Let's take a short trip down memory lane:
Firstly, some months ago, Matt Damon, Hollywood hotshot and former big time Obama supporter, has harsh words for Barack. Well documented now.
Secondly, Joe Biden, in an apparent foot-in-mouth incident, starts rambling about liking the concept of gay marriage to the media. At first, it seemed ill-timed. But in hindsight, it now appears that Biden is really more of a special-interest bullhorn for the White House. Hollywood tells Biden "Jump!" Biden says "How High?"
Thirdly, Jon Lovitz. His criticism of Obama was very recent, last month in fact. It was clear he was unhappy with the politics of the rich "not paying their fair share". This is why I ask the question.
There's only one thing Hollywood loves more than gay marriage, and that's MONEY. $15 million to Democrats may seem like a lot to us, but if they dislike Obama as much as I believe they do, the $15 million is a small price to pay for getting a wealth redistributor like Obama to shoot his own foot.
Some Hollywood personalities were very open to discussing the issue of gay marriage on twitter with conservatives, almost too eager. The timing around the North Carolina election was simply too coincidental.
If you have another take on it I'd like to hear it. Please post a reply. Thank you
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Like Ted Nugent needs another reason to rant!
McMillan Fiberglass Stocks, McMillan Firearms Manufacturing, McMillan Group International have been collectively banking with Bank of America for 12 years. Today Mr. Ray Fox, Senior Vice President, Market Manager, Business Banking, Global Commercial Banking came to my office. He scheduled the meeting as an “account analysis” meeting in order to evaluate the two lines of credit we have with them. He spent 5 minutes talking about how McMillan has changed in the last 5 years and have become more of a firearms manufacturer than a supplier of accessories.
At this point I interrupted him and asked “Can I possible save you some time so that you don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer what my business.”
“That is correct” he says.
I replied “That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a 2nd Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won’t mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?”
“You have to do what you must” he said.
“So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?”
Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing let for him to say.
I think it is import for all Americans who believe in and support our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms should know when a business does not support these rights. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. When I don’t agree with a business’ political position I can not in good conscience support them. We will soon no longer be accepting Bank of America credit cards as payment for our products.
Kelly D McMillan
Director of Operations
McMillan Group International, LLC
623-582-9635
www.mcmillanusa.com
At this point I interrupted him and asked “Can I possible save you some time so that you don’t waste your breath? What you are going to tell me is that because we are in the firearms manufacturing business you no longer what my business.”
“That is correct” he says.
I replied “That is okay, we will move our accounts as soon as possible. We can find a 2nd Amendment friendly bank that will be glad to have our business. You won’t mind if I tell the NRA, SCI and everyone one I know that BofA is not firearms industry friendly?”
“You have to do what you must” he said.
“So you are telling me this is a politically motivated decision, is that right?”
Mr Fox confirmed that it was. At which point I told him that the meeting was over and there was nothing let for him to say.
I think it is import for all Americans who believe in and support our 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms should know when a business does not support these rights. What you do with that knowledge is up to you. When I don’t agree with a business’ political position I can not in good conscience support them. We will soon no longer be accepting Bank of America credit cards as payment for our products.
Kelly D McMillan
Director of Operations
McMillan Group International, LLC
623-582-9635
www.mcmillanusa.com
Friday, April 06, 2012
For the fiscally secure social conservative, #Romney vs. Obama breeds apathy for the GOP
Yes. I am a Santorum supporter. I will probably vote Romney if I must. It's not my 1st item of priority though. If the absentee ballot gets lost in the mail, I'm not going to call the elections office to find out where it is.
Why am I facing elective apathy? Because my House & Senate GOP choices don't look promising either. There's not that much to look forward to come November in my district.
It would seem to me the GOP wants us to sit this election out. Obama is spiking the economy in select places, knowing that Romney will look more like a lateral move rather than a fundamental return to our values. You know, where Democrats have done the real damage.
You crusties at the top of the GOP, you keep pandering to liberal voters. I'm sure you believe you're far more clever than Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Dean, Emanuel, etc. at getting liberal voters. They've only been at it for 2 generations, but you're so much better at it...
Why am I facing elective apathy? Because my House & Senate GOP choices don't look promising either. There's not that much to look forward to come November in my district.
It would seem to me the GOP wants us to sit this election out. Obama is spiking the economy in select places, knowing that Romney will look more like a lateral move rather than a fundamental return to our values. You know, where Democrats have done the real damage.
You crusties at the top of the GOP, you keep pandering to liberal voters. I'm sure you believe you're far more clever than Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Dean, Emanuel, etc. at getting liberal voters. They've only been at it for 2 generations, but you're so much better at it...
Thursday, March 15, 2012
WH energy "agenda" coming back to bite them
Obama's running around today trying to cover his own rear end on his no-energy policy. I know Rush likes to talk about the polls & Obama's reaction to them, but there's much more going on here.
For the last two years, Obama's been trying to get Congress to lift the tax break for the little oil investor, the "you-and-me" investor. He likes to call it a "subsidy", but it's nothing of the sort. This was always part of his "comprehensive" energy plan (sarcasm), it would separate oil companies from investors, thus forcing us into liberal "green" scams. Here's a good link from The Right Scoop on it:
http://www.therightscoop.com/wh-cutting-oil-subsidies-about-fairness-not-about-gas-prices/
Many of Obama's financial supporters are basically green energy scammers that are seeing their investment go up in smoke. The pressure on the White House from former donors must be incredible, even Senate Democrats refused Obama.
Obama is being stubborn. He doesn't want to anger his donor base, so instead he's trying to find a way to deflect blame to Republicans.
Good luck with that, Mr. Obama. America knows the truth about you.
For the last two years, Obama's been trying to get Congress to lift the tax break for the little oil investor, the "you-and-me" investor. He likes to call it a "subsidy", but it's nothing of the sort. This was always part of his "comprehensive" energy plan (sarcasm), it would separate oil companies from investors, thus forcing us into liberal "green" scams. Here's a good link from The Right Scoop on it:
http://www.therightscoop.com/wh-cutting-oil-subsidies-about-fairness-not-about-gas-prices/
Many of Obama's financial supporters are basically green energy scammers that are seeing their investment go up in smoke. The pressure on the White House from former donors must be incredible, even Senate Democrats refused Obama.
Obama is being stubborn. He doesn't want to anger his donor base, so instead he's trying to find a way to deflect blame to Republicans.
Good luck with that, Mr. Obama. America knows the truth about you.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Delegate count - the skinny #TeamSantorum
Romney Frontloaded Friendly States
Romney supporters on the Republican National Committee manipulated the calendar to front-load several of the states that were favorable towards him. That was beneficial to his early lead in the delegate count, however it is problematic for him as the race continues and moves towards less friendly states. This is one of the reasons that they have been emphasizing their fuzzy delegate math after Super Tuesday.
Race Moves towards Santorum's Strength
The race for the nomination will soon start to move towards primaries and caucuses that are more favorable terrain for Rick Santorum. More importantly, the race will eventually move from primaries and caucuses that are often beauty contests to real county and state convention contests where actual delegates to the national convention are elected.
Anyone who knows anything about state conventions knows that the most conservative candidate has a big advantage over a moderate candidate. In many cases, this advantage is overwhelming.
Romney's Delegate Problem
Romney has a delegate problem in that he will have a very hard time getting his moderate supporters elected as delegates in these convention systems. This was evident in Iowa this weekend where the Romney operation collapsed, and Santorum and Paul gained delegates.
The Real Calendar
The Real Calendar (TRC) officially kicked off this weekend in Iowa where activists gathered to begin the process of electing national convention delegates. It is clear to anyone who understands this process that a moderate candidate like Mitt Romney is going to have a difficult time winning as many delegates to the national convention in an Iowa County and State Convention system as the media calculated based on the Open Caucus system that took place in January. This system will play out in state after state, and although there will be hiccups in certain states, on average Rick Santorum will gain far more delegates than Mitt Romney through this delegate election process.
The Real Count
The count largely depends on how you calculate the delegates in states such as Iowa that have not yet elected their National Convention Delegates. For example, the RNC currently gives Santorum 0 delegates for Iowa, the media gives him 7. We believe he will end up with more than 7 delegates as the process plays out. We also believe that Romney will receive less.
Most of the publicly available delegate counts are fundamentally flawed because none of them have taken into account that conservative grassroots activists at county and state conventions will elect more Santorum delegates than a primary or even caucus beauty contest in the same respective state would allocate. Therefore, the Real Counts are far better than the projected counts and will continue to improve as the National Convention approaches and states elect their actual convention delegates. The Santorum campaign will keep a tally called the Real Count moving forward. It will be based on the results of both the Real Calendar and the Traditional Calendar.
Romney supporters on the Republican National Committee manipulated the calendar to front-load several of the states that were favorable towards him. That was beneficial to his early lead in the delegate count, however it is problematic for him as the race continues and moves towards less friendly states. This is one of the reasons that they have been emphasizing their fuzzy delegate math after Super Tuesday.
Race Moves towards Santorum's Strength
The race for the nomination will soon start to move towards primaries and caucuses that are more favorable terrain for Rick Santorum. More importantly, the race will eventually move from primaries and caucuses that are often beauty contests to real county and state convention contests where actual delegates to the national convention are elected.
Anyone who knows anything about state conventions knows that the most conservative candidate has a big advantage over a moderate candidate. In many cases, this advantage is overwhelming.
Romney's Delegate Problem
Romney has a delegate problem in that he will have a very hard time getting his moderate supporters elected as delegates in these convention systems. This was evident in Iowa this weekend where the Romney operation collapsed, and Santorum and Paul gained delegates.
The Real Calendar
The Real Calendar (TRC) officially kicked off this weekend in Iowa where activists gathered to begin the process of electing national convention delegates. It is clear to anyone who understands this process that a moderate candidate like Mitt Romney is going to have a difficult time winning as many delegates to the national convention in an Iowa County and State Convention system as the media calculated based on the Open Caucus system that took place in January. This system will play out in state after state, and although there will be hiccups in certain states, on average Rick Santorum will gain far more delegates than Mitt Romney through this delegate election process.
The Real Count
The count largely depends on how you calculate the delegates in states such as Iowa that have not yet elected their National Convention Delegates. For example, the RNC currently gives Santorum 0 delegates for Iowa, the media gives him 7. We believe he will end up with more than 7 delegates as the process plays out. We also believe that Romney will receive less.
Most of the publicly available delegate counts are fundamentally flawed because none of them have taken into account that conservative grassroots activists at county and state conventions will elect more Santorum delegates than a primary or even caucus beauty contest in the same respective state would allocate. Therefore, the Real Counts are far better than the projected counts and will continue to improve as the National Convention approaches and states elect their actual convention delegates. The Santorum campaign will keep a tally called the Real Count moving forward. It will be based on the results of both the Real Calendar and the Traditional Calendar.
Monday, January 09, 2012
A treatise on the views (and concerns) of the Social Conservative
I often get the question regarding the sanctity of life, and marriage, "well why do you want to impose your views on others?" This post is written to explain some of these false premises that are often peddled by the left, and how "impose" is a gross misapplication of the definition. While no expert, I think I understand enough of what Rick Santorum is seeking, and you will hopefully see why he has the clearest vision and is the best choice for the country.
Here is the situation we have going on today in America. 1st of all, let's tackle the "Life" vs "Choice" arguments:
"Roe v. Wade" was decided by 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices. The presumption here is that this case settled the woman i.e. "female" right to choose to terminate her pregnancy i.e. "life". Let's explore this in a bit more detail.
Since "Roe v. Wade", technology gave us a deep understanding of what pregnancy i.e. "life" is defined as. We now know that upon the moment of conception, we essentially have an entirely new individual (person?) with its own unique DNA.
Great! Now let's ask them how they feel about whether they want to be aborted or not. (See how this is no longer as simple an understanding as it used to be?) if this new individual is a female, doesn't this essentially contradict the ruling? Where is her "right to choose"?
DEFINITION 1: "PERSONS"
The Constitution uses the term "persons" to define each of us. When the Constitution was written, there was a primitive understanding of pregnancy and all of its various complexities. Certainly, we must assume, had our forefathers known, the incredible level of detail that comes with conception, they would have expanded the definition of "persons" so it would not be left to the COURTS TO DECIDE, i.e. "Roe v Wade".
We are committing gross negligence to our country's future generations here, not to mention the spirit of the Constitution, by leaving this incredibly complex issue to SCOTUS who themselves are as archaic as the forefather's understanding of conception!
Rick Santorum is sounding the alarm bells with this issue. If we allow the Courts to decide when we're defined as a "person" upon conception, then we're also allowing the Courts to decide when we are a "person" upon near death too!
I think we can all agree that's not what we want. Rick Santorum isn't necessarily saying "Roe v Wade" was wrong. He's saying based upon new understanding of conception, IT'S OUTDATED, and we need to have a National Forum and discussion to debate, at what point does the Constitution define us as a "person"? This needs standardization by the Constitution, not tyrannical Kangaroo Courts making grossly inconsistent rulings.
DEFINITION 2: "MARRIAGE"
This one is trickier, but I'll do my very best to explain it.
Simply put, the purpose of marriage thru the ages (time immemorial) has been to bear & raise children, aka "nuclear family". Whether you are a religious person or not, no one can argue that we're designed to be connected as one man, one woman. This is also known to be described as NATURAL LAW. Any other relationship is social experimentation and therefore non-natural.
Marriage is not just a contractual relationship between people so good hair trial lawyers like John Edwards can swoop in like vultures to suck us dry upon divorce. To the majority of Americans, it's a form of religious expression that should be recognized under the 1st Amendment. In traditional Judeo-Christian upbringing, marriage brings with it sacred responsibilities that far and away exceed the minimalist file-clerk-at-the-county-seat window view. Attempting to redefine marriage is a form of hostility, marginalization towards Judeo-Christian beliefs for the sake of satisfying political opponents.
There is a very easy alternative solution for this. Allow Civil Unions at the State level. If your State wants to recognize Civil Unions, by all means, pay the County Clerk $60, take your union certificate and be sure you know a good divorce attorney (never let it be said I'm not pro-Union!)
Moving on...
As Rick Santorum has pointed out, using a Brookings Institute (a liberal think tank!) study as a reference, the overwhelmingly, statistically-evidenced best opportunity for success a child has is being part of a nuclear family. We must encourage parents to get married (or stay married). Orphans should be placed w/ married couples as much as is allowable.
Now of course the next question is "why not let gays adopt?" in my personal view, every American child deserves the best opportunity to be nurtured for success. The child deserves a natural upbringing, not a social experiment.
Before you bludgeon me with labels, you have to understand that our Country needs to have a National Forum of discussion on this too. Do we have a Federal level responsibility to insure a minimum opportunity of success for each child or not? Do we allow States to decide the minimum level of parentless child placement?
Can gay couples achieve such an upbringing with a high rate of success over long historical periods? If not, should we require the couple have a strong mentor of the opposite sex actively involved in the child's life to insure this occur? Do we address an item like this at the Federal level, or do we let the States handle it? I don't have those answers, what I have is more questions.
This is why we need legal framework. It's not an imposition, the idea is quite the opposite, to prevent rogue Judicial verdicts & rulings from taking a child's best available opportunity for achieving their own success. Leaving the Courts to decide this is a Dereliction of our Patriotic Duty!
DEFINITION 3: PARENTAL RIGHTS
While many of us have been delving into how much we can avoid upsetting our liberal friends, those of us that have avoided this are seeing a disturbing trend at the local & state levels. Parental rights are being destroyed at alarming rate, mostly in our court system. Case Law for parents is now just a form of Governmental intimidation & fear. If your kid is fat, the State can take him/her from you. This is tyrannical in every sense of the word. Good parents shouldn't have to be afraid of feeding their children a diet not approved by the DCS Gestapo, or worse, the WH imposed diet.
The Court system is deciding "parental rights" in America right now. We need to resolve this at the Federal level as well. Parental Rights needs to be a universally accepted concept, not wild suppositions by incompetent Courts at the local level that keep adding to the "Case Law" meme. Federal Law or Constitutional Amendment needs to provide framework so State/Local Governments don't exceed their authority on parental rights, lest we continue ruining the lives of American children that need reliable parental nurturing, not Judicial neglect and tyranny.
Future generations are depending on us, so we can depend on them. It is they who will eventually care for our needs as we grow older. Keep neglecting them, butchering them, abusing them, and they won't be around for us when we need them most. God Bless America!
Here is the situation we have going on today in America. 1st of all, let's tackle the "Life" vs "Choice" arguments:
"Roe v. Wade" was decided by 7 of 9 Supreme Court Justices. The presumption here is that this case settled the woman i.e. "female" right to choose to terminate her pregnancy i.e. "life". Let's explore this in a bit more detail.
Since "Roe v. Wade", technology gave us a deep understanding of what pregnancy i.e. "life" is defined as. We now know that upon the moment of conception, we essentially have an entirely new individual (person?) with its own unique DNA.
Great! Now let's ask them how they feel about whether they want to be aborted or not. (See how this is no longer as simple an understanding as it used to be?) if this new individual is a female, doesn't this essentially contradict the ruling? Where is her "right to choose"?
DEFINITION 1: "PERSONS"
The Constitution uses the term "persons" to define each of us. When the Constitution was written, there was a primitive understanding of pregnancy and all of its various complexities. Certainly, we must assume, had our forefathers known, the incredible level of detail that comes with conception, they would have expanded the definition of "persons" so it would not be left to the COURTS TO DECIDE, i.e. "Roe v Wade".
We are committing gross negligence to our country's future generations here, not to mention the spirit of the Constitution, by leaving this incredibly complex issue to SCOTUS who themselves are as archaic as the forefather's understanding of conception!
Rick Santorum is sounding the alarm bells with this issue. If we allow the Courts to decide when we're defined as a "person" upon conception, then we're also allowing the Courts to decide when we are a "person" upon near death too!
I think we can all agree that's not what we want. Rick Santorum isn't necessarily saying "Roe v Wade" was wrong. He's saying based upon new understanding of conception, IT'S OUTDATED, and we need to have a National Forum and discussion to debate, at what point does the Constitution define us as a "person"? This needs standardization by the Constitution, not tyrannical Kangaroo Courts making grossly inconsistent rulings.
DEFINITION 2: "MARRIAGE"
This one is trickier, but I'll do my very best to explain it.
Simply put, the purpose of marriage thru the ages (time immemorial) has been to bear & raise children, aka "nuclear family". Whether you are a religious person or not, no one can argue that we're designed to be connected as one man, one woman. This is also known to be described as NATURAL LAW. Any other relationship is social experimentation and therefore non-natural.
Marriage is not just a contractual relationship between people so good hair trial lawyers like John Edwards can swoop in like vultures to suck us dry upon divorce. To the majority of Americans, it's a form of religious expression that should be recognized under the 1st Amendment. In traditional Judeo-Christian upbringing, marriage brings with it sacred responsibilities that far and away exceed the minimalist file-clerk-at-the-county-seat window view. Attempting to redefine marriage is a form of hostility, marginalization towards Judeo-Christian beliefs for the sake of satisfying political opponents.
There is a very easy alternative solution for this. Allow Civil Unions at the State level. If your State wants to recognize Civil Unions, by all means, pay the County Clerk $60, take your union certificate and be sure you know a good divorce attorney (never let it be said I'm not pro-Union!)
Moving on...
As Rick Santorum has pointed out, using a Brookings Institute (a liberal think tank!) study as a reference, the overwhelmingly, statistically-evidenced best opportunity for success a child has is being part of a nuclear family. We must encourage parents to get married (or stay married). Orphans should be placed w/ married couples as much as is allowable.
Now of course the next question is "why not let gays adopt?" in my personal view, every American child deserves the best opportunity to be nurtured for success. The child deserves a natural upbringing, not a social experiment.
Before you bludgeon me with labels, you have to understand that our Country needs to have a National Forum of discussion on this too. Do we have a Federal level responsibility to insure a minimum opportunity of success for each child or not? Do we allow States to decide the minimum level of parentless child placement?
Can gay couples achieve such an upbringing with a high rate of success over long historical periods? If not, should we require the couple have a strong mentor of the opposite sex actively involved in the child's life to insure this occur? Do we address an item like this at the Federal level, or do we let the States handle it? I don't have those answers, what I have is more questions.
This is why we need legal framework. It's not an imposition, the idea is quite the opposite, to prevent rogue Judicial verdicts & rulings from taking a child's best available opportunity for achieving their own success. Leaving the Courts to decide this is a Dereliction of our Patriotic Duty!
DEFINITION 3: PARENTAL RIGHTS
While many of us have been delving into how much we can avoid upsetting our liberal friends, those of us that have avoided this are seeing a disturbing trend at the local & state levels. Parental rights are being destroyed at alarming rate, mostly in our court system. Case Law for parents is now just a form of Governmental intimidation & fear. If your kid is fat, the State can take him/her from you. This is tyrannical in every sense of the word. Good parents shouldn't have to be afraid of feeding their children a diet not approved by the DCS Gestapo, or worse, the WH imposed diet.
The Court system is deciding "parental rights" in America right now. We need to resolve this at the Federal level as well. Parental Rights needs to be a universally accepted concept, not wild suppositions by incompetent Courts at the local level that keep adding to the "Case Law" meme. Federal Law or Constitutional Amendment needs to provide framework so State/Local Governments don't exceed their authority on parental rights, lest we continue ruining the lives of American children that need reliable parental nurturing, not Judicial neglect and tyranny.
Future generations are depending on us, so we can depend on them. It is they who will eventually care for our needs as we grow older. Keep neglecting them, butchering them, abusing them, and they won't be around for us when we need them most. God Bless America!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
