Wednesday, November 30, 2005


Yesterday, the public hearing -- the one and only public hearing -- regarding the anti-gay amendment was held in Madison.

According to an article in this morning's Journal Sentinel, Jenny Baierl said, "I'm concerned the state is going to determine what is morally acceptable for my child to be taught in sex education and not allow me to be the ultimate authority."

Excuse me, but who said that allowing gay marriage would take away your ability to determine what is morally acceptable for your children? That isn't even a logical statement. Drinking is legal in this state and it doesn’t stop me from informing my children about the evils of alcohol. So, if you don’t want your children to support gay marriage, then tell them not to and don’t support it yourself. But, don’t take away my ability to live my life with dignity and in a legal matrimonial state because YOU don’t agree with it.

If you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t have one.

Hate-monger Mark Gundrum said the bill was drafted to address only "legal status" and didn't get into specific benefits, as laws and amendments in other states have. The intent was to prevent the state only from creating a new kind of marriage recognized in Wisconsin, Gundrum said.

"If a private hospital wants to have a policy allowing visitation for someone, there's nothing to prohibit that," he said.

Yeah and there is nothing to prohibit them from barring the life partner of someone gay, either.
Such as in the case of “Michael Thomas, a Health and Family Services administrator for Manitowoc County, choked back tears as he talked about his former partner who he said was shot - in front of Thomas - because he was gay; Thomas was kept from him in the hospital.
‘He died alone in a room with me peering through the glass because they wouldn't let me be with him," Thomas said. After 20 years with a new partner, he said, "I don't want the same thing to happen again.’”

So, don’t tell me that an anti-gay amendment somehow protects families and marriages – all it does is harm the gay families that are out there.

Amen, I say to you, if you support this amendment, you are only showing your own fear and hatred of gay people. Period. You aren’t protecting anything, but your own ability to legalize hatred and contempt.

God Bless

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Open Hearing in Madison

Today the ONLY Public Hearing on the anti-gay amendment was held in Madison. One public hearing on an amendment to our state constitution. Unfortunately, I had to work, so I missed my one opportunity to let the piss-poor representatives of this state know how I feel -- how this will hurt my wife, my children and my extended family.

Here's a thought, while the lame wing is out discussing how gay families will harm America, maybe, we should bring up the idea that gays will no longer have to pay taxes in this state. Let's do it. No more giving this state our hard earned dollars. Why should we? We don't have equal protection under the law. We aren't treated as full citizens, so why should we be forced to pass along our money to support a bunch of straight people?


Do I use WIC?
Do I send my kids to public schools?
When I've needed a police officer, was one there?
No -- just trust me on that.
Will my wife be able to apply and utilize state funded health care?
No -- why, you ask. Because if she does, the state will force me to sell our home to pay for it. There are no protections to allow me to live in the house.
Will I be able to apply for her social security?
If social security is privatized, will she be able to leave any of it to me?
If she gets sick and needs round the clock care, will I be able to make that decision?
No -- not if the amendment passes, as that would be a right reserved for "married" people.

Remember -- this'll hurt Wisconsin, not help it.

BTW, nothing bad has happened to Massachuets since gay marriage was legalized there, but Florida and the rest of the anti-gay south has been hit with horrible hurricanes. Hmmm, wonder what God must be thinking.

God Bless.

Guest Blog: Not A Penny More

The Republican Party under the leadership of Bush, Cheney, Frist, Delay and crew has pushed the tax burden from the wealthiest of Americans and large corporations onto the middle class. They have combined this financial assault on the middle class with huge cuts in government services for the middle class and the poor.

In order to pay for the huge tax cuts to the wealthiest of the wealthy, our nation has developed a growing, severe government debt problem. Combined with irresponsible government spending on a senseless war in Iraq and an reckless, ineffective expenditures on homeland security, the Bush Republican tax cuts for the Super Wealthy has finally produced a rebellion from both fiscal conservatives and the general public.

Rumors are being floated that some Republicans close to the Bush White House would like to eliminate the interest deduction on home mortgages from federal income tax laws. This measure would fall harshly on struggling middle class homeowners. It would badly undermine the real estate, construction and banking industries. It is not a reasonable response to the public debt crisis created by Bush Republican policies.

The middle class and the poor have made enough financial sacrifices in order to enrich the rich. These Americans should not provide one penny more as citizens, taxpayers and voters to the misguided policies of the Bush Republican elite.

Republicans in Congress and the Senate will likely be defeated in the next election unless these misguided Bush Republican priorities are quickly and completely abandoned. They are facing a taxpayer revolt that could return them to a permanent, small minority political Party.

The Wall Street interests that finance and control the Bush Republican political machine has pushed average Americans to the wall financially. Price-gouging, out-sourcing and exporting American jobs by large corporations are serious threats to middle class America. Government policy under the Bush Administration serves these same Wall Street policies and threatens middle class America equally.

The nation stands at the threshold of a dramatic choice between different views of our future. We will become a nation of a few very wealthy ruling over a huge majority of working poor if we follow the Bush Republican path. Our other choice is to remain a predominantly middle class nation dominated by middle class values like our Founding Fathers envisioned.

It is the firm belief of this writer that American citizens will side with our Founding Fathers. American Democracy is at stake along with the American Dream.

Written by Stephen Crockett (co-host of Democratic Talk Radio ).
Mail: P.O. Box 283, Earleville, Maryland 21919. Email: . Phone: 443-907-2367.

Reprinted with permission

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Not Pro-Family

Below is the list of co-sponsors of the anti-gay amendment. This was released by a pro-family group. First, I'd like to point out the obvious -- they are all Republicans. Second, I'd like to point out that not ONE OF THESE PEOPLE should be called PRO-FAMILY!!! Not one. Anyone who blocks someone else's ability to become a family, cannot be considered pro-family. There are over 100 rights that gay people have that they will lose if this passes. I urge all Wisconsinites to contact these un-American, non-Christian and anti-family representatives and tell them to pull their sponsorship of the anti-gay, anti-American and anti-family amendment.

Either they pull their sponsorship or you're pulling your vote...(This won't work on Cathy Stepp, she's not running next year.)

Co-sponsors included Senators Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), Ted Kanavas (R-Brookfield), Alan Lasee (R-De Pere), Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin), Joe Leibham (R-Sheboygan), Tom Reynolds (R-West Allis), Carol Roessler (R-Oshkosh), Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center), Cathy Stepp (R-Sturtevant), and Dave Zien (R-Eau Claire) and Representatives Sheryl Albers (R-Reedsburg), Joan Ballweg (R-Markesan), Garey Bies (R-Sister Bay), Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon), Stephen Freese (R-Dodgeville), John Gard (R-Peshtigo), Mark Gottlieb (R-Port Washington), Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford), Eugene Hahn (R-Cambria), J A Hines (R-Oxford), Mark Honadel (r- South Milwaukee), Michael Huebsch (R-West Salem), Jean Hundertmark (R-Clintonville), Suzanne Jeskewitz (R-Menomonee Falls), Samantha Kerkman (R-Burlington), Steve Kestell (R-Elkhart Lake), Joel Kleefisch (R-Oconomowoc), Judy Krawczyk (R-Green Bay), Rob Kreibich (R-Eau Claire), Frank Lasee (R- Green Bay), Daniel LeMahieu (R-Oostburg), Gabe Loeffelholz (R-Platteville), Thomas Lothian (R-Williams Bay), Terri McCormick (R-Appleton), Dan Meyer (R-Eagle River), Phil Montgomery (R-Ashwaubenon), Terry Moulton (R-Chippewa Falls), Jeff Mursau (R-Crivitz), Stephen Nass (R-Whitewater), Lee Nerison (R-Westby), Ann Nischke (R-Waukesha), Al Ott (R- Forest Junction), Carol Owens (R-Oshkosh), Jerry Petrowski (R-Marathon), Mark Pettis (R-Hertel), Don Pridemore (R-Hartford), Scott Suder (R-Abbotsford), Debi Towns (R-Janesville), John Townsend (R-Fond du Lac), Karl Van Roy (R-Green Bay), Robin Vos (R-Racine), and Mary Williams (R- Medford).

God Bless

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Wisconsin Legislation

I just wanted to let you know just some of the items that I've been following via the notification service in the Wisconsin Legislature. I wanted you to know where they are right now, while our representatives are busy creating anti-gay amendments and concealed carry bills.

For the bills below, I have written about them in my blog. I think rather than pass bills that will harm our state, we should get some of these out of committee.

An Act to create 632.235 of the statutes; relating to: coverage under a
liability insurance policy for owners of dogs. (FE)
04-22. A. Introduced by Representatives Lehman, Hahn and Mursau.
04-22. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Insurance
........................................................ 200
06-24. A. Fiscal estimate received.

This bill has been sitting in the insurance committee forever. It will protect dog owners from being discriminated on due to the breed of do they own. If you are represented by Lehman, Hahn or Mursau, please drop them a line and let them know you support them in the support of this bill.

An Act to create 254.92 (5) of the statutes; relating to: providing a
penalty for the possession of a cigarette or tobacco product by a minor.
09-09. A. Introduced by Representatives Lehman, Berceau, Gielow,
Hines, Kerkman, Ott, Sheridan, Townsend and Turner;
cosponsored by Senator Lassa.
09-09. A. Read first time and referred to committee on Criminal
Justice and Homeland Security .......................... 453
11-02. A. Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Lehman
........................................................ 575

Still sitting in commitee -- This bill will fine minors for possion of tobacco products. It is illegal for minors to buy, but not have.
Again, please contact those involved. It's time to get this out of committee.

SENATE BILL 403 LC Amendment MemoAn Act to renumber and amend 23.33 (3) (e), 29.089 (2), 29.091, 29.621(4), 440.26 (3m), 941.23, 941.235 (2) and 943.13 (2); to amend 51.20(13) (cv) 4., 51.20 (16) (gm), 51.30 (3) (a), 165.82 (1) (intro.),165.82 (2), 175.35 (1) (at), 175.35 (2) (d), 175.35 (2g) (c) 4. a. andb., 175.35 (2k) (ar) 2., 813.12 (6) (am) 1., 813.122 (9) (am) 1.,813.125 (5r) (a), 885.235 (1g) (intro.), 938.396 (8), 941.295 (2) (d),943.13 (1m) (b) and 943.13 (3); and to create 23.33 (3) (e) 1., 23.33(3) (e) 2., 23.33 (3) (e) 3., 23.33 (3) (e) 4., 23.33 (3) (em), 29.089(2) (a), 29.089 (2) (b), 29.089 (2) (c), 29.089 (2) (d), 29.091 (2),29.091 (2) (d), 29.621 (4) (a), 29.621 (4) (b), 29.621 (4) (c), 29.621(4) (d), 29.621 (6), 55.06 (17) (d), 59.25 (3) (u), 165.25 (11), 167.31(4) (ar), 175.35 (1) (am), 175.48, 175.49, 175.50, 440.26 (3m) (a),440.26 (3m) (b), 440.26 (3m) (c), 440.26 (3m) (d), 885.235 (1g) (e),938.396 (8m), 941.23 (1), 941.23 (2) (a), 941.23 (2) (b), 941.23 (2)(c), 941.23 (2) (d), 941.23 (2) (e), 941.23 (3), 941.235 (2) (c),941.235 (2) (d), 941.235 (2) (e), 941.237 (3) (cr), 941.237 (3) (ct),941.237 (3) (cx), 941.29 (11), 941.295 (2g), 941.295 (2r), 943.13 (1e)(bm), 943.13 (1e) (g), 943.13 (1m) (c), 943.13 (2) (bm), 946.32 (3),948.605 (2) (c) and 948.61 (3m) of the statutes; relating to: carrying aconcealed weapon, possessing or transporting a firearm under certaincircumstances, background checks for handgun purchases, photographicidentification cards for retired law enforcement officers, requiring theexercise of rule-making authority, providing an exemption fromrule-making authority, and providing penalties. (FE)2005 10-24. S. Introduced by Senators Zien, S. Fitzgerald, Breske, Brown, Grothman, Kanavas, Kedzie, A. Lasee, Leibham, Reynolds, Roessler, Schultz and Stepp; cosponsored by Representatives Gunderson, Suder, Pettis, Albers, J. Fitzgerald, Freese, Gundrum, Hahn, Hines, Hundertmark, Kestell, Kleefisch, Krawczyk, F. Lasee, LeMahieu, Loeffelholz, Lothian, McCormick, Mursau, Musser, Nass, Nischke, Owens, Petrowski, Pridemore, Schneider, Strachota, Towns, Van Roy, Vos, Vrakas and Jensen. 10-24. S. Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary, Corrections and Privacy ..................... 401 11-02. S. Public hearing held. 11-09. S. Senate substitute amendment 1 offered by Senator Zien ........................................................ 451 11-10. S. Fiscal estimate received. 11-10. S. Fiscal estimate received. 11-10. S. Executive action taken. 11-11. S. LRB correction (Senate substitute amendment 1). 11-15. S. Report adoption of Senate Substitute Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Judiciary, Corrections and Privacy, Ayes 3, Noes 2 ............................. 457 11-15. S. Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Judiciary, Corrections and Privacy, Ayes 3, Noes 2 ......................................................... 457 11-15. S. Available for scheduling. 11-16. S. Withdrawn from committee on Senate Organization and rereferred to joint committee on Finance, pursuant to Senate Rule 46 (2)(c) ............................... 458 11-17. S. Fiscal estimate received. 11-17. S. LRB correction (Senate substitute amendment 1).

This is the concealed weapons -- and look where it is -- Available for schedule, public hearing held. This is what our Senators and Representatives seem to think this state needs -- more guns on the streets.

Stay tuned, my friends, I have only just begun to write about the way the Wisconsin Legislation is handling our state!

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Anti-Gay Amendment will hurt Straight Domestic Partnerships

Okay, vote for the anti-gay amendment and you will not just be hurting gays and lesbians, you will actually end up removing 100 rights that straight Domestic Partnerships have right now.

Vote for the amendment and you are hurting countless Wisconsin families across the state.

Vote for the amendment and my wife and I will have to go back to our lawyer's office to ensure that we can make health decisions for each other. So, the only people to make money off of this will be the lawyers.

Vote for the amendment to guarantee burning in Hell. Go ahead and piss on God's love. I dare you. You see, I'm tired of being a nice Christian girl and hoping that the wrong wing will finally listen to Jesus and stop this nonsense. I may burn in Hell because I didn't give enough money to charity and I don't do enough at church, but if you vote for this amendment, you'll be burning along side of me.

So, call your representative. Tell them you want the anti-gay amendment on the ballot next November and then in November, make sure you vote for it. Go ahead, I double-dog dare you.

And, on Judgement Day, I'll even hold your hand while we're sent to Hell -- or, even better, I'll wave at you from the side that gets to stay with Jesus. As I'm sure between now and the hour of my death, I can give an awful lot to charity, but you won't be able to un-do that vote.

And, don't you dare claim you weren't warned. You were and you know better than to harm your fellow man. Jesus told you to turn the other cheek and give away your cloak.

For those of you who don't support this amendment, come on, stand up with the rest of us. Help us stop it.

And, for the Christians out there, no -- not you, the hatemonger who thinks his a "Christian", the guy next to you -- help me take back Jesus from the Christian posers. It's time we bring Him home.

God Bless.

Monday, November 21, 2005

Wisconsin - Today's the Day

I just wrote a terrific post regarding the Anti-gay marriage ban that the legistlature will be deciding on today. I wrote about how you shouldn't be fooled by the hatred of the right wing and how gay marriage won't harm straight marriages, etc. And, somehow, I lost it all by trying to select my whole post to change the font! The whole thing. And, of course, I was writing off the top of my head, so I didn't have any notes or anything to go by.

I'd just like to say that the right wing is wrong on this issue. Gay marriage will not hurt anyone and it would improve the lives of countless people. This is retroic it's the truth. Anyone, who would support an amendment that restricts someone else's rights, has hate in their heart. Plain and simple -- hate. That right-wing crap about love the sinner, hate the sin. That's coming from the same people who brought you "9/11 happened because of gays and lesbians" and "the hurricane hit Louisana because of gays and lesbians". Keep that in mind when you vote next November. Do you really want to throw your lot in with "those" people?

Jesus told us in Matthew what will happen during the final judgment and no where in there did He mention gays and lesbians. He did mention goats and sheep. Sheep look out for their fellow man and Goats don't. Sheep spend eternaty with Jesus and Goats are sent to the fires of Hell. (Full passage below.) You need to decide, are you going to be a Sheep or a Goat? Will you vote against a ban that will harm your fellow human beings or will you throw caution to the wind and vote for it? Will you be able to look God right in the eye and say, "Yep, I dashed the hope of gays. I destroyed their families. I made it harder for them to protect their rights as human beings."?

Well, will you?

And, when you do, just where do you think you'll be standing when its all over?

God Bless

The Final Judgement

When the Son of Man comes in his glory with all of his angels, he will sit on his royal throne. The people of all nations will be brought before him, and he will separate them, as shepherds separate their sheep from their goats.
He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, "My father has blessed you! Come and receive the kingdom that was prepared for you before the world was created. When I was hungry, you gave me something to eat, and when I was thirsty, you gave me something to drink. When I was a stranger, you welcomed me, and when I was naked, you gave me clothes to wear. When I was sick, you took care of me, and when I was in jail, you visited me."
Then the ones who pleased the Lord will ask, "When did we give you something to eat or drink? When did we welcome you as a stranger or give you clothes to wear or visit you while you were sick or in jail?"
The king will answer, "Whenever you did it for any of my people, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you did it for me."
Then the king will say to those on his left, "Get away from me! You are under God's curse. Go into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels! I was hungry, but you did not give me anything to eat, and I was thirsty, but you did not give me anything to drink. I was a stranger, but you did not welcome me, and I was naked, but you did not give me any clothes to wear. I was sick and in jail, but you did not take care of me."
Then the people will ask, "Lord, when did we fail to help you when you were hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in jail?"
The king will say to them, "Whenever you failed to help any of my people, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you failed to do it for me."
Then Jesus said, "Those people will be punished forever. But the ones who pleased God will have eternal life." (Matthew 25:31-46)

Friday, November 18, 2005

Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban Amendment...

"Yesterday, State Senator Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) and Representative Mark Gundrum (R-New Berlin) began asking lawmakers to cosponsor the amendment. The deadline for cosponsors is this Monday, November 21st." stated an email I received from the Human Rights Campaign.

Really? First, this is no surprise. The Republicans want to get this on the ballet in Nov. They want to secure a huge right-wing turnout in the 2006 election. They're hoping that this issue will be the one that will bring back a Republican Governor to this state.

Second, this amendment will ban civil unions -- completely. The supporters kept claiming that it wouldn't, but it will. Now, they're even admitting it. Do not be fooled by the instigators... First, this is only an issue because it is volatile, because it angers people. Otherwise, the right wing could care less. Example, Bush promised a National amendment, got elected and it went away. Second, this is hatred, plain, simple in you face hatred. Anyone and I mean anyone who would support an amendment banning one group of people from having the same rights as another group of people are filled with unmitigated hatred. Don't let them fool you. They hate gays. Deep down inside, they really hate gay people. They have even fooled themselves. Finally, don't even let them start to tell you that this is what God wants. God doesn't give a rat's ass if Gay people are allowed to marry -- He doesn't -- and if He does, may He strike me dead right now as I post this. May I die a horrible death while at my keyboard.

I'm still here.

Finally, contact your representatives, let them know that you elected them to lead this state, not to follow a hate-filled agenda.

Let's take back Wisconsin from the narrow minded, backwards, non-Christian and hate-filled people. Let's give it back to the people, you and me.

Make sure you contact your representatives and let them know just how you feel.

God Bless.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Patriot Act

It should come as no surprise that I am against the Patriot Act. First, I'd like to note that it is very poorly named. Patriot is defined as "One who loves, supports, and defends one's country." The Patriot Act does not love the country -- certainly isn't supporting it -- and does not defend America against her enemies.

I don't think it is the government's business what books I buy at Barnes and Noble. I don't think they should be able to get a list of the books I've read at my local library. And, I'd like to note that I have deliberately taken questionable books out of the library just to see if our government is paying attention -- it isn't. No call from the FBI, no investigation, well, none that I know about and that's another thing... Since when can the government search without notifying. Where in the constitution is that part written? Hmmm?

I really question those people who support the Patriot Act. On occasions, they are the same people who don't support equal rights and who complain that the constitution isn't being followed. In recent history, our rights have never been so amended as when -- in a moment of panic and fear -- Congress passed the Patriot Act.

And, now, it is up for renewal and 6 Senators are standing up for our rights as citizens: Feingold, D-WI; Craig, R-Idaho; Durbin, D-Ill.; Sununu, R-N.H.; Salazar, D-Colo.; and Murkowski, R-Alaska.

I believe that Ben Franklin -- remember him, one of our founding fathers -- said that those who do not protect freedom in the name of security deserve neither. (I'll get the actual quote for you.)

Read the article, take a look at the Act itself and make up your own mind. When you're done, contact your Senator and tell him or her just how you feel.

Let's take back our government.

God Bless.


Could there possiblily be a better way to wake up than hearing the sounds of six month old twins talking in the other room? Could it be possible, upon entering said room, there could be something better than seeing two smiling faces look up at you? Could there be something better than picking up one and then the other and laying them side by side on your own queen size bed and talking with them?

That was how my morning before heading off to work went. Watching them, changing them and then handing them off to Grandma and Mommy as I had to walk out the door. And, why did I walk out the door? Why couldn't there be a day when you get to stay home and spoil your grandsons rotten? Shouldn't that be a national no work holiday?

I know the world is not a nice place and I know that we, as human beings, do not treat our fellow humans with the dignity and compassion that we should. I know all of that. But, for an hour this morning, I forgot all about it, as I tended to the needs of those two precious gifts from God, Danny and Alex.

I wish everyone could have a morning like mine.

God Bless.

Monday, November 14, 2005


Starting this week, I began advertising on Zoo Comic. Please let me know what you think of the ad. Plus, if you've come to my site via Zoo Comic, please leave a comment and let me know.

Also, if you take a look to the right, you'll see a link for Frappr Beta! It is a map that shows off the location if visitors (if you add yourself to it). Please take the time to add yourself.

Have a great day!

God Bless

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Da Boys...

Okay, enough talk about loans, politics and other people's blogs. Let's talk about what you really want to discuss and that's DA BOYS!

I've posted new pictures from our last visit. I can't get over how big they have gotten! Plus, they are just so cool. I didn't take as many pictures this visit as I have previous visits because, well, I was just too busy playing with them. They do a lot more than just sleep and eat! And, this month is special because we get to see them three times instead of the normal one visit.

Oh, BTW, I'm having issues with some pages, so the video page runs really slow. I'm working to fix it, but I have homework that needs to come first.

God Bless.


You know, I don't trust anyone who moderates their comments before they allow them to be posted. I think it's rude. I read the comments written and, I haven't had a need as of yet, I plan on removing/deleting any cuss words. This is a family friendly site. Now, I'm not like some bloggers who believe they are being stalked. They even go as far as to prevent people from writing comments. Yet, they will comment on the deleted comment, which I believe is wrong.

I don't believe anything until I can see it for myself. If you just tell me that the rant was off-topic and disgraceful, how do I really know that? I don't. Heck, you could really write the comment yourself and just say it's from a liberal / conservative that is stalking you.

So, anyway, I wrote a comment on a blog I'm not mentioning whose. But, I'm pretty sure that I wrote a comment larger than what ended up there. But, I'm not positive. So, this time, I kept a copy for myself. (See below.) If it is edited for comment, I'll know and I'll let you know just who censored it.

Origninal, with "moderator's" comments are in bold:
Just a quick question...Why delete a liberal's post, unless you are editing for foul language, what's the point?

RV: The point has been made clear a thousand times, Julie. And I delete the childishness of cussing people out, degrading veterans and commenting off topic.

If they are truly ranting for ranting's sake, aren't they just proving your point?

RV: My posts say time and time again that they're proving my point. Do you read?

New Comment:
"Okay, but how do I, someone who did not read the post you deleted, know that they are proving your point? I didn't read the comment myself.
I can understand censoring out words that cannot be used in mixed company, but why not just x-out those words and let the rest of the rant stand?
And, yes, I can read. I'm pretty good at it, despite my public school education.

Oh, I should mention that I have actually deleted comments left on one of my blogs, but they weren't comments, they were ads."

I should note that before I decided to post this comment, I went back to see if my above comment had been added -- it hadn't. So, I thought maybe something was wrong and I've re-sent it.

God Bless.

Friday, November 11, 2005

Veteran's Day

After reading any one of RepublicanVet's posts, you would get the impression that liberals all hate the military and do not appreciate just what our fine military men and women have done, are doing and will do for us. That is a statement which I find very offensive.

I happen to be proud of my ex-Army, served honorably in WWII, grandfather, Charles.

I'm proud of my retired Navy, served honorably in Vietnam, father, Keith.

And, I'm especially proud of my Marine, served in Iraq, son, Brian.

I stand when the National Athem is sung -- even when I'm home and it's before a NASCAR race or a televised football game. (And, I've been known to be so moved, that I cry.) I proudly salute the flag of our great nation, even when I'm mad at my government. I thank Vets that I meet on the street. I donate to Veteran's organizations. I know that I owe them a great debt that can never be repaid.

So, while you're out today, take the time to thank a Vet. They're the reason you can say what you say. They're the reason you can go to church on Sunday without fear of reprocussions. They're the reason that you can read my blog -- whether you agree with it or not.

May God keep our serving men and women close to his heart. And, may He keep those who have served even closer.

God Bless.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Hot Properties

Okay, I'm not a prude, but come on. In the last episode, the ladies of the show all went to a nightclub. Well, one of the characters, Chole, picks up some guy at the club. She sleeps with him and finds out he's a male prostitute.

So, is it just me, or is that a sleazy thing to do?

I mean, I'm not a prude and I have nothing against prostitutes in general, but why is this okay for a TV show? Just meet a guy and jump into bed with him? No wonder all those groups are calling for better television and censorship!

But, that brings me to another topic, why is it that good, clean shows, such as "Joan of Arcadia" get cancelled for low ratings? Why do we all complain that Hollywood doesn't understand us and doesn't give us what we want and then when we get a good family show, we don't watch it?

What do you think? Let me know!

God Bless.

Hello, Virginia!!!

So, every month, I check out the stats regarding my site. How many hits did I get? What time of day, etc. Well, one of the stats that I check is from what state are my visitors?

Since I'm a good old Wisconsin Babe, I figured that the majority of my visitors would be from the great state of Wisconsin -- nope. They're from Virginia. Each month since I started this site back in April Virginia hits the top for hits, views and visits.

Over 6,000 of my hits came from Virginia. In fact, in the top ten of my visiting states, four of them are red staters. Well, shut my mouth and pass me the pie. Welcome, Red Staters!
Well, I guess this must mean that I have a broad appeal and I'm not just discussing issues that are related to Wisconsin.
I am always curious, however; how I can have such high stats for hits and such low numbers for commments, but I guess people from Virginia must just not have too much to say!

Oh and what's up with people from Washington State? On November 1, ya all were crawling all over my site. I only posted a couple of links to other blogs and information about how difficult it is to get a credit report out of Primerica. Oh, and speaking of Primerica, the loan guy won't leave us alone. It seems like he's calling every other day. He's offering to make things "right", but, really, once a company has lied to me, I'm really not interested in doing any business with them.

So, we're probably going to go with Ameriquest. Now, a co-worker said that he heard bad things about Ameriquest. I said, like what. And, he said, that they get pretty nasty when you miss a payment. Well, I don't know about that. I do know that they have not lied to us and, frankly, we don't miss house payments, so it doesn't really matter.

God Bless.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Concealed Carry Revisited

I’ve been thinking about Concealed Carry. If you remember, Owen from Boots & Sabers wrote a rebuttal to the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence press release. Then, I wrote a rebuttal to his rebuttal. Well, since then, I’ve been doing some more thinking about the subject.

First, I should mention that I am NOT against Concealed Carry. I believe that some citizens have legitimate needs to carry a concealed weapon. That is to say, I don’t believe that every Tom, Dick and Harry should be allowed to pack heat. I believe their needs to be very stringent restrictions. The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Well, we have a well regulated militia and, further, it doesn’t state that we can’t regulate just who those people are. Plus, I don’t believe bear arms translates into concealed carry. In the great state of Wisconsin, you are allowed to strap a gun to your hip and walk in public. Some municipalities will arrest you for disorderly conduct, just so you are forewarned.

Second, I do not like the bill as it is written. I have quite a few beefs, but I’ll only list my top four here:

  • There is a $25.00 fine for failure to give a peace officer your permit when requested and the same fine amount for failing to carry said permit.

  • I believe if you don’t hand over your permit to a police officer, you should have your permit revoked. Period. No appeal, no getting it back. If you are responsible enough to carry a loaded weapon in the public streets of this state, then you should be responsible enough to identify yourself to a police officer when asked. Period. End of story.

  • No permit while carrying needs to be a much higher fine than just $25.00. You won’t even notice the fine at that small amount. The fine should be at least $100.00. We’re talking about someone who is carrying a loaded weapon, for Pete’s sake! We have a much higher fine for someone who sells cigarettes to minors!

  • The permit cost of $75.00 is not high enough to cover the added cost of the new duties the Department of Justice will have to perform to ensure the proper compliancy with the new law. Plus, has anyone done a study to determine how much money will be spent at the DOJ to cover the coverage of permit carriers? Permit carriers should have to pay at least $150.00 in order to be allowed to carry a loaded handgun in public. The renewal could be less money.

  • Police Officers need to be given access to who has a Concealed Carry Permit. This is not an invasion of privacy. Officers can research and discover any license you might have, why should a Concealed Carry Permit holder be given any special treatment?

  • Concealed Carry Permit holders from other states are allowed to have the permit, with no background check, in our great state. Are they kidding? I’ve all ready pointed out how two states don’t even have permits – Alaska and Vermont. I barely trust our DOJ to run a proper background check, I’m going to trust a background check run in another state? No, we must perform checks on those who want the permit in our state. The only exceptions would be out of state police officers and military personnel.
Finally, I’d like to mention a fallacy that is found on many pro-conceal carry sites and blogs. The idea is that if a criminal doesn’t know just who is carrying a weapon, they won’t commit the crime. Well, I did some research and discovered that that statement is just not true. There are more, not less, murders committed in Concealed Carry states than in the five non-Concealed Carry states per 100,000 people. Further, there are more, not less, of the major crimes, such as Rape, Aggravated Assault and Robbery; in Concealed Carry States than in non-Concealed Carry states.
I’m not saying that I believe that Concealed Carry is responsible for the higher crime rates, I’m merely pointing out that being a Concealed Carry State does not mean less crime. It means that Concealed Carry is not preventing crime, despite what the pundits will try to lead you to believe.

I urge all my Wisconsin readers to take the time to actually read either the Senate’s version or the Assembly’s version of the Concealed Carry bill. Then, use your own thought process to decide if you are for it or against it. I urge you, once you’ve made your decision, to write your representative or your state senator or both and let them know exactly how you feel.

God Bless.

Imaginary Friends

I love reading web comics. I think they are probably the best part of the Internet. Anyway, I have some favorites and I thought that I would pass on yet another one:

This one updates on Monday, Wednesday and Fridays. It's about a young widower raising his two little boys. I don't know anything about the person who draws and writes the comic, but this guy sure does know kids!

Make sure that you start at the very beginning and read forward.

Good stuff there.

God Bless.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Hey Harry!

I found this cute webcomic and since the cartoonist, Thomas Ebert, allows postings on other websites, I thought I'd post it here for your enjoyment. If you click on it,the Hey Harry website will open in a new window:

Hey Harry's weekly cartoon

Who Hijacked Our Country

So, I'm minding my own business and randomly checking out some blogs and I come across this one "Who Hijacked Our Country."

So, I check out the profile and see that the owner of said blog claims to be being stalked by a person at this blog:

He went on to say that you shouldn't post anything on the blog because your commments will be twisted.

Well, telling me not to post on someone's blog is like telling me not to think of pink elephants! I'm definitely going to check it out and post something, if I feel driven. Might as well tell me not to breath. I have to put in my own two cents.

So, the very first post on this Republican Vet is ranting totally against liberals and making claims that all liberals rant and name call, etc, etc. I decide this man is totally filled with more hate than even I can tolerate, so I skip that blog and start scrolling down to see what else he had written. (BTW, he does have a nicely done webpage.)

Anyway, I scroll down and he's ranting against his own twin brother and his mom, which I just don't understand, because I got the impression that he was a Christian and Christians do not publically rant against their brothers or mothers. I happen to have two brothers both very right wing, one I think isn't too bright because he can't ever answer why he feels the way he does -- I think he's just repeating what my parents and other brother says. My other brother does his research and, while I disagree with his conclusions, I can at least carry on a reasonable conversation with him -- well, most of the time.

My point is that I wouldn't publically proclaim that either of my brothers is a jackass or any other kind of ass. I left the below comment. Don't know if you're interested, but here it is.

"I'm curious on just how you can have Christian beliefs ("It doesn't make us moral, conservative or reaffirm our Christian beliefs.") when referring to gay marriage, but not have any when referring to your own family? (Saying "She's an idiot." in reference to your mother and "Someone told this fat ass that he matters to me, lol." in reference to your brother.) As far as the Bible states on the subject, one of the ten commandments is to honor thy mother and father. And, I realize you have some issues with your brother, but didn't Jesus say "Turn the other cheek?""

Have a nice day and...

God Bless

Monday, November 07, 2005

Google Adsense...

So, I'm sure that I'm probably breaking some Adsense rule by mentioning them on my site, but today -- I just don't care. I'm a little upset.
I've have Google Adsense on my webpage for a few months. It's not like I'm making big bucks. I think right now I've earned a grand total of $2.74. I'm not even upset about that, as you have to have so much traffic click one of their links to make even start making money. What I'm upset about is the fact that for three days or more, I haven't had a real ad. Just the public service ones, which kind of upsets me. I run more than one blog and the other blogs didn't lose their ads, so why would my main blog?
It's a mystery to me.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

WISCONSON -- AB 763 and SB 403

Concealed Carry Law in Wisconsin...

Are you as sick and tired of this law wasting our law makers' precious time as I am? Governor Doyle has all ready vetoed it and he'll veto it again.

The blog written by Owen on Boots & Sabers implies that only leftist people want this bill to not pass. This is not true. According to a recent survey conducted in Racine, 57% of Racine citizens do not support a concealed carry law.

One of the reasons that I even bring it up is because of this post from the Boots & Sabers blog. (Please click the link to read their blog. It will open in a new window.) Owen read the press release from The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence regarding this law and determined that 1) The Coalition does not know about which it is talking and 2) it is a leftist organization.

I didn't realize that only people on the left side of the aisle cared to prevent Domestic Violence and that people on the right side of the aisle didn't.

Anyway, I am continuing this blog on the assumption that you have read both the .pdf from The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence AND the Boots & Sabers reply.

Here's how I'm going to do this. What Owen wrote will be in Red and what The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence released will be in Blue (from where did I get that color scheme). Anyway, my responses will be in purple, because, well, that's my favorite color and it's my blog.

The Wisconsin Coalition wrote that:

as a largely unfunded mandate, it will raise taxes on Wisconsin residents

Owen wrote:

it is supported by fees and will not impact the tax burden.

I thought that Owen and I might agree on this, but I re-read the bill and it seems like the Department of Justice will have to do a lot of work to ensure that EVERYONE who has a Concealed Carry Permit or applies for one follows all of the guidelines. Just how will they
"revoke a license to carry a concealed weapon if the licensee no longer meets all of the requirements for licensure?"

The Wisconsin Coalition wrote:
unknown permit holders from other states will be allowed to carry concealed weapons here without any background check

Owen responded with:
Permit holders from other states would have had a background check in their own state.

Yeah, but that's not good enough for me. Some states have very laxed requirements for background checks. I don't agree that we should allow someone from Indiana enter our great state with a concealed weapon without a background check being performed here. I'd like to point out that of the 45 states that allow Concealed Carry Permits, 2 of them (Vermont and Alaska) do not require a permit. Vermont only processes a background check at the state level. Alaska processes a background check at the Federal level. Both states do not have either a requirement for a permit, nor do they require a waiting period.

The Wisconsin Coalition wrote:
the law enforcement officers will be placed at higher risk as the names of permit holders will remain private and confidential.

Owen responded with:
This presumes that permit holders would pose a greater threat to police officers than non-permit holders. Evidence from other states shows that concealed carry permit holders are statistically much less likely to commit any crime – much less a violent crime.

Owen, how do you know they won't? We're assuming that somehow people who wish to carry concealed weapons are more lawabiding than those who do not. Also, last I heard (and I'll look for the article), Wisconsin Law Enforcement was AGAINST the concealed carry. Maybe, they don't feel safe.

The Wisconsin Coalition wrote:
Law enforcement will not know who is lawfully carrying a weapon and who is not.

Owen responded with:
Permit holders are required to present their permit whenever they come in contact with a law enforcement officer. Although the officer would not know if a person was legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon without first identifying the person, neither would the officer know if anyone else is carrying a weapon legally or not. Possessing a permit does not pose any threat to either the public or the police.

Owen, please take the time to read the bill again. There isn't a provision for permit carriers to identify themselves to law enforcement officers. It is only "upon the request of a law enforcement officer". So, if the officer doesn't ask, they won't know. I would assume that most officers will not automatically remember to ask someone stopped for a speeding violation. Plus, it is almost a joke if the permit carry fails to display their license. It's a forfeiture of $25.00.

The Wisconsin Coalition wrote:

The notion that more guns will lead to increased safety is not only ludicrous, but also flies in the face of any credible research evaluating access to firearms, increased injury and safety.

Owen replied:
No it doesn’t. This group is referring to studies done in the controlled environment of a clinical setting. But the real world tells us that firearm ownership rates and crime rates are only marginally related. For instance, almost everyone in Alaska and Switzerland owns a weapon, but the crime rates are well below that of New Jersey or Britain. Culture has a far greater effect on these things than firearm ownership rates.

So, I did some checking. I wanted to know if there are less murders in states that allow Concealed Carry over those that do not. Since it is easy to identify the five states that do not allow Concealed Carry, I merely went through the population statistics and matched them up with states with a pretty close population. Example, I matched Illinois (population 12,419,293) with Pennsylvania (population 12,281,054). I realize that this isn't a perfect system, but it works.

The results that I received are as follows:

In the five states that do not allow Concealed Carry, there were a total of 24.1 murders per 100,000 people. In states that do allow Concealed Carry, there were a total of 27.4 murders per 100,000 people.

So, what does this tell us? Owen is partially correct. Whether or not your state allows Concealed Carry, you still have about the same chance of being murdered.

My conclusion would be that Concealed Carry does not necessarily make a state safer. If I had more time to research this, I could compare stats for other crimes, such as rape and and aggravated assault.

Now, before you comment that I must have jiggled with the figures, feel free to look them up yourselves. (Link opens in a new window.) Also, I'm uploading the spreadsheet I used to gather my totals. One more item on this, I looked up what states allowed Concealed Carry and compared their population. I didn't go out of my way to lean the results to one side. If I had wanted to do that, I would've chosen Missouri over Arkansas. They had 9 murders per 100,000 -- which is even higher than both Texas and California and both of those states have more than triple the population of Missouri!

Now, I wish I had more time to answer all of the points Owen brought up in his blog, but I don't. Please take the time to read both documents yourself and then contact your representative and tell them how you want them to vote.


This has all ready passed the House. It should pass the Senate. Please, if you care about companion animals, contact your local State Senator. I've sent an email to State Senator Cathy Stepp. I'll post the response that I get when I get it!

Wisconsin: AB 218 To Prevent Lay People from Castrating Dogs and Cats Passes the House
Bill Number
AB 218
Primary Sponsor
Rep J.A. Hines
ASPCA Position
Action Needed
Please click here to send a letter to your state senator asking him/herto support AB 218.
AB 218, sponsored by Rep. J.A. Hines, would prohibit lay people from castrating dogs and cats. Currently the state of Wisconsin does not require a person have a veterinary license to castrate a dog or cat. Dogs and cats are companion animals and lay people should not be performing major surgery on them. Please click here to send a letter to your state senator asking him/her to support AB 218.

Nick Anderson Comic

I signed up to receive comics in my email. I like to start the day with a good laugh.

Anyway, Nick Anderson drew an editorial comic showing a storm cloud in the shape of a question mark with the words 'Questions about run-up to war' chasing President Bush, who is riding a bicycle away from the cloud and looking"scared".

I think Mr. Anderson missed the mark.

President Bush isn't scared of questions regarding the Iraq War. He isn't afraid to face them. He may not answer them -- He may choose to ignore them, but he isn't scared of them.

President Bush does not feel that he was wrong about invading Iraq. He believes that 2,000 dead Americans is worth the democracy we have begun over there. If allowed to run free, President Bush would probably invade Iran and begin a democracy there, too.

Dubya, as he is disrespectfully called, truly and honestly believes that God told him to start the war in Iraq. He even said as much in response to Pat Robertson (who believes God told him that the war should not be started). President Bush honestly and to the core believes that he is on the side of justice and righteousness.

So, while I enjoy your editorial comics, Mr. Anderson, in this case, you missed the mark by a long shot.

God Bless.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Supreme Court

I honestly do not know much about Judge Samuel Alito. That's why in the last couple of days, I haven't said anything about it.

If what I have been reading is true and Judge Alito is an extreme right-wing judge, then I think my off the cuff prediction came true. I said in my blog on Harriet Miers on 10/27: "Does this mean Bush will now go with someone who is extremely right wing?" and it looks like the answer is yes, he will.

Does this mean that Roe v. Wade will be overturned?

If I am to believe the emails I'm receiving from pro-choice groups -- yes it will.

But, shouldn't we care about more than abortion and gay rights? Aren't there other pressing issues the Supreme Court will make decisions on?

I read some opinion pages that some people are upset that Bush did not pick a moderate to replace O'Connor. But, who would really expect George W. Bush to pick a moderate? Are you kidding? He's not a moderate Republican. I wouldn't expect him to pick a nominee who is. George W. is a hardline right-wing Republican. I wouldn't expect anything less for his nominee. Plus, Miers was probably as close to moderate as we were going to get. I think it was a mistake on the part of the left-wing to protest her so hard. It was not a mistake on the part of the right-wing because now they have someone even more right-wing.

I agree with the editorial in the Des Moines Register from yesterday:

It is unfortunate that the modern Supreme Court confirmation process has become a battleground over just a few hot-button issues that drive special-interest groups on both ends of the political spectrum...

There is more to constitutional law than modern court politics would suggest. Indeed, it is impossible to say today what issues a Supreme Court Justice Alito will confront amid rapid scientific change in a global economy. As the Senate approaches the job of giving its advice and consent to the president's nominee, Alito should be judged on the sort of justice he would be for all Americans on the complete spectrum of constitutional principles, not those few pressed by the noisy extremists.

I couldn't say it better myself.

God Bless.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005



Oooh! another good one.

Faceless Bureaucrat

Faceless Bureaucrat

Here's a blog you should check out.

Primerica II

So, last night, I mentioned our difficulties with PRIMERICA and our debt consolidation. Well, I just wanted to fill you in on the latest happenings. First, last night, I contacted AMERIQUEST and spoke with two gentlemen there -- Andy and Jason. Both men confirmed that it is not illegal for Primerica to give us our credit reports. In fact, Jason assured me that, even though it is not routine to give out credit reports for second mortgages, he would give it to us, if we went with Ameriquest. So, I gave Jason our information and he will be calling me back at 1PM today. I'll fill you in on whether or not it is a better deal. Second, Cheryl went through our paperwork this AM from Primerica. They even say in there that they will provide us with our credit report. I know that it might seem a little silly to not take a loan merely because of one issue, but if they are willing to lie and tell us that something they choose not to do is illegal, what else are they hiding? As I say, don't blow smoke up my skirt and tell me it is foggy! Finally, one point. We've signed up for a SmartLoan with Primerica. Their representatives informed us that they were the only ones who offered this particular loan. Another fallacy. According to Jason at Ameriquest, there are other companies who offer the same type of loan, even though they are rare and difficult to find. Here's how the loan works -- in brief -- It should be noted that I am not a mortgage person and I do not have professional knowledge of how this works. To continue... You take our a loan and make arrangements to pay bi-weekly. So, say you take out a $10,000 loan for 10 years at 10% interest. Your payment would be 132.15 per month and you would pay off the loan in 10 years. If you made the payments bi-weekly, your payments would still be 132.15 per month, but you would pay off the loan sooner -- roughly in five years. I don't have a table with which I can demostrate, but I'll post one when I get one for you to see. Remember, I am not in a position to offer advice in this field, so you would want to double-check anything I have said. God Bless.

The Hideous Chicken

The Hideous Chicken

Just what the world needs, another conservative, can't check the facts writing a blog!

If you want to view why I can't align myself with conservatives, read this blog.