Saturday, February 21, 2015

"Right-Wing Extremists" More Dangerous than ISIS According to the Obama Administration.

There comes a point where you say your government is utterly useless.  We reached that point long ago.  We've now reached the point where government is counterproductive by producing a false narrative for political reasons.

Political polarization in America has been growing for quite some time, but I don't think any American thought we would reach the day in which one political party would accuse the other of being domestic terrorists.  However, that seems to be the narrative Democrats have been playing since 2009, but has been growing in prevalence recently.

In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security released a piece in which they entailed what they thought were the dangers of "right-wing extremists" to the United States government.  The piece was immediately criticized by the Secretary of DHS, Janet Napolitano.  Then, DHS classified returning US Veterans as potential terrorist threats.

Joe Biden has likened Republicans to terrorists.  Nancy Pelosi has called us "legislative arsonists," and a political ad from a Democratic candidate in San Antonio this past election cycle called Tea Party Republicans "terrorists who want to take issues into their own hands, harming kids and families with violence, and firearms on the border."

Now, the Department of Homeland Security, which might I remind you falls under the Executive Branch, is trying to say once again that domestic "right-wing extremists" pose more of a threat to national security than ISIS. 

You may be asking on what premise they are basing these claims.  DHS thinks these "right-wing extremists" pose a significant threat to national security based on 24 attacks since 2010.  They classify the people as those who believe they can ignore laws because of individual rights infringements.  These usually happen at routine traffic stops where citizens would exchange gunfire with police.

Now, let me get this straight.  The Department of Homeland Security believes there is a significant national security threat because of 24 attacks on police since 2010?  That is less than 5 attacks per year.  Go to the south side of Chicago, and I could probably find you 5 people shooting at police every night.  Any sane person who can read and understand facts without injecting their political bias into the equation would know that this is an utterly false and misleading story line presented to us by our own government.

I still cannot wrap my head around this theory that less than 5 attacks per year possesses a significant risk to the entirety of the US Government.  If DHS really believes this, it reminds me of a quote from The Hunger Games in which Katniss tells President Snow, "It must be very fragile, if a handful of berries can bring it down."  Our government must be very fragile if 24 police shootings can bring it down.

Yet there is another ironic element here that may be missed by many.  Liberals love to argue that conservatives love the military and police.  Therefore, how can they also argue that conservatives would kill the police?  It is a hypocritical argument that cannot be ignored.  Based on the description of these people, they would not be considered right-wingers, but in fact anarchists.  It could be argued that anarchists fall in an extreme, almost non-existent faction of Libertarians, which usually fall under the Republican Party.  However, if you were to gauge this on a two-dimensional political scale, a right-wing conservative would be extremely far removed from an anarchist.  Therefore, either liberals are making a hypocritical argument, or these are not right-wingers.

Putting that aside though, how could DHS possibly make the argument that these 24 attacks are more of a threat to national security than ISIS or any other real terrorist organization?  It is important to remember that these encounters would have been categorized by the Department of Justice, headed by Eric Holder.  We all know how much Holder loves Republicans.  Additionally, we know the Department of Justice's classifications have just been spot on accurate, such as when they classified the Fort Hood shooting as "workplace violence."  Therefore, how am I to know that these 24 incidences were actual incidences, and not just Eric Holder's DOJ being Eric Holder's DOJ?

With that in mind, we know who ISIS is.  They are Islamic terrorist, raving the Middle East, slaughtering Christians, gruesomely beheading journalist, burning pilots alive, raping women, and marrying their "soldiers" to children.  Don't even try to make the argument that these 24 incidents nobody has ever heard of before hold any significant weight against these actual terrorists.  If so, you are a shameful, misleading, politically blinded liar.

Moreover, if this is the work they are doing at the Department of Homeland Security, it needs to be terminated immediately.  They aren't protecting us as Americans, but simply working as politically polarizing institution, ginning up a false narrative to aid their boss.  It isn't bad enough the government is already unconstitutionally spying on Americans and infringing on our rights as they take a shredder to the Constitution, but they waste our money in the process.  And on your way out, you can take the Department of Education, Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Energy.  While we're doing that, we can also privatize the Department of Veterans Affairs so our veterans don't die on secret waiting lists and actually get the care they deserve.  Then, we can gut all the waste from the other departments.


This is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable.  We won't attack the views of others in the world who threaten our democratic way of life, but our nation will consistently attack conservatives at every level possible.  It's completely asinine that my political views aren't accepted at not only a University level and not only a state level, but now also a federal level.  Get it together, and stop attacking your own people.  "Remember who the real enemy is."

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Obama Prayed...Oh Wait, Just Kidding.

I've been stewing over this one for a while now.  Even though it was Obama, I am so utterly shocked a decent politician could possibly choose the words he did at the National Prayer Breakfast last week.  This was an event for the leaders of the three major religions - Christianity, Judaism, and Islam - to come together and show that we can all peacefully coexist in a diverse world.

Not Obama though.  Did he use his position as the leader of the free world to join us together?  Nope.  Instead, Obama did what he does best.  He drove a steak between any sense of unity by once again becoming an apologist, this time for an event over 500 years old, by viciously attacking a civilized religion in what seemed as a justification for the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East and Northern Africa.

His exact words were:
"Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ."
This is exactly what happens to Christians (and Jews) all the time.  Before the Crusades, Muslims were attacking and plundering Europe left and right for hundreds of years.  So sorry Christians finally said enough is enough.  Even more important though, find me a passage anywhere in the Bible where it tells Christians to kill nonbelievers.  No, Jesus said, "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."  The point being, Christians, over 500 years ago might I continue to add for emphasis, killed others of another faith by going against the Church's teachings.  Yet, these Islamic extremists kill people of other faiths, and even their own faith, because the Quran tells them to.

A more modern example even more civil than the Crusades was seen in the Israel-Gaza conflict last year.  Like an annoying little pest, the radicals of Gaza created a tunnel system to get into Israel and then started launching rockets at them.  Israel did nothing but simply exist.  Yet, when Israel defended itself, all liberals went into a panic because Israel defended itself from a group of people who hated them for just simply existing by firing some rockets, not to harm civilians, but to destroy their tunnel systems and supplies.  Israel called the people in areas that were about to be hit because they were harboring these weapons before they fired rockets.  They dropped leaflets.  They even sent in aid.  There wasn't much more Israel could do to make this more civil.  Yet, because they were Jewish and the opposition was radical Islamists, the left chewed out Israel for doing absolutely nothing wrong.

With this in mind, why would Obama even say what he said?  I don't understand what he was trying to say.  To me, it came across as a justification for radical Islam.  It seemed to me like he was saying, "Well, Christians did it at one point, so why should we be so concerned that Islamists are still doing it today?" 

What could possibly compel him to say something like that?  There is relatively little known about Obama's previous life before becoming president.  What we do know is that he has ties to extremist leftist in America such as Bill Ayers, whose group, the Weather Underground, did racial things like bomb the Pentagon.  Additionally, Obama sat in this man's pew for 20 years.


Talk about corrupting religion.  I think Hillary Clinton put it best herself when she spoke about this saying, "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."  Although, if Obama told me he was never at that church anyway, I would believe him because he doesn't attend a service frankly ever as president, even having skipped Christmas mass.

Personally, I think he's an atheist, who knows that showing any signs of this is the most devastating feature to any politician's career.  Being an atheist is the most toxic feature to any politician according to Gallup polling, with only 54% of people saying they would vote for an atheist.  That's an automatic loss in any election.

Whether it is on abortion, or trying to force nuns to buy birth control through Obamacare, or referencing a 500 year old religious war at a prayer breakfast, Obama cannot contain himself from ridiculing a religion that has been peaceful for hundreds of years while simultaneously defending radical Islamic actions by refusing to say the words "Islamic extremists" or by declaring ISIS is not Islamic despite it being the first word of their acronym.  

Even news anchors at MSNBC couldn't understand why he said what he said.  And, if you've lost those radical "journalist," you must be so far off the deep end that even your own party and media lapdogs mock you.

At this point, does Obama even care?  Does he even care about the turmoil in the Middle East?  He seems more determined with tearing down Christianity for a 500-year-old sin, for which the Church has numerously apologized, than destroyed the greatest threat to our national security and our way of life.  It's almost as if through his remarks, Obama is justifying ISIS's killing of Americans and other citizens of the world, as if the loss o2,977 citizens on 9/11 wasn't already a great enough suffer for something we do not deserve.

Stop apologizing and start doing something productive.  And if you can't do that, just sit down and shut up for your last two years.  Haven't you done enough destruction already?

I think Judge Jeanine Pirro put it best in her opening statements this past Saturday.



Tuesday, February 3, 2015

The Vaccine Debate.

I have spent a lot of time these past few days debating myself on this topic.  I think it is important to mention that I am a slight germaphobe.  If you don't believe me, I suggest you check out my post where I freaked out about Ebola.  (And I am still freaked out about Ebola.)

With that being said, and with my economic knowledge of the positive externalities vaccination can provide, and with my wholehearted support of vaccination, and with my thinking of parents who do not vaccinate their children are fringe, idiotic, lunatic liberals, I just cannot convince myself that the government should force parents to vaccinate their children.

I understand that vaccinating your child provides a positive externality for all other children and therefore, support subsidization of vaccines that will bring the market quantity to the correct output.  If the government isn't already subsidizing these vaccines, they should be.  Quit giving money to failures like Solyndra and do something that could actually help, instead of hurt, the market.


I also understand completely that these far-left, hippie parents are idiotically following some study produced back in the 1998, which has been fully discredited by every doctor, medical personnel, and citizen with common sense.  Believe me, I want their children to have vaccines.

However, I run into a problem with this Big Brother solution that is not that much of a health risk. According to the CDC, approximately 92% of people in the US have had their measles vaccination.  Of that 92%, only 2% to 5% are not immune to the disease.  Therefore, at the worst, 87% of Americans are completely immune to the measles.  To be at optimum levels, also according to the CDC, 95% of people should be vaccinated.  Therefore, we're only 3% off.

Additionally, you need to be careful where you are getting these statistics on measles from.  There have been 102 cases of measles reported.  Therefore, it is important to know what year these statistics are being taken from.  When you read about death rates of measles, be sure it isn't like some of the articles I've been reading when they cite numbers from before the measles vaccine was even invented and don't bother to tell you that crucial bit of information.  Most of this is a scare story by major news outlets.

The most important reason I just cannot support this forced vaccination is because of parental rights and freedom.  The state does not own children, the parents do.  The state continuously is looking for new ways to cross the line over into this collective society that I cannot stand.  It is up to the parents to make the best decisions for their children.  Worldwide, measles may be deadly to areas of the world without proper care and vaccinations.  For the most part in America though, measles is just unpleasant.  Not many people are dying from the disease.

And what do you tell people who religiously object to vaccination?  Are you going to tell certain groups of citizens that they must violate their religions in order to comply with vaccinations mandated by the state?  It is not as if people are dying left and right from not being vaccinated.  The overwhelming majority of United States citizens are vaccinated, and if a new vaccination for some other virus came out tomorrow, we would be waiting in lines to be vaccinated like when the polio vaccination came out.

I don't understand how such sane people who are supposedly for individual liberty could possibly tell others that they must inject a substance into their child's arm.  If the government came out tomorrow and said that they had developed computer chips that are to go in the brain of every child so as to track them in case they were ever abducted, the American people would revolt.  If such the case was true, the chip would help locate missing children.  However, the government doesn't have the right to infringe on yours or your child's body no matter how noble the cause.

An even better example works the opposite direction.  Remember when Michael Bloomberg tried to ban all large pops in New York City?  The country threw a fit because it was our right to be able to consume what we want.  If the government said you had to by law eat a fixed amount of broccoli every night because it would benefit your health, you would throw the same fit, even if in every case it could improve health.

This actually is where the phrase, "My body.  My choice." comes in to play.  (Not with abortion because it is another human being's body due to differences in genetic makeup.)  It is my body, and no matter how much good the government may be doing, we as citizens have individual liberties protected by the Constitution.

One final thought though:  Why are we all the sudden getting such an outbreak of measles?  If parents have been doing this since 1998, why all the sudden are we getting so many cases?  I'll tell you why, and it's a reason nobody in the liberal news would dare say.  A majority of the cases have been happening in Southern California (where you'll find a lot of those hippie parents) and border states.  The illegal aliens are carrying infectious diseases across the border with them.  They are bringing diseases that have for the most part been eradicated in the United States back again.  If we would have actually built that fence guaranteed by the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (You can thank the Democrats for your measles, and mumps, and etc.), none of this would have been a problem because the disease would have never been here in the first place.  Democrats destroying America, every aspect at a time.

I will end by saying this.  If you child is not vaccinated against these extremely contagious diseases, I am asking you to please vaccinate your children.  Vaccines do not cause autism, and if you are worried about the effects of too many vaccines at one time, at least get one for now and continue spacing them out in the future.  And while I cannot force you or your child to get vaccinated, I can encourage you to because it is the right thing to do.  Protect your child.  Vaccinate.

Monday, February 2, 2015

Scott Sense: The Super Bowl.

This isn't going to be political (for obvious reasons).  However, there is almost nothing more patriotic than the Super Bowl.  As far as sports goes, only the Olympics can top it; and as far as days out of the year, the Fourth of July is the only more patriotic day that comes to mind.  What could be more American than sitting down on a Sunday night to watch America's favorite sport with your beer in one hand and your bean dip in the other, as you pack on the pounds while rooting for a team, watch the newest commercials, and see the biggest entertainment even of the year?  Capitalism at its finest.

Therefore, let's analyze Super Bowl XLIX aspect by aspect...

The Commercials

I was a little disappointed with this years commercials compared to last year's, but here are my favorites.

6) Loctite Glue


It was just so strange it was hysterical.  My question is: why does a glue company need to advertise during the Super Bowl?

5) Turbotax



I'm a sucker for a good parody, and though completely historically inaccurate (and that fact was even recognized in the ad), the advertisement was funny and effective.

4) Pitch Perfect 2



What?  What?!  A surprise Pitch Perfect 2 trailer?  Touchdown.  This movie is going to be hysterical like the first one, and I appreciate the trailers not giving away that many punchlines.

3) GrubHub



I missed this one on the air.  It must have been during pregame.  Nevertheless, it was hysterical.  It got me laughing, unlike most ads this year.

2) Snickers



As I said, I'm a sucker for a good parody.  Snickers has developed a great marketing strategy that "you're not you when you're hungry," and it shines again this Super Bowl.  Well done.

1) Budweiser



Ultimately though, you cannot be the Clydesdale/golden retriever puppy duo.  It's iconic, though it has nothing to do with beer.  It pulls on America's heartstrings, and it is wonderful once again.


The Game

Of course the game was lackluster some because America's favorite team, the Pittsburgh Steelers, weren't in the Super Bowl.  With that being said...

Why?  Why?  Why?  That's really all I have to say.  You just had the most miraculous catch I've ever seen, and then you turn around on the one yard line with 30 seconds left to throw an interception?  You had multiple chances to punch that ball in across the goal line.  Not to mention you have one of the best running backs in the NFL.  The stupidity sometimes baffles me.  The game was yours.  It was yours to win, and then you turn around a pull a bonehead move like that.  I've always said, though, that I though the West Coast is full of nuts.  Seattle just proved that.

Overall, I still want that asterisk next to the Patriot's name.  Cheaters are still cheaters.  Though the NFL would like to brush Deflategate under the rug (which I want to change the name to Deflateghazi), everyone with even half a mind can put two and two together and know the Patriots were behind it.  I mean, their squeaky clean record proves it.


The Halftime

Halftime is much easier for me to discuss because it's marketing and pop music, which I have a very clear addiction to.

Choosing the halftime performer has never been an easy task for the NFL.  The goal is to choose someone who can bring in the young and female demographic, while also not isolating the male and older demographic.  On top of that, the NFL wants someone who is going to put on a spectacle people will be talking about for a while.  Easy task, right?

Actually, this year couldn't have been too hard for them.  Katy Perry seems to perfectly fit that description.  Besides Bruno Mars and Beyonce, who have already performed at halftime, there are only two other artists besides Perry who could have pulled off a spectacle of that caliber - Lady Gaga and Rihanna.  Whereas Lady Gaga and Rihanna can be polarizing, Katy Perry's lightheartedness pulls in both the young, female demographic while also keeping the male demographic, provided they still have fully functioning eyes.


That was awesome.  Probably the best halftime performance of my lifetime so far.  Although with competition like Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, Madonna, Paul McCartney singing songs nobody knew, Bruce Springsteen singing a few songs nobody knew, and Beyonce, the only real competition was last year's act, Bruno Mars.

There was so much that went right with this performance.  At the beginning Katy Perry rode in wearing a fire costume, which made for good comedy because her guest Lenny Kravitz played Cinna in The Hunger Games, who designed Katniss's fire outfit.

The stage was very ingenious.  The way they made the floor look like it was tilting and swirling during "Dark Horse" to the beach layout for "California Gurls" made it possible to quickly transition through the many stages of Katy Perry's career.

Then, Lenny Kravitz came out for "I Kissed a Girl," and the music was really what stole the show from here.  Although, I was disappointed Lenny Kravitz only got four lines to one of Katy Perry's song, while Missy Elliot got three of her own songs.  Regardless, the rocked out version of "I Kissed a Girl" improved on an already infectious track.

Then came the dancing sharks, and the Internet went crazy.  Who knew the creatures that gave people nightmares from all the Jaws movies could actually be made adorable?


From there, the music got better.  A difficult decision coming into this performance Katy Perry's team faced was how they were going to turn songs that people have heard over and over again into something exciting.  Therefore, it seems their strategy was to update some of her older songs in order to sound like her current material.  This was best showcased on "California Gurls," probably the most radio played track of Perry's career.  They added a louder beat, played with the background arrangement a little, got the crowd involved, and added some horns for some flare.  It was effective.

Then, Missy Elliot, the "surprise" guest, came on to perform.  While I agree that adding Missy Elliot the the performance did capture the age gap between Lenny Kravitz's and Katy Perry's target audiences as well as the rap crowd, she received way too much time for someone who has been out of the spotlight for about 10 years now.  Here's my suggestion for what should have happened:  Perry had about 30 seconds to spare on her performance to reach the 13 minute mark she was allotted.  She should have nixed one or two of the Missy Elliot songs and instead performed the remixed version of "Last Friday Night" she recorded with Missy Elliot.  It would have been more relevant, brought Katy Perry into the performance more, and made Missy Elliot more than just a throwback.

Lastly, their was "Firework," which was a wonderful way to end the performance.  Many people liked the fact that the star Perry rode around on reminded them of the Reading Rainbow star and her wrist strap on the microphone reminded them of a Wii remote.  Regardless, the performance was spot on.


Sadly, my favorite Katy Perry song "Wide Awake" didn't make the cut, but it wouldn't have fit the upbeat theme of the performance.  However, she could have added "Birthday."  I'm sure none of the guy at home would have minded "big balloons" as Perry promised in her teaser that nothing in her performance would be "deflated."  Overall though, it was a very family-friendly performance.  And though singing "I Kissed a Girl" was controversial in 2008 during its release, it seemed extremely mild and unphasing to me, especially since we went through that Miley Cyrus stage in 2013 and Nicki Minaj in 2014.

In the end, I was extremely pleased with the end of the performance.  Earlier in the day, Katy Perry had tweeted, "Today is the day the Lord has made!  I will rejoice and be glad in it!"  In closing her performance, Perry said, "Thank you!  God bless America!"  It's nice to have that in a performance during the days of political correctness.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

2016 Thoughts.

As presidential contenders will announce their candidacies in within the next few months, I thought I would just add some of my thoughts surrounding candidates and strategy to win.


  • I hope Joe Biden runs for president just so I can watch the Democratic debates for a good laugh.
  • The Republican who will emerge victorious not only from the primary, but also to the presidency, is someone who will make the electorate vote on economic issues.  Bring up the debt.  Bring up jobs.
  • And that Republican will be the one who is most effective at shaping the debate.  What issues dominate the election will ultimately decide the candidate.
  • The Republican has to capitalize on the diminishing support the Democrats have on the younger generation.  (*cough* Rand Paul - or at least his strategy) 
  • Elizabeth Warren may have the same base as Barack Obama, but she certainly doesn't have the likability factor he does, which would hurt her greatly.
  • Though the electoral map is slightly tilted against the Republicans.  Polling during the 2014 election shows that it is moving back into fairly even play.  Iowa has shifted from a slightly leaning blue state to a leaning red state.  Almost all states Republicans need to focus on in 2016 had a Republican victor.  Colorado went red.  North Carolina looks to remain fairly red.  There was a slight win for the Republican in Florida, but it'll be a tough state for both candidates.  Republicans almost pulled off a surprise defeat in Virginia from a double point deficit a week before the election.  And then there is Ohio - I'm sorry Ohio voters, but 2012 is going to be happening again.
  • Republicans need Nevada, which is a fairly Republican state.  We also need to send a message by getting a Republican in Nevada who can defeat Harry Reid in 2016.
  • Pennsylvania has been fool's gold for Republicans for a long time.  Unless we are actually winnable, don't bother with us.
  • Republicans need not fret Hillary Clinton.  Lest you forget, every time she opens up her mouth, the American people like her less and less.  If she does run, she'll have to eventually open her mouth, and it will be like 2008 all over again.  She's not a good politician; she's no Bill Clinton.
  • Can the Republicans please not have 10 people all fighting for the presidency?  Only get in if you're serious.
  • No inspirational figures.  No matter how much I like Ben Carson as a person, he has absolutely no political experience.  I'm not talking about office holding, I'm just talking about getting through an election.
  • Charles Krauthammer has put his bets behind Marco Rubio; Nate Silvers has put his behind Scott Walker;  I'm putting mine behind Rand Paul.
  • My vice presidential pick is Susana Martinez of New Mexico.
  • Other good vice presidential picks include: John Kasich of Ohio, Mike Pence of Indiana, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Terry Branstad of Iowa.  Additionally, there is Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, but I want a governor.
  • Whoever our vice presidential pick is, I think we need to draw inspiration from the past and pull another "Checkers" speech like Nixon did on the Eisenhower ticket.  This time, I say we buy airtime nationwide the day after we announce our vice presidential pick so that we allow our candidate to define him- or her-self, not allow Saturday Night Live pull another 2008 on us.
  • Don't vote for these people - Bush, Christie, Romney, Rubio, Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal.  I have my reasons, and I will address every single one of these candidates individually at a later time.
  • Of course, there is no secret.  I've been promoting the Paul-Martinez ticket for over a year now.
Now, we're to my big idea.  I've been toying with it for over a year now, and it might actually come to fruition.  While I think Sarah Palin will not actually run for president, over the weekend she said that she is "seriously considering" it.  My advice to the Republican Party is to have her run, and here is why.  Have Sarah Palin run a very low cost presidential run so as to not take many votes from the viable conservative candidates.  She doesn't have the kind of support to actually win the primary, but her just being in the primary does two very important things.

1)  She gets the conservative base very excited.  From there, when she does bow out, she can give a wonderful speech as to how she throws her support behind the Republican nominee, and therefore transfer the base that stayed home in 2012.

2)  She keeps the liberal news preoccupied.  Even almost seven years after her vice presidential run, Sarah Palin still fires up the liberal news more than ever.  Therefore, let her preoccupy them.  If they're infatuated with her, they won't have time to tear down our actual candidates.  Then, when she does bow out, they'll be forced to take a tone saying something to the tune of, "Well, at least the Republicans didn't choose her.  She's way out there."  This in turn makes our actual candidate appear much more moderate in comparison, while they are actually conservative, just due to the fact that the liberal media cannot help but portray Sarah Palin as the most far-right person in human history.

It's just an idea, but maybe it would work.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

All Lives Matter.

All lives matter... because everyone deserves the opportunity to experience the joys of life.

All lives matter... because those in their mother's womb do not deserve to feel pain during their murders.  This is a universally accepted fact even for the worst of our citizens, those on death row.  Yet, the most vulnerable in our society are not spared a torturous, painful murder.

All lives matter... because we are guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."  What happened to life?

All lives matter... because Thomas Jefferson reminds us, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.”

All lives matter... because no amount of false "compassion" can justify a genocide.

All lives matter... because the number one killer in the black community is abortion.

All lives matter... because we all have the opportunity to achieve great things if we are just given the chance at life.

All lives matter... because Mother Theresa reminds us, "The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between."

All lives matter... because babies have survived outside the womb now at 20 weeks.  Yet, the US still is one of only seven countries, including the likes of China and North Korea, that allow abortion after that time frame.

All lives matter... because Dr. Seuss reminds us, "A person is a person no matter how small."

All lives matter... because it could have been you.




Abortion is the biggest underlying issue of our time, in which we allow days to go by and millions of babies to be killed by their own mothers.  That's why I'm so thankful the House voted today to once and for all prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.  Additionally, they plan to bring back a bill ending abortion after 20 weeks, a bill two-thirds of the country supports.

Even more appropriately, or coincidentally timed, was the release of Kelly Clarkson's new single "Heartbeat Song," which was revealed to have used a slowed-down version of her daughter's heartbeat while in the womb as the beat.  The single dropped the same day as two "heartbeat" bills were making their way through two state houses.  Whether intentional or incidental, Clarkson showed that every child, even within the womb can be inspirational and have a purpose in life.

Check out River Rose dancing to her own heartbeat.


And you can check out the song in it's entirety (especially the last chorus).


May God help us end the silent genocide that is abortion.

Monday, January 19, 2015

Scott's State of the Union Drinking Game: 2015 Edition.

It's time to play America's favorite game - and by that I mean nobody's.  It's time once again for the 2015 Edition of the State of the Union Drinking Game.  (I just want to say I am not held liable if you actually play this.)


Starting the Game

When Barack Obama arrives and addresses Speaker John Boehner, Vice President Joe Biden, and the members of Congress, pour your glass and take your first drink.  You're going to need it to get through another long-winded Obama speech.

Choosing Your Key Words

Before the game, you must choose three categories Obama has the possibility of addressing in tonight's speech.  If your category comes up during the night, take two drinks when it begins and one additional drink for every key word that follows.  Every statistic Obama gives on your topic also results in a drink.

Taxes
- capital gains taxes
- trust funds
- the rich
- pay their "fair share"
- when he lies and says he want to give a tax cut to the middle class

The Internet
- net neutrality
- South Korea
cyber security
- North Korea
- broadband access

Education
- "free" college
- 9 million students
- two years
- community college
- $3,800

Work
- paid family and medical leave programs
- sick leave
- the mentioning of any European country
- 6 weeks extra federal worker leave
- the "right thing to do"

War on Terror
- France
- extremists
- Australia
- ISIS/ISIL
- insert Obama comment about how these terrorists are not Islamic

Choosing Your Key Phrases

Choose four from the following miscellaneous list.  If Obama mentions it, take another drink.

- Let me be clear
- Folks
- I
- we
- gas prices
- bi-partisan
- change
- pivot
- discrimination
- executive action
- Cuba

Choosing Your Audience Members

Choose five audience members that could appear on television.  If they appear, take another drink.

- Justice John Roberts
- Justice Sotomayor
- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg
- Justice Clarence Thomas
- Justice Kagan
- Justice Alito
- Justice Scalia
- Justice Breyer
- Justice Kennedy
- Nancy Pelosi
- Ted Cruz
- Rand Paul
- Mitch McConnell
- Chuck Schumer
Paul Ryan
- Mia Love
- Cory Gardner
- Lindsey Graham
- John McCain
John Kerry
- Eric Holder
- Michelle Obama

(If your home state Senator of district Representative are shown, take a drink.)

Choosing Your Reach Phrases

Choose two of the following phrases.  If Obama mentions it, finish off the glass and pour a new one.

- Keystone Pipeline
- Constitution
- Balanced Budget
- if Obama quotes Thomas Jefferson
- the cost of this "free" education - which is $60 billion over 10 years
- Islamic Extremists
- Obama admits he made a mistake

Refilling Your Glass

When Obama mentions one of the following phrases, refill your glass.

America
- Congress
- Republicans- the Supreme Court
- Obama tells a story about someone in the audience
- veto

A Double Drink

When Obama blames others while on one of your chosen key words, you must take a double drink.  An example would be if Obama was talking about tax reform and mentioning "Republicans," "Congress," or "Fox News."  This can also include phrases not directly aimed at the group, such as "those who do not agree with me."

When Obama Says "Republicans" or "Conservatives"...

When Obama says "Republicans" or "conservatives" take a drink to show how the Republicans want to reduce our spending, just like the drink in your glass.

When Obama Says "Democrats" or "Liberals"...

When Obama says "Democrats" or "liberals," refill your glass to signify how Democrats continue to increase spending.  Then, take a drink because you'll need it after you see the national debt.

When You Know Obama is Lying

Just take a drink.

Bonus Round

When Joni Ernst (my favorite new Senator) responds to Obama, here are the rules.

1)  One drink if she mentions your topic.
2)  One drink if she mentions your reach topic.
3)  One drink if she mentions one of your audience members.

Losing the Game

There is no winning, only losing.  Losing the game results in finishing off the rest of the alcohol.

1)  You lose the game if Hillary Clinton appears to announce her candidacy for president.
2)  You lose the game if Joe Biden or John Boehner fall asleep in the background.
3)  You lose the game if Joe Biden unveils a "Binden 2016" banner in the background.
4)  You lose if Joe Biden drops the f-bomb on television, again.
5)  You lose the game if Joni Ernst mentions hog castration in her response.