Banning American Flag Is OK On Cinco De Mayo

On May 5, 2010, four students at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, California, were sent home for refusing to turn their t-shirts inside out. The t-shirts each depicted an American flag theme. They wore them to school on Cinco de Mayo, a Mexican celebrated holiday.


School officials, fearing violence, told the boys to turn their shirts inside out for the day. The boys refused so they were sent home for the day. The parents of the boys sued the school and two administrators claiming they violated the boys' civil rights of freedom of expression, equal protection under the law and due process.


The case ended up being heard by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals who decided the school and administrators did have the authority to ban the t-shirts out of safety concerns of student violence. Apparently the school had experienced violent incidents in the past centered around Cinco de Mayo when students who celebrated America on that day were threatened.


The 9th Circuit Court, considered the most liberal in the country, declared that students' First Amendment rights could be suspended by school officials for safety purposes and that the school was within its rights to do so. They also said since only students wearing American flags were threatened, students could still wear flags from other countries, such as Mexico.


So a United States court decided the display of the American flag can now be overruled by the display of a flag from another country if enough people get upset about it. That actually sounds illegal to me. But coming from that particular district it's not surprising.


I'm curious as to why, if the school has experienced violence and threats in the past, that they allow the celebration of a Mexican holiday in the first place? Cinco de Mayo is the celebration of a famous battle that Mexico won over the army of Napoleon III back in 1862. It is mostly celebrated in the United States as a celebration of Mexican heritage. In and of itself I have no problem if people of Mexican heritage want to celebrate it. But when they act as if the USA is Mexico for the day and threaten fellow students who disagree it gets a little out of hand.


Dry Oak High School is a public school funded with tax-payer money. If the celebration of Mexican holidays causes such disruption then the holiday itself should be banned from the school.


Eugene Volokh from the Washington Post (a liberal newspaper) said the ruling is an example of "heckler's veto, in which speech can be limited to preent violence from a group of individuals rather than punish the individuals threatening the violence. He takes issue with the decision: "This is especially worrisome because behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. The school taught its students a simple lesson: If you dislike speech and want it suppressed then you can get what you want by threatening violence against the speakers. The school will cave in, the speakers will be shut up, and you and your ideology will win. When thuggery pays the result is more thuggery. Is that the education we want our students to be getting?"


I must agree. Did the boys in question wear the t-shirts to cause tension? Probably. Should they have a right to display American flags on Cinco de Mayo in the United States of America? Absolutely. Are there more problems between Hispanic students and non-Hispanic students at that high school than just a disagreement on Cinco de Mayo? I would bet on it.

Organizing For America... 'Doing God's Work"??

On Tuesday, President Obama spoke to a gathering of Organizing For America members - a liberal, Obama supporting crowd that he has recruited to help him "spread the good news" about Obamacare. In his remarks to them the President said "You reach out to your Republican friend who can’t stand Obama, but is basically a nice person, but you know, they watch the wrong newscast. We’re going to make a big push these last few weeks. But as I said, I can talk, my team can talk here in Washington, but it’s not going to make as much of a difference as if you aren’t out there making the case. The work you’re doing is God’s work. It is hard work. You don’t have the prerogative to just go around and say no to everything. You don’t have the prerogative to just be cynical. You don’t think that the country moves forward just on its own. You understand that it happens because ordinary people come together to do some extraordinary things."

Doing God's work? Which God would that be? I'm pretty sure our Heavenly Father has bigger things to worry about than backing Obama and his disastrous health care law. Or maybe, since he was talking to his followers about his signature law, he was referencing himself as God. He's definitely a full blown narcissist so is it unfathomable that he would consider himself a god when talking to his loyal followers? Either way, invoking God's name in association with Obamacare is blasphemous.

And speaking of idiots in Washington - Senate Majority Leader and pompous birdbrain Harry Reid said yesterday that the horror stories of people losing their insurance coverage or having to pay higher premiums because of Obamacare are simply untrue. Harry says if you tell people your premiums went up or you lost your coverage you're a liar. I guess that includes MSNBC (All Barack All The Time) host Dylan Ratigan. Hmmm - seems to me he is (or maybe was) an Obama supporter. So he's lying too? What possible reason could he have to do that?

In other news - Arizona Governor Jan Brewer yesterday, to the disappointment of millions of conservatives nationwide, vetoed the religious freedom bill that was offered in that state. Brewer, who came under intense pressure from LGBT groups, liberals nationwide and even the National Football League, who threatened to move the Superbowl from Arizona if the governor signed the bill into law. (I find it interesting but not surprising that a national sports organization is throwing its weight around in the political arena. But that's another story.)

As I listened to the Mark Davis radio show this morning he brought up a couple of interesting points that question the "fairness" of the attitude of the left on this topic. The left doesn't believe that businesses owned and operated should be allowed to refuse service to anyone based on the business owners' religious beliefs. Let's go with that for a minute. 

In Colorado recently a Christian man who owns a bakery refused to make a wedding cake for two gay men because he said he does not support gay marriage based on his Biblical beliefs. The couple sued and a judge ordered the baker to make the cake for the couple. In New Mexico a Christian photographer declined to photograph a wedding between two women for the same reason. The photographer lost her case also with a written concurrence accompanying the decision that said the woman and her business partner husband “...now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,” adding “it is the price of citizenship.”

“The idea that free people can be ‘compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives’ as the ‘price of citizenship’ is a chilling and unprecedented attack on freedom,” says senior counsel Jordan Lorence. “We are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to make it clear that no American has to abandon their constitutionally protected freedoms just to make a living. No American should be punished or put out of business simply for disagreeing with the government’s opinion on a moral issue.”

That case is still pending.

Mark Davis made a couple of points that bear contemplation. If a member of the Westboro Baptist Church went into a printing shop owned and operated by a homosexual man or woman and asked for some signs to be made up that said "God Hates Homos" would the printing shop happily say "We'll have them ready by tomorrow,"? Of course not. The printing shop would refuse and most likely ask the customer to leave the shop and never return. And rightfully so. But if Westboro Church sued the owner(s) for refusing them service do you think they'd win in court? Of course not. The court would find the request for the signs atrocious and throw the case out. But according to the decisions in Colorado and New Mexico that would be a double standard.

Example two given by Mark Davis - again far fetched but certainly possible. If an American Nazi went into a Jewish owned printer and asked for some celebratory signs for their upcoming party commemorating Adolph Hitler and the Jewish printer refused to make them - would the court compel the printer to make them anyway? Certainly not without a huge public outcry. Then again - the liberal court today might just find for the plaintiff on that one. One never knows.

On another show I heard a different and more prudent example of the hypocrisy when it comes to religious freedom in this country. In Illinois recently the FBI indicted a beverage distribution company for firing two workers who refused to deliver alcoholic beverages to businesses because their religious beliefs forbid them to use or even touch alcohol. It was determined that the company violated the religious rights of the two workers because they were fired for refusing to perform one of their required duties because of their religious beliefs. Would it surprise anyone to learn these two workers are Muslims?

Just one more example of the religious rights of Muslims being upheld and the religious rights of Christians being tossed aside. Why is it only one religion in the USA seems to have protected rights these days? Could it be because of the statement: "They [Muslims] have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Another Darwin Award...

A man from Independence Township, Michigan, is certain to become a nominee for a Darwin Award. In their own words "The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally remove themselves from it."

The man, who has not yet been named by police, left this world on Monday after shooting himself in the head with a loaded pistol.

According to the man's girlfriend he was giving her a demonstration on gun safety - showing her that an unloaded weapon cannot fire. He pointed each of three pistols at his head and pulled the trigger. It seems his demonstration was successful the first two times however, the third pistol was still loaded and the man fired a bullet into his head. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

The girlfriend said the man had been drinking most of the day prior to the demonstration. There were three children, ages 7, 10 and 12, in the home at the time but apparently they were not in the gun safety class.

According to the Huffington Post, incidents like this happen more often than one might think. There were similar incidents reported in 2013 and 2012 and 2009. The one in 2012 also involved a man from Michigan.

That's almost as funny as the suicide bombing instructor in Iraq who blew himself and his entire class up last week during a demonstration. But not quite. That instructor is my nominee for top honors in 2014 - at least so far.

(If you have never read the Darwin Awards and learned about the winners do yourself a favor and check out their web page. I guarantee you will find something there that will amuse you.)

In other weird news - two men in New York have been arrested for sexual misconduct. A farmer in Herkimer County, New York, said his cows seemed more restless than usual and weren't giving as much milk as they normally did. He set up a video camera to see if he could figure out the problem.

The video revealed 31 year old Reid Fontaine attempting to have sex with three different cows while Michael Jones, 35, filmed the encounters. The farmer turned the video over to police who arrested the two on misdemeanor sex charges. It seems everyone needs security cameras these days.

And finally - we knew it had to happen sooner or later. The legalization of marijuana, both recreational and/or medical, is becoming more popular with Americans. Several states have legalized it for medical use only and two, Colorado and Washington, have legalized it for recreational use.

Stores that sell marijuana have opened in the two states where it is legal. Medical marijuana dispensaries have opened in the states that have legalized it for medical purposes.

One very bright, 13 year old Girl Scout took full advantage of having a medical marijuana dispensary nearby. Danielle Lei set up a table to sell Girl Scout cookies on the sidewalk outside a San Francisco dispensary and within a mere two hours sold 117 boxes of cookies! It's the second time she has sold cookies outside a Green Cross medical marijuana dispensary. (For the record some of the dispensary employees bought cookies too.)

Dispensary employees posted about the girl and her sales tactic on Facebook. They joke about it - even making a play on "The Most Interesting Man In The World" advertising campaign. That post says “I don’t always buy Girl Scout cookies but when I do, I buy them from the genius outside the Green Cross pot dispensary.”

Selling cookies outside a marijuana dispensary is a brilliant idea but Danielle may just have a bright future in sales. She set up a table outside a Safeway grocery store and sold 80 boxes in the same amount of time. When you're a good sales person with a good product you can be very successful. But when you're a good sales person selling great cookies outside a pot dispensary apparently you can be even more successful!

Democrat Changes To Procedure Could Be Good For Republicans In The Future

Apparently President Obama's penchant for enforcing only laws that he agrees with and ignoring or changing those he disagrees with (or those which will negatively effect the outcome of an upcoming election) is spreading throughout his administration.

Seemingly emboldened by the lack of any challenges by lawmakers in Washington Eric Holder has taken lawless corruption to a new level. In a New York Times interview published Monday, the U.S. Attorney General said that state attorneys general aren’t required to defend laws they consider discriminatory, including bans on same-sex marriage.

“Engaging in that process and making that determination is something that’s appropriate for an attorney general to do,” Holder told the Times.

A search on the job description/duties of an Attorney General provided the following:

The title attorney general often describes the chief law enforcement officer in government, whether it be on the federal, state or local level. The attorney general also acts as the country's representative in legal matters and as the lead legal counsel for his government.

At the federal level, the attorney general often gives advice and opinions to the president and other federal departments. The attorney general also manages what is considered one of the world's largest law offices and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.

The position of U.S. Attorney General is a political position appointed by the President. The job description does say you must possess a law degree to be the Attorney General so Holder probably has one. Nowhere in that job description does it say the Attorney General, at any level, has the authority to change or ignore laws they disagree with. But like the President, Eric Holder has decided not only that he can do it but that all attorneys general can follow suit.

I must have missed the part of the job description that says the Attorney General, or the President for that matter, has the authority to change or ignore laws they disagree with. Come to think of it - that's not in the Constitution either. And silly me - I have always believed that if a law needs to be changed or eliminated that it had to go through the House for that to happen. 

In my humble and often understated opinion that should be an impeachable offense - for both the President and the Attorney General. Except Republicans in Washington are cowards and don't have the courage to impeach the first black President. They might eventually find the courage to impeach Holder but I actually doubt that will happen either. The main stream media will make them out to be racists and and make people believe it's about color rather than ineptitude and corruption.

I certainly hope when Republicans regain control of the White House that liberals remember what new authority Obama and Holder have given to the President and Attorney General. The ability of the President and Attorney General to write, change and ignore certain laws of the land will make things more interesting all the way around. Just like the removal of the filibuster by Harry Reid could work out well for Republicans after they regain control in November. 

Anyone want to bet the same liberals who support those changes now will be screaming about how unfair those changes are then?

1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, And Chuck Hagel - Some Thoughts On A Tuesday...

I read an article yesterday about a man in Texas who was turned away from a voting place because of a t-shirt he was wearing.

According to the article, Chris Driskill was in violation of Texas Election Code section 85.036, which states that “a person may not electioneer for or against any candidate, measure, or political party” in or within 100 feet of a voting location. The violation? Driskill was wearing a t-shirt that said “Second Amendment – 1789 – America’s Original Homeland Security.”

It seems wearing a logo on your shirt that speaks of the Constitution and a law that has been in effect for over 200 years somehow violates that particular section of Texas voting codes because... ? Frankly, I can't figure out how it violates anything unless one interprets pro-Second Amendment ideology to be Republican. But there are many Democrats who also believe in the Second Amendment so that doesn't quite fly. I hope Mr. Driskill follows up on this and makes public the specific reason he was prevented from voting.

Meanwhile, in National City, California, the owner of a tactical store that sells various parts and supplies for tactical weapons, has been threatened with fines and jail time if he does not remove his store sign that contains a picture of an AR-15. According to Dimitri Karces, a Marine veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan and CEO of Ares Armor, a uniformed police officer stopped outside the store one day and began taking pictures of the sign and the store. Karces invited the officer and his partner inside to look around and take all the pictures they wanted, which they did. One of the officers told Karces the city basically doesn't like guns and doesn't like Karces' business. They want him gone.

Video taken by employees shows unmarked police vehicles stopping to watch the store, only to drive away when they realize they are being filmed. Eventually the city sent Karces a letter threatening to fine him and put him in jail until the sign is removed. Karces says there are no laws on the books prohibiting the sign. He has already spent $10,000 defending his right to keep the sign. He says the community at large supports him and for that he is grateful.

I sent an e-mail to the National City Council last night telling them that as a concerned citizen I wanted to know how they were going to arrest and jail the owner of that horrible store since he didn't seem to be breaking any laws. Figured supporting them might be the best way to get an answer. I doubt they'll respond but if they do I'll post it.

People being threatened with jail time for a sign? How did we get there?

In other news, 87 year old Democrat Representative John Dingle, (MI), has announced he will not seek re-election in November. Dingle, the longest serving official in Washington, is in his 59th year of office. He has been re-elected 28 times.

While all of that is noteworthy, I believe it helps solidify the argument for term limits. I personally don't believe anyone should hold elected office for an indefinite period of time. We all know how corrupt and mostly worthless elected officials get as time goes on. Dingle, who has been serving for more years than I have been alive, has decided he doesn't want to die in office. I think it's a good move.

And finally, in the wake of the recently passed budget bill that cut military benefits, our Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has proposed even more cuts to our defense spending that will not only reduce benefits even more but will also reduce the troop numbers to pre-World War II levels.

Most Defense Secretaries try to do what is best for the troops under them. Hagel is doing his best to destroy our military and our national security. As one friend put it this morning: "Washington is trying to balance the budget on the backs of those who have sacrificed the most."

And that is so true. We owe these people everything and now we have the Secretary of Defense (Democrats in general and even some Republicans) wanting to take more away from them. It's hard enough for me to understand why so many military families qualify for food stamps, let alone why they aren't some of the best cared for people in the nation. Our elected officials sit in their Washington offices or in the Houses and bloviate all day and collect over $200,000 a year in salaries and benefits. The closest they come to danger is in their cars on the way to and from work.

Our military men and women put their lives on the line every day for us (even for those same elected officials) and many of their families get food stamps because their salaries aren't enough to pay the bills. And the Obama-appointed head of the Defense Department wants to cut more of their benefits and reduce any pay raise they might get. It boggles the mind.

As fed up as I am with the Republican Party these days I still believe that the only way to get this nation back on track is for the Republicans to sweep the November elections, take over the Senate and render Obama useless for the next three years. Then, in 2016, we need to elect a Republican, Libertarian or Independent President (anyone but Hillary or another Democrat) and begin reversing the many asinine policies and practices put in place by the Democrats over the last five years. It's the only way we'll survive as a nation.

For I Was Hungry And You Gave Me Something To Eat...

In 2012, Chik-Fil-A restaurant made national headlines when their company president, Dan Cathy, professed his belief in traditional, Biblical marriage. Cathy professed his belief in Biblical teachings about marriage and was immediately branded a bigot by the left-wing media, liberals and gays around the country. The coverage went on for weeks.

GLAAD and other gay and liberal organizations tried a boycott of the restaurants and demonstrated in Chik-Fil-A's all across the country. But it didn't really have much effect. In fact, when conservatives and Christians demonstrated in favor of the Christian based company Chik-Fil-A had a world record sales day. There were lines around most of the restaurants in the country and many of them sold out of food that day.

There hasn't been much mentioned about Chik-Fil-A by the main stream media since then. So it's no surprise that many news outlets didn't bother to mention something done by one Chik-Fil-A restaurant during a recent emergency that demonstrated their Christian beliefs very clearly.

During the recent snow and ice storm across the South one Chik-Fil-A restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama, went out of their way to help their fellow man in a very Christian way. Chik-Fil-A owner Mark Meadows closed the restaurant early that day so his employees could go home. But it was quickly discovered that no one was going anywhere. Cars on the highways in Birmingham were stranded and the freeways were jammed up and not moving. People were stranded where they were - some in buildings but many in vehicles on the roadways.

The manager of the restaurant, Audrey Pitt, described the conditions: “Our store is about a mile and a half from the interstate and it took me two hours to get there. It was a parking lot as far as I could see. At one point there were more people walking than driving.”

Some of the people along the highway near the restaurant had been stuck up to seven hours. Since they couldn't go home, Meadows and his staff went to work instead. They fired the kitchen back up and began preparing chicken sandwiches as quickly as they could. When they had several hundred meals ready they went out into the storm and began handing out hot meals to the stranded motorists on both sides of highway 280. 

Some drivers tried to pay for their meals but Meadows and his staff refused to accept any money. Audrey Pitt explained why:

“This company is based on taking care of people and loving people before you’re worried about money or profit. We were just trying to follow the model that we’ve all worked under for so long and the model that we’ve come to love. There was really nothing else we could have done but try to help people any way we could.”

Interestingly, Meadows and Pitt were not finished serving their stranded neighbors. They helped push vehicles off the roads and whatever else they could do outside. Then they kept the restaurant open all night and invited stranded motorists in so they could have a warm place to spend the night. Some actually slept in booths, on benches and on the floor.

The next morning the team again fired up the kitchen to make chicken biscuits for their overnight guests. Again they refused to accept payment of any kind. During that 24 hour period they demonstrated not only their Christian values but their love and concern for their fellow man. Meadows and his employees lived up to Jesus' words in Matthew 25:35: "For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was a stranger and you took me in..."

Imagine - a group of Christians braving a storm to show kindness and generosity to hundreds of complete strangers, asking nothing in return. Talk about living your faith. They didn't even ask about sexual preference before handing food to stranded people. Hard to believe, huh?

If liberals didn't spend so much time hating Chik-Fil-A for not believing the same things they do they might actually see something good here. I can't help but wonder how many of those protesters from two years ago accepted food or shelter from Chik-Fil-A that night, forgetting about their differences long enough to eat or sleep...?

I realize this was only one restaurant in a large national chain but what an awesome demonstration of the faith and values of the owner and employees of that one restaurant, and the philosophy of the company. I imagine Jesus Christ would say "Well done, good and faithful servants."

"An Opportunity To Love My Wife"

For the last four weeks our pastor has been delivering sermons on marriage - its importance, its Biblical history, and how to make it last. Today was the fourth and last sermon on how to give up your own personal difficulties to God so He can keep them from interfering with your relationship. Bottom line was that it's difficult to have a sound relationship with your spouse if you both don't have a sound relationship with God.

Last week he told us a story of his own marriage of 35 years to his childhood sweetheart and about how putting God first in your marriage is the best way to ensure its longevity. He quoted the Biblical verse in Ephesians about women submitting to their husbands and told all of the men "That specific verse is written for women, not for you. You have your own verses that tell you what you need to do in your marriage. Those verses are Ephesians 5:25 and 5:28 - "Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" and "Husbands, love your wives as you love your own body."

He then went on to relay the following story which I found not only touching but inspirational. It seems, even though she is a Baptist, his wife likes to dance. OK - it's not really against Baptist rules to dance - at least not anymore. When he was a kid, however, our pastor was raised in a small Baptist church in Louisiana and dancing was something that was forbidden, or at least frowned upon.

He said that since they were first married his wife would tell him she'd like to go out dancing sometime - even if it was just once. Being a man much like myself, whose feet don't really connect with any part of him that has rhythm, he always refused. 

He told us at their home in Fort Worth they each have a place where their mail goes. One stack for her, one for him. Any time a local dance studio would send out a flyer for dancing lessons he would find it laying on top of his mail stack, open so he would see it first thing. He ignored them. She never gave up and continued placing the flyers with his mail over the years. 

One day last year he came home to another flyer. This one was called "Dance Class For The Rhythmically Challenged". It was as if the flyer had his name on it. This time he decided he would swallow his pride and do something for her. He made arrangements to attend the class and found that rather than a class full of men who could actually dance he was in a class of people just like him - people who couldn't dance but decided to learn.

Since then he has been taking dance classes. He and his wife have joined a dinner-dance club and they go out sometimes for an evening of dancing. He's says he's not Fred Astaire but he makes his wife happy.

I remember the last thing he said about it. "Dancing is not one of my favorite things but it's another opportunity for me to love my wife."

Putting your spouse before yourself is one of the best ways to keep a marriage happy. Finding ways, even small ways, to show your spouse you love her/him, over and above just telling them, adds to the unification of the two and to the overall strength of the marriage. And that can't be a bad thing, can it?

Freshman Biology Assignment: Use DNA To Find Your Baby Daddy...

No, it wasn't a college biology course. That was part of an assignment recently given to high school freshmen at Romeo High School in Romeo, Michigan, about 30 miles outside of Detroit. The father of one of those freshmen was asked by his daughter for help with her biology homework. When he looked at the question he was quite shocked.

The question read in part: “The sister of the mom also had issues with finding out who the father of her baby was. She had the state take a blood test of potential fathers. Based on the information in this table, why was the baby taken away by the state after the test?”

Among possible answers were a cab driver, bartender, flight attendant, and a guy at the club.

It may seem harmless to some. The question itself has even me wondering why the baby was taken away by the state. But come on... a question about a single mom determining her baby's father for a class of 14 year olds? Does anybody really believe this is a good idea? And based on the question, how many women/girls were pregnant in that family without knowing who the father was? Was it one or two?

The father of the young girl was outraged to say the least. “What are they teaching?” he asked during an interview with WDIV-TV in Detroit. “I couldn’t come up with the words. I was like, ‘Oh my God.’ It’s teaching them that it’s OK to not know who it is because you can have the state help you. And if they can’t help you, they are going to take your child away, and it’s not the way it is. I was beyond fired up last night.”

He sent the homework back to the school incomplete with a note attached that said simply "We teach our daughter not to sleep around." I think that's very admirable of him and applaud him for that action considering what he could have said in anger.

The girl herself said of the question: "Now that I see what it really means, I think it like depicts women in a really uncomfortable light.” 

To their credit the school district responded.

“The goal is that the students are understanding blood types and DNA and possibilities based on the makeup of the two parents,” said school Superintendent Nancy Campbell. “But, again, this painted a picture, I think, that was not appropriate. My first thought when I saw it was that it certainly could have been worded better.”

Campbell said the question came from a website used by teachers called "teachingbioformatics.com" and that the teacher had used the website before. The teacher has apologized for the question. But why would she use it in the first place?

“Teachers use all kinds of different resources that are available to them,” Campbell said. “This incident brings in awareness for all of our staff to, you know, be more thoughtful and reflective about the items they use when they put them on a homework assignment.”

Campbell did say only one parent had complained. Either that parent is the only one who read the question or something is seriously wrong with the parents of the other students. 

It's normally a good thing to use real life situations when teaching children. But it should be age appropriate and not make irresponsible behavior seem OK. Oh - and here's a suggestion... maybe the assignments given to kids should be reviewed and approved if it's not part of the standard school curriculum. Just a thought...

A Government Controlled Media?

First it was the Internal Revenue Service "accidentally" targeting conservative political groups, preventing them from attaining tax exempt status so they couldn't actively participate in the 2012 election campaigns. After an extensive investigation by an IRS lawyer (who by pure coincidence just happens to be an Obama supporter and contributor) the IRS was cleared of any wrongdoing by President Obama himself.

Now the Obama administration is taking government control to a new level. They are now going to put government monitors in newsrooms across the country, supposedly to study how they decide which stories to run. It has nothing whatsoever to do with controlling the media...

Yeah, right. And with Obamacare you can keep your insurance plan and your doctor.

Even the FCC Commissioner thinks it's a bad idea. (Wonder how long he'll keep his job?) Commissioner Ajit Pai reveals a brand new Obama Administration program that he fears could be used in “pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.”

"In May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to under-served populations," Pai said recently.

Apparently the FCC is making plans to expand its limits of regulatory power to newspapers, which currently do not fall under FCC regulations. Still think the Obama administration is looking out for your best interest?

I guess those who believe more government control is good and that freedom of speech should not contain dissent against the Obama administration will find this to be acceptable. Everyone else should be very afraid. Every major repressive regime of the modern era has begun with an attempt to control and intimidate the press. If the government controls the news all you get is government propaganda.

Imagine a country where the Obama administration controls everything you hear from the main stream media and newspapers. You know - kind of like the news you currently hear from NBC and its affiliates. All Obama - all the time. 

FOX News and any other news outlet that criticizes the President would be muzzled or put out of business. This is simply another attempt to curtail dissent, like the "Fairness Doctrine" and "Grassroots Lobbying Bill". 

I know some of you are thinking "What's the problem? This isn't government censorship. It's just a study." Do you really believe that? The federal government is going to put live representatives in newsrooms and newspaper offices across the country to monitor their activities and monitor what they put out. It is unprecedented in this nation and is the beginning of something bigger, you can bet. Just as our current government, with the approval of both sides, has removed the ability of Americans to protest against certain politicians within the politician's visual range, they will now make it illegal for the press to criticize the regime.

Liberals in this country complained loudly that George W. Bush was "taking away our freedoms" with the Patriot Act. Yet Obama is steadily removing Americans' freedoms and they are praising him for it. It's difficult to understand.

Any journalist or news outlet that still has any integrity should be outraged to the point of refusing to allow these government monitors into their offices. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."

President Obama and his administration spent the first four years of his Presidency taking full credit for things that went well, such as the SEALs nailing Bin Laden and the SEALs taking out the Somali pirates who held Captain Phillips hostage after seizing his ship, and blaming President Bush for everything that went wrong.

Since his re-election he really can't blame Bush for anything that has happened recently because HE was the President for the last four years. So he and his administration have switched to a new tactic...  denying everything negative. Obama has denied any wrongdoing in the Benghazi debacle, the IRS scandal, the Fast and Furious scandal, the NSA scandal, the illegal monitoring of the Associated Press and FOX News reporter James Rosen, etc. Rather than blame Bush they simply say these things aren't real.

Secretary of Health and Human Services (and Obama stooge) Kathleen Sebelius recently said that there is no evidence that any jobs will be lost because of Obamacare. The Congressional Budget Office stated just last week that Obamacare is going to cost us 2.3 million full-time jobs because companies will elect to lay off or cut hours of full-time employees to save insurance costs. Kathleen Sebelius, who can't blame Bush for Obamacare, simply says it's not true. So either the CBO is lying or she is. I'll let you decide.

Also for the last five years President Obama has been talking about creating jobs and putting America back to work. Last week, when the CBO said Obamacare will cost us 2.3 million jobs by 2020, the administration and many prominent Democrats began saying "Having your hours cut or losing your job will be a good thing. You will have more quality time with your families and you can explore other options. But you will have health care insurance."

Really? So in this day and age when the Obama administration has been preaching about increased jobs and getting Americans back to work - when it is discovered that their policies will actually increase unemployment and government dependence, suddenly that's a good thing. And still people praise Obama for what he's doing. How stupid is America, really? The President of the United States has exponentially increased unemployment and government dependence and still the people praise him? I am flabbergasted.

In other news, President Obama recently promised the American people they would save up to $8000 in fuel costs by 2025 due to his policies. Remember, if you will, that this is the same man who promised every American family would save at least $2500 a year in insurance premiums because of Obamacare and that "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Period. If you like your current plan you can keep your plan. Period." So now we're supposed to believe him on this fuel promise even after he has refused to allow the Keystone oil pipeline to proceed.

Of course there are those who still believe him and blame insurance companies for breaking Obama's promises. There are fools born every minute. And I'm getting pretty tired of trying to understand them. In my view, most liberals are anti-American. They stand for big government, more government control, more social programs in the name of "social justice", more dependence on the government, less personal responsibility, less work ethic, and more "ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you" attitudes. I'm sick of it.

Personal responsibility and personal ethics have become a thing of the past because of liberalism. The liberal culture of "anything goes" has spread to the point where half the nation no longer pays taxes and the Presidential administration is trying to put even more people out of work and saying it's a good thing. And the stupid Americans are applauding him like seals. I'm disgusted and ashamed of what America is becoming under Democrat leadership. And just as disgusted by the Republicans who refuse to do anything about it and who criticize and ostracize other Republicans who try.

If Speaker of the House John Boehner won't lead his party then he needs to step down. If the conservatives in the House refuse to challenge him they need to step down as well. Take a cue from Ted Cruz and stand up for conservative values and principles. Otherwise you're just another stooge...

"As A President I Can Do What I Want"

Such were the words of our illustrious President, Barack H. Obama, during a tour of Thomas Jefferson's historic home, Monticello, with French President Francois Hollande the other day.

Of course, the context in which he spoke those words is construed as a joke. Their tour guide, Leslie Bowman, president of the Monticello Foundation, said that "Jefferson loved to admire the landscape from there," meaning a particular spot on the property. President Obama said he’d like to take a look and seemed delighted to ‘break the protocol.'

'That’s the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want,’ he quipped, walking to the terrace with his guest and Ms. Bowman.

Of course, in that context it was a joke. However, considering some of the things the President has said and done since his new term began it's not so funny. It was only a couple of weeks ago when the President declared if Congress wasn't going to do what he wanted that he has a pen to do it himself. It was just the other day that Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) said that the new job of Congress was to draft Executive Orders for President Obama to sign - completely bypassing the Legislative Branch of the government, of which that idiot (Jackson Lee) is a member. She declared herself irrelevant as a member of Congress but merely a writer of Presidential authority.

President Obama recently signed an Executive Order raising the minimum wage of federal contract workers (a whopping 16,000 people) to $10.10 per hour. And while the federal government won't be hurt by the raise (since they pay it with your money), if this raise is ordered nationwide then small businesses will suffer and jobs will be lost. It has been proved statistically in the past.

Seriously though - Obama doesn't care about small businesses as much as he cares about people who love him because he gives them money. Or promises to give them money, at least. (Rush Limbaugh did a fascinating segment yesterday on how the poor would feel about him if he gave them money.) The big problem is that Obama isn't giving them his money - he's giving them your money. And mine.

Executive Orders aren't the only thing Obama has done to prove he really meant what he said. He has unilaterally changed the "Affordable Health Care Act" (which isn't so affordable, it seems) as many as 27 times without going through the Legislative Branch, as the Constitution dictates. What's worse is that the House of Representatives apparently doesn't have the courage to say "Enough! You have crossed the boundaries of American law." They simply keep letting him proceed with unlawful changes to the law. So what have they - the RINOs in Congress - got to complain about?

Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has become a laughing stock in Washington. He has conceded to do whatever Obama wants, even as he pretends to oppose Obama. What a joke. Mr. Boehner - if you have a shred of decency and/or honor left - please resign from office and do not run again. You have crossed over. And take Mitch McConnell with you...

Sally Quinn: "The Obama's Have Cut Back On Entertaining"

The recent White House State Dinner to entertain French President Francois Hollande has people talking all over the nation. Many are criticizing the cost of the opulent dinner while others are criticizing the cost of First Lady Michelle Obama's designer dress. Neither of those things bother me.

The dinner itself, a lavish spread served in a large, well heated tent on the White House lawn (to emulate Claude Monet's Water Lilies paintings, with quince branches in full bloom, irises, blue agapanthus and lilies.) is said to have had a price tag of about $2 million. Not that big of a deal, in my book, for the President to throw a dinner party like that for a visiting President. I'm certain G.W. Bush and other Presidents before him threw expensive parties in similar situations. It's what Presidents do.

Mrs. Obama's dress doesn't concern me either. She is supposed to dress accordingly for state functions and, as such, is entitled to wear what she wants. Personally I would prefer that she pay for her own designer clothes (and I don't know that she didn't in this case) but $12,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to other tax-payer funded expenditures by this White House. So I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

No - what got me going about the whole thing are the comments made by liberal, Washington Post "journalist" Sally Quinn on CNN the other night. Quinn is the one who estimated the cost of Michelle Obama's dress (and probably did so with inside information) but then went on to make some pretty amazing comments about the Obamas and spending/entertaining.

"The Obamas have entertained less; had fewer state dinners than most presidents because they don't particularly like to entertain.  They keep to themselves a lot, but also because of the economy.  I mean, you know, they... when people are starving and don't have jobs, it doesn't look good to spend too much money, but I think that the economy is up enough now and it's important for us to entertain the French. So I think this is... it's worth every penny."

I have a question for Ms. Quinn.... "What planet do you live on?"

Spending money in the wake of the floundering economy has never been a concern of the Obama's. From their lavish, frequent, multi-million dollar vacations, both together and separate, to their multi-million dollar "official" trips, to their use of separate planes to go to the same place, the Obama's have never let the economy interfere with their lifestyle. A few years ago President Obama spoke on national TV about how many Americans were having to tighten their belts and maybe weren't able to take a vacation they wanted to take - just a week before he himself took the family on an expensive, ten-day trip to Hawaii. No - the economy hasn't slowed them down.

Ms. Quinn says the Obama's have entertained less not only because of the economy but because they simply don't like to entertain. I would take exception to that statement as well. I believe it could be true they do not like to host state dinners for visiting dignitaries. I doubt President Obama personally likes too many other leaders from around the world. Being the narcissist he is I'm sure he believes they are beneath him in world stature, intelligence and ability. So it wouldn't surprise me if he hates that type of entertainment. But let's not pretend he doesn't like to entertain.

How many celebrity events has he hosted at the White House? How many big name concerts has he held at the White House? It's not the entertaining he doesn't like - it's certain guest lists. If it's a celebrity from the entertainment industry he's all over it. And while "people are starving and don't have jobs" as Ms. Quinn said - the taxpayers are still footing the bill for these parties.

Sally Quinn went from liberal journalist to Obama cheerleader in one short interview. Funny how that works. They just can't hide their love of Obama for long. I can't help but wonder how, as the lies, deceit and cover-ups from the White House only seem to increase, people can continue to be in that cheerleading squad. I guess once you voluntarily join the squad your ego won't allow you to change your mind.

What Has Happened To America?

These days, when I listen to the news, I find myself wondering where we are headed as a nation and a people.

As of January the government says there are 10.2 million people unemployed in this country today. That number doesn't make much sense because it doesn't take into account people that have simply given up and are no longer looking for work, which makes the unemployment numbers look lower than they really are. In reality, the number of people not working is probably closer to 20 million. 

OK - 20 million not working out of 300 million people in the country? That's about 15% of Americans who are old enough and physically capable of working who aren't. About half of those are now receiving welfare and the others are receiving unemployment benefits - both from the government. And that's in addition to those who already receive their income from government entitlements.

For the last five years, since his campaign began in 2008, President Obama has been talking about creating jobs and putting Americans back to work. His stimulus plan was supposed to put people back to work building roads and bridges in our infrastructure. (How many years is he going to say he wants to build roads and bridges before he actually does anything about it?) These were "shovel ready jobs" which would employ hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans. The only problem was, as President Obama said later, those "shovel ready jobs weren't quite shovel ready." Unemployment grew.

Of course, he spent the first four years blaming all of the unemployment on George W. Bush. In all my 56 years I've never seen a U.S. President pass the buck like Barack Obama.

During his 2012 campaign President Obama continuously talked about creating new jobs in American and putting Americans back to work. Democrats in general ran on the same idea. Obama, and many of his fellow Democrats, were re-elected, at least partially, on that promise.

Last week the Congressional Budget Office published a report that said the "Affordable Care Act" will cause the loss of at least 2.3 million full-time jobs in this country by the year 2020. Immediately, the Obama administration began their campaign to head off the damage; they began saying this was a good thing. "Working less hours will give people more time to spend with their families," one Democrat said.

"It will give people the opportunity to pursue other things," said another.

Have Americans become so blatantly stupid that they are buying these lines? Will they really allow the Obama administration and the Democrats to tell them that more unemployment and having work hours cut to part-time is a good thing for the country?

It's convenient how they leave out the part about these less-employed Americans not being able to pay their bills because their hours have been cut back. But many liberal/Democrat voters clap their hands and nod their heads and say "Obamacare is wonderful!"

I'm afraid for our country and yes - I want my country back.

I don't care if the President is black, white, Hispanic, Asian or Native American... nor female for that matter... I want him/her to love this nation and what she stands for. I don't want apologies for America. I don't want excuses. I don't want socialism, Marxism or any other liberal, big government, large entitlement programs. I don't want a President who tells Congress "You do what I want or I'll make you irrelevant with my pen." I don't want a President who wants more gun control in our lives. And I don't want a President who will grant amnesty to, and still do nothing about illegal immigrants coming into the country.

Sadly, there are millions of Americans who will vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 if she runs. I personally believe she will be worse that President Obama and that her failure as Secretary of State (Benghazi being one of those failures) is a huge indication she should never be President.

I guess the biggest problem is that the Republicans, conservatives and independents haven't, as of yet, offered much of an alternative. Whoever they select needs to be aggressive in his/her campaign and not be afraid to attack, like the last two Republican candidates. If anyone believes Hillary won't attack to get what she wants they are sorely mistaken.

Thoughts Of My Son...

Today marks the 12th anniversary of my son's death in that tragic accident. As fate would have it - I'm in Oklahoma City for the day and actually went to the cemetery. It has been a tradition since he died (and since I moved to Texas, only three hours away) that I come up to Oklahoma on the anniversary so I can visit Christopher's grave and just reflect a little.

But this year I wasn't coming. Christopher's maternal grandfather died three weeks ago and I was here for the funeral. I went to the cemetery with my niece, Chelsie, and I wasn't planning on coming back up this week. But fate intervened and here I am. It wasn't really up to me.

I don't write about my son's death to gain sympathy. I write about it to warn parents, grandparents, and anyone else who reads my words just how precious life is and how quickly and suddenly it can be taken away. For those who don't know - Christopher died in a car accident because he wasn't wearing a seat belt. The car in which he was a passenger hit another car and spun around a few times. Christopher, who was sleeping in the back seat, was thrown out the back window and hit the pavement. The impact severed the arteries that supplied blood to his brain and his brain died within minutes.

The doctor told us he never knew what happened. I believe that. It was obvious when I saw him that he couldn't have been conscious after the impact. So he didn't have to suffer.

We did.

Besides the obvious lesson of seat belts, friends - never, ever pass up an opportunity to tell those you love how you feel about them. You never know when it could be the last time. Christopher and his mom had an argument before he left that evening and neither of them said "I love you" before he left the house. Their last words were spoken in anger. His mother carried that pain to her grave. Please don't allow that to happen to you. Life is too uncertain.

Today I honor my son by sharing his story so others can learn from it. Christopher was a great kid and I miss him every day. I hope he's as proud of his old dad as I am of him. I love you, Christopher. I'm still very happy and proud that you were my son. I hope I told you that enough.


I came to visit you today
To this, your final resting place
I really don't have much to say
Just wishing I could see your face

I know that you're not really here
I know it's better where you are
But in this place I feel you near
The distance doesn't seem as far

My memories still make me smile
My thoughts of you are always pleasing
It hasn't hurt much for a while
That agony is finally easing

I know one day I'll be with you
In heaven we will be together
When my life here on Earth is through
We'll walk in happiness forever


G. Clark  2-10-14

A Shooting Accident You Won't Hear About

I read an article this morning that spoke volumes about the main stream media and their lack of reporting anything that doesn't serve their liberal agenda. The first paragraph of the article was as follows:

If a Ruger LCP semi-automatic is accidentally fired inside the office of a Kentucky state representative, will it make a sound? Not in the mainstream media — and especially not if the gun’s owner is a Democrat.

It seems Kentucky State Representative Leslie Combs, a Democrat, picked up her personal handgun last week and, believing it was empty, pulled the trigger, firing a round inside her office.

Wait... a Democrat with a gun?

Apparently this wasn't a big story for the main stream media. It was originally published by Glenn Beck's news organization, The Blaze, and did eventually find its way onto the Associated Press wire and into the back pages of the New York Times. But ABC, CBS and NBC ignored the story completely. How could they possibly air a story about a Democrat who mishandled a personal firearm in her own state office? That would mean admitting that Democrats do carry guns and some of them are actually stupid enough to pull the trigger of a weapon they haven't cleared.

There was no word about where the bullet went or if Ms. Combs put anyone in close physical danger but it seems to me she should be charged with reckless endangerment, firing a weapon inside city limits and possibly being in possession of a firearm in a government building. (I'm not familiar with Kentucky law to know if that is prohibited but in most states I believe it is.)

This is one story you won't see reported by the main stream media. Apparently it's just not newsworthy. Just think what would have happened if Combs had been a Republican...

And Still They Support Him...?

One can't help but wonder how much Koolaide Obama supporters have to drink each day to observe the things he and his administration are doing and maintain their blind faith in him.

They watched the Benghazi house of cards begin to crumble as more and more evidence surfaced that not only showed Hillary Clinton failed in her duties as Secretary of State but Barack Obama failed in his duties as President to do anything about the attack. Yet they still support him.

They watched as Obama, Clinton and Susan Rice lied to the nation and the world about what they knew, when they knew it and why they did nothing.

They watched as Hillary Clinton got angry and tired of being questioned about it, threw up her hands and said "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

They have watched as the Obama administration and the CIA prevent first hand witnesses from being questioned by members of Congress and read stories about how they are frequently subjected to polygraph testing to ensure they haven't spoken out. Still they support him.

They watched as Lois Lerner refused to answer questions about the IRS targeting conservative political action groups during the 2012 Presidential campaign.

They watch now as e-mails between the Treasury Department and Lois Lerner prove a conspiracy was formulated specifically to target those groups.

They watched as the Obama Administration appointed a politically active Obama supporter and IRS employee to head up the investigation of the IRS.

They watched as the President said there's "not even a smidgen of corruption" within the IRS, even as the e-mails were proving him not to be telling the truth.

Still they support him.

They watched as Attorney General Eric Holder refused to turn over requested documents in the Fast and Furious investigation - even to the point of being held in contempt of Congress.

They have watched as the President gives billions of dollars to "rebel forces" in Syria even though the rebels are supported by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with which we are at war.

They watched as the President turned on Egypt's President Mubarek and assisted the Muslim Brotherhood in taking control of that government.

They watch as the President systematically removes top ranking military leaders who do not support his agenda.

They watch as some of those fired military leaders call for Obama's resignation because of the things he's doing, not only to the military but the country.

They watched as the President signed a law that makes it a federal crime to protest against any politician protected by the Secret Service within a range that would allow that politician to hear you.

Still they support Obama.

They watch as Obama calls for immigration reform but refuses to stop the influx of illegal aliens across our borders.

They watched as he erected signs warning American citizens not to travel near the border for their own safety while still refusing to increase border security.

They watch as he sues state governors and state and county law enforcement officers for enforcing the laws he refuses to enforce.

They watch as he moves closer and closer to granting amnesty for illegals saying they will add to the economy and increase employment.

Still they support him.

They watched and cheered as he forced the new health care bill down our throats, against the will of 72% of Americans, then watched it become a disaster.

They watch as the Congressional Budget Office says the law will destroy 2.3 million full-time jobs in the next ten years and listen to his administration tell Americans that losing their full-time employment will be a good thing because they'll be able to spend more time with their families and pursuing other things.

They listen to Nancy Pelosi say that longer waiting times in the ER will give people an opportunity to make new friends.

They watch and cheer as a few million people sign up for health care plans (mostly free government health care) even as twice as many lose their coverage because of the law.

They watch and cheer as the President unilaterally changes or delays parts of the law in acts that are clearly unconstitutional.

They watch and cheer as the President ignores constitutional requirements for new laws and vows to push his agenda through executive orders if Congress won't do what he wants.

And still they support him.

It is unfathomable to me how any American, even liberal Americans, can watch all of these things unfold before them and still support the man who is "fundamentally changing America." The President promised to do these things in so many words back in 2008. And he definitely is fundamentally changing America. Except these changes, in the long run, will be detrimental to our very existence as a Democratic Republic.

President Obama is leading us toward a socialistic form of government that many liberals believe is a great thing. They believe in income equality and social justice. What they don't understand is if America becomes that great socialist nation, the only thing that will really change is that more and more citizens will be dependent on the government. The great transfer of wealth, so desired by the left, will only mean that the average, working class citizen will have less money. The very wealthy will still be wealthy and they will be the ones in power. The wealthy are always the ones in power, regardless of the type of government that exists. They will simply be the ones who decide how much the average citizen can earn.

Conservatives, moderates and independents of America - wake up. The election in November can be the start of a revolution to turn America back into the great, strong, free nation she was designed to be. We need every vote to take both Houses so we can then focus on re-gaining the White House in 2016. Go out and un-Barack the vote. Convince your friends and family that liberal socialism is NOT what's best for America. It's the only chance we have to prevent more of these "fundamental changes" from taking place.

Remember - if Hillary wins in 2016 America as we know it will cease to exist.

Race Quotas To Be Injected Into The Entertainment Industry?

And one more stupid topic in the news - during a Buzzfeed interview on CBS This Morning comedian Jerry Seinfeld was asked why he featured so many white men in his web series Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee. Really? They had nothing better to ask than that? 

Are American liberals now going to put racial, ethnic and/or gender quotas on entertainment shows? If a white comedian or actor does a show about himself and a few friends, who also happen to be white, will he now have to integrate a few people of color into it simply to please a few race-crazed liberal instigators? 

Gawker.com recently published an article called '"Who Cares" About Diversity in Comedy, Says Jerry Seinfeld'. Their opening remark attacked Seinfeld as though he is a blatant racist: "Jerry Seinfeld, the most successful comedian in the world and maker of comedy for and about white people, isn't interested in trying to include non-white anything in his work."

Seinfeld, who wasn't pleased with the question or the implications, replied "People think [comedy] is the census or something, it's gotta represent the actual pie chart of America. Who cares? Funny is the world that I live in. You're funny, I'm interested. You're not funny, I'm not interested," he said. "I have no interest in gender or race or anything like that."

Gawker continued their hit piece by saying "He seems to suggest that any comedian who is not a white male is also not funny, though he's also likely fed up with the amount of bad comedy he's been forced to sit through in his (waning) career.

Which is too bad, because Seinfeld is downplaying the work of everyone from Richard Pryor and Bill Cosby to Aziz Ansari, Mindy Kaling, and Eddie Huang, who are all in various stages of their own sitcoms that just might turn out to be the next Seinfeld.

I don't know what Seinfeld did to be worthy of this hit piece by Gawker. What he said was he does comedy for comedy's sake and doesn't find a need for racial, ethnic or gender quotas in it. He in no way downplayed the work of other comedians who weren't "for and about white people." He said he has no interest in making gender or race a specific part of his show. (Chris Rock was a guest star on his show, as was Tina Fey. I guess they simply don't count.)

Gawker concluded with "Yes, comedy should represent the entire pie chart of America, and the glorious, multicolored diversity pie should be thrown directly at Jerry Seinfeld's face."

So there you have it - quotas being demanded by a liberal rag. Funny - I don't remember an over abundance of white characters on The Cosby Show, Sanford and Son, or even Fat Albert. (Sanford and Son did have them now and then for comedic interaction.) I loved them all and it never occurred to me that a show about a black family should have some whites tossed into the show for diversity purposes. I wonder how Gawker feels about Black Entertainment Television? Will they now demand the insertion of some Caucasian shows to make it more diverse? Of course they won't.

Sometimes people just like to stir things up by saying things that stretch the truth just to get a reaction. I have no doubt some of Gawker's readers now hate "that racist Jew, Seinfeld." Let's not forget that his hit TV show Seinfeld, which was watched and loved by millions of people white and black, was about him and his three closest friends who were....  you guessed it... white. Obviously Seinfeld is a racist. Why didn't I see it before. It's so obvious because.... he has white friends!

The Spin Starts Here...

During a recent press briefing White House economist Jason Furman tried to tell the media that the projected 2.3 million full-time job losses projected by the Congressional Budget Office because of Obamacare will actually be a good thing.

Furman said that because of Obamacare, people who are now working long hours will have the opportunity to reduce those hours and still have health care. This reduction in hours would "leave them free to pursue more fulfilling activities." In other words - when your hours are cut you'll have more time for fun things. Never mind the loss of pay - you'll be having more fun.

Not one to be outdone by anyone in the "stupid comment" category, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a later briefing “When somebody decides for himself or herself not to work 64 hours, but to work instead for 35 hours, even though the option of working more hours and potentially having the extra money that that option provides is available to them, they’re making a choice about their overall quality of life.” He said a cut in hours will give people more time to spend with their children and to look for different work opportunities.

Speaking of stupid Obamacare comments - Nancy Pelosi, one of the queens of stupid comments, recently said "Waiting hours longer in Emergency Rooms will allow you to make new friends." She really said that. I often wonder how she keeps getting re-elected... but then I remember what district she represents.

So the Obama administration sees the loss of 2.3 million jobs over the next three years due to Obama's signature law as a good thing. They keep talking about putting America back to work, about doing things to create jobs, about how the nation was bleeding jobs when Obama took office - yet they think nothing of the 2.3 million people who will either lose their jobs or have their hours cut because of Obamacare. And people still support this administration! Interesting.

Speaking of interesting comments - Obama's liberal plant on the Supreme Court bench, Sonia Sotomayor, said recently that labeling illegal immigrants as criminals seems insulting to her. I'm not sure why if she's not one but she apparently prefers the term "undocumented immigrant." 

“I think people then paint those individuals as something less than worthy human beings and it changes the conversation,” Sotomayor said.

I think a Supreme Court Justice should support and defend the law rather than the lawbreakers. People who knowingly break the laws of the land are criminals. I wonder if Sotomayor refers to bank robberies as "undocumented withdrawals?" After all - bank robbers are usually just trying to make a better life for themselves and their families...

What's In A Name?

Students at Fort Collins High School in Colorado yesterday proposed a day in their upcoming "Spirit Week" to celebrate our nation. They called it 'Merica Day.

Apparently school officials were not pleased with the students' choice of names because they denied the students' request stating it might offend non-American students. The school district issued a statement today which included the following:

When students first proposed 'Merica Monday, building administrators felt that it was against this unifying theme and disrespectful to our country. Merica is a slang term that is often used in a negative, stereotypical way to describe life in the United States. This is what led administrators to discuss alternatives with students.

The City of Fort Collins, and many people around the country, apparently disagreed with the school's decision. Protests began in front of the school today and Facebook and Twitter buzzed last night with chatter about the "anti-American" sentiment displayed by school administrators.

Senior Christian Meyer told the local news the student council suggested the 'Merica Monday idea to kickoff "Spread the Love Week."

"Spirit day on Monday was to be called ‘Merica Monday -- playing fun on the whole 'Merica kind of tough America patriotism thing," said Meyer. "The administration didn't think it was inclusive to all students since we have a large amount of foreign exchange students … there's a big backlash."

He said it's really kind of gotten out of control.

"We have people out here protesting -- it's a little crazy. Most of my friends and I, we're mainly kind of sitting back and just watching this unfold. It's real interesting because we don't have too strong of an opinion on it. We think it's a little bit political correctness on one side, and a little bit out of control patriotism on the other," he said.

Sophomore Jason Dunn said he feels his First Amendment rights are being taken away.

"A win is them allowing us to celebrate the days that we want because that's what I call freedom of speech. If people want to celebrate 'Merica Day, they should. If people want to celebrate Britain Day, they should. If people want to celebrate gay marriage, then they should. I'm not saying I agree with all of them but if they want to, they should," said Dunn.

School officials apparently were surprised by the response and they had a change of heart. They have consented to allowing students to have "America Monday" instead of 'Merica Monday.

The Urban Dictionary defines 'Merica as "a "hick" phrase meaning "If you don't like the way things are here in Merica then you can git out." It's interesting because I have used that phrase, mostly channeling Larry The Cable Guy, and I never once meant it in that fashion. As a conservative American I do agree if you're not happy here in this country you can leave - but I've never used that particular word with that meaning in any conversation. To me it's simply a redneck word for America.

Citizens of Fort Collins plan to support the students in their day of recognition of their country. One Fort Collins resident who was present for the protests told the TV news "We are here to support the kids and let them know we support them in 'Merica Monday," Jensen said. "They didn’t want to offend anyone with 'Merica Monday."

He said school officials offended a lot of people. He believes school officials awakened "a sleeping giant."

"Monday morning at 7, we’re going to be out here. Our goal is to surround the school with 5,000 flags and welcome these kids to school on 'Merica Monday -- to show them that it does mean something in this country to be a flag waving American. I think the decision that was made, the school's reasoning behind the decision, is absolutely ridiculous," he said.

The bottom line is that is has become politically incorrect to show patriotism in parts of our country. Kids are discouraged from expressing their patriotism in words, actions and even clothing yet they are required to recognize things like Cinco de Mayo and Muslim holidays and traditions. It's a sad state of affairs when 'Merica is put behind other cultures, religions and practices by our own officials. But what do I know? I'm just one of those "hicks".