Friday, November 22, 2013

Another Reason Why You're Racist

You gotta love the Daily Kos, where all the liberal fruitcakes find a welcome environment. Recently they ran a post entitled "You might be a racist if....." and compiled a list of indicators that proves people dislike non-whites. The sad thing is, they're serious. As a heart attack.

Some examples from the post--my own parenthetic snark has been added for comedic relief:

You are oblivious to "white privilege". (Because all whites are born rich and get everything handed to them. I'm proof.)

You have to build your own compound in North Idaho because the rest of North Idaho is not "White" enough for you. (A true racist would live in South Idaho.)

You still insist president Obama is from Kenya. (This has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It says so on the Internet.)

You still refer to Mexicans as beaners. (I prefer wetbacks, actually.)

You think racism is a thing of the past OR that any brown person who objects to your lovely unkind generalization about brown people is themselves racist against white people -- because unfortunately you are not sure what racism is. (Wow. That's a lot of words in one sentence. You must have gone to college.)

You indicate "some of my best friends are . . ." (Retarded? Indian? Republican? This means nothing.)

You continually say, "I hate rap and hip hop. It's not music." (Oh, so if dislike something mainly performed by black people, that means I hate black people? This argument makes no sense.)

And now let's add one more item to the list. If you enjoy peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, you might be a racist.

Some wetback school principal in Oregon--ooops, I'm sorry, a Mexican-American school principal in Oregon--came up with this one.

I'll tell ya....I cannot put into my own words what Verenice Gutierrez, the principal at Harvey Scott K-8 School, says, so I'm just going to quote a chunk of the article. To wit:

"Verenice Gutierrez picks up on the subtle language of racism every day.

Take the peanut butter sandwich, a seemingly innocent example a teacher used in a lesson last school year. 'What about Somali or Hispanic students, who might not eat sandwiches?' says Gutierrez, principal at Harvey Scott K-8 School, a diverse school of 500 students in Northeast Portland’s Cully neighborhood. 'Another way would be to say: "Americans eat peanut butter and jelly, do you have anything like that?" Let them tell you. Maybe they eat torta. Or pita.'

Guitierrez, along with all of Portland Public Schools’ principals, will start the new school year off this week by drilling in on the language of 'Courageous Conversations,' the district-wide equity training being implemented in every building in phases during the past few years. Through intensive staff trainings, frequent staff meetings, classroom observations and other initiatives, the premise is that if educators can understand their own “white privilege,” then they can change their teaching practices to boost minority students’ performance."

In other words, what you eat, whether you realize it or not, makes you a racist, and makes children cry.

(Also, in a continuing example of our crumbling education system, teachers have to learn how they themselves are awful for being white in order to properly teach the non-white. The future is in good hands!)

Now you know, you racist, peanut-butter eating cracker. Shame on you for being alive. I bet you use white bread, too. Typical. You should only use wheat bread to prove your racial sensitivity; either that or use torta. Or pita.

I'm not sure how much racism still exists in our country. The left keeps racism alive by telling us how racist we are depending on how we think or act, and there's something wrong with that. Is it part of a thought-control effort, do they hate America, or are they just trying to get stuff?

So remember this list as you prepare for your day, and for God's sake pack your peanut butter and jelly sandwich in a racially non-specific carrying container. Do not use a brown paper bag.

Friday, November 15, 2013

Richard Nixon, Jack Benny, and Barrack Obama Walk into a Bar

It's hard not to chuckle when Greg Gutfeld and his Fox News Red Eye team flash "Obama-geddon-care-o-gate" on the TV when the president's health law comes up for discussion. I'm frankly surprised that the right wing hasn't officially added the suffix "Gate" to Obamacare by now, considering the lies upon lies, the incompetence, and the overall disaster of the ACA.

I've been a student of the original "gate" scandal, Water, for some time. The reveal of Deep Throat was a Watergate fan's Superbowl--finally, we knew the whole story. I'm also a collector of old time radio shows from the Golden Age of broadcasting, and many of my recordings were taken from broadcast replays in the 1970s. So what does Obamacare, Richard Nixon, and old time radio have in common?

I was listening to an episode of the Jack Benny show the other night, and often with those '70s replays, whoever recorded the show let the tape run longer than the actual problem, and the station went into a top-of-the-hour news update after the show ended. The reporter read a set of headlines, mostly concerning Watergate, which was exploding. Among the breaking news, the reporter quoted experts who said the fate of the country hinged on the outcome of the scandal. We had never faced anything like it. Did the Constitution properly detail how such a situation should be handled, or would we have to create new rules to deal with the aftermath? Would Nixon resign or be impeached? You could cut the uncertainty and fear with a knife. Thirty years later, listening to this in my bedroom, it added a dimension to the Nixon scandal that shouldn't have surprised me, but it did. I can tell you the facts of the Watergate scandal and how it ended, but I could never fill the in-between real-time gaps where the country, at the height of the scandal, had no idea what would happen, or how we would carry on.

As I watch the continuing developments of Obamacare and the seemingly dismantling of the U.S.A.; listen to the nail-chewing worry of the right wing; the pessimism of my friends; my own thoughts about how we're finished; I find myself listening again and again to that news broadcast. The fear is the same.

I can't see thirty years in the future, but I know one thing: we've survived The Worst before. Like Gerald Ford said, the system works. There are other non-political elements that suggest, to me, it's a harder battle this time (that's another column) but the system indeed worked, and, in an ironic twist, Nixon lived long enough to become a respected elder statesman, and the nation mourned his passing as if Watergate had never happened (which shocked liberals from one end of the country to another). Back in 1992 my high school Republican buddies and I had a joke: "He's tanned, rested, and ready--Nixon in '92!" We were criticized by one of our older teachers of making light of a horrible period in this nation's history, and I can only imagine that thirty years from now I might say the same thing to a kid who makes an Obama joke, and he's going to wonder why I'm making such a fuss.

Some of you are going to say that I don't get it. This is the Last Stand. If we fail here, we're history. I'm not saying you're wrong, and I don't mean we should stop fighting because "it's all going to work out" or some "hopeful" garbage like that. What I mean is we need to consider history in how we approach the battle, and we need the confidence of history as we press our counterattack. Chicken Little need not be a part of the team. We have enough trouble with John Boner (ooops, I mean Boehner), John McCain, Karl Rove, and the rest of the GOP Establishment who have no interest in fighting, and are actually working against us. We may be surrounded, but at least we know where the enemy is. That narrows things down a bit.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

The Day Vladimir Putin Pulled a Wyatt Earp

I don't know whether to laugh or marvel at the alleged ingenuity. I really don't think Obama and Kerry are that smart.

London, Monday, September 9th, 2013. Secretary of State John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, made an off-hand remark during a press conference that Syria could avoid a U.S. missile strike if they turned over their chemical weapons--"....every single the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that.” Kerry added: “But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously."

Well, before you can tell somebody that they can't do something, you are more than likely interrupted by the guy who just did it.

Russian President Vladimir Putin jumped in, saying that the Russians would be happy to collect Syria's chemical weapons, more than likely because they sold them to Syria in the first place, but that's another story. The hand-over will only work if the U.S. called off military action, he said, and the diplomats have been buzzing ever since.

There are two interpretations that, as of this writing, are making the rounds.

The first says that Kerry spoke off the cuff, and the unplanned remarks have thrown a monkey wrench into the enforcement of the "red line" thing that Obama says he never said. One article I read referred to a Congressional staffer calling this an "unmitigated clusterf***". One pictures Obama standing in front of the mirror trying various chest-puffing poses before going on TV to tell the American people that the very threat of a strike scared Assad so much that he actually wiped with his right hand before grabbing at the thread of hope offered by John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, and knows a thing or two about kicking ass.

The other interpretation says that Obama, knowing the American public is against this, and that he'll likely lose the Congressional "mother may I" vote, spoke with Putin at the G20 summit about this idea, and they agreed that John Kerry would float the boat at the London presser to see if Assad took the bait. The diplomats have been working out the details ever since, and this is how Obama solves problems: without firing a shot, unlike that idiot George W. Bush, who invaded two countries and still couldn't catch Osama bin Laden. Obama will go on TV to tell Americans that he was going to bomb, but now he won't, and isn't he the best president ever?

Like Alice in her Wonderland, I'm not sure what to believe. I know what I want to believe, that Vietnam-vet John Kerry screwed up. But I also know a thing or two about back-room politics. Study the history of the Reagan presidency and you'll find many examples of similar fake-outs and changes in direction. Congressional resistance and public opinion told Obama that he couldn't win. Nobody cares about his red line or dead Arabs. I'm sure the unknown consequences of a bombing--the promised Syrian and Iranian retaliation, the Russians pledging to support Syria--reminded him, as it reminded me, of how World War I started. The first black president didn't want to go down in history--if recorded history were to survive--as the man who began World War III because he drew a red line that he says he didn't draw.

And Vladimir Putin, riding into town like Wyatt Earp--"Hand over your guns and throw up your hands!"--is the one who really saved the day. Without his promise to take charge of the Syrian chemical weapons, John Kerry would still be sitting in London telling us how this wouldn't be possible.

BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

More Questions About Syria

I have a feeling Syria is going to dominate our discussions for the next several weeks, perhaps even months, as the government tries to decide what to do. Personally, I think Congress will vote to allow missile strikes. What that will lead to is anybody's guess, either an escalation that will involve ground troops, or, hopefully, nothing at all. But as we approach another 9/11 anniversary, I am concerned with what I read about who is funding and/or supporting the rebels.

When conservative pundits started throwing around statements that al-Qeada was behind the rebel groups, I, at first, shook it off as more right-wing paranoia. When they kept saying it, I decided it was time for a little research, because it is a troubling thought to think that we may be supporting the enemy.

Here is a Business Week article which mentions the terrorist connection in the first couple of paragraphs.

Here is a report from Breitbart.Com that mentions the same thing.

The proof is out there. We indeed may be assisting al-Qeada by bombing Syria. Why is this not being talked about more? Am I not watching the right news outlets, or is the media, in its unwavering support for Obama, ignoring these apparent facts?

We won't get any help from elected Republicans, apparently.

That blithering, good-for-nothing, geriatric gasbag John McCain, who served in Vietnam, is too busy playing video poker during the Syria hearings to bother mentioning the connection, yet he says we need to support military action. John Boner--I mean, Boehner--is for a bombing. Surprisingly, he didn't burst into tears while saying so.

So we can't count on Republicans to ask the questions; we can't count on the media, either; what are we to do?

Proponents say we need to smack down Assad because he's done something terrible; personally, I think we need to assist him in this fight. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? If al-Qeada is trying to establish a home base in Syria, with its own government, we need to stop that. They failed to establish a base in Egypt, from all accounts; we kicked them out of Iraq and Afghanistan (though Iraq is still to-be-decided), why not do whatever we can to keep them on the run? We're blowing up their leaders every chance we get; why change the strategy now?

Proponents add that if Assad uses chemical weapons in his own country, he may fire them at Israel. True enough, but, at this moment, that is mere supposition. Iran may fire nukes into Israel, too, but nobody seems upset about that idea.

Assisting Middle East leaders against a common enemy is nothing new. We helped Saddam Hussein fight Iran when it was in our interest, and later used the intelligence gained in that assistance to wipe him off the face of the earth when the time came. We aided the Afghans against the Soviets, and later bombed the daylights out of them when they let bin Laden and his gang stay rent-free.

Assad is no hero. He certainly deserves a smack, but it has to be done right. If this situation weren't so cloudy, I'd probably be writing a different column and supporting John Boner--I mean, Boehner, darn it--and John McCain in their support of Obama, God help me.

Whatever happens, it won't be pretty. If Congress blocks the play, Obama will shoot off some missiles, anyway. Because he has to. He's already gone struttin', drawing his red line, even though he claims there isn't a red line. We can't win here.

BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.

Monday, September 2, 2013

Republicans Want to Kill Kitty Cats

Why is it that the Republican party cannot, for some reason, let loose a candidate who doesn't make himself look like a horses's ass whenever he opens his mouth? Here's what happened:

In New York City last Thursday, a pair of kittens wandered onto subway tracks. Enjoy the cute photo. The transit authority stopped train service for about half an hour while officers rescued the kittens. Some New Yorkers, showing how the city seems to be populated by one funny-talking sourpuss after another, got upset over the delay, mostly because they missed Jeopardy! The consensus among the angry was that the kitties should have been left to die. Nice going, New York. This is why terrorists blow you up.

The most offending part of this story, however, concerns comments made by Republican mayoral candidate Joe Lhota. When asked if he would have stopped the trains to save the kitties, this Tony Soprano wannabe said, "We don't stop trains fer kittens, fuhgeddaboutit!" Then, realizing he had made an ass of himself, added that such a decision wouldn't be made by the mayor anyway, but it was too little too late. His comment ranks as one of the most asinine quotes ever uttered by a Republican, probably worse than Todd Akin's rape remarks. Is this the best the GOP can do? Does the party expect to win elections with these nimrods? Fuhbeddaboutit! The Democrats just won New York City.

On a side note, we can't help but notice that one of the kittens is black, but President Obama has yet to weigh on on the matter. Perhaps, if Obama had cats, the black cat might be his.

The rescued kittens were taken to a shelter where hopefully they will be adopted by somebody who is not a jerk, but since New York City has a population of almost nine million people, it's going to be a long wait.

One wonders what the reaction would have been had puppies wandered onto the subway tracks, but it's also moot point. As Joe Lhota might say, "Neva happen!" Dogs are smarter than cats. They know better.

BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Adventures in Syria

If there is any indication that Obama's lack of leadership has hurt the US, it is the current situation with Syria. 

He is unable to build a coalition the way Bush did. He may have had British PM David Cameron convinced action needs to be taken in the wake of Assad's chemical attacks against his enemies (ie, his own people), but Parliament told him no. This is the first time in a long time where a PM has been told no by Parliament regarding usage of the military. You can chalk this up to two reasons:

One: Bush and Iraq. Apparently the Brits are still upset that Bush fabricated intelligence from MI6 to justify action in Iraq. (Fool me once, shame on me; fool me're not going to fool me again.)

Two: The Brits know Obama won't do anything except shake his fist before he says, "Oh, never mind," and returns to the golf course.

It's likely a combination of both, but with more emphasis on the second. Do they really think Obama means what he says, or can pull it off? Probably not, so why waste the time and money?

In the wake of the British vote, the haughty John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, made a speech where he praised France, our "oldest ally", for (verbally) supporting military action. Yeah, France helped us beat Britain 237 years ago, and have been surrendering ever since, but I suppose the "oldest" title still applies. I'm sure the British are stunned by the remark, and they may have even stopped laughing by the time you read this.

So, instead, Obama, as he searches the golf course for a solution, is tossing around the idea that the U.S. will go it alone on this one. 'Merica, heck yeah! Get 'er done!

Obviously this "no confidence" vote does not sit well with the administration, nor does it make us look good. There was a time, not so long ago, when this wouldn't have happened.

There is a third reason, I suppose, and it's certainly an unspoken one. 

Is it really a crisis when Arabs kill Arabs? Are we really worse off because there are now less Arabs in the world? The CIA says just over 1400 people were killed in the chemical attack. That means there are 1400 less Arabs to fly planes into buildings. The media and the politicos are trying to make a case that we need to do something, but I'm not sure the public cares. Maybe we're all still upset about Iraq.

It's a disaster all around. But Obama drew a red line, said, "Don't y'all cross this, I mean it," and now he has to follow through.

Ultimately the president is going to launch a missile off the deck of a ship, hit a camel in the butt, and declare victory. He'll go on a national speaking tour and tell us how he, alone, gave Syria the what-for just like when he killed bin Laden and the rest of the world better remember not to mess with the U.S. See how that rhymed?

BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor.

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Oprah Explains it All

Who are we, the little people, to argue with somebody as smart as Oprah Winfrey?

During an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN on which she promoted her new film The Butler, Oprah uttered the quote to end all quotes: "A lot of people think if they think they’re not using the n-word themselves.....and do not harbor ill will towards black people that it’s not racist."

In the fairness of context, Oprah was referring to the Trayvon Martin case, and doesn't understand how people can't see that, no matter what angle you approach it from, race was for sure a factor in the original incident and the trial that followed.

Her attitude is pure Barbara Streisand. I'm not going to rehash the whole Zimmerman situation because the truth is out there, but to suggest that, within White America, that there is an underlying current of racism is absolutely misguided. But blacks, almost like some Jews, depend on the "we are victims" storyline in order to get what they want, whatever that may be, though I think, if pressed, they couldn't articulate what they want. They have to rely on the transgressions of the past to construct some kind of future, but because they continue to soak in the past, they cannot form their future.

To suggest even at the slightest that whites are racist just because is wrong, but you can't win with people like Oprah. Back in the '50s we saw Commies under every bed; I suppose Oprah sees racists everywhere she does, and especially in Switzerland. It must be tough living in her head.

What's funny is that, at another point in the interview, Oprah, the smartest woman in America, defeats her own argument. She says her movie shows a lynching in the first scene, but ends with a black man walking into the Oval Office of the first black president.

America has come a long way, and one has to really stretch to argue otherwise. And Oprah also forgets her own journey which led her to the role in the film.

In other words, America is so racist, that we made Oprah a billionaire who talks out of her ass, and made Obama the president who spends all day covering his.

BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.

Monday, August 12, 2013

But it was Free Speech When Bush was the Clown

These articles are hard to write. I do not by that mean I cannot put the words together (oh, please, hold you laughter for at least ten seconds) but there is such an overabundance of topics to write about that it is often tough to determine which one I should pay attention to. If I were writing every day, this would not be a problem, but I can barely manage once a week.

However, today, the Commentary Gods have handed me something on a silver platter.

Perhaps you were fortunate enough to see the video of a rodeo in Missouri where a clown put on an Obama mask and somebody asked the crowd if they wanted to see Obama run over by a bull.

Well, would you? Of course you would, so here is the video. You're welcome. Come back after you've watched it ten times.

Welcome back.

Can you hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the left? This is outrageously offensive, they say, and, as one knucklehead pointed out, "we are better than this." Bollocks, I say, this is political satire in its purest form. It's a live caricature of our Supreme Leader (Bless His Holy Name) and, the last time I checked, we are allowed to lampoon our government. Examples? Any sketch on Saturday Night Live (pre-Obama, of course) and various newspaper cartoons where The Leader is drawn with an exaggerated chin.

The left sure loved lampooning Bush! Portraying him as Hitler was a master stroke; the caricature of Dick Cheney as Darth Vader wasn't as imaginative. I guess we weren't "better than this" when it came to Bush and Cheney. Of course not. Bush likes to pull the wings off flies and Cheney eats newborn babies, everybody knows that.

It's a hoot to watch the left get in a tizzy when their own garbage is thrown back at them.

There is no free speech when it comes to Obama, either because the left starts throwing the racist term or because the IRS and NSA are listening. What we're left is David Letterman attempting intercourse with Obama on the set of his show. (You used to be funny, Dave. I liked it when you'd throw watermelons off the roof of an office building. Wait, was that racist?)

I can't wait until Hilary gets elected so all criticism of her can be called sexist. You know it's coming!

"The Republicans hate Hilary because....she's a woman."

"Would the GOP attack Hilary if she had a penis?"

"It was really inappropriate for John Boehner to make that menopause joke, Wolf. We're better than this."

Oh, the humanity.

BRIAN DRAKE is a broadcaster in California and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, a thriller in the tradition of Vince Flynn and Brad Thor. Follow him on Twitter.

Monday, July 29, 2013

Liberal Woman are the Best!

I need to find a nice liberal girl to marry. That way, when I cheat (because I'm nailin' anything on two feet and in wheel chairs or on crutches!) she'll smile coyly and still stand to the left and slightly behind me like a good wife should.

Heck, it works for Anthony and Huma, right?

I don't understand liberal women. Why they are so willing to stay with philandering husbands goes beyond any social comprehension I have attained in my 37 years. From Jackie to Hilary to Huma and beyond, liberal women keep a stiff upper lip while their husbands screw around.

Can you imagine if Todd cheated on Sarah? I have a feeling Mr. Palin would become the unfortunate victim of a snow machine accident.

In my social circle, if you ask a women what she would do if her husband/boyfriend/miscellaneous were to cheat, you will get a diatribe full of violent descriptions of decapitations, mutilations, and other forms of bloody mayhem. However, based on what we see on TV, and knowing way too many lefties, I have a feeling that the sharpened knives will remain in their drawers and unused for any of the described mutilations. These women, while claiming they will defend their honor, will slink back into their corner because that's, apparently, what women do. For the kids, of course. Because he's going to be better, right?

And I don't understand that.

I guess the difference between Jackie, Hilary, and Huma and the average woman is that they have something to lose. If they string up their husbands (except in Jackie's case.....oh, never mind) they miss out on whatever political fortunes they are compiling. At least that's what the common wisdom is, and perhaps it is correct. Certainly in Hilary's case it is. A woman divorced from the president wouldn't go as far--I think. I suppose. But I'm really not sure. I think the women in these cases are weak and unable to stand up and/or take care of themselves, thus defeating the alleged purpose of modern feminism. In other words, back in the '60s they made a bunch of noise and burned a ton of bras just so they could bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and stand by and smile while their man humiliates them on national television.

You've come a long way, baby!

ABOUT: Brian Drake is a California conservative and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, now available in paperback from

Thursday, July 18, 2013

What if they Called for a Riot and Nobody Came?

Personally I thought George Zimmerman was toast. When I heard that the jury was exclusively made up of women, I thought emotions, not facts, would carry the day. I thought the influence of the media, the Department of Justice, the threat of riots, etc., would doom the man.

Boy was I surprised.

Have you been as fascinated as I have about the aftermath? Why do you think the black community hasn't burned down the entire country over the Zimmerman verdict? Seriously, Oakland, Chicago, Los Angeles and parts of Detroit should be on fire right now.

There have been violent flare ups, certainly. But nothing on a large scale. Nothing organized. even Al Sharpton has to keep up the rallying cry. Nobody is listening.

My grand conspiracy theory is that Obama seriously wanted national rioting. There was no reason for him to deal himself into the matter when he said Trayvon Martin could have been his son. No reason at all. The only reason I can sense is that he wanted to be able to have a say once the chaos began, and impose some sort of martial law allowing Homeland Security to start using their billions and billions of bullets.

It might sound far fetched, but it's the only thing that adds up (to me). The only other answer is that everything is about Obama so of course he had to comment.

There's something about this case that made the left think they had a spark with which to ignite rage in the black community, but it's not working. That's the other mystery. It's ready-made. Why isn't it working?

Is it the economy? Nobody has time to riot because they're too busy looking for work?

Or, maybe, have we finally caught on to the manipulation that the media and the ruling regime like to use against us?

All I know is that, as of now, the DOJ is continuing the witch hunt. They're going to put Zimmerman away even if they have to pass a law against littering to do so. That's justice.

Because, when you think about it, Trayvon Martin was the only son Obama might have had.

ABOUT: Brian Drake is a California conservative and the author of The Rogue Gentleman, now available in paperback from

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

The Difference, or: The 99% is a State of Mind

Candid conversations that reveal the most, you know.

Take Vice President Joe Biden's recent trip to the Bay Area as one example.

President Obama (Bless his Holy Name) and Vice President Joe Biden (crickets) like to visit the San Francisco Bay Area because this hotbed of leftism is a great ATM machine. They fly in, raise some money, and fly out. As somebody who earns part of his living flying in airplanes, we are always restricted to the ground or designated areas when these VIPs arrive for security reasons.

The President made one visit last month; a week later, Biden followed. Joe, being the "aw shucks" regular guy he is (he'll tell you so), performed not only a fundraising speech but also visited "regular guy" places like a local deli. At the deli he mixed with the great unwashed--uh, I mean, regular people. According to the video shown on the local news that evening, one lady went up to Joe and said, "I'm really glad you stick up for the little guy."

Joe replied, "That's OK, I'm a little guy too."

Is somebody in the back raising their hand? You have a question?

I don't mean to be negative but that exchange doesn't sound like it's worth our time, dude. Unless Biden is talking about his penis, what's the point?

I'm glad you asked .... but let's keep it clean, okay? Thanks.

While today's leftist rails about the oppression of the one percent while claiming to be part of the 99%, each statement drips bitterness. While the 99% claim to be fighting the oppression, really what they're admitting is that they are "little guys" who have nobody to stick up for them so they need people like Obama (Bless His Holy Name) and Biden (crickets). But the bitterness comes from their state of mind.

The "little guy" needs somebody to stick up for him because he is powerless. He has no ideas. No initiative. He invents nothing. He waits for somebody else hoping to latch on to another person's success. When he is unable to latch on, and suffers for it, it's the other guy's fault. The other guy has too much money and is mean and nasty because he won't share. Instead of spending time creating a business, creating and selling a piece of art, or something else equally productive that may raise his standing in life, the "little guy" pitches a tent in front of a bank, paints a sign ("Capitalism is Evil!"), and rails against the one percent.

That's the difference between the "99%" and the rest of us. I'm certainly not in an income bracket that qualifies me for a spot with the one percent, but there is no reason for me to allow myself to get dragged to the other side (which is the goal, the classic divide-and-conquer, don't kid yourself). My attitude is strictly One Percent and I don't apologize for it.

Living in the Bay Area is expensive. While my salary covers my lifestyle, it doesn't leave a lot for extras. But instead of complaining, I'm creating. I write books (see the link below!) and perform free-lance voice over work. It helps keep the hounds at bay and the good news is that while profits may be growing slowly, they're growing. In a couple of years I'll be doing quite well indeed.

When you classify yourself as a "little guy" you make it so. You'll never be anything more than that because in your mind you convince yourself that you will never be anything more than that. That's Self-fulfilling Prophecy 101. That's where the bitterness comes from. Deep down, the leftist knows this. But he dares not say so out loud because that would require him to take responsibility, and responsibility to a leftist is like Kryptonite to Superman.

ABOUT: Brian Drake lives in California and is the author of The Rogue Gentleman which will soon be released in paperback (and available now as an ebook).

Friday, June 7, 2013

Want to be a Rebel? Pray.

If you want to be a rebel and stick it to The Man in the 21st Century, pray. If necessary, pray in public.

That’s what a valedictorian in South Carolina did. Liberty High Valedictorian Roy Costner IV took his preapproved speech to the podium (because students can’t be trusted and The Man must make sure they aren’t going to say something off-color), and in front of the crowd, tore it up. Then he recited the Lord’s Prayer.

Now the school in question does not allow that sort of religious expression, specifically because a bunch of atheists complained. Prayer makes atheists cry and wet their pants. The school didn't want to have to clean up the mess.

But in the 21st Century, if one wants to be counter-culture, if one wants to be a rebel, one needs to pray.

How far have we fallen where such activity is now considered rebellion? How far have we fallen where simple expressions of faith are against the rules? Why do we allow cry babies to dictate the behavior of the rest of us? Are people so sensitive that they break out in a rash if somebody expresses religious faith? Come on, people. Let’s grow up. But since we aren’t going to do that, allow me to speak to you in a language you may understand.

I know what you’re thinking. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, bla bla bla, but what you people want is the abolishment of any kind of public expression of faith, and that’s going too far in the other direction. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t allow you to tell the rest of us that we can’t express it. And saying we still have the freedom to do it privately, in our churches, etc., doesn’t count. Most of this country has some kind of religious faith. You people are the minority. That means there aren’t that many of you. I’m sorry to break it to you, but that’s the truth. You bang pots and pans to make a lot of noise so we pay attention to you but you’re few and far between. That means sometimes you need to be quiet and let the other person have his say. You are free to say something in response, should you have the floor, but otherwise you need to sit and be polite and quiet and let the grown-ups do their thing. When the graduation is over, you can piss and moan all the way home about how offended you are that somebody mentioned the name Jesus.

The same goes for the non-Christian religions. I’m sorry you’re upset that we aren’t praying to your sissy fake moon god, but tough it out. When you have the floor, you can pray to your sacred cow or your totem poll or your picture of Lady Gaga. In the meantime, zip your hairy lip. Better yet, wax that thing. You look gross.

You think I'm being intolerant? Honey, you haven't seen intolerant yet.

I will admit that this isn’t my most eloquent piece of writing. It’s downright juvenile, really. But I’m tired of people in this country looking at religion—particularly the Christian religion, which seems to get most of the attention—like it’s a contagious disease. Uh-oh, they might get their Jesus on us! Of course, if you read the Bible, you know full well that they hate us because they not only hated Jesus first, but they hated what Jesus taught. I write that in the past tense because this sort of conflict reaches back through history to the days before the Crucifixion. What Jesus taught demands a response. You believe it or you don’t, there’s no in-between, and people can’t handle not having a gray area to hide in. So they attack, attack, attack. This is not unexpected, because Jesus said it would happen. Those on the other side have drawn their line and while I can respect that, I also expect to be respected. If I am not respected, I will fight back. I will rebel. I will stick it to The Man by going to church. How silly does that sound?

The school in question, in their divine wisdom, says they aren't going to punish Mr. Costner for breaking the rules. I'm sure his knees were knocking at the thought. But if he was anything like me at that age, his last thought before taking the stage was, "The heck with this place, I'm graduating."

Good luck, Roy. Millions of us rebels are with you.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Ladies, Promoting Unhealthy Lifestyles Leads to Death

As Rush might say, This will get me in trouble.

There is a segment of the female population that is promoting the idea that just because they are fat doesn't mean they aren't beautiful. They have websites, books, television programs, and various niches on social media to make the point. They are tired of being picked on and made to feel "less than" because of their size. Part of this I understand.

There should not be a blatant war on people who are overweight. It's just not cool.

But at the same time, this segment of the female population is causing harm. You may be fat. You may also be beautiful. But you will die early because of heart disease, diabetes, kidney problems, and a variety of other medical issues that we have a wide knowledge of these days. You will have a lower quality of life in general because of your weight. Joint problems. Back pain. The inability to fit in an airline seat. You're going to put up with this because you're trying to make a point about body image? Great. We'll put "She was fat but she was beautiful" on your headstone, along with a picture so we can all remember how young you were when you died, and admire your dedication to the cause. You sure showed 'em, girl!

Americans seem to have a hard time putting down the fork. Probably because we have so much food and so much money and plenty of time on our hands that there isn't much else to do. We sure as hell aren't solving problems or helping the less fortunate.

It's not hard to lose weight and eat well. We see time and again how people who have been huge at one point in their life slim down to a healthy size. It's not easy. It does take effort. Effort that I, myself, having been at least 40 pounds overweight my entire adult life, have yet to be able to stick to. Effort is something Americans have a hard time sticking to these days, period. I have seen two friends who have dropped a tremendous amount of weight. They look great, and when I ask what they're doing, they have the same answer. They made a plan, consulted experts, and stuck to the plan. This is the example we--I--should follow.

My weight, according to my doctor, is becoming an issue as I approach 40. Changes need to be made. It seems to me these women would hear that advice and then claim that they have been somehow persecuted. Seriously?

I'm all for a positive image and what it takes to attain that. I'm all for feeling confident about oneself. However, trying to achieve that confidence while taking risks with your health is misguided.

ABOUT: Brian Drake is the author of The Rogue Gentleman. His audio commentaries will soon air on RadioSlot.Com. Follow him on Twitter @BrianDrake75

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

The Czech Republic Leads the Way?

If there is any doubt that America is no longer the innovative country that it once was, we need look no further than the Czech Republic for the latest (and amazing!) idea that certainly should have happened here in the U.S. first. This is the kind of thing Americans used to be good at. And then came President Obama (Bless His Holy Name).

As the Australian reports, "....commuters looking for love will soon be able to try their luck at romance in designated dating cars.....The Prague "Love Train", which will promote a laissez-faire approach rather than strict speed-dating rules, is due to launch at the end of the year."

Of course, in America,we can't have a train just for male/female singles. We have to have a separate trains broken down by racial groups, the LGBTs, and trains for those who have no idea if they are male or female despite what anatomical parts they came with at birth. We need trains for different religions, single parents, and any other social group you can think of, because, in America, we can't have anything as simple as a "singles train." It must--simply must--be made as complicated as possible so that no ethnic, social, or any other kind of demographic group feels left out. In America, when people feel let out, they start crying; when crybabies let the waterworks start, they usually call lawyers, and then the party is over.

We need a special committee to take ten years to decide the size of the train, the shape of the seats, the color scheme; we need background checks and Internet profiles on everybody who steps aboard the train, because you never know when some creep might come aboard and if he or she rapes somebody we gotta have an Internet profile to consult. We need a special license for the train operators--and those operators cannot be married less all the singles on the train get envious and start crying, because singles are fragile that way--and anybody who cleans the trains after the commute must be single, too, for the same reason.

That's how we do it in the United States now. It started long before Obama (Bless His Holy Name), but it's getting worse now.
In the Czech Republic? The spokesman for the company in charge of the project said, according to the newspaper, that "the company [is] now deciding which of a train's five cars would be most suitable, the number of trains to include and what kind of signage to display...The carriage will be marked, and there will be information on the platform and inside the carriage, in foreign languages too."

The Czechs favor the simple approach.

Excuse me while I update my passport.

ABOUT: Brian Drake is the author of The Rogue Gentleman. His audio commentaries will soon air on RadioSlot.Com. Follow him on Twitter @BrianDrake75

Monday, May 13, 2013

Not Being Gay and Other Crimes Against the State

I'm a little late to the party on the Jason Collins story but this one required some brain work. He's the black basketball player who decided to announce that he was gay, shocking his white girlfriend. I bet she was shocked! Her hair turned blonde.

My father sent me this email shortly after the story broke: When a soldier is killed in the line of duty, his family eventually gets a flag and a note conveying sympathy and respect from the United States Government. When a pro basketball player announces he is gay, he immediately gets a personal phone call from the President congratulating him for his courage. Am I missing something?

Yes, Dad. The whole country is missing something.

My father, of course, refers to Obama himself saying he called Mr. Collins. Now we all know that Obama loves him some B-Ball so of course he's going to take the opportunity to talk hoops with a fellow player. Michelle even sent him a Tweet, bless her heart. But there's more going on here than you realize.

The gays are such a subjugated class, if you will, that, yes, their effort to come out to a hostile world merits a call from the president. Such a call, even though it's to a celebrity and the gay down the street from your house does not get a call, encourages those still afraid. The president is on their side! How great is that? This is especially important when you realize that liberals don't value institutions like the military.

The military is a corrupt institution hip-deep in the old way of thinking, that men are men and their job is to protect and defend and pansies need not apply. The skinny weakling that rode with John Wayne was there for comedic relief and those "aw, shucks" moments when he realized he wasn't as smart as the Duke.

Liberals believe that only the weak and feeble and the underdogs are worthy--they're the ones that need help and protection. They are the ones who have been victimized by the old ways. They can't keep up. They can't contribute. So the liberal is there to champion them because it makes them feel good and "it's about time" the oppressed had a fair shake. Liberals can't keep up or contribute either--why it is that so many liberals have never fired a gun on a battlefield? Though examples will occur to you (John Kerry) their attitude toward the effort proves the point. John Kerry never wanted to be in Vietnam to begin with. We learned from the Swift Boat vets that he wasn't any great shakes as a fighter when he was there. But at least he survived to tell the world how wrong we were for being involved.

Liberals contribute by helping the helpless. Their efforts toward minorities and gays are prime examples. The rest of us can drop dead.

It's all part of the on-going effort to destroy the Alpha Male. Alpha Males are strong. We voice opinions. We fight. We don't sit still.

In France before World War II, the "let's all get along and not fight because fighting is bad" attitude enabled the Nazis to swoop in and take over. It was left to the Alpha Males (and Females) to form the French Resistance. And a small group it was. France has never recovered from nor lived down that surrender.

In the United States, the same thing is happening, where the Alpha Male is being replaced by the Beta Male.

Obama (Bless His Holy Name) himself exhibits all the attributes of the Beta Male. Remember when he went on TV and said Michelle "allowed" him to watch ESPN when he was on the treadmill? We all know the wife really runs the house, but a man deserves some autonomy. Making jokes about how the old lady leads you around by the neck is no joke at all.

Of course you can make the joke that Obama has all the time time in the world to call a gay NBA player but no time at all to call the SEALs to help in Benghazi, but we all know the real reason Obama made the phone call.

If he had a son, he would look like Jason Collins.

ABOUT: Brian Drake lives in California and is the author of The Rogue Gentleman which will soon be released in paperback (and available now as an ebook).

Sunday, May 5, 2013

This is What Christians Gets for Not Liking Gay People

Here's one story I can't wait to see play out.

In the name of religious tolerance--if by "religious tolerance" you mean "let's silence those evil Christians"--the Pentagon has issued an odd notice that military personal may face a court martial for speaking about their faith.

According to the Breitbart story, Pentagon personal appointed by President Obama (Bless His Holy Name) have met with the God-hating Michael Weinsten (no jokes, please) about this new policy, which amounts to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for religious people. From the story:

(....Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians--including chaplains--sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)

So a solider, airman, Marine, or sailor can be essentially charged with a federal crime for exercising the free expression of their religion. Because the definition of "proselytizing", according to Weinstein (no jokes!) is so poor, you get a sense from the story that it truly is a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" arrangement.

Of course, one could say we need to make an apples to apples comparison here. Getting kicked out of the military for buggering somebody in the butt isn't the same as being locked up for the Lord, but I disagree.

Nobody said gay soldiers couldn't be gay, they just couldn't talk about it or be open about it, and there were consequences if they were caught. Weinstein isn't saying religious soldiers can't be religious....they just can't talk about it....or be in the open about it....and, according to this article, there are consequences if they are caught. Sounds similar to me.

Can we not assume that a "court martial" of a religious person for speaking of their beliefs is the same as gay soldiers being "dismissed" for their life style? Is it now fair to discriminate against religious people because of the earlier gay discrimination? Which, by the way, was put in place by another liberal?

Apparently, under the current regime it is. I suppose if Christians were nicer to gay people, this wouldn't be a problem. See? It's all God's fault for being intolerant. If only he was as wishy-washy as everybody else.

Liberals have a fear of religion (if by "religion" you mean "Christianity") because it creates an allegiance to something other than the State. And that is bad. Christianity must be destroyed, just like it was in the Soviet Union. You can't have the subjects relying on God when the State is supposed to be god. All of the other religions are milk toast hokey traditions that don't mean much, and liberals know that, so those other outfits get a pass. Notice Weinstein doesn't mention that it's a no-no to to a Buddhist.

If liberals don't like something, it must have power they can't control (guns, anybody?) so to that I say....Praise the Lord....And pass the ammunition.

And, I'm serious, no Weinstein jokes. It's too easy.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Dreaming of the 1980 Hockey Team

Did you watch "The '80s" documentry on the National Geographic channel? What a terrific program. It highlighted the major events and developments of the era and showed how today's technology and culture took root in the decade of leg warmers and shoulder pads. It didn't pull any punches. Some things were good, some things were bad. And some things (the Challenger disaster) should not have happened.

The series opened with a review of The Miracle on Ice, when the US hockey team kicked the teeth out of a bunch of Russian commie punks at the 1980 Olympics.

Leading up to that event was a description of a poor economey, high gas prices, high unemployment, a lot of hard knocks (the aftermath of Vietnam, the Iranian hostage crisis), people feeling down about themselves and the country and looking for something--anything--to make them feel good again. Enter the 1980 Olympic hockey team. And Ronald Reagan with his optimism and enthusiasm about how great America was and could be again.

It's hard not to make a connection between 1980 and 2013.

Poor economy, high gas prices, high unemployment, continuous war, a lot of hard knocks (school shootings, natural disasters, terrorism overseas and at home).

But there are huge differences, too. Overall, people are feeling pretty good. Nobody is missing any meals, most bills are getting paid (except for the one or two people featured on the news but the only reason they're not eating is because they're too proud to go on welfare). There seems to be no shortage of money. Working in downtown San Francisco, I always see full restaurants. The sidewalks are full of people in business attire and the streets are stuffed with cars.

The mall parking lot is always full.

All of this despite the fact that Mr. Obama (Bless His Holy Name) leads with the greatest example of mediocraty since Ulyses S. Grant. People seem to like him and his message of lowered expectations.

I don't see a lot of people struggling. Unless they're struggling with a hangover.

A long time ago, in a decade far, far away, we were down and needed a boost. We got it with the Olympic team. I'm not sure where we are in 2013. We're fat and happy while we keep our fingers in the dyke as the ship sinks. We're happy as long as there are plenty of circuses and football games to watch. Reality TV offers an easy escape from....what? What misery are we hiding from? Why even have a Misery Index anymore?

Considering the times, we're way, way too happy.

America sure has changed. I'm not sure we'll ever see a 1980s America again. Maybe that's a good thing. But I sure like a strong economy. I like optimism. I like a leader who understands we're a great nation that can do great things that is too good for a handout and should be insulted by income redistribution.

Maybe I'm getting too far ahead. Perhaps, like the alcoholilc, we haven't hit rock bottom yet. We're not vomiting in the gutter and getting kicked out of the house because we can't control ourselves. Perhaps a harder fall is coming than the one we took in 2008, and maybe that will bring us back to the conditions we faced as the '80s began. We need it. And then we'll be desperate for a reason to feel good again. We'll need an equivielent of a 1980 Olympic hockey team and a new leader to remind us that we are a great people made for great things and can stand up to great opposition and weren't made for handouts and income redistribution.

Right now it doens't look like we'll get there. But there was also a time, in the 1980s, when it seemed like the party would never end. Maybe in ten years I'll write another article about how we came back.


I sure hope so.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Mr. Paisley, I Am Not An Accidental Racist

Recently country & western star Brad Paisley teamed up with rapper LL Cool J to sing a song about racism called "Accidental Racist" where once again this generation feels the need to fall on the sword of its ancestors and take the blame for slavery and everything bad that ever happened to black people.

Race has always been a touchy subject and it's touchiness that has grown like a cancer since Obama (Bless His Holy Name) was elected. Anybody who disagrees with the president has been labeled a racist, a Jim Crow fanatic, a KKK member, etc., etc. It has become yet another disgusting tactic of the left amongst many disgusting tactics. But first, the song.

Paisley sings:

"To the man that waited on me at the Starbucks down on Main, I hope you understand
When I put on that t-shirt, the only thing I meant to say is I'm a Skynyrd fan
The red flag on my chest somehow is like the elephant in the corner of the south
And I just walked him right in the room
Just a proud rebel son with an 'ol can of worms
Lookin' like I got a lot to learn but from my point of view"

In other words, if you wear a T-shirt that has a Confederate flag on it, you might be a racist. Even if you're not, hence the title. So be careful what you wear and watch every single word you say because somewhere, somehow, a black person will hate you.

Paisley continues:

"'Cause I'm a white man livin' in the southland
Just like you I'm more than what you see
I'm proud of where I'm from but not everything we've done
And it ain't like you and me can re-write history
Our generation didn't start this nation
And we're still paying for the mistakes
That a bunch of folks made long before we came
And caught between southern pride and southern blame."

I appreciate that Mr. Paisley focused on the South, that hotbed of slavery and racism, where the good old boys still run the show and most walk around in wife beater T-shirts sucking on ham hocks while talking like Foghorn Leghorn using the grammatical skills of a goat and ending every sentence with "Freebird!" or "Get Her Done!" I'm not terribly fond of the south, but not because of slavery or the rebellion. Anybody who thinks that words like "I reckon", "we're fixin' to", and "all y'all" is proper English is an illiterate, and I'm not a fan of illiterates. I have never met a Southerner who does not use that combination of alleged words.

Mr. Paisley is typical of white left-wingers who think this country is horrible because of blips in the past where we weren't on our best behavior or living up to our ideals. Jim Crow laws were awful. Segregation, etc., all of it was bad, and an affront to what this country says it stands for. But we reversed course long ago. A lot of men died to reverse that course, but nobody seems to remember that. Any racism that continues in this country is the fault of individuals, and I refuse to join the pity party and say that slavery is my fault. It's not my fault; it's probably not your fault, either. Yet here we are surrounded by people who are looking for absolution from something that they had nothing to do with, and black people who continue to pick at the scabs and tell us their life would be better if our great, great grandparents hadn't owned their great, great, grandparents, so we need to give them a ton of money. (By the way, my great, great, grandparents weren't even in this country during that period, so don't lay your crap on me.) And Obama (Bless His Holy Name) has only made the problem worse (or at least his people have) by race baiting in an effort to silence critics. Why does it work? Because whites are sensitive to the accusation. Because whites feel guilty over something they had nothing to do with.

I think I am most offended with the line "And we're still paying for the mistakes." Like Job, Mr. Paisley wants to spend his life wearing sackcloth and ashes and scratching his wounds with broken pottery hoping that somehow, someway, black people will tell him, "It's OK, bro. Let's hug it out, dawg."

LL Cool J, that rapper from back in the day, sort of makes my point:

"Dear Mr. White Man, I wish you understood
What the world is really like when you're livin' in the hood
Just because my pants are saggin' doesn't mean I'm up to no good
You should try to get to know me, I really wish you would
Now my chains are gold but I'm still misunderstood
I wasn't there when Sherman's March turned the south into firewood
I want you to get paid but be a slave I never could
Feel like a new fangled Django, dodgin' invisible white hoods
So when I see that white cowboy hat, I'm thinkin' it's not all good
I guess we're both guilty of judgin' the cover not the book
I'd love to buy you a beer, conversate and clear the air
But I see that red flag and I think you wish I wasn't here."

In other words, if we would only talk, we could understand each other. I'm all for conversation. Usually when I get a bad first impression of somebody, that impression can be turned around by a short chat, but not always. Sometimes the cover is the book, my friends. But I think LL Cool J really does make my point. The alleged hatred of blacks to whites may be a figment of the white's imagination, but whites are too busy beating their breasts--"Oh, I'm so sorry, Mr. Black Person, why am I so horrible, why, why, why!"--to take that into account.

There's a lot to disagree with in the lyrics. Why do whites think they're under a racial microscope? Why do whites assume that blacks are always looking for offensive things, like unassuming T-shirts? Maybe some are, but I'm not so sure. I think most blacks, like everybody else, are busy thinking about their own lives and activities and not watching for the racist around the corner.

This song has stirred up much conversation, from some who say it shouldn't be brought up to others who applaud what Mr. Paisley has said. I haven't heard anybody say, though, that perhaps Mr. Paisley is trying to take on a load that he was never meant to carry. One cannot ignore past mistakes, but one should also not wallow in them, either. Whites and blacks need to stop wallowing. Our attitudes are different now. The world is different now. In a lot of ways, it's better now. Why can't we focus on the changes that have been made instead of the problem? A lot of Yankee vets died for those changes, and we dishonor their memory and their sacrifice by continuing to feel guilty.

And, seriously, Mr. Cool J? If I see a fellow with his pants halfway down his rear end, I don't necessarily think he's a thug, but I do think he's a lazy bum who can't be bothered to properly dress himself. If you're fixin' to get some respect, I reckon all y'all need to pull up your goddamn pants.

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Save the Planet by Working Less

The words “liberal think tank” may be the biggest contradiction in terms ever recorded (second only to “military intelligence”), but a study from the Center for Economic Policy and Research, one such “think tank” should get your attention.

Basically, a new study released by the center says that we can save the planet if we work less.

Call you boss tomorrow and use that as an excuse for not going into the office.

The study’s author, economist David Rosnick, favors the European model of “work,” which includes fewer hours and more vacation time. Rosnick believes that the planet will be better off because factories will have fewer operating hours, which means said factories will produce less greenhouse gases. People won’t be commuting, so awful carbon monoxide won’t be released into the atmosphere. He thinks the American work schedule of 40-hours a week should be cut by ten hours by the end of 2013. Or something like that. It’s the usual liberal bunk. He’s advocating less productivity, less pay, in exchange for more vacation time. That's how they do it in Europe so it makes sense, right?

I don’t mind working; I do a lot of it. Sitting around the house all day drives me up the wall. Any more than two days off, and I start going stir-crazy. Our standard of living depends on our productivity. If I am making less money by working less hours, extra vacation time doesn't mean anything—I couldn't afford to go anywhere!

Why do liberals hate the idea of work? Perhaps the required responsibility to a job, showing up on time, actually performing assigned tasks, is just too much for their little brains. It’s easier to sit on the couch and watch Judge Judy and suck on bon-bons all day until American Idol comes on.

One can suppose that this lines up with the progressive agenda that as many people as possible should be doing as little as possible (when it comes to work, of course—they can take a bus to a protest every day of the week, no problem). This explains the growing amount of citizens in the U.S. who are on some form of public assistance. But if their lack of a job is saving the planet, we shouldn't complain. It also means that our tax money, used to pay off the freeloaders, is also being used to save the planet! That means I’m doing more for the environment than twenty self-righteous Prius drivers combined!

And to think, without Obama, we wouldn't have such a glorious opportunity to save our poor Earth.

Monday, March 25, 2013

Hair Plugs Need Security Too

How much do you spend when you stay at a swanky hotel? The White House released some numbers recently that give us a peek into how much money our politicians and assorted security, hangers on, groupies and personal drug dealers (they carry the aspirin...what did you think I meant?) spend when they travel overseas. This episode's example: VP Joe Biden.

Back in February Joe took a pair of taxpayer funded trips to Paris and London. He spent $585,000.50 (that's almost a million bucks for the rooms and .50 for tips) in Paris, at a super-swank joint called the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand. Apparently this hotel was the lowest bidder, as prior to the trip the White House asked other super-swank places to bid for the business. Who says they aren't fiscally responsible?

The money spend on the London trip totaled $489,388.65 (they had to tip more in London). He could only afford the Hyatt Regency at that price. Poor chap. Welcome to the world of the 99%. But with the London accounting, we have more information. Biden's entourage included 136 people! That's six secret service agents, 100 negotiators, translators (Joe can't understand the British), assorted diplomats, and 30 private guards for the nuclear football--if by "nuclear football" you mean "the lock box containing Biden's hair plugs." He has to swap them out every few hours, you know. Going bald sucks. Ask me how I know this.

That's a lot of dough for a diplomatic trip for which we do not know the reason. I'm sure they were doing something important because Biden doesn't do anything that's not important, especially when Barack is playing golf. We can't help but wonder, though, if the prices aren't too high. I appreciate the bidding process, but almost half a million bucks per hotel, super-swank or not? He only stayed in Paris for one night, by the way. Perhaps the money not only covered the stay but other assorted costs. Maybe Biden, good Irishman that he is, drank too much Jameson (good Catholic that he is), thought he was Roger Daltrey and trashed his hotel room. That means the price included replacing the big screen television he threw out the window while shouting "Whooooooooo are you!"

Hopefully there were no underage hookers from the Dominican Republic involved, but you never know....what? Oh, right, that was a made up story. Never mind.

ABOUT: Brian Drake is the author of The Rogue Gentleman and co-host of "Drake & The Deacon" on RadioSlot.Com.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

No More Girl Scouts?

Did you notice that the Girl Scouts, during this year's cookie season, were a little more aggressive than in the past?

I made one of my weekly visits to the grocery store two weeks ago, and there they were, out front, hocking cookies. Usually I give them a polite smile and decline a box, but this year they made it tough. They were surrounding people, holding up boxes, trying to get in people's faces. Like the way your cat weaves around your ankles when it wants food while you're trying to carry a laundry basket to the garage. I managed to avoid them by sneaking behind a slow-moving old lady who was no match for the youngsters, but on the way out they got me. They got me, Jerry.

"Want to support our group?" said one of them, a blonde with very long hair. She cut me off to ask the question. I kept going forward and she moved backward and continued to give me the hard sell. "We have Samoas and Do-See-Dos and Thin Mints and--" and we reached the parking lot and the SUV hit her. (Not really.) Her mother yelled for her to come back, and she forgot about me and returned to the table, where I immediately heard her say so another person, "Want to support our group?"

A similar scene occurred at two other stores where I shop. It reached the point where I was so terrified of the little hooligans that I didn't dare do any shopping anywhere until after five when they'd be at home. And I kept the blinds closed and the deadbolt locked just in case they tracked me to my place prior to five o'clock.

Did they all take a Tony Robbins class? Or maybe they learned how to sell by watching a bunch of coked-up car salesman (not that I know anything about that). Don't those darn cookies sell themselves? In the Obama Economy, perhaps not.

Anyway today's shopping excursion was mercifully Girl Scout free. I will not have to face them again until next year.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Plenty of Circuses?

Wasn't it Joseph Stalin who said that if you want to control a population, and not let them get too involved in what the government is doing (or not doing) they should have plenty of circuses to distract them?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City is certainly providing plenty of distractions. Fresh off the defeat of his soda ban, Bloomberg now wants to do away with ear buds, the kind you use on your iPod or other similar listening devices, because people listen to music too loudly and that makes them go deaf. And that's bad. He wants to spend $250,000 to study the problem further. Once again, a politician thinks he knows how you can live your life better than you can.

It is not the government's role to tell me how to live my life, either at home, in the bedroom, or anywhere else. But as this country enters into an era of taxpayer-funded government health care, we will see more and more of government regulating behavior, because the more people need medical care, the more resources are drained. The best way to keep resources from being drained is to limit non-emergency needs, such as hearing loss from loud music devices, or the effects of too much junk food and soda.

There was a time when there were other authorities in people's lives that regulated and corrected behavior (such as parents), but we don't see that much nowadays. But here is where we get distracted from a real problem. Soda bans and ear buds and their associated arguments for and against are circuses, and we best not spend too much time on them.

Recall a recent article, which barely received any coverage, reporting that 80% of New York City high school graduates are unable to read or perform basic math, for which they require retraining before they can move on to college. Education in the United States is in a painful state of disrepair. We keep throwing money at schools, and we continue to deify teachers, but the problem remains unsolved. Kids who can't read grow up to be adults who can't read and people who can't read don't learn, and as a consequence also don't think. When you have a population that does not think, you need a government who can think for them and take care of them. Enter people like Michael Bloomberg who believe that is their purpose in life.

This reminds me of when the Bible was only available in Latin, but the common people couldn't read Latin, so they required Church Leaders to tell them what the Bible said. Thus, the Church had control. Perhaps that is where the United States is heading, with Government replacing the church. When there is a central government controlling the population, you don't have freedom. Maybe that's what needs to happen in this country. Maybe when freedom is taken away, we'll respect it more and demand it back, and we'll have another 230 years of freedom before we fight this battle again. History has a nasty habit of repeating itself.