Friday, October 26, 2007

Tolerance is double-speak for Intolerance

As Van Helsing takes note of the tactics:

Flag-Folding Ceremony Banned by Moonbat Bureauweenies

Referring to Christianity and Judaism, the religions upon which our civilization is founded, without mentioning every other belief system any veteran has ever held, presumably including not just Shintoism and Scientology but even those that are essentially hostile to our way of life, like Islam and Secular Humanism, "denigrates the patriotic men and women of other faiths who serve our country," according to a moonbat rabbi named Yitzhak Miller.

Welcome to America under the regime of the ACLU.

Consider for a moment the premise of the bullying litigants:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does folding our flag in such a ceremony constitute the "free exercise" of religion or the "establishment of religion"?

Certainly the Constitution has already been applied too broadly when you realize that in few of these daily litigious assaults upon our heritage is it a situation of "Congress shall make no law".

I also cannot determine any "right" to be free of religion justified here as a protection of our individual liberties.

Certainly in this particular instance... if you are at the funeral... you might respect the wishes of the fallen, who gave so much, and suck it up.

You know... if you happen to be an intolerant craven hater of everything that very person gave his/her life to defend.

Perhaps, if you are, you might stop off after the funeral and at the Synagogue of "moonbat rabbi Yitzhak Miller" and demand he cease recitation of the Torah as intolerant for it's failure to be inclusive of every other religion.

Then require he give every sermon in every other language spoken on Earth... to be appropriately inclusive.

Cross Posted at DANEgerus

Update... via HotAir:

Vets memorial spokesman on flag-folding fiasco: You’ll never stop us, atheists

A spokesman for the California Defense of Veterans Memorials Project says: nuts.

Then there's what's going on in Iraq

Surge Implemented, Violence Down.

— Violence in and around Baghdad is down 59 percent.

— Car bombs are down 65 percent.

— Casualties from car bombs and roadside bombs are down by 80 percent.

— Casualties from enemy attacks down 77 percent.

— Operations against Iraqi security forces are down 62 percent.

— Assassination attempts for sectarian reasons are down 72 percent.

Seems Osama lost his street cred by blowing the hell out of every man woman and child in Iraq who had the audacity to participate in a little self determination democracy style. Now he's apologizing and asking for a fresh start.

Nice juxtaposition with the TNR/Beauchamp shit and Code Pink and Ted Rall pictures below, eh?

Leftist Troop Support 2.0

The New Republic Editors and Scott Thomas Beauchamp

Kuwait before he deployed, Iraq after being battle hardened. What's the diff right? "Hey Scott, your wife - our employee, she really wants you to tell everyone that you didn't recant your lies. Lie for us Scott, we're desperate. No? Ok, well just go silent. Crap! Documents! Time for more lies!"

Leftist Troop Support

Ted Rall is an Asshole:

The Agressive Lunatic Left

Code Pink Lunatic Attacks Rice

These fucking people are out of their minds.

Thursday, October 25, 2007


Kevin Baker wrote an essay titled The Mystery of Government. It was a response to a commenter who's of the more liberal bent. One of the keeper quotes (out of hundreds) is this:

You proposed that "People in our government are, for the most part, competent and effective." That may be true, but it does not mean that those people may not also be corrupt and evil. These characteristics are not mutually exclusive. Someone can be corrupt, competent, effective and evil, all at the same time.

Government, or more importantly the power and money that government control can provide attracts evil and corrupt people. Oh, there may be people there who aren't evil and corrupt, who go into public service to actually serve the public, but they are the minority. People who crave power are attracted to the greatest source of power, which to our detriment is the government right now. THAT is why I feel that the government needs to be as small and as weak as possible. Because when you give the government too much power, you get the wrong people in charge.

Take for example this little story out of Florida:

WellCare Health Plans of Tampa, a firm which has made scads of money administering government health care, and huge profits for George Soros, who was once its largest shareholder, has been raided by the FBI and shuttered.
When you control huge amounts of money, there will be people out there trying to get their hands on that money. What better way to steal money than to be in control of the purse-strings?

WellCare's business practices have come under increased criticism over the past several months. Last spring, the company said independent sales agents in Georgia enrolled dead people in Medicare plans. In May and June, WellCare representatives appeared along with other insurance executives at hearings in the Senate and House into aggressive Medicare marketing practices. WellCare and six other insurers subsequently agreed to a temporary halt in marketing one type of Medicare plan, while promising to initiate consumer safeguards. In August, however, Medicare cited WellCare once again for violating several provisions of its Medicare contract, including sales practices.

WellCare was started in 1985 by a group of Tampa doctors, who sold the company to investors led by financier George Soros in 2002. Soros will remain majority shareholder, with two representatives on WellCare's board, following the IPO.
George Soros - pushing for MORE government control whenever possible. Why? Because as a dear friend and money donor to the Democrat American Communist Party, the more control they have the more money he can funnel into his pockets.

Government is not the solution. GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM!

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Steve and DANE

Your invites to blog here should be in your inbox.

I woke up at around 0500 this morning, and I didn't get online until around 2200 hours tonight.

(That's 10:00 PM for you civilian folks)

Don't expect it to get any better. My new unit seems bent on giving me enough "busy work" to justify having me double slotted, and it sucks big dead donkey dick. I had the XO flat out admit to me that they were giving me work that they were saving for the troops, but they were having me do it because they don't have anything for me to do.

Meanwhile, I have the Chaplain's Office and the Casualty Assistance Office willing and able to take me and give me a proper job. But my command doesn't want to give me up because I look good on their paperwork.

I'm pissed. Pissed off that I'm spending all day doing nothing. Pissed that the people who would love to have me work for them are waiting to see what my command does. And pissed off at this island, which I cannot escape from fast enough.

Anyways, since I just got home and don't have a thing for you to read, I want you to read this. Geek with a .45 has one of the best summations of why I'm a small "l" libertarian and not a big "L" variety. It's well worth the time.

Meanwhile, I'm going to drink some rum and hit the sack.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Another reason Senator Craig is gone

Oink oink, beeyotch. We conservatives don't like it when our representatives act like Democrat American Communist Party members.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Alpha females vs. Alpha males

Or, another way that feminism ruined romance. As Cassie Fiano puts it: Alpha females: Get off your high horse. You can go read the entire thing. While I agree with much of Mrs. Fiano's sentiments, there's been a fundamental shift in our society that can only be called a "bad thing", and it's entirely due to feminism. That shift has been the definition of an "Alpha Female".

Modern feminists would have you believe that women a century ago were oppressed, little more than slaves, captive to a man's every whim. While that might have been the case in some areas, women were masters of the home. Plain and simple, a woman ruled the house. The man provided money and food, the woman provided a home. I'm not going to fantasize about a open-range queen who was master of everything she saw, but at some point men and women settled into the customs and traditions that had been in use for all of history.

But that's all changed now, hasn't it? Men as a rule don't have any spaces that are uniquely theirs, and women are told that staying at home is the least preferable option.

Ladies, here's a thought for you. Although women's roles have changed over the years, a man's role has not, at least not in any real appreciable way. Men are still supposed to be the providers. We should be bringing home the bacon, only now women are supposed to bring home the bacon as well. Well, here's your clue.


When a man comes home, tired, sore, stressed or a mix of all three, and he sees his wife coming home in the exact same condition, he starts to wonder if it's all worth it. What is he working for? Someone else is raising his kids. Dinner is either store bought or hastily thrown together. Everyone is too damn tired to do anything but eat and go to bed.

Why in the name of god would a man work himself to death for that?

Does that seem sexist? Probably. But if you take away a man's reason for working and living, then you get something less. Hell, not even a beta male, but something farther down the food chain. Like it or not, men are hardwired to go out, club something over the head and drag it back to the cave. But if men don't have a reason to go back to that cave, then they're not going to go through the effort. The reason men don't want alpha females has nothing to do with being insecure, or not "being man enough". Hell, given a chance most men would love to have a woman bringing home big bucks every month. But at what cost?

Men do not want to come home to a wife who's cranky from being at work all day, kids that are going nuts because some idiot in a public school is raising them, and dinner cooked by some guy who's working for peanuts behind a line grill. At some point, men looked around and said "Screw this, it's not worth it." I should know. I was there, right at that point, and if I hadn't have met the most wonderful woman on the face of the earth there was no way in hell I would have gotten married.

If you want a man to deal with all the bullshit of daily life to provide for a family, then dammit, YOU NEED TO GIVE HIM A FAMILY TO DO IT ALL FOR! Otherwise he'll do what many men today have done - simply shrugged their shoulders and continued being bachelors.

The Main Stream Media

We all know that the MSM is a worthless pile of excrement, with the journalists and pundits being the worms that crawl around the pile eating shit and producing more of the same. Extremely biased, un-objective, riddled with incompetence, and completely unreliable.

Here's a chance to change it. Micheal Yon is trying to get real reporting back into newspapers. Go read that post and see if you can help.

The long and short of it is this: Yon is so pissed off about the MSM's biased, horrible coverage of the War on Terrorism that he's willing to let the National Newspaper Association use his dispatches for FREE.

So now they'll have no excuse for not having anyone in Iraq.

Kids and sex

Mrs. du Toit has a post up about the Maine school that wanted to hand out birth control - to eleven year olds.

People keep saying the dumbest things!

“Well, if an eleven year old girl is having sex, wouldn’t you rather that she be given birth control than get pregnant?”

NO! I want her to be introduced to a policeman.

“Isn’t it better that she get the services she needs to keep safe?”

NO! Birth control doesn’t keep you safe. Birth control pills DO NOT protect you from STDs (and neither do condoms). And quit it with the services word. She’s not getting services. Services are things like having a pedicure or a tune up on your car. We’re not talking about services. We’re talking about an eleven year old girl being told by adults that it is OK for her to be RAPED, as long as she uses birth control.

Let’s be clear here: Eleven year old girls having sex is not a choice issue. Eleven year old girls cannot consent to sex anymore than they can consent to join the military, rent an apartment, get a mortgage, or vote. They are not yet old enough to make those choices.

Bingo - if eleven year old kids are having sex, THERE IS A HUGE PROBLEM THAT NO BIRTH CONTROL CAN FIX! Does anyone think that eleven year old kids are ready for sex? Maybe some of them are physically, but mentally?

Just how screwed up are they going to get? And telling them "Oh, have some birth control, it's OK" is only going to enable them! Dear lord, what is wrong with those people?

When an eleven year old girl goes to the nurse at school and declares she has been having sex, THE LAW would require that the nurse call the police, unless (DUH!) the nurse wants to be an accomplice to the crime.

A CRIME has occurred and the fact that we’re talking about it as if it isn’t a crime, and couch it with words like services and keeping her safe is nuts! The services she needs are those of law enforcement and keeping her safe means putting the rapist in jail so the rape stops!

Eleven year old kids should not be having sex. Period. That's called "child abuse". Would anyone be fine and dandy with a forty year old man fucking an eleven year old girl? Then what makes it OK for a thirteen year old boy to do it?

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Another Must Read

From the du Toit family. This time it's Mrs. du Toit, giving advice to a young man. Go. Read. I'll be here when you're done.

Now, some folks might remember a rant or two years ago about my days in Ft. Riley, Kansas. In short, I stopped caring whether or not I got attention from women, and it changed the entire scope of my relationships. Now, Mrs. du Toit is giving this young man some good advice. But I think she's dealing with one set of realities while this young man is dealing with another entire set.

The young man writing the letter is a college student. So let's start looking at THAT, shall we?

Can anyone name a college that has a large group of conservative minded young women? Because Ic an't t

Giving up a pet

I've had to give up a pet before. When I lived in Seattle I had a cat, Lily. She loved to lay on my shoulders, and if I was stressed out she would stand on my chest as I lay in bed and purr until I relaxed enough to fall asleep. And it tore me up when we had to give her a new home. The Ragin' Mrs. interviewed people, and if something didn't seem right we would not allow them to take our cats.

In short, although we had to give them up, we hated to do it. And if we had been able to take them with us, we would have. But without going into a two page diatribe, there was no way we could take the cats without putting them through hell, and we didn't want to do that to our pets. Finding a new home for them was preferable. So that's what we did.

But we were a newly married couple, with very little money, and no way to accommodate the pets we had. We were lucky to be able to take our dog with us when we moved to Puerto Rico, and that took a hell of a lot of effort.

What if I had just left the Oval Office? With hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank, and thousands of people to do what I asked? I wouldn't have given up those cats if I didn't have to, and there are millions of pet owners who know exactly how I felt. It's a hard choice, giving up a pet, even if it's for the pet's best interests. I wasn't willing to put my cat into a kennel for months on end, to be cared for by god-knows who, fed god-knows what, and treated god-knows how. But if I had been able to take them with me, there wouldn't have been any questions. I would have.

Which is what makes this story even more chilling to me.

AS THE “first pet” of the Clinton era, Socks, the White House cat, allowed “chilly” Hillary Clinton to show a caring, maternal side as well as bringing joy to her daughter Chelsea. So where is Socks today?

Once the presidency was over, there was no room for Socks any more. After years of loyal service at the White House, the black and white cat was dumped on Betty Currie, Bill Clinton’s personal secretary, who also had an embarrassing clean-up role in the saga of his relationship with the intern Monica Lewinsky.

What kind of sick disgusting fuck gives up a pet when they have the means to keep it? I know how I felt once the cats were gone - it was like a punch in the gut, and I felt like shit for months afterwards. Even though I know they had gone to a good home, and that it was the best thing for them, I still looked for them when I came home from work every day. But I didn't have a choice - I could not continue to care for the cats while I was in the situation we were in. BUT I WAS NOT A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I didn't have resources coming out my ass.

Clinton did.

Which is why this story sickens me. I wouldn't have given up my pets if there were any other choice. The Clinton's seem to have tossed their pets aside the moment it was politically feasible.

That's fucking disturbing. They used that cat to show their "human side", but once they were out of the White House it got dumped onto someone else without another thought. Giving up my cats was physically painful to me. To the Clinton's it was just another political movement.

Pet owners - what say you? I know that I would have cut off my fingers rather than give up my cats if I had that choice. And yes, Ragin' Dave has a soft spot for pets. If I could, I'd have an entire damn farm with pets on it. Dogs, cats, ferrets (the Ragin' Mrs. had a ferret when we first met), birds, you name it. And while the practical country boy in me would have certain animals for eating and nutrition (pigs, goats, cows, chickens, rabbits) I would still have tons of pets around. Hell, half the attraction to retirement is the ability to have pets and not have to move around.

But just giving one up? Nah. Nope. No thank you. Giving up a pet is the last option.

Unless you're a Democrat American Communist Party congresscritter who's only goal is attaining political power.