H/T: Hilldabeast

The other night I was invited out for a night with "the girls". I told my husband that I would be home by midnight ... "I promise!"

Well, the hours passed and the champagne was going down way too easy.

Around 3 a.m., drunk as a skunk, I headed for home. Just as I got in the door, the cuckoo clock in the hall started up and cuckooed 3 times. Quickly, realizing he’d probably wake up, I cuckooed another 9 times.

I was really proud of myself for coming up with such a quick-witted solution (even when smashed), in order to escape a possible conflict with him.

The next morning my husband asked me what time I got in, and I told him 12 o’clock. He didn’t seem disturbed at all. Whew! Got away with that one!

Then he said we need a new cuckoo clock.

When I asked him why, he said, "Well, last night our clock cuckooed three times, then said, "Oh shit!!", cuckooed 4 more times, cleared it’s throat, cuckooed another 3 times, giggled, cuckooed twice more, and then farted."

At least one liberal pundit says BIll Clinton is lying. Watch the video:

The overtaxing and overspending King, the Federal Government has again exposed its belief that your money is their money by offering you a pittance back.

The $800.00 for individuals under a yet undecided income threshold shows that they took too much, and spent too much, leaving too little to sustain the economy.

Their solution? Give you a pittance back. Hey it was your money in the first place. They shoudn't have taken it.

If your taxes were less that the $800.00, congratulations, here is a freebie. You should thank your neighbor who paid it to you through the King as an intermediary.

Our Founding Fathers dumped tea into Boston Harbor as a protest against a distant King that taxed them unfairly, and without representation.

There is a new King, and it is the Federal Government. It is not that there is no elected government. It is that the elected government spends dollars that have to be borrowed, leaving others to repay them. The government's thirst for spending exceeds the tax revenues, hence deficit spending.

The deficits are added to the National Debt, which will presumably be paid for in the future. The rub is, the people who will repay the debt and their yet to be elected governments have no say in the deal.

According to the National Debt Clock at brillig.com the Outstanding Public Debt is:

Deficit spending could be eliminated by reduced spending, or raising taxes, pick your poison. Some would suggest it is time for another Boston Tea Party. Either way, every deficit dollar is taxation without representation of our future generations jeopardizing their economic security.

From Friends of Eric Hogue:

There is an important message to send, and we have little time to lose in getting out the message to voters. We the voters must stop Proposition 93 on the February Presidential Primary ballot.

Titled "Limits on Legislators' Term in Office", Prop 93 is easily the most deceptive ballot measure Californians have faced in a generation. While it's described as 'term limits reduction', what it would really do is give the current crop of free-spending, big-government lawmakers even more time in office.

Prop 93 was crafted by the same lawmakers who moved California's Presidential Primary from June to February, at the cost of millions of dollars for the added election. The excuse for moving up the election was that California would have more say in the selecting the Presidential candidates.

Well, have you seen the Presidential candidates, or even their campaign workers knocking on doors in your neighborhood? The truth is, during a period of record budget deficits created by the current lawmakers in Sacramento, we now get to pay for an expensive, extra February election, an election forced upon us by the same legislative 'fat cats' who brought us the deficit in the first place – Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Don Perata.

So if Prop 93 passes, these same 'Capitol Fat Cats' will have time to file re-election papers and get on the ballot in time for California's real primary come June.

This deceptive labeling was no accident. All ballot measures are submitted to the Attorney General, who has final say on each ballot measure "title and summary" – The name and short descriptive that appears on the ballot and the voting materials we receive before each election.

Attorney General (and Democrat loyalist) Jerry Brown went right along with the Prop 93 bunch, agreeing to call it a term limits reduction. Why? Because Brown and his cronies Nunez and Perata know the people who are likely to turn out and vote in California don't trust the legislature, and know that political corruption goes hand-in-hand with too much time in office.

So, when you read voters "Limits on Legislators" on your sample ballot and in the voting booth, don't fill in that "YES" box, don't do it, it's a trick.

Preying upon the voter's negative attitude toward the legislature is the lawmakers' strategy, and it's working. Although the latest Prop 93 polls show support for the measure is slipping, a majority of conservative voters still support it. This is why I'm releasing this statement: We must STOP PROP 93 in February, or we'll have more budget deficits with "raise the taxes solutions" in the near future.

PROP 93 is a tiny reduction in terms limits, but it's also a huge and immediate reward for the irresponsible crowd who currently runs the state capitol. And PROP 93 is so poorly written, it could even allow former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown to run for another three terms in office.

Tell a friend, a co-worker, and a fellow church member that we must be sensible, we all want a better legislature, but this is not the way to go about it. We must STOP PROP 93 in February. Just say NO to 93!

It looks like our crime fighting reverend, Al Sharpton has decided the world needs his saving, again...

For those of you that have not heard, last week Kelly Tilghman uttered a remark during coverage of Hawaii's Mercedes-Benz Championship on Friday, while she and and co-host Nick Faldo were bantering about how young golfers might challenge ever-dominant Woods.

Faldo said, "To take Tiger on, well yeah, they should just gang up for a while until ..."

"Lynch him in a back alley," Tilghman interrupted with a chuckle.

In events resembling the prelude to the fall of radio host Don Imus, Sharpton appears to be marshaling his forces for a fight with the Golf Channel, which suspended Tilghman on Wednesday.

Tilghman is a far cry from Imus, the morning show host who was canned after calling the Rutgers University women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos." Unlike the disc jockey, who is known for his off color humor and outspoken remarks, she has no history of stoking racial tensions.

But Sharpton says it is the word -- not the person or their history -- that matters. In a Wednesday interview, he compared Tilghman's statement to calling for a woman to be raped or for a Jewish-American to be sent to a gas chamber. Video Watch why Sharpton thinks apologies are insufficient »

"Lynching is not murder in general. It is not assault in general. It is a specific racial term that this woman should be held accountable for," the reverend said. "What she said is racist. Whether she's a racist -- whether she runs around at night making racist statements -- is immaterial."

Sharpton said he wants Tilghman fired, period. And if the Golf Channel doesn't comply, the network can expect to see Sharpton and his National Action Network supporters picketing its Orlando, Florida, headquarters.

At first, the channel said it had no plans to discipline Tilghman, who issued a statement saying she had apologized to Woods and wanted to further apologize to offended viewers for "some poorly chosen words."

Woods, who through his agent issued a statement saying he was friends with Tilghman and respected her, said, "We know unequivocally that there was no ill intent in her comments."

Judge decides that Debra Lafave, notorious 'sex teacher,' violated probation by having contact with underage female, but it wasn't enough to put her behind bars.

TAMPA, Fla. — A judge decided Thursday that Debra Lafave, a former middle school teacher and sex offender, violated her probation by having contact with an underage female co-worker at a restaurant where she worked, but it wasn't sufficient enough to put her back into jail.

Lafave — who has reverted to her maiden name, Debra Beasley — will continue on her stringent probation program or community control, Judge J. Rogers Padgett of the 13th Judicial Circuit in Florida ruled Thursday.

"The court finds that you are in violation of your community control," Padgett said. "The court finds that the violation is neither willful nor substantial, and the court will not revoke your community control but will continue you on the same. Please don't come back, OK?"

Prosecutors alleged that Beasley's conduct violated her plea agreement and condition 69 of her orders of community supervision: "No unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 18 without another adult present who is responsible for the child's welfare, who has been advised of the crime and who has been approved by the sentencing court until you have successfully completed a sex-offender treatment program unless authorized by the sentencing court."

Fox News

Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire? I wonder who is more shocked, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or the public?

The press, pundits and pollsters got New Hampshire so wrong, that one might encourage them to a new line of work. They have become the story, and in this case, the story is how poorly they did predicting New Hampshire.

The supposedly unstoppable "Barack Obama up by double digits steamroller" either ran out of steam, or never existed in the first place.

If on the other hand you believe that Hillary's crocodile tears turned it around, then America is in worse shape then we thought. Who thinks Putin or Achmedinijad, or any other tough foreign leader our next President will deal with will be impressed or intimidated by a crying President Hillary?

Hillary Clinton became visibly emotional at a New Hampshire campaign event Monday after a friendly question from a voter.

One-time presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton scoffed at suggestions that she had an “Ed Muskie moment” on the campaign trail Monday, when she was driven to the verge of tears at a campaign event during the final hours before New Hampshire voters go to the polls Tuesday.

Muskie buried his 1972 Democratic presidential race when he broke down after the Manchester Union Leader hurled insults at his wife in an article. He later claimed he was wiping snowflakes from his face, but the damage to his campaign was done.

“This is so ridiculous,” Clinton told FOX News. “People who followed me during the course of my life know that I’m a passionate person and I care deeply about what happens to people. You know, here I am sitting in an intimate setting, although granted there are a million cameras around, talking to people about what they care about and what’s on their minds and how deeply concerned they are about our country.”

“I have so many opportunities and don’t want us to fall backwards,” she said. “I see what’s happening, people. … Some of us are ready some of us are not. When we look at the array of problems and potential for it to spin out of control, this is one of the most important elections. As tired as I am … I believe so strongly (in) who we are as a nation so I’ll do everything I can to make my case and voters get to decide.”

Afterward, Clinton wouldn’t call it a double standard that she was being judged for her emotional composure, but indicated her passion for her beliefs should not be treated differently because she is a female.

“We have gone through years of male political figures who have done everything from cry to scream, who have been our presidents. We have all kinds of pictures and stories and you know, I am who I am. I think people who have followed me and watched me they know I am cool under fire, they know that I am tough, they know that I can make decisions.

“But (I) also want them to know I’m a real person, I have feelings, I care about what I do, I don’t do this because I want to live in the White House again. I do this because I’m worried about our country and what is going to happen in the next generation. And if I get emotional about that or if I’m passionate about defending myself, well than I’ll (let) people draw their own conclusion,” she said.