The War on Christmas  

Posted by Rob Barton in , , ,

Technorati add to
saved by 0 users

In Mason, Ohio, a couple of moonbats have taken the war on Christmas to a whole new level.

It's no wonder they want to take Jesus out of nativity scenes, because look who they want to put in:

Now tell me they don't think he's "The Messiah".

Edit: Right Wing News also has a war on christmas story here.

Bobby Jindal Endorses Bob McDonnell  

Posted by Rob Barton in , , ,

Technorati add to
saved by 0 users

Governor Bobby Jindal endorsed Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell on Wednesday at the Jefferson Hotel in Richmond. He also announced that he will be seeking re-election as governor in 2011 and will not run for president.

Gov. Jindal also spoke very highly of the man he was there to support Attorney General Bob McDonnell. They both talked about McDonnell’s recent trip to Louisiana and Jindal specifically spoke about McDonnell’s commitment to public safety and fiscal responsibility.
Video of the re-election bid can be found here.

And Speaking of Joe the Plumber  

Posted by Rob Barton in , , ,

Technorati add to
saved by 0 users

The taxpayers of Ohio could pay a hefty sum for snooping into the background of Joe Wurzelbacher. When Ohio Department of Job and Family Services Director Helen Jones-Kelley used public computers to access the background of Joe Wurzelbacher when Wurzelbacher challenged now President-elect Obama about higher tax rates at an afternoon stop in Joe's Toledo neighborhood.
The legislation before Ohio lawmakers is requiring each check of an individual's private records to be logged. Opponents of the bill say that millions of records are legitimately accessed every day and that it would cost about $100 million to create that system.

Ms. Jones-Kelly brought this on her state. Indirectly the Democrat party brought this on Ohio. Perhaps they should pay the price instead of Ohio taxpayers. And just who is opposing this transparency? That's right: the party of President Government.

Unlike Sandwich Board Man, This Guy Gets It  

Posted by Rob Barton in , , ,

Technorati add to
saved by 0 users

Paul Nawrocki, aka the Sandwich Board man, aka Anti-Joe the Plumber seems to think that walking around the streets of Manhattan with a sign that says "Almost Homeless" will net him an executive position. How's that working out for you, Paul? How about taking an example from James Williamson.

All he wants is a job, but James Williamson and his fresh MBA diploma aren't having any luck. So the 25-year-old is taking advantage of a captive audience - the one in the back of his yellow cab.

He's posted his résumé on the divider behind the front seats, in the hope that one of his customers might be the employer of his dreams.

Mr. Williamson gets it. He has the tools necessary to succeed in this world. He realizes that the American Dream is not something that is handed to you, but something that you strive every day to achieve. He is taking opportunity instead of hoping that someone will take pity on him as they stumble across him on a busy Manhattan street. He realizes that he may not have the job he wants right now,

"I was hoping the economy would be better by the time I got out," he said. "I was hoping for an entry-level job. I was just trying to get my foot in the door. I was confident with my degree, and then after the first month I started saying, 'Oh, maybe I'll take customer-service jobs.' "

but he has the tools he needs to get ahead. He is not waiting around while looking for his opportunity, either. He realizes that some kind of job will at least help pay the bills, so he drives his taxi around NYC making contacts all day long. He hasn't had a real hit yet, although one patron has offered him some advice on his resume.

Good Luck, Mr. Williamson, I am rooting and praying for you.

DWTDB's is 2 for 2  

Posted by Rob Barton in , , , , , ,

Technorati add to
saved by 0 users

BusinessWeek, on December 8, named Paul Nawrocki, aka the Sandwich Board Sign Man, the "Face of the Unemployed". In case you are new here, I called that one on December 6. Here is what I said:

"This guy is the anti-Joe the Plumber. His name is Paul Nawrocki, the Sandwich Board Man, and he is the face of Unemployed America."
And here is BusinessWeek on December 8th:

"I couldn’t help feeling a proprietorial sense of pride when BusinessWeek selected Nawrocki to illustrate its latest cover story, “Is the Jobs Panic Justified?” You can see a stark black-and-white photo of Nawrocki here. He has become the face of the unemployed."
Okay, so with that and my Black Friday call, I'm 2-2. Not bad for an amateur.

Happy Birthday DWTB's  

Posted by Rob Barton

Technorati add to
saved by 0 users

Today, Down With the Drive-By's is one week old. In that time, we have had 75 unique visitors from 23 states and 5 countries. I want to thank you all for visiting the site. It does a man's ego good to know that you all have taken time out of your busy lives to spend a few minutes reading what I have to say.

I have no idea how good or bad those stats are for a first time blogger. I know my wife is (slightly) resentful of all the time that I have been spending on this project. This week has to be the worst as far as time spent picking out and modifying a template, working out the bugs on comments, reading news stories, posting here, figuring out things like twitter, digg, technorati, and delicious (I had never used any kind of social bookmark site before. What a wonderful way to get the word out.), and posting (hopefully) some profound thoughts on other blogs.

I would especially like to thank Scott over at Conservatism Today for taking time out of his busy schedule to respond to my intial e-mail, taking a look at the site, and offering some advice.

Thank you all, again. So far this has been a wonderful experience.


Details of Blagojevich Indictment  

Posted by Rob Barton in , , ,

Technorati add to
saved by 0 users

We've all read the news by now. Rod Blagojevich has been indicted to sell Barack Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder. The full text of the indictment is found here. Below are just some of the charges Blagojevich is facing:

89. On November 3, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Deputy Governor A. This discussion occurred the day before the United States Presidential election. ROD BLAGOJEVICH and Deputy Governor A discussed the potential Senate seat vacancy. During the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Deputy Governor A that if he is not going to get anything of value for the open Senate seat, then ROD BLAGOJEVICH will take the Senate seat himself: “if . . . they’re not going to offer anything of any value, then I might just take it.”
90. Later on November 3, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke with Advisor A. By this time, media reports indicated that Senate Candidate 1, an advisor to the President elect, was interested in the Senate seat if it became vacant, and was likely to be supported by the President-elect. During the call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated, “unless I get something real good for [Senate Candidate 1], sh*t, I’ll just send myself, you know what I’m saying.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH later stated, “I’m going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain. You hear what I’m saying. And if I don’t get what I want and I’m not satisfied with it, then I’ll just take the Senate seat myself.” Later, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that the Senate seat “is a f***ing valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.”
94. On November 5, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke with JOHN HARRIS regarding what ROD BLAGOJEVICH could obtain for the Senate seat. After discussing various federal governmental positions that ROD BLAGOJEVICH would trade the Senate seat for, ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked about “the private sector” and whether the Presidentelect could “put something together there. . . .Something big.” Thereafter, HARRIS suggested that the President-elect could make ROD BLAGOJEVICH the head of a private foundation. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told HARRIS that he should do “homework” on private foundations “right away.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked whether he could get a high-ranking position at the Red Cross. HARRIS stated that “it’s got to be a group that is dependent on [the President-elect],” and that a President probably could not influence the Red Cross. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told HARRIS to “look into all of those.”
95. On November 5, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with JOHN HARRIS and Deputy Governor A. They discussed potential private foundations with which ROD BLAGOJEVICH might be able to get a position in exchange for filling the Senate seat and, in particular, those foundations that are “heavily dependent on federal aid” and which, therefore, the White House would have the most “influence” on. ROD BLAGOJEVICH wanted to know how much the positions being discussed pay.
96. On November 5, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Advisor A about the Senate seat. During the phone call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that the President-elect can remove somebody from a foundation and give the spot to ROD BLAGOJEVICH. In regards to the Senate seat, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated “I’ve got this thing and it’s f***ing golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for f***in’ nothing. I’m not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there.”
97. On November 6, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Spokesman. ROD
BLAGOJEVICH told Spokesman to leak to a particular columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, that Senate Candidate 2 is in the running for the vacant Senate seat. According to ROD BLAGOJEVICH, by doing this, he wanted “to send a message to the [President-elect’s] people,” but did not want it known that the message was from ROD BLAGOJEVICH. Thereafter, ROD BLAGOJEVICH and Spokesman discussed specific language that shouldcbe used in the Sun Times column and arguments as to why Senate Candidate 2 made sense for the vacant Senate seat. A review of this particular Sun Times column on November 7,
2008, indicates references to the specific language and arguments regarding Senate Candidate 2 as a potential candidate for the Senate seat, as discussed by ROD BLAGOJEVICH and Spokesman.
98. On November 7, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with Advisor A about
the Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he is willing to “trade” the Senate seat to Senate Candidate 1 in exchange for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services in the President-elect’s cabinet.
99. Later on November 7, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH discussed the open Senate seat in a three-way call with JOHN HARRIS and Advisor B, a Washington D.C.-based consultant. ROD BLAGOJEVICH indicated in the call that if he was appointed as Secretary of Health and Human Services by the President-elect, then ROD BLAGOJEVICH would appoint Senate Candidate 1 to the open Senate seat. HARRIS stated “we wanted our ask to be reasonable and rather than. . .make it look like some sort of selfish grab for a quid pro quo.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he needs to consider his family and that he is “financially” hurting. HARRIS said that they are considering what will help the “financial security” of the Blagojevich family and what will keep ROD BLAGOJEVICH “politically viable.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated, “I want to make money.” During the call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH, HARRIS, and Advisor B discussed the prospect of working a three-waycdeal for the open Senate seat. HARRIS noted that ROD BLAGOJEVICH is interested in taking a high-paying position with an organization called “Change to Win,” which is connected to Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”).22 HARRIS suggested that SEIU Official make ROD BLAGOJEVICH the head of Change to Win and, in exchange, the President-elect could help Change to Win with its legislative agenda on a national level.

Barack Obama today denied having anything to do with the governor.
"Did you have any contact with or were you aware at all of what was happening with your Senate seat?" asked a reporter, the Wall Street's Journal Jonathan Weisman.

"I had no contact with the Governor or his office," Obama said, "and so we were, I was not aware of what was happening."

But this is not true according to Obama adviser David Axelrod:

The indictment also provides that Blagojevich was involved with Tony Rezko. Rezko was a primary backer of Blagojevich. He was also a primary backer of Obama in his early career. Rezko sold Obama a sliver of land from his plot next to Obama's house to make it too small for anyone else to build a house. See my video about Tony Rezko and Obama's other associates here.

These are the people that we have just put in charge of our country. They come straight out of the Chicago political machine that has been cranking out corrupt politicians for almost a century.

Edit: The video was pulled from Youtube, but you can see it here.

Libs Think We're Too Stupid to Have Novelty Lighters  

Posted by Rob Barton in , , , ,

Technorati add to
saved by 0 users

Moonbattery put up a post about how the Libs in Connecticut have recently banned the sale of novelty lighters.

The ordinance will take effect Dec. 17. The fire marshal and city police officers will enforce the local law, which includes $100 fine for the “retail sale, offer of retail sale, gift or distribution of any novelty lighter within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of New London.”

Massachusetts senator Chris Dodd agrees with the ban. He has congratulated the town of New London. In July, he sponsored federal legislation for the ban.

In July, U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd introduced legislation with two other senators to ban novelty lighters nationwide. In a statement at the time, Dodd said, “While they may appear to be harmless toys, novelty lighters can be incredibly dangerous to young children.” Dodd plans to reintroduce the legislation in January.

The measure is aimed at protecting young children?  Who can be against protecting small children? Here is a less polished liberal democrat senator Gretchen Whitmer:

You have probably seen a novelty lighter before, though you might not have known it. Displayed in the checkout lane at your local convenience store or at a gas station with the racks of sunglasses and key chains, you may not recognize them if you saw them, because they look like small toys. And it’s due to this misleading appearance that they pose such a threat to our kids, and should be pulled off the market.

Novelty lighters can look like almost anything but a fire-starting device. They appear in the form of small cars or motorcycles. They can be musical instruments, tiny rubber animals, shoes, cell phones, or even fire hydrants. They come with sound affects, flashing lights, and may even play music.

Thank you, Senator Whitmer. Thank you for telling me what a novelty lighter is. I was really too stupid to figure that one out for myself. At least I'm not the one too stupid to use the word effects properly.

But while these novelty lighters are still for sale and can easily fall into the wrong hands, they will continue to undermine our efforts as adults to keep our kids out of harm’s way. It’s time that we put a stop to selling dangerous and deceptive toy-like lighters.

And while we keep electing these nanny staters, our government can easily fall into the wrong hands. They will continue to undermine our rights as adults. It's time that we put a stop to electing these deceptive, toy-like leaders.

Continuing Fight On Prop 8  

Posted by Rob Barton in , ,

Technorati add to
saved by 0 users

I have been trying to stay out of the Prop 8 conversation because I have several co-workers, whom I consider good friends, who are gay. However, a lot of them just don't get what their community is doing in California.

The following is a clip of Donna Ryu, clinical professor of law at UC Hastings. In the clip she explains that there are two ways of changing the California State Constitution. The document can be 'amended' or 'revised'. She goes on to explain that 'amendments' are brought about for insignificant changes to the constitution, and are brought about by propositions. 'Revisions' are for major changes to the constitution and are brought about by the legislature.

The definitions of the words are:

Amend - to alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from(a motion,bill, constitution, etc.) by formal procedure

Revise - to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion.
to alter something already written or printed, in order to
make corrections, improve, or update

So the two words mean the same thing. A=X and B=X so therefore A=B, right?

California has set itself up in such a way that allowed for this to happen. The libs for years have used this method to do things like set requirements on companies to do business in a certain way, to set sin taxes on things like cigarettes. ($2.60 a pack? That's nearer to the whole price of a pack here, and the money didn't go entirely to anti-smoking education and recovery of funds to hospitals treating uninsured smokers) But when it comes back to bite them by denying gays the right to marry, all of a sudden it should have been a revision and not an amendment. Sorry, gays, but the people of California have spoken. If you don't like it, or find that you can't change it, vote with your dollars. I'm sure that a mass exodus of gays from California would affect the state in such a way that they would change their mind, but for right now, I hear Massachusetts wouldn't mind having your tax dollars.

Pearl Harbor Day IS a Day That Will Live in Infamy  

Posted by Rob Barton in , ,

Technorati add to
saved by 0 users

But why, exactly, was the Pearl Harbor attack "infamous"? The Japanese planes attacked strictly military targets and there were relatively few civilian casualties.[2] The battle was a terrible blow for the American forces, which were taken completely by surprise. But a surprise attack is not infamous in wartime; every military commander would like to attack by surprise if possible. Nor did the bitter facts of U.S. defeat and heavy losses make the raid criminal. President Roosevelt used the word "infamy" because the raid was an act of military aggression. Until that moment Japan and the United States were not at war, although their conflicting interests had been threatening to boil over. The attack turned a dispute into a war; Pearl Harbor was a crime because the Japanese struck first.

Sixty years after Pearl Harbor, the administration of G. W. Bush has made "preemption" an official part of U.S. policy. According to this so-called "Bush Doctrine," the United States claims the right to use military force whenever it determines that its security or economic interests may be threatened by another nation in the future. The Bush National Security Strategy of 2002 states that "The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."[3] In other words, if it is to our advantage, we will strike first - begin a war - when we see a potential threat.

The thing is, Mr. Lamperti, we were not the one's who killed six million Jews. Nor were we their allies. We were also not the ones who repeatedly ignored resolution after resolution handed down by the UN. We did not let the world mislead itself by not allowing UN inspectors into our country. We did not round up and kill thousands of our own citizens. So thank you, Professor, but I will continue to think of December 7, 1941 as a day that will live in infamy, just as I will consider September 11, 2001 the same.

Liberalism Hits (My) Home  

Posted by Rob Barton in , ,

Technorati add to
saved by 0 users

FrostyI was watching the local news with my wife, when an innocent enough story comes on about Frosty the Snowman coming to visit a Big Brothers and Big Sisters holiday party. I begin to smirk a little at the story, but say nothing.

My wife, however, who has great empathy, said, "Don't you think that the kids would have rather had Santa Claus show up?"

I replied, "They can't do Santa, honey, you should know that."

"Why not?!?"

"Because Santa is part of Christmas." I tell her.

"Well, Frosty's part of Christmas, isn't he"

"We-e-e-ll," I say. "You see, the thing is, Frosty is more related to winter than to Christmas. They can use Frosty more safely than Santa. Frosty is less likely to offend."

"You see, Frosty is not a legend handed down generation after generation about a Christian saint who actually made a difference in the world."

"Well, that's not fair," she said. "I'm willing to bet that even the non-christian kids would have rather had Santa Claus than Frosty the Snowman

"That's not all," I tell her. "The University of North Carolina has anned Christmas trees from anywhere on their campus."

"Won't that offend the Christians there?"

I just may make a conservative of her yet.