Why I’m (…Pfffff…) voting for Trump

So…on Facebook the past several months I have seen a slew of my friends proclaim to all how they cannot in good conscience vote for either Hillary or Trump.  I have seen the same video (about 5,985 times) of a guy using pennies to explain how a third party candidate could take the election this year, and I’ve read compelling arguments how THIS is the year to show the establishment how the American people are sick of the two party system.  I’ve listened to the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, to see what he has to say. So here is my little dose of reality.  He doesn’t have a prayer of winning. Not a snowballs chance in hell.  And he knows it.

“But Danny,” you whine, “that’s the point.  We need to show the establishment how principled we are.”

If you watch the news for even a second you’ll see Trump supporters are portrayed as angry, resentful idiots, who are angry at illegals (err… I mean “undocumented workers,”) scared to death of terrorism, worried about losing their jobs, and they feel like they don’t have any say.  I’m not really any of those.  But I’m still voting for Trump.

img_2995

Would I consider Trump the perfect candidate?  Not even close.  Is he conservative?  Noooooo.  Is he a meanie, who says mean things?  Sometimes.  Do I have a problem with that?  Not really.  To me it is actually a little refreshing to hear exactly what a candidate is thinking.  Even if it is obnoxious as hell.  At least he is genuine and open in his thinking.  It makes me laugh to watch my liberal friends act like fainting virgins every time he says something without it being sugar coated.

I guess you could say I’m not so much voting FOR Trump as I am voting AGAINST Hillary.  She is a nightmare.  She is not only insidiously dishonest, she is corrupt as hell.  I could write a novel on the evidence to back that up, but most recently, The Clinton Foundation received HUGE “donations” from foreign governments or rich elites and then she, as Secretary of State, made or participated in making favorable decisions for them.  On top of that, she not only wants to solve every problem with other people’s money, she wants to do it with a bigger and more suffocating government, with it’s corresponding loss of individual freedom, job creation and economic liberty. Hillary craves power.  She is obsessed with it.  She will say anything to get it.  Trump on other hand is running to stroke his enormous ego and to have fun.  Granted, not the best reason to be elected to be the leader of the free world, but it is a more pure motive than the thirst for riches and power.  As such he will be a more successful President.  He wants to be “great.”

img_4046

Trump is a businessman.  He creates jobs.  As such he understands how big government stifles job creation.  Hillary can talk about creating jobs, but she has never done it.  She actually bragged about putting coal miners out of work.

When I was in my early twenties I read Trump’s book “The Art of the Deal.”  He isn’t a stupid man.  When negotiating, Trump always starts high, but he is creative and willing to adapt to achieve his goals. He expects to find solutions that work for both sides.  That’s why, although I’m sure I’ll disagree with much of the outcome, he will get things done.  He was a Democrat for years.  No one can accuse him of being an ideologue.  He is a doer.  Hillary ALWAYS follows her ideological base.  That’s why, between the two of them, Trump will naturally reduce political gridlock.

img_3246

I’m so sick of hearing what a racist bigot Trump is.  Every accusation I’ve seen or read has been manipulative and far fetched. Trump is not the most articulate or sensitive person to run for President. According to his daughter, Ivanka, he is “an equal opportunity offender,” but while he has been in the public eye for over thirty years, he has never once been accused as racism until he ran against a Democrat.  Not once.  Wanting to secure the border isn’t a race issue.  It’s a policy issue.   I have yet to be shown hard evidence of racism or the phobias Trump has been charged with.

img_0341

All that being said.  The MAIN reason I’m voting for Trump this year:  The next President could name as many as four Supreme Court Justices. To me that is: The. Single. Most. Important. Issue.

Everything else pales in comparison.

I can respect not liking Trump and I TOTALLY understand hating Hillary.   I wish so, so bad we had other options.  But…here we are.  We all have a choice to make.  The time for a third party isn’t now, and withholding your vote will only directly help Hillary.  So that’s stupid.  I can’t help but wonder how the “#NeverTrump” or the “principle over party” people are going to explain to their children how they stood by their principles while Hillary nominates judges who will eradicate our 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10th amendments.  Imagine in five years, when Clinton is entering her second term with guns outlawed in every state (except Texas) there is a tax on everything you can dream of, when the border is virtually abolished, and “Hate speech” is being punishable by 10-12 years in prison (even if what is said is true).  You probably think I’m being super dramatic here, and… to your credit, you are probably right, but look at the world we live in now, look at the rhetoric that has become policy and tell me how far fetched it really is.  Are you going to brag to your children how you stood by your principles saying, “the lesser of two evils is still evil?”  Because, I’ve gotta tell you, that’s stupid too.  That’s like comparing a torn rotator cuff to having your arm amputated.  I would highly recommend avoiding both, but if I have to chose one or the other, the choice is obvious.

There is a lot at stake right now.  Between the two, the choice is (…Pfffffff…) Donald J. Trump.

 

LIFEZILLA:  Filling the internet with little cleansing bubbles

img_4065

img_0340

img_2049

img_1842

The Worst Generation

The Worst Generation

I’m the father of four boys.  Two are in their early twenties and the other two are teenagers.  Because of this, and because of their friends, I have seen my fair share of boys turn into men.  The other day I came home from work to discover one of my kid’s friends (a hairy, transformed child in his early 20s) was visiting.  We talked, we ate, and we laughed.  It was a nice visit.  At one point in the conversation we were talking about the current generation and I said, “Oh yeah, this is definitely the worst generation.” I then added, “Of course, it’s our fault. We are the ones who gave trophies to everyone.”  The young man (we’ll call him Jared*) said, “I hear what you’re saying, but what specifically does this generation do that makes it the worst?”  I could tell he wanted to debate me.  Now there are two things you should know before I continue this story: A) This kid is SMART.  I guarantee he has forgotten more than I have ever learned.  Whenever he visits I try to bigger my words when I’m vocabularying with him so I can trickify him into thinking I’m smart two (the fact, in this day and age, people don’t know the difference between “to” and “too” is amazing two me).  B)  I’m an idiot.  I have opinions, I have thoughts about things-n-stuff, but when I’m asked point blank, I freeze.  So…I froze. I am not a debater.  So I explained my level of dumbassery to him, how in person I require a five minute window for every point I want to make, told him I would think about it and probably write an article about it.

So here I am.

Now, I don’t want to beat a dead horse (although it does make a fascinating “thud” noise).  I know complaining about the next generation is as old as time itself.  I saw the play “Bye Bye Birdy” when I was a kid.  The lyrics, “Why can’t they be like we were, perfect in every way? What’s the matter with kids today?” are ringing in my ears right now even as I type this.

I get it.  And, I have had a change of heart.  Sort of.  There are still some things that are…hmmm…unique about this generation,  generally speaking. (For my liberal friends the phrase “generally speaking” is a fancy way of saying I may not be speaking specifically about YOUR child.  So if I say something and you think, “GASP!!!  MY child doesn’t do that!!!” then rest assured, I’m not speaking about your child.)

Here is my list:

Most easily offended:  HOLY CRAP!!!  Can everyone PLEASE take an effing chill pill?  Seriously.  People are going to disagree with you sometimes.  They may say something that doesn’t mesh with your belief system.  Put on your big boy panties (or big girl panties) and GROW THE EFF UP!!!  STOP LOOKING FOR THINGS TO GET OFFENDED ABOUT.  Clint Eastwood was recently interviewed and he said, “Secretly, everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells.”  Eggshells is right. Political correctness has run so far amok everyone is afraid of offending anyone, so no one says anything.  It’s ridiculous.  Fortunately there is a tiny glimmer of hope on the horizon.  This year, the university of Chicago in a letter to their incoming Freshmen wrote, “”Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”  Holy crap, thank you!!  It’s about time.  Like I said, it’s a tiny glimmer of hope, but it’s something.

img_3599

Too accepting: This may sound like a weird thing, because being accepting of others sounds like a virtue…But we have taken it too far.  The “bathroom” debate a few months ago was the stupidest thing ever.  If you sincerely believe you were born as the wrong gender, and are willing to legally go through the steps to have your gender changed, then you get a pass.  Otherwise, if you were born with an outie, you go to the men’s room, if you were born with an innie, you go to the women’s room.  If you self-identify differently and aren’t ready to make the change legally, you suck it up until you can.  That’s it. Both sets of restrooms have stalls.  There are over 747,000 registered sex offenders in the US. It’s not fair to make a parent have to guess what the intentions are of the guy who followed their daughter into the restroom.

The following YouTube video shows a man progressively questioning college students about acceptance. Eventually he asks if they would accept his self-identifying as a 6’5” Chinese woman.  Seriously.  In my little brain I think it’s better to have common sense without an education than to have an education without common sense.   That might be easy for me to say, as I ain’t no educated man.  See what I mean?  I just used a double negative!!! (Come on Danny, stop being stupid.)

If more Americans were willing to say, “Yeah, that’s the stupidest thing I have ever heard,” this country would be better off, but we don’t.  Why don’t we?  Because we awe afwaid to huwt othews wittwe feewings.

Ohmigosh, I have so much more to write, but I try not to make these articles too long. So just to list the things I was going to write about: sense of entitlement, living in vans, selfies, whiny, safe spaces, coddled, participation trophies (It’s 2016 people!  How did everyone at the Olympics not get a metal?) micro aggressions – cyber bullying, bullying, trolling, catfishing, college degrees / debt, living in parents’ basement, lack of education of founding principles, not being held accountable any more, holding off on marriage or growing up.

BUT…all that being said, I see hope.  I really do.  I’m reminded of the finishing lines of one of my favorite poems  “And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.   Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.  With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.  Be careful.  Strive to be happy.”

Like I  said…hope.

 

*That’s his real name

Lifezilla:  You are truly a wonderful, Wonderful, WONDERFUL person for reading this article.  And you know it’s true.  I wouldn’t say that to just ANYONE.

get-up-and-deal-with-it

img_3317

img_3316

img_3602

God and Evolution

God and Evolution

Okay, when I first started my little blog I solicited help from another blogger.  She gave me some advice and invited me to contribute on two of her sites.  It was fun to do.  If you want to visit one of my hero’s sites you can go here for her brilliant political commentary or here  for her more personal stuff.  Either way I think you’ll enjoy it.  She is truly an incredibly gifted writer.

Anyways.  She gave me some advice on how to be an effective blogger.  Two of the things she said were: 1. Try not to write more than 800 words.  Most people won’t read it if it is too long. And 2.  Always use references.

With this article I’m afraid both pieces of advice are going to be largely ignored. I’m looking at my notes and there is NO WAY to boil this down the 800 words, and although I might put in a few references, most of this stuff is just my own, personal dumbassery I’ll be spewing.

So…you’ve been warned.

A few things happened to inspire this article.  First, I was watching “Friends” on Netflix with my girlfriend.  Later, I was talking to a colleague of mine who told me about a friend of his who claimed to be able to PROVE there was no God.  (I know…I just rolled my eyes so hard I almost fell out of my chair.)

I’ll start with “Friends.”

Ross was talking to Phoebe, she had said she didn’t “buy into” the theory of evolution because it was “too easy.”  Ross looked at her like she had just cut off his tail and said, “Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.”  He then went on to say, “I have studied evolution my entire adult life. Okay, I can tell you, we have collected fossils from all over the world that actually show the evolution of different species, okay? You can literally see them evolving through time.”

“Friends” is a funny show.  I sincerely enjoy watching it.  The problem I have with that entire exchange is nothing Ross said was true.

Now stop.  Take a breath.  Before you get your panties in a wad you need to understand where I’m coming from.  First of all, I believe in God.  I believe He is our creator.  AND (maybe I should say “but”) I have ZERO background in biology.  ZERO.  So whatever I’m about to spew is going to be tainted by a healthy dose of good old fashioned ignorance.  That’s not going to stop me from spewing it, however.

Most Christians believe in a creative concept call “Ex Nihilo,” or “out of nothing.”  In a nut shell that means that for a long time there was nothing and then God decided there should be something and BOOM, the universe popped into existence.  I don’t buy that.  If that was the case then why would Heavenly Father form the earth in stages?  Dividing the waters, creating plant life, the sea creatures and then lower life forms, etc.

“But Danny,” you whine, “it sounds like you’re okay with the theory of evolution.  What is the point of your article?”

My point is: I don’t know how God did it.  And I don’t care.

The biggest issue I have is there is a line drawn: you either believe in God or you believe in evolution.

I know I can’t “prove” God exists.  Just like I know no one can “prove” He doesn’t.  So what I wanted to do today is write down some of the things I see as evidence of the existence of God. If you’re an atheist you will probably look at this list in horror, or you’ll scoff at it.  Either way, I don’t care.  If nothing else, it’s for me.

Can't prove

The issues I have with Darwinism:

Many Darwin groupies use Darwin to show that humans are no better than a squirrel, and are, in fact, the worst thing to happen to the planet.

I really struggle with the idea that EVERY living thing started from a single-celled organism.  That the, I dunno, millions of species that have been in the world all started from primordial goo.  Darwin’s theory is that random mutation, sex and death, allowed the “fittest” to survive.  The weak would die without reproducing.  Okay.  I’ve seen the picture where there is a monkey and it slowly turns into a man.  The “mutations” don’t appear to be random; if anything they are deliberate.  If we were the only species on earth I would totally believe it.  But we are not.  If the mutations that created all these species are completely random wouldn’t there be a bunch of mutations that didn’t work out?  Where is the fossil of the “man” with his eyes in the palms of his hands, or the man with wings?  How about a squirrel evolving into a bat, or a bear becoming a whale (Darwin actually made those claims.)

IMG_1439

The truth is we don’t have fossils for any intermediate creatures, despite the claim from Ross on the TV show “Friends.”  In fact Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the “trade secret” of paleontology.

For 3 billion or so years the fossil record shows nothing but bacteria and worms and then BOOM, within a 5 to 10 million year period (the Cambrian Period) the fossil record shows all these new species appearing out of nowhere, with eyes, fully formed.  Paleontologist Jan Bergstrom, said the Cambrian Period was not “evolution,” it was “a revolution.”  Hmmmm…

Moving on…

This is an example I gave my Sunday school class once.  I told them about my boss’s BMW.  It was an amazing car.  The ride was so quiet and so tight.  It was engineered to perfection.  I then told them to imagine the outdoors.  Either the woods, or a swamp, a canyon, a lake.  I asked, “Can you image the outdoors being able to produce such a thing?”  They said – no.  “How about in a thousand years?”  Still no.  “How about a million years?  The swamp is now a mountain range and the lake is now a canyon, the scenery is completely different.  Can you see mother nature creating an amazingly engineered creation like a BMW?”  Still no.   “Why?”  It’s too intricate, it’s too well-designed.  I would then show them a picture of a cross section of the eye. It is amazingly intricate, amazingly engineered.

Anatomy of the eye

That happened by chance?  Darwin couldn’t explain it.

What about pubic hair? If evolution largely caused the hair to recede off our bodies, why do we still grow it in our pubic area or armpits?  (That’s not really an “evidence” of the existence of God, but it deserves an answer.)

I would think there would be some “rules” to evolution.  An example is with most mammals the eyes, nose, ears and mouth are on the face.  That’s sort of a rule. Why do human women have breasts?  Correct me if I’m wrong (this is one of the dumbassery things I mentioned earlier) I’m not going to Google it, but every other mammal I know of, the females only have breasts after they give birth to feed their offspring.  Evolutionarily speaking, why are human women different?  OH…and while I’m thinking about it.  What is the evolutionary explanation for the female clitoris?  Mother Nature already gave men a high sex drive.  Evolutionarily speaking, why would the female of any species need to enjoy sex?

What about the placement of the earth?  If we were a little closer to the sun we would burn up, if we were a little further away we would freeze.  How lucky is it that we are just at the exact right place so life can exist?

What about plant life?  Everyone just blindly accepts the fact that all living things (humans to spiders to fish) all have a common single ancestor.  What about plant life?  You’re telling me a strawberry and a banana (which taste delicious together, by the way) evolved from each other?  How about a zucchini and an orange?  And how lucky is it all these things have seeds.  How did that happen, anyways?  (That reminds me, I’m going to order both a chicken and an egg from Amazon…I’ll let you know.)  If I learned anything from watching Jerry Seinfeld’s “The Bee Movie” it’s that plants are dependent on Bees.  So Bees would have had to come into existence about the same time as plants…right?  Why haven’t they evolved more?  And while I’m thinking about it, which species are we worried about? Who is catching up to us?  By now you would think one of them would.  How lucky.

farsideme0

Think about it.  Are we not the dumbest animal to be at the top of the food chain?  Okay, we’re smart, we have big brains, but we would have had to survive a bunch of winters first to get on the right track.  Name another animal who has to kill another one, tear the skin off of it, and put it on their feet so they can walk around in comfort, or wear it on its body for warmth or protection.  How did we survive to get to be the smartest?  I get a hangnail and I’m down for the count.  How lucky as a species we survived.

And how incredibly lucky is it that the HUGE variety of animal life on the planet breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, and the HUGE variety of plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen.  I mean, WHAT ARE CHANCES?!?!  How lucky.

Mathematically speaking it isn’t possible.  If we humans were the only animal life and, say, a potato was the only plant life, it could work.  Scientists know this. The real kind, not high school biology teachers, and not the Professor Ross Geller’s from TV.  The very real molecular biologist Professor Francis Crick, you know, the Nobel Prize winner for co-discovering the structure of DNA (he ain’t stoopid like me is) very seriously suggested the theory of “Direct Panspermia” where aliens seeded earth with life.  He co-wrote a scientific paper on the subject with biochemist Leslie Orgel.  You can read it HERE.

I’m a simple man.  Not very bright.  Here’s how I boil it down: Let’s say there are gazillions and gazillions of planets, and of the gazillions of planets there is a one in a gazillion chance there is a planet just close enough to a sun that it is ideal for sustaining life.  Of those gazillion planets, let’s say there is a one in a gazillion chance there is water on a planet like that.  Of those gazillion planets, let’s say there is a one in a gazillion chance there is one with a single celled organism.  Of those gazillion planets, let’s say there is a one in a gazillion chance that man evolved on one of them.  Of those gazillion planets, let’s say there is a one in a gazillion chance the potato plant evolved on one.  Of those gazillion planets, let’s say there is a one in a gazillion chance the cow, the horse, the bear and countless other animals evolved on them, along with a bunch of plants.  It is mind blowing, huh?  For me, and my little brain, it is easier to believe there is a one in a gazillion chance there is a Supreme Being, who loves us and created and organized all this for us.  And wants us to be happy.

But that’s just me.

 

LIFEZILLA:  No trees were destroyed in the writing of this article.  I will concede, however, that a significant number of electrons may have been inconvenienced.

 

e06fee18c021e0de68439f0805682b71

e84dc-farsidegallery

evolution755488b7b5c5dde56f5afd875a75bc07

The Age of Dumbassery

I work with a bunch of “Young’uns,” I was just about to call them “Millennials” but according to Google, a millennial is someone who reached adulthood around the year 2000. So whatever “today’s” generation has chosen to dub themselves, I work with a bunch of them. This is both fun and infuriating. It’s fun because they are just a bunch of dumb, stupid kids, and it’s infuriating because they are just a bunch of dumb, stupid kids.

I’m about to tell a story. I want to be perfectly clear that I am NOT picking on one kid. Although it’s a true story, and only one kid is involved in it, all my annoyance is not solely directed toward this young’un. If we are all on the same page, I shall proceed.

Take me to you leader

As I walked toward a gaggle of young’uns talking, I overheard the current political situation was being discussed and of course my ears perked up. I asked one of the kids (we will call him Steve*) who is probably 19 years old, who he was going to vote for. Without a moment’s hesitation he answered: Bernie Sanders. I asked why. His answer, “He is better than Trump or Hillary.” I said, I understand you don’t like those two, but what specifically about Sanders do you like? His answer, “He is going to legalize marijuana.”

***FACE PALM***

Okay…so…I can almost understand being a one issue guy. Whatever the issue is. I have friends who believe the legalization of drugs is a good idea. And these aren’t drug-using types of guys. I’ve kicked it around and have decided legalization is not a good idea, I then BRILLIANTLY wrote about it. You can read the article by clicking HERE.  Putting that issue on the back burner for a minute, I just don’t see how any rational, thinking adult could look at the current political landscape, see the direction the country is heading, and think “Oh yeah, that’s my guy because THAT’S my issue.” Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate Bernie Sanders. I think he’s an idiot peddling utopian nonsense, but I believe he is a kind-hearted, well-intended idiot. The fact he has such a following with the left is enough to make my eyes roll, but that’s really not the point. “But Danny,” you whine, “what is your point?”

Why the HELL do we allow 18 year olds to vote?

Bernie Sanders - Santa

According to the source of all knowledge, Wikipedia, the 26th Amendment, adopted in 1971, guaranteed the “right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” The main agreements (back then) for allowing these little’ins to vote was an 18 year old could drink and be conscripted into the military, so they oughta be allowed to vote. I can almost see that. Back then, if you were old enough to drink AND kill for your country you should be allowed to have a voice. HEAR, HEAR!!!

But…in 1973 they ended the draft, in 1984 congress realized 18 year olds weren’t very bright when they drank so they changed the legal drinking age to 21, and if Obamacare taught us anything it’s that you’re not officially an adult until you are 26 and can finally get off your parents insurance. Sooo…why are we allowing these little’ins with zero life experience, who don’t own property, don’t have spouses/children, don’t pay much of anything in taxes (if they do have children and earn less then 39K they get an “Earned Income Tax credit – so they not only don’t pay in to the system, THEY GET MONEY BACK), and many of the kids between 18 and 26 don’t even have jobs (thanks to the floppy eared President they are so proud to have supported, wrecking the economy.)

Book of Obama's accomplishments

What I have instinctively known for years, science has now proven. Human brains are not fully developed until the age of 25. Young people are particularly deficient in the development of their frontal lobes (prefrontal cortex), which control decision-making, complex/rational thinking, judgment, the ability to plan ahead, and resisting impulses. “Adults over the age of 25 tend to feel less sensitive to the influence of peer pressure and have a much easier time handling it.”

So we have the Bernie Sanders of the world promising FREE everything and these non-fully-developed-brained-little’in are sucking it up. Then, of course, we have just under half of the liberals with fully-developed brains, but clearly not fully functioning, jumping on the “Everything is FREE” train as well. As a grown up, I KNOW there is no such thing as a free lunch. There is no such thing as a free anything. Someone always pays. These cute little doey-eyed little-in’s are blissfully unaware they are going to be footing the bill for all these “free” goodies for the rest of their lives.

How can they not see that?

*his real name is Logan

 

LIFEZILLA:  I proudly test ALL my articles on animals.

Understanding Liberal Politics  Socialism Pros and cons of Trump and Hillary

George Washington – A Terrorist?!?!?!

George Washington – A Terrorist?!?!?!

So the other day I was working in my office, minding my own business, when I received a text from my 16 year old son. It said, “So apparently George Washington was a terrorist…Screw world civ!” He later said his teacher believed Washington was amazing but, “If you look at the definition of terrorism, the American Revolutionary war would fall into that definition.”

I’m telling you. It is crap like that which makes me wish I was born with just middle fingers.

I text him a short list of the reasons why the American Revolution is nothing like terrorism.   Later that night he said he was the only one in his class who defended Washington, and he believed, was the only one who had a brain in his head. He said he could tell the other students were sucking it up.

Yoda

For fun I went to the source of all knowledge, Google, and typed “Define: Terrorist.” Google defines it as, “a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.” That obviously didn’t clear anything up so I asked for the definition of terrorism, which read, “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” I’m not sure how anyone with half a brain stem could lump George Washington, or any of the founding fathers into that category.

But then again, I’m not a liberal.

If I try to look at the history of the Revolutionary War through the paradigm of a whiny liberal – the word “paradigm” here is a fancy way of saying “the warped lens in which you view the world,” – (also, for my liberal friends, in the word paradigm, the “g” is silent) the ONLY incident that could vaguely have a terroristic line drawn in comparison is the Boston Tea party. But even that is a HUGE stretch.

If you’re like most American’s, everything you know about the Boston Tea party you probably learned, as a child, from watching “Mary Poppins.” Here is a recap:

Mr. Dawes Jr: In 1773, an official of this bank unwisely loaned a large sum of money to finance a shipment of tea to the American colonies. Do you know what happened?

George W. Banks: Yes, sir. Yes, I think I do. As the ship lay anchored in Boston Harbor, a party of the colonists dressed as red Indians boarded the vessel, behaved very rudely, and threw all the tea overboard. This made the tea unsuitable for drinking. Even for Americans.

“Behaved very rudely” and talking a seventeen year old to strap a bomb to himself and detonating it in a crowded market place are two entirely different things.

Most of the Founding Fathers condemned the Boston Tea party. George Washington disapproved. Benjamin Franklin demanded the “India Tea Company” be reimbursed for the destruction of the tea. Both American and British supporters of American independence, such as Edmund Burke, thought the Tea Party set back the cause.

Meric on three

Even the Founders who defended the raid had class. Paul Revere, who led the raid, exclusively to protest a new British tea tax, made sure to replace a broken lock on one of the ships. The British sailors from the ships confirmed, none of them were hurt, nothing was vandalized, and the protesters even swept the decks clean after the tea was destroyed.

Still, the raid was considered such an embarrassment to many of our founding fathers, it wasn’t celebrated for another 50 years.

Like I said…It’s a stretch.

“But Danny,” you whine, “what about George Washington?”

Washington was a hero and a patriot. The only negative title you could put on him that might stick is he was a traitor to the crown of England. As a young man he fought with distinction and honor in the Battle of Monongahela where he was so exposed to enemy fire his coat was pierced by four musket balls and he had two horses shot from underneath him. It’s hard to imagine the same person hiding behind a tree, detonating a bomb and then fleeing the crime scene.

One of the examples my son gave me of the “evidence” regarding Washington’s terrorism is when he crossed the Delaware  and surprised, and defeated the Hessian forces. So I guess if an army attacks another army it terrorism?

Seriously?

The Declaration of the Cause and Necessity of Taking Up Arms states, “We, for ten years, incessantly and ineffectually besieged the Throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with Parliament, in the most mild and decent language.” For ten years. TEN. Then when the Founders did the truly revolutionary thing, three years after the Boston Tea Party, they signed the Declaration of Independence. In this document they describe with logic and reason, and in blindingly clear terms, their complaints against the Crown, the rights that had been infringed upon, their earlier attempts for resolution and an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

Those are Jefferson’s words, but Washington embraced them whole-heartedly. Are they the words or beliefs of a terrorist?

Hardly.

 

LIFEZILLA: Where else can I go to spew my nonsensical diatribe and dumbassery?  My wife and kids stopped listening to me YEARS ago!

isisRights Reagan Quote - Find Young People

Thor

 

 

 

My Problem with The Tea Party

First of all, I haven’t written forever.  It isn’t that I don’t WANT to write, it’s just I’m being pulled in fifty different directions.  Sadly (for me), I have 12 unfinished articles that I’ve started since my last brilliantly written article, which will never see the light of day.  This one was the closest I had to being finished.  I wanted to post something.  So here goes.

For fun I’m going to include three misnomers: 1- “Affordable Care Act”…It isn’t. 2- “Obamacare”…He doesn’t.  And 3- “My Problem with The Tea Party”…I don’t.

“But Danny,” you whine “why the title?”  Apparently I have some ‘splainin to do. The state in which I reside has a dominate religion.  IT DRIVES ME CRAZY, absolutely bat nuts, when I hear someone complain about “the church” when in reality they are complaining about an individual/individuals within the church.  To me it is just fundamentally wrong to lump a whole group of people into a category that should be reserved for a few.  Does that make sense?  So, with our mutual understanding and 100% realization of my rank hypocrisy, I’ll plow forward.

Don't Look Back

As you may or may not be aware there is a midterm election coming up in about 8 weeks.  There is a lot up for grabs this election.  Congress’ approval is at an all time low, but shockingly, incumbents traditionally win.  We “The People” hate the group, but like the individuals within the group.

Currently, Mitch McConnell is fighting to keep his seat as a Republican Senator for Kentucky.  Now, I’m not advocating for or against him.  I just know many Tea Party-esque people have accused him of being a “RINO” (Republican In Name Only.)  Again, I don’t follow his voting record that closely.  I know he isn’t a screaming liberal but apparently he isn’t a staunch conservative either.  What I do know about McConnell is that as the Senate Minority Leader, under what had to be intense political pressure, he was able to keep his party in line and not have one affirmative vote from the Republican Party for Obamacare.  Under his leadership the Democratic Party owns the Affordable Care Act – again, it isn’t “Affordable,” it isn’t “Care,” it’s just an act.

If the voters in Kentucky, decide it is time for McConnell to retire, I don’t have a problem with that.  My problem is with the “I would rather stay home and let the democrats win than vote for someone who only agrees with me 80% of the time” people.  Those people kill me, and are idiots.

Even I, your humble narrator, have been accused of not being a “true conservative” because I failed the litmus test of not seeing the wisdom in the legalization of marijuana (spoiler alert: there is no wisdom in the legalization of drugs).

Demonizing your ideological opponents is a lot of fun, if you’re brave enough to do it, and has been the modus operandi since the beginning of time.  Pointing out the dumbassery of the Democratic Party is something I’ve been accused of doing (I’m talking about the Party here – not individuals – so my “butt hurt” liberal friends, please take it down an octave.)   Every Presidential election the Democrats start with around 246 out of the 270 electoral votes needed to win.  The Democrats barely have to show up and BOOM 246 electoral votes.  The Republicans have to work for everything else. To me it is almost funny the Democrats demonize Republicans at all.  I understand why they do…but still.  The sad truth is that the Republican Party needs new members, it needs converts.  The Democratic Party doesn’t.

Freedom

That’s why when, a month or so ago, Sarah Palin, whom I normally kinda dig, was banging the “Impeachment drum” I rolled my eyes.  America is NEVER going to impeach Obama.  Yes, he is grossly incompetent, arguably the Worst President EVER.   That isn’t an impeachable offense.  He may be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.   Even if, America still isn’t going to do it.  All banging that drum, or drums like it, does is give Democrats ammunition to fire toward the Low Information/Yahoo News reading voters.

I think the sainted Ronald Regan nailed it when, in March of 1975, he said:

“A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers…

“I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party” – when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

“Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

“Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

“Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

“It is time to reassert our principles and raise them to full view.”

The problem is the Republicans don’t have the balls to do it. Well…that’s not entirely fair.  They talk about limited central government, but they lack either the confidence or the ability to explain its benefits.  They have bought into the Democrats’ core, condescending belief, that the world is just too darn complicated for you and me, the ordinary folks, to make our way through without bureaucratic instruction and hand holding.

Capitalism

Because the concepts and benefits of a limited government don’t fit on a bumper sticker we are left with a system that is going to implode.  It’s not a question of “if,” it will implode, it’s a question of “when.”  Everyone with half a brain stem knows it.  But still, Republicans are too scared, or maybe too content, to advocate the dramatic change that could save us.  Instead we are too busy cannibalizing ourselves.  I’m not advocating the status quo.  I want change.  I think we, as a party, should have a robust debate, but then the primaries are over, be involved.  VOTE.  Even if you have to plug your nose to do it.   Then we need to hold our elected leaders feet to the fire to ensure they do the right thing.

“Divide and conquer” maybe an effective strategy in war, but doesn’t work in a representative democracy.

 

LIFEZILLA: It’s the website our forefathers would have subscribed too.  That is if our foremothers would have let them.

 

Big Gov

Offended

No Strategy Yet

Global Boooooooring (Part 2)

In my last BRILLIANTLY written article “Global Boooooooring” I spent most of the time explaining how the “science isn’t settled” just because a bunch of scientists say it is. As much as it pains me, I have more to say about the subject.

When I was a wee little lad in, hmmm…I dunno, second grade, I learned that one of the main reasons the Great Salt Lake, in Utah, is salty is because it is the remains of what was a huge lake, Lake Bonneville. Apparently 14,000 years ago the majority of the lake dried up and all the sediment from Lake Bonneville was left over in the Great Salt Lake.

lake bonneville

About the same age I learned about Woolly Mammoths and the ice age.
Long story short, I have been acutely aware of “Climate change” since second grade. (I say “acutely” because of how much of “acutie” I was.)

DQ -1

I know!!! Adorable, huh?

If you recall from my last article, of the 12,000 peer reviewed papers only 65 said that humans are the primary reason for climate change. Now, 2nd grade Danny thinks the people who wrote these 65 papers are stupid pooh-pooh heads (the current Danny thinks the same thing, but with more of an “R” rating). You remember Lake Bonneville? According to the source of all knowledge, Wikipedia, “With the change in climate, the lake began drying up.” That begs a question: Why was there a change in climate all those years ago? I don’t recall learning about all the SUV’s the Woolly Mammoths drove.

You may also recall in the last article that 97% of the 12,000 papers believed that humans probably contribute something to climate change. These authors would be thrilled to learn that both 2nd grade Danny and current Danny could buy into that. I’ll buy into the argument that humans have an impact on the environment. Am I willing to gamble $2.23 trillion (of US economy) and the economy of the world on it? Absolutely not.

Quick tangent: According to the other source of all knowledge, Google, the earth is 4.54 billion years old. We have been measuring its temperature for what, 200 years? If my calculations are correct we have been measuring the temperature for .000000044% of the time the earth has been in existence. Who are we to say what the average temperature of the earth is? Just because 72 degrees is comfortable for us does that mean it’s the average temperature of the earth? I dunno.

“But Danny,” you whine, “I saw the movie ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ and they showed scientists drilling ice out of Antarctica to measure the earth’s temperature – they can go back hundreds, maybe even thousands of years.”

And?

This winter has been one of the coldest winters in years. Unless you happen to live where I live, Utah. It was super cold for about a week in December and it’s been warm since. Can you honestly tell me the record cold in New York can be measured and somehow applied to Utah? If you can, I’m willing to learn. End of tangent.

Let me give you two little facts:

1- Global warming stopped seventeen years ago. Al Gore didn’t invent the internet, but he sure as hell invented “global warming”…until it stopped. Now everything is blamed on “Climate change.” In the summer, if it’s hot “Climate change!!!.” In the winter, if it’s cold “Climate change!!!.” Whatever happens “Climate Change!!!” (Whew…it makes me really happy that seasonal depression only happens four times a year). Oh wait. I misspoke, according to the article cited global warming “paused” seventeen years ago. The word “paused” heavily implies it could start up again at any moment. It’s super scary. The only reason it isn’t “super-duper scary” is that the environmental alarmist have been sooooo far off in their predictions in the past. In 1986 the best and brightest wrung their hands and predicted how much warming there would be between 1997 and today. They were slightly off. By roughly 300%.

You read correctly. 300%. I don’t care how famous you are or how many letters you have after your name, no credentials can compensate for an error that big.

Twain

While I’m on it, no one in the scientific community predicted the “pausing” of global warming between 1997 and today. And yet we are supposed to follow, zombie-like, the suggestions (nay, demands) these jackasses are ramming down our throats. If we follow the cry that “We have to do something,” we are going to radically change the economies of the industrialized nations, thus harming the poorest of the poor in developing nations. Which brings me to fact number two.

2- None of suggested proposals will do anything to curb the (non-existent) rise in global temperatures.

Cap and Trade, a carbon tax, The Kyoto Protocols, climate reparations for poor countries. All different approaches, all the same outcome: Not one will reduce global temperatures. Many proponents of these policies have publicly conceded they will do nothing to the climate. It is complete and utter B.S.

More then just B.S. To me, these policies are immoral.

“But Danny,” you whine “how is it immoral? Are you suggesting we do NOTHING?”

It is immoral.

How is it moral to drive around in our air conditioned cars, or sit in our air conditioned home or office and then bitch when they do the same in developing countries?

How can we smugly tell an African country that they can’t drill for oil or mine coal because an international climate control protocol tells them they can’t? Many of these developing countries have a GDP a thousandth of the United States. Further development of these countries will lead to freedom, prosperity and hope. That’s good for everyone. That’s good for the world. Yes, we can feel morally superior as we drive our SUV’s and drink our bottled water, as long as we feel horrible about it. Passing these proposals means the deliberate oppression of the worlds poor, ensuring people will continue to live in poverty and will continue to die.

It really, really chaps my ass.

The last thing we need is another “symbolic gesture” or “good start.” What we need are concrete facts, and years of accurate and verifiable predictions. Until then this should NOT be a political issue.

Crank the A/C. It’s getting hot.

 

LIFEZILLA:  No animals were harmed in the writing of this article.  A cat got stepped on, and someone shot a duck.  But that’s it.

King Germ

Have a Nice Day

Peter Pan

Global Boooooooring

I haven’t even started writing this and I’m already bored to tears.  This is going to cause me physical pain. It is so incredibly stupid.  But…here goes.

For my real life job I work for a company that manufactures high quality accessories for cars and trucks.  I’ve worked there for 23 years.  Several years ago we were introducing a new widget at the big yearly trade show.  Someone came up with the idea of making a big sign to go over the item that simply proclaimed “Product of the Year.”  I witnessed a lot of traffic come into our booth to ask about the highlighted item.  We were three days into a four day show before the first person asked, “Product of the year.  According to who?” (He didn’t say “whom”.)     I told him we took a poll in the office and we all agreed.

Back in February Secretary of State John Kerry said that climate change was the “world’s most fearsome” weapon of mass destruction, he went on to say, “the science of climate change is leaping out at us like a scene from a 3D movie. It’s warning us; it’s compelling us to act.”

Wow.  “Leaping science” sounds kind of scary.

Confuse an Idoit

I don’t recommend it, but if you want to slip into a self induced coma you can read the speech here.

Then, more recently 30 Democratic senators spent the entire night having a “’talkathon‘” about climate change. Can you imagine anything more boring?

In John Kerry’s speech he said, “When 97 percent of scientists agree on anything, we need to listen, and we need to respond.  Well, 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible.”  And then Democrat Senator, after Democrat Senator, after Democrat Senator repeated the same thing.  “97%! 97%! 97%!”  Some even upped it to 98% – which is even more.

Global Warming

First of all.  Who cares what 97% of scientists think?  I’m willing to bet 100% of the greatest thinkers at the time agreed the world was flat.  Doesn’t make it so.  And when, exactly, did science become “settled” through consensus?  “We all agree so it must be true.”  Really?  Is that how it works now?  In the olden days science was settled by a consistent series of observed results.  If I drop this ball gravity is going to pull it down.  My son once told me that “for fun” he figured out exactly how long it would take for a quarter to hit the ground from his desk.  He calculated the trajectory and a few other fancy words and was able to predict with a high degree of accuracy how long it would take.

Cool, huh?

The reason there are no “gravity deniers” is because the science is settled.  There is such a thing as gravity.

Now, because I remembered the “Product of the Year” experience and I know that anybody and do almost anything with numbers, I decided to do a little digging to find the source of the 97% mantra.

Awake and Aware

That 97% figure comes from a website, where a guy ran an analysis of 12,000 peer-reviewed papers, 97% of which claimed that humanity is having an impact on the climate.

Well.  There you go.  There’s your consensus. The science is settled. Humans are the dominant factor in climate change.  Oh wait.  Not true.  The website acknowledges that 97% of the papers attribute some human impact; in truth less than 50% of those papers maintain that humans are the primary contributor of global warming.

Well okay, that’s not really a consensus, but it’s still damning.

Oh…but wait.

If asked, most people would say that a phrase like, “Less than 50%” would imply something in the 41-49% range.  But no.  It’s less than that.

How much less?  I’ll give you a hint.  If you guessed 65 papers out of the 12,000 reviewed, you would be right.

65.   Out of 12,000.

Now, I’m no mathematician, but I can tell you with certainty that that is indeed less than fifty percent.  Going out on a limb, I would say it is less than one percent.  But still, every Al Gore tirade, every screaming news story, and every global warming alarmist demands that if you dare question the “settled science” you are to be boiled in oil – or disposed of in a more environmentally friendly way.  Just as long as you lessen your carbon footprint.

Scary

While I’m on the subject, since when are there science “deniers?”  I would have thought only religion has deniers, disbelievers, or heretics. The truth is this really doesn’t have anything to with science.  Science is about evidence, plain and simple.  It has nothing to do with belief or disbelief.  In the olden days science was dependent upon skepticism. Without skepticism, you do not have science. Or am I wrong?

Unless you are completely ignorant of the facts (which is exactly how most liberals stay liberal) than I would say a consensus doesn’t exist.  In fact I would say any time a politician says “the science is settled” the science is indeed not settled.

TO BE CONTINUED…? (If I can wake up after that)

 

LIFEZILLA:  Me so ornery.  Me loathe you long time.

obama_media

Be This Guy

Three Branches

You Got Married? That’s So Gay!

So, as much as it kills me (and it does cause me physical pain) I’m going to throw in my two cents on this whole gay marriage thing that is happening in Utah.

If you don’t know, or if you have been living under a rock, on December 20, 2013 U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that the Utah state ban on gay marriage violated the U.S. Constitution.

If you’re new here (you may be the seventh person to find this) I have already brilliantly written my take on gay marriage before, you can find it here.

I’ll try to keep this fresh.

special

Our founding fathers were obsessed with the separation of powers. They didn’t want the federal government to grow out of control, and so they set up checks and balances. They did recognize there were certain things the federal government needed to be in charge of: making money, immigration, declaring war, you know…stuff like that. To help ensure the restriction on the growth of the federal government they gave us the 10th amendment. It reads:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In other words, any issue not specifically mentioned in the Constitution for the federal government to have dominion over (for lack of a better word) is up to the states to decide.

Government's duty

Let me illustrate an example of the federal government overreaching its authority. Let’s say there is a small, random state of roughly 3 million people. The people of the state don’t want to have fluoride added to the water. They don’t care if other states put fluoride in theirs, it just isn’t for them. They vote and add it to their states constitution that they are a “No fluoride in the water” state. Sixty-six percent of the voters come out in favor of this resolution. BUT…there are a few dentists in the state who disagree with the will of the people. “How can the state not want fluoride?” they argue. “There is no evidence that it hurts anyone.” So they sue, and find a federal judge who interprets the “everlasting gobstopper clause” of the US constitution as saying the will of the people is wrong. And so the state district attorney immediately starts pouring fluoride in drinking water.

That is exactly what happened with gay marriage in Utah.

“But Danny,” you whine, “not everyone is Utah voted on that amendment, what about the will of the people who didn’t vote?”  This is going to sound super harsh to my butt-hurt liberal friends, but if they didn’t vote, their opinion doesn’t mean squat.

Quick side note:  Is it just me, or does “LGBT” sounds too much like a sandwich?

“But Danny,” you whine even louder, “didn’t the Supreme Court knock down DOMA, thus opening the door to this kind of thing?” (DOMA is the “Defense of Marriage Act – signed by Bill Clinton which defined marriage as between a man and a woman).  Hmmm….not really.  Basically the repeal of DOMA showed that the Supreme Court recognized that defining marriage wasn’t the federal government’s place, that put definition of marriage back to the state.

And later, the same year part of DOMA was repealed, Shelby, the judge from a lower court, said the state couldn’t define it either.

I’ve read quite of bit about gay marriage. I’ve read the arguments for, and I’ve read the arguments against. I’ve even read articles where the writer uses copious amounts of inordinately profuse, abstruse, and perplexing vocabulary. When reading these articles I always think, “Whatever, dude, what-ev-er (or dudette if you are one.)” In my mind very few people get it, on either side of the issue.

Captain Obvious

It’s sad. There are faces involved. The roughly 1,400 same-sex couples who were married in Utah are in limbo.  Are they married or not?  These people are being used as pawns.  I know my butt-hurt liberal friends are going to howl at that phrase, but it’s true.  They are being used as pawns.   The district attorney who authorized the county clerks to issue gay marriage license knew this was going to happen.

In my little brain the real issue here isn’t gay marriage. That is just the face of it. The real issue is States’ Rights.  Sadly, most people (in this case those in favor of the judges ruling on gay marriage) aren’t looking at the big picture. They either don’t get–or they don’t care–that you can’t pick up one side of a stick. They have an issue and if one activist federal judge can overrule the will of the people, to them, the end justifies the means.

To me that is wrong. Good ends should come about from good means.

Think about it.  We live in a representative democracy.   Generally speaking if a law is made from the elected legislators we, the people, are accepting of it.  Almost all of the most decisive issues in the country are brought about judicially.

Whatever your opinion on gay marriage, for it or against it, it should be the voice of the people who decides. We don’t live in an aristocracy, where the smart people tell the stupid how to live.  In the United States, judges don’t have the right, and should stop trying, to invent laws.

 

LIFEZILLA:  Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice…you probably have boobs.

Piss off

 

Party

 

Written in stone

NFL – WTH?!?

Before I launch into today’s brilliant article I want to tell you about a scheme I came up with.  I’m gonna start placing little ads in my articles in the hopes I can start making some sweet cash money.  They’ll be really subtle.  You probably won’t even notice them.  Tide® with Bleach.  I hope it works.

Anyone who knows me knows I could never be described as a “man’s man.”  I don’t know a thing about car repair, I don’t own a truck, I’m not a huge sports fanatic, I currently don’t have facial hair (although that changes often and without warning), and if given the option of crapping inside or outside, I’ll choose inside every time.

I like watching Basket Ball.  I don’t understand soccer, to me it’s as exciting as watching male models jog for two hours (*ding*…which is probably why my wife enjoys watching it.)  I will probably watch one or two football games a year.

So what qualifies me to write about the NFL?  Ab-solute-ly nothing.

I’ve just noticed the NFL has been in the news a lot lately.  Now in my mind the NFL, and those who support it, are manly men. I think of the NFL, and I think of big guys who shave with glass and crap muscle.  But everything in the news lately is just a bunch of wussy stuff.  First there is the whole “Washington Redskins” name controversy.  Seriously?  After eighty years someone gets their panties in a wad because of the name?  Waaaaaa!!!  Personally, I hope the franchise doesn’t cave because of the PC bull crap.  If they start losing revenue, I can see doing what you have to do to keep the institution afloat.  Until then?  Go SKINS!!!

Edited

The next recent thing was the Miami Dolphins “Bullying scandal.”  I haven’t really followed it, all I know is one 300 pound muscley man, was being mean to another 300 pound muscley man.  The second 300 pound muscley man, the one whose feeling were hurt, instead of having a calm, cool, sit down, man to man discussion with the first 300 pound muscley man about their difference, or even a testosterone filled raging fight with each other, chose instead to tell the world his tender feelings were hurt.

Again, I have barely followed it.  It just seems to me, as a non-manly-man, that when we, as a nation, start talking about the tender feelings of 300 pound NFL millionaires, the wussies has won.

The last thing was the recent story of the NFL rejecting an “offensive” proposed Pro-gun commercial for the 2014 Super Bowl.

Here is the “offensive” commercial:

If you watch it you will see there isn’t a gun mentioned.  At the very end there is a logo with a gun, apparently the company is willing to replace the gun logo with a picture of the American flag with the words, “Shall not be infringed.”

Still too offensive.

Now, I’m a reasonable man.  I think the NFL can accept or reject any commercials they want.  It just seems to me that beer is a contributor to more deaths in the United States then guns are.  I’m willing to bet there will be a bunch of beer commercials.

Hmmm…

So the other night I was driving home listening to the Rod Arquette Show on the radio.  (Rod actually mentioned my BRILLIANTLY written article “Obama – Worst President EVER” on his show once  – it made me feel really good.)  So any ways, Rod was talking about this story and one of the callers asked if it this commercial was “good for the country.”  I did something I have never done before.  I called in.

I told him during last years Super Bowl, of all the beer, Doritos’s and Go Daddy commercials, the only one I remembered was the one where Paul Harvey was talking about God creating a farmer.

I’m not a farmer.  I don’t even own a truck.  And yet this is the commercial that resonated with me.

Again, the NFL is a business.  I get that.  They can do whatever they want.  If they want to reject a pro-gun commercial that is up to them, but to the question “would showing it be good for the nation?”  I think yes.  In my little brain there is nothing wrong with reminding people about values.  Protecting your family is a value.  Protecting your family is every parent’s responsibility.  Protecting your family is a God given right.

 

LIFEZILLA:  Just like heaven.  But without that awkward “dying” part.

Shade

Prescription

Cereal