I read this article yesterday and found it interesting. I am glad that someone has decided that men need to stand up for themselves. Women should be equal but I feel that lately we have begun to forget he needs of men and ignored it when they have started falling behind in society. But what I can't believe is that there is so much attention to the formation of this group and that many of those that are wondering whats the use of this group are from feminist groups such as Feminist Majority. Will some women ever feel like they have received enough from society or will there always be this battle between men and women? I hate reverse discrimination but I will not go off on it today.

Why is it that we are hearing more and stories like this one? Is it because there are more incidences now or because they are finally being noticed by the media, even if it is just fox news that reported this one? It saddens me when people get punished for being patriotic but if you burn the flag or do any other form of anti US protesting, there is no punishment.

Not much to say about this article. Just typical freedom of speech related to second amendment rights trampling.

What rights do we have left in this country anymore? Is it even okay to believe in God anymore?

I Live In A Commonwealth. Do you?

This is a really random subject to blog about but my fiances brother asked me why Virginia considers itself a commonwealth and I could not answer the question. So I decided to research it and thought I could enlighten you as well.

The term commonwealth, dating back to the fifteenth century, literally meant "common well-being." Now the term is generally used to mean a "political community." There are 4 states that consider themselves "commonwealths." Namely Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Kentucky. The type of communities that a commonwealth deals with in these instances are "a political unit founded in law by agreement of the people for the common good."

Basically commonwealths are commonwealths because they decided to be, not because there is any difference between it and a state (at least in modern times).

Below is a quick summary of why each specific state became a commonwealth, as far as I have found in my research. Feel free to add if you know anything else.

Virginia: In colonial times VA was known as the Colony and Dominion of Virginia. When the 13 colonies broke ties with the British Crown that name was no longer acceptable. When the first Constitution of Virginia was adopted, commonwealth was used to name the new form of government. More than likely they were referring back more than a 100 years previous when the puritans were not ruled by the crown.

Kentucky: Originally a part of VA and when it became the 15th state in the US, it continued to use the term

Massachusetts:Previous to 1780, on all documents the term state was used for Massachusetts. But in 1780, when the Massachusetts Constitution went into effect they became known as the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts." In the era leading up to that time, commonwealth was a popular term for a body of people constituting a state. John Adams added the term when framing the Constitution where it remained. The term had democratic overtones and there may have been some anti-monarchial sentiment in its usage.

Pennsylvania: As hard as I am trying I can't find a definite answer for this one but I assume it has something to do with their independence from Great Britain and the anti-monarchial sentiment when the Constitution was written.

A QUICKY NEWS UPDATED

As you probably would assume, I am very happy with this ruling though I do expect a lot of backlash for it and a potential reversal some day. San Francisco Mayor Newsom's quote was my favorite.

This sounds like something they made up to feel like they are doing something to help the earth that will only end up costing billions before they realize it doesn't work. But perhaps I am wrong.

I have a lot of research I want to do on Sotomayor but she is looking oh so not good already.

Yet another piece of news that is sadly not surprising.

After my rant a while ago I thought this piece was slightly funny.

I don't even know what to make of this.

SHOUT OUT TO VIRGINIA & LOUDOUN COUNTY PART 1

I tend to prefer politics on a national level over local level but I can can't ignore my roots, especially when local politics is in my blood. So this post is the first of many dedicated to Virginia and turning it into a Red State again.

The LCRC has had its ups and downs but much of the ick that was going on has been cleared. With a new, and may I saw very talented, leader it has once again turned into the great committee it can be. I am excited to be a part of it and hope that I allow my self to get more involved. We have a strong committee and have many great things on the agenda.

To help get Republicans elected RedStormPAC donates 100% of the contributions it receives for candidates to candidates. While I am a fan of voting for a candidate based on his/her actions and beliefs, and not voting straight ticket just because, we may not have any other choice this election. We dont want strong Democrats in office while Obama is there.

Happy Early Memorial Day

I am going out of town for a few days to visit the beach with my fiances family, but I want to do something different next year; something more respectful for those who are fighting for our freedom. Lets never miss the opportunity to thank a soldier, or any other hero, for that which they have given up for us.




Below is a picture of one of my greatest heroes, my Grandfather York. He served his country for many years and loved America with all he had till the day he died. Miss You!!!




















God bless this country and those who have, are, and will give their lives to defend it, serve it, and honor it.

Those Who Wont Be Named

see more Political Pictures

Captain Obama

I know nothing about Star Trek but I sure am excited to see the movie eventually. But because of my lack of knowledge I don't know what my reaction is to Obama being compared to Spock. Please do not waste your time reading every word of every article including their links, I didn't, but just for the fun of it what do you think?

Great Britian is Filled with Great Problems

Great Britain seems to be having problems lately. For the first time since 1965, the lower house speaker was ousted thanks to an expense scandal and an angry public. Its nice to see that some people have sense over in Great Britain concerning politics.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has banned Michael Savage from Britain. For some, this may seem like such a miniscule issue. Michael does not often travel to Great Britain so who cares if hes banned plus many people feel that he can get too extreme at times. I don't even often listen to him. BUT WAKE UP! It is a problem, whether you like the guy or not.

Straight up, Great Britain banned an American for his opinions. There is no evidence he has caused violence, that he is a terrorist, or a criminal, and hes banned. He was banned for no other reason than that someone disagreed with him. The UK does not have the same government structure as the United States of America, nor the same laws, but I would never suspect that they would stoop to something this low. They do not have the same level of freedom of speech as America does but they do not have a record either of banning people from the UK simply because they voiced an opinion.

Did you see the list of people that are allowed to stay in the UK? Obviously she isn't concerned about any danger her country may be in. Jacqui says "Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you." But she allows Dr Philip Nitschke in the country who clearly does not believe in specific laws that Great Britain uphold. I hope he remembers assisted suicide is illegal in the UK. I guess she meant that those who can't keep their mouths shut and have strong opinions can't be allowed in the country but if you kill someone, no problem, come on in.

A lot of people have been bringing up the issue of the first amendment in America. Some people don't get this as the UK does not follow our constitution so let me tell you what I think. America has stood as a beacon for freedom for a long time nor does it have a recent record of endorsing murder, violence, etc. If we did, we would probably be hearing about it from other countries as we are now about the abuse scandal. We definitely don't get slack for the level of freedom of speech in America. Savage lives in America and thus has the legal right to voice his opinions. Why ban a man for legally voicing his opinions in his own country unless there is evidence that he would break laws or cause harm to others in the UK if he traveled there? Even if you judged it by international laws and UN standards he is a-okay. And once again, whose worse to have in your country, Savage or a terrorist?

So what does this issue show and why is it so important? Great Britain is loosing its greatness and its citizens know it. They are becoming intolerant in the name of tolerance (sound familiar) and are allowing their government to be run by incompetent people. I wish I could find audio of the parliamentary debates I heard. It was clear that the right leaning parliament members knew what was happening in their country and knew that they had to stand up for Savage. I also had a British roommate, who though liberal, knew the her country was going down a dangerous path. Her concerns where a bit like this lady's concerns, though my roommates were voiced a few year later. The UK is becoming too politically correct, trying to open up to all the immigrants, trying to not offend anyone, but really just giving their country away. And now they are trying to keep out any that might offend those people.

My real concern is that America is for once not leading the UK but instead following it down this path. You may not care about Great Britain (unless you are from there of course) but you should care about the United States of America and you should care that we are going down that dangerous path too.

But there is good news, as this guy who clearly hates Savage has pointed out. How many people now watch Michael Savage because of all the attention he has been receiving, who otherwise would not have been knowledgeable of his existence? His views are finally touching many overseas. Maybe he should be thanking Jacqui for all the attention he has been receiving.

Don't Worry Be Happy

This study made me laugh and I don't doubt what it says.

Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of environmentalism is a hatred for mankind. - Ann Coulter

This article is a good starting point for what I want to discuss. The cost of liberal environmental policies. Those who push environmental regulation policies on the government and the people too often forget what the cost of their policy will have. My capstone class at BYU was taught by a very nice, older gentleman, whose only fault was that he was a liberal. During one particular debate a classmate told a story. In California (sorry I don't remember the specific area) many residents liked to try and prevent their houses from being burnt down so they cut down trees around their house. Some liberal policies were enacted and these residents could cut their trees down only so far from their house, definitely not as far as they would like. The reason was that there were some endangered birds living in the area so they did not want to ruin their habitate. Well a fire came and burnt all the houses down and come to find out the bird was not going extinct. It was just living south of the border. My teacher blew it off saying it was extreme example but I would like to disagree.

I have nothing against helping to protect nature. I love it and we should not completely destroy it nor should cruelty to animals be taken lightly. What I have a problem with is people who have more sympathy for animals than they do for another human being. And that is why I want to discuss liberal environmental policies.

To start off this short discussion,I want to ask whether the federal government enact environmental policies that clearly affect only a few states or should it be left up to the state? I personally believe it should be left up to the state. We elect our representatives and can prevent them from taking office again if they enact a ridiculous policy. State and local officials also know the cost and benefits of a specific policy better than a politician from another state who just wants to save the environment. Local officials are less likely to put the people second as the people's vote is how they get elected. This is only part of the solution to the problems discussed, as some states will still get screwed, but at least it keeps the federal government out of our lives and out of our pockets.

A more recent example of the effects of environmental policy which I originally heard about on the radio is another one dealing with water. Fresno California is having a war between environmentalist and local farmers. Farmers are being forced out of business because someone wants to save some fish. And we wonder why California is going bankrupt. It all started in 1993 when the Delta Smelt was listed as a threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species act. Then in 2007 a California Federal Judge imposed limits on water pumps supplying the Central Valley with water for agricultural and residential purposes. They are loosing upwards of 40,000 jobs from this incident alone, all thanks to a Federal Act. Please note the quote from Lloyd Carter. The first time I heard it I about died I was so shocked. For someone to have the gal to say that no matter what their opinion on illegal immigration is, just blows me away. And conservatives are called racist? Plus, whether someone is illegal or not has nothing to do with this water situation and from what I hear the fish aren't exactly indigenous to the area either. Some Republican's very recently released this on the matter.

Next, this whole cap and trade scheme that is being discussed by the feds has been around for a while and the results never looked good. I have only heard negative reviews of the proposed cap-trade scheme. The fact that there is a high chance of a negative effect, job loss with little environmental gain, means they need to be careful about what they are doing before they go down this road. But hey look there is something, even if its minuscule, that we can do. Or we can just laugh.

Now for global warming (read the editorial too). I am still not convinced it is not a scheme. Especially when Al Gore is at the head of it. I will bet you that in the next twenty years we will see a "global cooling" again. Whatever the liberals can do to cause mass hysteria and scare people into voting for their policies.

I will never understand how people can become such extreme environmentalists, how people can choose to make the life of an animal more comfortable than the life of another human (Any good PETA stories anyone? They always make me cringe). But it is not my job to figure them out. I do feel that some of these people are not extreme environmentalists, do not care for animals more, but have been duped into believing that they need to and have to help by enacting policies that will end up hurting the economy and hurting the citizens of the United States of America. And then there are the politicians that use environmental policy as a means of power and votes. But though they all have different reasons for their actions, their actions are all the same and we need to do what we can to prevent them from taking office and being successful. We are having an economic crisis now, and the more and more I learn about policies like these, I am not surprised. For once the Federal Government needs to stop wasting our money on environmental policies like those discussed above and let the people choose.

One last random but interesting thing: here is an example of why we need privatization in some things.

I Think I Am Getting Sick

This investigation the Liberals are seeking into abuse of prisoners/terrorists is not fairing well for them. They not only voting in a president who is reversing his decisions but Nancy Pelosi can't get her story straight. In fact, she kind of reminds me of a criminal who goes to the police to help them solve a crime in order to throw them off the scent. Now shes getting stuck in her lies. Please read the comments at the end of this article. Now gag with me!!! As for President Obama, I just want to say that the fact that he needed senior military officials to tell him what should seem obvious, is ridiculous.

Obama is also busy trying to find money to pay for his spending. I have been a-okay with taxing alcohol and cigarettes up till now, mainly because I sadly just don't care. I don't drink nor do I smoke. But I am thinking about it now, and want to study it more, now that they want to increase the tax on junk food. Yes junk food is not healthy and is the cause of a lot of America's weight issues, but how can they just pick out a certain type of food and increase its tax? How can someone tax me more because I, like your average American, want to eat a bag of chips? Junk food is expensive enough. Don't get me wrong. I try to eat healthy and I am all about a healthy America, but I am not sure a junk food tax is the way to accomplish that. In the end I want freedom, I want lower taxes, I want my junk food. Click here if you want a quick analysis of the subject. I want to know what you think?

For some reason this article does not surprise me but I will leave it at that for now.

Specter makes me laugh and not in an "I am laughing along with you" kind of way.

Taking Chance

I had the opportunity to watch Taking Chance last night. I was very impressed by the movie. For those of you who don't know Taking Chance was an HBO presentation about the a real life incident. In 2004 Lt. Col. Michael Strobl, a volunteer military escort officer, accompanied the body of 19-year-old Marine Chance Phelps back to Dubois Wyoming.

In its simplicity, Taking Chance, is a great example of how every soldier should be treated, even in death. Every American would benefit from watching this movie as we often fail to show soldiers the respect they deserve. The close attention that is paid to detail, to the emotions and actions of all that came in contact with the body, is what makes this movie so personal.

I learned not only about all the work that is put into transporting a dead soldier, but I felt an increased need to do something for them. I felt pain for his loved ones, sorrow that he died, but love for this country and for all who fight for its freedom. I feel that in a sense, they paid more respect to Chance by paying less attention to his story of bravery (which is great within itself) and paying more attention to how he was brought home. He was quietly brave and its how they kept it in this movie. I know for a fact that many, if not most, soldiers are not treated the way he was and that is saddening.

I highly recommend picking up a copy of Taking Chance, and not only sitting down and watching it, but sharing it with your family, friends, and neighbors. I also hope we will all pay more attention to these brave men and women and show them the respect they all deserve.

My Biggest Pet Peeve

I should probably be talking about something else that is more important to this country but I can't ignore this feeling of annoyance that is growing increasingly larger in me as I read the news. My biggest pet peeve with politics right now is how nobody seems to be able to take a taste of their own medicine and how the rules don't matter as long as your not in the hot seat. I have seen this a tiny bit on the Conservatives side but not even close to the extent I have seen it on the Liberals side. They had the White House Correspondence Dinner the other night and during it Wanda Sykes took more than enough jabs at Rush Limbaugh. Mind you, I know each side tends to call the other side terrorists and many of us may secretly hope someone on the other side dies, but Wanda's comments are the epitome of tasteless for such an event, telling the audience that she hopes his kidneys fail. It sounded more like a political statement with a few jokes thrown in rather than a comedy act. But I can still get past the fact that she has a rather lame sense of humor but what I cant get past is the fact that I know no Conservative could get away with a joke like that. We would be called racists, hateful...racist again because that's their favorite jab...you name it we would be call it. Its not okay for us to disagree, to make jokes, to say we hope someone dies, but its a-okay for the liberals. Why this double standard? Do they just have some complex thats rampant on the Liberals side that's causing this double standard? Let me name two more example, though there are a slew of them, where I have seen this double standard. Its okay to call Bush a terrorist but not okay to call Obama a terrorist. It makes you racist (as does disagreeing with Acorn so watch out you racist people). Its okay that Obama stutters all the time and can't give a speech without a teleprompter but its not okay when Bush made mistakes in his speech. Bush must have been lacking brain cells but Obama, well hes still cool...cause you dont want to be called a racist.

I say it should either be free game for all or no game at all.

And on a side note, I call for a new word to use when talking about past racism. The Liberals have hijacked the word and used it in such nonsensical ways I don't even feel like I can use the word anymore. If disagreeing with Acorn is racism what was it when blacks couldn't vote??

And talking about wishing people were dead, I have a new favorite bumber sticker. It says "If You Must Burn Our Flag, Wrap Yourself In It First." Flag burning...just another pet peeve of mine. I hope those people don't celebrate the 4th of July. They don't deserve that holiday. Just saying....

Point Taken

Strange

My blog layout randomly changed and I had no clue. Luckily it was a quick fix but if I scared any of you sorry about it!!!! And don't ask me how it happened.