The North Carolina State Board of Elections (Democrat) continues to ignore the North Carolina Supreme Court. For those who haven't kept up with North Carolina politics, realize that for the 2004 elections, there were a number of votes cast that were clearly illegal.

The votes and the voting process very clearly and obviously violated the North Carolina Constitution. The Supreme Court of the state agreed and instructed the Board of Elections to throw out the votes. However, in each and every instance where there has been question regarding the outcome of an election, the Board of Elections consistently does not throw out the votes.

And yes, in each case, the benefactor of the additional, illegal votes has been a Democrat. In the latest "ruling", the state board of elections (D) refused to throw out votes in a county commissioner race, ensuring that the Democrat will win the race.

This is how the Democrat Party continues to rule North Carolina by force, not be election. When people say, "Why vote, my vote doesn't matter?" in North Carolina, I'm really starting to agree with them.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Time again for the weekly new neighbor. For those who haven't seen this feature before, here's how it works: Each week I search through the Evangelical Blogroll that's found down the left sidebar. I find a nice looking blog that's been updated recently and visit it, then tell you all about it here. This week's neighbor is:

Be Bold, Be Gentle

Christian encouragement for men -- an evangelical perspective on current events, Scripture, and coming up the husband and father learning curve.

The blog is a pretty much standard layout with just a couple minor modifications, however it works just fine. It's clean and easy to read. The blog has been around since July 2003 and continues to today updating at least once a week; usually with more than one post when an update occurs.

The blog has a number of varied posts about numerous topics. The most recent post talks about the total insanity of unconstitutional federal spending. Specifically, he mentions both federal disaster bailouts and "health and human services." I agree 100%. Did you know we could cut federal spending by more than 50% if we got rid of "health and human services?"

There's another post I like about politics -- It's a PJ O'Rourke quote that starts out perfectly: "Politics is evil." It pretty much sums up why I'm not sure if I want to actually get too involved in politics -- those who lie down with dogs are sure to get fleas.

He's also got a number of comments about the hurricane and great thoughts and ideas about being a man in today's world. So head on over, read this evening, and say hello to a new neighbor!

Posted by: Ogre at 07:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

I've previously mentioned a time or two about how I believe government has gone way out of control in response to Katrina. I've specifically mentioned how severely wrong it is to remove basic rights of people because of flooding. Finally, there's at least one federal court that is actually attempting to slow the tyrants.

I haven't seen any news stories about this in the major media outlets -- and I'm not really surprised -- this is one way a media bias can be shown, by not covering certain news items and events. The Washington Times does have the story.

In a recap, the government in New Orleans decided that they wanted to take all guns from all private citizens, rendering the second amendment null and void. The NRA finally got off their collective rears and screamed in federal court. The U.S. District Court for Eastern Louisiana agreed and issued a retraining order to stop authorities from stealing private citizens' weapons on a whim.

There really is no excuse for taking weapons from houses that are locked up, or ones in which the person is actively defending themselves from looters. This stealing of weapons by the government is like the police walking up to a fight between a homeowner and a looter and trying to take the guns away from the homeowner.

People, police are not responsible for your individual safety -- courts have ruled that way again and again. YOU are responsible for your safety -- the police are responsible for general public safety and are charged with responding AFTER lawbreaking, not before. You need to protect yourself, you are responsibly for yourself, and you should have the tools to do so. Thanks to this federal court, the people in Louisiana do...at least for now.

(Linked to Cao's Open Trackbacks).

Posted by: Ogre at 09:23 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

While a number of states have removed or suspended their gas taxes, North Carolina has absolutely no intentions of doing the same for the people of North Carolina. Why? Because "they can't afford it."

That whole attitude should be troublesome to anyone who likes representative government. The politicians believe that money is ALREADY theirs, and that they have an absolute right to that money and to spend that money. Instead, the way this country was set up was that government was supposed to be responsible to the people and answer to the people.

I decided to show exactly how much profit and taxes really are in an average gallon of gas:

Currently the tax on gasoline in North Carolina is 17.5 cents plus 7% of the average wholesale cost of gasoline for the previous six months -- so as the price of gas increases, the taxes you have to pay increases. AND, if the price of gas goes down in the near future, the taxes will go UP because of the current higher prices!

Using published numbers of the NC General Assembly, the current average wholesale gas prices for the previous six months is 1.36. Now before you start screaming about gouging and profits, realize a few things:

1. That's the average over the past six months -- including five months during which there was NOT a run on gas and a public scare about supply, causing people to hoard gas. The current wholesale price of gas is certainly higher.

2. Add to the cost of selling you that gasoline first the state taxes -- currently 27 cents a gallon.

3. Add to that cost the federal gas tax -- 18.4 cents.

4. Add to that the cost of the trucks who deliver the gas, the electricity for running the pumps, the payroll for having people work at the store, the taxes on the buildings, the payroll taxes, piles of insurance, and many other details.

Without taking into consideration #4 above, that's putting the absolute minimum price of gasoline, when it was selling for $2.30-$2.50 (before Katrina), to $1.814. That's a massive 59 cents a gallon -- before having to pay for all those things listed in number 4.

So when you fill up your tank with your 15 gallons, you're giving the gas station owner a whopping $8.85 to pay all his employees, employee benefits, insurance, and other bills -- while giving the government $6.81! I'm amazed they can stay in business and only charge what they're charging.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:08 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 2 kb.

Have you seen what NZ Bear is doing at TTLB? He's trying to track pork. He's trying to track ANY Congresscritters that actually commit to reducing or removing ANY pork from the insane US budget. As of this writing, there's not even one who's committed to remove or reduce even one dollar.

Reaganites Unite has quite an appropriate display of that mess.

If you get some time, go ahead and write your representative and senators and ask them what they're going to do about this nightmare. Eric has an excellent sample that you can use to base your letter upon. Then let the Bear know about the pork you find and your Congresscritter's response.

Posted by: Ogre at 08:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

Sometimes you just have to sit back and relax and laugh at things. According to the Hobbit Name Generator, I am really Orgulas Broadbelt of Buckland. Not too shabby. On the other hand, my Elvish name is Amroth Anwamanë. I guess I'm more of a Hobbit than elf. I looked around, but couldn't find an "Ogre Name Generator..."

(Hat Tip to Left Brain Female).

Posted by: Ogre at 04:09 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

1 My hobbit name is Enelya Sáralondë.

Posted by: Enelya Sáralondë at September 23, 2005 10:49 PM (LrFfh)

2 That's a hobbit name?

Posted by: Ogre at September 24, 2005 07:29 AM (iJFc9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

It's wrong, just plain wrong. This whole concept of "mandatory evacuations" is wrong. No government should have that right. If they have the right to tell people what to do and where to go under "extraordinary circumstances," then that very same government can declare anything they want "extraordinary" -- they do it all the time.

In this example, an unidentified man was arrested for surfing after a mandatory evacuation was ordered. Why? By what right does the government force someone to not surf? The only possible excuse can be "for his own safety."

Do you realize how many Jews were relocated "for their own safety?" No, the US government isn't exterminating people for disobeying them -- at least not yet -- but it's still completely wrong. Do we have any rights left? I certainly cannot find any.

This person was doing nothing wrong. He was absolutely no danger to anyone else. He wasn't hurting anyone. He wasn't damaging anyone else's property. He (apparently) simply wanted to relax. But not while THIS government is on duty. Where did We The People give government the power to do whatever government deems "best" for us?

Posted by: Ogre at 03:06 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Turns out us righties and lefties aren't so different after all. I'm in agreement with you 100% on this one. Righties keep chiding me for complaining about our lost liberty, but this is the perfect example. And- it's not one party or the other on this one, which gives the argument credibility.

Posted by: Daedalus at September 23, 2005 03:36 PM (tjcyO)

2 Thanks for stopping by! I think there are some big differences between righties and lefties -- you just won't see it in government today because it certainly appears that ALL government today, on both sides of the aisle, are about bigger and more controlling government.

Posted by: Ogre at September 23, 2005 03:57 PM (/k+l4)

3 That was a violation of Godwin's Law.

Posted by: Tom at September 23, 2005 11:51 PM (r60JH)

4 The post wasn't long enough to qualify for an application of Goodwin's law!

Posted by: Ogre at September 24, 2005 07:31 AM (iJFc9)

5 I agree with 99.9999 % of your postings but some how one fell through the cracks. Sorry but I have another angle to this topic. So I just had to add my two cents. I agree that mandatory evacs are an infringement on our personal privacy. However, I have to say, if they had evacuated, they would not put heroic men and women's lives in jeopardy. If my son were to die in the stagnant waters of New Orleans trying to save some idiot who refused to leave...... I think you know what I'd like to do to that person. I agree you can't regulate things like that easily. But how much hell would Bush catch if FEMA refused to rescue the lag behinders? It's just like the helmet laws. If you don't make it illegal to drive a motorcycle w/o a helmet, the insurance skyrockets and it ruins the adventure for us all. So I say, if you make it illegal to not wear a helmet or stay behind after evac warnings......no one is blameble but the one who broke the law. I'm sick of paying for other's stupidity! With innocent lives and premiums.

Posted by: Squamata at September 25, 2005 09:37 PM (AJqHe)

6 The solution, especially with the helmet laws -- is freedom. If you don't want to wear a helmet, that's fine -- but don't make me pay for it. Let the insurance companies charge whatever they like for people who don't wear helmets! If people want to engage in riskly behavior, let them -- just don't force everyone else to pay for it. Tell people to evacuate. If they don't, tough. It absolutely is not government's job to ensure everyone's personal safety.

Posted by: Ogre at September 25, 2005 10:08 PM (iJFc9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Word has it that the current Pope is about to no longer permit priests to be gay. No matter your feelings on people who are gay, the reasoning behind this move really can't be questioned.

The Catholic church has an image problem. Since 2002 there have been literally thousands of claims of sexual abuse. Almost 9,000 of the claims were from boys. The Pope wants to try and "clean up" the image of the church and these abuses. If there were no gays as priests, the 9,000 sexual abuse cases go away.

Some will claim it's a "witch hunt," others have already claimed it will "set the church back decades." Again, no matter how much you think gays should be allowed to be priests, you simply cannot deny that if all gay priests are removed, the number of sexual abuses of children will drop by 80% or more.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:04 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "Again, no matter how much you think gays should be allowed to be priests, you simply cannot deny that if all gay priests are removed, the number of sexual abuses of children will drop by 80% or more." I don't think it will have much of an effect on reducing the number of kids that will be abused, but it will diminish the number of kids getting abused by priests. Just a matter of whether they will get abused by someone with a collar or no collar. Now when you stated "if all gay priests are removed" and implied removed from this planet, then you are definitely on to something there. Of course I am not advocating launching all gay priests into space, just the convicted child molesters. I don't think there is a more evil crime than that. I know what you meant though and you are right. The Catholic church has some major image issues. Priests used to be highly respected, but are now looked at with contempt and suspicion. And the way they tried to hide and trivialize these abuses, the contempt and suspicion is justified in MHO.

Posted by: Tomslick at September 23, 2005 02:12 PM (xNjHI)

2 I'm only for launching them into space if we can do it with a budget shuttle -- no oxygen. And it actually might have an effect on the number of children abused because the gays predators will not have as easy access to the boys, nor will they be in an institution that has protected them. They won't have quite as much power over the boys because they won't be in a position of power. So I think it will reduce the overall numbers of cases of abuse AND the number abused by priests.

Posted by: Ogre at September 23, 2005 02:24 PM (/k+l4)

3 You do have a point with the position of power statement. People can also be sports coaches or cub scout leaders which would give them access to kids, but it doesn't seem the abuse cases are nearly as high from these people as it is from priests. If a priest takes a vow of celibacy, then volontary castration would just prove that they are sincere about it. It's their asinine rule, back it up. Problem solved. No more child molesting and a boon to our space program.

Posted by: Tomslick at September 23, 2005 02:56 PM (xNjHI)

4 I like the idea of castration -- but I think that would defeat the purpose on the whole church and pure body thing, don't you?

Posted by: Ogre at September 23, 2005 02:59 PM (/k+l4)

5 I guess it would be a tad draconian. But for the convicted molesters, it would be fitting,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, then launch them. I wonder if the ACLU would represent a child molester priest?

Posted by: Tomslick at September 23, 2005 03:16 PM (xNjHI)

6 What's really sad, Tomslick, is that I'd be willing to bet they already have.

Posted by: Ogre at September 23, 2005 04:01 PM (/k+l4)

7 I cannot believe that not a single person has gone through the "just because someone's gay does not mean he's a pedophile" argument here. (*)>

Posted by: birdwoman at September 23, 2005 06:59 PM (Sc2Wh)

8 Interesting... I was thinking the same thing as birdwoman. When did gay = pedophile? Did I miss something somewhere?

Posted by: vw bug at September 23, 2005 07:34 PM (J3xJ9)

9 The other way around. If a male priest molests a boy, by definition, that's gay.

Posted by: Ogre at September 23, 2005 08:12 PM (iJFc9)

10 1. How do we identify ALL gay men attempting to become priests? Same way they kept gays out of the military when they were forbidden to serve? 2. No, not by any means are all gays pedophiles. 3. The church should be more concerned about PUNISHING THE GUILTY PRIESTS than about banning gays. We all know that for years upon years the catholic church has covered up for and protected the guilty parties, and they still are by confusing the issue and turning everyone's attention to gay members. This is just an excuse to bring gay bashing into a more acceptable light by dressing it the implied intent that they're trying to protect kids. Clean up the image... nice try.

Posted by: Erin Monahan at September 24, 2005 12:40 AM (vtVgw)

11 1. I don't know how they're going to identify them -- that's up to the church. 2. I never said that nor implied it! But the converse it true by definition -- if a boy is molested by a male, that makes the male gay. 3. Yes, I completely agree! Yes, the church has done massively wrong for many years. I just think they are trying to clean up their image. After all, if there were no gay priests, there could not possibly be an molestation of any boys -- again, by definition. It may only be theoretical, but they have to do something.

Posted by: Ogre at September 24, 2005 07:47 AM (iJFc9)

12 the vast majority of pedophiles are adult, straight males. this is not about sex, it's about power. an adult male molesting a boy is not 'gay' -- it's pedophelia. it's not the same thing at all. read some reputable psychology texts before you go spouting off.

Posted by: d00d at September 24, 2005 07:15 PM (Y01zl)

13 d00d -- if a male has sexual relations with another male by choice, that's gay. I'm sorry if you don't like the word. It may be done for power or other reasons, but they're still gay, whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

Posted by: Ogre at September 24, 2005 07:21 PM (iJFc9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Sometimes I wish political parties would allow their members to determine who actually belonged to their party. For example, each year at the caucus meetings or precinct meetings, the party members who showed up would get to vote on all current elected officials of their party.

It could be a simple vote -- keep this official in the party, or disassociate with that member -- just boot them out. You would have to vote before the primary elections of the party, probably even before the end of the registration period. But if you did, you could simply toss people out of the seat before they could even attempt to run.

It wouldn't prevent people from running for office -- it would just tell elected officials, "You don't represent our party, so you can't run for election using our party name." It might not effect a lot of people, but I'm willing to bet John Stupid-Express McCain wouldn't make it past that vote.

McCain now supports the following statements:
"This country is not worth dying for..."
"George Bush is a lying Bastard."
"Bush needs to pull federal troops out of occupied New Orleans."
"George W. Bush is a terrorist."

You see, McCain is joining the ultra-far-left in supporting Cindy Everyone-look-at-me Sheehan.

Linked to Cao's Blog, Outside the Beltway, Mudville Gazette, Euphoric Reality, and Cafe Oregano.

Posted by: Ogre at 08:01 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 228 words, total size 2 kb.

In 1989 two men in North Carolina started a highway trust fund in North Carolina. It was to be funded entirely by fees of users of highways -- gas taxes, vehicle sales, and title fees. That money was to be used entirely to build urban loops and widen four-lane highways and interstates -- a process that would benefit all citizens of North Carolina.

Over the past decade, however, Democrats in the General Assembly voted each and every year to take money from the highway trust fund and use it for, well, anything they wanted to -- like welfare, schools, and even personal slush funds for certain legislators.

The two men who created the highway trust fund have been suing the government to get the government to actually do what the law says and what the trust fund claimed it would do. However, they are losing.

Now, they're not losing because they're wrong -- according to the Court of Appeals, they don't have standing to bring suit! The court said that they didn't have any standing to sue because they were not injured by the transfer of funds.

In other words, according to the courts in North Carolina, Legislators are free to break the law and the citizens who elected them cannot challenge those lawbreakers unless they have been physically injured.

The raiding of the trust fund, and the total breakdown of all state roads will continue as long as the Democrats are in charge in Raleigh.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:02 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 1 kb.

In 2002 there was much celebration and picture-taking as the General Assembly, after being forced to by Republicans (they were just 1-vote in the minority at the time), as the Death Tax (euphemistically called the "Estate Tax") was repealed -- the law would go into effect Jan 1, 2004.

In 2003, during the "short session" -- when much of the press goes out of their way to completely ignore the legislature -- that date was changed to July 1, 2005.

In 2005, House Bill 1630, which later became session law 2005-144, the legislature re-enacted the death tax in North Carolina -- before it ever really expired. Of course, when this bill passed, there were no cameras. There were no photo opportunities or back-slapping -- just another tax increase to punish people who work in North Carolina.

Next time you speak to your Democrat Representatives in Raleigh, be sure and thank them for adding a tax on your death.

Posted by: Ogre at 03:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Everyone knows all about government-sponsored welfare for individuals. Many see and understand the horrible government-sponsored welfare for corporations. In both these cases, as with any government-sponsored welfare, it is a great injustice to both the recipients and the taxpayers who are forced to foot the bill. What many people may not realize is that there are also politically-driven organizations that are getting government-sponsored welfare as well.

Currently, as the law is structured, a private, political organization can use the proceeds of lawsuits against the government to continue further lawsuits. This process only encourages those organizations to use taxpayer funds, via lawsuits, as their primary method of funding.

Once this cycle is started, the organization cannot be stopped -- they can have absolutely no support of the citizens, yet the citizens are forced, through government lawsuits, to pay for and support the organization, no matter it's purpose or mission.

Such is the case with the ACLU. Their primary method of funding today is not via private citizens contributing to a cause they believe in, but by suing government for "damages," which are taken from taxpayers, and then used by the ACLU to sue government again.

This has the effect of completely insulating the ACLU from the government and it's citizens. All taxpayers of the United States are forced to fund this organization, whether you believe in it's purposes or not. And the ACLU is not the only organization to do this.

You can help stop this abuse of lawsuits. There is an online petition that is trying to raise support for a law, introduced by Congressman Hostettler. That change in the law will simply forbid organizations from collecting punitive damages from the government in civil rights cases regarding freedom of religion.

That's all. That makes sense. When someone sues the government, the taxpayers have to pay. If this bill passes, when someone sues the government for allegedly "establishing" religion, they simply cannot collect millions of taxpayer dollars in punitive fees.

If you have not signed this petition, please go sign it now.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU blogburst. If you would like to join our efforts to fight the ACLU, it's very simple. Just register at our portal. We will add you to our mailing list, and send you the info you will need. Over 100 blogs already on board. Join us!

Posted by: Ogre at 10:01 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.

And yet again, Congress takes more money and food out of people's mouths to "help" others. Congress recently passed a new "tax cut" -- but only if you happen to live in certain areas or are deemed to be special -- no one else gets them.

Does this sound like Clinton and the Democrats of last decade? Every single time the Democrats talk about tax cuts, it's always "targeted" tax cuts. This move helps show that there is almost no difference between Republicans and Democrats. This one is costing YOU and ME another $7-30 billion.

$5 billion to put every single person affected by the storm on Medicare (like those in MN and OH). Billions in continued welfare payments while the welfare recipients are working. Yes, that's correct, if you were on welfare before the storm, you will continue receiving those punitive welfare benefits, even if you work.

$600 a month for "housing" (like beer and lap dances) for at least 350,000 people for 6 months. Note -- by my calculations, that's $1.2 billion, but the total cost is estimated to be $3.5 billion. That's $2.3 billion in administrative costs!

The bill would also add able-bodied single men to Medicaid rolls and extra, free unemployment cash.

This is just plain wrong. It is NOT compassionate to take money at gunpoint from one person and give it to another. And just wait, Texas will be next in line once Rita is over (if they're not already getting cash, and it's likely they ARE).

The biggest result this sort of idiocy brings is that I now WANT to move to a hurricane-prone area so I can get piles and piles of cash from the government. Bou, that storm went close to you -- I'm sure if you ask the government, they'll give you a giant check, too.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:33 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.

More and more these days, what passes for government in this once-great country really stinks. In this case, the school board is fighting the city council over money. Basically, the school board is suing the city for $1.5 million. What sort of insanity is this?

The money in "question" is money that was actually illegally taken from the citizens -- and not just citizens of that city or school board area. It was money taken from citizens without allowing the citizens to face their accuser or even question the fine (red light cameras). But now the school board wants MORE of that money that the city has already collected.

Of course, if you've followed red light camera cases across the country, their primary purpose and indeed the primary results of the cameras is to raise money -- they have nothing to do with safety as report after report will show.

However, in this area, the school district wants 90% of the money collected from the "violations." If the city gives the school board 90% of the money, then it will actually COST the city money to run the cameras.

Now, if the cameras were about safety, surely the city would pay a little bit to keep their citizens safe, wouldn't they? Quite obviously, the city is continuing to fight this ruling, because the cameras are NOT about safety -- the city wants them there to earn cash for the city. If the city cannot earn money from them, they won't be there.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:02 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

Dateline: Wednesday, September 21, 2005. Associnated Press. CLUB GITMO, Cuba -- Two illegal combatants today broke their vows of hunger, stupidity, and sanity today and granted exclusive interviews with the Associnated Press. The detainees said over mouthfuls of gruel that their hunger strike would continue until they were allowed to watch the NFL New Orleans Saints and Major League Baseball's World Series on television.

The two "men" were hard to understand, as the entire time they were granting the interview, they were shoveling gruel in their mouths as fast as they could, while watching over their shoulders to ensure they were not being observed by their fellow hunger strikers.

The men, Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Mumu, said that they would not give in in their hunger strike until their demands were met. Muhammad said that they were being treated well, except for the time Muhammad was disciplined for dropping his own copy of the Queeran on the ground. His punishment was no dessert for a week and he was very depressed during that week. The Navy provided grief counsellers, and Muhammad eventually got over the incident.

Muhammad said that the hunger strike would not end until they were provided live television feeds of the New Orleans Saints -- because only the professional football team members could possibly understand and emphasize with the detainees as true victims. They also wanted to watch the World Series because, "I've got 50 dinars riding on the team from Boise."

When asked about the chance of the detainees getting their demands met, the Marine on guard replied, "They already have Sirius Radio and DirectTV with Sunday Ticket and the MLB Complete Package. They just can't find the right stations with 999 channels."

(A precision guided humor assignment from The Alliance).

Posted by: Ogre at 08:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

This week's Christian View Symposium question has been asked:

1. Is there a lack of leadership in this Country?
2. How can we as Christians fill this void if it exists?
3. Is America being destroyed from within?
4. If we are, how can we as Christians help stop this destruction?

Posted by: Ogre at 03:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.

Democrats are complaining about price gouging. Over at The Wide Awakes, I've written a rather long post that shows that they are simply wrong.

Why are they wrong? Not because they're not intelligent -- they honestly WANT people to be dependent on government. Today's Democrats want you to believe you cannot function without their help. It's dishonest and just plain evil.

Posted by: Ogre at 01:01 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

I found out through a liberal university that today, September 21st, is supposed to be the official "International Day of Peace." So I tried to find an image that would most appropriately define peace in today's world.

You want peace? Easy: surrender today.

Posted by: Ogre at 08:11 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

1 There is one way we could actually see the Islamofascists surrendering, but it will take a number of years: We get their leaders free scholarships in a French military academy, then when they graduate, rotate them back into their respective terrorist cells, who will then make use of these graduates' finely honed French military doctrine, and.......surrender!

Posted by: Seth at September 21, 2005 09:58 AM (xlzXN)

2 Now that sounds like a free education plan I can support! And won't take that long -- how long can the academy be that simply teaches you how to use a white flag? LOL.

Posted by: Ogre at September 21, 2005 10:58 AM (/k+l4)

3 Heheh... one would think it would be a short course, but there are many different ways to wave that flag. Gotta cover them all, from running and frantically waving over your shoulder, to waving simultaneously soiling yourself.

Posted by: That 1 Guy at September 21, 2005 12:15 PM (p9wzG)

4 Well I never thought of that. I suppose it could be a long course...hey, you haven't taken that course, have you?

Posted by: Ogre at September 21, 2005 12:57 PM (/k+l4)

5 I think I prefer this quote..... "Si vis pacem, para bellum" or for those who do not speak latin (or havent heard it before) "If you want peace, prepare for war". We have freedom and (at least a little) peace in this country, because men stand ready to do things that they do harm to those who would harm us. God Bless all of them. UNITED STATES ARMY UNITED STATES NAVY UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE POLICE OFFICERS FIRE FIGHTERS EMT/PARAMEDICS UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Posted by: Smoke Eater at September 21, 2005 08:22 PM (K7uqT)

6 Or the cheaper version: The best offense is a good defense. Amen, Smokey!

Posted by: Ogre at September 21, 2005 08:53 PM (iJFc9)

7 You'll never get peace with THAT tiny thing. Try this: http://www.radgraphics.net/images/main/atomic%20explosion%20-%206%20-%20KingShot1952.jpg

Posted by: Harvey at September 21, 2005 09:30 PM (ubhj8)

8 I was TRYING to be nice about it!

Posted by: Ogre at September 21, 2005 09:36 PM (iJFc9)

9 Then again, can anyone recognize the type of incendiary device pictured?

Posted by: Ogre at September 21, 2005 09:37 PM (iJFc9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Sometimes when you have choices in an election, you have to pick the lesser of two evils. In the Democrat Primary of District 1 in Charlotte, both options are very, very, very evil. I'm not sure there is a lesser. Two questions for the two candidates were printed in the local rag.

Their top priorities:
Candidate A: Expanding spending, spending more, getting more to spend from the state, crushing freedom with massive zoning restrictions, spending more money, and limiting freedom by forcibly limiting the use of cars in Charlotte.

(Yes, I know that's not 3, but that was her answer).

Candidate B: Spend more money on public transportion subsidies, crush freedom with oppressive zoning rules, destroy automobile use with restrictive laws, talk to people.

Next question? They were asked what initiatives they would start if elected:
Candidate A: A war (yes, she used the word) on private businesses by shutting down and taking private property from anyone who has a store with what I deem to have "too large" a square footage.

Candidate B: Massive new wealth redistribution plans. Take more money from the rich to build houses for the poor. Talk to people. Give CASH to people who claim they are community leaders.

Wow. Have I mentioned yet that if you live in Charlotte and are productive that you should absolutely get the heck out. There's no hope for Charlotte. The only way to stop them is to take you money and leave while you still have any left.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:03 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Time again for the weekly Homespun Blogger Symposium. Each week the Homespun Bloggers ask a question of the members of that group and those who desire to can respond on their own blog to the question.

Links are posted to others' answers to the questions. Feel free to join in!

This week's question:

How do "we" eliminate the "deep, persistent poverty having roots in racial discrimination" such as we've seen in the Gulf Coast region over the past three weeks?

Posted by: Ogre at 02:01 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 1373 words, total size 9 kb.