Yesterday, I was very happy to receive the latest issue of Townhall Magazine.  Not only is it an impressive magazine for its content and production quality, but it featured a piece from yours truly.  I am quite honored.

If you want to annoy your liberal family and friends, or perhaps just start a lively conversation, put this magazine on your coffee table.

Thank you - all of you who work hard to put that magazine together, and thanks to those who read this blog.

I want the drive-by media reporters to ask B. Hussein Obama the following question:

"You have stated that you are not running for Vice-President.  Will you commit to rejecting that spot on the November ballot?"

I think Dem voters have a right to know whether or not a Hillary Clinton-B. Hussein Obama ticket can happen or not.

The Dems are so shameful with this U.S. attorney investigation.  This is so blatantly partisan and grasping at straws that if Republicans pulled something like this, they would be brutally attacked by the drive-by media.  Pete Yost of the Associated Press reports.

The House Judiciary Committee sued former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten on Monday, setting up a constitutional clash over the Bush administration's refusal to provide testimony and documents about the firing of U.S. attorneys.

What a crock.  I want to see if any of these people make a peep if a Dem gets elected President and fires any U.S. attorneys, or “fails to discourage them from resigning.”

The lawsuit says Miers is not immune from the obligation to testify and that she and Bolten must identify all documents that are being withheld from Congress regarding what Democrats say were politically motivated dismissals of nine U.S. attorneys.

What if they were politically motivated?  SO WHAT?!?  This investigation is clearly politically motivated.

Will Congress intervene in such matters in the future?  Will the drive-by media make a big deal about it, whatever happens?  Somehow I doubt it – if a Dem is President.

I find it infuriating that some on Congress are questioning and criticizing lender CEOs about their salaries.  It is NONE of their business.  Don't bail the companies out.  Let them either succeed or fail.  What their CEO makes is up to the company owners.

Then there's the drive-by media, getting sob-story comments from people who took out home loans they couldn't afford to live in homes they can't afford, bashing the CEOs of these companiess for "taking food out of the mouths of" their children.

ENOUGH!  These people WILLINGLY entered into these loan agreements.

These companies WILLINGLY offered these agreements.

NEITHER group should be bailed out, and Congress shouldn't meddle!

McKay Hatch has gotten worldwide publicity for his “anti-cussing” efforts; reporters have found it an interesting topic, probably due in part to newrooms being a place where you can hear language that would make a sailor blush.  I’m sure he’s inspiring many more people to join his effort, which includes personal conduct, a high school club, a website, and a whole city-declared week recognizing the effort.

That city would be South Pasadena, California.  The city is small by southern California standards (about 3 square miles, 25,000 people), but it is known for a small-town feel that includes families staying for generations, even though it is part of a continuous suburban sprawl, bordering the City of Los Angeles, and of course, the City of Pasadena.  It was one of the earliest incorporated cities in Los Angeles County; it continues to have its own highly-regarded school district, fire department, and police department; it is the city that has prevented the completion of the I-710 Long Beach Freeway for something like 40 years; it has served as the location for countless film, television, and commercial shoots and as the home of various celebrities; it funds and builds its own Tournament of Roses float every year; it used to be the home of grocery chain Trader Joe’s and still has one of the original stores; it is home to other significant businesses such as Cogent Systems.

So what’s the big deal about cussing?  Well, yes, there are plenty of things in the world worse than foul language.  But swearing, cussing, or whatever you want to call it, is like graffiti for the ears.  It’s like broken windows.  Especially for children, it assaults their innocence and creates a negative environment.  Language can have an impact on how people feel about themselves, and how they treat others.  So often, cussing is used to put other people down, or express hatred or pessimism, or to avoid dealing with truth or the problem at hand.  And, so often, it degrades lovemaking and even our bodies.

So...good for McKay Hatch.  He's not pushing a mandatory speech code.  He's calling on people to voluntarily clean up their act.

"My mom and dad always taught me good morals, good values, and not cussing was one of them," said McKay Hatch, the founder of South Pasadena High School's No Cussing Club, during a recent break between study hall and tennis practice.

"I've cussed before, I'm not gonna lie to you," Hatch quickly added. "But I try not to cuss any more."

He was in junior high school when he became fed up with all the blue language around him.

I remember those days.  Kids that age cuss just to cuss.

"I finally told my friends, 'I don't cuss.' And I said, 'If you want to hang out with me, you don't cuss.'"

If only more kids did that about other things, too.

Cacciotti, the mayor, isn't surprised that South Pasadena started the movement. He noted that the city broke off from its much bigger neighbor 120 years ago when residents unhappy with the saloon trade in downtown Pasadena voted 85-25 to go their own way.

Never confuse South Pasadena with Pasadena.  At least not when dealing with someone from there.  Ever.

David Salcedo, who manages High Life Burgers, a popular hangout near the high school, hadn't heard of it either.

But, come to think of it, he said, the language among the after-school crowd has been pretty clean lately. The biggest problem these days, Salcedo said, is kids talking too loudly.

"But they're good kids," he added. "They just eat their chili fries and go home."

I wanted to throw that in there because Hi-Life Burgers (correct spelling) is a great mom-and-pop burger/Mexican food/pastrami place with REAL chili cheese fries – the kind that block your arteries.  None of that wimpy fries-with-few-shreds-of-cheese-and-dab-of-chili stuff.  It used to be one of those drive-up and walk-up carhop places, but years ago was rebuilt to be an indoor place.  They have some great fresh sauces, too.  Oh man, I need a fix.

AP writer David Crary has this story, and the headline is “Men Who Do Housework May Get More Sex”.  Notice the “may” qualifier.  That sounds like a headline written by a lazy woman using weasel words. 

American men still don't pull their weight when it comes to housework and child care, but collectively they're not the slackers they used to be.

Isn’t it nice to be broadbrushed like that?  “American men”.  Well I have news for you.  Do a search, and you can find plenty of things written about “American women” as a group that aren’t all that flattering.

“Pull their weight”.  Hmm.  What does that really mean?  Most women marry men who earn more than they do – most of those women insisted on that.  So when you talk about “pulling weight”, be prepared to have finances discussed, too.

"Slackers"?  Going out and bringing home the bacon is the same as being a slacker?

The average dad has gradually been getting better about picking himself up off the sofa and pitching in, according to a new report in which a psychologist suggests the payoff for doing more chores could be more sex.

“Could be”.  Not likely, if she realizes that you’re a complete wimp who will slave away on the job to pay for her habits, AND you’ll do the housework.  She’ll know she can refrain from sex and you’ll foolishly work all the much harder to please her, because you haven’t figured out that you picked the wrong woman.

The report, released Thursday by the Council on Contemporary Families, summarizes several recent studies on family dynamics. One found that men's contribution to housework had doubled over the past four decades; another found they tripled the time spent on child care over that span.

I wonder what “contemporary” means in this case?  My wife takes care of our place and our child.  Are we not contemporary?

Perhaps the increase in “housework” and “child care” by men is a result of an increase in a sense of entitlement and laziness on the part of some women?  I mean, someone has to do it, right?

"More couples are sharing family tasks than ever before, and the movement toward sharing has been especially significant for full-time dual-earner couples," the report says.

Well duh.  If they are both working full-time, then of course they are both going to do the housework.  Child care?  That’s another story.  You can’t care for a child if you’re not there.  But still, since women expect their man to earn more than they do, they should expect to do more around the house.

"We'll both talk about how we're so lucky to have someone who does more than their share," said Mary Melchoir, a Washington-based fundraiser for the National Organization for Women, who — like her lawyer husband — works full-time while raising 6-year-old triplets.

NOW.  What a surprise.  Why have the kids if you don’t want to raise them?  No, you’re not raising them if you’re never there.

Joshua Coleman, a San Francisco-area psychologist and author of "The Lazy Husband: How to Get Men to Do More Parenting and Housework," said equitable sharing of housework can lead to a happier marriage and more frequent sex.

“Can”  Love that qualifier.  You know what else can lead to a happier and marriage and more frequent sex?  Marrying the right woman.  I'm very wary of anyone based in San Francisco when it comes to their authority on gender roles.

"If a guy does housework, it looks to the woman like he really cares about her — he's not treating her like a servant," said Coleman, who is affiliated with the Council on Contemporary Families.

If she can’t figure he really cares about her by the fact that he gave up complete control of his earnings and access to casual sex with a variety of women to slave away for all those years on the job, destined to die before she does, then nothing will please her.

Sullivan and Coltrane predict men's contributions will increase further as more women take jobs.

"Men share more family work if their female partners are employed more hours, earn more money and have spent more years in education," they said.

Duh!  It’s called “division of labor”.

The report's overall findings meshed with what Carol Evans, founder and CEO of Working Mother magazine, has been observing as she tracks America's two-income couples.

That’s a rag.

Here’s the deal: Men and women are different.  Get used to it.  Most people grasp this reality by the time they can walk.  In most cases, it is the man’s job to be the breadwinner, to protect his wife and children, to make sure the automobiles are taken care of, to make sure things get fixed around the house and the lawn gets mowed, to investigate noises in the night, to deal with scary bugs, to move heavy objects, to reach high places, to open tight jars, to take out the trash.  It is the woman’s job to take care of housekeeping and be the primary person dealing with the children – they grow in her womb and nurse at her breast, after all   If you’re going to be “equal” in the identical sense, why even get married or shack up?  You’re redundant.  And if you’re not going to raise your kids yourself, DON’T HAVE ANY.

And sex is supposed to be mutually enjoyable, not a bargaining chip.  If you don’t want to have sex, don’t get married.

Someone attacked a church in Arleta, California.  You know that that means!  But for those of you with short memories...

If we were like Leftists, we'd hold news conferences denouncing this as a hate crime caused by hate speech, and try to quell any negative talk about churches or Christianity.  We'd make sad movies about this incident and give ourselves awards for doing so.  We'd insist on only positive portrayals of churches, Christians, and Christianity in the media.  We'd make sure all of the teaching materials in schools only had positive portrayals of churches and Christians.  We'd hold candlelight vigils and protests, and insist that we have a week called "Church Appreciation Week".

If we were like Leftists.

So there was an attack against a military recruitment facility by some Leftist freak.  If we were like Leftists, we'd hold news conferences denouncing this as a hate crime caused by hate speech, and try to quell any negative talk about the military or what we're doing in Iraq.  We'd make sad movies about this incident and give ourselves awards for doing so.  We'd make fictional television shows that depict all bicyclists as bigoted freaks and insist on only positive portrayals of military recruiters in the media.  We'd make sure all of the teaching materials in schools only had positive portrayals of the military and soldiers.  We'd hold candlelight vigils and protests, and insist that we have a week called "Military Recruiter Appreciation Week".

If we were like Leftists.

Sarah Tully of the Orange County Register has two articles on subjects I’ve blogged about before.

The first involves a lawsuit seeking to impede a development.

A citizens group is suing the city of Anaheim for refusing to hear an appeal of a major expansion of the Platinum Triangle development area around Angel Stadium.

On Monday, Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development filed papers in Orange County Superior Court, claiming that the city approved the expansion without allowing time for an appeal.

In the Platinum Triangle, developers are bringing jobs, businesses, and housing to an underdeveloped area.  And these people have latched on and are trying to ride the coattails, and are suing to try to get something for nothing.

Briggs described his San Diego-based group as "activists" concerned about housing, environmental and development issues throughout Southern California. The group is challenging the Platinum Triangle expansion because of the lack of transportation infrastructure and workforce housing near jobs.

In other words, they are a bunch of people who, instead of buying their own land and doing things they way they like it, try to force other people – people who actually make things and build things and are productive contributors to society – cater to their desires.  “Workforce housing” means they want subsidized housing.  They want other people to pay for someone else’s housing.

In the other story, Anaheim’s tourism industry won a victory when the City Council decided to adopt an initiative that otherwise would have had to go on the ballot.

A Disney-led group urged the council to adopt the language of the initiative, which requires that future housing proposals in the Anaheim Resort area must go before voters. In doing so, the council took the measure off the ballot.

To make a long story short – Anaheim zoned a part of the city as a Resort District for tourism businesses.  A couple of housing developers wanted to chip away at the Resort so they could build housing.  Ideally, I’m all for private property rights, but if you’re going to have zoning, especially zoning that involves certain obligations and requirements placed on the tourism businesses tied to the performance of that district, you should stick with the zoning.

One developer actually bamboozled people into thinking that they were going to bring housing to them at much less cost than market rates, and thereby got those people to push for removing the land from the Resort District so the housing could be built.  It was a total farce, but a lot of people fell for it.

This was a good vote for Anaheim.

Some good news for liberty.  Los Angeles Times Staff Writer David Zahniser reports.

A Superior Court judge has struck down a 2005 law passed by the Los Angeles City Council that barred large supermarkets from taking over a store and immediately firing all its workers, an industry group said Tuesday.

The ruling was a victory for the California Grocers Assn., one of several business groups that have filed challenges against initiatives backed by the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, a pro-labor nonprofit that pushed the supermarket ordinance.

The alliance, which focuses heavily on bringing higher wages and greater benefits to low-income workers, has served as a driving force behind a variety of decision-making at City Hall.

The law was ridiculous, tying an employer’s hands for at least 90 days.  Imagine you take over a business only to find out that there are some really lousy employees, and you can’t get rid of them for at least three months.

It is up to employees to negotiate with their employers.  Government should not get involved in voluntary interactions unless there is fraud – because that is not truly voluntary.

Hotels are still in court over a Los Angeles law that the alliance sought to impose higher minimum wages at hotels near Los Angeles International Airport.

Another ridiculous law.

Today, our Supreme Court heard arguments about whether or not the people of California should be forced, against their vote, to issue marriage licenses to couples missing a bride or a groom.

In the City of Los Angeles, a harmless firehouse prank continues to cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.  First, a black firefighter got a seven-figure settlement because he was the victim of a prank after being a perpetrator himself for years.  Now, two white firefighters are getting a combined seven-figure judgment because they were reprimanded for the incident more severely than the Latino firefighter who actually carried out the prank.

Really, why are the taxpayers responsible?  In these cases, shouldn’t the individuals be held responsible?  Sure, the pockets aren’t as deep, but isn’t this supposed to be about justice, and not making people rich for hurt feelings?  I know the reasoning for why the taxpayers are responsible.  Because someone higher up at the Fire Department didn’t prevent these things from happening (I mean, they should be able to be at all places at all times, right?), and the people who hired the Fire Chief didn’t stop it from happening, and those people are elected by the taxpayers, who didn’t elect people who would hire the right Fire Chief who would hire and promote the right people to prevent this sort of thing from ever happening.

But really… how realistic is that?  The taxpayers get burned again, pun intended.

From getting burned to getting soaked, the County of Los Angeles and various cities (the taxpayers, really) are facing lawsuits and fines for not keeping “pollutants” out of the Pacific Ocean.  This is just a scam to redistribute public funds.  The County and the cities have been working in good faith.  But they are still supposed to be able to magically keep fecal matter from animals from being washed by the rain into the Pacific Ocean.

Do these environmentalist wackos not realize that 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 1000, 5,000 years ago animal waste and other “pollutants” were regularly finding their way from the land into the Pacific Ocean?  And who is going to stop the whales from excreting in the Santa Monica Bay?

Just another day in California.

The Los Angeles Times Staff Writer Duke Helfand has this piece on Mayor Tony Villar, officially know as Antonio Villaraigosa (Raigosa being his ex-wife’s name).  This guy tries to be the Latino Obama.  He is usually constantly at photo ops and tries to smooth through everything.  As if the City of Los Angeles Mayor didn’t have enough to do already, he tried to take over the Los Angeles Unified School District, which includes many other cities in addition to L.A.

Lately, though, he’s been out of the city a lot, stumping for Hillary Clinton.  You need to know about this guy, because if he’s going to try to be the Governor of California (Hillary will no doubt campaign for him if she is President), or will try to get a position in a Clinton administration.

For more than 2 1/2 years, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has been the public face of Los Angeles, appearing in one neighborhood after the next and often leading the nightly news.

But over the last two months, he has devoted noticeable time and energy to a cause outside the city. By today, the mayor will have spent 18 of the last 65 days on the road for presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) -- visiting Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and Texas as the primary election season has intensified.

I wonder if Obama will take him in should Hillary bow out?

Deputy Mayor Sean Clegg said Villaraigosa views the Clinton campaign as an investment in the city's future. A Democratic president, the mayor believes, would concentrate money and attention on the needs of big cities.

"The mayor said it many times: This is the most important presidential election in his lifetime," Clegg said.

Isn’t that always the case?  It’s like saying “This year’s group on American Idol is the most talented ever!”, or “The most shocking rose ceremony ever!”

Villaraigosa has become one of Clinton's most loyal and effective voices on the stump, a prominent Latino politician who has drawn crowds in Las Vegas, San Antonio and other heavily Latino areas. Since October, he has visited Nevada five times, Iowa three times, Texas twice and New Hampshire once, according to a schedule provided by his office.

His tireless efforts have not gone unnoticed by Clinton, who singled out Villaraigosa after she won Nevada's Democratic caucuses in January. The mayor has been talked about as a potential Cabinet nominee in a Clinton White House, although he has said privately that he has no interest in such a job.

On the stump, Villaraigosa travels with a press deputy from his City Hall staff and members of the Los Angeles Police Department security detail that accompanies him around the clock whether he is in the city or away.

The mayor's office said the Clinton campaign covers the cost of flights and hotels for him and his press aide, but the two pick up their food expenses. The city typically pays the travel, hotel and food costs for the LAPD officers, according to police spokeswoman Mary Grady. On three occasions in the fall, the Clinton campaign paid hotel and airfare expenses for the officers before those involved realized that the city covers the costs.

The two press aides who trade off campaign swings -- Matt Szabo and Janelle Erickson -- use their vacation time as well as personal cellphones on the trips because they are barred by city and state law from engaging in political work on the job.

It’s all scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours.

I’m so happy that I don’t live or work in the City of Los Angeles.

I caught some of "Larry King Live" this past Friday night, when he had on various panelists to discuss the campaign for POTUS.  It was a mix of serious political commentators and performers.  A couple of the panelists were touting their candidates, B. Hussein Obama, and Hillary Clinton, as having given X number of people health care.

Excuse me, but politicians, unless they happen to be doctors, never give ANYONE health care.  It is the doctor, the nurse, the technician, the pharmacist, the hospital administrator, the pharmecuetical company, the medical device company, and the investor who gives health care to people.  The most a politician can do to give someone health care under their political authority is to take money by force from someone who has earned it and redistribute it to someone else so that it can pay the costs of health care.

Neither Clinton nor Obama slogged through medical school, or studied nursing, invented a new medical device, or welded part of the structure for a new hosptial.  Millions of hard-working people have labored to provide health care, and they deserve to be able to choose how and when to provide their services, and to be compensated at market rates.

Yet more reason some men are on a marriage strike.  Here’s something from Dear Abby that caught my eye.  IN A TIZZY IN OKLAHOMA CITY wrote in:

My fiance bought a ring and necklace for me for Valentine's Day.

That was extremely generous of him.  Legally, in most places, that would mean they are unconditional gifts that you will be able to keep even if you dump him tomorrow.  If they were given on some random day, the ring (which we'll read below is for the wedding), at least, would be conditional in the sense that if you dumped him instead of marrying him, he could get it back.

The ring was to be a wedding ring. Both are yellow gold, which is something I have never worn, nor do I care to.

What’s wrong with yellow gold?

The first ring he selected was white gold. Then he decided that with the yellow gold, he would get "more bang for his buck."

Sounds like a smart man.  Is there a problem with that?

A friend of ours, "Diana," went with him and told me the story. I told Diana I'm thinking of asking him to return the items and have the two of us look for a white gold set.

How ungrateful are you?  Yes, let this guy return the items and get his money back.  Then he should dump you and run as fast as he can in the other direction, so he can find a woman who appreciates him and his gifts.

Her response? "You'd better shut up and wear them. He may send you packing if you hurt his feelings."

Diana is more your friend than his.  She’s trying to keep you from getting dumped.

Dear Abby responds:

I'm guessing your boyfriend took Diana to help with the selection because he thought she'd know what you like. Frankly, he took the wrong girl. He should have taken you.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!  If he took her, he would have ended up spending too much money.  What other gifts do you know of where the purchaser routinely takes the recipient along for the shopping?  Do like my wife did.  When it looks like a proposal is in order, tell him, in general, what you prefer, and let him pick it out.

If Diana is truly a friend, she should tell him she "forgot" that you have a strong preference for white gold and suggest the two of you exchange the set for something you might like better.

You can usually count on Dear Abby to come down on the side of men spending more money on women.

The most practical way to choose wedding/engagement rings is for the man to talk to a jeweler in advance about what he can afford to pay and ask that a selection of rings in his price range be put aside for him and his girlfriend when he brings her in.

Hey how about she pay for it and buy it in the first place?  Women have full earning and property rights now, after all.

Notice we don’t read what she got him to Valentine’s Day.

Anyway, this guy should move on and find a woman who is less work.

Wait a minute.  I thought contraception and abortion were going to prevent children living in poverty.  What happened?

Mike Glover of the Associated Press writes about Hillary's “child poverty plan”.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton is offering a plan to improve childhood nutrition and setting a goal to reduce by half the 12 million youngsters living in poverty over the next dozen years.

Notice he called her “Democrat”.  That means he likes the plan, or thinks the reader will.  Otherwise, he would have left that out.

But if we can reduce “childhood poverty” through federal government programs (and over 40 years of history say we can't), then why stop with half of the 12 million?  Why not go for all of them?

A package of proposals, to be unveiled Thursday, includes a "comprehensive" early education initiative that starts with nurse's visits for pregnant women, lets children begin the Head Start program earlier and calls for universal pre-kindergarten programs.

Oh boy.  Where to start.  “Comprehensive” must mean that this will include illegal aliens.  Isn’t that what the word means now?  Universal pre-kindergarten?  Why not just have the teacher union managers catching the babies as they come out and take them away immediately?  Wny not put kids in failing education institutions for MORE of their lives?

The New York senator also says she would deal with childhood hunger by putting in place a food safety net, and give children "greater access to healthy, fresh food."

Yes, looking around, I can see that our kids are starving.  Starving so much, they can barely fit into their clothes.  Fresh food is all around us.  In some places, people have burned down stores providing healthy food, and they should have to live with the consequences of their actions.

Clinton aides said the new programs would carry and annual pricetag of $5 billion to $6 billion.

Which means they will actually cost a lot more.  But hey, how can we pass up a chance to extend the Nanny State?

She would cover the cost by toughening enforcement to collect taxes currently owed but not paid.

In other words, by having the IRS go after people who didn’t support her campaign.

Clinton said she would direct her agriculture secretary to develop a plan to end childhood hunger.

Here’s my plan: Have their parents feed them.  THERE!  DONE!!!

School breakfast programs would be universal in low-income neighborhoods under her proposal. She also would double the size of a summer nutrition program aimed at feeding low-income children when they aren't in school.

Remember: Support Hillary or you’ll starve!

In addition, Clinton was calling for stronger programs aimed at cutting teen pregnancy as well as toughening child support enforcement programs to "support responsible fatherhood."

Ah-HA!  Now we’re getting to the heart of the matter.  Most of the children living in “poverty” (which usually means they don’t have the latest plasma TV in their bedrooms) in our country are born to broken homes.  Save sex for marriage, and very few children will be in poverty.  It is that simple.  Why should my tax money go to taking care of you because of your freely chosen mistakes?

"While we celebrate America as a place where an individual's circumstances at birth should not determine his or her life chances, the fact is that economic mobility is now in decline in America," Clinton's background documents say. "Children born in poverty are likely to live in poverty their whole lives."

They are if they rely on the government to do things for them.  But I strongly doubt their assertion.  I want proof.

What has happened to this country?  How did we let this happen?  Enough with the fascists and socialists!