For those that don’t follow automotive history, in the early 1900s, through the 1920s, there were several automakers that built electric cars. These were popular with the ladies of the day, because one didn’t have to hand crank them like a Model T Ford, nor did one have to deal with refueling and other concerns. These cars were quite plush, offering many amenities ladies of the day appreciated. Some of these cars are still around today and still in fine working order.

Sadly, after spending untold billions of dollars, today’s electric cars are not much of an improvement over electric cars that were built over 100 years ago.

The Detroit Electric, one of the most popular of the day, actually went further on a charge than a Chevy Volt will! Of course, top speed was a tad less back then, so one can say the old and new are about equal when you factor in that difference.

It’s insane, and insanely expensive. The Volt, a barely usable automobile, costs more than some luxury cars. Oh, you get a big government rebate check when you buy one, but we are broke, and that’s just more money we are borrowing from the Chi-coms.

Now the tree huggers think they are accomplishing something by being “green,” but the fact is, the electricity needed to recharge the batteries in these things comes from coal powered plants in most cases. If “green” is the true objective, then this is a huge failure at every level.

Oh, and no one wants these things either. General Motors has a long history of building niche vehicles that no one wants. The Volt is no exception. According to AutoBlog, the industry news site, there were only 281 Chevy Volts sold in February 2011. They also report GM buried this embarrassment in their sales report.

Nissan offers an all electric vehicle, the Leaf. Only 67 of those left the dealer’s lot for a new home last month.

Billions were wasted on these things. In GM’s case, those billions were taxpayer dollars. This is why the government has no business picking winners and losers. They screw it up every time. The free market would have killed these mistakes off long ago.

It would be one thing if the United States had no natural resources, and was forced to try radical, unproven ideas, and recycle century old technology that was iffy then and iffy-er now. That, however, is not the case.

Fact is we are setting on the world’s largest stockpile of energy. We have centuries worth of oil, natural gas, and coal. There is no reason why we shouldn’t be developing these resources. We could be totally energy independent in short order, if we had the leadership to make it so.

Once that goal was met, we could then turn our efforts toward looking at alternatives that actually make sense and won’t need a government check to survive.

Sarah Palin is the one showing the leadership we need. Our nation’s future depends on it’s energy security. Energy independence is the key. It will not only make the nation secure, and less effected by world events, it will create jobs. Good paying jobs.

President Obama’s agenda is one designed to cripple America and redistribute wealth to other nations. While Sarah Palin is out there saying “Drill baby, drill” Obama is meeting with the Brazilian president and offering them money and assistance so that some day, in his words, we can be “Brazil’s best customer.” What kind of nonsense is that? It’s certainly not Winning The Future!

Obama has failed America in every way conceivable. It’s time to start working towards putting a competent leader in the White House. One who understands what this nation needs to get us back on track.

Run Sarah, run, so we can Drill baby, drill!

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Awesome! The “Teacher” Who Confronted Sarah Palin Is A Singer In A Drag Queen Band!

(HOMER TRIBUNE/Randi Somers) – Director Kathleen Gustafson (left) steps in to provide harmony as Hedwig (Atz Lee Kilcher) polishes up his performance at Pier One on Aug. 28.

By Gary P Jackson

Yowsa! This is proof positive that there is a God, and he has a wicked sense of humor.

We just finished publishing a story on Kathleen Gustafson, the so-called “teacher” who was protesting Sarah Palin this past weekend in Homer, Alaska.

As we reported here, the video shows a gracious Sarah Palin talking to Gustafson, and in the end, both agreed they had more in common than different.

Frankly, this was the non-story of non-stories, until Alaska Mafia © member Shannyn Moore got involved, and the rest of the corrupt nation media tried to do a number on Sarah.

Frankly, we cut Gustafson some slack, giving her the benefit doubt, and putting it all on Moore, who is, well, batshit crazy. After learning these new deliciously delicious details, we may have to reevaluate the whole thing.

It seems our dear “teacher” is a radical, and a communist.She may have been put up to this by Mafia members.

This really is just too good to be true, but if fits in nicely with the fact that all of the Sarah Palin haters are just a bunch of loons. This is even better than deranged stalker Joe McGinniss, who moved next door this summer, or serial ethics complaint filer, and “cleavage monitor” Andree McLeod. Don’t even get me started on the rest of the Alaska Mafia ©, they are certifiable.

Anyhow, this is what one calls karma. Not just for Gustafson, but the entire Obama Media Industrial Complex. Looks like they all backed the wrong horse again.

From Gateway Pundit:

THAT WAS NO TEACHER… Unhinged Leftist Who Confronted Palin Is a Singer in a Drag Queen Band

The poor little unhinged leftists had their panties in a bunch today after Sarah Palin confronted a far left loon for her rude and aggressive sign in Homer, Alaska.

The leftists were outraged that Sarah Palin had the nerve to confront this angry “teacher.” Teachers should be respected.

It’s just too bad she’s not a teacher.

Kathleen Gustafson is a singer in a drag queen band.

Kathleen Guftafson is not a teacher. She’s a theater tech.

You just can’t make this stuff up.

UPDATE: The Palin-haters now claim that “theater tech” is the name of some class they teach in Alaska.
Sure it is… Keep spinning libs.

Oh, it gets better. From the Clarion:

In Pier One Theatre’s red barn out on the Homer Spit, there’s the daily drama of bald eagles harassing sea gulls and fishermen trying to catch a slender run of king salmon. Motorhomes slowly cruise by, fishermen head to their boats and campers relax around flickering fires. It’s summertime on the Spit — time to fish, time to work and time to play.

Or, time to enjoy another season of homegrown, locally produced — sometimes even locally written — small town theater. From Youth Theatre productions to outrageous rock musicals, Pier One has something for everyone

[ …. ]

The most talked-about play this summer could be “Hedwig and the Angry Inch,” written by John Cameron Mitchell and Stephen Trask. Directed by Kathleen Gustafson, “Hedwig” opened last weekend at the Best Western Bidarka Inn in a benefit for Kachemak Bay Family Planning Clinic. It continues July 13-15 at the Down East Saloon, again with proceeds benefiting the clinic. “Hedwig” opens at Pier One Aug. 28 and plays through Sept. 6.

Atz Lee Kilcher amazed audiences last weekend with his performance in the title role of Hedwig, an East German man whose father is a U.S. Army solider and who undergoes a botched sex-change operation.

I was stunned by Atz Lee Kilcher’s emotional honesty in this role,” Petersen said.

Kilcher is more known in Alaska for his musical skills. He opened with Richard Randall for Greg Brown, and has played with his father, Atz Kilcher, and in his band, Yellow Cabin. Gustafson said Atz Lee rose to the dramatic challenge.

He was constantly innovating. He never dropped the ball,” she said. “He’s got all the tools he needs.”

Never dropped the ball.” “Got all the tools.” The jokes write themselves here folks.

It continues:

Originally developed in clubs in New York City, “Hedwig” is a cabaret style play, with monologues by Hedwig interspersed with songs that range from rockabilly to power rock ballads. “The Angry Inch” is Hedwig’s band: Jane Ferman on keyboard, Jake Stults on lead guitar, Ben Gerhard on bass, Matt Farnsworth on drums and Irene Saxton — also playing the role of Yitzack — on rhythm guitar.

It really hits on the history of American rock ‘n’ roll,” Gustafson said.

Video artists Kevin Co and Kathy Brennan developed the film and still projections that illustrate much of the story. Gustafson said she’s looked forward to doing rear projection of those images to the Pier One stage.

We want to bring that energy into the theater when we get there,” she said.

A play about the son of an American soldier undergoing a botched sex change. Well isn’t that just precious.

Remember, this woman works in public schools.

As if it had to, this even gets better.

Gustafson is also the Co-President of the Kachemak Bay Family Planning Center, a pretty far left outfit that definitely looks to radicalize the youths of Alaska. (I know, who’d a thunk it!) Check this bunch out here.

Our sweet Kathleen also directed this little jewel: “We Won’t Pay! We Can’t Pay!” which is described as Modern commedia dell’arte by Dario Fo.

So what is this “Italian comedy” about? Here’s the description:

What happens in the middle of a recession when a supermarket makes a huge increase in prices overnight and the shoppers decide they can’t pay, won’t pay?

Well, in Dario Fo’s script, they leave the supermarket, carrying all the food they came to purchase—and more—without paying for it. The cops show up, and then—then things escalate!

It’s seems to be a fantasy about anarchy and lawlessness. Actually, a celebration! One can only imagine there’s a heavy communist undertone to this deal as well. I’m sure the “moral” of the story is capitalism is evil, and communism is the only answer.

It seems that Gustafson, and her fellow travelers have completed numbers 17, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 32, and 41 of the 45 Communist Goals for the Takeover of America!

These people who come after Sarah really are little more than cartoon characters. Dangerous cartoon characters, but mere caricatures of humanity just the same.



Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Oh No, Sarah Palin Rolled Her Eyes, Or Something

By Gary P Jackson

Just how insane are the Palin haters? On the moonbattery scale, this non-story ranks pretty high up there.

On Saturday Sarah was up in Homer, Alaska fishing and filming for her upcoming travel, adventure series that will debut in November on TLC. Oh, she took also took time to hammer the corrupt, lying media, Obama, and his Congress as well!

As you can see from the video above Sarah came across Kathleen Gustafson, a lone protester who had a sign claiming Sarah was the worst Governor eveh. Never mind Palin’s record shows her to be one of the country’s best.

Gustafson claims to be upset because Sarah is no longer Governor. With that said, her protest makes no sense at all. I don’t know about you, but I know that Barack Obama is the worst President in our nation’s history, and if he resigned tonight, he would have nothing but my undying gratitude!

Anyhow, as you can see from the video, Sarah was nothing but kind, and genuinely wanted to hear the woman’s story. In the end, they kinda agree on things. Bristol is a lot more animated in the video than Sarah. Probably just as tired of silly people as we are!

All in all though, the entire deal was what most normal human beings would consider a somewhat friendly exchange. As both Sarah and Kathleen agree, they have a lot in common.

Enter constitutional scholar, and crazed Huffington Post blogger Shannyn Moore, who calls Homer, Alaska home. Shannyn, is a hand picked member of Barack Obama’s Alaska Mafia ©

Shannyn, who reportedly pays the local radio station several hundred dollars a day to let her rant and rave about Sarah, fancies herself a genius, and immediately proclaimed that Sarah had somehow violated Kathleen Gustafson’s First Amendment rights by going over and being nice to her.

Moore then managed to call Sarah a whore on Twitter. Class act, huh? Mel Bryant over at Consrvatives4Palin has the whole pathetic mess covered here.

BTW, Moore, and her fellow Alaska nut job bloggers, also came up with the constitutional theory that Sarah had violated the law when she spoke to HER troops while visiting them in Kosovo last summer! Yeah, you heard that right, according to these big thinkers it was illegal for Sarah Palin, the Commander-In-Chief of the Alaska National Guard to actually address her troops.

One has to wonder what sort of psychosis this bunch would be diagnosed with should they be examined by a competent psychiatrist.

Now you are wondering why waste time on these loons, as they are obviously deranged and in need of serious help. Valid point, but sadly, Shannyn Moore and the rest of her bunch are the go-to guys the corrupt media look to for all things Palin, when they are looking for a new smear job. And, as the JournoList scandal proves, the media stays up nights looking for new ways to smear Sarah Palin.

Anyhow, when all is said and done, what should have been an interesting meet and greet between two Alaskans, that have more in common than different, has turned into an “incident.” Sarah’s latest “crime”? She supposedly “rolls her eyes” at Gustafson, when she says she’s a teacher.

The corrupt media has hit this hard. The idea is to push the nonsense that Sarah somehow hates teachers. Kind of an idiotic story line, especially since her dad was a science teacher, and well, many in her family work in education!

Sarah, who had to be just shaking her head while typing, weighed in:

There you go again, LSM

While filming the Alaska documentary in Homer, I had a brief discussion with a local lady who, in typical Alaska style, decided to give me her two cents worth about my political leanings, American politics in general, and much else besides. It’s what makes our politics so uniquely democratic: two people discussing the things they care about, even though they respectfully disagree about just about everything

The LSM has now decided to use this brief encounter for another one of their spin operations. They claim I – wait for it – “appear to roll my eyes” when the lady tells me she’s a teacher. Yes, it’s come to this: the media is now trying to turn my eyebrow movements into story lines. (Maybe that’s why Botox is all the rage – if you can’t move your eyebrows, your “eye rolling” can’t be misinterpreted!)

If they had checked their facts first, they would have known that I come from a family of teachers; my grandparents were teachers, my father was a teacher, my brother is a teacher, my sister works in Special Needs classrooms, my aunt is a school nurse, my mom worked as a school secretary for much of her professional life, we all volunteer in classrooms, etc., etc., etc.

Given that family history, how likely is it that I would “roll my eyes” at someone telling me that they too work in that honorable profession? Stay classy, LSM.

One good thing to come out of this little episode, though, is that it helps to remind people once again that Alaska is a great state full of independent-minded people. I look forward to introducing you to some of them in the forthcoming documentary series on life in Alaska! The show will remind you to get outdoors, breathe in God’s creation, and taste the freedom!

– Sarah Palin

Sarah really does live in the heads of the corrupt media rent free. Hell, at this point she’s putting down new tile, carpet, and looking at adding on!

It’s absolutely hilarious to watch these so-called “journalists” beclown themselves on a daily basis. They continually make a mockery of the entire profession.

On a more serious note, those groovy boots Sarah is sporting? You can get yours here. (H/T Stacy Drake)

One last thought. What if Sarah had handled Ms.Gustafson the way Marxist-democrats handle their constituents:

This reminds us, please be sure to visit Renee Ellmers’ website, www.reneeforcongress.com , and help her send the jackass in the above video packing!


Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin