Monday, December 20, 2010

Food "Safety" Bill Passed by Lame Duck Perfidy

Arrgghhh."In Sunday-evening surprise, Senate passes food safety legislation":
The Senate unexpectedly approved food safety legislation by voice vote Sunday evening, rescuing a bill that floated in limbo for weeks because of a clerical error.
Attempts like this are to be expected by lame duck legislators, a concept that in this day and age can and needs to be done away with. The House and Senate should be permanently closed before election day and the new House and Senate then seated within a week or two of the election.

Herein lies the perfidy:
Democrats first attempted to attach the food safety bill to the two-and-a-half-month spending measure but Republicans balked because they wanted to keep that measure clean, according to Senate aides.

Republicans, however, later agreed to pass it by voice vote
Why bother separating the two bills if you're going to approve both of them? I've yet to find an explanation for this separation. It make no sense to me, unless they are anticipating a second vote whereby they can vote against one or the other bill, yet my understanding is that the food bill goes to the President if (when) the House passes it.

By this the current Senate Republicans have promulgated further intrusion of government regulation into private affairs thus showing themselves to be no different than Democrats in this regard. A pox on their house.

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Food "Safety" Bill Likely DOA

From Hot Air and Roll Call:
By pre-empting the House’s tax-writing authority, Senate Democrats appear to have touched off a power struggle with members of their own party in the House. The Senate passed the bill Tuesday, sending it to the House, but House Democrats are expected to use a procedure known as “blue slipping” to block the bill, according to House and Senate GOP aides
Now what? The House will either block the bill entirely or pass its own version of it. The latter option will mean that Reid will have to hold a vote to reopen debate on the bill, and will need unanimous consent to limit that debate...Reid can forget about unanimous consent.
A bad bill likely dead? Good!
As a result of Democrat infighting? Better!
May lock up a lame duck Democrat Congress for the rest of the session? Best!

Christian Song for Hannukkah

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Inside Voice

Two items heard on the radio this morning:
Menino hospitalized with elbow infection
Inside voice says "Easy solution, cut it off."
Lynnfield man shot girlfriend, sister, himself over baby's name
Inside voice says "Why Lord can people not get the order right for suicide-murders; do self first, then others.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Too Funny to Pass Up

'Cause you know I'm just a thoroughly un-PC  kinda guy (from Curmudgeonly & Skeptical):

Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Tiger Woods, Oops!

This looks like a golf shot I'd make:

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Preach It Brother!

Another home run, a three-run dinger no less, from Orson Scott Card; Obama Spits on the Constitution. Here's the Cliff Notes version:
What do you do if you're President and you want to nominate an extreme leftist to be in charge of American banking and consumer lending?
Here's what you do, if you're Barack Obama. You appoint her to a much lower-level position, an advisory one that doesn't require Senate confirmation. But then you instruct the Secretary of the Treasury not to interfere with any of her decisions and make sure they're carried out.
If the Republican Party had any spunk, they would respond to this outrage by introducing a resolution of impeachment in the House of Representatives.
This is what dictatorship looks like, boys and girls. And Obama has been doing it all along. What do you think his "czars" are?
Read and heed.

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Reasons to Recall Winchendon Selectman Ed Bond

The following emails document some of the reasons to recall selectman Ed Bond

Conflict of interest

From: James M. Kreidler, Jr. []
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:55 PM
To:; Ed Bond; Jim Kreidler; Keith R. Barrows; Linda Daigle; Mark S. Shea
Subject: Selectman Bond re: Conflict of Interest Opinion

Dear All,

As is my obligation, I have now on several occasions discussed with Selectman Bond the conflict of interest presented by his “participation” in DPW matters. I have done this either at or after each of your last three meetings. I had this conversation with Selectman Bond when I asked for a brief recess (the first time) at your meeting at which the water and sewer rates were set. Then, just last week, I spoke with Selectman Bond once again with Chairman Barrows present, regarding my belief that he is unable to “participate” in matters relating to the DPW (the second time). As a result of this discussion and after his insistence that he can participate just not vote on DPW matters, I sought a legal opinion. Again last night, on a DPW issue relating to the transfer station fees, after Selectman Bond participated by offering a “second” to the motion, I once again sought a recess and once more ( a third time) advised Selectman Bond of the conflict with his participation. Selectman Bond then abstained from further participation in that matter. I felt as though the message had been received and that Selectman Bond understood his limitations under the law. Curiously, however, later in the very same meeting when the matter of the sewer bill abatement for the Fire Department was before you, yet another example of a DPW issue, Selectman Bond participated and voted.

I am doing my best to convey the serious nature of Selectman Bond’s participation in matters that he is precluded from participating in under the Conflict of Interest statute (G.L. 268a).

I am attaching the legal opinion from Counsel (I have put hard copies in your folders) regarding Conflict of Interest issues relating to Selectman Bond concurrently serving as employee Bond.

James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Town Manager
109 Front Street
Winchendon, MA 01475

Conflict of interest

From: James M. Kreidler, Jr. []
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:52 PM
To: 'Jackson Blair'
Cc: ''; 'Ed Bond'; Linda Daigle (; 'Robert "Zeb" Zbikowski'
Subject: RE: FW: BoS Policy Revision Comments


I can agree that it seems archaic.

The thinking is that someone’s mere presence at the table, or even in the room according to the SJC, is participation enough to constitute a violation. While this may seem like a bit of overkill there are some personalities that can and do impact actions just by being there. This rule is meant to cut against those things from occurring.

James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Town Manager
109 Front Street
Winchendon, MA 01475
P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

Abuse of selectman position for personal vendetta and gain. Unethical conflict of interest

From: James M. Kreidler, Jr. []
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:02 PM
To:; Ed Bond; Jim Kreidler; Barrows, Keith; Linda Daigle; Mark S. Shea
Subject: Discussion with Selectman Bond

Dear All,

I am sending this email documenting the conversation that took place between Selectman Ed Bond and me, with Selectman Keith Barrows as a witness. I am sending it along for two purposes---first, to memorialize our conversation and second to keep all members equally informed.

At the conclusion of Monday evening’s meeting I asked Selectman Bond if he would stay for a bit so I could speak to him about some issues. I also asked one other member to stay along as a witness. Selectman Bond stayed as did Chairman Barrows.

I discussed several issues and they were:

1. Selectmen’s Policies- I advised Ed that he had not yet returned the signed acknowledgment receipt from the Board’s policy document that Linda gave him the day after he was elected. Ed stated that he had done so already and I advised that he had not. He committed to do so right away. As of this writing, in spite of being in the office each morning, he has still not done so.

2. Requests for Research and Information- I next spoke to Ed about his attempt, on May 7, 2009 or two days after his election to the Board, to get my administrative assistant Linda Daigle to produce and analyze the past 5 years of water department budgets---comparing the expense of a unionized workforce versus a private contract operator. I recounted that Linda said to him that he would have to get that information from me and that he refused to do so. I informed Ed of the fact that I was aware that he next (immediately) went to the town accountant’s office and directed the Accountant to create and analyze the very same information. Given the fact that Charlotte had been informed during her hiring that no one member of the Board can direct her to engage in a substantive research and analysis project without a vote of the full Board, Charlotte, appropriately, put Ed off. I then recounted that Ed approached Charlotte again, this time on May 28, 2009, looking for the completed information. [Note: this is a full 17 days after the public Selectmen’s meeting during which I advised Ed that it is an ethics violation for him to participate in matters relating to the water department] I next reminded Ed that his participation in this particular matter was a violation of the Ethics laws that he is held to by statute and by Board policy. Ed disagreed. He said he is only barred from actual voting and that he can talk about the issue all he wants. I told Ed it is my job to advise you and I am telling you that you are wrong. I told him that “participation” under the ethics law includes voting, talking, informal lobbying, and researching. He disagreed. I suggested that he seek an opinion from the ethics commission and he said that he would.

3. Telegram Reporter and Citizen Gail Stanton- I next asked Ed what he is doing with Gail Stanton. He became somewhat defensive and said he was just asking some questions. I shared that I was aware that Ed was working with Gail’s ex-husband and had been repeatedly peppering him with personal questions about gail---questions about their marriage, their divorce, her maiden name, etc. Ed then offered that he was sick of being slandered in the newspaper. I stated that Gail had tried to get his comments on three separate occasions but that he had refused to speak to her. He said that he will continue to not speak to the press. He said he is sick of his name being in the paper. The conversation then pretty quickly devolved into a “discussion” about whether or not Ed is a thief and a liar. Moments later Ed abruptly left the room.

Keith, if any of this deviates from your recollection of the discussion please advise.

James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Town Manager
109 Front Street
Winchendon, MA 01475
These emails were obtained from the town of Winchendon by public records request.

Reasons to Recall Winchendon Selectman Burton Gould

The following emails document many of the reasons why Burton Gould should be recalled:

Undue influence on day-to-day town operations contrary to law and charter

From: James M. Kreidler, Jr. []
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 4:48 PM
To:;; Ed Bond; Jim Kreidler; Linda Daigle; Robert "Zeb" Zbikowski
Subject: Selectman Gould Memo dated July 4/Received July 7

Dear All

Chairman Gould writes the following regarding the firefighter/paramedic appointment that I made on July 1, 2010. He “has two problems”:

1. “I prefer a local person.” I can make no lawful requirement that such a consideration be primary. I do, however, when all else is EQUAL, give the nod to any local candidate. Further, even if this were to be your appointment such a criteria would not be allowed. I draw your attention to your voted policy:

E. In all appointments, judge all candidates only on merit, experience, and qualifications .

2. “I have been made aware of problem with this applicant…” Please rest assured that the Chief is a fine manager and I fancy myself somewhat as much as well. This candidate was vetted, thoroughly, prior to appointment. The issue referenced by the Chairman and that “other members of the BOS are also aware of” was known to the Chief and I prior to appointment, was previously addressed by the Chief to my satisfaction and was deemed inconsequential. I would be happy to speak in more detail to it, to the extent that the law allows, if requested.

James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Town Manager
109 Front Street
Winchendon, MA 01475

P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

Disregard of agreed-to board policies for personal vendetta

From: James M. Kreidler, Jr. []
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 8:21 PM
To:;; Ed Bond; Jim Kreidler; Linda Daigle; Robert "Zeb" Zbikowski
Subject: Selectman Blair

Dear Jack,

As you observed earlier, your written request to have the matter of seeking a Board vote to solicit opinions of town counsel on questions surrounding the 5 year contract between us and the evaluation tool did in fact make the written agenda. Further, the agenda was approved by vote of the Board at the meeting.

When that item came up, however, the Chairman passed over it. I asked to speak and was recognized. I stated that I felt an obligation to have the matter addressed as you had directly sought, in writing and through me, to have it acted upon tonight. The Chair would hear none of it. I cited one of the Board’s new policies, specifically 400-20, in which it is stated that any member of the Board or the Town Manager (for that matter) has the right to have a matter placed upon the agenda. Again, no luck with the Chair. He stated that the matter required a full Board. I interjected that you were the maker of the request and you were fine having the Board address it in your absence. You were the only member absent. Once again, no dice.

No one else challenged the Chairs position and the matter was passed over.

I just wanted you to know that I took your request to me seriously and made my best effort at meeting your objective.

James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Town Manager
109 Front Street
Winchendon, MA 01475

P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

Disregard of agreed-to board policies for personal vendetta

From: James M. Kreidler, Jr. []
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:08 PM
To:;; Ed Bond; Jim Kreidler; Linda Daigle; Robert "Zeb" Zbikowski
Subject: BoS Meeting for Monday, June 28, 2010

Dear Board,

I am respectfully seeking guidance.

I am advised today that the Chairman has called for a meeting of the Board for Monday night.

There are a number of outstanding issues that require the Board’s attention. They include, but are not to be limited to:

1. My now one month old request for an executive session re: my complaint against Chairman Gould (see email from me to you dated May 20, 2010 @ 12:06 pm)

2. Your recently voted policies as they relate to the voter approved Charter (see our Town Counsel’s letter dated May 25, 2010)

3. The Headmaster Kerney Letter/Selectman Blair’s public records request (see email dated June 10, 2010 at 2:10 pm)

4. The matter of the Robinson Broadhurst grants/letters re: the Fire Department (see email dated 6/5/2010 @ 3:44 pm)

5. Ongoing Open Meeting Law Concerns of mine, and finally

6. A solar project update of some import

I have been further advised by the Chair, albeit indirectly through Mrs. Daigle, that these items are not welcome on the agenda this Monday and that “the Manager doesn’t need to be there Monday either.”

These matters require your attention and my understanding from communications either at the last meeting or in subsequent emails, or both, was that we would be addressing at least items 1-4 “at the next Board meeting.”

Thoughts anyone?

James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Town Manager
109 Front Street
Winchendon, MA 01475

P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

Illegal BOS executive session meeting. Illegal BOS policies costing town money

From: James M. Kreidler, Jr. []
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 4:34 PM
To:;; Ed Bond; Jim Kreidler; Linda Daigle; Robert "Zeb" Zbikowski
Subject: FW:

Dear Jack,

Please accept this as my respectful reply.

As I did for Bob’s most recent email, I am replying to your email by copying yours and supplying my comments in bold text.

As per your suggestion I will forward my recent communication with Bob, which he copied only to you, with the full Board.

After receiving Bob's email I suggested to him, and I suggest to you, that these exchanges be shared with our colleagues on the BOS as they have received all the "chatter" between you and I on this subject.

As you wish. I would caution, however, that the District Attorney and now the Attorney General view serial communication via email, by a quorum of a public body, as an open meeting law issue.

I would add Jim that we are not so naive as to accept your position that we ask you to betray the trust or violate the law.

I do not suggest you to be naïve at all. And for the record, it is not “my position” that you and other members of the Board have asked me to break the law. It is fact that Mr. Gould has done so as follows:

Mr. Gould convened an illegal executive session and demanded that I participate. When I declined and advised him and you all of the illegal nature of the undertaking he yelled, repeatedly, at me to “Shut up.” He further declared that “[I] will answer [his] questions.” Even going so far to say that I would be insubordinate for failing to do so.

And at a minimum it lends itself to the appearance of you having done so as follows:

You, in your email of June 14, 2010 @ 7:07 pm, after having been advised of the cost of the production of the voluminous public records request that you personally made, similarly declared that “the answers to [your] questions will be provided to [you] without charge.” You even went as far as to state that I would have to deal with “attorneys” if I did not provide you the documents without charge.

Different people have different interpretations of what the law means. You are entitled to yours as I am to mine. I think you too often use that canard in defense of positions you take.

This troubles me. According to Webster’s canard means- “false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report b : a groundless rumor or belief.” Do you really believe that the two instances cited directly above represent canards?

It makes a great soundbite but I don't think should a challenge ever be mounted legally that you are likely to prevail. Perhaps we shall see as time goes on.

None of this is intended to be soundbite material. I am saddened to have my sincere efforts at upholding my legal duties as such. Having said that, however, my hope would be to be able to perform my legally required functions without having to be sued, particularly by another agent of the town, but I stand convicted in the righteousness of my positions based upon my education, training and some twenty years of experience directly on point.

In the meantime, it would be nice if you would take our suggestions and concerns, as the duly elected body and your evaluator and supervisor, and spend less time trying to find ways to distract our sincere efforts.

This confuses me. Please cite an instance where I have neglected to respond to your sincere efforts and/or concerns. Candidly and respectfully, regardless of your duly elected position(s) as my supervisor and evaluator, while I will always respond, I will not do so in any way that is out of square with the law.

As for individual meetings with you, I think it should be evident especially since you rely so heavily on what your legal responsibilities are, that we like to have things in written form.

I will work with what I am given.

As a matter of information, could you tell me what the legal opinion of the Selectmen's Policies cost the town?

Certainly. In the most recent billing from our town counsel there is a total of 7.6 hours dedicated to the matter for a total of $654.00.

As for my request for information, the one you wanted to charge me for, I think we shall be able to summon a majority of votes to get that information in written form for our evaluation. Please ask that Chairman Gould put that request on the agenda for the next BOS meeting.

Not to be a stickler, but, there is a distinction between “the one that [I] wanted to charge you for” and “that the law requires you to pay for.” In an effort at best serving your wishes, in what form should such “request” be provided to the agenda? Does your original request via email cover it?

Hope you are having a decent June.

Thank you. In fact, I am. My step-son graduated high school and will be off to Lasell College this fall, my daughter “graduated” from pre-school and is off to full day K in the fall and my eldest step-daughter just gave birth to my first grandson yesterday. So, all things considered, my June has been a blessing.

James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Town Manager
109 Front Street
Winchendon, MA 01475

P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

Verbal assault by Burton Gould called "school yard behavior" by BOS member

From: Jackson Blair []
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 5:07 PM
To: James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Subject: question


I just read the Gardner News article about the Fire Chief and Burt. Nothing good will come of that kind of school yard behavior. We need to work these things out amongst ourselves. I know Bob feels the same way and I think you do too, based on our conversations.

What is the best way forward in this?

You mentioned hearing that Bob had gone to Boston about you and your job. I told you I thought that unlikely. I have since talked with Bob and the only thing he can think of that might have caused someone to say that to you was that he did visit with the ethics people to get a read on Ed Bond's situation.

Also, some time ago he he asked me to accompany him in September for a briefing on the charter and charter revision. We do plan to go to Boston for that briefing.

I hope this puts your mind at ease.

In the meantime, good luck with tomorrow's Town Meeting. It seems to me that it should be uneventful and productive. At least I hope that is the case.


Convenes illegal BOS meetings contrary to open meeting law

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:01 PM, James M. Kreidler, Jr.. wrote:

Dear Board,

The Town Clerk advises that the soonest the special ballot election can be held is 35 days after the date on which you vote to call the special election.

Therefore, if you meet next on the 8th of June, which would be your regularly scheduled meeting, the soonest date for the election would be 35 days later on Tuesday July 13th.

Please let us know in the office what your wishes are in this regard.

Also, in the short time that this Board has been convened I have expressed some concern to you regarding the open meeting law and the Board’s adherence to it on at least two occasions---the day after election when Burt, Ed, Jack and Bob scheduled to meet together in the town hall office of the Board and discussed Board business and again in the last executive session when an item that did not have any legal privilege was introduced and discussed over my objection.

I now have concerns regarding what has been described as a “social” visit of the same four Board members at the Winchendon School at which time town business was also discussed.

I strongly suggest that you call a meeting, or at a minimum that you meet with me in sub-quorum groups, to go over the open meeting law and its applicability to each of these situations. Part of my job is to advise the Board on these types of matters and I must stress that there is more to this law than my appear at first blush and I truly believe that my twenty years of experience would serve to benefit you.

I trust that you take no offense to me attempting to perform my duties under the law.

James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Town Manager
109 Front Street
Winchendon, MA 01475
P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

Convenes illegal BOS meetings contrary to open meeting law

On May 6, 2010, at 2:22 PM, "James M. Kreidler, Jr." wrote:

Dear Board,

I have just been presented with a hand drawn, black flaired, seating plan depicting where I am going to be directed to or allowed to sit during Board meetings.

Of course it unfortunately goes without saying that this was not communicated to me directly but rather through Mrs. Daigle from Selectman Gould.

This seating plan shows me being moved across the room directly opposite where I have sat for the past seven or so years.

When queried about the plan Mr. Gould stated that “the Board had decided that this is how it’s going to be” and that I was being moved either in whole or in part because “Zbikowski doesn’t want to sit next to me.”

Now, I don’t mind where I sit as I am certain that I can and will be equally effective in my support of the Board from either side of the table, but this issue presents another potential problem entirely.

I am advised that on Tuesday morning at 10:00 am a super majority quorum of four members of the Board met together in the Town Manager’s/Board of Selectmen office. One member, who is also a town employee who is regularly scheduled to have been working during this time, knew in advance of this meeting such that he requested the time off from his supervisor in order to be in attendance. Any suggestion of this having been a “chance” meeting could be clearly cut against by such a fact.

I am advised that at this meeting of the Board that town business items were discussed. Items of discussion included, but were not limited to, how agenda packets are going to be handled from this point onward, when the bi-weekly agenda will close, how and by whom matters will now be allowed to be placed on the agenda, policies and procedures of the Board as they exist and as they are going to be changed/deleted and planned actions for the upcoming May 10, 2010 Selectmen meeting relating to the Town meeting warrant.

Whether one or none of you wish to speak with me or care for me either personally or as your town manager is irrelevant against the obligations that you each have to uphold the requirements of the open meeting law. More to point, as per section 4-2 intro and (g) of the Winchendon Home Rule Charter, I have an obligation to see that all General laws are ‘FAITHFULLY CARRIED OUT, PERFORMED, EXECUTED AND ENFORCED.”

I am further advised that just today a quorum of three members were in the office again.

These two meetings, when detailed by the nature of the matters discussed and when added to by the stated “board’s decision” vis-à-vis the seating plan, strongly lend themselves to what appear to be violations of the Open Meeting law.

I wish to assure you all that I mean no disrespect in sending this email. Quite to the contrary I would suggest that it demonstrates a respect for the Board, for my duty to advise it and to uphold the laws.

While I am not certain of all that lies ahead of us as we work together for the benefit of all of the residents of town, one thing I can assure you of is that I will continue to take my obligations under the charter very seriously, as well I should. I would hope that you would agree.

James M. Kreidler, Jr.
Town Manager
109 Front Street
Winchendon, MA 01475
P Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
These emails were obtained from the town of Winchendon by public records request

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Recall Burt and Ed!

United Winchendon
I rarely blog on local issues, but now is one of those times.  Burton Gould and Ed Bond need to be recalled from the Winchendon BOS for the good of the town.  Winchendon should have nothing to do with board members who conduct illegal meetings, violate conflict of interest and open meeting laws, steal town property, ignore the expressed direction of the voters, and assault town employees and residents.

I urge all residents to sign the recall petitions NOW and vote them out if they then refuse to resign.  Please contact me if you wish to sign the petitions: I have legal copies.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Deval with a Short Bus

Sing with me now (to the tune of Devil with a Blue Dress):

Deval with a blue bus, blue bus, blue bus
Deval with a blue bus on
Deval with a blue bus, blue bus, blue bus
Deval with a blue bus on

Fee, fee, fi, fi, fo-fo, fum
Look at Patrick now, here he comes
Wearin' his white walls and shades to match
He's got patent leather shoes and an alligator hat
Wearin' his studs and his diamond rings
He's got bracelets on his fingers, now, and everything


Wearin' his drapes, ten thousand dollas worth
Got to be the finest politician alive
He walks real cool, catches everybody's eye
They got to be nervous, they can't say Hi
Not too smart, and he's way too smooth
He's a real humdinger and no one likes 'em like that


Good golly, Devalie
You sure like to ball
Good golly, Devalie
You sure like to ball
It's late in the evenin'
Don't you hear the voters call

From the early, early mornin' 'til the early, early nights
See Mr Cadillac rockin' at the House of Blue Lights
Good golly, Devalie
You sure like to ball
While you're rocking and you're rolling
Can't you hear the voters call

Thursday, August 19, 2010


Orson Scott Card speaks truth:
If history has taught us anything, it is that when fanatics announce their intention to kill Jews as soon as they get the means to do it, and then get the means, they kill Jews.
Now the American people have to make it laser-clear to Obama that we will not tolerate from him anything less than full support of Israel in its acts of self-defense against Iran.

Go, read and heed.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Shoe Speaks Truth

Shoe is not normally a very edgy political cartoon. The one this morning is:

Saturday, August 07, 2010

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Saddle Up Cowboys


My Conservative Identity:

You are an Anti-government Gunslinger, also known as a libertarian conservative or Tea Partier. You believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’"
Take the quiz at Political Humor

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Friday, July 16, 2010

Strange Coincidences

Earthquake in Maryland: D.C. area rocked
The U.S. Geological Survey reported a 3.6 magnitude earthquake centered in Montgomery County at 5:04 a.m. Friday. The epicenter was in Gaithersburg near I-270 and Route 124 (39.145 degrees N, 77.222 degrees W), USGS reported in a preliminary finding. Its depth was 3.1 miles.
Was this the metaphorical shaking of the dog as a flea leaves it's back?

Obama Family Heads to Maine for Two Day Vacation
The Obama family leaves Friday at 9:45 am and arrive in Bar Harbor at 11:45 am
Hmmm. It's only off by less than 5 hours.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

The Anatomy of a Murder

From the comments to the following report 3 Officers Involved in Shooting at Summerlin Costco:
My wife and I were 7 or 8 feet away from the shooting as were the police. We were to the suspects immediate right. We heard and saw the 3 police officers shouting to the man in question to 'get on your knees' several times. At that point the man appeared somewhat stunned by the commotion and shouting of the police. His Right arm went up in a defenseless position and it appeared his left arm appeared to be going up but there was NO gun in his hand. He was taserd and shot at the same time. At no time did the man in question ever raise his voice, shout an obscenity or become confrontational with the police. We saw the disabled man stooping to his right facing us with what appeared to be a bullet wound in his upper chest with blood coming from the wound and immediately his eyes became glossy as he began to convulse. At this point he was no threat to anyone, both hands were in full view of us and there was no gun. As he was down, the police continued to shout 'put the gun down' several times...but there was no gun in his hand as we had full vantage point view. The injured man was having agonal respirations, he was down when the second volly of bullets rang out...

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Saturday, July 03, 2010

Monday, June 28, 2010

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Farewell Dana Key

I was saddened to read this morning that Dana Key had gone to be with the Lord. He and Eddie DeGarmo as Degarmo and Key had some of the really good Christian rock-n-roll music of my youth. "Livin' on the Edge of Dying" from the album "Straight On" is one song that pops to mind. Later on their sound became more pop-oriented at times but their lyrics and message never were watered down. Though sad, I echo my cousin's sentiment: God's heavenly praise and jam band just kicked it up a notch.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Friday, May 14, 2010

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

"Stupid Party" At It Again

RNC fires ‘bondage-gate’ staffer as critics circle Michael Steele

IMNSHO the Republican Party has been handed the November elections on a silver platter by Obama and Pelosi forcing their so-called "health care reform" down the electorate's throat.  It's theirs to lose.  Sadly, stuff like this is exactly what could lose it for us.  The national level party needs to clean up their act, buy a clue, plug into the conservative grassroots and get moving for this election season.

Step one should be to replace Mr. Steele, who seems to keep trying to out-Obama Obama when comes to cluefulness and integrity.  We need a party chair with a wide appeal including the party base, who understands what is happening outside the Beltway, and can connect to and motivate the people on the ground.

Sarah Palin has some of these qualities, but she's not connected well enough to the national party to effectively direct the party apparatus.  I think she's better as an outside agent for change who could then work with a inside reformer and strategist.

I'm not sure who a good replacement would be, but someone like a Thaddeus McCotter would fir the bill.  I would not want to lose his voice in the House, but he has a vision, knows what needs to be done, and is energetic and engaging.

The Tea Party movement is good for energizing the conservative grassroots, but I don't see them becoming a real political party.  The Tea Party energy needs to find a coherent outlet into the political arena.  If the Republican Party does not get it's act together and provide such an outlet then conservatives will continue to be fractured between the themselves, Libertarians, Constitutionalists and others.  The result will be more of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.  Shape up, or ship out.

Thursday, March 25, 2010


Received from a friend:

The object of the game is to destroy American capitalism....
by having the government take over everything!

Monday, March 22, 2010

Health Care Reform - The Real Bill

The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform
The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.
The bottom line is that the CBO "estimate" that the deficit will be reduced by $138 billion is wrong.  In reality this "reform" adds $562 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years.  Read the article for the full explanation, then weep, then get mad.


Health Care "Reform" Accountability

People should be informed about who really voted how in yesterday's abomination.  By my review of the tallies for the seven votes taken yesterday on health care reform yesterday (available here) only 10 Democrats consistently voted against this government health care system take-over and eventually bankrupting.  There were: Altmire, Barrow, Boren, Bright, Childers, Holden, McIntyre, Melancon, Ross, and Shuler. There were others that voted for some parts, or abstained for parts, or voted against the Republican attempt to table the bill, but these 10 were the only Democrats with any convictions and intelligence in this matter. If any other Democrat congresscritter claims to have been against this health care take-over they are lying.  Be forewarned.

Even worse were the two Republicans, Marchant and Rogers (AL),  who waffled on this issue.  They abstained on the very first vote to change the rules so this could even take place. Only when they saw that it was going to pass without them did they start voting against it. These two traitors need to be voted out with the rest of the weasels as soon as possible.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

The Neophyte

I just watched the first 2 minutes of President Obama's recent Fox News interview; frankly that's all I could stand of it.  Interesting though was his statement from 1:23 to 1:45.  In that stretch he invalidated his own party's attempt at obfuscation via the "Slaughter rule" by saying a vote for or against the bill, regardless of the procedural means by which it happens, is a vote for or against his health care reform. 

This was a rookie move in at least two ways,  First, he is so fixated on getting this particular bill passed that he has become completely oblivious to the fact that the vast majority of Americans do not want this health care reform bill.  He is driving his presidency onto the rocks for this and hopefully he'll be a one-term President as a result.

Secondly, he is taking Democrat control of the House, and probably the Senate too, down with him.  By declaring this vote a vote for or against his health care plan he has taken away a "get out of jail free" card from the Democrat reps who are up for re-election who support his bill.  Those that vote for it, regardless of the procedural maneuvers by which it comes to a vote, can no longer insulate themselves from the voters' anger by claiming they didn't really vote for the bill.  All their opponents have to do is trot out that clip and hoist them on the petards of their own President.

The dude is a clueless neophyte. 

Wednesday, March 17, 2010


Another funny video:

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Obama At The Bat

Excellent work this is:

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

"Most Ethical Administration"?

White House Accused of Federal Crime in Specter, Bennet Races
For the second time in five months, the Obama White House is being accused -- by Democrats -- of offering high ranking government jobs in return for political favors. What no one is reporting is that this is a violation of federal law that can lead to prison time, a fine or both, according to Title 18, Chapter 11, Section 211 of the United States Code.
The jobs in question? Secretary of the Navy and a position within the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The favor requested in return? Withdrawal from Senate challenges to two sitting United States Senators, both Democrats supported by President Obama. The Senators are Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Michael Bennet in Colorado.
Here's my shocked face:

Friday, February 19, 2010

Regarding Events in Austin

This is one of the better "reviews" I've seen yet of Mr. Stack's little "manifesto":
Actually, if you read the manifesto, you see that he is not upset at big government itself but that big government never helps him.

He whines and whines about how the government, big business, his accountant, etc in short anyone but him have screwed him over and refused to help. He whines and whines and whines that government helps out everyone BUT him and his grievance isn't that the government is invasive but that it is not invasive in his favor.

He seemed perfectly happy to feed at the public trough when the military was pumping money into aerospace in southern California and he was pissed off that when the Cold War finished and his gravy train ended that the government didn't charge in a make everything better.

He bitches that he came to Austin and couldn't compete against the business that already existed. Bitching that others outcompete you and that the government should make sure you get a fair shot in business is not a libertarian point of view.

This guy never even had a thought about personal responsibility and self-reliance.

He's not a libertarian/classical-liberal. He's a greedy little piglet who is angry that the bigger piglets pushed him off the teat he felt his by divine right.
 Of course real conservatives are already catching the blame for this even though he is not one.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Four becomes Five

Two in one day. Found via the World Magazine Blog: 
Atlanta Progressive News fires reporter for trying to be objective
"At a very fundamental, core level, Springston did not share our vision for a news publication with a progressive perspective. He held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News."
More evidence that the fourth estate has become the fifth column.

Speaking the Truth to Power

 From "New England Republican":

Monday, February 15, 2010

The Sharon Statement

I had not heard of The Sharon Statement before I saw a post about it on The World Magazine Blog.  It's almost 50 years old, but there is much to commend it to the conservative movement of today.  Here it is in it's entirety.  If you claim to be a conservative, young or old, please read, and heed:
IN THIS TIME of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths.

WE, as young conservatives believe:

THAT foremost among the transcendent values is the individual's use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;

THAT liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;

THAT the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;

THAT when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;

THAT the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;

THAT the genius of the Constitution - the division of powers - is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;

THAT the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;

THAT when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation, that when it takes from one to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;

THAT we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies…

THAT the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;

THAT the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with this menace; and

THAT American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Reviews of 'Going Rogue'

From Orson Scott Card, one of my favorite fiction authors:
So ever since her book came out, we have seen it reviewed as if it had been scrawled on toilet paper by a child. Many have reviewed the book as if its author were well-known for her stupidity, though in fact nothing is clearer than her vivid intelligence -- she is far smarter than any of the people I have heard call her stupid. For one thing, they are so stupid they call someone stupid without actually checking to see if she really is. That's stupidity.
He then points to this review from the New York Post as accurately capturing his view of the book. I found very good:
The message is clear. America can’t be stopped. I can’t be stopped. I’ve stumbled and fallen, but I always get up and run again. Her political opponents, especially those who dismissed Ronald Reagan before he was elected, should take note. Wherever you are, you better watch out. Sarah Palin is coming to town.
I've read her book myself. I came away admiring her far more than I had before, and I was an unabashed supporter before. I agree with Orson: She is not stupid, she is not naive, and anyone who calls her such needs to look in the mirror.

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Trace Adkins and the West Point Glee Club

Just found this. It will bring tears to your eyes: