Happy New Year!  What a great year for those "thousands" of people who we were told would lose jobs due to the cancellation of the car-speed rail project!  Turns out only 12 jobs will be lost!

Funny how that works.  Remember how for months the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel, Governor, Mayor, and other liberals were crying about the "thousands of jobs" that were going to be lost should Governor-elect Scott Walker kill the car-speed rail? 

 Well, Walker did indeed put a dagger in the heart of the car-speed nightmare (good riddance!) with the help of the federal government.

And the "thousands of jobs" lost morphed into a few hundred, then eighty, ...and now....twelve.  Yes, 12 jobs will be lost due to the cancellation of car-speed rail. 

Why aren't the liberals up in arms over the reporting from the newspaper?  The inconsistencies from story to story?  How the Journal/Sentinel attacked Scott Walker on an almost daily basis for his campaign promise to stop car-speed rail?  They threw everything at him that they could muster.  Yet, what about the total number of jobs lost to what is reality? 

Just as Obama's  Stimulus Bill (more accurately called the Generational Theft Act)  was supposed to create "hundreds of thousands of jobs" we eventually learned that it created none.  In fact, national unemployment levels have risen since the billion-dollar stimulus (that just had to be passed - quickly so the unemployment level wouldn't rise above 8%!) was passed - to almost 10% nationwide.  And the little man-child pretending to be president is doing nothing to address job losses by getting big government out of the way of private businesses.  No, Barry O. is way too busy signing off on irrelevant legislation like "don't ask don't tell" repeals, and do-nothing "Start" treaties...

Read the entire story about the actual number of jobs lost from the train death  at: 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/112734699.html

And rather than writing comments to voice concerns over "blog inaccuracies" or what many of my liberal readers call "lies" when they cannot understand facts, why not contact the folks at the Urinal/Sentinel and ask how could they have gotten the total number of jobs lost from the cancellation of the car-speed rail so wrong???  Month after month after month???  Guess it's a New Year!!!

While most Americans were horrified and sickened by the recent shootings of a Congresswoman and several others in Arizona - resulting in six deaths and fourteen other people wounded - some saw fit to use this tragic event to further a political agenda.   Lies, baseless theories, and spin abound.  Disgusting.   

Of course I am speaking specifically of the liberal media and many others on the left.  Who somehow saw this shooting - by a lunatic - as an opportunity  to blame it on conservatives, Republicans, and members of the Tea Party.  And this blame game is falling flat on its face - as it well should.

Jared Loughner, the shooter,  was unstable. His past - and present actions demonstrate as much.  People were frightened by him.  Those who attended a Community College with this young man mention how bizarre he acted.  How he seemed very strange.  He was eventually kicked out of the college, and was notified that he would not be allowed to return to school unless he agreed to a mental evaluation.  In addition, Loughner's very troubling YouTube videos and MySpace site are evidence that this man has a lot of issues. 

Jared Loughner brought a gun to a political gathering and killed and wounded people.  Jared Loughner.  Not the Tea Party.  Not conservatives.  Not Republicans.  Not "divisive political rhetoric."  Jared Loughner is a bad individual and will pay for his crimes.  He is to blame for the attack in Arizona.

It is disgusting how many on the left can look past Loughner and point fingers at the right in this case with no problem.  No hesitation, nor facts.  Sadly, the accusations and spin started to fly just a few hours after the shooting.  Yet, remember the Fort Hood shooting and Major Nidal Malik Hasan?  Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 30 others.  He had ties to radical Islam and was a follower of terrorist cheerleader Yemen Imam Anwar Awalki (Awalki later called Hasan a "hero" for his violent actions at Fort Hood).  Yet, the media, President Obama, and others on the left did everything they could to "not jump to conclusions" that Hasan was a Muslim. No, in that case the media wouldn't want to "judge" anything before all the facts came out!  It would be wrong to assume anything!  Journalists and those on the left didn't want to hear that Hasan had ties to radical Islamists.  Oh, no!  Wouldn't want to offend any group of people by reporting such...unless, of course, that group was conservative!  

Even a law enforcement officer, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, had to weigh in with his "opinion" that those who oppose what is happening in the United States today may have led Loughner to kill.  Dupnik blamed "the vitriolic political atmosphere" for the Arizona shooting.  In addition,  Dupnik  called members of the Tea Party "bigots"  So much for sticking with the facts, as a law enforcement officer.  (And suffice it to say that Dupnik has become a hero of the liberal left.  Absurd.)    A Democratic operative even told Politico that Obama needs to try to pin this event "on the Tea Partiers."    (As a side note,   Loughner was following Congresswoman Giffords since 2007.  The Tea Party wasn't even around at the time.  In addition, the Federal Judge John Roll,  who was killed, was a Republican. ) 

What is truly hypocritical is that with all this talk about "heated rhetoric" and the discourse today in politics, where were all these same Democrats and liberals who didn't hesitate to call for the death of President Bush or Vice-President Dick Cheney?  Who cheered a movie depicting the assassination of President Bush?  Who said terrorists were better than the President?  Who called Bush and Cheney every horrible word they could think of?    What about all those who ripped every female Republican political candidate to shreds - with glee - and continue to spew the same hate-filled rhetoric today?  Sarah Palin anyone?  Sarah Palin's family anyone?  Oh, but that's OK because those on the left are just exercising their rights to "free speech."  But real "free speech" only applies to liberals, because if anyone voices opposition to socialism, bigger government, or other government actions that aren't in the best interest of the country - well, that is then deemed "hate-filled rhetoric."  OK.  I get it. 

If any political group is guilty of "hate-filled rhetoric" - it is those on the left.  Yet, somehow this realization gets twisted and the Tea Party, conservatives, and Republicans are being targeted by the liberal media in their quest to blame this shooting on someone.  Can anyone tell us why the media and leftie talking heads aren't suggesting Loughner may have had ties to moveon.org?  the Democratic Party, or other liberal groups?  And if not, why not?  Seems they have no problem assuming from the start that Loughner was driven by the rhetoric coming from the right.  Why is that?  

 Of course, as is common with liberalism, the actual person who commits the crime is never to blame.  There are always some other "circumstances" or societal conditions that are responsible - not the one who pulls the trigger, kills, maims, robs, rapes, steals, etc.  And in this case, rather than put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Jared Loughner, where it belongs, the left has to search for the "real perpetrators" - and they must be the Tea Party members! 

And through all of this, remember - the "political discourse" present in our country today does not lead people to create violent acts.  The person who cannot control themselves and/or abide by the rules of society is solely responsible for their own actions.  Maybe a lot of this "hate-filled rhetoric" would die down if liberals would see fit to include in their vocabulary two little words:  personal responsibility.

The shootings in Arizona should not be politicized for any reason.  The irrational behavior of an individual cannot be explained rationally, and to try to seize upon this horrific event as a chance to demonize those on the right is shameful.  Period.

The State Department is altering U.S. passport applications to be "gender neutral."  That means that the terms "mother" and "father" will no longer be found on such forms to describe one's parentage.  Instead, in an effort to recognize "different types of families,"  and bend over backwards to be politically-correct, we no longer recognize people as "moms" or "dads."  No, now they are called:  "Parent One" or "Parent Two."  This change has been considered a huge victory by gay rights groups. 

Absurd.

In 2008, the estimated number of same-sex couples in the United States was 850,000.  Out of this figure, only 6% were said to consist of two people raising children.  Simply because a very, very small minority of society may be raising children in two daddy or two mommy households, the 70% of children in the United States being raised by a mom and dad  are now being dismissed.   In order to appease those on the left and the gay rights movement, the Federal Government has seen fit to snub the majority of  people who prefer to use the terms "mother" or "father."  The president of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, called this action by the State Department an example of the "topsy-turvy world of left-wing political correctness" and a move that is "designed to advance the causes of same-sex marriage."  I agree. 

And before all the usual suspects out there go berserk calling me and others with the same views "homophobes" or other endearing terms, think again.  I find this move by the State Department to be troubling. Parents of children are no longer being referred to as a "mother" or "father" in this situation.  That alone sounds terribly wrong.  I have a problem with this.  I do not look upon these views as being somehow "anti-gay" but rather "pro-family."   

In an earlier post I expressed my opinion that ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military wasn't really done to address that practice.  I really don't think most people cared one way or another about the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."   However, this repeal was done with one goal in mind by those with a certain political agenda - to lead the country towards making gay marriage legal.  Shortly after the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell,"  the State Department announced it's new policy on passport forms. Small steps leading to the big step. The ultimate goal - legalizing gay marriage - is something that the majority of Americans oppose - for a wide variety of reasons, including religious beliefs,  moral standards, support of the traditional family, etc.  However, the majority of Americans (myself included) have no problem allowing civil unions of members of the same sex. 

Political correctness run amok.  Upon first hearing about the State Department's actions - all I could think of was Dr. Seuss's "The Cat in the Hat" in which two characters are referred to as "Thing 1" and "Thing 2."  Dr. Seuss's books are well-known and loved by children and adults for the clever wording and pictures.  They are fun and enjoyable.  However, never did I imagine that the United States would now see fit to refer to "mothers" and "fathers" as "Parent 1" or "Parent 2."  Our country is moving into some scary territory - whether we like it or not -  when such blatant attempts at demeaning the traditional family are acceptable and promoted - by the United States government.  

Metaphor:  (met a - for) n. a figure of speech in which a term is transferred from the object it ordinarily designates to one it can designate only by implicit comparison or analogy, as in the phrase evening of life  (definition taken from "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language").

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The past few days in the aftermath of the Arizona shootings, many on the left - including the "unbiased" media -  immediately jumped to the unfounded conclusion that political rhetoric - coming from the right, of course - was somehow responsible for the killings and woundings of many people in that state.  As time went by, this  was proven to be untrue.  Jared Loughner, the lone gunman, who shot and killed six people, while wounding fourteen others, was mentally unstable.  He and he alone was the "guilty party."  Mr. Loughner was found to be "unpolitical,"  meaning he did not follow politics, didn't listen to "talk radio," nor did he watch television shows that discussed the political happenings in the country.   He wasn't interested.  Instead, Jared Loughner had many personal issues and was very irrational.   And rational people cannot explain the irrational, no matter how hard they try. 

Political rhetoric was eventually given a pass as being the scapegoat for the actions of Mr. Loughner.  And rightly so.  What IS very interesting is a topic that Charlie Sykes, a conservative talk radio host for WTMJ, discussed on Friday, January 14th.  Here is the link to his specific podcast:

http://www.620wtmj.com/podcasts/charlie_sykes_podcast/113618229.html?video=pop&t=a

What Mr. Sykes talked about, with the blessings of sportscaster Wayne Larrivee, was Mr. Larrivee's use of the phrase "and there is your dagger!" whenever  the Green Bay Packers football team was assured of a victory. (On to Chicago! - it is a great time to be a Packer fan! And for  those of you who may not know, Mr. Larrivee is one of the "voices of the Green Bay Packers" who covers their football games live on the radio.)  During the podcast, listen to Mr. Larrivee actually say "and there is your dagger, right through the heart of Jake Cutler and the Chicago Bears!"  from an earlier game in the season.   Oh my goodness!  Violent? Yes.  Graphic?   Yes!  But does anyone really believe that a Packer football player is stabbing a Bear player?  That Jake Cutler is being knifed in the heart?    No.  People realize this is a harmless metaphor.  But given what happened in Arizona, and how the liberal media was so quick to jump to conclusions and point the finger at the Tea Party, Sarah Palin,  and conservatives, for somehow stirring up the violence with "political rhetoric,'  wouldn't it be expected that if someone goes out and stabs someone after listening to Mr. Larrivee,  Mr. Larrivee's rhetoric is now somehow to blame???

No. 

Silly to even think so.  Metaphors are used all the time.  Most people probably read the sports section of newspapers.  One team "kills" another.  One team "annihilates" another.   One team "slaughters" another.  However, most people who have an ounce of common sense realize that a team is not really "killing, annihilating," or "slaughtering" another team.    No, one team won and another team lost.   That's all.   Harmless.  Such headlines or references don't mean that the winning teams picked up machine guns and mowed down members of the opposing teams, or ran out onto the playing field and knifed all the members of the losing team. 

So, does Mr. Larrivee need to tone down his violent rhetoric in order to assure that people do not go out and kill one another?  Should he use the words "and there is your time out!"  as Charlie Sykes joked about, in an effort to keep the perpetually-offended politically-correct crowd happy?  No.  Just imagine if come Sunday, the Packers win - they beat the Chicago Bears -  and Mr. Larrivee shouts out "and there is your time out!"   Wouldn't that sound simply ridiculous?  Of course it would.  The audience wants to hear "AND THERE IS YOUR DAGGER!" - and on to the Super Bowl! 

Let's get real.  The majority of people in the United States are not idiots, as many of the liberal elitists  like to believe.  We know right from wrong.  We know what is a metaphor and what isn't.  For example, we know what the word "target" means, ala Sarah Palin or the Democratic "target" map from 2004.  We know that neither Palin, nor the Democrats meant that it was "open season" to hunt and kill members of the opposite party.  Common sense tells us that.  We know that political discourse is good for the country.  And we know that the Obama Administration and liberals don't like to hear complaints about how many feel that the country is being led towards socialism.    They don't want to hear it - they want people to follow along without question.  Well, we won't.  We will keep up the political discourse and complaints.  After all, free speech is for everyone - not just the left.  And metaphors are just that - metaphors.    Most people DO know the difference.

Barack Obama, after accomplishing next to nothing in his first two years in office, takes to the airwaves (yes, again!) for his annual "State of the Union" speech.  (What has this guy really done to improve the country in two years anyhow?) 

 Anyone going to watch?

As Rush Limbaugh stated today, does anyone really want to listen to somebody lie for a complete hour or more?  Be sure to listen for the buzz words "civility" and "investment" to be used over and over.  Try playing a drinking game with them and you'll probably end up smashed by the end of what could really be termed a "re-election speech."

Even the word from some of the news media is that Obama's address will have have more"ambience than substance."  Oh sure, he'll talk about jobs, the deficit,  and the economy, but does he really have any clue how to improve anything?  Does he really want to?  No.  Obama WANTS people reliant on the government.  Obama WANTS to spend our country into an economic turmoil from which we can never recover.  At least most of America realizes this and WANTS this president to be a one-termer and put a stop to the direction Obama plans for America.

I myself cannot stomach watching the arrogant little man-child, sticking his nose up in the air and speaking down to all his subjects.  Don't want to see it, don't want to have to listen to it.  And for right now, we still have the freedom to change the channel or do something more entertaining, like take out the trash (oh, didn't we do that this past November???)....And thank goodness the Packers beat the Bears, cuz now the mainstream media won't have to go gaa-gaa, fawning all  over Barry and Michelle at the Super Bowl!

What I really do want to see is the Republican rebuttal to the "State of the Union/re-election" speech - given by Wisconsin's very own Congressman Paul Ryan.  Now that should be worthwhile.  Substance over ambience.  Fact over fiction.  How refreshing.   

If you don't want to watch Barry O., here are some positive thoughts to help get you through the next two years of an Obama presidency:  Scott Walker is Governor (soon to give his own "State of the State" address).  Taxes will not increase in our state.    Voter ID is soon to become a reality.  The taxpayer-soaking car-speed rail train is dead!    Obamacare may soon follow.   Nancy Pelosi is no longer "Madam Speaker."  The Republicans control the state government in Wisconsin and the House in Washington D.C.  The brakes are being put on socialism.  And - no small feat -  the Packers are headed to the Super Bowl! 

Just finished reading a few of the news stories regarding the little man-child's campaign speech/State of the Union.  In an earlier blog I mentioned to be on the lookout for the frequent use of the word "investment," as it is the new liberal-speak term for "spending."   Obama didn't disappoint.

Obama identified government "investment" many times as though the future of America depends upon on it.  As the Heritage Foundation pointed out on 1/26/11:  "If centrally planned government spending is the key to America's future success, then we are in big trouble, because China will beat us in raw bureaucratic efficiency every time.The source of American exceptionalism is not an expansive and powerful central government." 

Obama glanced over the fact that reducing the deficit can only be done by stopping runaway spending (or should I say "investing?").  Obama wants to put a freeze on non-security spending.  All fine and good, but that will not reduce the deficit.  And as for "investing," the federal government hasn't gotten great returns on any of it's "investments."  Look at the dire straits our public educational system is in, yet education spending has increased 219 percent faster than inflation in ten years.  Look at the "investment" in the failed stimulus bills.  There are many other examples of failed "investments" by the federal government, too numerous to mention in a short post. 

 Representative Paul Ryan made some excellent points in giving the Republican response to Obama's campaign speech.  First, Ryan pointed out that Obama, while he came into office "facing a severe fiscal and economic situation,"   Obama only made things worse with his response - going on a "stimulus spending spree" that failed to create jobs and "plunged us even deeper into debt."  And Obama still doesn't get it or know what to do.  More government spending (oops - I mean "investing") is NOT the answer.   When a family is up to it's neck in credit card bills, is the solution to go out and spend even more in hopes of getting out of debt?  No.  That is simply stupid.  Yet, why does the government think it can spend its way back to prosperity?  The answer lies in stopping the madness - stop the spending sprees.  Stop the newest "entitlement program" - Obamacare - that will be unsustainable and unaffordable. 

Government programs do not save money, make money, or keep the economy going.   Most lose money.  Private sector jobs, on the other hand, keep the economy going and growing.  Sure, some fail, yet many succeed.   And until our government stands back, shrinks in size, and lets private businesses work - unheeded by overblown government rules and regulations and other garbage that hinders economic growth or opportunities, we will continue to sink into the economic hole Obama & Co. have dug for us. 

In closing, Representative Ryan stated what many of us agree with:  "We believe, as our founders did, that "the pursuit of happiness" depends upon individual liberty;  and individual liberty requires limited government.  The president and the Democratic leadership have shown, by their actions, that they believe government needs to increase it's size and its reach, it's price tag, and it's power." 

Ryan concluded by stating that government as usual is not the way to go - that the Republicans will "do things differently" and "cut spending."  In addition, he repeated the ideology of many conservatives - that limited government is best.   I agree.  Representative Ryan did Wisconsin and the Republican party proud.   Obama, on the other hand, needs a wake-up call if he hopes to be re-elected in 2012. 

For those wishing to comment on blog posts to the livinglakecountry.com website, here are the "Discussion Guidelines" as set forth by the livinglakecountry.com administrators: