America the Great
Mei Sermo is now available (online) at Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com, and Booksunlimited.ie (Ireland)
(The last 60 days of web logs are in the archive section under the headings, Americana... the way it should be, and Hope for America.)
(The last 60 days of web logs are in the archive section under the headings, Americana... the way it should be, and Hope for America.)
5/22/2008 12:07 a.m.
(SIXTY-ONE) I wonder which outlandish statement Obama has already made, or will make in the future that will finally cause all true Americans to leave him in the dust. It doesn't seem like there is any end in sight to his boorish statements and attitude about America.
Have you heard the latest? In Oregon he said, "We can't drive our SUV's and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." Is Obama a complete and blathering fool? The answer: YES!
Read again his statement: especially the last 12 words of that statement. (and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK) I have news for him, I don't care if they say OK or not. I live in America, the greatest country on the face of the Earth! And as an American citizen, I do not care in the least if other countries like how I live or not! They, other countries, have no say whatsoever in the matter. America is an autonomous nation and as such is answerable to no one, except God Almighty!
I have some breaking news for the elitist Obama, I will set my thermostat at 82 degrees during cold weather and 62 degrees during hot weather, if I so choose. As an American citizen I will eat what I want, and drive what I want, anytime that I want!
Have you heard the latest? In Oregon he said, "We can't drive our SUV's and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." Is Obama a complete and blathering fool? The answer: YES!
Read again his statement: especially the last 12 words of that statement. (and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK) I have news for him, I don't care if they say OK or not. I live in America, the greatest country on the face of the Earth! And as an American citizen, I do not care in the least if other countries like how I live or not! They, other countries, have no say whatsoever in the matter. America is an autonomous nation and as such is answerable to no one, except God Almighty!
I have some breaking news for the elitist Obama, I will set my thermostat at 82 degrees during cold weather and 62 degrees during hot weather, if I so choose. As an American citizen I will eat what I want, and drive what I want, anytime that I want!
I actually hope Obama keeps straying from his prepared remarks from his speech writers and continues exposing his true beliefs. Every single time he does he gets in trouble and he has to backtrack from his earlier statements. I have a question. If Obama is supposed to be so intelligent, why can't he express his beliefs in cohesive form and have people understand what he meant? Why is he always saying, even when quoted verbatim, that he was misunderstood?
The answer is simple, Obama is a snake-oil salesman and sooner, rather than later I believe the vast majority of Americans are going to begin to see that. Every single time he strays from prepared remarks, Obama is saying exactly what he truly believes! He only backpedals after the polls show that America is not ready to embrace Obama's Marxist philosophies. It is a teaching he learned after sitting for more than 20 years at the feet of his preacher... Wright. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/23/2008 12:05 a.m.
(SIXTY-TWO) I did some research in order to write about this more than a week ago. But, so far I had found other things which interested me more to blog about. This morning, though, I want to write about the "high cost of gasoline." Although, I am not writing to complain about it, at least not by comparison with the rest of the world.
On May 15, tax day here at home, I checked the average price of gasoline in France and it averaged a little more than $8.00 per gallon, which is 2.3 times higher than here at home. Yet, gasoline arriving at our shore is virtually the same price as when it arrives on their shores. The reason it is so high on the foreign markets is that the Socialist governments add a whopping 70% tax at the pump. While here at home, our Capitalist government only adds a paltry 18.4% tax.
All of the elitists in Hollywood, who are always extolling the supposed virtues of Europe, ought to have this verifiable fact stuffed in their faces.
What happened to the "good ol' days" when people who constantly ran down America were told, "America: love it or leave it." Where is the spirit of men like Senator Joe McCarthy when we really need that. When a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, like Obama, even has a serious shot at becoming president of this country, it bespeaks a national travesty of what America actually stands for.
For every person in America today who does not like to pay $4.00 a gallon for gasoline, I have some other choices for you. Go to Canada, in addition to paying more for gasoline per gallon... windshield wiper fluid in parts of Canada runs $6.00 per gallon. Travel to Germany, pay $8.91 for a gallon of gasoline. Italy...$8.79, Hong Kong...$7.56, London...$8.18, Israel...$7.20... and the list goes on and on.
The reason I wanted to mock a lot of the European communities is that you can see the lie of the liberals do not work, and I can prove that on two fronts. Liberals have taken over Europe and yet you can see, by hard evidence, that their Socialist forms of government did not drive down fuel prices. Also, we see that the majority of cars they drive in Europe are so small that once you are through driving them you can pick them up and put them in your pocket: yet, gas prices only continue to rise.
When will Americans, in large numbers, quit believing the lies of the liberals and look around at how the rest of the world is forced to live and say, "No Way!" All of those nations that are run by liberal minded people have less freedoms, less goods to purchase, less money in their pockets, higher unemployment, worse health care, etcetera and etcetera. In case, for whatever reason, someone else is afraid to say it, I will say it for them, "America: love it or leave it!" (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/24/2008 8:15 p.m.
(SIXTY-THREE) Many comedians use the theme of the "sign the apocalypse" (end of planet Earth) is upon us as they tell about something weird which is happening in the news. Today, I join that group as I lament some of what is happening and is being "reported as news."
AOL has a prominent story, with pictures, under the heading, "Even 'Heroes' Need to Eat." If you scroll through the pictures, and in order to write about it I'm sorry to say I had to: guess what you get? More than a dozen pictures of people eating! Is that News?
Of course, photographer's taking pictures of people eating, celebrity or otherwise, is not news, it is an invasion of privacy and a sign that some people are very much into hero worship. And it also seems to me that several of the people in this gallery are certainly not any person who is worthy of someone wanting to emulate.
I can't say for certain that people who waste their time taking such pictures, and the fact that there must be an audience who wants to see the pictures: else why take them: is a sign that the end is near. However, I can say it is a sign that there must be a lot of pathetic people out there if they have no better things to do with their life, than to waste it watching some "supposed star" eat their food! That is sad... very sad. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/25/2008 9:30 a.m.
(SIXTY-FOUR) As soon as I read the third posted news story today, I knew what I was going to write about. At that point I also knew that I would take the test which was offered and report on how I did.
If a person is going to become a citizen of this country, they ought to know certain things about its history. Thirty-four years ago, my (foreign-born) wife had to take and pass a similar test before she was made a citizen... and that was (and is) a right thing to do. Today, AOL had a sampling of questions that people who want to become naturalized citizens of the U.S.A. has to answer. There are a possible 100 questions in the question pool, however, only ten are randomly pulled and given. All they have to answer are 6 out of 10. Just 60% correct and they pass. That seems extremely fair.
Now comes the part that as soon as I saw the story I figured I would extrapolate the thought of that particular test and incorporate it into another kind of test... and here it is: I honestly believe that even for native-born American citizens there ought to be a similar test given before you are allowed to vote in any election!
I deplore the fact that you have people by the millions who could not even answer the most rudimentary questions about America. Yet, their vote counts exactly the same as a person who takes the time to learn about candidates, their positions, and how a particular politician, if elected, would affect the United States of America and its people.
With that thought in mind I will pose to you the ten questions I answered online and see if at least 60% of them had to be answered correctly in order for you to have the privilege to vote in the next election... would you be allowed to vote?
Before I took the test, I figured that even if all 100 were offered to me I would probably not miss any. (It is because I enjoy history and I study our nation's past and I stay current on what is taking place in America today). But, I missed one out of the ten questions I took online. To be fair, as soon as I recorded my answer, I knew it was wrong: yet, I left it because it was my first thought and I figured that would be the most honest way to write this blog.
I will give you the ten questions in the order they were given to me. Then, at the end, I will type the answers. At this time , on a sheet of paper, as you are reading the questions be sure to record your answers.
1. Who is in in charge of the Executive Branch?
2. Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?
3. Name one of the two longest rivers in America?
4. How many justices are on the Supreme Court?
5. Who is the (present) Speaker of the House?
6. Name the war between the North and the South.
7. Why are there 13 stripes in the American flag?
8. Name one United States territory.
9. What is Susan B. Anthony known for?
10. Who was president during WWI?
I have to be honest... I had to hold my nose, with my left hand, as I wrote my answer to number five... and in my answer to number nine, I had to first poke a little fun.
Did you write down your answers? OK, let's see how you did. Now if I were king of the world... just kidding. But, in reality, if I were in a position to do so, and had the power to enforce it... no one would ever cast another ballot in this country until they had proven they have at least a little knowledge about our country, and the people who want to run it. I mean, are you permitted to drive a car without first taking a test? And... voting is far more important an act than driving any automobile. The answers I wrote are what follows.
!. George Bush (sitting president)
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. The mighty Mississippi
4. Nine
5. (This stinks) Nancy Pelosi
6. Civil War
7. Representative of the original 13 Colonies
8. Puerto Rico
9. (America's first "feminazi") Known for women's civil rights.
10. Teddy Roosevelt... This is what I wrote and as soon as I did... I knew it was wrong: his presidency was too soon after the turn of the century to have been in office during WWI. Although I left my answer because I wanted to accurately reflect the results of the test I took. I will also add that I was wrong in my next thought... not who the president was during WWI... but the fact that I thought Woodrow Wilson immediately followed Roosevelt. I completely forgot about Taft. However, he was a very forgettable president. Lest you think I'm mocking him... unfairly... read what he wrote about himself, years after leaving office. William Howard Taft: "I don't remember that I ever was president." (You and me both buddy...LOL)
So how did you do? Would you be allowed to vote in the next election if you had to have pertinent information before casting your ballot? I can guarantee you that America would be a much stronger and greater country if people were required to, at the very least, have a little understanding and knowledge about how our country operates.
I will also add the other possible answers to the questions where there were more than one correct answer. Question three: Missouri River was the other possible answer. Question eight: The other four territories are... U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, North Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.
Before finishing I would like to thank Rush for popularizing the word, "feminazi." (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/26/2008 7:35 p.m.
(SIXTY-FIVE) I would first like to say that I hope everyone had an enjoyable Memorial Day with family and friends. I also hope that at least some of you took time to pray for the families who has lost loved ones in America's many wars. I also took time today to thank God (in prayer) for the brave sons and daughters who themselves gave the ultimate sacrifice in order that we at home can live in peace and safety. THANK YOU!!!
I also want to write about a paper that was forwarded to me by one of my sons-in-law. Basically it speaks of the hypocrisy of the Democrat party as it relates to Social Security. I would like to do this with some facts, and after reading them I would like to ask each of you to verify the truthfulness of the facts. Maybe, after doing that you will come to the same realization I did many years ago, that, as a political party, Democrats are not to be trusted.
A Democrat named Franklin Roosevelt started FICA: the Social Security program. In starting this program he promised five things:
1. Participation in the program would be completely voluntary.
2. Participants would only pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into it.
3. Any money participants elected to put into the program would be deductible each year for tax purposes.
4. All money the participants put in was for the independent "trust fund" and no money was being put into the general operating fund: therefore, all money would only be used to fund the Retirement Program, and no other program.
5. Annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income! (Ask retirees, if that last promise, by a Democrat, was upheld, why do they get taxed on 85% of the money they "put away?") Now, let me give you some irrefutable facts!
QUESTION: Which party took Social Security from the "trust fund" and placed it into the general fund so Congress could spend it?
ANSWER: President Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
QUESTION: Which political party eliminated the tax deduction for Social Security? (FICA)
ANSWER: The Democrat Party.
QUESTION: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
ANSWER: It was the Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the "tie breaking" vote as President of the Senate. He was, at that time, Vice President of the United States.
QUESTION: Which party decided to give payments to immigrants?
ANSWER: It was Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Even if an immigrant never paid a solitary penny into the system... because of Carter and the Democrats, at age 65 immigrants can draw money from it.
So, the first two promises, a Democrat named Roosevelt made, were broken (outright) by later Democrats. Please read number one and two again, and then honestly answer the next two questions. Are you voluntarily paying into Social Security? Are you paying only 1% of your first $1,400 of your annual income?
Now, do the same thing with promises numbered 3-5. Here is what you find. A Democrat lied in making the promises, and it was later Democrats who led the charge and broke the rest of the original promises. Now I want to ask you another question. Why do you still trust Democrats in either the House or the Senate to do anything right or honest? (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/27/2008 9:30 a.m.
(SIXTY-SIX) Today's blog will be on a lighter note: pun intended. I want to talk about dieting. I ought to know something about it, in fact, I might even be considered an expert. In my lifetime I have probably lost more than 10,000 pounds, albeit, I have probably gained more than 10,300 pounds. (LOL) After a story in today's news section though, I do have a question. "What is a dieter supposed to do?" (I will answer that question at the end of this blog.)
Six well-known restaurants, from Applebees to Taco Bell, had some of their food items tested to see if the (posted) caloric and fat content of a given entree was accurate? The results... they weren't... not by a long shot. In some cases the calorie count was more than double the listed amount and the fat count was several times higher than what was posted.
Applebees has already responded saying that they were sorry and they "strive" to be accurate. No they don't, neither do the other restaurants. They only "strive" to get your business and make money. How do they do that? In order to have your business they need to prepare a tasty meal, and in most cases that does not happen by putting anything into the meal which begins with the words, "low-fat." I will now answer the question that I posed at the beginning of this blog, and I will do that by asking another question. "What in the world are you doing eating out if you are on a diet anyway?"
If you really want to lose weight... I will give you seven easy steps that will help you achieve your weight loss goal. First: Set a goal. As simple as this sounds people fail at most things in life because they do not have a fixed goal they are striving for. A person famously said, "If you don't set a goal, you'll hit it every time."
Secondly: If you are really serious about weight loss, do not "eat out" again.
Thirdly: Figure out how much money you normally spend in one month on restaurants, and then take that very same amount of money and apply it toward a gym membership. I would hazard a guess that for most (seriously) overweight Americans the money which was normally spent every 30 days at restaurants would easily cover 120 days of fees at your local gym.
Fourth: Actually use your gym membership for what it is for, exercise regularly!
Fifth: Prepare healthful meals at home and eat a reasonable amount of food.
Sixth: Do not eat when bored, tired, angry, happy, etcetera... only eat when actually hungry! (Finally)
Seventh: The "very second" you lose a size in clothes and you can start wearing something smaller... do it... and immediately discard your old "fat clothes!" (Don't make any allowance for being able to get back into something bigger.)
Think about it. Just seven simple steps to commit to and you are on your way to "exposing that healthier and skinnier person," who has been trapped within all of those layers of fat. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/28/2008 9:45 a.m.
(SIXTY-SEVEN) I think Oprah will finally be recognized as going "off the deep end." She has been tottering on the brink for a very long time with her associations and endorsements of people such as Cruise, Travolta, and Kirstie Alley. I felt for sure that her financial empire would begin to crumble when she went for the latest: in a laundry list of New Age nuts, an author named Rhonda Byrne.
Finally though, she has just stepped off the ledge with her fanatical endorsement of the biggest loon she has gone for so far, Eckhart Tolle. And the public can now see Oprah's slide with cold hard facts. For the first time since her show started, both it and her magazine has dropped off in sales: approximately 10% so far and I can guarantee the decline will continue.
With her endorsement of the latest "crazy," (Tolle) history will record it as her "jump the shark" moment. If anyone is not familiar with that term, let me put it another way. What she has now done is, on the crazy scale, equivalent to Cruise jumping up and down on her couch... both of them... crazy as loons.
To be fair, I never did care for Oprah. I don't like any person who moralizes to a group of people about what is right or wrong, i.e. her book clubs and etcetera. Yet, she and Stedman can be open in their relationship and defy clear Bible teaching. In that regard she is very much like Ellen Degeneres.
I am all for anyone "moralizing" as long as they use the Bible as their guide, moralize all you want. But I hate people who hold themselves up as some icon of virtue and at the same time are in clear defiance of Scripture. Remember, only Scripture teaches what is virtuous or pure. So, to hold yourself up as a person with good morals, to the point of ascribing values to others, while defying the Book that teaches values, is blasphemous!
Oprah has begun her long slide into, "Oprah who?" And I believe the reason is much more complicated than her lack of judgment in jumping on Obama's bandwagon simply because both of them happen to have black faces: although that is a part of it. She now has a clearly defined pattern of associating herself with a lot of the crazier people in the entertainment industry and embracing their loony beliefs.
I do agree with one thing Tolle has written, but only when it is applied to him. "It's better to laugh at madness." Well Tolle, I am laughing. In fact, I am LOLROF! (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/29/2008 9:30 a.m.
(SIXTY-EIGHT) Have you read the story about Rachael Ray and her scarf? When it comes to terrorism and any and all other types of leftist ideology and philosophy's, I am always ready to take the other side: which is the conservative viewpoint... and I believe the correct and moral high-ground. However, this time I am not sure that Rachael Ray is even intelligent enough to know that what she was wearing is similar to what some well-known terrorists have worn in the past.
The few times I have tried to watch her, I did find her a little annoying and in my opinion not particularly bright... but, I am pretty sure not a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. However, if I ever found out that she wore the scarf, in the Dunkin' Donuts ad, full well knowing what it symbolized... then sure... take the ad down, pull her from public television... and I would personally help her pack her belongings if our country would man-up and have her, and others of that ilk, deported to a known terrorist nation. But, this time, unless I learn more... I think conservative pundits might be overreaching on this (non) story.
Although, it would be worth researching what her fashion designer had in mind whenever they selected the clothes for her to wear during the commercial shoot. Albeit, even though I am leaning toward coming to her defense on this issue: I have lived long enough, met enough stupid people, and have counseled enough supposedly "intelligent people" while listening to them describe their dark thoughts and fantasies... to come to the following understanding: I would not be too surprised to learn that Rachael Ray knew exactly what the scarf symbolized and wore it anyway! (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/30/2008 7:20 a.m.
(SIXTY-NINE) Finally... some sanity! The lying officials who illegally went after the Mormon children in an illegal raid are now being exposed for what they are... liars! If you will read any of my several blogs (in the archive section) you will see that I was correct in my analysis of this case, and that from the very first day it happened. The only thing that remains to happen... and I sincerely pray that it will, is for many lawsuits being brought against that county and its officials and they are sued into bankruptcy. I also pray that every one of those sons and daughters of Belial, who were involved in removing the children in the first place, will lose their jobs and positions of authority.
It is not that I am a friend, or even a sympathizer for the Mormon church. In fact, I believe that most of what they teach is spurious, and anti-Biblical, however, they were still terribly wronged in this matter.
Now, some of the lies that came out after the children were taken are being exposed. The state said that 31 girls from the ranch who had given birth were under the legal marrying age in the state of Texas. The Texas Supreme court has said that number is actually only five! One of the girls, the liars who brought the case said was a minor, is actually 27 years old! Keep in mind that if only five of the girls on the ranch who had children were under the legal age... guess what... that is a better percentage rate, by far, than underage girls who are getting pregnant in the Texas public school system! I would say that certain Texas officials are actually jealous at how much better (sexually) behaved the young Mormon girls are than their counterparts in the nation's public school system. (LOL)
Not that many things work out right in a debauched world... it just feels good when something does. Returning every one of these children to their families is the right thing to do. For the future, leaving all of those Mormon people alone is also the right thing to do. Finally... and I hope it happens... everyone involved in taking the children ought to lose their jobs... that would be another right thing... if it would happen. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/31/2008 9:25 a.m.
(SEVENTY) I would like to dismiss a myth created by liberal news and evidently believed by the "intellectually challenged." (LOL) It is the same myth that was created by the same liberals who had anointed Clinton to be the next president in '92. And of course they are dragging out the same lies in '08, and it is because all liberals are prostrating themselves at the feet of their latest anointed liberal, Obama. Although the liberal news groups falling prostrate at Obama's feet are a correct analogy, I prefer the word that they are "prostituting" themselves to his cause. It is because they are selling out to the highest bidder: in this case, Soros. What follows is how their duplicitous writings work.
Several years ago I was talking to the president of Rexair, Tom Lamb. He was a consummate salesman, and had worked his way from street level to become the CEO of two major companies. He told me that liberals have a regular and cyclical "pity party." During this time, as they are trying to get another liberal elected to the highest office in the land, they will bemoan the state of the economy: regardless of what contrary evidence will show. Example: for the last several months they have been saying we are in a recession... liars: recent cold, hard statistics prove otherwise.
So, what do they do? They write lying news stories saying how hard up everyone is and the main culprit... gulp, gasoline is up one whole dollar over this same time last year! So What!
That fact is statistically not even worth mentioning. I will prove that with something I have often used while closing a sale: it is called reduction to the ridiculous. First though, let me set the scenario up. I am going to write this to the average American. I do this to insure that it would reach the largest single group of people.
According to government statistics in 2008, the average American drives 12,000 miles per year, and CAFE standards on all vehicles in America are a little over 27 miles per gallon. So, we are going to break that one dollar increase in the price of gasoline down for the average American. Then, we are going to see how all of those big, dastardly, capitalistic, money-grubbing, poor hating, smarmy, oil company executives are hurting the average American. (I tried to use several words to describe oil companies and their CEO's that liberal hand-wringers have been calling them for years).
12,000 miles (per year) driven, divided by 27 mpg = 445 gallons of gasoline per year used. (Now, the reduction to the ridiculous.) That $1.00 per gallon increase means that for the average American driver you have paid $8.56 more each week to drive your car than it cost you the year before. This means that you paid $1.23 cents more per day to drive your car. In other words: that "three-day getaway" the liberal press has been lying about every single time they say that Americans are not doing this year... because of the increased price of gasoline... would have cost the average American an extra $3.69!!! Now, I submit to you that if the average American can't afford a short vacation because of the extra three dollars and sixty nine cents they would have to spend, then they have much bigger issues going on in their lives than the price of gasoline.
Here is what you can do. Forget the liberal news and their every four year fabricated "pity party," and go out and vote your conscience and enjoy all of the three day, and longer, vacations you can get in by the end of summer. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/1/2008 7:00 a.m.
(SEVENTY-ONE) It is hard to believe that June is already here. Wasn't Christmas just last week? Einstein, that old fool, wasn't right about many things... but it does seem like time goes faster when you are older.
It feels good to start the month out with some very positive news. However, you will not hear this news on any of the Chinese or Russian state run news agencies. Neither will you see it reported on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, or any of the other faux news agencies in America.
All of the aforementioned "news agencies" no longer report all of the actual news events that are happening. Instead, they handpick only whatever news pieces promote their liberal agenda, then they add their unbiased commentary. (LOLROF)
So, I will report some real news on this blog this morning. Things in Iraq are greatly improving! Both our soldiers and the civilian community are suffering much less casualties. In fact, as far as casualties are concerned, the month of May saw the fewest number of war dead since the war began, except for February 2004. Congratulation to our troops on the ground in Iraq!
Yet, the deranged Obama, as America's first pope, will continue to "pontificate" about how America has already lost the war. I would like to say that Obama is a complete arse. But, such a statement might lack tact. Instead, I would like to say that Obama is the southern end of a northern bound donkey. Oh wait, I guess that still means that Obama is an "ass." And as an ass, Obama will continue ducking McCain's invitation to go to Iraq and see for himself how much better things have gotten over there. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/2/2008 8:00 p.m.
(SEVENTY-TWO) I would just like to offer my thanks and support to all of the troops who heroically fight for our freedoms that we enjoy here at home everyday. Regular "news agencies" such as, ABC, CBS, and the rest of those liberal "news" groups will most probably not even cover the latest Medal of Honor winner: Pfc. Ross McGinnis. Nor will they tell of his great heroism.
He was riding in the open hatch of his Humvee, and while on patrol a live grenade sailed past him and into the vehicle, young Mr. McGinnis shouted a warning before throwing himself backward onto the live grenade. He was killed instantly, and his four buddies who were below were hurt but all survived. Keep in mind that he could easily have jumped out of the vehicle and saved his own life, instead he chose to sacrifice himself and save others.
That is a decision, saving others, that American soldiers practice every single day of their lives. In awarding the highest military honor our country can give a soldier to the family of Pfc. McGinnis, President Bush quoted the Bible: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
I would just like to say, May God bless the McGinnis family for their faithfulness in raising a true American patriot and one of our many fallen heroes. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/3/2008 7:00 p.m.
(SEVENTY-THREE) On the night Obama is likely to "declare victory" for the nomination to lead the party of the Democrats, let me show you a likely headline in America's near future: if enough Americans are actually stupid enough to vote for Obama for president. Paris June 3, "Brigitte Bardot Convicted in Racism Case."
Now, let your collective imaginations run wild as to what horrible and terrible things she must have done in order to actually be convicted for a crime of racism! Let me see, as a white person, perhaps she beat down a young black boy as he was innocently walking past her? Maybe, as a non-Muslim, she jerked a turban off of the head of some Muslim, while shouting, "You are too a towel-head!" Perhaps, as a non-brown person, a Mexican was only looking for an honest day's work and she spat on him for his trouble? What do you think, are any of the above scenarios bad enough to be convicted of a crime of racism?
Surely she couldn't be convicted for a crime of racism merely by writing a letter, could she? Yep... that's what happened. Miss Bardot was tired of certain practices the Muslims were doing, so she wrote a letter to the interior secretary of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. (This is the same Sarkozy who is now their president.) Do you want to read the part of the sentence in her letter that sealed her conviction? Here it is: ... "tired of being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts." Gasp... I am morally outraged by that sentence, aren't you? (LOL)
The liberal people in France have been fools for many years, their voting records prove that. And because of that, in 2008, in France you can merely write a letter that is actually very tepid, and you can be convicted for a crime of racism! There are many liberals in America who would read this blog and truly believe that it is right a person like Bardot could be convicted merely for writing a letter. God help us. Mark this down, if that begins taking place in America... I will not be around to see how it plays out... and prayerfully... neither will some others.
In France you can be convicted for a crime of inciting racial hatred even on religious grounds. In other words, if I lived in France, and make no mistake about it, liberals like Obama would try to bring this type of thinking to America, I could be convicted of inciting racial hatred if I merely state that practicing Muslims, according to the Bible, are going to Hell when they die.
I suppose I ought to get all of this writing in now, just in case (God forbid) the most liberal senator in America gets elected to America's highest office. So, here goes: It is not just practicing Muslims who are without Christ and will suffer damnation at their death, it is also Roman Catholics who are trusting sacraments and the pope above Christ's redemptive work: you can also add to that list Mormons who are trying to earn their way to Heaven. I suppose this would be an extremely lengthy blog if I would continue writing and "spew forth my hate-filled and venomous tirade" (LOL) against all of the more than 5,000 named religions in the world who trust any and everything for their salvation, EXCEPT the only One who can save their souls; Jesus the Christ!
At this point in time I still believe that the extremely liberal Obama will get crushed at the polls in November, if not though... it is time to be prepared to take action and follow Joel 3:9-10. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/4/2008 9:30 a.m.
(SEVENTY-FOUR) I remember one time at a former church we attended, which was located in a poor part of town, the pastor made a funny remark about a yearly program they had. On Mother's Day they would give flowers and prizes to mother's in different categories. Example: oldest mother, mother with most children in attendance, and etcetera. Once, during this celebration when they asked who was the youngest mother in attendance, a girl... maybe 12 or 13 years old stood up. Later the pastor joked and said, "I didn't know whether to give her a prize, or spank her." They have since stopped giving prizes in that particular category.
Today's blog has nothing to do with mother's, teenage pregnancy, or church. I just wanted to use the funny remark he made and apply something similar to a news story about home foreclosures. There is a story about Ed McMahon and the possibility that his six-million dollar mansion faces possible foreclosure from his lending company. (He is that far behind on his mortgage payments). So, "I don't know whether to feel sorry for Ed, or give him a swift kick in the pants."
Why is it, that no matter who it is, or their income bracket, most people live well beyond their means? Mr. McMahon has to be a millionaire many times over. Why does he not live in a half-million dollar home and have no problem making payments? Does any person on planet Earth really need to live in a six-million dollar home? Make no mistake about it, I am 100% for capitalism. It is just that I find it incredibly hard to find any sympathy for someone who should have plenty of money to spare (like Mr. McMahon) and yet they live so far above what is actually necessary that they are over-extended. Poor Ed. (sic) Where's Johnny when you really need him? (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/5/2008 12:01 a.m.
(SEVENTY-FIVE) I normally try to stay away from writing about "sad little people" who seem to only hurt themselves. That is why I do not write about Spears, Jackson, Hilton, and probably 99% of all "news-makers" in Hollywood. I usually only write about someone if they can be used as an example, either for good or bad. This morning I want to make an exception in three parts: first I want to write about a singer I had never heard of until I saw the story in the news, her choice of clothing, and her actions. Her name is Lily Allen and apparently she is well-known in jolly old England.
If you knew me at all you would also know that I usually care less than nothing, if such a sentiment were possible, about anyone's attire. It seems to me that an awful lot of good trees and ink have been wasted as people fuss about what some "supposed star" was wearing. However, I think this story might be worth knowing about and on several different levels.
I have been a vegetarian for more than 15 years of my life. To be completely correct, I would be classified as Lacto-Ovarian Vegetarian. In simple terms that only means that I am not against an animal laboring to help give me food, they just do not have to give all they have. (LOL)
In other words I eat animal byproducts: i.e., milk, eggs, and honey. Although this blog is not really about animal cruelty, I do want to mention something about that.
I only purchase eggs where the chicken has "free range" and lives a fairly normal life for a chicken. (Whatever "normal" means for a chicken, I am sure I don't know). But, I do not want to purchase and eat a byproduct from an animal that is forced to live their life in a cage that is not much larger than their body. And most chickens are forced to live that way only to satisfy a "perceived palate pleasure" of human beings. So, I honestly do not mind paying five to six times more for a dozen eggs, as long as I know the chickens that produced the eggs are not living their lives trapped in a small wire cage. Now, back to the point of the blog.
Apparently Lily wore a dress to a party that was covered with cartoon characters of deer, which looked like Bambi, and all of them had their throats slit with blood gushing out. I am not against shock value. But, it just seems to me that many in PETA are constantly shooting themselves in the foot with their crazy actions. If she was going to wear such a dress, and try to call attention to animal cruelty, wouldn't a person think that she ought to be on her best behavior?
In that situation, I know that I would. But what did she do? She got so drunk on beer that she passed out and had to be carried to her car: idiot! An opportunity to maybe do some good and at least get people talking about killing animals for food, just because we are stronger than they are and we can, was squandered.
In a world gone mad, and with most of the cruelty in the world impossible for the average person to stop any of it, Darfur, Myanmar, Tibet, and etcetera, it just seems to me that not killing innocent animals (only so we can feed our faces) is a small kindness that the "average person" can extend: if only so that we can cut down on some of the innocent things in this world dying needlessly. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/6/2008 9:50 a.m.
(SEVENTY-SIX) Probably most people has seen the video of the old guy in Hartford, very liberal city, being struck by a car and no one stopping to help him. Many people in the world of today are completely without compassion, and I believe I know the three main reasons for it.
First, of course, America and many other nations in the world routinely practice infanticide (abortion on demand) and they heartlessly mutilate and kill innocent children by the millions every single year. Why would anyone think it strange that people who are so apathetic and evil that they can kill a helpless baby, should not stop to help an old man who was injured?
The mindset in the world today is to take... not save human life. Another contributing factor in this story is our "throw away" mindset of the aged. Face it: unless your parents or grandparents are ill and require 24/7 medical care you are tossing them out like last week's garbage when you send them to a nursing home.
I know, you are a very busy person and you haven't the time to look after that old person in your family... besides, they sometimes talk nonsense and they can be very messy. Add to that the cost. Do you have any idea what it costs to feed and clothe and old person? Wait a minute though... couldn't all of those arguments have been made when you were a baby and they had to take care of you? Oh, that's right... in our throw away society many parents don't, they just kill the unwanted child.
And of course, if you were one of the lucky ones who your parents decided was "a keeper," then you learned it was okay to throw away a human being if they posed any type of hardship, so, just dump those old people at the nearest nursing home. And if you're lucky, Medicare might even pick up the bill and you can actually forget they ever even existed. All I can say is good riddance.
Think about it... aren't you baby killing, old people dumping just a bunch of pathetic losers? I think so. Of course there is another and quicker option: call Kevorkian.
Then of course there is the silliness of evolution being ingrained in the mind's of children. This of course follows them into adulthood and like magic, we have: abortion on demand, turn the aged out to die by themselves, and of course it only stands to reason that these types of people would not stop to help an old man who is bleeding and dying in the middle of a busy street.
Even as one paper reported, "They left the old man in the street like a dog that was run over." But if evolution is true, why not leave him there? Besides, maybe it was a dog he evolved from. (LOL) The world and most people in it today are insane in their thought processes, and their daily lives and actions only reflect their depravity. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/7/2008 9:45 p.m.
(SEVENTY-SEVEN) I suppose it is the time in my life that has caused the sea change in my perceptions; though I'm not altogether sure. I have always been more than a little weird when it comes to numbers and things such as that. Example: today is 06/07/08, which in reality is no more, or less significant than if the day, month, and year did not chronologically progress by one whole number. However, in my past I would have probably looked for ways to make this day seem different or more important than the day that came before, or the day which was to immediately follow. So, in keeping with that thought, a more important day, I will tell you why today was a little better day than the one before, and better than the day that is to immediately follow: albeit it has nothing to do with chronological numbers.
Today I got to see, talk to, or be around my three daughters, their husbands and all seven grandchildren. That makes it a pretty good day. Our middle daughter, her husband and their two children are this evening resting in a Hyatt, somewhere in Georgia. It is a pit stop en route to Hilton Head, which is their vacation destination this year.
My other two daughters, their husbands and their five children are probably still where we left them a little earlier: enjoying each other's company after a backyard barbecue.
Sitting here at my desk this evening it is hard to imagine but it is within the realm of possibility that with only 20 more trips around the Sun, I could very easily be counting it another good day because I also got to see one of my great grandchildren!
It seems absurd to imagine that only last week I was ten years old and my mom and dad had given in and bought me that gray (spy) trench coat I had been begging for. It was made out of plastic and it had several hidden pockets with more (plastic) spy-gear inside. And only next Tuesday, My wife and I will be 75 years old and have our children... grandchildren... and great grandchildren around to keep us company during old age.
Just a thought for any interested reader... it seems that I have learned to count my days differently... perhaps you should as well. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/8/2008 8:00 a.m.
(SEVENTY-EIGHT) Usually I have an idea for a blog and as I write about it I try to "prove" whatever point I am trying to make with facts and statistics. An example of this can be found in blog number 65, just scroll backward a little bit and you can see what I mean. However, for this blog I want to try something different. Rather than for me to try and "prove" certain truths about who runs government more successfully, Republicans or Democrats, I want you to find the "proof" for yourself.
First of all, how can a person actually define what is successful, as it relates to government? In reality there would be several ways, but in trying to limit the size of this blog and in trying to find certain measures that I believe both Democrats and Republicans would feel is a fair barometer, I have chosen only three; price of gasoline, handgun violence, public education. Also, after you have done your own research and with cold, hard facts proven to yourself that Republicans ideas and practices are superior in the three areas I outlined above, then feel free to expand that field and you will find a singular truth; In every instance where safety, well-being, and a better life for the majority of people are concerned, Republican run governments do a better job!
I actually went to number ten on each list to prove my point, although that did take awhile. So, go to five, or seven, it doesn't matter the number you choose, it only matters that you will see that big-spending liberals make life harder for the average citizen. Our test begins.
First: research the ten cities in America where gasoline prices are the highest. Then, see who is in majority control of that city and its government: Democrats or Republicans? And keep in mind the following fact. The only reason gas prices are higher or lower in a given area is the added price of local taxes!
Number two: in order, what is the ten cities in America with the highest handgun violence? Which party is in control of those cities? In order, what ten cities in America has the lowest incidence of handgun violence? Which party is in control of those cities?
Number three: I must begin this by saying that I am not for public education. Across the board it is easy to see that private education does a far superior job in actually imparting an education to children. However, for the point of this blog, let's do some math. In order, one through ten, what cities are miserably failing in educating children in public schools? (drop out rate, functioning illiterates, etc.) Which party is in control of those cities? Now check out the top ten most successful cities as it relates to public education. Again, which party is in control?
If you are honest, you will see that in ways most Americans would agree that success can be measured, Democrats miserably fail in attempting to run government. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/9/2008 8:50 a.m.
(SEVENTY-NINE) Today's blog would not be popular with many young people, and probably some who are not so young. However, the ideas being discussed are still apropos. Raise the legal age for teenagers to 18, before they can drive an automobile. And, force every driver over 70 to have a complete physical and take a new driving test every four years. Do you realize that in America, every seven minutes a teenage driver is being killed in a car crash. Also, how many times have you seen headlines similar to, "Octogenarian blacks out and crashes through building."
!6 is too young to put a kid in charge of a vehicle that weighs anywhere from a few thousand pounds to more than four tons, for a vehicle like the Ford Excursion. Now, imagine a machine weighing 8,000 pounds hurtling down the road at 70 mph and being driven either by a kid or an older person who has lost much of their motor skills.
For my own family I did the opposite of what many families do. When my daughters turned 16 I was in no hurry to see them on the road and driving. Many parents, though, seem that they can hardly wait until their children can drive themselves to school, malls, friend's houses, and etcetera. And to prove that point, just see how quickly after their children turn 16 they have a license and are driving a car by themselves.
When my daughters turned 16 I allowed them to get a driver's permit and they learned to drive a car with an experienced driver in the car with them. To this point, most every family with a 16 year old in the mix had the same experience. But, what follows is where I parted company with many other families.
Every six months their driver's permits expired and the girls would have to get another one. I did this in order for them to gain more driving experience in the real world. All three of our daughters repeated this experience until they had a couple of years of training. Yet, I guarantee that any of our daughters would have easily passed the written and the road test within the time-frame of one learner's permit. Albeit, memorizing a few facts, driving a couple of miles down the road, and being able to park a car between plastic cones is not the same thing as skillfully driving and being in control of a very powerful machine: that only comes with experience and age!
Now let me ask every reader a simple question. On average, who would be a safer driver: A teenager with six months, or two years driving experience? If you love your children, and I'm not doubting that you do, then give them the best chance to arrive safely in a car they are driving: write your local elected officials and ask them to raise the legal driving age in your state to 18 years of age.
It is important that at 16 a learner's permit is still offered, but let's use some common sense and give more than six months training before the kids are on the road by themselves. I can already tell you who the parents are that would disagree, and agree with this blog, and that even before it is ever read.
The parents who are just too lazy, busy, self-centered, and etcetera, to continue driving their children to whatever events they need to be at, will disagree with me.
The parents who has already lost an inexperienced teenager in a car crash will agree with this blog. I sincerely hope that you are not a family that one day will be forced to move from that first group into the second group, only because of a car crash involving one of your under-aged children. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/10/2008 8:00 p.m.
(EIGHTY) Have you ever stopped to consider the following point. Why is it that the answer always seems to be for Democrats, "Tax, tax, and more tax." It doesn't matter the question, according to them, the answer is to levy a new tax. Did you see the latest? To supposedly offset high prices at the pump, tax those who are supplying the gasoline! Have you ever in your life heard anything more stupid than that? Be honest, what always happens whenever a supplier is heavily taxed? Always, always, always... whatever product that is being taxed, at a higher rate, that product goes up to the end user! Can anyone say, the tobacco industry?
Who is the end user? Answer: the American consumer. If any Democrat leader had the sense God gave a sparrow, the answer to high gasoline prices is simple: immediately cancel the moratorium against drilling in more than 75% of our coasts, where there are proven oil reserves, and allow drilling in ANWAR, and the sourdough mining field. Very good estimates say there are more than 100 billion barrels of retrievable oil in that area alone.
Let me ask you three more questions. What party is against taxing the oil companies because they are smart enough to know that the oil companies will simply charge more to the consumer to cover the extra taxes they were charged? Answer: Republicans. What party is against us drilling in ANWAR, which would allow us to not be as dependent on Saudi Arabia for our oil? Answer: the Democrats.
Last question: Why in the world would any thinking person ever cast a ballot for any politician who says they are a Democrat? (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/11/2008 6:10 a.m.
(EIGHTY-ONE) "Facts Show Another Liberal Plan Has Failed." That should be the headline in every major newspaper in New York City: instead we see, "High Incidence of Herpes." The story then goes on to say that more than one-in-four adults in New York City are infected with the virus that causes genital herpes! (Of course, that number is considerably higher than the national average.)
That fact should surprise no one when one of the more popular movies at the box office is Sex and the City." If you haven't seen it, I can save you some money and tell the complete storyline in one sentence: "The movie is about four (bed-hopping) whores who live in New York City." There, I've saved you some money and you don't have to waste your time and go watch it, and of course, "You're welcome." Now I will explain my opening headline about another failed plan that was (and is) promoted by liberals.
If you read the story about the outbreak of herpes in New York you will find an amazing fact. Almost as an afterthought and toward the end of the story you will read this statement: "The city first began giving away condoms in the early 1970's..." Well, another liberal theory bites the dust! It is because promoting the use of condoms does also send the message that you are promoting sexual encounters, which is exactly what conservatives have been saying for decades!
Let me ask you two questions. "Who is for giving away free condoms: conservatives, or liberals?" Answer: liberals.
"Who is for promoting abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within: liberals, or conservatives?" Answer: conservatives.
You can also prove that promoting the use of condoms, instead of promoting abstinence, leads to more sex (not less) by comparing pregnancy and STD statistics between any (same-sized) government run public school that gives away free condoms, and the private school which promotes abstinence and would never consider giving away condoms to children. Liberal plans fail because they are always excusing and enabling the more decadent side of human nature. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/12/2008 12:15 a.m.
(EIGHTY-TWO) Anyone who might have an opinion on the politician, and extremely liberal, Dennis Kucinich, I would like to do a poll. It is an easy one. Here it is: "Is Kucinich an idiot?" Easy enough, just answer yes, or no. Before you do though, let me give you some other words and definitions that basically mean the same thing: incongruous; inviting ridicule, absurd, cockeyed, derisory, laughable, ludicrous, nonsensical, preposterous, imbecillic, (I especially like the last definition I am recording) and, "having a mental age of three to seven years."
Now that you have several words and definitions to reference, I ask again, "Is Kucinich an idiot?" Have you heard his latest tirade against President Bush? Kucinich introduced a resolution to impeach President Bush. Give me a second, please. I just fell out of my chair from laughing too hard as I was imagining the Democrat scramble (on the hill) to get Kucinich shut up and quickly.
The Republicans voted 166-0 to go ahead and bring the impeachment resolution to the house floor in order to debate its merit. Guess which party shut Kucinich up? Of course it was his own: the Democrats voted 225-26 to send the bill to committee. In other words, send it where it will never see the light of day again. Why do you suppose the Democrat leaders did not want this brought to the house floor for debate? It is because their own party would be exposed for their hypocritical posturing on the Iraq war. Remember: Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and most every other leader in the party of the Democrats had publicly expressed the very same sentiments about WMD's as President Bush did!
Also, keep in mind that the Democrats who expressed these sentiments, did it before President Bush ever came to office! Now though, Democrat leaders hope that the American public has a short memory and will not search video archives to see what liars the Democrats are and how they have turned 180 degrees from their earlier statements about Iraq. Keep in mind that Democrats do not lead by conviction: they lead by polls. So, if something is popular with the American people, they are for it, if polls suggest something is unpopular, suddenly they are against it.
There is another reason that Democrats do not want to talk about "impeachment." It reminds people of the last president who was impeached by the House of Representatives. What was his name... oh yeah... I remember... William Jefferson Clinton. And, what party did he represent? Oh yeah, wasn't he a Democrat? And who was the only other sitting president to ever be impeached? Answer: Andrew Johnson... another Democrat!
Alright, time to take the poll. Is Kucinich an idiot? My answer is... yes. Write to me and give me your answer. (Robin l. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/13/2008 12:15 p.m.
(EIGHTY-THREE) Happy Friday 13th. Just a question before I write today's blog: are any of you out there superstitious about this day? If you are take heart, stats show that, on average, any Friday that happens to fall on the 13th of a particular month is actually safer than any other day of the week which also falls on the 13th. It might only be that many who are superstitious, stay home that day. Whatever the reason though, statistically speaking, it is a safe day. Now I will write about salmonella poisoning by tomatoes (brought in from Mexico) and show you we have something else to thank Bill Clinton for.
Bush (1) was an idiot to ever sit down with Salinas and Mulroney and sign the framework agreement for the North American Free Trade Agreement. (NAFTA) However, at this point it still had no bite to it because it was only an agreement and not ratified or backed by any law. So, as I already said, Bush (1) was an idiot for sitting down with the leaders of Mexico and Canada in the first place: however, a year later, Clinton was the bigger fool for signing NAFTA into law.
Since 1/1/94, if you have lost your job due to the fact that your company has outsourced it to some foreign market, you ought to thank Bill Clinton.
If you have a child or a loved one who got sick from the lead in all of the toys made in China, you ought to thank Bill Clinton.
If you had a loved pet that got sick or died from eating food which was contaminated overseas, you ought to thank Bill Clinton.
If today, Friday 13th 2008, you are afraid to go to your grocery market and buy something as simple as a tomato, you ought to thank Bill Clinton. In fact, every time Americans, who are living at home in the United States, are forced to behave like we are in a third-world country, you ought to thank Bill Clinton.
The Socialist agenda that is openly embraced by every leading Democrat since Jimmy Carter, is slowly but surely coming true. Their goal is for Americans to live like the rest of the impoverished world. It openly began with Carter wearing a sweater and imploring Americans to act like the rest of the third-world countries and turn down their thermostats. Their philosophy is: "Why do Americans have the right to live comfortably if the rest of the world can't?"
If you doubt that Carter and his Socialist agenda does not still dominate the Democrats today, then read what Obama recently said about America and its people: "We can't drive our SUV's and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." From Carter to Obama, every leading Democrat has openly embraced a Socialistic agenda!
In past years when "made or grown in America" meant that whatever was "made or grown in America" was safe, is long gone, and you can thank NAFTA and William Jefferson Clinton for all of the terrible consequences.
The next time you hear some liberal make the comment that McCain is running for Dubya's third term, tell them that a more accurate analogy is that Obama is running for Carter's second term.
If you are an American who loves the principles this country was founded upon, and you cast your vote with that in mind: Obama should not be able to garner enough votes to make him a dog catcher in a small town anywhere in America! (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/14/2008 7:15 a.m.
(EIGHTY-FOUR) Today is 22 years after the death of my mom. If she were alive she would be 81 years old: hard to imagine.
I want today to write about a plea for mercy, that in my estimation ought not to be extended. Susan Atkins, a former Manson family member is apparently dying (sooner rather than later) and she wants out of prison.
She is directly responsible for murdering at least three people that we know about, there might be others. You remember that authorities have been searching the area where this evil group used to live trying to locate other murder victims. So far, they haven't found any remains, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.
Regardless, killing three people is at least two more than necessary to keep her behind bars until the death of her own body. She was known as "Sadie Mae Glutz" when she slit the throat of Sharon Tate, thereby killing Sharon and her unborn baby. Sadie then took blood from her victims and scrawled the word "pig" on the wall. She should have been put to death for her crimes decades ago, however, California is an extremely liberal state and this did not happen.
It is being reported that Sadie is now a born-again believer in the Lord Jesus. You want to know something: I sincerely hope this is true; although that still does not mitigate what she did before she was saved.
Sharon and her baby received no compassion from Sadie, even though she said that Sharon begged for her own and her baby's life. Sadie might now beg for a "compassionate parole" from prison in order that she can die outside of prison: my sincere prayer is that she will receive the same response from the parole board that she extended to Sharon Tate and her baby. There should be no compassion extended, nor sympathy felt for this brutal murderess, Sadie Mae Glutz. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/15/2008 11:30 p.m.
(EIGHTY-FIVE) Just a brief blog this evening to wish fathers a happy "Father's Day." Mine was nice, and much for the same reasons as I had written about on another blog. I got to see and talk to all three of our daughters, their husbands, and all seven of our grandchildren. We are blessed that we have a lot of our family living nearby. Not everyone we know is that fortunate.
I also received two very nice (father's day) messages from a little girl "Jocie" that we have now known for nearly 14 years. Time flies! So, to everyone who gave me cards and wished me well, thank you!
I also want to briefly lament one event that is in the news. The innocent little six-year-old boy that the heathen Bill Clinton turned over to the Communists in Cuba, is now not so innocent at the age of fourteen. Recently, Elian Gonzales joined the Communist party (for youths) in Cuba. I would hate to have the blighted soul that Clinton has and have to stand before Christ one day and give an account for all of his actions.
I will finish this blog with a Bible warning to Clinton and those of his ilk. Hebrews 10:31: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/16/2008 8:50 a.m.
(EIGHTY-SIX) I want to give you a brief list of just three black men who are racist to their core. These are men, who, if white and would live in either West Virginia, or Kentucky, would have been vilified and told they were "ignorant" because skin color was a factor in how they cast their vote.
First though, let me show you how a non-racist person like myself would cast their vote for a particular politician. If John McCain were so black that he shone, I, as a white person, would still vote for him. I vote my principles and beliefs, not my own skin color. If Obama were so white that Casper the friendly ghost looked black by comparison, I still would not spit on him if he were on fire and would not vote for him if my life depended on it. I vote my principles and beliefs, not my own skin color.
Now I will name three racist black men who will suspend their "supposed" conservative views and vote for an extremely liberal black guy, only because he has black skin! These men are racist to their very core.
Colin Powell, J.C. Watts, and Armstrong Williams are just three among the many "ignorant black people" who are voting for a candidate based on the color of his skin. In the above three-word phrase, "ignorant black people," insert the word white, for black and that was the phrase most commonly applied to white people in West Virginia and Kentucky who said that race was a factor in helping them decide who to vote for. Powell, Watts, and Armstrong must be at least a squared number more ignorant than the average white voter In West Virginia, or Kentucky, because for those voters, race was only one factor in helping them decide who to vote for. Powell, Watts, and Armstrong will vote for the black guy, based only on his skin being dark!
In case you doubt that last statement, listen to Williams own words. Now keep in mind that he is talking about Obama "I don't necessarily like his politics, I don't like much that he advocates, but..." I would like to ask The racists, Powell, Watts, and Armstrong, just one question. Why do you believe you are less racist than any member of the KKK when you do not like what a politician stands for, believes in, or practices... but... you will vote for them only because they have the same skin color that you do? You can deny it all you like, but you are racist to your very core! (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
06/17/2008 7:20 a.m.
(EIGHTY-SEVEN) Everyone who reads this blog ought to understand a singular truth about myself, and it is only this: I do not care whether anyone agrees with what I write or not. Oddly enough, that statement also applies to me personally. Let me explain.
As a younger man (and a lost person) I would have been more closely aligned with a libertarian philosophy of life. Although, if you clearly define a libertarian's views I would not have been in lockstep with all of their creed, at least I was still on-board with the idea of "live and let live." I was not at all interested in the government forcing people to behave in a way that ran counter to whatever they wanted to do.
Keep in mind I am not speaking about anarchy, I believed then as I do now that the government needs to stop any and all behavior by any individual or group, if that behavior is hurting or harming a non-willing party(s). But, if a person was doing any practice that (in theory) was only harming themselves, then the government should not intrude.
Before I was saved, I, like every other person, had my own set of beliefs and opinions. After I was born-again I had to change my own beliefs and strongly held opinions to line-up with whatever the Bible had to say in all matters. I did this gladly, which brings me to the point of today's blog.
Regardless of whatever any individual or court has to say about the subject of marriage, the Bible has already weighed in with what God has to say about the subject! And that truth trumps what all opposing voices have to say on the matter.
California is the latest state to allow "gay marriages" and make such marriages, "legal." In this matter, California is wrong because they are going against clear Bible teaching. Marriage is defined in the Bible as happening only between a man and a woman.
To allow America's morals and values, which at one time were closely tied to the Holy Scriptures, to reach the place they have today, far from the Bible, is the fault of good people who sat back and did nothing. Now, for this country to get back to a place of moral high-ground will take a lot of diligence, and concerned followers of Christ to vote their conscience during every election. George Washington said, "It is much easier at all times to prevent an evil than to rectify mistakes."
Though Mr. Washington offered sage advice in those penned lines, we are far past the easy fix in this country. Now, in order to rectify our mistakes, we (meaning all followers of Jesus the Christ) must show due diligence, and pray and work to get America back to its Christian heritage: before it is forever too late. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/18/2008 8:00 a.m.
(EIGHTY-EIGHT) McCain and his group is finally doing something right as it pertains to Obama and his liberal supporters. Figuratively speaking, McCain is finally punching Obama in the mouth as it relates to terrorists and terrorism by those who are against our country.
Even for the most unenlightened voter in America, it should be easy to see who is more willing and better able to fight terrorism in all its forms: of course the answer is McCain, and polls show that on the issue of terrorism and who can better keep America safe, McCain is the clear winner.
I don't know why conservative pundits act like they are afraid to speak the truth whenever it comes to Obama and his patriotism. They always say something like, "We don't doubt Obama's patriotism." If they are going to say something so patently untrue, they ought to follow up with something like... "Even though Obama married a woman (Michelle) who shows no patriotism, for 20 years sat under the preaching of his pastor, (Wright) a man who thinks America, during 9/11, got what 'She deserved', and sought out and befriended, for political purposes, a murdering terrorist (Ayers) who was a founding member of the Weather Underground and was responsible for killing people with bombs planted at the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon."
If conservative pundits are too afraid to say it, I will: "Obama is an unpatriotic, left leaning liberal who has a strong Marxist philosophy, and he would be soft on terror because he agrees with some of the terrorist's views and practices." There, I've said it, now how hard was that?
A black man (Denzel Washington) in 2004 played a role in the remake of an old Hollywood classic from 1962, "The Manchurian Candidate." Another black man (Obama) in 2008 is playing a similar role and this time he is the "sleeper candidate" who will try to usher in a new era with Muslims leading the way.
Ask yourself the following question. Why is Obama, a "supposed" Christian, openly embraced by leaders of the Muslim faith? Other men who have had training in the Muslim faith and then rejected their false teachings in order to "embrace Christianity" has had a death decree ordered for them by Muslim leaders. Where is Obama's death decree? It is non-existent because Obama is their very own "sleeper candidate." (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/19/2008 7:20 a.m.
(EIGHTY-NINE) Will American voters ever wise-up? Just a few questions. What party was in control of Congress when the ban on oil drilling off our coasts was put in place? Answer: Democrats. What party, who is in control of our Congress (House and Senate) today, opposes lifting that moratorium? Answer: Democrats. What party is President Bush a part of, a man who just asked the Democrats in Congress to lift that ban? Answer: Republican. McCain, a Republican, is also in agreement that the ban should be immediately lifted and drilling started! What Democrat that is running for office is against lifting the ban? Answer: Obama.
Do you want to hear Obama's stated reasoning for not wanting to lift the ban? He said, "At best you are looking at five years or more down the road." In other words, we will have an answer to America's oil problem in five years! But, Obama, short sighted fool that he is, would rather blame everyone but the Democrats who gave us the problems in the first place. And some of you out there actually want this man to lead America? God forbid!
Like every other time the leading Democrats are also wrong about how long it will take if the ban is lifted for us to see a drop at the gas pumps. Obama, idiot that he is, believes it will take five years before we see a drop in prices. Pelosi believes we will see only one penny drop in prices if the moratorium is lifted. Both are liberal Democrats and as usual both are way off the mark.
Let me show you what a clear thinking Republican, like myself, has to say about the drop in prices at our pump. The very week the moratorium is lifted, prices across the country will significantly decrease as OPEC will boost oil production, based only on the fact that America is becoming serious about not being dependent on the Middle East for its economy. Mark and date this blog and you will see easy proof that Democrat leaders are wrong about not being able to drill ourselves out of high gasoline prices. If we open ANWAR, as Republican leaders want, and if the ban on offshore drilling is lifted, as Republican leaders want, we will drill ourselves out of high gasoline prices! (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/20/2008 6:45 p.m.
(NINETY) Robin 1A to the rescue... more on this later.
The other day a case of road rage made the news in our little town as a black woman who was driving a car shot a white man who was riding a motorcycle. The first reports we heard were that, at an intersection, the man had hopped off of his bike and jerked the woman's car door open. When I heard that I said, "Good for her." If the guy was that stupid he deserved a couple of rounds in the chest. Now though, the truth is coming out.
The police report and many eyewitnesses state that the man did hop off of his bike, and at the same time the woman pulled her gun and shot the man from her closed vehicle. Wait though, it gets better. The son and the mother, according to several eyewitness accounts and a videotape from a local gas station show that once the man was shot, the boy for certain and maybe the mom begin kicking the guy who is on the ground and bleeding. When the police arrive they have to handcuff the boy in order to calm him down. Wait though, it gets better.
This is not the first time that Yolanda has done this. Less than three months ago and on the same street, she drew her gun on another person in a different road rage incident. Now, are you beginning to see a pattern?
Ask any person who knows me or has seen me drive and I would most probably be characterized as an aggressive driver, and for a dozen years or more I have had a concealed carry permit. I have had a gun on my person, under my seat, in the glove-box, etcetera: and I have never felt the urge to brandish it even one time. So, I think it is crystal clear who the aggressor is in the case of Yolanda. Wait though, it gets better.
A black guy who calls himself Christopher 2x has brought his clown act across the bridge from Louisville into Jeffersonville. He is now the "official mouthpiece" for Yolanda and her family. This 2x guy was a deadbeat and delinquent father owing multiplied thousands of dollars in unpaid child support when he decided to reinvent himself. Now, any black or brown person who breaks the law he somehow becomes their voice and he speaks to the press for these families. In case you have never seen this 2x guy, I can give you a dead-ringer for him: Steve Erkel from "Family Matters" could pass as his twin brother.
So, because of 2x, I also have decided to reinvent myself. I, as a white man, am going to give myself a new name. Henceforth, I am to be called... (ta-da) Robin 1A! And I am asking all of the lawbreaking members of society who happen to have a white face to call on me anytime they, or their immediate family, get busted for drugs, or are killed by cops after trying to run them down with their car, or any other type of delinquent behavior, call on me... Robin 1A... and I'll be right over.
I do need to explain who is eligible for my services. Remember, I am trying to pattern myself like 2x so I can only speak for the same type of classless people. I'll make it as simple as the ABC's.
A. Neither you, nor any person in your immediate family could have ever held a real job for more than 30 days in your lifetime.
B. If there is any type of free government give-aways out there, you and your immediate family must be either drawing them now or signed up to get them in the very near future.
C. You must be living in free government housing, (projects) and at least two of the front windows ought to have busted glass so that every time the wind blows your curtains are hanging outside. (For that last part, I will speak for you if only one window is broken, it's just that it looks better if two are knocked out.)
And I'm really sorry, but if you qualify for A and B, yet you live in a private residence, I can't help you, it just looks too silly.
I was going to add a D to my list, instead though I decided I could still represent you even if you couldn't do this next thing and keep a straight face for the camera: though it helps a great deal if you can. No matter what type of lowlife thug or punk you might have helped to raise, if they are shot dead by the police while robbing a bank, or committing some other crime, you must still be able to look into the camera and keep a straight face and say, "I don't care if my son/daughter/husband... etcetera, did have an arrest record that is longer than my arm, deep down... they were a really good person.
Alright, for every lowlife (white) lawbreaker out there, write down this number: 1-800-WHO-CARES. At that time, I, Robin 1A, will be on the other end of that phone line... waiting to come to the rescue. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
The answer is simple, Obama is a snake-oil salesman and sooner, rather than later I believe the vast majority of Americans are going to begin to see that. Every single time he strays from prepared remarks, Obama is saying exactly what he truly believes! He only backpedals after the polls show that America is not ready to embrace Obama's Marxist philosophies. It is a teaching he learned after sitting for more than 20 years at the feet of his preacher... Wright. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/23/2008 12:05 a.m.
(SIXTY-TWO) I did some research in order to write about this more than a week ago. But, so far I had found other things which interested me more to blog about. This morning, though, I want to write about the "high cost of gasoline." Although, I am not writing to complain about it, at least not by comparison with the rest of the world.
On May 15, tax day here at home, I checked the average price of gasoline in France and it averaged a little more than $8.00 per gallon, which is 2.3 times higher than here at home. Yet, gasoline arriving at our shore is virtually the same price as when it arrives on their shores. The reason it is so high on the foreign markets is that the Socialist governments add a whopping 70% tax at the pump. While here at home, our Capitalist government only adds a paltry 18.4% tax.
All of the elitists in Hollywood, who are always extolling the supposed virtues of Europe, ought to have this verifiable fact stuffed in their faces.
What happened to the "good ol' days" when people who constantly ran down America were told, "America: love it or leave it." Where is the spirit of men like Senator Joe McCarthy when we really need that. When a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, like Obama, even has a serious shot at becoming president of this country, it bespeaks a national travesty of what America actually stands for.
For every person in America today who does not like to pay $4.00 a gallon for gasoline, I have some other choices for you. Go to Canada, in addition to paying more for gasoline per gallon... windshield wiper fluid in parts of Canada runs $6.00 per gallon. Travel to Germany, pay $8.91 for a gallon of gasoline. Italy...$8.79, Hong Kong...$7.56, London...$8.18, Israel...$7.20... and the list goes on and on.
The reason I wanted to mock a lot of the European communities is that you can see the lie of the liberals do not work, and I can prove that on two fronts. Liberals have taken over Europe and yet you can see, by hard evidence, that their Socialist forms of government did not drive down fuel prices. Also, we see that the majority of cars they drive in Europe are so small that once you are through driving them you can pick them up and put them in your pocket: yet, gas prices only continue to rise.
When will Americans, in large numbers, quit believing the lies of the liberals and look around at how the rest of the world is forced to live and say, "No Way!" All of those nations that are run by liberal minded people have less freedoms, less goods to purchase, less money in their pockets, higher unemployment, worse health care, etcetera and etcetera. In case, for whatever reason, someone else is afraid to say it, I will say it for them, "America: love it or leave it!" (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/24/2008 8:15 p.m.
(SIXTY-THREE) Many comedians use the theme of the "sign the apocalypse" (end of planet Earth) is upon us as they tell about something weird which is happening in the news. Today, I join that group as I lament some of what is happening and is being "reported as news."
AOL has a prominent story, with pictures, under the heading, "Even 'Heroes' Need to Eat." If you scroll through the pictures, and in order to write about it I'm sorry to say I had to: guess what you get? More than a dozen pictures of people eating! Is that News?
Of course, photographer's taking pictures of people eating, celebrity or otherwise, is not news, it is an invasion of privacy and a sign that some people are very much into hero worship. And it also seems to me that several of the people in this gallery are certainly not any person who is worthy of someone wanting to emulate.
I can't say for certain that people who waste their time taking such pictures, and the fact that there must be an audience who wants to see the pictures: else why take them: is a sign that the end is near. However, I can say it is a sign that there must be a lot of pathetic people out there if they have no better things to do with their life, than to waste it watching some "supposed star" eat their food! That is sad... very sad. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/25/2008 9:30 a.m.
(SIXTY-FOUR) As soon as I read the third posted news story today, I knew what I was going to write about. At that point I also knew that I would take the test which was offered and report on how I did.
If a person is going to become a citizen of this country, they ought to know certain things about its history. Thirty-four years ago, my (foreign-born) wife had to take and pass a similar test before she was made a citizen... and that was (and is) a right thing to do. Today, AOL had a sampling of questions that people who want to become naturalized citizens of the U.S.A. has to answer. There are a possible 100 questions in the question pool, however, only ten are randomly pulled and given. All they have to answer are 6 out of 10. Just 60% correct and they pass. That seems extremely fair.
Now comes the part that as soon as I saw the story I figured I would extrapolate the thought of that particular test and incorporate it into another kind of test... and here it is: I honestly believe that even for native-born American citizens there ought to be a similar test given before you are allowed to vote in any election!
I deplore the fact that you have people by the millions who could not even answer the most rudimentary questions about America. Yet, their vote counts exactly the same as a person who takes the time to learn about candidates, their positions, and how a particular politician, if elected, would affect the United States of America and its people.
With that thought in mind I will pose to you the ten questions I answered online and see if at least 60% of them had to be answered correctly in order for you to have the privilege to vote in the next election... would you be allowed to vote?
Before I took the test, I figured that even if all 100 were offered to me I would probably not miss any. (It is because I enjoy history and I study our nation's past and I stay current on what is taking place in America today). But, I missed one out of the ten questions I took online. To be fair, as soon as I recorded my answer, I knew it was wrong: yet, I left it because it was my first thought and I figured that would be the most honest way to write this blog.
I will give you the ten questions in the order they were given to me. Then, at the end, I will type the answers. At this time , on a sheet of paper, as you are reading the questions be sure to record your answers.
1. Who is in in charge of the Executive Branch?
2. Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?
3. Name one of the two longest rivers in America?
4. How many justices are on the Supreme Court?
5. Who is the (present) Speaker of the House?
6. Name the war between the North and the South.
7. Why are there 13 stripes in the American flag?
8. Name one United States territory.
9. What is Susan B. Anthony known for?
10. Who was president during WWI?
I have to be honest... I had to hold my nose, with my left hand, as I wrote my answer to number five... and in my answer to number nine, I had to first poke a little fun.
Did you write down your answers? OK, let's see how you did. Now if I were king of the world... just kidding. But, in reality, if I were in a position to do so, and had the power to enforce it... no one would ever cast another ballot in this country until they had proven they have at least a little knowledge about our country, and the people who want to run it. I mean, are you permitted to drive a car without first taking a test? And... voting is far more important an act than driving any automobile. The answers I wrote are what follows.
!. George Bush (sitting president)
2. Thomas Jefferson
3. The mighty Mississippi
4. Nine
5. (This stinks) Nancy Pelosi
6. Civil War
7. Representative of the original 13 Colonies
8. Puerto Rico
9. (America's first "feminazi") Known for women's civil rights.
10. Teddy Roosevelt... This is what I wrote and as soon as I did... I knew it was wrong: his presidency was too soon after the turn of the century to have been in office during WWI. Although I left my answer because I wanted to accurately reflect the results of the test I took. I will also add that I was wrong in my next thought... not who the president was during WWI... but the fact that I thought Woodrow Wilson immediately followed Roosevelt. I completely forgot about Taft. However, he was a very forgettable president. Lest you think I'm mocking him... unfairly... read what he wrote about himself, years after leaving office. William Howard Taft: "I don't remember that I ever was president." (You and me both buddy...LOL)
So how did you do? Would you be allowed to vote in the next election if you had to have pertinent information before casting your ballot? I can guarantee you that America would be a much stronger and greater country if people were required to, at the very least, have a little understanding and knowledge about how our country operates.
I will also add the other possible answers to the questions where there were more than one correct answer. Question three: Missouri River was the other possible answer. Question eight: The other four territories are... U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, North Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.
Before finishing I would like to thank Rush for popularizing the word, "feminazi." (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/26/2008 7:35 p.m.
(SIXTY-FIVE) I would first like to say that I hope everyone had an enjoyable Memorial Day with family and friends. I also hope that at least some of you took time to pray for the families who has lost loved ones in America's many wars. I also took time today to thank God (in prayer) for the brave sons and daughters who themselves gave the ultimate sacrifice in order that we at home can live in peace and safety. THANK YOU!!!
I also want to write about a paper that was forwarded to me by one of my sons-in-law. Basically it speaks of the hypocrisy of the Democrat party as it relates to Social Security. I would like to do this with some facts, and after reading them I would like to ask each of you to verify the truthfulness of the facts. Maybe, after doing that you will come to the same realization I did many years ago, that, as a political party, Democrats are not to be trusted.
A Democrat named Franklin Roosevelt started FICA: the Social Security program. In starting this program he promised five things:
1. Participation in the program would be completely voluntary.
2. Participants would only pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into it.
3. Any money participants elected to put into the program would be deductible each year for tax purposes.
4. All money the participants put in was for the independent "trust fund" and no money was being put into the general operating fund: therefore, all money would only be used to fund the Retirement Program, and no other program.
5. Annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income! (Ask retirees, if that last promise, by a Democrat, was upheld, why do they get taxed on 85% of the money they "put away?") Now, let me give you some irrefutable facts!
QUESTION: Which party took Social Security from the "trust fund" and placed it into the general fund so Congress could spend it?
ANSWER: President Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.
QUESTION: Which political party eliminated the tax deduction for Social Security? (FICA)
ANSWER: The Democrat Party.
QUESTION: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?
ANSWER: It was the Democratic Party with Al Gore casting the "tie breaking" vote as President of the Senate. He was, at that time, Vice President of the United States.
QUESTION: Which party decided to give payments to immigrants?
ANSWER: It was Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Even if an immigrant never paid a solitary penny into the system... because of Carter and the Democrats, at age 65 immigrants can draw money from it.
So, the first two promises, a Democrat named Roosevelt made, were broken (outright) by later Democrats. Please read number one and two again, and then honestly answer the next two questions. Are you voluntarily paying into Social Security? Are you paying only 1% of your first $1,400 of your annual income?
Now, do the same thing with promises numbered 3-5. Here is what you find. A Democrat lied in making the promises, and it was later Democrats who led the charge and broke the rest of the original promises. Now I want to ask you another question. Why do you still trust Democrats in either the House or the Senate to do anything right or honest? (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/27/2008 9:30 a.m.
(SIXTY-SIX) Today's blog will be on a lighter note: pun intended. I want to talk about dieting. I ought to know something about it, in fact, I might even be considered an expert. In my lifetime I have probably lost more than 10,000 pounds, albeit, I have probably gained more than 10,300 pounds. (LOL) After a story in today's news section though, I do have a question. "What is a dieter supposed to do?" (I will answer that question at the end of this blog.)
Six well-known restaurants, from Applebees to Taco Bell, had some of their food items tested to see if the (posted) caloric and fat content of a given entree was accurate? The results... they weren't... not by a long shot. In some cases the calorie count was more than double the listed amount and the fat count was several times higher than what was posted.
Applebees has already responded saying that they were sorry and they "strive" to be accurate. No they don't, neither do the other restaurants. They only "strive" to get your business and make money. How do they do that? In order to have your business they need to prepare a tasty meal, and in most cases that does not happen by putting anything into the meal which begins with the words, "low-fat." I will now answer the question that I posed at the beginning of this blog, and I will do that by asking another question. "What in the world are you doing eating out if you are on a diet anyway?"
If you really want to lose weight... I will give you seven easy steps that will help you achieve your weight loss goal. First: Set a goal. As simple as this sounds people fail at most things in life because they do not have a fixed goal they are striving for. A person famously said, "If you don't set a goal, you'll hit it every time."
Secondly: If you are really serious about weight loss, do not "eat out" again.
Thirdly: Figure out how much money you normally spend in one month on restaurants, and then take that very same amount of money and apply it toward a gym membership. I would hazard a guess that for most (seriously) overweight Americans the money which was normally spent every 30 days at restaurants would easily cover 120 days of fees at your local gym.
Fourth: Actually use your gym membership for what it is for, exercise regularly!
Fifth: Prepare healthful meals at home and eat a reasonable amount of food.
Sixth: Do not eat when bored, tired, angry, happy, etcetera... only eat when actually hungry! (Finally)
Seventh: The "very second" you lose a size in clothes and you can start wearing something smaller... do it... and immediately discard your old "fat clothes!" (Don't make any allowance for being able to get back into something bigger.)
Think about it. Just seven simple steps to commit to and you are on your way to "exposing that healthier and skinnier person," who has been trapped within all of those layers of fat. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/28/2008 9:45 a.m.
(SIXTY-SEVEN) I think Oprah will finally be recognized as going "off the deep end." She has been tottering on the brink for a very long time with her associations and endorsements of people such as Cruise, Travolta, and Kirstie Alley. I felt for sure that her financial empire would begin to crumble when she went for the latest: in a laundry list of New Age nuts, an author named Rhonda Byrne.
Finally though, she has just stepped off the ledge with her fanatical endorsement of the biggest loon she has gone for so far, Eckhart Tolle. And the public can now see Oprah's slide with cold hard facts. For the first time since her show started, both it and her magazine has dropped off in sales: approximately 10% so far and I can guarantee the decline will continue.
With her endorsement of the latest "crazy," (Tolle) history will record it as her "jump the shark" moment. If anyone is not familiar with that term, let me put it another way. What she has now done is, on the crazy scale, equivalent to Cruise jumping up and down on her couch... both of them... crazy as loons.
To be fair, I never did care for Oprah. I don't like any person who moralizes to a group of people about what is right or wrong, i.e. her book clubs and etcetera. Yet, she and Stedman can be open in their relationship and defy clear Bible teaching. In that regard she is very much like Ellen Degeneres.
I am all for anyone "moralizing" as long as they use the Bible as their guide, moralize all you want. But I hate people who hold themselves up as some icon of virtue and at the same time are in clear defiance of Scripture. Remember, only Scripture teaches what is virtuous or pure. So, to hold yourself up as a person with good morals, to the point of ascribing values to others, while defying the Book that teaches values, is blasphemous!
Oprah has begun her long slide into, "Oprah who?" And I believe the reason is much more complicated than her lack of judgment in jumping on Obama's bandwagon simply because both of them happen to have black faces: although that is a part of it. She now has a clearly defined pattern of associating herself with a lot of the crazier people in the entertainment industry and embracing their loony beliefs.
I do agree with one thing Tolle has written, but only when it is applied to him. "It's better to laugh at madness." Well Tolle, I am laughing. In fact, I am LOLROF! (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/29/2008 9:30 a.m.
(SIXTY-EIGHT) Have you read the story about Rachael Ray and her scarf? When it comes to terrorism and any and all other types of leftist ideology and philosophy's, I am always ready to take the other side: which is the conservative viewpoint... and I believe the correct and moral high-ground. However, this time I am not sure that Rachael Ray is even intelligent enough to know that what she was wearing is similar to what some well-known terrorists have worn in the past.
The few times I have tried to watch her, I did find her a little annoying and in my opinion not particularly bright... but, I am pretty sure not a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer. However, if I ever found out that she wore the scarf, in the Dunkin' Donuts ad, full well knowing what it symbolized... then sure... take the ad down, pull her from public television... and I would personally help her pack her belongings if our country would man-up and have her, and others of that ilk, deported to a known terrorist nation. But, this time, unless I learn more... I think conservative pundits might be overreaching on this (non) story.
Although, it would be worth researching what her fashion designer had in mind whenever they selected the clothes for her to wear during the commercial shoot. Albeit, even though I am leaning toward coming to her defense on this issue: I have lived long enough, met enough stupid people, and have counseled enough supposedly "intelligent people" while listening to them describe their dark thoughts and fantasies... to come to the following understanding: I would not be too surprised to learn that Rachael Ray knew exactly what the scarf symbolized and wore it anyway! (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/30/2008 7:20 a.m.
(SIXTY-NINE) Finally... some sanity! The lying officials who illegally went after the Mormon children in an illegal raid are now being exposed for what they are... liars! If you will read any of my several blogs (in the archive section) you will see that I was correct in my analysis of this case, and that from the very first day it happened. The only thing that remains to happen... and I sincerely pray that it will, is for many lawsuits being brought against that county and its officials and they are sued into bankruptcy. I also pray that every one of those sons and daughters of Belial, who were involved in removing the children in the first place, will lose their jobs and positions of authority.
It is not that I am a friend, or even a sympathizer for the Mormon church. In fact, I believe that most of what they teach is spurious, and anti-Biblical, however, they were still terribly wronged in this matter.
Now, some of the lies that came out after the children were taken are being exposed. The state said that 31 girls from the ranch who had given birth were under the legal marrying age in the state of Texas. The Texas Supreme court has said that number is actually only five! One of the girls, the liars who brought the case said was a minor, is actually 27 years old! Keep in mind that if only five of the girls on the ranch who had children were under the legal age... guess what... that is a better percentage rate, by far, than underage girls who are getting pregnant in the Texas public school system! I would say that certain Texas officials are actually jealous at how much better (sexually) behaved the young Mormon girls are than their counterparts in the nation's public school system. (LOL)
Not that many things work out right in a debauched world... it just feels good when something does. Returning every one of these children to their families is the right thing to do. For the future, leaving all of those Mormon people alone is also the right thing to do. Finally... and I hope it happens... everyone involved in taking the children ought to lose their jobs... that would be another right thing... if it would happen. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
5/31/2008 9:25 a.m.
(SEVENTY) I would like to dismiss a myth created by liberal news and evidently believed by the "intellectually challenged." (LOL) It is the same myth that was created by the same liberals who had anointed Clinton to be the next president in '92. And of course they are dragging out the same lies in '08, and it is because all liberals are prostrating themselves at the feet of their latest anointed liberal, Obama. Although the liberal news groups falling prostrate at Obama's feet are a correct analogy, I prefer the word that they are "prostituting" themselves to his cause. It is because they are selling out to the highest bidder: in this case, Soros. What follows is how their duplicitous writings work.
Several years ago I was talking to the president of Rexair, Tom Lamb. He was a consummate salesman, and had worked his way from street level to become the CEO of two major companies. He told me that liberals have a regular and cyclical "pity party." During this time, as they are trying to get another liberal elected to the highest office in the land, they will bemoan the state of the economy: regardless of what contrary evidence will show. Example: for the last several months they have been saying we are in a recession... liars: recent cold, hard statistics prove otherwise.
So, what do they do? They write lying news stories saying how hard up everyone is and the main culprit... gulp, gasoline is up one whole dollar over this same time last year! So What!
That fact is statistically not even worth mentioning. I will prove that with something I have often used while closing a sale: it is called reduction to the ridiculous. First though, let me set the scenario up. I am going to write this to the average American. I do this to insure that it would reach the largest single group of people.
According to government statistics in 2008, the average American drives 12,000 miles per year, and CAFE standards on all vehicles in America are a little over 27 miles per gallon. So, we are going to break that one dollar increase in the price of gasoline down for the average American. Then, we are going to see how all of those big, dastardly, capitalistic, money-grubbing, poor hating, smarmy, oil company executives are hurting the average American. (I tried to use several words to describe oil companies and their CEO's that liberal hand-wringers have been calling them for years).
12,000 miles (per year) driven, divided by 27 mpg = 445 gallons of gasoline per year used. (Now, the reduction to the ridiculous.) That $1.00 per gallon increase means that for the average American driver you have paid $8.56 more each week to drive your car than it cost you the year before. This means that you paid $1.23 cents more per day to drive your car. In other words: that "three-day getaway" the liberal press has been lying about every single time they say that Americans are not doing this year... because of the increased price of gasoline... would have cost the average American an extra $3.69!!! Now, I submit to you that if the average American can't afford a short vacation because of the extra three dollars and sixty nine cents they would have to spend, then they have much bigger issues going on in their lives than the price of gasoline.
Here is what you can do. Forget the liberal news and their every four year fabricated "pity party," and go out and vote your conscience and enjoy all of the three day, and longer, vacations you can get in by the end of summer. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/1/2008 7:00 a.m.
(SEVENTY-ONE) It is hard to believe that June is already here. Wasn't Christmas just last week? Einstein, that old fool, wasn't right about many things... but it does seem like time goes faster when you are older.
It feels good to start the month out with some very positive news. However, you will not hear this news on any of the Chinese or Russian state run news agencies. Neither will you see it reported on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, or any of the other faux news agencies in America.
All of the aforementioned "news agencies" no longer report all of the actual news events that are happening. Instead, they handpick only whatever news pieces promote their liberal agenda, then they add their unbiased commentary. (LOLROF)
So, I will report some real news on this blog this morning. Things in Iraq are greatly improving! Both our soldiers and the civilian community are suffering much less casualties. In fact, as far as casualties are concerned, the month of May saw the fewest number of war dead since the war began, except for February 2004. Congratulation to our troops on the ground in Iraq!
Yet, the deranged Obama, as America's first pope, will continue to "pontificate" about how America has already lost the war. I would like to say that Obama is a complete arse. But, such a statement might lack tact. Instead, I would like to say that Obama is the southern end of a northern bound donkey. Oh wait, I guess that still means that Obama is an "ass." And as an ass, Obama will continue ducking McCain's invitation to go to Iraq and see for himself how much better things have gotten over there. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/2/2008 8:00 p.m.
(SEVENTY-TWO) I would just like to offer my thanks and support to all of the troops who heroically fight for our freedoms that we enjoy here at home everyday. Regular "news agencies" such as, ABC, CBS, and the rest of those liberal "news" groups will most probably not even cover the latest Medal of Honor winner: Pfc. Ross McGinnis. Nor will they tell of his great heroism.
He was riding in the open hatch of his Humvee, and while on patrol a live grenade sailed past him and into the vehicle, young Mr. McGinnis shouted a warning before throwing himself backward onto the live grenade. He was killed instantly, and his four buddies who were below were hurt but all survived. Keep in mind that he could easily have jumped out of the vehicle and saved his own life, instead he chose to sacrifice himself and save others.
That is a decision, saving others, that American soldiers practice every single day of their lives. In awarding the highest military honor our country can give a soldier to the family of Pfc. McGinnis, President Bush quoted the Bible: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
I would just like to say, May God bless the McGinnis family for their faithfulness in raising a true American patriot and one of our many fallen heroes. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/3/2008 7:00 p.m.
(SEVENTY-THREE) On the night Obama is likely to "declare victory" for the nomination to lead the party of the Democrats, let me show you a likely headline in America's near future: if enough Americans are actually stupid enough to vote for Obama for president. Paris June 3, "Brigitte Bardot Convicted in Racism Case."
Now, let your collective imaginations run wild as to what horrible and terrible things she must have done in order to actually be convicted for a crime of racism! Let me see, as a white person, perhaps she beat down a young black boy as he was innocently walking past her? Maybe, as a non-Muslim, she jerked a turban off of the head of some Muslim, while shouting, "You are too a towel-head!" Perhaps, as a non-brown person, a Mexican was only looking for an honest day's work and she spat on him for his trouble? What do you think, are any of the above scenarios bad enough to be convicted of a crime of racism?
Surely she couldn't be convicted for a crime of racism merely by writing a letter, could she? Yep... that's what happened. Miss Bardot was tired of certain practices the Muslims were doing, so she wrote a letter to the interior secretary of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. (This is the same Sarkozy who is now their president.) Do you want to read the part of the sentence in her letter that sealed her conviction? Here it is: ... "tired of being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts." Gasp... I am morally outraged by that sentence, aren't you? (LOL)
The liberal people in France have been fools for many years, their voting records prove that. And because of that, in 2008, in France you can merely write a letter that is actually very tepid, and you can be convicted for a crime of racism! There are many liberals in America who would read this blog and truly believe that it is right a person like Bardot could be convicted merely for writing a letter. God help us. Mark this down, if that begins taking place in America... I will not be around to see how it plays out... and prayerfully... neither will some others.
In France you can be convicted for a crime of inciting racial hatred even on religious grounds. In other words, if I lived in France, and make no mistake about it, liberals like Obama would try to bring this type of thinking to America, I could be convicted of inciting racial hatred if I merely state that practicing Muslims, according to the Bible, are going to Hell when they die.
I suppose I ought to get all of this writing in now, just in case (God forbid) the most liberal senator in America gets elected to America's highest office. So, here goes: It is not just practicing Muslims who are without Christ and will suffer damnation at their death, it is also Roman Catholics who are trusting sacraments and the pope above Christ's redemptive work: you can also add to that list Mormons who are trying to earn their way to Heaven. I suppose this would be an extremely lengthy blog if I would continue writing and "spew forth my hate-filled and venomous tirade" (LOL) against all of the more than 5,000 named religions in the world who trust any and everything for their salvation, EXCEPT the only One who can save their souls; Jesus the Christ!
At this point in time I still believe that the extremely liberal Obama will get crushed at the polls in November, if not though... it is time to be prepared to take action and follow Joel 3:9-10. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/4/2008 9:30 a.m.
(SEVENTY-FOUR) I remember one time at a former church we attended, which was located in a poor part of town, the pastor made a funny remark about a yearly program they had. On Mother's Day they would give flowers and prizes to mother's in different categories. Example: oldest mother, mother with most children in attendance, and etcetera. Once, during this celebration when they asked who was the youngest mother in attendance, a girl... maybe 12 or 13 years old stood up. Later the pastor joked and said, "I didn't know whether to give her a prize, or spank her." They have since stopped giving prizes in that particular category.
Today's blog has nothing to do with mother's, teenage pregnancy, or church. I just wanted to use the funny remark he made and apply something similar to a news story about home foreclosures. There is a story about Ed McMahon and the possibility that his six-million dollar mansion faces possible foreclosure from his lending company. (He is that far behind on his mortgage payments). So, "I don't know whether to feel sorry for Ed, or give him a swift kick in the pants."
Why is it, that no matter who it is, or their income bracket, most people live well beyond their means? Mr. McMahon has to be a millionaire many times over. Why does he not live in a half-million dollar home and have no problem making payments? Does any person on planet Earth really need to live in a six-million dollar home? Make no mistake about it, I am 100% for capitalism. It is just that I find it incredibly hard to find any sympathy for someone who should have plenty of money to spare (like Mr. McMahon) and yet they live so far above what is actually necessary that they are over-extended. Poor Ed. (sic) Where's Johnny when you really need him? (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/5/2008 12:01 a.m.
(SEVENTY-FIVE) I normally try to stay away from writing about "sad little people" who seem to only hurt themselves. That is why I do not write about Spears, Jackson, Hilton, and probably 99% of all "news-makers" in Hollywood. I usually only write about someone if they can be used as an example, either for good or bad. This morning I want to make an exception in three parts: first I want to write about a singer I had never heard of until I saw the story in the news, her choice of clothing, and her actions. Her name is Lily Allen and apparently she is well-known in jolly old England.
If you knew me at all you would also know that I usually care less than nothing, if such a sentiment were possible, about anyone's attire. It seems to me that an awful lot of good trees and ink have been wasted as people fuss about what some "supposed star" was wearing. However, I think this story might be worth knowing about and on several different levels.
I have been a vegetarian for more than 15 years of my life. To be completely correct, I would be classified as Lacto-Ovarian Vegetarian. In simple terms that only means that I am not against an animal laboring to help give me food, they just do not have to give all they have. (LOL)
In other words I eat animal byproducts: i.e., milk, eggs, and honey. Although this blog is not really about animal cruelty, I do want to mention something about that.
I only purchase eggs where the chicken has "free range" and lives a fairly normal life for a chicken. (Whatever "normal" means for a chicken, I am sure I don't know). But, I do not want to purchase and eat a byproduct from an animal that is forced to live their life in a cage that is not much larger than their body. And most chickens are forced to live that way only to satisfy a "perceived palate pleasure" of human beings. So, I honestly do not mind paying five to six times more for a dozen eggs, as long as I know the chickens that produced the eggs are not living their lives trapped in a small wire cage. Now, back to the point of the blog.
Apparently Lily wore a dress to a party that was covered with cartoon characters of deer, which looked like Bambi, and all of them had their throats slit with blood gushing out. I am not against shock value. But, it just seems to me that many in PETA are constantly shooting themselves in the foot with their crazy actions. If she was going to wear such a dress, and try to call attention to animal cruelty, wouldn't a person think that she ought to be on her best behavior?
In that situation, I know that I would. But what did she do? She got so drunk on beer that she passed out and had to be carried to her car: idiot! An opportunity to maybe do some good and at least get people talking about killing animals for food, just because we are stronger than they are and we can, was squandered.
In a world gone mad, and with most of the cruelty in the world impossible for the average person to stop any of it, Darfur, Myanmar, Tibet, and etcetera, it just seems to me that not killing innocent animals (only so we can feed our faces) is a small kindness that the "average person" can extend: if only so that we can cut down on some of the innocent things in this world dying needlessly. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/6/2008 9:50 a.m.
(SEVENTY-SIX) Probably most people has seen the video of the old guy in Hartford, very liberal city, being struck by a car and no one stopping to help him. Many people in the world of today are completely without compassion, and I believe I know the three main reasons for it.
First, of course, America and many other nations in the world routinely practice infanticide (abortion on demand) and they heartlessly mutilate and kill innocent children by the millions every single year. Why would anyone think it strange that people who are so apathetic and evil that they can kill a helpless baby, should not stop to help an old man who was injured?
The mindset in the world today is to take... not save human life. Another contributing factor in this story is our "throw away" mindset of the aged. Face it: unless your parents or grandparents are ill and require 24/7 medical care you are tossing them out like last week's garbage when you send them to a nursing home.
I know, you are a very busy person and you haven't the time to look after that old person in your family... besides, they sometimes talk nonsense and they can be very messy. Add to that the cost. Do you have any idea what it costs to feed and clothe and old person? Wait a minute though... couldn't all of those arguments have been made when you were a baby and they had to take care of you? Oh, that's right... in our throw away society many parents don't, they just kill the unwanted child.
And of course, if you were one of the lucky ones who your parents decided was "a keeper," then you learned it was okay to throw away a human being if they posed any type of hardship, so, just dump those old people at the nearest nursing home. And if you're lucky, Medicare might even pick up the bill and you can actually forget they ever even existed. All I can say is good riddance.
Think about it... aren't you baby killing, old people dumping just a bunch of pathetic losers? I think so. Of course there is another and quicker option: call Kevorkian.
Then of course there is the silliness of evolution being ingrained in the mind's of children. This of course follows them into adulthood and like magic, we have: abortion on demand, turn the aged out to die by themselves, and of course it only stands to reason that these types of people would not stop to help an old man who is bleeding and dying in the middle of a busy street.
Even as one paper reported, "They left the old man in the street like a dog that was run over." But if evolution is true, why not leave him there? Besides, maybe it was a dog he evolved from. (LOL) The world and most people in it today are insane in their thought processes, and their daily lives and actions only reflect their depravity. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/7/2008 9:45 p.m.
(SEVENTY-SEVEN) I suppose it is the time in my life that has caused the sea change in my perceptions; though I'm not altogether sure. I have always been more than a little weird when it comes to numbers and things such as that. Example: today is 06/07/08, which in reality is no more, or less significant than if the day, month, and year did not chronologically progress by one whole number. However, in my past I would have probably looked for ways to make this day seem different or more important than the day that came before, or the day which was to immediately follow. So, in keeping with that thought, a more important day, I will tell you why today was a little better day than the one before, and better than the day that is to immediately follow: albeit it has nothing to do with chronological numbers.
Today I got to see, talk to, or be around my three daughters, their husbands and all seven grandchildren. That makes it a pretty good day. Our middle daughter, her husband and their two children are this evening resting in a Hyatt, somewhere in Georgia. It is a pit stop en route to Hilton Head, which is their vacation destination this year.
My other two daughters, their husbands and their five children are probably still where we left them a little earlier: enjoying each other's company after a backyard barbecue.
Sitting here at my desk this evening it is hard to imagine but it is within the realm of possibility that with only 20 more trips around the Sun, I could very easily be counting it another good day because I also got to see one of my great grandchildren!
It seems absurd to imagine that only last week I was ten years old and my mom and dad had given in and bought me that gray (spy) trench coat I had been begging for. It was made out of plastic and it had several hidden pockets with more (plastic) spy-gear inside. And only next Tuesday, My wife and I will be 75 years old and have our children... grandchildren... and great grandchildren around to keep us company during old age.
Just a thought for any interested reader... it seems that I have learned to count my days differently... perhaps you should as well. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/8/2008 8:00 a.m.
(SEVENTY-EIGHT) Usually I have an idea for a blog and as I write about it I try to "prove" whatever point I am trying to make with facts and statistics. An example of this can be found in blog number 65, just scroll backward a little bit and you can see what I mean. However, for this blog I want to try something different. Rather than for me to try and "prove" certain truths about who runs government more successfully, Republicans or Democrats, I want you to find the "proof" for yourself.
First of all, how can a person actually define what is successful, as it relates to government? In reality there would be several ways, but in trying to limit the size of this blog and in trying to find certain measures that I believe both Democrats and Republicans would feel is a fair barometer, I have chosen only three; price of gasoline, handgun violence, public education. Also, after you have done your own research and with cold, hard facts proven to yourself that Republicans ideas and practices are superior in the three areas I outlined above, then feel free to expand that field and you will find a singular truth; In every instance where safety, well-being, and a better life for the majority of people are concerned, Republican run governments do a better job!
I actually went to number ten on each list to prove my point, although that did take awhile. So, go to five, or seven, it doesn't matter the number you choose, it only matters that you will see that big-spending liberals make life harder for the average citizen. Our test begins.
First: research the ten cities in America where gasoline prices are the highest. Then, see who is in majority control of that city and its government: Democrats or Republicans? And keep in mind the following fact. The only reason gas prices are higher or lower in a given area is the added price of local taxes!
Number two: in order, what is the ten cities in America with the highest handgun violence? Which party is in control of those cities? In order, what ten cities in America has the lowest incidence of handgun violence? Which party is in control of those cities?
Number three: I must begin this by saying that I am not for public education. Across the board it is easy to see that private education does a far superior job in actually imparting an education to children. However, for the point of this blog, let's do some math. In order, one through ten, what cities are miserably failing in educating children in public schools? (drop out rate, functioning illiterates, etc.) Which party is in control of those cities? Now check out the top ten most successful cities as it relates to public education. Again, which party is in control?
If you are honest, you will see that in ways most Americans would agree that success can be measured, Democrats miserably fail in attempting to run government. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/9/2008 8:50 a.m.
(SEVENTY-NINE) Today's blog would not be popular with many young people, and probably some who are not so young. However, the ideas being discussed are still apropos. Raise the legal age for teenagers to 18, before they can drive an automobile. And, force every driver over 70 to have a complete physical and take a new driving test every four years. Do you realize that in America, every seven minutes a teenage driver is being killed in a car crash. Also, how many times have you seen headlines similar to, "Octogenarian blacks out and crashes through building."
!6 is too young to put a kid in charge of a vehicle that weighs anywhere from a few thousand pounds to more than four tons, for a vehicle like the Ford Excursion. Now, imagine a machine weighing 8,000 pounds hurtling down the road at 70 mph and being driven either by a kid or an older person who has lost much of their motor skills.
For my own family I did the opposite of what many families do. When my daughters turned 16 I was in no hurry to see them on the road and driving. Many parents, though, seem that they can hardly wait until their children can drive themselves to school, malls, friend's houses, and etcetera. And to prove that point, just see how quickly after their children turn 16 they have a license and are driving a car by themselves.
When my daughters turned 16 I allowed them to get a driver's permit and they learned to drive a car with an experienced driver in the car with them. To this point, most every family with a 16 year old in the mix had the same experience. But, what follows is where I parted company with many other families.
Every six months their driver's permits expired and the girls would have to get another one. I did this in order for them to gain more driving experience in the real world. All three of our daughters repeated this experience until they had a couple of years of training. Yet, I guarantee that any of our daughters would have easily passed the written and the road test within the time-frame of one learner's permit. Albeit, memorizing a few facts, driving a couple of miles down the road, and being able to park a car between plastic cones is not the same thing as skillfully driving and being in control of a very powerful machine: that only comes with experience and age!
Now let me ask every reader a simple question. On average, who would be a safer driver: A teenager with six months, or two years driving experience? If you love your children, and I'm not doubting that you do, then give them the best chance to arrive safely in a car they are driving: write your local elected officials and ask them to raise the legal driving age in your state to 18 years of age.
It is important that at 16 a learner's permit is still offered, but let's use some common sense and give more than six months training before the kids are on the road by themselves. I can already tell you who the parents are that would disagree, and agree with this blog, and that even before it is ever read.
The parents who are just too lazy, busy, self-centered, and etcetera, to continue driving their children to whatever events they need to be at, will disagree with me.
The parents who has already lost an inexperienced teenager in a car crash will agree with this blog. I sincerely hope that you are not a family that one day will be forced to move from that first group into the second group, only because of a car crash involving one of your under-aged children. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/10/2008 8:00 p.m.
(EIGHTY) Have you ever stopped to consider the following point. Why is it that the answer always seems to be for Democrats, "Tax, tax, and more tax." It doesn't matter the question, according to them, the answer is to levy a new tax. Did you see the latest? To supposedly offset high prices at the pump, tax those who are supplying the gasoline! Have you ever in your life heard anything more stupid than that? Be honest, what always happens whenever a supplier is heavily taxed? Always, always, always... whatever product that is being taxed, at a higher rate, that product goes up to the end user! Can anyone say, the tobacco industry?
Who is the end user? Answer: the American consumer. If any Democrat leader had the sense God gave a sparrow, the answer to high gasoline prices is simple: immediately cancel the moratorium against drilling in more than 75% of our coasts, where there are proven oil reserves, and allow drilling in ANWAR, and the sourdough mining field. Very good estimates say there are more than 100 billion barrels of retrievable oil in that area alone.
Let me ask you three more questions. What party is against taxing the oil companies because they are smart enough to know that the oil companies will simply charge more to the consumer to cover the extra taxes they were charged? Answer: Republicans. What party is against us drilling in ANWAR, which would allow us to not be as dependent on Saudi Arabia for our oil? Answer: the Democrats.
Last question: Why in the world would any thinking person ever cast a ballot for any politician who says they are a Democrat? (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/11/2008 6:10 a.m.
(EIGHTY-ONE) "Facts Show Another Liberal Plan Has Failed." That should be the headline in every major newspaper in New York City: instead we see, "High Incidence of Herpes." The story then goes on to say that more than one-in-four adults in New York City are infected with the virus that causes genital herpes! (Of course, that number is considerably higher than the national average.)
That fact should surprise no one when one of the more popular movies at the box office is Sex and the City." If you haven't seen it, I can save you some money and tell the complete storyline in one sentence: "The movie is about four (bed-hopping) whores who live in New York City." There, I've saved you some money and you don't have to waste your time and go watch it, and of course, "You're welcome." Now I will explain my opening headline about another failed plan that was (and is) promoted by liberals.
If you read the story about the outbreak of herpes in New York you will find an amazing fact. Almost as an afterthought and toward the end of the story you will read this statement: "The city first began giving away condoms in the early 1970's..." Well, another liberal theory bites the dust! It is because promoting the use of condoms does also send the message that you are promoting sexual encounters, which is exactly what conservatives have been saying for decades!
Let me ask you two questions. "Who is for giving away free condoms: conservatives, or liberals?" Answer: liberals.
"Who is for promoting abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within: liberals, or conservatives?" Answer: conservatives.
You can also prove that promoting the use of condoms, instead of promoting abstinence, leads to more sex (not less) by comparing pregnancy and STD statistics between any (same-sized) government run public school that gives away free condoms, and the private school which promotes abstinence and would never consider giving away condoms to children. Liberal plans fail because they are always excusing and enabling the more decadent side of human nature. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/12/2008 12:15 a.m.
(EIGHTY-TWO) Anyone who might have an opinion on the politician, and extremely liberal, Dennis Kucinich, I would like to do a poll. It is an easy one. Here it is: "Is Kucinich an idiot?" Easy enough, just answer yes, or no. Before you do though, let me give you some other words and definitions that basically mean the same thing: incongruous; inviting ridicule, absurd, cockeyed, derisory, laughable, ludicrous, nonsensical, preposterous, imbecillic, (I especially like the last definition I am recording) and, "having a mental age of three to seven years."
Now that you have several words and definitions to reference, I ask again, "Is Kucinich an idiot?" Have you heard his latest tirade against President Bush? Kucinich introduced a resolution to impeach President Bush. Give me a second, please. I just fell out of my chair from laughing too hard as I was imagining the Democrat scramble (on the hill) to get Kucinich shut up and quickly.
The Republicans voted 166-0 to go ahead and bring the impeachment resolution to the house floor in order to debate its merit. Guess which party shut Kucinich up? Of course it was his own: the Democrats voted 225-26 to send the bill to committee. In other words, send it where it will never see the light of day again. Why do you suppose the Democrat leaders did not want this brought to the house floor for debate? It is because their own party would be exposed for their hypocritical posturing on the Iraq war. Remember: Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and most every other leader in the party of the Democrats had publicly expressed the very same sentiments about WMD's as President Bush did!
Also, keep in mind that the Democrats who expressed these sentiments, did it before President Bush ever came to office! Now though, Democrat leaders hope that the American public has a short memory and will not search video archives to see what liars the Democrats are and how they have turned 180 degrees from their earlier statements about Iraq. Keep in mind that Democrats do not lead by conviction: they lead by polls. So, if something is popular with the American people, they are for it, if polls suggest something is unpopular, suddenly they are against it.
There is another reason that Democrats do not want to talk about "impeachment." It reminds people of the last president who was impeached by the House of Representatives. What was his name... oh yeah... I remember... William Jefferson Clinton. And, what party did he represent? Oh yeah, wasn't he a Democrat? And who was the only other sitting president to ever be impeached? Answer: Andrew Johnson... another Democrat!
Alright, time to take the poll. Is Kucinich an idiot? My answer is... yes. Write to me and give me your answer. (Robin l. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/13/2008 12:15 p.m.
(EIGHTY-THREE) Happy Friday 13th. Just a question before I write today's blog: are any of you out there superstitious about this day? If you are take heart, stats show that, on average, any Friday that happens to fall on the 13th of a particular month is actually safer than any other day of the week which also falls on the 13th. It might only be that many who are superstitious, stay home that day. Whatever the reason though, statistically speaking, it is a safe day. Now I will write about salmonella poisoning by tomatoes (brought in from Mexico) and show you we have something else to thank Bill Clinton for.
Bush (1) was an idiot to ever sit down with Salinas and Mulroney and sign the framework agreement for the North American Free Trade Agreement. (NAFTA) However, at this point it still had no bite to it because it was only an agreement and not ratified or backed by any law. So, as I already said, Bush (1) was an idiot for sitting down with the leaders of Mexico and Canada in the first place: however, a year later, Clinton was the bigger fool for signing NAFTA into law.
Since 1/1/94, if you have lost your job due to the fact that your company has outsourced it to some foreign market, you ought to thank Bill Clinton.
If you have a child or a loved one who got sick from the lead in all of the toys made in China, you ought to thank Bill Clinton.
If you had a loved pet that got sick or died from eating food which was contaminated overseas, you ought to thank Bill Clinton.
If today, Friday 13th 2008, you are afraid to go to your grocery market and buy something as simple as a tomato, you ought to thank Bill Clinton. In fact, every time Americans, who are living at home in the United States, are forced to behave like we are in a third-world country, you ought to thank Bill Clinton.
The Socialist agenda that is openly embraced by every leading Democrat since Jimmy Carter, is slowly but surely coming true. Their goal is for Americans to live like the rest of the impoverished world. It openly began with Carter wearing a sweater and imploring Americans to act like the rest of the third-world countries and turn down their thermostats. Their philosophy is: "Why do Americans have the right to live comfortably if the rest of the world can't?"
If you doubt that Carter and his Socialist agenda does not still dominate the Democrats today, then read what Obama recently said about America and its people: "We can't drive our SUV's and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." From Carter to Obama, every leading Democrat has openly embraced a Socialistic agenda!
In past years when "made or grown in America" meant that whatever was "made or grown in America" was safe, is long gone, and you can thank NAFTA and William Jefferson Clinton for all of the terrible consequences.
The next time you hear some liberal make the comment that McCain is running for Dubya's third term, tell them that a more accurate analogy is that Obama is running for Carter's second term.
If you are an American who loves the principles this country was founded upon, and you cast your vote with that in mind: Obama should not be able to garner enough votes to make him a dog catcher in a small town anywhere in America! (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/14/2008 7:15 a.m.
(EIGHTY-FOUR) Today is 22 years after the death of my mom. If she were alive she would be 81 years old: hard to imagine.
I want today to write about a plea for mercy, that in my estimation ought not to be extended. Susan Atkins, a former Manson family member is apparently dying (sooner rather than later) and she wants out of prison.
She is directly responsible for murdering at least three people that we know about, there might be others. You remember that authorities have been searching the area where this evil group used to live trying to locate other murder victims. So far, they haven't found any remains, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.
Regardless, killing three people is at least two more than necessary to keep her behind bars until the death of her own body. She was known as "Sadie Mae Glutz" when she slit the throat of Sharon Tate, thereby killing Sharon and her unborn baby. Sadie then took blood from her victims and scrawled the word "pig" on the wall. She should have been put to death for her crimes decades ago, however, California is an extremely liberal state and this did not happen.
It is being reported that Sadie is now a born-again believer in the Lord Jesus. You want to know something: I sincerely hope this is true; although that still does not mitigate what she did before she was saved.
Sharon and her baby received no compassion from Sadie, even though she said that Sharon begged for her own and her baby's life. Sadie might now beg for a "compassionate parole" from prison in order that she can die outside of prison: my sincere prayer is that she will receive the same response from the parole board that she extended to Sharon Tate and her baby. There should be no compassion extended, nor sympathy felt for this brutal murderess, Sadie Mae Glutz. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/15/2008 11:30 p.m.
(EIGHTY-FIVE) Just a brief blog this evening to wish fathers a happy "Father's Day." Mine was nice, and much for the same reasons as I had written about on another blog. I got to see and talk to all three of our daughters, their husbands, and all seven of our grandchildren. We are blessed that we have a lot of our family living nearby. Not everyone we know is that fortunate.
I also received two very nice (father's day) messages from a little girl "Jocie" that we have now known for nearly 14 years. Time flies! So, to everyone who gave me cards and wished me well, thank you!
I also want to briefly lament one event that is in the news. The innocent little six-year-old boy that the heathen Bill Clinton turned over to the Communists in Cuba, is now not so innocent at the age of fourteen. Recently, Elian Gonzales joined the Communist party (for youths) in Cuba. I would hate to have the blighted soul that Clinton has and have to stand before Christ one day and give an account for all of his actions.
I will finish this blog with a Bible warning to Clinton and those of his ilk. Hebrews 10:31: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/16/2008 8:50 a.m.
(EIGHTY-SIX) I want to give you a brief list of just three black men who are racist to their core. These are men, who, if white and would live in either West Virginia, or Kentucky, would have been vilified and told they were "ignorant" because skin color was a factor in how they cast their vote.
First though, let me show you how a non-racist person like myself would cast their vote for a particular politician. If John McCain were so black that he shone, I, as a white person, would still vote for him. I vote my principles and beliefs, not my own skin color. If Obama were so white that Casper the friendly ghost looked black by comparison, I still would not spit on him if he were on fire and would not vote for him if my life depended on it. I vote my principles and beliefs, not my own skin color.
Now I will name three racist black men who will suspend their "supposed" conservative views and vote for an extremely liberal black guy, only because he has black skin! These men are racist to their very core.
Colin Powell, J.C. Watts, and Armstrong Williams are just three among the many "ignorant black people" who are voting for a candidate based on the color of his skin. In the above three-word phrase, "ignorant black people," insert the word white, for black and that was the phrase most commonly applied to white people in West Virginia and Kentucky who said that race was a factor in helping them decide who to vote for. Powell, Watts, and Armstrong must be at least a squared number more ignorant than the average white voter In West Virginia, or Kentucky, because for those voters, race was only one factor in helping them decide who to vote for. Powell, Watts, and Armstrong will vote for the black guy, based only on his skin being dark!
In case you doubt that last statement, listen to Williams own words. Now keep in mind that he is talking about Obama "I don't necessarily like his politics, I don't like much that he advocates, but..." I would like to ask The racists, Powell, Watts, and Armstrong, just one question. Why do you believe you are less racist than any member of the KKK when you do not like what a politician stands for, believes in, or practices... but... you will vote for them only because they have the same skin color that you do? You can deny it all you like, but you are racist to your very core! (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
06/17/2008 7:20 a.m.
(EIGHTY-SEVEN) Everyone who reads this blog ought to understand a singular truth about myself, and it is only this: I do not care whether anyone agrees with what I write or not. Oddly enough, that statement also applies to me personally. Let me explain.
As a younger man (and a lost person) I would have been more closely aligned with a libertarian philosophy of life. Although, if you clearly define a libertarian's views I would not have been in lockstep with all of their creed, at least I was still on-board with the idea of "live and let live." I was not at all interested in the government forcing people to behave in a way that ran counter to whatever they wanted to do.
Keep in mind I am not speaking about anarchy, I believed then as I do now that the government needs to stop any and all behavior by any individual or group, if that behavior is hurting or harming a non-willing party(s). But, if a person was doing any practice that (in theory) was only harming themselves, then the government should not intrude.
Before I was saved, I, like every other person, had my own set of beliefs and opinions. After I was born-again I had to change my own beliefs and strongly held opinions to line-up with whatever the Bible had to say in all matters. I did this gladly, which brings me to the point of today's blog.
Regardless of whatever any individual or court has to say about the subject of marriage, the Bible has already weighed in with what God has to say about the subject! And that truth trumps what all opposing voices have to say on the matter.
California is the latest state to allow "gay marriages" and make such marriages, "legal." In this matter, California is wrong because they are going against clear Bible teaching. Marriage is defined in the Bible as happening only between a man and a woman.
To allow America's morals and values, which at one time were closely tied to the Holy Scriptures, to reach the place they have today, far from the Bible, is the fault of good people who sat back and did nothing. Now, for this country to get back to a place of moral high-ground will take a lot of diligence, and concerned followers of Christ to vote their conscience during every election. George Washington said, "It is much easier at all times to prevent an evil than to rectify mistakes."
Though Mr. Washington offered sage advice in those penned lines, we are far past the easy fix in this country. Now, in order to rectify our mistakes, we (meaning all followers of Jesus the Christ) must show due diligence, and pray and work to get America back to its Christian heritage: before it is forever too late. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/18/2008 8:00 a.m.
(EIGHTY-EIGHT) McCain and his group is finally doing something right as it pertains to Obama and his liberal supporters. Figuratively speaking, McCain is finally punching Obama in the mouth as it relates to terrorists and terrorism by those who are against our country.
Even for the most unenlightened voter in America, it should be easy to see who is more willing and better able to fight terrorism in all its forms: of course the answer is McCain, and polls show that on the issue of terrorism and who can better keep America safe, McCain is the clear winner.
I don't know why conservative pundits act like they are afraid to speak the truth whenever it comes to Obama and his patriotism. They always say something like, "We don't doubt Obama's patriotism." If they are going to say something so patently untrue, they ought to follow up with something like... "Even though Obama married a woman (Michelle) who shows no patriotism, for 20 years sat under the preaching of his pastor, (Wright) a man who thinks America, during 9/11, got what 'She deserved', and sought out and befriended, for political purposes, a murdering terrorist (Ayers) who was a founding member of the Weather Underground and was responsible for killing people with bombs planted at the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon."
If conservative pundits are too afraid to say it, I will: "Obama is an unpatriotic, left leaning liberal who has a strong Marxist philosophy, and he would be soft on terror because he agrees with some of the terrorist's views and practices." There, I've said it, now how hard was that?
A black man (Denzel Washington) in 2004 played a role in the remake of an old Hollywood classic from 1962, "The Manchurian Candidate." Another black man (Obama) in 2008 is playing a similar role and this time he is the "sleeper candidate" who will try to usher in a new era with Muslims leading the way.
Ask yourself the following question. Why is Obama, a "supposed" Christian, openly embraced by leaders of the Muslim faith? Other men who have had training in the Muslim faith and then rejected their false teachings in order to "embrace Christianity" has had a death decree ordered for them by Muslim leaders. Where is Obama's death decree? It is non-existent because Obama is their very own "sleeper candidate." (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/19/2008 7:20 a.m.
(EIGHTY-NINE) Will American voters ever wise-up? Just a few questions. What party was in control of Congress when the ban on oil drilling off our coasts was put in place? Answer: Democrats. What party, who is in control of our Congress (House and Senate) today, opposes lifting that moratorium? Answer: Democrats. What party is President Bush a part of, a man who just asked the Democrats in Congress to lift that ban? Answer: Republican. McCain, a Republican, is also in agreement that the ban should be immediately lifted and drilling started! What Democrat that is running for office is against lifting the ban? Answer: Obama.
Do you want to hear Obama's stated reasoning for not wanting to lift the ban? He said, "At best you are looking at five years or more down the road." In other words, we will have an answer to America's oil problem in five years! But, Obama, short sighted fool that he is, would rather blame everyone but the Democrats who gave us the problems in the first place. And some of you out there actually want this man to lead America? God forbid!
Like every other time the leading Democrats are also wrong about how long it will take if the ban is lifted for us to see a drop at the gas pumps. Obama, idiot that he is, believes it will take five years before we see a drop in prices. Pelosi believes we will see only one penny drop in prices if the moratorium is lifted. Both are liberal Democrats and as usual both are way off the mark.
Let me show you what a clear thinking Republican, like myself, has to say about the drop in prices at our pump. The very week the moratorium is lifted, prices across the country will significantly decrease as OPEC will boost oil production, based only on the fact that America is becoming serious about not being dependent on the Middle East for its economy. Mark and date this blog and you will see easy proof that Democrat leaders are wrong about not being able to drill ourselves out of high gasoline prices. If we open ANWAR, as Republican leaders want, and if the ban on offshore drilling is lifted, as Republican leaders want, we will drill ourselves out of high gasoline prices! (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
6/20/2008 6:45 p.m.
(NINETY) Robin 1A to the rescue... more on this later.
The other day a case of road rage made the news in our little town as a black woman who was driving a car shot a white man who was riding a motorcycle. The first reports we heard were that, at an intersection, the man had hopped off of his bike and jerked the woman's car door open. When I heard that I said, "Good for her." If the guy was that stupid he deserved a couple of rounds in the chest. Now though, the truth is coming out.
The police report and many eyewitnesses state that the man did hop off of his bike, and at the same time the woman pulled her gun and shot the man from her closed vehicle. Wait though, it gets better. The son and the mother, according to several eyewitness accounts and a videotape from a local gas station show that once the man was shot, the boy for certain and maybe the mom begin kicking the guy who is on the ground and bleeding. When the police arrive they have to handcuff the boy in order to calm him down. Wait though, it gets better.
This is not the first time that Yolanda has done this. Less than three months ago and on the same street, she drew her gun on another person in a different road rage incident. Now, are you beginning to see a pattern?
Ask any person who knows me or has seen me drive and I would most probably be characterized as an aggressive driver, and for a dozen years or more I have had a concealed carry permit. I have had a gun on my person, under my seat, in the glove-box, etcetera: and I have never felt the urge to brandish it even one time. So, I think it is crystal clear who the aggressor is in the case of Yolanda. Wait though, it gets better.
A black guy who calls himself Christopher 2x has brought his clown act across the bridge from Louisville into Jeffersonville. He is now the "official mouthpiece" for Yolanda and her family. This 2x guy was a deadbeat and delinquent father owing multiplied thousands of dollars in unpaid child support when he decided to reinvent himself. Now, any black or brown person who breaks the law he somehow becomes their voice and he speaks to the press for these families. In case you have never seen this 2x guy, I can give you a dead-ringer for him: Steve Erkel from "Family Matters" could pass as his twin brother.
So, because of 2x, I also have decided to reinvent myself. I, as a white man, am going to give myself a new name. Henceforth, I am to be called... (ta-da) Robin 1A! And I am asking all of the lawbreaking members of society who happen to have a white face to call on me anytime they, or their immediate family, get busted for drugs, or are killed by cops after trying to run them down with their car, or any other type of delinquent behavior, call on me... Robin 1A... and I'll be right over.
I do need to explain who is eligible for my services. Remember, I am trying to pattern myself like 2x so I can only speak for the same type of classless people. I'll make it as simple as the ABC's.
A. Neither you, nor any person in your immediate family could have ever held a real job for more than 30 days in your lifetime.
B. If there is any type of free government give-aways out there, you and your immediate family must be either drawing them now or signed up to get them in the very near future.
C. You must be living in free government housing, (projects) and at least two of the front windows ought to have busted glass so that every time the wind blows your curtains are hanging outside. (For that last part, I will speak for you if only one window is broken, it's just that it looks better if two are knocked out.)
And I'm really sorry, but if you qualify for A and B, yet you live in a private residence, I can't help you, it just looks too silly.
I was going to add a D to my list, instead though I decided I could still represent you even if you couldn't do this next thing and keep a straight face for the camera: though it helps a great deal if you can. No matter what type of lowlife thug or punk you might have helped to raise, if they are shot dead by the police while robbing a bank, or committing some other crime, you must still be able to look into the camera and keep a straight face and say, "I don't care if my son/daughter/husband... etcetera, did have an arrest record that is longer than my arm, deep down... they were a really good person.
Alright, for every lowlife (white) lawbreaker out there, write down this number: 1-800-WHO-CARES. At that time, I, Robin 1A, will be on the other end of that phone line... waiting to come to the rescue. (Robin L. Johnson)
You can always email me at clarkmatthews1@aol.com.
posted by Robin Johnson @ 10:05 PM
