Senators Lee, Cruz and Rubio have gotten a lot of attention recently with their assertion that this is the last chance to rid the world of Obamacare. In the upcoming debt negotiations, they are offering a strategy to refuse to fund Obamacare, even if that means shutting down the government.  Now, no one wants the government to shut down, but this may come down to who blinks first.  Already pundits and some Republicans are saying that this is a bad strategy claiming that Obama will win eventually and Republicans will have another public defeat that will be difficult to recover from.  In the end, some say, the GOP loses.

I say nonsense. Here are 6 reasons why this is a good strategy and we should stand behind it:

1) This really is the last chance to substantially weaken the law.  Democrats knew all those years ago that they needed to build in a phased approach to the law.  Let’s face it, if Obamacare’s implementation had gone any more quickly, we may have still had the backbone needed to do something about it.  But, as it stands, years have gone by and sleepy-eyed members of Congress are tired of fighting Obama, tired of losing.  However, since the law has not been implemented yet fully (though the federal worker bees have been busy prepping to take over the free market ever since the bill was signed into law), the GOP does have a card to play here.  We would be dumb to not use it to its full advantage.

2)  We already lost the Presidential election. There seems to be perpetual hand-wringing  and whining in the Republican Party.  It goes something like this, “if the GOP stands up against Obama, Obama will win and it will make us look bad and lose the next election.  We can’t let that happen, so we need to look like we are working with him.”  This is the most asinine logic I’ve ever heard.  First of all, it doesn’t work.  We already lost!  There is nothing we can do to go back and win.  And, giving in to Obama has gotten us nothing.  In 5 years, I challenge anyone to think of what the GOP has gained strategically by compromising to Obama.  I can’t think of anything.

 3) The law is so bad that it is worth any political risk.  I’m not going to go back and conjure up all of the reports that show how bad this law is.  You can go Google or Bing that yourself.  However, at this point it is well-known that this law will have a substantial negative impact on our economy, on jobs and businesses, and on the healthcare industry as a whole.  Is anyone confused about that?

4291562_eagle_and_american_flag) Obamacare contracts our freedom.  Make no mistake, this is the definition of socialism.  The Executive Branch should not have the power to mandate whatever rules it wants to the healthcare industry.  Going forward, the government gets to design coverage for all Americans the way that it wants. The free market is no longer at play here and people are forced to pay for whatever the government deems to be “basic mandatory coverage.”  I’m not confused about how bad the health care industry was before Obamacare was passed.  But, let’s face it, this takes an existing problem, multiplies it by infinity, and then perpetuates it into eternity.

Obamacare is also a threat to religious liberty.  This is no surprise.  Anytime the government expands its reach, religious liberty is at risk.  The contraceptive mandate is only the beginning.  What other religiously controversial mandates will come out of the Obama (or any future liberal) administration that offend people of faith?

 5) If the GOP loses short-term, we win long-term.  The fact is that this may not work.  However, does the GOP become a strong party again by doing whatever Democrats want?  This battle gives us an opportunity to stand together and fight for something.  It shows voters that this Party is not in retreat.  It provides us with fuel for next year’s elections.  Doing nothing will only hurt us next year.  I’m sad about last November just like everyone else, but the reports of the GOP’s long and slow death are only going to end up being accurate if we let them.

 obama6) Sometimes you just have to do what is right.  If we don’t fight for this, then MSNBC has won, Obama and his Chicago thuggery have won, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their dishonest cram-down-our-throats tactics have won, and who we are as a party (or as a nation) may never be the same.  There is a time for compromise, and that time has passed.  The President didn’t compromise when he forced his will on the American people with this bloated takeover of the health care industry.  We cannot compromise as we fight back.

Republicans, this is about doing what is right and doing it now.  Visit the site and see where your Senator stands.

Lisa @ (This post is a reprint of the original from

Let’s see, we have two sex-addicted dishonest politicians running for office in New York, Obama just rolled out a sweeping plan to solve the global-warming problem that Senator Boxer’s own experts testified to a Senate committee doesn’t exist, a filibuster by a feminist legislature in Texas got more media attention than the whole Gosnell trial, and Al Sharpton has again reminded us why the only network that would give him a job is MSNBC.

In other words, we’ve had enough craziness for now.  Let’s take a break and focus on something that doesn’t make you want to move to Canada.  How about some political trivia?  I bet you didn’t know that Croatia was the first country to recognize the United States in 1776.  I’ve grabbed some of the more interesting factoids from a site that has tons of these (to see the source of the trivia, click here).  The color commentary in the parenthesis is from me:

  • Theodore Roosevelt was the first American President to win the Nobel Peace Prize. He won for his arbitration of treaty discussions at the end of the Russo-Japanese War. (that’s a real reason to win a Nobel Peach Prize)
  • The only four countries that start with the letter “D” are Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica and the Dominican Republic.
  • Americans pay over $30,500 in federal, state, and local taxes every second (that I believe, probably more since this was printed)
  • Before Bill Clinton, no left-handed American president had ever served two
  • In England, the Speaker of the House is not allowed to speak.
  • Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt were all cousins through one connection or another. FDR and Eleanor were about five times removed.
  • FDR was the most superstitious president — he traveled continually but never left on a Friday. He also wouldn’t sit at the same table that held thirteen other people.
  • Of all U.S. Presidents, none lived to be older than John Adams, who died at the age of 91.
  • President John Quincy Adams owned a pet alligator which he kept in the East Room of the White House.
  • John Quincy Adams took his last skinnydip in the Potomac on his seventy-ninth birthday.
  • Jimmy Carter was the first president born in a hospital.
  • Gerald Ford pardoned Robert E. Lee posthumously of all crimes of treason.
  • Gerald Ford was once a male model.
  • The lightest President of the United States was James Madison who was 5′ 4″ and weighed under 100 pounds. The tallest was Lincoln at 6′ 4″. The heaviest was Howard Taft who, at times, weighed over 300 pounds. Source: “Knowledge in a Nutshell”
  • Andrew Jackson was the only U.S. President to believe that the world is flat.
  • President Andrew Jackson spent most of his adult life with a bullet no more than two inches away from his heart as a result of a duel he fought before becoming President.
  • President Taft got stuck in his bathtub on his Inauguration Day and had to be pried out by his attendants.
  • The reason Maryland did not seceed from the Union in 1865 was that President Lincoln had the state legislators arrested.
  • George Washington’s false teeth were made of whale bone.
  • George Washington was deathly afraid of being buried alive. After he died, he wanted to be layed out for three days just to make sure he was really dead.
  • George Washington had to borrow money to go to his own inauguration.
  • James K. Polk was the only President to have been Speaker of the House. (Sorry, Newt)
  • Julie Nixon, daughter of Richard Nixon, married David Eisenhower, grandson of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
  • Harrison was the only president born in the same county as his vice president.
  • Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy Davis appeared opposite each other in the movie “Hellcats of the Navy.”
  • Ronald Reagan was the only President who studied economics in college. (this really should be a requirement for all Presidents)
  • When the Hoovers did not want to be overheard by White House guests, they spoke to each other in Chinese.
  • William Howard Taft was the first President to own a car.
  • When Harry Truman left office in 1952 he got in his own car and drove himself back to Missouri.
  • According to historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, Lyndon Johnson loved the soda Fresca so much he had a fountain installed in the Oval Office that dispensed the beverage, which the president could operate by pushing a button on his desk chair. Fresca is a grapefruit- flavored soda sold on the East Coast.
  • The Baby Ruth candy bar was actually named afte Grover Cleveland’s baby daughter, Ruth.
  • There was some question as to whether Barry Goldwater could legaly serve as President. The Constitution requires presidents to be born in the United States. Goldwater was born in Arizona before it was a state. (We’ll remember this if Ted Cruz runs for President)

This is only an excerpt, visit the page for more.

Lisa @  (check out our newly-designed site)

Update: I have corrected the statement that David Eisenhower is President Eisenhower’s son, his is actually his grandson.  Thanks to Ellen Kolb for the correction in the comments.

Herman Cain had a great line that he would use during his campaign speeches where he would say that if we aren’t careful, we will spend our sunset years telling our grandchildren of when we “used to be free.”  He would go on to say, “That is not a conversation I want to have with my grandchildren.”  (You can watch it here.  Go to around 2:20 of the video). Of course, this drew thunderous applause and was a great line.  I had the opportunity to see Herman Cain speak in person several times during his run in the primaries.  He is a compelling speaker, one of the best I’ve ever seen.  His ability to draw in the crowd is one of the reasons his campaign went as far as it did, I think.

However, reflecting back on the line about remembering when we used to be free, I never thought that I would agree with him so quickly that many of our freedoms are in the past.  There is no way around it, this is a depressing time for conservatives.  It has only been 6 months since President Obama started his second term in office.  His administration continues to release thousands of regulations that reduce our freedoms and cripple our economy.  These regulations occur from every department, from Agriculture to the EPA and so on.

Religious liberty is taking a hit like nothing I’ve ever seen in my life.  It was a given for most of my life (at least from my perspective), that I lived in a society that is tied together by our Judeo-Christian tradition and shared values.  I knew there were those that didn’t believe these things, but most did.  Naïve perhaps, but what we have now is the most brazen attack on religion that I really am afraid we’ve hit a turning point where religious individuals who live their faith are relegated to the minority in a way that is irreversible.

The will of the people has been diminished as courts rule the day.  Our ability to fight back and govern ourselves is limited to what judges allow instead of what people want.  California’s citizens, for instance, did everything in their power to stop same-sex marriage.  They voted twice as a state against it.  But, political maneuvering and the dereliction of duty by state officials led to the voice of the people being overthrown.  Feeling empowered, well-funded organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation are staging battles at every front to completely remove any expression of religion from the public square.

Does anyone really think that the Founding generation would have ever thought that there would be nearly 3 million people employed by the Executive Branch alone?  Even if they knew how many people are in the country now, would they ever have thought that the powers afforded to the executive branch would warrant so many employees?  What are these individuals doing, they would ask.  Are they only performing the limited powers outlined in the Constitution?  Certainly not.  The government has become a bloated, freedom-robbing glob that regulates and taxes everything it sees, regardless of the resulting contraction of liberty spoken of by Ronald Reagan.

Now, looking back at the historical count of Executive Branch employees (see this link), you might say, “but Lisa, the number has been over 2 million since at least 1962, so this is not all Obama’s fault.”  I say to that, who cares?  At this point, who really cares whose fault it is?  Does it really  matter?  Let’s just fix it going forward.  This isn’t about blaming or pointing fingers.

So, here we are on Independence Day Eve.  We will attend barbeques tomorrow and look at fireworks.  We will celebrate a country that was founded on ideals that were the most unique ever conceived in history.  Our country was a precious thing, an ideal, a vision.  The idea that “all men are created equal” was a beacon at the time for the world, an example.  It was the first time in the history of the world that such ideals were the basis for the founding of a nation, a nation that for those reasons alone became the greatest in all of history.

Now, we as a nation are choosing to not be free.  We are choosing to give up those liberties that the Founders recognized were not the government’s to give in the first place.  They were ours before any government ever existed, given to us by God.  Our freedom to live as our religious conscious would dictate is sacred.  Yet, now a company like Hobby Lobby is spending millions so that it doesn’t have to fund abortive contraceptives in its health plan.  Am I the only one that understands how convoluted that is?  Imagine in the framing era saying, “in the future, the government will be so intrusive that it will dictate what benefits must be provided by companies, even if they are squarely opposed by the deeply-held religious beliefs of the company’s owners.”  How absurd would that have sounded to them!

And yet, here we are.  We have worked our way into a pretzel.  Admittedly, much of this was institutionalized during the New Deal, but in today’s world where we are arguably living through the New New Deal, we are so entrenched in this that the ideals of the Tea Party are considered to be extreme!

As I realize that Herman Cain was right on track and mourn for my country, I find myself thinking about the boiling frog syndrome.  We don’t even notice it anymore.


We walk around every day thinking we are free, but the very car we bought, the very toilet seat in our home, the way we are allowed to raise our children, the way we run our businesses, and every other detail in our lives is regulated in some way by the government.  I went to China last summer, and do you know that most of them think they are free, too?  When will we finally wake up and vote based on what is right for our country instead of who gives a better sound bite?

This Fourth of July in the midst of all of the festivities, let’s recommit ourselves to fight for these ideals and pray for our fellow Americans, that they will wake up before we, like the frog, find ourselves in boiling water.

Lisa @

My sister had a baby last week and so our family has been focused on a new little newborn.  This has led me to ponder what the future will be like for this little child.

One story that hit the news last week was the high school graduation ceremony where the valedictorian read the Lord’s Prayer for his speech since the school district had chosen to not allow prayers at school functions.

I was thinking about this young man and the stand that he took, that he had to take given the decision made by the school district to remove religion from the ceremony.  He rose to the occasion and made a statement about who he is.  Had he not done that and had he just read a typical graduation speech, no one would have thought anything less of him.  In fact, he would still have been applauded as the valedictorian of his school.  However, he did something more.  He stood up for who he is knowing there may be consequences.  The school officials may have had the microphone turned off for all he knew.  People may have denounced his action.  But, he took a stand anyway because he knew it needed to be done.

When it comes to religious liberty, the days are past where religion was generally accepted as the basis of society.  Religion is being systematically removed from our institutions and government.  This is far beyond anything the Framers intended, but this is where we are.  So, it becomes even more important for individuals to actually practice their liberties to keep religion in the public sphere.

This is a huge task for a generation that is growing up not hearing prayers in public.  Children are living in a world where religion is a secretive event allowed only to be practiced at home and in churches.  They are not learning about religion in schools, even to the point of having “Winter” parties instead of Christmas parties. Their “normal” will not equate to public displays of religion, and yet that is the task that is falling on them if we are to have any hope for a future where religion is once again a vibrant part of society.

Then there is the breakdown of the family.  My nephew will grow up in a family where religion is practiced and revered.  But he will find himself more and more in the minority.  Families are falling apart and religious devotion is slipping.  It isn’t a secret that these are related principles.  Strong families make us better people and tend to be more religiously active as a recent Heritage blog post pointed out.

I recognize this is a somewhat negative outlook of both the current and the future, but I am not even 40 yet and I can see a palpable difference in the way society treats religion.

May the next generation be strong enough to rise to the occasion and stand for truth.  May my new little nephew learn this and be willing to be criticized if needed for boldly declaring what he knows.

I came upon the dissent filed by Justice Scalia in McCreary County vs. ACLU where the Supreme Court found that the intent behind the 10 Commandment display in the county courthouse was relevant to determining if the display itself is unconstitutional.  The Court stated that if the government acts with the predominant purpose to advance religion, that act is unconstitutional.  In a sharp dissent by Justice Scalia, he criticized the Court’s opinion and provided a very clear explanation as why the public acknowledgement of Deity is not only deeply historical but Constitutional.

Here is an excerpt from the transcript of Justice Scalia’s reading of his dissent when the Court announced its opinion.  It is worth reading:

On September 11, 2001, I was attending in Rome, Italy an international conference of judges and lawyers principally from Europe and the United States.

That night the President of the United States gave an address to the nation concerning the murderous attacks upon the twin towers and the pentagon in which almost 3,000 Americans were killed.

The address ended as presidential addresses often do with the prayer, “God bless America.”

The next afternoon, I was approached by one of the judges from European country who after extending his profound condolences on my country’s loss sadly observed how I wish that the Head of State of my country at a similar time of national tragedy and distress could conclude his address, “God bless the name of the county.”

It is of course absolutely forbidden, he said.

That is one model of the relationship between church and state.

A model spread across Europe by the armies in Napoleon and reflected in the Constitution of France which begins France is a secular republic.

Religion is strictly excluded from the public forum.

That is not and never was the model adapted by America.

George Washington added to the form of presidential oath prescribed by Article II of the Constitution that concluding words “So help me God.”

The Supreme Court under John Marshall opened its sessions with the prayer “God save the United States and this honorable court.”

The First Congress instituted the practice of beginning its legislative sessions with a prayer.

The same week that Congress submitted the Establishment Clause as part of the bill of rights for ratification by the states; it enacted legislation providing for paid chaplains in the House of Senate.

The day after the First Amendment was proposed, the same Congress that had proposed it requested the President to proclaim “A day of public Thanksgiving and Prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of almighty God.”

President Washington authored the first thanksgiving proclamation shortly thereafter devoting November 26, 1789 on behalf of the American people “to the service of that great and glorious being who is the Beneficent Author of all the good that is, that was, or that will be.”

I could add to these examples many other official and quasi-official indications of the compatibility with the Establishment Clause of expressions of belief in God.

Today’s majority opinion brings forward no official or quasi-official statement expressing what the majority says to be the contrary view, only letters and statements of individual Framers.

Some of which are contradicted by the actions that those Framers themselves took when they were in official office.

There is moreover no indication that America’s views on the official acknowledgment of God today are any different from what they were in 1789.

Presidents continue to conclude the presidential oath with the words, “So help me God” and to wish you thanksgiving proclamations calling for thanks to God.

Our legislatures state and national continue to open their sessions with prayers led by official chaplains.

The sessions of this Court continue to open with the prayer “God save the United States and this honorable Court.”

Invocation of the Almighty by our public figures at all levels of the government remains common place.

Our coinage there is the model “In God we trust” and less than three years ago an active Congress adapted unanimously by the Senate and with only five nays in the House of Representatives criticized a Federal Court opinion that had held the words under “God” in the pledge of allegiance to be unconstitutional.

With all of this reality and much more scarring it in the face how can the court possibly assert as it does in today’s opinion that “the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and non-religion”, manifesting a purpose to favor adherence to religion generally is unconstitutional.

Who says so?

Surely not the words of the Constitution, surely not the history and traditions that reflect our society’s constant understanding of those words, surely not even the current sense of American society nothing stands behind the Court’s assertion that governmental affirmation of America’s belief in God is unconstitutional except the Court’s own say so, citing as support only the unsubstantiated say so of earlier courts going back no further than the mid 20th century.

Besides appealing to the demonstratively false principle that the government cannot favor religion over irreligion, today’s opinion suggest that the posting of the Ten Commandments violates the principle that the government cannot favor one religion over another.

That is indeed a valid principle where public aid or assistance to religion is concerned or where the free exercise of religion is at issue but it necessarily applies and has always applied in a more limited sense to public acknowledgment of the Creator.

If religion in the public forum had to be entirely non-denominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all.

One cannot say the word God or the Almighty, one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs.

With respect to the public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our nation’s historical practices and its practices today that there is a distance between the acknowledgment of a single Creator and the establishment of a religion.

The former is as the court itself said in the case appproving legislator prayers “a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.

The three most popular religions in the United States, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam which combined a count for 97.9% of all believers are monotheistic.

All of them moreover, Islam included, believe that the Ten Commandments were given by God to Moses and are divine prescriptions for a virtuous life.

Publicly honoring the Ten Commandments is thus indistinguishable in so far as discrimination against other religious is concerned from publicly honoring God.

Both practices are recognized across such a broad and diverse range of the population that they cannot reasonably be understood as a government endorsement of a particular religious viewpoint.

The Court today fails to recognize that in the context of public acknowledgements of one God or of the Ten Commandments, there are legitimate competing interests.

On the one hand, the interest of a minority, the religious minority and not feeling excluded, but on the other hand, the interest of the overwhelming majority of religious believers in being able to give God thanks and supplication as a people and with respect to our national endeavors.

Our national tradition has resolved that conflict in favor of the majority.

It is not for this Court to change a disposition that accounts many Americans think for the phenomenon remarked upon in a quotation attributed to various authors including Bismarck but which I prefer to associate with Charles de Gaulle, “God watches over little children, drunkards, and the United States of America.”

You can listen to the entire speech here:

Lisa @

In an effort to lead a healthier life, I decided to go vegan 3 weeks ago.  I’ve ended my long-lasting affair with ice-cream, meats and cheeses.  It hasn’t been easy, but I definitely eat more fruits and veggies than normal and have found I have more energy than I used to.

Yesterday I decided to try out a vegan restaurant in the Dallas area, so I discovered Veggie Garden in Richardson (north-east of Dallas).  It is only the second vegan place I’ve been able to find so far (the first being the Loving Hut in Addison which turned out to be very tasty).

I walked into Veggie Garden not sure what to expect given that it is really just part of a strip mall and there is nothing much on the outside.  The interior was pretty basic, too.  But, the food ended up being quite good.  I ordered the Kung-Pao Soy Chicken with white rice and my sister ordered the Soy Chicken burger with French fries:
















However, the humorous part of this adventure was the political overtone which we were not expecting.  First, we asked to get the password for the wi-fi and were given this piece of paper with the password:




We wondered if they were part of the original protest (see pictures of the Dallas OWS protest here).




We also noticed this sign was hanging on the wall:













And, in the corner they had a little area with books and literature containing a combination of vegan and political messaging.  Next to “how to become a vegan” is a sign-up for the Green Party (with no sign-ups so far).  They had Michael Moore’s book Stupid White Men and a flyer that said, “You can’t be all you can be if your dead” advocating not joining the military.








The bottom says that there are other ways to be patriotic than serve in the military.







Notice Stupid White Men towards the right.






Sign-up for the Dallas County Green Party.





Resources on how to be a vegan and Foreign Policy magazine, not the literature I was expecting.




I would have engaged the owners in a discussion about what exactly their message is supposed to be, but we had a hard time conversing with them (English not being their first language.  Our waitress was from China, but she only works there and doesn’t own the place).  I wanted to ask what these small business owners are trying to say and how they feel oppressed exactly given that it appears they travelled to the United States vs. choosing to stay in their country of origin.  I wanted to ask what type of justice they are seeking while living in a country and a state that allow them to make whatever type of statement they wish and live their lives the way they wish (Obamacare aside).

The food was good and the wi-fi was free, so being capitalists, they won me over with a great product and I will definitely be back.  I also humorously realized that my veganism may lead me to meet some interesting characters.  This will be fun.  My conservatism is non-negotiable, but I do enjoy engaging with those that have different points of view, especially as they espouse a position that is contrary to the very life they live and freedoms they enjoy.
















Here is their website in case you want to visit sometime:

Lisa @

The moving Hating Breitbart has been re-released as a PG-13 movie, thereby dropping its R rating from when it was released last year (so, it has been slightly edited as the only reason for the R rating last year was a small amount of foul language).  I saw it last year when it was released the first time.  I would definitely watch it again this year, but it isn’t playing in the Dallas area this time around.  Hopefully the powers-that-be can rectify that.

I was recently musing about what a field day Andrew Breitbart would be having with these White House scandals.  First of all, he probably would have already discovered the extent of the abuse in the IRS (before Congress) complete with names and dates, etc .  He likely would have been carrying the banner on this months ago, even before the election.  Breitbart had a way of being connected, and he fearlessly pursued truth.  He found his way to stories that at first seemed crazy (like Anthony Wiener Tweeting pictures of himself and then vehemently denying it and lying about it on CNN), and yet they always ended up being true.

Breitbart was recently vindicated in the Pigford scandal which he uncovered long before anyone else did.  He would be leading the way right now in the fight against the MSM narrative in this latest round of scandals.

Breitbart is the person that inspired me to keep fighting at a time when it seemed that just about everything was lost.  I met him at a Tea Party event in Mesquite, TX in 2010.  He had given an articulate speech about the reality of the “organized Left” in the media.  I had followed politics for years (I even majored in Political Science in college) but had never put the dots together about the intentional coercion that goes on with the what information flows to the general public and how dangerous that really is.  Breitbart explained it so well and afterwards I shook his hand and told him how inspired I was by his speech.  I felt like I had just learned something profound and things would never be the same.

Since that day when I sat riveted in my chair listening to him speak for the first time, I’ve devoured the news like never before in my life.  And, I can say with certainty that every single thing he asserted that day was true.  Every iota.  The Left is organized.  They are well-connected with the MSM.  The MSM themselves are either in cahoots with the Left or they are so entrenched in their narrative that they don’t even know what they are putting out there anymore.  The “watchdog” role of the press has been greatly diminished in recent years.  And, the important role the press is supposed to play almost disappeared when Obama was elected president as the press has fallen all over itself to support this man.  Now that there is incontrovertible evidence against this administration, we finally see some measure of criticism.  However, this is too little too late as the election already passed and the good that the press could have done with an honest assessment of the President’s first four years of office never came to fruition.  Imagine if the election had involved a true assessment of the President for all to see.  So many who voted for Obama would have had information in front of them to help make a more informed choice.  However, instead the press did everything it could to re-elect Obama.  So, as we sit here for 4 more years holding our breath that the President doesn’t entirely destroy the country, we know that if not entirely responsible, the press is certainly accountable for much of the blame.

Because of the Left’s infiltration into the MSM, Breitbart also rightly championed new media.  This blog and the thousands of others out there counter the MSM narrative every day.  Breitbart understood that the internet is the key out of this informational tyranny.  And again, he was exactly right.  The role that the internet and individual bloggers and regular people play in helping the truth get the light of day cannot be overstated.

So, was Breitbart pugnacious?  Was he confrontational?  You bet.  He was only reacting to the power structure in place.  He knew toughness was needed.  He did everything he could to get attention so that his voice could be heard.  I wish he was around now to be a part of the events of the day.  I would love to see how he would have handled all of this.  However, I know we can all take solace in knowing that he influenced many who get up every day and fight the good fight.

If you want to see Hating Breitbart (which I highly recommend), here is the official site where you can see if it is playing in your area.

Also, here is a great tribute by Rush Limbaugh about Breitbart.

Lisa @

The President did his best to show anger and shock at the IRS’s mishandling of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in a press conference this evening where he took no questions.  He promised to “hold responsible parties” accountable claiming that he “will not tolerate” this type of behavior in any agency, but especially the IRS “given the power that it has and reach that it has in all of our lives.”

He promised safeguards and to work with Congress.  He claimed this is a “fixable” problem. (Of course, that makes sense now that the election is over.)

He had the gall to tell Congress not be partisan in its investigation. Even in the midst of a scandal with a clear abuse of power in his administration, he finds the time to take a swipe at Republican leadership in Congress. “Democrats and Republicans owe it to the American people to treat that authority with the responsibility it deserves and in a way that doesn’t smack of politics or partisan agendas.”  Let’s face it, that little remark was not directed at the Democrats.

He also talked about ensuring that the “laws are clear” so that they can be enforced fairly.  So, was he trying to say they were not enforced fairly because the laws were not clear?  He certainly implied that.

This was basically a press conference about nothing where the President just wants the evening news cycle to run a story claiming he is outraged and “doing all that he can.”

Charles Krauthammer on Fox said just after the press conference that this is the “bare minimum” that the president had to do.  He is exactly right.  This was basically punting the controversy forward a day with generalities hoping that the outrage will die down.


For those of you counting calories, here is something to smile about.  This 105-year-old woman from Texas claims that eating bacon each day has helped her live a long life.  From

Cantrell does not need a cane or a walker and was still driving her own car at 104 years old until a bout of sickness in September of 2012.

“She had gone dancing just last October,’’ her daughter said. “This year she danced on her birthday. It’s unbelievable. And she still wants bacon for breakfast every day, so we take turns where I cook it for her at my house or she cooks it at her house.”

Cantrell gave birth to eight children, one of whom died at 9 months old, and five of the seven children she raised are still alive. When she wasn’t snacking on bacon at home, she would often get it at her favorite restaurant, the Little Yellow Duck in Richland Springs. She still eats two slices every morning for breakfast and sometimes also has two slices for lunch.

If you don’t like bacon, here are some more tips for a long life from other centenarians.  Among them:

Eat the same thing each day

Do what you love

Participate in extreme sports

Do what you want and eat what you want (and don’t exercise)

Drink Scotch

Some pretty good ideas.  I think I’ll start with the bacon.

Lisa @

I’m not sure what to think.  My opinion of the Paul family is mostly shaped by Ron Paul.  You remember him right?  Older gentlemen, never met a government agency he liked, has a bunch of college-age follower-droids, ran for president several times.  Ron Paul is for many the only introduction into libertarianism they have had.  Having been “schooled” time and time again by Ron Paul followers who seem to all use the same pre-determined arguments (like zombies repeating what they were taught at the mother ship) against everyone and anyone who may even slightly disagree with them (like calling them “statists” and no different than President Obama), I’d grown weary of the libertarian movement.

Taking a look at the “liberty” platform, they definitely have some solid core beliefs.  Government should be smaller, much smaller. Civil liberties good, government intrusion bad.  Good stuff.

Then they go off the deep end.  They want to legalize all drugs, end the Federal Reserve (I’m sorry everyone, I agree it needs more review like regular audits, but you can’t just “End the Fed”), legalize prostitution, and legalize same-sex marriage.

Libertarians are natural allies to Conservatives on issues related to the size and scope of government (though I’m not sure both groups agree on the degree of that scope).  However, I cannot nor will I ever support legalizing heroine and prostitution.

But, given the mammoth size of our government, it seems that coming together on our shared fiscal concerns should be paramount.  However, I’ve never met a Ron Paul supporter who is able to have a meaningful conversation about areas of relative agreement between conservatives and libertarians.  As soon as I say something like, “are you sure we should end ALL foreign aid?  What about for war-torn countries or for Israel?  Maybe we should just reduce the amount we dole out and ensure our aid only goes to allies?”  The Ron Paul supporter will respond by flying off the deep end and telling me that I am in bed with the Left and that my ideas would lead to the end of America as we know it.

After having several interactions at various events during the last few years (and lots of arguing on Facebook), I came to the conclusion that whatever the Ron Paul supporters are selling, I don’t want it.  They are a badly-behaved bunch who lose the opportunity for persuasion by choosing to engage in disrespectful behavior with an all-or-nothing mentality that only allows for their version of libertarian purism.

So, you can imagine my surprise over the last several months as I’ve watch Sen. Rand Paul.  I fully expected Senator Paul to behave in office like his dad did (don’t get me wrong, I think that Ron Paul is a good man, but he was not an effective legislature).  I’ve gone from being pleasantly surprised at Senator Paul to now finding myself cheering for him and hoping that he is real thing (and this is not just a  show).  Consider the evidence:

Rand’s filibuster- Let’s face it, that was the best television we’ve seen in a long time.  It also demonstrated, however, the commitment of Senator Paul to issues he deems of vital importance.  He had a point to make and he made it.  He is a leader.

Rand’s stance on drugs – Rand has often discussed the overcriminalization of drug offenders.  He is not trying to legalize drugs, but to have a more reasonable approach to the so-called Drug War (are we still doing that?).  In other words, he has found a position that appeals to someone like me, a staunch conservative, and that may actually get some traction.  And he has a point.  Someone caught with drugs at a very young age can be in jail for decades based on our zero-tolerance policy.  I’m not sure I agree there should be no jail for drug offenses, but a policy that considers the nature of the crime and the individual involved is one worth considering.

Rand’s visit to Howard University – Senator Paul had the guts to visit Howard University.  He got both cheers and jeers from media onlookers and blogger-pundits.  However, it certainly was a gutsy move, especially considering the fact that he spent time after his speech in a Q+A session.  He didn’t ace every question, but assumedly he learned from his experience and will be even better the next time.

Rand’s recent letter on immigration – Okay, if you are like me, you are wondering what has taken over Senator Rubio.  He is peddling his immigration bill on all sorts of conservative talk shows.  He is gutsy, for sure.  To actually have an on-air interview with Mark Levin on an issue Levin disagrees with is, well, nearly suicidal.  But, trying to push the bill through without reasonable debate is naturally causing concern by many.  (Also, whining that not allowing illegals amnesty is like slavery crosses the line).   Senator Paul, in light of the tragic events of last week in Boston, has asked for more reflection on the immigration bill.  He sent a letter to Sen. Reid asking that the legislation be examined with analysis on the bombings and determine what immigration failures may have taken place.  Smart move by Sen. Paul.  He is absolutely correct.

Rand’s commitment to life – This got little attention, but a few weeks ago, Senator Paul introduced the “Life at Conception Act.”  He knows a bill like this will never even see the light of day, unfortunately, but it is good to know where he stands.  He had a fiasco recently on CNN when asked about abortion.  He said there are “thousands of exceptions” to his pro-life stance.  He later backtracked and confirmed he is truly pro-life.  I’m going to choose to believe he misspoke on TV trying to find ways to find common ground with the host vs. not actually being pro-life.  He’ll need to work on the message.  But, I’m grateful to see him introduce the “Life at Conception Act” legislation if for no other reason than it demonstrates where he stands.  Also, it ticked off liberals (and you gotta love that).

My point in all of this is Rand Paul is doing a good job of positioning himself close enough to libertarians to pick up some of their vote, but far enough away so as to remain credible with conservatives.  He certainly is not concerned about getting moderates.  That is fine with me.  So, when he runs for President (that’s right, I said “when” and not “if.”  Let’s not fool ourselves.  He is not just considering a run, he is doing everything he can to prepare for a run), I think he may be a viable option.

However, I would advise him to not use his dad as a debate coach.

Lisa @