I haven’t found a post topic for today. I’m utterly disgusted with the so-called ‘Pubs hounding the CPAC speakers. Now they’re pound on Dr. Carson claiming he favors government run health insurance, is against private insurance, etc., etc., etc.

Gunnies are claiming victory over Feinstein when the battle isn’t over. She’s breaking it up and will submit portions of her bill as amendments to Reid’s gun control bill—mag limits and semi-auto ban to Reid’s criminalizing private sales of firearms.

I’m taking the rest of the day off and do something else!


It’s gray outside at 9am. The temperature is hovering at freezing and we’re expected to get some light snow/freezing rain at any time. In two more days, it will be Spring. Today, however, it’s still Winter and the blahs are here.

The condition is accompanied by a local election in a month for city mayor and some councilmen. With one exception, the candidates are dems, dem-wannabees, or RINOs. From conversations with a number of folks-in-the-know, the long knives are out and betrayals has broken several friendships.

A pox on them.

No, I don’t mean that. A part-time ‘Pub, even one who only gives lip-service to conservatism, is still, marginally, better than dems who are blatant with their schemes to steal our wealth and squander our hard-built fiscal reserves.

The malaise extends from local ‘Pub politics to the state ‘Pubs to the national committees. The establishment believes they can retain, retrieve their national power by becoming democrat-lite. Reince Priebus presented his marketing plan to sell the “republican” brand by adopting all the social initiatives of the democrats. They released this plan just as CPAC was ending.

Reince Priebus gives GOP prescription for future

Posted by Rachel Weiner on March 18, 2013 at 9:39 am

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus gave a blistering assessment of the GOP’s problems on Monday based on the results of a months-long review, and he called on the party to reinvent itself and officially endorse immigration reform.

Referring to the November election, Priebus said at a breakfast meeting: “There’s no one reason we lost. Our message was weak; our ground game was insufficient; we weren’t inclusive; we were behind in both data and digital; and our primary and debate process needed improvement.”

“So, there’s no one solution,” he said. “There’s a long list of them.”

Among the report’s 219 prescriptions: a $10 million marketing campaign, aimed in particular at women, minorities and gays; a shorter, more controlled primary season and earlier national convention; and creation of an open data platform and analytics institute to provide research for Republican candidates.

Mississippi Committeeman Henry Barbour, Florida strategist Sally Bradshaw, former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, Puerto Rico Committewoman Zori Fonalledas and South Carolina Committeman Glenn McCall authored the report.

The report was received with a resounding “thud!” of dropped jaws from conservatives. The report was supported by those in the Washington establishment , such as Karl Rove and Ann Coulter, while attacking the ‘Pub conservative base. The divergence of views was so divisive that some well-known, conservative observers speculated that the end of the republican party was on the horizon.

Trouble Brewing in GOP

David Limbaugh, Mar 19, 2013

For the first time, I am wondering about the long-term viability of the Republican Party. I say this not as an advocate of its demise or restructuring but as an observer of troubling signs.

The Republican Party is thought to be the institutional vehicle for the advancement of conservative policies, but for decades, the conservative movement has been frustrated with the party’s deviation from conservative principles — its refusal to live up to its decidedly conservative platform.

I believe that the disappointing results for Republicans in the 2006 elections and probably the 2012 elections, as well, were in no small part attributable to frustrated conservatives staying at home.

The thinking among many conservatives has been that the party has consistently fallen short by failing to restrain the growth of the ever-expanding federal government and by failing to nominate sufficiently conservative presidential nominees. That is, if we would just nominate and elect Reagan conservatives and govern on Reagan principles, we would recapture majority status in no time.

The main opposing view — call it the establishment view — holds that Republicans need to accept that the reign of small government is over, get with the program and devise policies to make the irreversibly enormous government smarter and more energetic. In other words, Republicans need to surrender to the notion that liberalism’s concept of government has won and rejigger their agenda toward taming the leviathan rather than shrinking it.

I’d feel better if the ongoing competition between Reagan conservatives and establishment Republicans were the only big fissure in the GOP right now, but there are other cracks that threaten to break wide open, too. Our problems transcend our differing approaches to the size and scope of government and to fiscal and other economic issues.

Reagan conservatism is no longer under attack from just establishment Republicans; it’s also under attack from many inside the conservative movement itself. Reagan conservatism is a three-legged stool of fiscal, foreign policy and social issues conservatism. But today many libertarian-oriented conservatives are singing from the liberal libertine hymnal that the GOP needs to remake its image as more inclusive, less tolerant, less judgmental and less strident. In other words, it needs to lighten up and quit opposing gay marriage, at least soften its position on abortion, and get on board the amnesty train to legalize illegal immigrants. I won’t even get into troubling foreign policy divisions among so-called neocons, so-called isolationists and those who simply believe we should conduct our foreign policy based foremost on promoting our strategic national interests.

One might reasonably assume that President Obama’s abysmal record would usher in an era of GOP unity, but ironically, his policies have put such a strain on America that they seem to be exacerbating, rather than alleviating, the divisions within the GOP. I see my more libertarian-oriented conservative friends on Twitter, for example, wholly frustrated with conservatives who refuse to surrender on the social issues and thereby, in their view, jeopardize a coalition that could successfully oppose Obama’s bankrupting of America. It’s as if they believe that all social conservatives have morphed into Todd Akins.

Maybe it’s just from where I’m sitting, but it appears to me that momentum is building among Republicans to capitulate on the issue of same-sex marriage, no matter what negative consequences might result from society’s abandonment of support for traditional marriage. Likewise, it seems that many Republicans are determined to surrender on the immigration issue on the naive hope that Republicans will instantly shed the ogre factor and be on equal footing to compete for the Hispanic vote.

I belong to the school that believes the Republican Party must remain the party of mainstream Reagan conservatism rather than try to become a diluted version of the Democratic Party. This does not mean Republicans can’t come up with creative policy solutions when advisable, but it does mean that conservatism is based on timeless principles that require no major revisions. Conservatives are champions of freedom, the rule of law and enforcement of the social compact between government and the people enshrined in the Constitution, which imposes limitations on government in order to maximize our liberties. If we reject these ideas, then we have turned our backs on what America means and what has made America unique. What’s the point of winning elections if the price is American exceptionalism?

I refuse to acquiesce to the cowardly notion that conservatives are intolerant or mean-spirited because they oppose discriminant treatment for groups and classes of people, because they support the rule of law, because they oppose a runaway entitlement state and because they adhere to traditional values, including the protection of innocent life.

But my personal preferences as to the future of the conservative movement and the GOP aren’t really the point. The point is that no matter what I prefer, the hard truth is that the movement inside the Republican Party to abandon social conservatism is nothing short of a political death wish. Denying it will not alter the reality.

David Limbaugh is a well-respected, conservative writer. He is as much a conservative as his brother and, like his brother, he is not a member of the establishment—The Ruling Class, as Rush has labeled them.

If the split does come, we can kiss goodbye winning the 2016 presidential election. The new party hasn’t time to seize control of the state party organizations, or, where the establishment retains control, to build their own state organizations. They need local, state and national organizations, well-managed and organized political infrastructure, to win the necessary electoral college votes and the election.

I’m not sure which is worse, the dems winning again in 2016 with Hilliary (gag!) or another dem, or having the establishment continue in control of the ‘Pubs. In either case, our chances of winning in 2016 has taken a nose-dive.

Monday shot

This will be short. I have to leave in a few minutes for a dental appointment. Before I go, I want to leave you with this piece of information.  John Boehner is betraying us again.

Boehner to Keep Funding ObamaCare

By J. Robert Smith, March 18, 2013

This is why the Republican Party is flopping and floundering like a beached whale. You’ve heard the news, no doubt. Speaker John Boehner said that he’ll allow the CR (Continuing Resolution) that House Republicans are crafting to fund ObamaCare. The speaker, in a rather shallow, one-dimensional pronouncement, stated last week that tackling the federal budget is about “cutting spending.” The speaker fears that defunding ObamaCare in the CR risks shutting down government (perish the thought).

Here are the speaker’s own words, as reported by

“I believe that trying to put Obamacare on this vehicle risks shutting down the government,” Boehner said. “That’s not what our goal is. Our goal here is to reduce spending.”

Mr. Speaker, the goal of the House Republican Caucus isn’t to play the ever-expanding welfare state’s bookkeeper and accountant. The goal of your caucus (along with Republican senators) is to create a compelling alternative to what the federal government should be and what its relationship is to the people. ObamaCare effectively nationalizes one-sixth of the nation’s economy, undermines liberty by curtailing Americans’ choices in health care, and, not incidentally, will wind up mega-bombing the federal budget, the national debt (already nearly unsustainable), and make Uncle Sam’s current Grand Canyon-size deficit look like a divot by comparison.

It’s the big picture, Mr. Speaker, the BIG picture. The time has come to draw a real line in the sand. All these symbolic votes House Republicans cast against ObamaCare means less than voting for your favorite American Idol contestant. Let’s get real — and really put some bite behind all the bark.

Clearly, it makes the speaker’s and his lieutenants’ skin crawl just thinking about the blowback from voters if they’d strike dollars from the CR for ObamaCare, thereby provoking the president to shut down the government. We can guess that Boehner, Cantor, and McCarthy are taking wise counsel from the flawless DC consultants who gave us President Romney, a U.S. Senate majority, and added to the Republican House majority in last year’s elections. Right-O.

You can read more at the website, here. The above article is followed by this one.  Boehner thinks Obama is an alright guy and a friend!

John Boehner: Trust President Obama? ‘Absolutely’

By Cheryl K. Chumley – The Washington Times, March 18, 2013

House Speaker John Boehner says he and President Obama have their differences, but in the end, their relationship is one of trust and friendship.

Mr. Boehner was asked directly during a Sunday talk show: Do you trust the president?

“Absolutely,” he said, as Politico reported. ABC then reported the follow-up question: “Absolutely?” And Mr. Boehner repeated: “Absolutely,” as ABC reported.

Mr. Boehner then continued, as Politico reported: “The president and I, as I have made very clear, have a very good relationship. We’re open with each other. We’re honest with each other. But we’re trying to bridge some big differences.”

Mr. Boehner then went on to suggest Mr. Obama be more like former President Clinton, who successfully reached out to Republicans over budget issues and subsequently nailed the bipartisan talks into his legacy.

“We were able to come to an agreement on a plan that would balance the budget, and it did,” Mr. Boehner said, as ABC reported. “And it’s part of his legacy. And I would hope the president would realize — that this could be part of his legacy as well.”

I firmly believe Boehner was re-elected by democrats.

It’s Friiiday!!

And that means it’s time for the Follies. Today we have several entries for the Follies. First, Obama has been slapped upside the head again by another federal judge. This time, it’s about Domino’s Pizza. The judge ruled that Obama cannot force Domino’s Pizza to offer birth control to its employees.

Judge: Feds Can’t Make Domino’s Founder Offer Birth Control

March 14, 2013 6:31 PM

DETROIT (WWJ/AP) — A federal judge has blocked the Obama administration from requiring Domino’s Pizza founder Tom Monaghan to provide mandatory contraception coverage to his employees under the federal health care law.

The devout Roman Catholic says he considers contraception “gravely immoral” practice. His lawsuit also lists as a plaintiff his Domino’s Farms, an office park outside Ann Arbor.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law against Monaghan and Domino’s Farms.

Monaghan has sold most of his controlling stake in Domino’s Pizza. He offers health insurance that excludes contraception and abortion for employees.

The new federal law requires employers to offer insurance including contraception coverage or risk fines.

Michigan has a large contingent of Catholics—30-40% of those who claim to be religious. This suit was only for Domino’s Pizza but it can be used to support similar lawsuits filed by the Catholic Church and other religious organizations.

The Michigan Catholic Conference and other Catholic entities also sued over the new law, saying it violates religious freedom by requiring many religiously affiliated hospitals, schools and charities to comply.


Obama met with some of the GOP for lunch…except he wouldn’t eat with them. You see, he didn’t have his food taster with him. 

Really! Here’s the story from The Daily Caller.

Obama couldn’t eat at Hill meeting without food ‘taster’ [AUDIO]

4:39 PM 03/14/2013

 WASHINGTON — Following President Obama’s lunch meeting with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill, Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins described the food served and said the president was not able to eat since his “taster” was not present.

“Unfortunately, you know, the president can’t,” said Collins when asked if Obama ate at the lunch meeting.

“He looked longingly at it,” Collins continued. “He honestly did look longingly at it, but apparently he has to have essentially a taster, and I pointed out to him that we were all tasters for him, that if the food had been poisoned all of us would have keeled over so, but he did look longingly at it and he remarked that we have far better food than the Democrats do, and I said that was because I was hosting.”



Local elections are coming up next month. Here in Raymore, the Mayor and several city council seats are open. I haven’t seen the ballot yet, I’ve not seen who is running for what for every position. There has been a shuffle with the resignation of my ward’s councilman, Jeff Cox, who was elected as our county’s Presiding Commissioner last November.

I’m supporting a friend for Jeff’s seat but overall, I’m not sensing much…excitement. More like…”Ho-hum. Just routine.” That’s very unfortunate.

Why? Because there is the potential that some of the new councilmen will chuck the fiscal conservatism that has been the city’s policy for some time. That policy has kept the city in the black and maintained a very comfortable cash reserve and emergency fund.

There are some council members who lust to spend those reserves.

One former councilwoman, who lost her seat in the last election and is running again, wants to spend those reserves, put the city into debt, to build a community center—with a pool, fitness center, inside basketball court and meeting rooms. She ignores the fact that one exists only three miles away. A center built by our sister-city, Belton.

I’m concerned that all too many of these so-call fiscal conservatives are RINOs who will twist and bend under political pressure. The county has a history of political corruption. Our city has been spared from that political taint. But…we must never forget we’re only one election away from returning to those “bad, old days” when the county was ruled by a political oligarchy more interested in filling their own pockets than in the welfare of their constituents.

There is more to this election than just city of Raymore. There is also an election for the Ray-Pec school board. I’ve only heard of one candidate in this election and he’s the darling of the teacher’s union and has their active support.

Can we say, “Fox guarding the henhouse?” My recommendation is to vote against ANYONE who has the endorsement and support of teacher’s unions. Remember, the primary interest of the teacher’s union is the union, not education and certainly not educating our children. Anyone who tells you differently is woefully ignorant or is lying.


Last night was one of those when I thought I’d never get to sleep. I did, finally, sometime after 3:00am. There wasn’t any particular reason why I couldn’t get to sleep, other than a big black cat poking me from time to time, than just not being able to get comfortable.

So here it is, 10:30am and I’m just starting my morning post. I think I’ll punt with one of my favorite vocal groups—just to be a bit…different.

Earlier this week, I posted about the famous speech in Shakespeare’s  Henry V, in Act IV, scene 3. Kenneth Branagh. That scene, visually, is more impressive when seen in the context of the movie.

For your enlightenment and education, here is Kenneth Branagh as Henry the night on Saint Crispin’s Day before the Battle of Agincourt.

Until tomorrow…

Death Houses

When Obamacare was first announced, conservatives attacked, rightly, provisions to limit healthcare to the elderly. “Let them die off,” one Colorado pol said in support of the bill. It was a rallying point in opposition to Obamacare.

What most people failed to realize is that “death houses” already existed and had existed for years. The situation was brought to light in this recent story.

California woman dies after nurse refuses to perform CPR

Published March 04, 2013,

A California retirement home is backing one of its nurses after she refused desperate pleas from a 911 operator to perform CPR on an elderly woman who later died, saying the nurse was following the facility’s policy. 

“Is there anybody that’s willing to help this lady and not let her die,” dispatcher Tracey Halvorson says on a 911 tape released by the Bakersfield Fire Department aired by several media outlets on Sunday.

“Not at this time,” said the nurse, who didn’t give her full name and said facility policy prevented her from giving the woman medical help.

At the beginning of the 7-minute, 16-second call on Tuesday morning, the nurse asked for paramedics to come and help the 87-year-old woman who had collapsed in the home’s dining room and was barely breathing.

Halvorson pleads for the nurse to perform CPR, and after several refusals she starts pleading for her to find a resident, or a gardener, or anyone not employed by the home to get on the phone, take her instructions and help the woman.

There is more to this story than its distasteful headline. What the nurse did, to refuse CPR, was legal. Not only was it legal, the nurse was legally prohibited from providing any care. Her only recourse was to call someone, a doctor, her supervisor, or, as she was instructed, 911.

You see, the elderly woman had signed a DNR—Do Not Resuscitate order. A DNR is a legal document instructing physicians, nurses, EMTs, medical facilities and caregivers, to not perform any lifesaving procedures in an emergency. In other words, let her, the elderly woman, die!

What is not known by many is that many nursing homes, assisted care facilities and other “senior” residences have, in their contracts, a DNR or provisions to that affect. Residents are required to have a DNR as a condition of admittance. This is a growing practice, especially in California with their liability statues. The worse part is that the practice is spreading across the country. It’s being driven by lawsuits and liability insurance.

If you do a Google search on “DNR, nursing homes, liability insurance,” you’ll get pages of legal references by nearly every state in the nation. A common trait of these various state laws is that nursing homes cannot be sued for refusing assistance if there is a DNR, but they CAN be sued for providing assistance when there is a DNR. It’s more confused when, in some states, a verbal statement can be construed as a desire for a DNR.

The path for universal DNR in nursing homes is being greased by Obamacare. When Obamacare refuses to pay or decreases payments for long-term care and emergency medical procedures, someone will have to pick up the costs and it won’t be the medical/nursing facilities. As Obamacare is enforced, medicaid broadened, support for universal DNR to grow as a means of controlling costs. When that occurs, nursing homes and “assisted” care facilities will truly become Death Houses.

Who elected Obama?

These are the people who elected Obama. They all have at least one thing in common—they’re democrats.

Cincinnati poll worker charged with voting half dozen times in November

By Published March 11, 2013,

She admitted voting twice in the presidential election last November, and now, Obama supporter Melowese Richardson has been indicted for allegedly voting at least six times. She also is charged with illegal voting in 2008 and 2011.

The 58-year-old veteran Cincinnati poll worker, indicted Monday, faces eight counts of voter fraud. Two others, one of whom is a nun, have been charged separately.

Richardson had admitted on camera to a local TV station, “Yes, I voted twice,” claiming she was concerned that her vote would not count. She also said there “was no intent on my part to commit any voter fraud.”

“I’ll fight it for Mr. Obama and Mr. Obama’s right to sit as president of the United States,” she proclaimed in the interview.

Officials charged that she voted in her own name by absentee ballot and also in person at the polls, but Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney Joseph Deters said she also is charged with voting in the name of five other people in various elections


Hamilton County prosecutors are investigating three additional cases of possible voter fraud.

Cincinnati must be a hotbed of voter fraud. Here is another report of vote fraud in the news when a nun, of all things, voted twice—once using the name of a nun who had died! How far has the Catholic Church fallen when its members openly violate the law and commit criminal acts. We are used to priests being accused of various acts, now it is nuns who have been infected by liberal agendas and are becoming criminals.

Cincinnati-area nun charged with voter fraud, quits teaching post, after casting absentee ballot belonging to fellow nun who had died 

Sister Marguerite Kloos, 54, of Delhi Township, a dean at The College of Mount St. Joseph’s, allegedly voted both under her own name and under the name of Sister Rose Marie Hewitt, who had passed away a month before last November’s poll.

An Ohio nun was charged with voter fraud for casting an absentee ballot in the 2012 presidential election that belonging to a fellow sister who had died, authorities have said.

Sister Marguerite Kloos, 54, allegedly voted both under her own name and under the name of Sister Rose Marie Hewitt, who had passed away a more than a month before last November’s poll.

Kloos, of Delhi Township, faces up to 18 months in prison after being charged with illegal voting.

She reportedly quit her job as dean of the Division of Arts and Humanities at Cincinnati’s College of Mount St. Joseph’s and intends to plead guilty to the charge, reports the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Two others have also been charged with voter fraud, after an investigation carried out by the Hamilton County Board of Elections’.

Russell Glassop, 75, allegedly voted on behalf of his dead wife. Long-time poll worker Melowese Richardson, 58, has been charged with eight counts of illegal voting.

Reports from Cincinnati indicates three other cases of voter fraud are being investigated.

We now know, at least in Ohio, that the people didn’t elect Obama. No, it was the criminal organization known as the democrat party.

As an aside, they really should change their name. There’s nothing democratic about their party. Perhaps a more appropriate name would be the party of petty, little tyrants…except there’s nothing little, nor petty about them.