The snow is coming

While there's been much coverage on the unrest in Egypt and the ObamaCare ruling in Florida, here in Indiana, we're looking at a big snowstorm for the next few days.

Up to two feet of snow is expected, and there's been a rush to get the necessary items in preparation.  My own parents also did a little stocking up on food, and noted in the two places they went, they were packed with people.

I also saw maps of the weather forecast, and needless to say, it looks like a tidal wave is fast approaching my area.  We're all as prepared as can be, so all I can say is: Bring on the tidal wave!

First Virginia, now Florida

The ruling in Virginia was a noted victory for We the People, but the ruling in Florida is an even bigger victory.

A judge named Roger Vinson, for the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Florida, ruled the mandate requiring individuals to get health coverage unconstitutional.  According to The Wall Street Journal, this ruling is more important than the Virginia ruling because Judge Vinson also ruled the entire ObamaCare law must be declared void since the mandate is “not severable” from the rest of the law.

This is a major victory for two reasons: 1) the ruling by Judge Vinson in Florida puts the entire law potentially on the cutting block and 2) not only was Florida involved, but so was 25 other states as well (including my own state of Indiana), so this was seen as a titanic struggle between the federal government and state's rights.

The fight isn't over, as the ruling is also seen as a guarantee of the case going all the way to the Supreme Court.  Nevertheless, as was in Virginia, the ruling in Florida brings considerable hope that we're on the way out of the darkness of the Obama administration.

Much thanks to former Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and current Attorney General Pam Bondi for leading the way, and also to the other Attorneys General (including my own, Greg Zoeller) for joining in the fight.

More from The Daily Caller

Once again, a few headlines you just can't make up:

Little diversity among this year’s Oscar nominees
Apparently, for the first time in ten years, none of the actors, directors and producers nominated for the Academy Awards are black, which has been noticed by the NAACP among others.  Can somebody tell me why it's so important for black people to be nominated for the Oscars just for the sake of having black people among the nominees?  Whatever happened to actors being nominated and awarded Oscars for their performances, or directors for their achievements, or producers for bringing us the best films of the year?  Some people need a hobby.

Dem lawmaker blames Rush Limbaugh for deranged death threats after host’s impersonation of Hu Jintao’s Chinese
Okay, so a state legislator in California is offended by Rush Limbaugh doing a Chinese impersonation, and now is trying to link him to death threats he has received from someone else?  Aside from the absurdity of this State Senator, Leland Yee from San Francisco (why doesn't that surprise me?), in demanding an apology over something he perceived as a slight, this same individual is now attributing the death threat to Rush's supposed hate-spewing.  Why do I get the feeling this guy is just looking to get his name out there in the news?

Steele on RNC chair loss after successful midterms: ‘Republican Justice’
Just like he said when running for re-election earlier this month, former RNC Chairman Michael Steele in recent interviews cited last year's election victories as the result of his two years in office.  The problem I find with his insistence here is the fact the GOP is currently in debt of over $20 million, and most importantly, there's the oft-ignored factor of the Tea Parties in the 2010 victories, which calls into question just how much (or how little) of the victories can truly be credited to his leadership as RNC Chairman.  Mr. Steele, how many people really believe you when you say “We won”? 

Pence For President? Not In 2012.

I know this story has been out for a while, but it's one I intend to give my 2¢ on.  I found out about Congressman Mike Pence's decision not to run for President in 2012 thanks to an e-mail he sent out sometime last week.  Now, with the list of possible candidates decreased by one, I must say I'm relieved.

First off, while a Pence candidacy would've been more successful (in my opinion) against at least half of the others, it still would've been an uphill battle for him, considering the need for effective fundraising (of which he would've needed a LOT of funds as a result).  Further considering some of the potential opposition he would've faced (Romney and Huckabee, for starters), Congressman Pence would've needed to start building up an organization immediately if he were to have any chance of holding his own against such potential opposition.

Another reason I'm relieved is because I am undeniably hoping Sarah Palin will run for President in 2012; a Pence candidacy would have (in my opinion) worked to siphon votes away from her, on account of the similarities between the two of them.  The most important reason, though, remains the fact this leaves open the possibility for the Congressman to run for Governor here in Indiana.

Since Governor Mitch Daniels cannot run for a third term, and Lt. Governor Becky Skillman has already opted out of a run for the job herself, this leaves Congressman Pence as the only possible Republican candidate at this moment.  With possible candidates amongst Democrats also slim (and unpromising) for the time being, a gubernatorial run for Mike Pence could be a potential cakewalk.  It also could serve as a stepping stone for him to make a run for President in the future, and with hopefully eight years as Governor under his belt, his standing as a candidate would be much stronger then than now.

I hope come next year, I'll be placing a yard sign which reads MIKE PENCE for GOVERNOR.

Rahm Emanuel Can't Run For Mayor OR As The World Turns

Sometimes, elections can be outright circuses, but in the case of Chicago's mayoral race, it's really more of a soap opera, and in the latest episode of this soap comes the most surprising turn of events.

An appellate court in Illinois ruled former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel cannot run for Mayor because he has not been a resident of Chicago for at least a year prior to the election (as required of candidates), overturning a lower court's ruling that Emanuel was eligible to run in the election, which is slated to take place February 22nd.  Needless to say, Mr. Emanuel intends to appeal the decision.

When you have a former chief of staff to a President who had previously insured opponents in his first election for State Senator were removed from the ballot have his own name removed just strikes me as poetic justice, don't you think?  Doesn't matter really, as I suspect none of the candidates are satisfactory to begin with, but it still makes me laugh anyway.

But now, I must leave you with some spellbinding questions: Can Rahm get his name back on the ballot?  Will Carol be able to capitalize on this and get votes?  Can Gery get Dick to secure votes for him?  Do Miguel, Patricia and Dock have any chance in hell regardless?  And will Barack come in and save the day for Rahm?  Find out the answers to these and much more as the world turns, or is it like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives?  Eh, who cares?

(By the way, this might help!)

Update (Jan. 28th, 9:31 AM EST): Rahm got his name back on the ballot, thanks to the Illinois Supreme Court.  The soap opera continues.

Roe v. Wade after 38 years

With today's anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, I submitted a letter to the editor of The Star (our local newspaper).  It was published this past Tuesday, and is focused on what the full cost of the infamous decision has been since.  I recommend you take a look at the letter to know my 2¢ on the subject of Roe v. Wade after nearly four decades.

And remember the cost of Roe v. Wade.

Obama 2012 Underway?

Last week, there was President Obama speaking at a memorial service at the University of Arizona for the victims of the Tucson shootings, where he was lauded for his speech (something Lloyd Marcus tears apart in his piece at American Thinker).  The thing that bothered me about the service was seeing t-shirts with the phrase “TOGETHER WE THRIVE-TUCSON & AMERICA”.  Add in the behavior of those who were in attendance, and it was no memorial service; it was a political rally.

That phrase TOGETHER WE THRIVE is sounding like the new campaign slogan for Barack Obama's re-election campaign.  In addition, there's also a post from William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, where he makes the case that Sarah Palin is the target of a test run the media is carrying out to help Obama get re-elected in 2012.  Sounds to me like further proof they never let a crisis go to waste, and in this case, the goal is ensuring the President is re-elected next year.

Now Isn't That Interesting, Chapter 37

As I've written before, one of the things the Left has sought to do as a result of the Tucson shootings is push through gun control legislation, such as a bill to ban specific gun magazine clips from the notorious gun control zealot, New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy.  There's also been an effort by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to tighten regulations on gun dealers in the southern border states.

Interestingly, the reaction has been negative, especially the BATFE action, which has drawn opposition from even several Democrats in Congress.  It shouldn't surprise me, considering the growing opposition to gun control nationally over the years, and it also shouldn't surprise me to see politicians and bureaucrats not letting a crisis go to waste here.

Anyway, the interesting thing about this post is that it's my 1000th post here on this blog.  It's amazing how much I've written about, how much I've opined about in the time I've had this blog and other blogs.  I hope in these 1000 posts lies proof of a good blog, and in the next 1000 posts, more proof will be shown.

Waiting for The Dark Knight Rises

It wasn't until yesterday that I found out about Christopher Nolan's third Batman film, now titled The Dark Knight Rises.  In addition to its theatrical release being set for July of next year, some major casting decisions have also been made.  Not only are Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman expected to return for the third film, but Anne Hathaway has been cast to play Catwoman, and another actor, Tom Hardy, is to play a villain named Bane.

I won't deny it: I'm having a bit of a hard time imagining Anne Hathaway as Catwoman; I'm not quite sure if she fits the part.  Of course, when The Dark Knight came out, I wasn't sure if Heath Ledger fit the part of The Joker, and boy, how wrong I was then! 

The other thing that bothers me is how will the new film turn out.  The Dark Knight was and remains one of a few films I've seen in theaters that blew me away (and I've seen close to 75 films in theaters).  It's a tall order for Christopher Nolan as co-writer and director to even meet up to the greatness of his previous Batman film, let alone surpass it.  Also, there's been previous examples of sequels which just weren't as good as their predecessors, no matter what, it seemed (Spider-Man 3 is sadly the best example).

However, considering the great films Christopher Nolan and his brother, Jonathan, have already done, it gives me great hope The Dark Knight Rises will prove to be a great film as well.  I can't wait for July of 2012.

“There's something you don't see everyday.”

Something happens which stands out in its own way, and before I know it, I'm using that immortal line from Bill Murray in Ghostbusters.  Yesterday, I came across three such somethings:

The New C-Word
With the media having tried to affix the motive for the Tucson shootings on rhetoric that supposedly instigates violence, we now have a CNN anchor apologizing for the use of that horrible word crosshairs (gasp! hope nobody has been motivated to violence because of me!).  This anchor acted as if Howard Stern uttered an obscenity; talk about stupidity of the highest order!  Of course, this is CNN I'm talking about here, so what else is new?

Bye-Bye Parker?
Speaking of the quote-unquote “most trusted name in news”, the New York Post has a story claiming CNN will be getting rid of Kathleen Parker as co-host of their tanking program Parker/Spitzer.  If that's true, I don't know how to react except...(sounds of uncontrollable laughter).  Although the idea of keeping a guy like Eliot Spitzer seems so laughable, I find the idea of the network (which decided to air this show in the first place) deciding to get rid of Kathleen Parker instead doubly laughable.  I guess her harping about Sarah Palin didn't do much for the show, now did it? (sounds of uncontrollable laughter)

Randall Terry For President
The founder of the pro-life group Operation Rescue recently announced he is running for President in 2012 against Barack Obama, as a Democrat (sounds strange since he's described as a lifelong Republican).  He isn't trying to win, mind you, he's trying to take advantage of primary election rules so he can run ads during the Super Bowl, ads aimed to showcase the President's pro-abortion stance.  I don't know what to expect from this latest effort of Terry's; whether it will have any impact on the election in 2012 is debatable.  In any event, it's something you don't see every day.

Ohhhhh Brother No. 33: Republicans Expected To Betray Tea Partiers, Uncertain How, Says Opposing Party!

The Libertarian Party has long painted the Republicans and the Democrats as being one and the same, and for their Monday message, they warn Tea Partiers will be double-crossed by the Republicans.

Wes Benedict, the LP's Executive Director, expressed his certainty the Republicans will betray the Tea Partiers.  Of course, he also wrote, “I'm not sure exactly what will happen first, though,”.

Ohhhhh brother!

The Libertarian Party may be better than the Republican Party, but it is a political party.  For myself, I hold as much trust in the LP as I do in the GOP (little, if any), and when it comes to elections, I don't vote for parties, I vote for candidates.

So, Mr. Benedict, thanks for the warning, but don't worry.  If any Republicans (or Libertarians, for that matter) double-cross the Tea Parties, the 9/12er's and the like, they will get their just desserts - at the ballot box.

Remembering a dream

A noble dream he spoke of, “a dream deeply rooted in the American dream” as he described it.  Listening to the speech, I noticed a line he said:

Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

Certainly something important to remember, in addition to his more famous quotation:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Plus, these two quotations:

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

...one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

The goal was always simple: a nation where human beings are treated as human beings, where the color of one's skin is irrelevant, where the ethnic origins of one's family is irrelevant.  Let us remember what was sought in 1963, as we remember Martin Luther King today.

The New RNC Chairman: Reince Priebus

This past Friday, 168 eligible voters cast their votes over the course of seven rounds of ballots, and the winner of the election for Chairman of the Republican Party was Reince Priebus, at the time, the Chairman of the Wisconsin Republican Party.

As I wrote previously when discussing my take on the RNC Debate held almost two weeks ago, I had never heard of Reince Priebus before, and after the debate, I still came away uncertain.  He sounded like an outspoken conservative, acknowledged the presence of the Tea Parties more than his opponents (and also expressed the need for unity with the Tea Parties), but these were just words in my mind.

During the debate, he cited the successes of 2010 in Wisconsin as the result of his leadership, but as with Michael Steele, the question for me remains: just how much of the victories in 2010 can truly be credited to Mr. Priebus (and the Wisconsin GOP) and how much belongs to the Tea Parties/9/12'ers?  I honestly cannot say whether he was the right choice, or even the best choice to replace Michael Steele.

At this point, I'm willing to give Reince Priebus a chance to back up what I've heard him say with action, and to handle the challenges which await him.  I will expect nothing less from the Republican Party's new chairman as we head for 2012.

An Orwellian Must-Read

Fellow Palinista M. Joseph Sheppard wrote up a wonderful blog post today, combining Sarah Palin with the classic Orwell novel 1984:

M.JOSEPH SHEPPARD’S "A POINT OF VIEW": If Orwell Had Written '1984' With Palin In The "Tw...: "It was nearly eleven hundred, and in the Records Department, where Winston worked, they were dragging the chairs out of the cubicles and gro..."

Reading Mr. Sheppard's post gives one an insightful look at the workings of those who are consumed with Palin Derangement Syndrome. I love it. By all means, click on the link and read the post.

Tom DeLay And The Criminalization Of Politics

With the news coverage centrally focused on the Tucson shootings, the recent updates on Tom DeLay have gone under the radar.  Sentenced this past Monday to three years in prison and ten years probation, the former Texas Congressman will continue to appeal to have the conviction and sentence overturned.

The fact that Congressman DeLay has had to go through the process of inquiries in the first place, both at the national and state levels, should never have happened.  I can't say it surprises me, with the good he did against Democrats in Washington and in Austin, and the only way his political enemies, notably the now-retired persecutor (I mean, uhh, prosecutor) Ronnie Earle, could stop him was to try and bring him down through the legal system; in other words, the criminalization of politics, as Mr. DeLay put it.

According to an article at Human Events, the odds look pretty good for the former Congressman to overturn the conviction.  I certainly hope such will be the case.  The Democrats successfully got Tom DeLay out of Congress already; let justice not be perverted a second time.

Keep the faith!

Who Is Truly Responsible?

In the debate over the Tucson shootings, the Left has condemned the use of what they deem violent rhetoric as the primary source of responsibility for the shootings (while ignoring their own use of rhetoric far more vitriolic and incendiary; here's an example).  It's this damnation by the Left which has brought about questions for me: Where does the responsibility truly belong?  When does rhetoric become the cause of violent acts?

We're seeing in Europe a Dutch politician and an Austrian educator on trial for hate speech.  Many people disagree with what they say, but have people gone out and killed Muslims as a result of what the politician and the educator have said?  Have they actually called for the deaths of anyone?  And even if there has, where should the responsibility be placed?  Where is the acceptable line between responsibility and culpability?

It is apparent from what is known about the Tucson shooter, Jared Loughner, that he is a psycho, pure and simple.  How big a factor was that violent rhetoric in his motivation?  If he wasn't insane, would he have done it anyway?

Seeing what some people are hoping to accomplish (i.e. attempting to restrict speech as a result of the Tucson shootings), it's made me wonder just what the definition of responsibility truly is in our nation, and should be.  Is it a matter for government to resolve, or for individual human beings to resolve for themselves?

These are serious and non-rhetorical questions I have here.  What rhetoric is unacceptable in a public forum?  Where does the culpability belong?  Most importantly, where the does the responsibility belong?

What say you?

Grassroots News Minute (January 14th)

Sarah Palin on America's Enduring Strength

Here is Sarah Palin's response to the shootings in Tucson, Arizona (and to those who've politicized it):

The Real Targets

As is well known, no sooner had the murders of six people and the attempted murders of thirteen more in Tucson, Arizona, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, it was transformed into a political blame game with the media, pundits, politicians and even law enforcement trying to put the blame on the Tea Parties, on Sarah Palin, and on our so-called violent rhetoric; as if what we've been saying, what we've been advocating, instigated Jared Loughner to start shooting at a Tucson Safeway.

Just read through the comments at a Daily Caller piece which came out the day of the shootings, and you'll see comments like these from a commenter who called himself Joe Steel:

2012: A Presidential Odyssey

It's been discussed since the day after Election Day, 2008.  It's been discussed while people were running for seats (and pundits were trying to sound smart) during last year's midterm elections.  And since the day after Election Day, 2010, that's become the most pontificated political topic right now.  Well, what else is new?

I've written elsewhere about 2012 already, as has everybody, but the sheer number of possible candidates has surprised me.  So many names have been brought up on the Republican side alone that I'm further surprised nobody has started going, “Hurry! Hurry! Hurry! 25 Candidates Vying For A Nomination! Get your tickets! Get your tickets! Hurry! Hurry! Hurry!”.  Yeah, I've said that elsewhere, too.

Anyway, I decided a while back to try and write as good an analysis of 2012 and the possible candidates as I can, even though I don't know enough about the candidates (well, it can't be any worse than when the pundits put their foot in their mouths!).  So here it is, my 2¢ on nearly 20 names brought up as candidates for President:

On the shooting at Tucson

It's been widely reported about a shooting in Tucson earlier today, which has resulted in six people murdered, and a Congresswoman in critical condition after being shot in the head.

Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was at a townhall event, was targeted by a gunman in an attack which resulted in herself and 12 others being wounded in addition to the six people murdered; among the murdered included a federal judge and a 9-year old girl.  My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.  May they rest in peace.

Thankfully, Congresswoman Giffords has survived surgery, but is looking at a long road to recovery; my thoughts and prayers are with her and family as well.  The shooter, a 22-year old man named Jesse Loughner, is said to be a psycho with a criminal background and hopefully will get the death penalty for his horrific acts.

Unfortunately, some people have taken the opportunity to politicize the shootings, blaming it on Sarah Palin and the Tea Parties (take a look at the comments at this Daily Caller piece, particularly those written by a commenter named Joe Steel).  The fact these individuals are using the shootings to try and paint their political opponents as the inspiration for this crime is despicable enough, but the truth about the piece of scum Loughner doesn't matter to the bastards who are using this heinous attack for their political gain.

The RNC Debate

This past Monday, Americans For Tax Reform, The Daily Caller and the Susan B. Anthony List held a debate between the five candidates seeking to become the next chairman of the Republican Party (friendly warning: you'll need a lot of megabytes on your computer, as the video is almost 100 minutes long).



Hosted by ATR's Grover Norquist and The Daily Caller's Tucker Carlson, the debate started a little past 1 pm with opening remarks followed by a series of questions asked of the candidates, then a lightning round of questions, a brief round of follow up questions, and concluded with closing statements.

The Candidates

To Senator Dan Coats and Congressman Marlin Stutzman,

I know this greeting may be a little late, but nevertheless, I would like to convey my congratulations to both of you in your successful efforts to become my representatives in the houses of Congress.  If anything, the past two years has left me with the reminder that I must keep an eye on those who go to Washington and Indianapolis to be my voice in the halls of the federal and state governments, and I will be paying attention to what both of you will be doing in the course of your respective terms.

I also wanted to leave you with a link to this Facebook note from Sarah Palin she wrote back in November.  What she says is something I believe you should take to heart.  Once again, my congratulations to both of you, and keep fighting the good fight!

To Former Senator Evan Bayh,

After twelve years in the Senate, you are now a private citizen, and I can't tell you how grateful to God I am for your departure.

Going through the prepared remarks for your farewell speech, I see you once again sound like such a moderate Democrat, such a reasonable statesman.  You always were a damn good actor, weren't you?  Always knew the right words to say to fool Hoosiers into thinking you weren't such a radical Democrat, didn't you?

There are a few passages in your speech that just makes me laugh, such as for starters, your gratitude to your “devoted staff”.  I'll bet they are devoted, devoted to keeping you away from those constituents of yours who had a beef with the votes you cast for things like the first stimulus bill under President Obama's watch or the massive overhaul of the health care system otherwise known as ObamaCare (don't worry, Mr. Bayh, we'll get to that and more later).

Then there's that wonderful passage where you express your gratitude “to the wonderful people of Indiana for whom I've been privileged to work almost my entire adult life”.  You follow that up with even more wonderful compliments to we, your constituents:

Targeted: Willow Palin

Now when you have drawn up a list of New Year's Resolutions, it's normally a list of positive goals, wouldn't you say?  Goals where you hope to better yourself in some way, am I not mistaken?  In my own attempts at forging New Year's Resolutions, that's exactly what I've tried to do.

In the case of a bottom feeder named Kathy Griffin, her resolution is to verbally assault Sarah Palin's teenage daughter, Willow:

"I've already gone for Sarah, Todd and Bristol obviously," Griffin told The Hollywood Reporter. "But I think it's Willow's year to go down. In 2011, I want to offend a new Palin.”

Now, Kathy Griffin may be familiar to all of you; she was once described as a comedienne, and I do recall her being funny on an occasion long ago, but I can't remember what she's done which can be regarded as possessing any value.  Can you think of anything?

On the other hand, as a bottom feeder, I recall her verbal assaults on the Palin family, and her clinging to Levi Johnston like a blood-sucking leech, so her twisted New Year's Resolution isn't that shocking.  Of course, this bottom feeder and supposedly once funny person has an allegedly noble reason to go after Willow:

Griffin said she was going after Willow because the teen reportedly used homophobic slurs on Facebook.

Gee, I wonder what the homophobic slur was?  Kathy Griffin looks like a man?  The bottom feeder who used to be funny (I guess) wants to go after a sixteen-year old girl because of who her mother is, and also because her kind of verbal assaults only go so far with her select audience.  I wouldn't be surprised if for 2012, this bottom feeder who looks like a man and used to be funny (back when Bill Clinton was President perhaps?) will resolve to verbally assault the Palins’ eight-year old daughter, Piper (after all, as R.S. McCain describes it, “Nothing is sacred and no one is safe”). 

I wonder how long that will last with her select audience; although, it does get me thinking: does she have a select audience?  And was she funny back when mullets were popular?

Thank You, Joe Miller

First off, I hope everybody had a great New Year's; mine went well (when Chinese food is involved, the day always goes well!).

Anyway, this past New Year's Eve, Joe Miller announced the end of his legal fight in regards to the Senate race against Senator Lisa Murkowski.

The reason for the defeat is up for debate, although I personally regard the idea that Mr. Miller was a bad candidate or did a lousy job campaigning as the Republican nominee in Alaska as nothing but crap.  I'm more inclined to believe a collection of liberals and moderates, Republicans and Democrats, were willing to vote for Senator Murkowski due to their opposition to Mr. Miller combined with the belief the Democrat nominee, Scott McAdams, couldn't win.

I also believe the Murkowski campaign was successful in getting their way with the courts, ensuring write-in votes for Senator Murkowski, no matter how badly misspelled they were (and even if they were deliberate misspellings intended to mock the Senator), would be counted as votes for her.  In the end, sadly, injustice was allowed to win, and a thief has been returned to Washington.  She'll certainly feel more at home than ever before.

As for Joe Miller, I'm sorry he lost; he earned that seat.  I thank him for his efforts during the course of the 2010 election cycle, for fighting the good fight.  People like him who had the courage to run in the first place are the reason my own optimism in the future of our nation has been renewed.

I hope he will run again in the near future, but regardless, I wish him and his family all the best with the future, and may God give him the strength, the patience and the endurance to continue fighting that good fight.  For indeed, it is only the end of the beginning.