Okay, if you haven’t seen it yet, this is just plain hilarious!

If you put an ad in the newspaper classifieds looking for help, you certainly cannot include such a phrase as, “Blacks need not apply.” That is proper.

But what if you are looking for a roommate to share your home or apartment? And, the “ad” isn’t in a newspaper but rather is tacked to the bulletin board of your local church, doesn’t include (explicitly) a restriction of a group but rather a preference for one, and simply says, “. . . seeking a Christian roommate . . .?” Well, by golly, the PC Police are going to come down on you like a ton of bricks.

From Fox News:

A civil rights complaint has been filed against a woman in Grand Rapids, Mich., who posted an advertisement at her church last July seeking a Christian roommate.

The ad “expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths,” according to the complaint filed by the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.

“It’s a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement,” Executive Director Nancy Haynes told Fox News. “There are no exemptions to that.”

Certainly the do-gooder liberals will try to split hairs by saying that in seeking a roommate, the woman has become a “landlord” wishing to rent out half of her apartment. Following such reasoning, a woman seeking a roommate would have to accept a man even if she didn’t want one (for whatever reasons, privacy, to ward off potential sexual advances, and so on) or a straight man would have to accept a gay man as a roommate, etc.

Sticking strictly to religious things, what if it is an orthodox Jew (or Muslim) who “keeps Kosher” and doesn’t want a roommate bringing pork or whatever into the house and refrigerator? Does a Christian have to share her home with a Satanist?

“Oh,” the liberal says, “Then they should seek a roommate from their own temple or church.” Um, but, that’s what she did.

You see where this all leads? I should certainly think that if someone is looking for a roommate, they have an inalienable right to decide upon whom that roommate will be. Wouldn’t you agree? Yet, the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan makes a mockery of such a concept; such a right.

What the hell is happening to our country?

The headlines tell it all:

From NewsMax/Gallup:

Poll: Obama Approval Rating Hits New Low of 39%

And, From Newsweek:

NEWSWEEK Poll: Obama Approval Rating Jumps, Democrats Close ‘Enthusiasm Gap’

So, which is it? When you look at the Real Clear Politics averages and all the recent polls, the uber-liberal Newsweek poll stands in stark contrast to all the others. Maybe it is just wishful thinking on their part, or part of the general liberal main stream media’s attempts to resuscitate their Democrat base.

The only real poll that matters will be held on November 2nd.

David Kopel has a round-up here.

That’s the news from this report.

For those old enough to remember times before porn was consigned to DVD’s and the web, Penthouse Magazine was one of those items usually hidden behind the counter that teens had to embarrassingly ask for. Remember, though, that he also founded Omni Magazine. Obituary here.

The victim of a stalking mutant overcomes her loathing of firearms. Jennifer Willis tells her story in Salon.com titled, I was anti-gun, until I got stalked.

She reaches the conclusion:

But I’m not as afraid of my stalker as I used to be, either. I’m armed now, with more than words and good intentions. He keeps sending upsetting letters, but if he ever pays a visit … Jenny’s got a gun, and she knows how to use it.

It’s like a fire-extinguisher, you hope you never have to use it but it’s a smart thing to have around the house.

Well, there’s a possibility of that but, the sneering tone of this Orlando Sentinel article certainly shows what they think of the idea.

This happened in Detroit. From the Detroit News:

A 36-year-old man who thwarted a carjacking — and possibly the kidnapping of a 5-year-old girl — by fatally shooting his attacker is being hailed as a hero.

He was at a gas station — filling up — when a man with a gun attacked him. He fell to the ground, pulled out his legal gun, and fired back. Good on him.

I just realized that it was eight-years-ago this week that Alphecca went “live” on the web. It came to mind because I had started live blogging a week before my Birthday, which is October 24th. Yeah, that’s coming up, too. I’ll be . . . Well, let’s just say I could start collecting Social Security in about 5 years if I wanted to . . . .

David Paulin at The American Thinker writes about how a horrific home-invasion and double murder in Connecticut has changed the thinking of many in that state regarding the death penalty and gun ownership.

In Oklahoma, a bill has been introduced to “study” requiring guns to have a code laser-etched onto the firing pin. We won’t rehash all the stupid reasons why it won’t work — such as criminals filing the pin, using a stolen gun, using a revolver, collecting the spent shells, using a gun manufactured before etchings were required, etc.

What intrigued me was the penultimate line of the story:

The National Rifle Association supports the microstamping study.

Really? The NRA is OK with a state “studying” a process that would add considerable cost to handguns, represent a de facto registration of firearms, and do nothing to solve crimes? If that is true, then the NRA has lost its way and validity.

John R. Lott, Jr. has a piece about them. Remember that there is an organization of doctors who don’t march lock-step with the AMA. The AMA, and some other medical organizations, have been quite vocal in their opposition to gun rights. Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws is not perfect but they are aligned with our own thinking; you have the right to defend yourself and gun control laws don’t work.

Charles Nichols examines two examples of unfair denial of gun rights.

No, it isn’t Obama, no matter what the New York Times might think. Daniel J. Mitchell of the Cato Institute makes a brief case that it might have been Vermont born Calvin Coolidge.

Ronald Reagan was a fan of his, too. And, reading the bio of him from Wikipedia, he certainly practiced the principles many of us believe in: Small government, low taxes, limited regulation of business and commerce. And, something Clinton and Obama could certainly learn from, he didn’t open his mouth unless he had something worthwhile to say. Silent Cal.

Here’s one making the rounds:

Q: Have you heard about McDonald’s’ new Obama Value Meal?
A: Order anything you like and the guy behind you has to pay for it.

I got a laugh from it until I started thinking about the truth of it.

From the Hartford Courant (CT):

The state’s largest insurer has been approved to raise health premium rates by 41 percent to 47 percent for some of its policies sold to individual buyers, in the largest price hikes yet seen in Connecticut since the adoption of national health care reform.

[. . .]

The reason for the increases is the new federal health reform mandates, according to Anthem and the state Department of Insurance, which is defending its approval against charges by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

Once again we see proof that government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.

That’s the title of an article by Walter Olson that should be read by N.Y. residents who value their gun rights.

No, not from me — I support the concept. It’s from the St. Petersburg Times.

I won’t bother with quotes because you should read the whole thing but, the very first “case” they mention is clearly not what “stand your ground” laws are meant for and the gun owner is, in fact, being charged with manslaughter. So why does such a “case” even belong in a discussion about self-defense? Because the average reader won’t realize just how specious the argument is that is being presented to them by a reporter with a definite anti-gun (or anti-”stand your ground” law) agenda.

Regarding Proposition 19, the ballot measure in California that would — at the state level — legalize pot, we again see that the Obama administration cares not one whit for the will of the people. From the LA Times:

Stepping up the Obama administration’s opposition to Proposition 19, the nation’s top law enforcement official promised to “vigorously enforce” federal drug laws against Californians who grow or sell marijuana for recreational use even if voters pass the legalization measure.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder’s response to the initiative comes as the administration has been under pressure to campaign against it more forcefully. Last week, Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderon, chided the Obama administration for not doing enough to defeat it.

Well of course Calderon is opposed to the measure! If it passes and people in California start growing their own pot, that cuts directly into the profits of the Mexican drug cartels.

Mexico wants to write our (U.S.) gun laws, immigration laws, and our drug laws for us.