Saturday, June 28, 2014



photo courtesy of Wikipedia 

 Let's talk a little about the "big" win of Thad Cochran, Republican Senator from Mississippi, since he has been in the news lately.  Well, not in the main stream, Obama controlled media, but in the real media, such as,, etc.  It has also been the subject of discussion on talk radio, such as The Rush Limbaugh Show, Mark Levin, etc.  So, let's see if we can get the Cliff's notes on what happened in Mississippi:
   To explain about primaries, we'll touch on the basics:  When a candidate is running for office, they mush first win their primary.  If they don't get more than 50% of the vote, there is a run off of the top two candidates.  
   Most voters I know don't understand the importance of the primaries, are not well informed about the candidates running, are just too lazy to get out and vote until the regular election, or a combination of these excuses.
   In most states, including Mississippi, if you vote in the primary, you can only vote in that same party's runoff election.  So, if you vote for Joe Blo, Democrat, in the primary and he did not get over 50% of the vote, then he would go to a runoff election with the other candidate with the most votes.  You are disqualified to vote in the Republican runoff election, if their candidate did not reach 50% of the Republican support.
   If you did not vote in any party's primary and there is a runoff in one of the parties, then you are qualified to vote in that runoff, if you intend to vote in that party's general election.  
   Leave me a comment if you didn't understand this, and I will make another attempt to clarify.

   So, in Mississippi, Thad Cochran did not garner the majority of the Republican votes in the primary for Senate, so he was forced into a runoff election.  On June 10th, the NRSC held a fundraiser with top Senators in support of Senator Cochran.  They did not want to concede the election to a conservative Republican, Chris McDaniel.  
   According to Breitbart news, those who attended and gave financial support to Cochran to win included  the following Senators:  

Cochran’s Mississippi colleague Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AL), Rob Portman (R-OH), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), John Barrasso (R-WY), John Thune (R-SD), John Cornyn (R-TX), Bob Corker (R-TN), Susan Collins (R-ME), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Dean Heller (R-NV), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and McConnell (R-KY).

   Is your Senator listed here?  These are "establishment Republicans" who are in the Senate to promote their own personal interests, not those of Americans.  By the way, Senator Cochran was absent from the fundraiser.

   Looking in Wikipedia to understand who the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is, this is what we find: 

The NRSC helps elect non-conservative Republican incumbents and challengers primarily through fundraising.[1] Other services include campaign activities using media and communications, as well as research and strategy planning. Prior to the rise of the Tea Party, the NRSC seldom was involved in choosing sides between Republican candidates in primaries. In the 2014 Mississippi Senate primary runoff between 36-year incumbent Thad Cochran and conservative challenger Chris McDaniel, the NRSC resorted to reliance on democrat voters to propel Cochran to victory by running on non-Republican principles of larger government spending.[2][3]

   You can read each Senator's response to why they were attending this fundraiser to give financial support at   Here is the heading: 

GOP Senators Scurry from NRSC HQ After McConnell's 'All In' for Thad Cochran Fundraiser


   Since this is a lot of information to absorb, I will post about the shady mechanisms of the Mississippi election in another post.  Hang on, though, it is an eye-opening journey.

You are invited to post your comment here to let us know if this has been helpful.  Please also share with your facebook friends.

You are also welcome to visit with Oma at,  and

Tuesday, June 10, 2014



   I joined a lively conversation tonight on facebook.  The question was this:  "I do have a question for people who support using government coercion on gay marriage. If you're quick to ban gay marriage because it's not biblical, would you oppose banning divorce provided that marital unfaithfulness did not occur? I think people who say, "I'm willing to ban gay marriage because it's wrong but not divorce" simply hates homosexuals." 
   The conversation ensued.  What are your thoughts?  Please feel free to leave your comments on this site.
   Here are my thoughts:   I am against the government trying to change the definition of words.  The history of this country is such that we would not condone polygamy or bigamy, so why in the world would we condone marriage to same gender or animals or babies or whatever?  There is a way for homosexuals to legitimize their relations; it is called "civil union".  Period.  I should not be forced to validate you or your actions. 
   Actions.  Homosexual acts are actions.  Smoking cigarettes is an action.  Smokers are discriminated against and it is sanctioned by local governments.  Why should I recognize homosexuals as someone who should have a higher status than a smoker?  It is hogwash, I tell you!
   I am against our government trying to force their own personal religious beliefs on everybody.  My G-d gave everybody free will.  Why is our government trying to take that from us?  We have unalienable rights endowed to us by my G-d:  the RIGHT TO LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 
   Let's see what Merriam Webster has to say about liberty:  
1.  the state or condition of people who are able to ACT AND SPEAK FREELY.  (Well, we don't 
     have that one anymore, do we Mr. Sterling?)
2.  the power to do or choose what you want to (We can't open a bakery in America without being 
     forced to agree with homosexuals.)
3.  the power of choice
   Wikipedia makes the statement that the protection of these rights is the reason governments are created.  Well, ours is not doing such a good job of that.  Our government is forcing taxpayers to support government sanctioned murder,  forcing us to pay to deny almost 56,000,000 people their right to life.  We have the "speech police" everywhere, even in our private homes, listening to private conversations.  We cannot pursue happiness if we are forced to go against our religious beliefs, such as condoning acts that make my G-d vomit.
   At the same time, do not accuse me of hating you if you murdered your baby before he was born, or if you make my G-d vomit.  I want the government to protect my rights.  I just want everyone else out of my life so I can pursue the happiness I was born to enjoy.
   What I would really like is for the Republican Party to direct the conversation, not follow the lead of the Liberals.  I don't want militant homosexuals to direct our government.  I don't want Sharia Law to be the law of the land.  I want my government to protect my rights, secure our country, and leave me out of everybody's bedroom.  I want less government regulation so American companies can put Americans back to work.  Is that too much to ask?

You are also invited to visit Oma at  and