I really have other things to do, but got caught up on YouTube looking at stuff.
Some interesting stuff. Go look at what's happening -- I mean really happening -- on the US-Mexican border. For a couple years now, Mexican police and military have been assisting drug traffickers to cross the border. No doubt they're handsomely paid. Some people say, "Oh, it's not the real police and military, it's just drug dealers dressed up like police and military." And armed like police and military, including flying Mexican Navy helicopters....
That butthead Guttierez from District 12 Chicago was on Greta Van Susteren tonight smiling up in her face, wagging his tail, licking her hand, talking about how can you blame people from a poor country trying to break into a rich one? I'll hop in the Dodge and drive down, break into his house. See how he likes it.
He's all impressed about an 800-page immigration reform bill. I mean, it's 800 pages!!! Aren't you impressed? Greta wasn't. I wasn't either. I could feel my dinner coming back up. And I'm sure this is what the Comrade will be pushing in his upcoming speech. "We don't need no steenking borders...."
And the response from the federal government to all this? Put up signs warning the public to avoid the lands (mainly the Coronado National Forest) near the border with Mexico. Perhaps a white flag would be more effective: "You win, Mexican drug cartel! You can have this part of the USA. We're too chicken-shit and too busy promoting our communist agenda to defend our borders."
So I was looking at Arizona and Texas videos on YouTube, and came across House Minority Leader John Boehner addressing the House last year about the crap-n-tax bill. That's another steaming pile of shit. Did you know that hundreds of pages in the crap-n-tax bill regulate your house? For example:
* All new homes would have to be built to California codes. I've seen some California homes I wouldn't care to live in, and certainly they wouldn't do in Chicago. We don't have earthquakes. We get snow.
* The Secretary of the Dept. of Energy has the power to dictate rules and regulations for groups like homeowners' associations. Not just for condos, for any homeowners.
* You would have to bring your home up to some kind of new code of energy efficiency before you could sell it, and it would have to be inspected and approved by three "officials", including a health inspector, before you could sell it. Boehner made the point that in some small towns in his district, there are no public employees, no code inspectors, no health inspectors, etc. I suppose they'd have to be hired and trained?
* If you decide to do a rehab, you have to have energy inspections before and after to prove how much energy savings you've rehabbed into it.
* Oh, and lots of toys and treats for Freddie and Fannie. They will completely control the mortgage market in terms of not allowing loans unless a home has been inspected and comes up to energy efficiency standards.
* And in anticipation of the millions of jobs that will be lost, there is even a provision in the bill to give the unemployed extended benefits.
* The Secretary of Energy is allowed XX amount of money for grants to colleges and the like to study why citizens will hate the m-fing federal government and its energy policies, and the horse it rode in on, and maybe come up with some suggestions to modify their behavior.
* Oh, and any new home will have to have an electrical outlet near the place where the family care is normally parked. For re-charging, you know? So in your job search, find a place that you can drive to in your golf cart.
And lots and lots more. I didn't have time to listen to the whole thing. And Boehner was only talking about a 300-page amendment to the bill, not the bill itself. The regulation is minute and detailed. Just leave your keys with one or another inspector when you head for work in the morning, if you can find work. They'll leave you a checklist of how many thousands of dollars more you'll have to pour into your home to make is allergen-free and energy efficient, according to the Secretary of Energy and the EPA.
Steel will cost 30% to 40% more made in the USA, for starters. Companies will get grants to move their manufacturing overseas. I'm not kidding. Wonder if the UAW is aware of that?
I wish I could write down how infuriating this all is. And Mr. Shit-for-Brains Henry Waxman, sponsor and author of this pile of crap, complained that Boehner was just going on and on.... keeping everyone tied up in the chamber. Apparently Waxman doesn't want to actually review all the bullshit he's trying to dump on the American public. And if I were him, I'd be actually embarrassed that my control-freak mania was being so publicly revealed. He must be a genuine, certifiable nut-job. Let's attribute it to a Napoleon complex, since Waxman's only about 3'5" or so. If you look real close, you can see he sits on two or three phone books to his desk.
But I started thinking about priorities. Like, look at what these damnfools are doing, and then look at the real world. Do you see any correlation whatsoever? Are they addressing the nation's real problems? No. So what are their priorities? They're like those people in game shows who get locked in a glass booth and then money rains down on them. They get to keep all the money they can grab.
Only with these shit-for-brains dems, it's power, not money. They want to run our lives. They want to run every tiny detail of our lives.
That's not even funny, you know. That's psychotic, and dangerously psychotic. Rapists and serial killers have the same kind of twist. I mean, the Green River killer talked about how he kept his corpses in groups of four to five so he could "control" them. If these politicians weren't in congress, they'd probably be accumulating their own similar groupings.
We really do need to dump these wingnuts.
Save the republic.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Jim Crow on gun ownership
Yesterday the Supremes decided to strike down gun ownership bans in Chicago in a case brought by this nice old guy named McDonald who lives in a really crime-ridden neighborhood. McDonald said he has burglar alarms, motion sensor alarms, and myriad other barriers set up to keep the drug addicts and burglars off his property, but owning a gun would work best. Only he couldn't own a gun in Chicago.
A long time ago, I actually looked up the gun laws in Chicago. I used to live there. At the time, Chicago didn't have an outright ban against guns, but a strange mess of related laws that made gun ownership impossible nonetheless. It was like, you could buy a gun, but you couldn't keep it on your property within the city limits. And/or you could get a permit to own a gun, but you weren't allowed to carry a gun anywhere, not even in your car. I kinda wondered, well, if you bought a gun, did you have to have the dealer fly over your house and drop it from a helicopter or what? I'm not saying these are the exact prohibitions, but the laws were something like that. And Mayor Daley still thinks gun bans work.
Every few years, the city does a campaign to "get guns off the streets." This usually involves something like, turn in your old fire arm, and we'll give you a $10.00 discount coupon for a shoe store. Or something like that. Mostly the guns they collect are the skeletal frames of blunderbusses that someone dug up in their yard and stuff like that.
The one thing the anti-gun people just can't seem to understand is that guns are dangerous mostly in the hands of criminals, and criminals, BY DEFINITION, are people who don't obey the law. If criminals don't pay attention to things like private property laws, why would they obey a gun law? The net effect of gun ownership bans is to disarm law-abiding citizens and establish a flourishing black market in fire arms.
For a very short time, I worked for the National Safety Council and had the chance to read through a bunch of their brochures. Gun accidents were pretty low on the list and had dropped every year since the 1930s or around that time. However, farming was pretty damn dangerous. Farming and logging were positively frightening for the number of accidents every year. Should we ban farming and logging? (Well, logging has other problems... ancient forests, you know.)
About 10 - 15 years ago a few states passed laws allowing concealed carry. That means you can carry a gun hidden under your jacket or in your handbag, concealed. As I understand it, Florida had such a law. According to a scholar named Lott (if I recall correctly), Florida suddenly got this rash of armed robberies and muggings directed against tourists. Why tourists? They'd just got off a plane. They weren't carrying. Tourists from foreign countries became the most desirable targets because surely they weren't carrying any guns. Criminals would actually follow them out of the airport to catch them in some secluded place.
Just a couple months ago in Chicago the papers reported a case where an armed burglar was shot as he was climbing into the window of a private home at about 3:30 am. The home belonged to an elderly couple, and they had a young daughter/grand-daughter and a couple of her kids living with them. The grand-dad heard the noise, grabbled his (illegal) weapon, and fired in the dark, killing the guy. Lucky shot. The wannabe burglar had a police record going back to his early teens. And he was still out on the street, had just been released from his last incarceration, as I recall.
The pro-gun-ban people complained that the burglar would not have been executed for burglary.
They don't consider what that armed burglar might have done to the family. Who says he would have confined himself to burglary?
The police decided not to kick up any more dust, so they didn't prosecuted Grampa for owning a gun. But he probably did have to give it up.
So the Supremes shot down the bizarre and ineffective Chicago gun ban. But the decision still allows for "restrictions," like having to get a gun permit, take fire arms classes, and in one state, you have to put up like a $500.00 bond of some kind to get a gun permit.
I was listening to all that, and it brought to mind the Jim Crow laws. Yeah, blacks could vote in Mississippi and Alabama, if they could pass a Constitution test, owned property, and maybe could rub their tummies and pat their heads at the same time. You get the idea. Similar to the gun ownership restrictions.
My favorite thing in regard to guns is something I got from an NRA member, who called the Second Amendment "The Enforcement Clause." Of course, politicians and anti-gun people are quick to point out that a hand gun is hardly effective against something like a tank or a rocket. But then there's also a reason that the war in Afghanistan is so hard to fight, and why Vietnam was such a mess -- guerilla warfare, an armed population, whether legal or not, organized or not.
There is a reason the Founding Fathers put the right to own guns as the Second Amendment, just after the First Amendment, which protects free speech, a free press, and religious choice. They considered self-defense pretty important. And throughout history, the greatest perpetrators of crime, the most diabolical violators of human rights, the perpetrators of the most horrendous massacres have been governments. The Founders were surely aware of that.
Just something to think about.
Save the republic.
A long time ago, I actually looked up the gun laws in Chicago. I used to live there. At the time, Chicago didn't have an outright ban against guns, but a strange mess of related laws that made gun ownership impossible nonetheless. It was like, you could buy a gun, but you couldn't keep it on your property within the city limits. And/or you could get a permit to own a gun, but you weren't allowed to carry a gun anywhere, not even in your car. I kinda wondered, well, if you bought a gun, did you have to have the dealer fly over your house and drop it from a helicopter or what? I'm not saying these are the exact prohibitions, but the laws were something like that. And Mayor Daley still thinks gun bans work.
Every few years, the city does a campaign to "get guns off the streets." This usually involves something like, turn in your old fire arm, and we'll give you a $10.00 discount coupon for a shoe store. Or something like that. Mostly the guns they collect are the skeletal frames of blunderbusses that someone dug up in their yard and stuff like that.
The one thing the anti-gun people just can't seem to understand is that guns are dangerous mostly in the hands of criminals, and criminals, BY DEFINITION, are people who don't obey the law. If criminals don't pay attention to things like private property laws, why would they obey a gun law? The net effect of gun ownership bans is to disarm law-abiding citizens and establish a flourishing black market in fire arms.
For a very short time, I worked for the National Safety Council and had the chance to read through a bunch of their brochures. Gun accidents were pretty low on the list and had dropped every year since the 1930s or around that time. However, farming was pretty damn dangerous. Farming and logging were positively frightening for the number of accidents every year. Should we ban farming and logging? (Well, logging has other problems... ancient forests, you know.)
About 10 - 15 years ago a few states passed laws allowing concealed carry. That means you can carry a gun hidden under your jacket or in your handbag, concealed. As I understand it, Florida had such a law. According to a scholar named Lott (if I recall correctly), Florida suddenly got this rash of armed robberies and muggings directed against tourists. Why tourists? They'd just got off a plane. They weren't carrying. Tourists from foreign countries became the most desirable targets because surely they weren't carrying any guns. Criminals would actually follow them out of the airport to catch them in some secluded place.
Just a couple months ago in Chicago the papers reported a case where an armed burglar was shot as he was climbing into the window of a private home at about 3:30 am. The home belonged to an elderly couple, and they had a young daughter/grand-daughter and a couple of her kids living with them. The grand-dad heard the noise, grabbled his (illegal) weapon, and fired in the dark, killing the guy. Lucky shot. The wannabe burglar had a police record going back to his early teens. And he was still out on the street, had just been released from his last incarceration, as I recall.
The pro-gun-ban people complained that the burglar would not have been executed for burglary.
They don't consider what that armed burglar might have done to the family. Who says he would have confined himself to burglary?
The police decided not to kick up any more dust, so they didn't prosecuted Grampa for owning a gun. But he probably did have to give it up.
So the Supremes shot down the bizarre and ineffective Chicago gun ban. But the decision still allows for "restrictions," like having to get a gun permit, take fire arms classes, and in one state, you have to put up like a $500.00 bond of some kind to get a gun permit.
I was listening to all that, and it brought to mind the Jim Crow laws. Yeah, blacks could vote in Mississippi and Alabama, if they could pass a Constitution test, owned property, and maybe could rub their tummies and pat their heads at the same time. You get the idea. Similar to the gun ownership restrictions.
My favorite thing in regard to guns is something I got from an NRA member, who called the Second Amendment "The Enforcement Clause." Of course, politicians and anti-gun people are quick to point out that a hand gun is hardly effective against something like a tank or a rocket. But then there's also a reason that the war in Afghanistan is so hard to fight, and why Vietnam was such a mess -- guerilla warfare, an armed population, whether legal or not, organized or not.
There is a reason the Founding Fathers put the right to own guns as the Second Amendment, just after the First Amendment, which protects free speech, a free press, and religious choice. They considered self-defense pretty important. And throughout history, the greatest perpetrators of crime, the most diabolical violators of human rights, the perpetrators of the most horrendous massacres have been governments. The Founders were surely aware of that.
Just something to think about.
Save the republic.
Monday, June 28, 2010
O be joyful!
I wrote that last before I saw the news, and also got a key fact wrong. Thank heavens!
That totalitarian credit bill hasn't passed the senate. Apparently it just came out of some committee. And that was enough to make Dudd weep? What a jerk.
So there's still a chance it will fail. (O happy day! O happy day!)
On top of that, WV Senator Robert Byrd had the good grace to pass away last night, so it's doubtful that there will be enough votes in the senate to completely destroy whatever remains of free enterprise in the financial industry.
The one good thing about Byrd is that he was ferociously loyal to West Virginia, and West Virginia produces lots and lots of coal. So Byrd might have offered some powerful opposition to crap-n-tax.
Other than that, sorry to say, I can't be unhappy when a dem dies. Whatever it takes to get them out of office.
Save the republic.
That totalitarian credit bill hasn't passed the senate. Apparently it just came out of some committee. And that was enough to make Dudd weep? What a jerk.
So there's still a chance it will fail. (O happy day! O happy day!)
On top of that, WV Senator Robert Byrd had the good grace to pass away last night, so it's doubtful that there will be enough votes in the senate to completely destroy whatever remains of free enterprise in the financial industry.
The one good thing about Byrd is that he was ferociously loyal to West Virginia, and West Virginia produces lots and lots of coal. So Byrd might have offered some powerful opposition to crap-n-tax.
Other than that, sorry to say, I can't be unhappy when a dem dies. Whatever it takes to get them out of office.
Save the republic.
We aren't the world
Well, lot's going on, I guess. McChrystal fired and Patraeus will take his place in Afghanistan.
The oil spill keeps on a-pumping crude into the Gulf.
The Comrade got to play "Master of the Universe" at a G20 meeting in Toronto over the weekend. All the usual buttheads showed up, breaking windows, setting fire to cars, destroying everything around them -- and that was just the heads of state.
Actually, I found it interesting that the leaders of the developed world totally disagreed with the Comrade about continuing to pour good money after bad into "stiumulus." They basically told him he must be a raving lunatic. Angela Merkl should know a bit about this, given the unforgettable hypyer-hyper-inflation that destroyed Germany after WWI and paved the road for Hitler. Germany has been very careful about this ever since. Really good book on the subject: "Before the Deluge." Also a good read. Picture Otto Klemperer, Werner (Hogan's Heroes) Klemperer's father. (Or I could have that backwards.) He was symphony conductor, wheeling home a wheel barrow full of cash one evening after a rehearsal. He didn't want to buy a sausage and didn't really need it, but figured he might as well -- since the wheel barrow full of notes would pay for it, and tomorrow it would cost twice as much. Something to ponder.
The Comrade had to kiss some ass among third world nations to find support for his destructive and misguided economic policies. So, there he goes again, buddying up to dwarf-monkey-looking Hugo Chavez and anyone else who's proclaimed a mission to destroy the USA and free enterprise. The Comrade makes friends for us everywhere he goes, n'est-ce pas?
And doesn't that tell you something?
Elena Kagan hearings start today for her appointment to Supreme Court.
Listened to just a little piece of that, until Dick(head) Durbin, senator from Illinois, started talking about a case known as "Citizens United." Not familiar with it, but sounds like it must have been some socialist thing..... I mean, "Citizens United." The very name indicates a group swathing itself in the leftist sanctimonial holiness of street level political organizing. Otherwise known as "Astro-turf." 'Course, I could be wrong.
Anyway, citing this case, Dick(head) Durbin was yammering on and on -- as only a politician can -- about how Justice Roberts or someone "totally ignored the will of congress" and "totally ignored the will of the people."
Coming from Durbin, that made me gag. First of all, let's not confuse the will of the people with the will of congress -- certainly NOT in regard to the sitting congress, which enjoys a barely 20% public approval rating and is still trying to sell us socialized medicine -- something no one wants or ever wanted, except the buttheads on the far left, a tiny, tiny minority given to bribery, blackmail, and slander.
Second. Dick(head) himself seems to have no objection whatsoever to "ignoring the will of the people" when it supports his party's power grabs. Dick(head) has demonstrated absolutely no regard whatsoever even for the Constitution. To my mind, he's sort of Extortionist-in-Chief, second only to maybe Sad Sack Reid and Thomas Dudd, who's more of a bribee than a bribor, really. Never met a dollar he didn't like.
Oh... this congress passed that hideous bill to natioinalize commercial and consumer credit in the US. Dudd wept. He's such a truly monumental asshole. And so totally corrupt, he sincerely believes that it's his public duty, and only polite, to accept all the gifts people shower upon him. He knows better than to even attempt to run again. He surely doesn't want to be investigated.
And too bad Dick(head) Durbin's not up for re-election this year. Best we can do is return him into an insignificant back-bencher in November, along with Pelosi. Reid will be gone, but if he's smart, he won't go back to Nevada, which no longer loves him.
Save the republic.
The oil spill keeps on a-pumping crude into the Gulf.
The Comrade got to play "Master of the Universe" at a G20 meeting in Toronto over the weekend. All the usual buttheads showed up, breaking windows, setting fire to cars, destroying everything around them -- and that was just the heads of state.
Actually, I found it interesting that the leaders of the developed world totally disagreed with the Comrade about continuing to pour good money after bad into "stiumulus." They basically told him he must be a raving lunatic. Angela Merkl should know a bit about this, given the unforgettable hypyer-hyper-inflation that destroyed Germany after WWI and paved the road for Hitler. Germany has been very careful about this ever since. Really good book on the subject: "Before the Deluge." Also a good read. Picture Otto Klemperer, Werner (Hogan's Heroes) Klemperer's father. (Or I could have that backwards.) He was symphony conductor, wheeling home a wheel barrow full of cash one evening after a rehearsal. He didn't want to buy a sausage and didn't really need it, but figured he might as well -- since the wheel barrow full of notes would pay for it, and tomorrow it would cost twice as much. Something to ponder.
The Comrade had to kiss some ass among third world nations to find support for his destructive and misguided economic policies. So, there he goes again, buddying up to dwarf-monkey-looking Hugo Chavez and anyone else who's proclaimed a mission to destroy the USA and free enterprise. The Comrade makes friends for us everywhere he goes, n'est-ce pas?
And doesn't that tell you something?
Elena Kagan hearings start today for her appointment to Supreme Court.
Listened to just a little piece of that, until Dick(head) Durbin, senator from Illinois, started talking about a case known as "Citizens United." Not familiar with it, but sounds like it must have been some socialist thing..... I mean, "Citizens United." The very name indicates a group swathing itself in the leftist sanctimonial holiness of street level political organizing. Otherwise known as "Astro-turf." 'Course, I could be wrong.
Anyway, citing this case, Dick(head) Durbin was yammering on and on -- as only a politician can -- about how Justice Roberts or someone "totally ignored the will of congress" and "totally ignored the will of the people."
Coming from Durbin, that made me gag. First of all, let's not confuse the will of the people with the will of congress -- certainly NOT in regard to the sitting congress, which enjoys a barely 20% public approval rating and is still trying to sell us socialized medicine -- something no one wants or ever wanted, except the buttheads on the far left, a tiny, tiny minority given to bribery, blackmail, and slander.
Second. Dick(head) himself seems to have no objection whatsoever to "ignoring the will of the people" when it supports his party's power grabs. Dick(head) has demonstrated absolutely no regard whatsoever even for the Constitution. To my mind, he's sort of Extortionist-in-Chief, second only to maybe Sad Sack Reid and Thomas Dudd, who's more of a bribee than a bribor, really. Never met a dollar he didn't like.
Oh... this congress passed that hideous bill to natioinalize commercial and consumer credit in the US. Dudd wept. He's such a truly monumental asshole. And so totally corrupt, he sincerely believes that it's his public duty, and only polite, to accept all the gifts people shower upon him. He knows better than to even attempt to run again. He surely doesn't want to be investigated.
And too bad Dick(head) Durbin's not up for re-election this year. Best we can do is return him into an insignificant back-bencher in November, along with Pelosi. Reid will be gone, but if he's smart, he won't go back to Nevada, which no longer loves him.
Save the republic.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
If you can't nationalize it, blow it up?
I was rather happy Monday when a federal judge in Louisiana ruled that the Comrade's decree to prohibit ALL offshore oil drilling was unjustified. During some hearings today, a congressman (or someone) said banning all offshore drilling because of the spill in the Gulf of Mexico is kinda like banning all air travel as a result of a single plane crash. Yeah.
Glenn Beck came up with an interesting theory. See, the rigs that are out there in the Gulf now and not being used will be leased or sold to drill elsewhere. Most notably, Brazil, where apparently a nationalized Brazilian company called PetroBraz wants to sink a well in 14,000 feet of water.
The thing is, PetroBraz is partly owned -- at least in terms of its shareholders -- by George Soros.
So what is this? Pay-back to Soros for funding the Comrade's presidential campaign, footing the bill for all those wild-eyed leftist Internet spin factories and feeding money to the likes of Acorn?
Looks like it.
I mean, nobody agrees with the ban on offshore drilling. The Comrade got a bunch of scientists to sign-off on a statement about the spill, then after they signed, the Comrade added a couple paragraphs to the document claiming that all offshore drilling should be banned.
That's outright fraud, you know? That's like if you wrote a $10.00 check for groceries, and the store moved the decimal point over and added a couple zeros. I mean, that's definitely criminal.
And the residents of the Gulf who are, after all, suffering the greatest from the oil spill -- you'd think they'd welcome the shut down of the other drilling platforms, wouldn't you? But no, they're dead-set against the ban on drilling. See, they work on those platforms and they understand that they are generally safe and not likely to go the way of the one that blew up. And with the fisheries ruined, tourism on hold this season, and the general relentlessly crappy state of the economy, they want the jobs.
In addition, if we lose the oil to be pulled from those other, perfectly viable platforms, won't that put the USA only more in hole in terms of dependency on foreign oil? Perhaps in addition to George Soros, the Comrade wants the US to go begging to some fascist thug like Chavez in Venezuela for oil. After all, Chavez is another marxist and self-proclaimed master-of-the-universe. Perhaps the Comrade feels left out that so much of the Western Hemisphere is imprisoned under totalitarianism while the USA still enjoys some level of political liberty. Can't have that. It wouldn't be "just", would it?
But, gosh, I wouldn't want to suggest that the Comrade is selling out the nation to win friends and enslave people.
He wouldn't do that, would he? I mean, he has too much regard for the USA and its citizens, doesn't he? Too much respect for the principles behind the USA. And God knows, he's such a staunch supporter of free enterprise and personal liberty.
The Soros thing might seem like some crazy conspiracy theory, but you know what? It just fits. It sounds like something the Comrade would do.
Save the republic.
Glenn Beck came up with an interesting theory. See, the rigs that are out there in the Gulf now and not being used will be leased or sold to drill elsewhere. Most notably, Brazil, where apparently a nationalized Brazilian company called PetroBraz wants to sink a well in 14,000 feet of water.
The thing is, PetroBraz is partly owned -- at least in terms of its shareholders -- by George Soros.
So what is this? Pay-back to Soros for funding the Comrade's presidential campaign, footing the bill for all those wild-eyed leftist Internet spin factories and feeding money to the likes of Acorn?
Looks like it.
I mean, nobody agrees with the ban on offshore drilling. The Comrade got a bunch of scientists to sign-off on a statement about the spill, then after they signed, the Comrade added a couple paragraphs to the document claiming that all offshore drilling should be banned.
That's outright fraud, you know? That's like if you wrote a $10.00 check for groceries, and the store moved the decimal point over and added a couple zeros. I mean, that's definitely criminal.
And the residents of the Gulf who are, after all, suffering the greatest from the oil spill -- you'd think they'd welcome the shut down of the other drilling platforms, wouldn't you? But no, they're dead-set against the ban on drilling. See, they work on those platforms and they understand that they are generally safe and not likely to go the way of the one that blew up. And with the fisheries ruined, tourism on hold this season, and the general relentlessly crappy state of the economy, they want the jobs.
In addition, if we lose the oil to be pulled from those other, perfectly viable platforms, won't that put the USA only more in hole in terms of dependency on foreign oil? Perhaps in addition to George Soros, the Comrade wants the US to go begging to some fascist thug like Chavez in Venezuela for oil. After all, Chavez is another marxist and self-proclaimed master-of-the-universe. Perhaps the Comrade feels left out that so much of the Western Hemisphere is imprisoned under totalitarianism while the USA still enjoys some level of political liberty. Can't have that. It wouldn't be "just", would it?
But, gosh, I wouldn't want to suggest that the Comrade is selling out the nation to win friends and enslave people.
He wouldn't do that, would he? I mean, he has too much regard for the USA and its citizens, doesn't he? Too much respect for the principles behind the USA. And God knows, he's such a staunch supporter of free enterprise and personal liberty.
The Soros thing might seem like some crazy conspiracy theory, but you know what? It just fits. It sounds like something the Comrade would do.
Save the republic.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Let's "deem" their butts out of office
Pazzo Pelosi and Sad Sack Harry Reid were apparently so caught up in the blood sport of shoving socialized medicine down the throats of the more intelligent resisters in congress that they forgot all about a budget. This is the first congress in decades that hasn't passed a budget.
Pazzo announced early on that this congress wouldn't be passing more any more big spending bills - having dumped generations of hopeless debt upon us through socialized medicine -- and apparently congress just never took up the matter at all.
But now, gee shucks, as the election approaches, the dumbasses in congress want to spend some money. The Stimulus isn't working, you see. All those fabulous high-paying jobs were supposed to be kicking in right about now, but alas! We're all still broke and standing in unemployment lines.
What the heck went wrong?
Maybe Pazzo and Sad Sack are brainless idiots. Think that might have something to do with it?
At any rate, now they don't have a budget. Under the law (if anyone cares about the law) congress can't spend money they haven't allocated. The US Constitution and more than 200 years of tradition make that pretty clear.
What to do?
I know, Pazzo said, a wayward strand of hair sticking to her Botox lipstick, let's "deem" a budget!
Remember, "deeming" was what they were going to do with the socialized medicine bill to pass it without a vote, since no congresscritter in their right mind (socialists excluded, note) would vote for it.
Now they want to "deem" a budget. Let's just pretend we have a budget so we can spend some more money we don't have.
Why don't we "deem" a congress with even the faintest glimmer of intelligence and "deem" the rest of them (that would be the vast majority) into a black hole near the nebula in Orion's belt. That might work.
Save the republic.
Pazzo announced early on that this congress wouldn't be passing more any more big spending bills - having dumped generations of hopeless debt upon us through socialized medicine -- and apparently congress just never took up the matter at all.
But now, gee shucks, as the election approaches, the dumbasses in congress want to spend some money. The Stimulus isn't working, you see. All those fabulous high-paying jobs were supposed to be kicking in right about now, but alas! We're all still broke and standing in unemployment lines.
What the heck went wrong?
Maybe Pazzo and Sad Sack are brainless idiots. Think that might have something to do with it?
At any rate, now they don't have a budget. Under the law (if anyone cares about the law) congress can't spend money they haven't allocated. The US Constitution and more than 200 years of tradition make that pretty clear.
What to do?
I know, Pazzo said, a wayward strand of hair sticking to her Botox lipstick, let's "deem" a budget!
Remember, "deeming" was what they were going to do with the socialized medicine bill to pass it without a vote, since no congresscritter in their right mind (socialists excluded, note) would vote for it.
Now they want to "deem" a budget. Let's just pretend we have a budget so we can spend some more money we don't have.
Why don't we "deem" a congress with even the faintest glimmer of intelligence and "deem" the rest of them (that would be the vast majority) into a black hole near the nebula in Orion's belt. That might work.
Save the republic.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Test your political position
I didn't write the following; someone sent it to me in an email. But it seems pretty accurate:
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal legislates someone to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative reads this, he'll have a good laugh.
A liberal will be "offended".
* * *
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal legislates someone to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative reads this, he'll have a good laugh.
A liberal will be "offended".
* * *
It's STILL the economy, stupid
Some interesting stats about the state of the economy. The USA has lost 3.6 MILLION jobs since the Stimulus Bill saved us all from a recession. A couple weeks ago, an employment study noted that something like 360,000 jobs had been created by the federal government -- turns out they were mostly census jobs, and many of them represented census collectors who had been fired and re-hired several times, each re-hire representing a job created, and the firings apparently not counted at all.
By contrast, the private sector in the same study created maybe 25,000 jobs.
What's wrong with this picture?
The liberals run around saying, "Oh, but the Stimulus saved all kinds of state-level jobs." Yeah. Jobs that represent income for state legislators' and officials' useless brothers-in-law and similar. We all know how state government works. "Hey, let's tear up that highway once again, mangle traffic for months, and collect our bloated pensions off the backs of private taxpayers."
You know what? The Keynesian thing about government spending stimulating the economy only works on a very small scale and for a very short time. It can be effective as a last-resort stop-gap measure, if the funds expended are equal to what you can afford to flush down a toilet, and if the step is taken only to attract private capital and investment. Isn't that what "stimulus" means? Let's not confuse "stimulus" with "carrying union workers on our backs forever more."
The Stimulus Bill fails on both counts and it alsways did, and it never had the potential to do anything else. It will, however, extend the recession, because debt-spending does have to repaid, and with interest.
The trouble with government funding is that it's essentially a drain on private funds that could be better and more effectively applied to private industry and productivity, making and selling and generating profits on products and services that people really want.
The government doesn't produce very much that people want and are willing to pay for. What the public is willing to pay for is: education (increasingly home-schooled and private); police and fire departments; PROTECTING U.S. BORDERS (which the feds are actually suing Arizona for enforcing); national defense.
All the rest of the crap perpetrated by the feds and the state is just legislators winking and nodding at each other: "Hey! I found another way to buy us some more voters!"
It isn't a dem or a Republican thing. It's a political corruption thing.
Note that every time a politician talks about cutting government spending, they threaten to cut not the useless Backwoods County Historic Train Station Renovation Project, which is $5 million over-budget with no chance of completion by deadline if ever, but eliminating jobs at the Fire Department.
That's political blackmail -- Honestly, true extortion by any definition: You refuse to empty your pockets into my slush fund, and I'll let your house burn down.
It's disgusting. Really, a genuine insult to intelligence, and a slap in the voter's face. And we all see through it. But maybe enough private citizens are on the government gravy train so that they continue to let it happen, and hope and pray for more government spending lest they have to find a real job. God forbid.
And now the Comrade and the merry marxists want $50 BILLION more to pay off their cronies and/or secure their base of bribed voters.
You know what, why not roll this legislation up real tight and put it where the sun don't shine? You had your chance, buttheads, and you totally blew it. Let California fail. Let the teachers find summer employment if they can't subsist on $85,000 per year. Let those idiots who do nothing but stand on the highway blocking traffic find something more productive and proftable to do with their lives.
Hey, congress and the White House, just go play golf -- on your own dime, that would be nice -- and leave us all alone to fix our own problems. We don't need this government. This government is only standing in our way, sucking all the money out of our bank accounts and retirement funds and searching for more and more ways to put its boot on our necks.
How long before that $20 BILLION in BP money will be "diverted" to "indirectly affected" industries, like deputy-assistant-under-secretaries in the office of the regional-deputy-assistant-director-of-moving-paper-across-the-mail-room of some government office somewhere. How long before we see a "crisis" in useless government employee employment? Actually, we're already seeing it. That's what "Stimulus" is all about.
Hoping voters won't forget ANY of this in November. And if the dumb bastards try to push a bunch more of communist crap through in their lame duck session after the holidays -- go ahead! We'll just repeal it. Or better yet -- ignore the hell out of it.
Cash is good. Think green.
Save the republic.
By contrast, the private sector in the same study created maybe 25,000 jobs.
What's wrong with this picture?
The liberals run around saying, "Oh, but the Stimulus saved all kinds of state-level jobs." Yeah. Jobs that represent income for state legislators' and officials' useless brothers-in-law and similar. We all know how state government works. "Hey, let's tear up that highway once again, mangle traffic for months, and collect our bloated pensions off the backs of private taxpayers."
You know what? The Keynesian thing about government spending stimulating the economy only works on a very small scale and for a very short time. It can be effective as a last-resort stop-gap measure, if the funds expended are equal to what you can afford to flush down a toilet, and if the step is taken only to attract private capital and investment. Isn't that what "stimulus" means? Let's not confuse "stimulus" with "carrying union workers on our backs forever more."
The Stimulus Bill fails on both counts and it alsways did, and it never had the potential to do anything else. It will, however, extend the recession, because debt-spending does have to repaid, and with interest.
The trouble with government funding is that it's essentially a drain on private funds that could be better and more effectively applied to private industry and productivity, making and selling and generating profits on products and services that people really want.
The government doesn't produce very much that people want and are willing to pay for. What the public is willing to pay for is: education (increasingly home-schooled and private); police and fire departments; PROTECTING U.S. BORDERS (which the feds are actually suing Arizona for enforcing); national defense.
All the rest of the crap perpetrated by the feds and the state is just legislators winking and nodding at each other: "Hey! I found another way to buy us some more voters!"
It isn't a dem or a Republican thing. It's a political corruption thing.
Note that every time a politician talks about cutting government spending, they threaten to cut not the useless Backwoods County Historic Train Station Renovation Project, which is $5 million over-budget with no chance of completion by deadline if ever, but eliminating jobs at the Fire Department.
That's political blackmail -- Honestly, true extortion by any definition: You refuse to empty your pockets into my slush fund, and I'll let your house burn down.
It's disgusting. Really, a genuine insult to intelligence, and a slap in the voter's face. And we all see through it. But maybe enough private citizens are on the government gravy train so that they continue to let it happen, and hope and pray for more government spending lest they have to find a real job. God forbid.
And now the Comrade and the merry marxists want $50 BILLION more to pay off their cronies and/or secure their base of bribed voters.
You know what, why not roll this legislation up real tight and put it where the sun don't shine? You had your chance, buttheads, and you totally blew it. Let California fail. Let the teachers find summer employment if they can't subsist on $85,000 per year. Let those idiots who do nothing but stand on the highway blocking traffic find something more productive and proftable to do with their lives.
Hey, congress and the White House, just go play golf -- on your own dime, that would be nice -- and leave us all alone to fix our own problems. We don't need this government. This government is only standing in our way, sucking all the money out of our bank accounts and retirement funds and searching for more and more ways to put its boot on our necks.
How long before that $20 BILLION in BP money will be "diverted" to "indirectly affected" industries, like deputy-assistant-under-secretaries in the office of the regional-deputy-assistant-director-of-moving-paper-across-the-mail-room of some government office somewhere. How long before we see a "crisis" in useless government employee employment? Actually, we're already seeing it. That's what "Stimulus" is all about.
Hoping voters won't forget ANY of this in November. And if the dumb bastards try to push a bunch more of communist crap through in their lame duck session after the holidays -- go ahead! We'll just repeal it. Or better yet -- ignore the hell out of it.
Cash is good. Think green.
Save the republic.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Congress no better than BP
Tried to watch at least part of the congressional jeerings with BP today. I mean hearings. Really, shades of Toyota, Goldman Sachs, and GM -- simply a chance for congressmen to bully people. Congress believes it makes them look effective. But it just conjures up bad memories of dodging those kids in high school who used to make farting sounds in study hall.
BP CEO Tony What's-His-Face just sort of nodded and agreed. What else can he do, really? (Well, he could have made farting sounds, I guess. It would have livened things up.)
The highlight of the whole show was a Texas congressman named Barton, who apologized to BP for the federal "shake-down." Of course, then Barton later apologized for apologizing. And then I believe he issued a statement even later in which he apologized for apologizing for apologizing.
So let's walk this back. Let's begin with oil exploration and drilling being a very dirty and dangerous business. I mean, it is. Did you ever try to wash that crap off your hands? It also burns pretty quickly and easily.
So then we also have a bunch of rudderless youth in the USA (or worse, but I'm assuming their sincerity here) who want nothing more but to stand on a hilltop and hold hands with people. Preferably a hilltop wooded with ancient forests. They probably don't mind the idea of living in a cabin in the woods with no electricity. Very few have ever tried it, and they strike me as the type that couldn't survive 20 minutes without a cell phone and a Starbuck's, but they really like the idea of living in a cabin with no electricity.
Beside that, don't you care about the planet? (We need some Pazzo-Pelosi crocodile tears here and a few lonely notes from a violin. Or no, whale song.)
So if oil is a dirty and dangerous business, let's all hold hands on the hilltop and whine to our daddies and congresscritters about it. I know, let's force oil companies to drill 60 miles out to sea in water a mile deep!
That doesn't make oil drilling any more safe or clean. That only gives loony tree-huggers a sense of satisfaction that they've accomplished something with their relatively useless lives. Gives them a sense of purpose and something to believe it, similar to the way they attached themselves to the Comrade.
Oh, but let's also institute a bunch of incoherent and probably self-contradictory regulations for oil drilling while we're at it. That should fix it. But that depends on the regulations.
Show of hands: Ever read any government specs for ANY kind of job or work or product? The government doesn't write specs so much as it creates wish lists. "Gee, it would be nice if we could have a machine to generate all the electricity we might ever need, and it must include: no charge whatsoever; no odor, visual nightmares, harsh sounds, or any kind of any instrusiveness at all into anyone's life, or any animal's life; it must in no way involve carbon or carbon derivatives; no voter in the USA, or any potential immigrants, legal or otherwise, can ever take any offense to it whatsoever." Actually, that kinda sounds like the socialized medicine bill.
I worked at a place once where one of the engineer's sole job was trying to make sense of government specs for aircraft cleaning equipment. He told me that in one case, the interior measurements for one ordered machine were larger than the exterior messurements. Sorta like Dr. Who's phone box.
And even if you do write some barely-rational regulations, if your regulators are sharing porn and body fluids with oil industry lobbyists, the regulations just might not mean very much to anyone. I mean, hey, poring over documents that feature quadratic equations and all that crap isn't half as much fun as a lap dance in the bowels of some federal agency, is it?
Toss in the Comrade, who regards his duties as Chief Executive of the USA as being uncannily similar to those of a Cowboys cheerleader, assuming Chairman Mao is the quarterback, and voila! We have the most destructive industrial accident in history.
Congress makes me sick, and they seem to be deliberately working toward that goal. But BP hasn't been much more effective. However, it is "British" Petroleum, isn't it? They know exactly how to function in a socialist political environment, which is to say -- sidestep the rules, buy off the regulators with X-rated vids and the occasional blow job. Then smile in everyone's face and tell them "I don't know." And why develop a disaster plan for the Gulf of Mexico when the plan used in Alaska fills just as many pages? No one's going to bother to look at it anyway.
And so what is the answer from the blockheads in congress and in the White House? Regulation has failed! What we need is regulation!
To borrow from Dr. Phil: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
What we need is people with some intellectual capacity and boots-on-the-ground experience. None of the above-mentioned need apply.
And exactly why the hell are people waiting for government approvals on things? Just do it, you know? Got an idea to help the clean-up? Just do it. You certainly can't made a bigger mess.
Save the republic.
BP CEO Tony What's-His-Face just sort of nodded and agreed. What else can he do, really? (Well, he could have made farting sounds, I guess. It would have livened things up.)
The highlight of the whole show was a Texas congressman named Barton, who apologized to BP for the federal "shake-down." Of course, then Barton later apologized for apologizing. And then I believe he issued a statement even later in which he apologized for apologizing for apologizing.
So let's walk this back. Let's begin with oil exploration and drilling being a very dirty and dangerous business. I mean, it is. Did you ever try to wash that crap off your hands? It also burns pretty quickly and easily.
So then we also have a bunch of rudderless youth in the USA (or worse, but I'm assuming their sincerity here) who want nothing more but to stand on a hilltop and hold hands with people. Preferably a hilltop wooded with ancient forests. They probably don't mind the idea of living in a cabin in the woods with no electricity. Very few have ever tried it, and they strike me as the type that couldn't survive 20 minutes without a cell phone and a Starbuck's, but they really like the idea of living in a cabin with no electricity.
Beside that, don't you care about the planet? (We need some Pazzo-Pelosi crocodile tears here and a few lonely notes from a violin. Or no, whale song.)
So if oil is a dirty and dangerous business, let's all hold hands on the hilltop and whine to our daddies and congresscritters about it. I know, let's force oil companies to drill 60 miles out to sea in water a mile deep!
That doesn't make oil drilling any more safe or clean. That only gives loony tree-huggers a sense of satisfaction that they've accomplished something with their relatively useless lives. Gives them a sense of purpose and something to believe it, similar to the way they attached themselves to the Comrade.
Oh, but let's also institute a bunch of incoherent and probably self-contradictory regulations for oil drilling while we're at it. That should fix it. But that depends on the regulations.
Show of hands: Ever read any government specs for ANY kind of job or work or product? The government doesn't write specs so much as it creates wish lists. "Gee, it would be nice if we could have a machine to generate all the electricity we might ever need, and it must include: no charge whatsoever; no odor, visual nightmares, harsh sounds, or any kind of any instrusiveness at all into anyone's life, or any animal's life; it must in no way involve carbon or carbon derivatives; no voter in the USA, or any potential immigrants, legal or otherwise, can ever take any offense to it whatsoever." Actually, that kinda sounds like the socialized medicine bill.
I worked at a place once where one of the engineer's sole job was trying to make sense of government specs for aircraft cleaning equipment. He told me that in one case, the interior measurements for one ordered machine were larger than the exterior messurements. Sorta like Dr. Who's phone box.
And even if you do write some barely-rational regulations, if your regulators are sharing porn and body fluids with oil industry lobbyists, the regulations just might not mean very much to anyone. I mean, hey, poring over documents that feature quadratic equations and all that crap isn't half as much fun as a lap dance in the bowels of some federal agency, is it?
Toss in the Comrade, who regards his duties as Chief Executive of the USA as being uncannily similar to those of a Cowboys cheerleader, assuming Chairman Mao is the quarterback, and voila! We have the most destructive industrial accident in history.
Congress makes me sick, and they seem to be deliberately working toward that goal. But BP hasn't been much more effective. However, it is "British" Petroleum, isn't it? They know exactly how to function in a socialist political environment, which is to say -- sidestep the rules, buy off the regulators with X-rated vids and the occasional blow job. Then smile in everyone's face and tell them "I don't know." And why develop a disaster plan for the Gulf of Mexico when the plan used in Alaska fills just as many pages? No one's going to bother to look at it anyway.
And so what is the answer from the blockheads in congress and in the White House? Regulation has failed! What we need is regulation!
To borrow from Dr. Phil: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
What we need is people with some intellectual capacity and boots-on-the-ground experience. None of the above-mentioned need apply.
And exactly why the hell are people waiting for government approvals on things? Just do it, you know? Got an idea to help the clean-up? Just do it. You certainly can't made a bigger mess.
Save the republic.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Minority rule in the name of "justice"
Saw a rather interesting news item on Fox today. Not headline news, really, but alarming.
Apparently Port Chester, NY, has a population that is 46% Latino, many if them being non-citizens legal or otherwise, and many kids under voting age. Somehow (and I don't know how this issue arose), the feds determined that Latinos were under-represented in local government. So a federal judge named Robinson devised this scheme to give every Latino voter six votes each to allow for greater "justice" in representation. That is, a Latino votes once, and the vote gets counted as six votes.
You know, we did something like this before in the USA. It's even in the Constitution, although it's been removed. It was called the "3/5ths clause." And it didn't really relate to voting, so much as to how the population was counted to determine the number of representatives in congress.
Under the 3/5ths clause, every slave was counted in the census as 3/5ths of a person. This was because many slave states had rather large populations of slaves -- or "persons in bondage" or whatever, the Constitution never used the word "slave" -- and the slaves weren't considered to be citizens, or even whole human beings, for that matter. Planters and slave owners believed that because slaves were not and never could be citizens, that their owners would be "under-represented" in congress, so they required this 3/5ths clause to even things out for themselves and allow them greater "justice."
The 3/5ths clause didn't give the slaves any votes or representation. It only gave their masters more weight in the House of Representatives. In other words, it supported their role as "master" and also cushioned them from any adverse effects resulting from the practice of slavery. In effect, it gave the slave owners much more power than they should have had.
The clause was amended and removed from the Constitution after the Civil War. The clause was, in fact, indirectly one of the causes of the Civil War.
Now it's regarded as "justice."
This Port Chester thing is actually like something out of the novel "1984," which proclaimed, "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others."
And who's to say that Latino voters, even armed with six votes each, wouldn't vote for the Gringo? In which case, wouldn't the feds regard them as STILL being "under-represented"?
This six-vote system is an assault on the concept of individual rights, substituting it with representation based on race, ethnicity, or whatever. This is what liberals think of as "justice." They are tragically misguided and demonstrate the danger of their ignorance.
Don't these idiots ever read history? I mean, really, are they that stupid? Not that it matters, really, but Federal Judge Robinson is black. Perhaps he should consult the spirit of his ancesters-past about how this type of representation worked for them prior to the Civil War.
By the way, by accident heard the first few minutes of the Comrade's speech last night, sort of as background noise while I was doing something else. Heard him say something about how China's energy policy should serve as a model for the USA, nearly vomited, and turned it off.
Apparently the merry marxists believe we should follow China's model of individual rights as a model for own government, too.
Save the republic.
Apparently Port Chester, NY, has a population that is 46% Latino, many if them being non-citizens legal or otherwise, and many kids under voting age. Somehow (and I don't know how this issue arose), the feds determined that Latinos were under-represented in local government. So a federal judge named Robinson devised this scheme to give every Latino voter six votes each to allow for greater "justice" in representation. That is, a Latino votes once, and the vote gets counted as six votes.
You know, we did something like this before in the USA. It's even in the Constitution, although it's been removed. It was called the "3/5ths clause." And it didn't really relate to voting, so much as to how the population was counted to determine the number of representatives in congress.
Under the 3/5ths clause, every slave was counted in the census as 3/5ths of a person. This was because many slave states had rather large populations of slaves -- or "persons in bondage" or whatever, the Constitution never used the word "slave" -- and the slaves weren't considered to be citizens, or even whole human beings, for that matter. Planters and slave owners believed that because slaves were not and never could be citizens, that their owners would be "under-represented" in congress, so they required this 3/5ths clause to even things out for themselves and allow them greater "justice."
The 3/5ths clause didn't give the slaves any votes or representation. It only gave their masters more weight in the House of Representatives. In other words, it supported their role as "master" and also cushioned them from any adverse effects resulting from the practice of slavery. In effect, it gave the slave owners much more power than they should have had.
The clause was amended and removed from the Constitution after the Civil War. The clause was, in fact, indirectly one of the causes of the Civil War.
Now it's regarded as "justice."
This Port Chester thing is actually like something out of the novel "1984," which proclaimed, "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others."
And who's to say that Latino voters, even armed with six votes each, wouldn't vote for the Gringo? In which case, wouldn't the feds regard them as STILL being "under-represented"?
This six-vote system is an assault on the concept of individual rights, substituting it with representation based on race, ethnicity, or whatever. This is what liberals think of as "justice." They are tragically misguided and demonstrate the danger of their ignorance.
Don't these idiots ever read history? I mean, really, are they that stupid? Not that it matters, really, but Federal Judge Robinson is black. Perhaps he should consult the spirit of his ancesters-past about how this type of representation worked for them prior to the Civil War.
By the way, by accident heard the first few minutes of the Comrade's speech last night, sort of as background noise while I was doing something else. Heard him say something about how China's energy policy should serve as a model for the USA, nearly vomited, and turned it off.
Apparently the merry marxists believe we should follow China's model of individual rights as a model for own government, too.
Save the republic.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The real disaster is in the White House
Well, the Comrade is going on TV tonight to spew his marxist b.s. At the same time on History Channel, they're re-running an episode of Ancient Astronauts. Guess what I'll be watching?
If you look at the Gulf Oil Disaster, it has two parts: the underwater leak itself; the massive oil slick on the surface of the water.
BP may be the only people in the world who can cut off the leak somehow. Since rabid (and misguided) enviro-fanatics compelled only deep-water drilling, only very few organizations have the expertise to manage it. However, the massive oil slick polluting the Gulf of Mexico is another matter. That could have and should have been contained and cleaned up before it spread so far.
The world has the capabilities and the technology to clean up these kinds of spills. Apparently the Dutch offered to help -- and they have some kind of very specialized ships and crews who've done this kind of thing before and apparently make a living at it. They offered to help. The Comrade turned them down because the clean-up ships aren't manned by UAW and SEIU workers or other members of US labor unions. Don't want to piss off Andy Stern, after all. Better to destroy the fishing and tourist industries of the Gulf states.
Apart from the Dutch ships, the US Army Corps of Engineers suggested throwing up a sand bar to stop the oil before it hit the marshy delta where the Mississippi River runs into the Gulf. They couldn't create an impact statement and get it approved by the EPA before the oil began killing pelicans and other wildlife, and generally destroying the wetlands. Carol Browner-n-browner is "in control" and not allowing any plans to save the Gulf states.
This is another place where the Comrade could have helped -- the EPA, after all, is part of the executive branch. He's the ultimate boss of the EPA. He could have told Browner-n-browner to resign. But wasn't she an executive with the Socialist International or something? So we see where the Comrade's allegiance lies. (And lies and lies....)
But no, the Comrade was playing golf and entertaining athletes, and in his spare time, he could only look for someone else's ass to kick in regard to the Gulf oil spill. Don't DO anything, just find someone else to blame, which has been White House policy so far on every issue.
By comparison, George W. Bush is looking like an absolute superman for his quick and compassionate response to Hurricane Katrina.
I suspect that the Comrade's speech tonight will address "fat cats" who the Comrade believes are making out like bandits on the Gulf oil spill. Personally, I can't figure out how any capitalist could possibly make money off of this. So the Comrade will likely just paint BP executives as slavering demons who only want to ruin human life.
The Comrade ought to know about those kinds of folks, since he's one of them. Not that he's an executive by any stretch of the imagination, but he apparently is a slavering demon devoted to ruining human life.
He and Ram Emanuel probably are just manipulating this whole tragic situation in hopes of getting crap-n-tax through congress.
And dem congresscritters are just stupid enough -- maybe -- to grab at the opportunity to paste the blame for this mess on Someone Else and go along with this dictatorial and truly frightening piece of shit legislation. "Let's take away all the peoples' freedom and clean out their bank accounts. Then we won't have any more oil spills." This can only make sense to the blockheads in congress.
But if dem congresscritters believe voting for crap-n-tax is going to get them re-elected, they really need to think again. Or maybe they figure they're totally doomed anyway -- after all, the fools already violated the public trust with socialized medicine. They can't expect any help from the Comrade for their campaigns -- so far, the Comrade's endorsement has been the kiss of death for the politicians he's supported. So perhaps they figure, Hey, I've shot myself through the foot anyway, I might just as well take the rest of the country down with me.
Either that or they're just stupid.
Or both.
In any case, the USA is going down.
I'm going to die soon. I'm pretty old and I smoke cigarettes. And I will keep smoking if it will kill me any quicker. I don't want to have to watch this crap. I'd rather just be dead.
So, all this is just more reason to "throw the bums out," but it may be too late. And heaven knows, the generation coming up now, who've been raised on all this marxist bullshit, won't miss the freedom they've never had. They'll just become embittered adults, looking for someone else to blame for the futility and pointlessness of their lives.
I kinda feel sorry for them, but then, look who they voted for. Karma, no? Whatever goes around unfortunately comes around. Just no way around it.
If you look at the Gulf Oil Disaster, it has two parts: the underwater leak itself; the massive oil slick on the surface of the water.
BP may be the only people in the world who can cut off the leak somehow. Since rabid (and misguided) enviro-fanatics compelled only deep-water drilling, only very few organizations have the expertise to manage it. However, the massive oil slick polluting the Gulf of Mexico is another matter. That could have and should have been contained and cleaned up before it spread so far.
The world has the capabilities and the technology to clean up these kinds of spills. Apparently the Dutch offered to help -- and they have some kind of very specialized ships and crews who've done this kind of thing before and apparently make a living at it. They offered to help. The Comrade turned them down because the clean-up ships aren't manned by UAW and SEIU workers or other members of US labor unions. Don't want to piss off Andy Stern, after all. Better to destroy the fishing and tourist industries of the Gulf states.
Apart from the Dutch ships, the US Army Corps of Engineers suggested throwing up a sand bar to stop the oil before it hit the marshy delta where the Mississippi River runs into the Gulf. They couldn't create an impact statement and get it approved by the EPA before the oil began killing pelicans and other wildlife, and generally destroying the wetlands. Carol Browner-n-browner is "in control" and not allowing any plans to save the Gulf states.
This is another place where the Comrade could have helped -- the EPA, after all, is part of the executive branch. He's the ultimate boss of the EPA. He could have told Browner-n-browner to resign. But wasn't she an executive with the Socialist International or something? So we see where the Comrade's allegiance lies. (And lies and lies....)
But no, the Comrade was playing golf and entertaining athletes, and in his spare time, he could only look for someone else's ass to kick in regard to the Gulf oil spill. Don't DO anything, just find someone else to blame, which has been White House policy so far on every issue.
By comparison, George W. Bush is looking like an absolute superman for his quick and compassionate response to Hurricane Katrina.
I suspect that the Comrade's speech tonight will address "fat cats" who the Comrade believes are making out like bandits on the Gulf oil spill. Personally, I can't figure out how any capitalist could possibly make money off of this. So the Comrade will likely just paint BP executives as slavering demons who only want to ruin human life.
The Comrade ought to know about those kinds of folks, since he's one of them. Not that he's an executive by any stretch of the imagination, but he apparently is a slavering demon devoted to ruining human life.
He and Ram Emanuel probably are just manipulating this whole tragic situation in hopes of getting crap-n-tax through congress.
And dem congresscritters are just stupid enough -- maybe -- to grab at the opportunity to paste the blame for this mess on Someone Else and go along with this dictatorial and truly frightening piece of shit legislation. "Let's take away all the peoples' freedom and clean out their bank accounts. Then we won't have any more oil spills." This can only make sense to the blockheads in congress.
But if dem congresscritters believe voting for crap-n-tax is going to get them re-elected, they really need to think again. Or maybe they figure they're totally doomed anyway -- after all, the fools already violated the public trust with socialized medicine. They can't expect any help from the Comrade for their campaigns -- so far, the Comrade's endorsement has been the kiss of death for the politicians he's supported. So perhaps they figure, Hey, I've shot myself through the foot anyway, I might just as well take the rest of the country down with me.
Either that or they're just stupid.
Or both.
In any case, the USA is going down.
I'm going to die soon. I'm pretty old and I smoke cigarettes. And I will keep smoking if it will kill me any quicker. I don't want to have to watch this crap. I'd rather just be dead.
So, all this is just more reason to "throw the bums out," but it may be too late. And heaven knows, the generation coming up now, who've been raised on all this marxist bullshit, won't miss the freedom they've never had. They'll just become embittered adults, looking for someone else to blame for the futility and pointlessness of their lives.
I kinda feel sorry for them, but then, look who they voted for. Karma, no? Whatever goes around unfortunately comes around. Just no way around it.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Taxing the air we breathe -- or exhale
So some horse's ass like Van Jones or Carol Browner-n-browner was sitting around having a beer one day and said to themself: We've got to find a way to tax the air people breathe. No way out of that one. The entire world will be hock up to elbows if we can only find a way to get that through.
Enter Al Gore -- the monumental idiot looking to make a fast buck on environmentalism, since his political career failed.
I know! CO2 is the culprit. If we can compel some reputable scientists to actually support this bullshit, we can run the world! And see if we can't find a way to get around congress on this, because they won't want to raise taxes quite that high without offering any tangible benefit for it.
So they got some British dumbheads to fake some supports and then toss whatever "hard" evidence they ever had for it (their dog ate it), and got the kind of Sweden or someone all upset about the oceans rising, and Al Gore went out and dummied up a very stupid and sensational movie design to scare the crap out unsuspecting citizens.
Then some butthead from some US agency seeking funds (they're all, always seeking funds), decided that, Yeah, if we pretend the CO2 is dangerous, and swear up and down we need massive studies on it, etc etc., I can get enough funding to expand my little agency and grow my power base. Let's do it!!
So this agency declared that CO2 is dangerous. Like toxic to the planet.
So everytime you breathe out, you're exhaling CO2, and you're poisoning the planet.
Well, someone apparently said, "What are you people, sitting on your brains? Let's take it to the Supreme Court."
And the Supreme Court, most of whom ARE sitting on their brains, decided to uphold the really shaky and untenable contention that CO2 is a danger to the planet.
Then someone else said, "What are people nuts? Let's get congress to vote on it."
And congress, of course, is just anxious as Van Jones and Carol Browner-n-browner to tax the air we breathe -- after all, congress has run the nation into $14 TRILLION of debt -- so yesterday they voted, "Yeah. CO2 will kill us all. It's OK if the EPA fines people for being caught for possession, manufacture, and distribution of CO2." The crime is BREATHING.
Mark Levin was all upset about this last night. I'd gotten a couple emails in preceding days to contact my senators to tell them to vote "no" on penalizing breathing. However, my senators are Dick(head) Durbin and Yes-man shuck-n-jive Roland Burris, so what would be the point?
So apparently congress authorized the EPA to tax the simple act of breathing in and out.
First of all, according to the US Constitution, only the House of Representatives can originate a tax bill. I'm not so sure they can "authorize" an agency in the executive branch to take on this responsibility without a constitutional amendment.
I don't know. Any constitutional scholars out there?
And hey..... we may all have to just hold our breath until we can boot this jackasses out of office, then another couple years to clean up the wreckage they leave behind.
Save the republic.
Enter Al Gore -- the monumental idiot looking to make a fast buck on environmentalism, since his political career failed.
I know! CO2 is the culprit. If we can compel some reputable scientists to actually support this bullshit, we can run the world! And see if we can't find a way to get around congress on this, because they won't want to raise taxes quite that high without offering any tangible benefit for it.
So they got some British dumbheads to fake some supports and then toss whatever "hard" evidence they ever had for it (their dog ate it), and got the kind of Sweden or someone all upset about the oceans rising, and Al Gore went out and dummied up a very stupid and sensational movie design to scare the crap out unsuspecting citizens.
Then some butthead from some US agency seeking funds (they're all, always seeking funds), decided that, Yeah, if we pretend the CO2 is dangerous, and swear up and down we need massive studies on it, etc etc., I can get enough funding to expand my little agency and grow my power base. Let's do it!!
So this agency declared that CO2 is dangerous. Like toxic to the planet.
So everytime you breathe out, you're exhaling CO2, and you're poisoning the planet.
Well, someone apparently said, "What are you people, sitting on your brains? Let's take it to the Supreme Court."
And the Supreme Court, most of whom ARE sitting on their brains, decided to uphold the really shaky and untenable contention that CO2 is a danger to the planet.
Then someone else said, "What are people nuts? Let's get congress to vote on it."
And congress, of course, is just anxious as Van Jones and Carol Browner-n-browner to tax the air we breathe -- after all, congress has run the nation into $14 TRILLION of debt -- so yesterday they voted, "Yeah. CO2 will kill us all. It's OK if the EPA fines people for being caught for possession, manufacture, and distribution of CO2." The crime is BREATHING.
Mark Levin was all upset about this last night. I'd gotten a couple emails in preceding days to contact my senators to tell them to vote "no" on penalizing breathing. However, my senators are Dick(head) Durbin and Yes-man shuck-n-jive Roland Burris, so what would be the point?
So apparently congress authorized the EPA to tax the simple act of breathing in and out.
First of all, according to the US Constitution, only the House of Representatives can originate a tax bill. I'm not so sure they can "authorize" an agency in the executive branch to take on this responsibility without a constitutional amendment.
I don't know. Any constitutional scholars out there?
And hey..... we may all have to just hold our breath until we can boot this jackasses out of office, then another couple years to clean up the wreckage they leave behind.
Save the republic.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
What if we had a president who loved America?
Good grief, things are such a muddle. And getting worse. And getting unresolvable without something like a nuclear war.
Iran getting an atom bomb is the worst, of course. I mean, let's face it, Abracadabrajab is a complete lunatic. He's going to have a finger on the button? Apparently Turkey and Brazil regard a relationship with Abracadabrajab as some kind of ticket to their own position of power. Well, we'll see how that works out for them.
And the Comrade seems to be using the BP Gulf oil spill as a really effective way to alienate the US from the UK, who may be the only friends we have left... Since the Comrade has embraced Israel's enemies in the name of promoting the wonders of pre-Medieval, tribal Shar'ia law, or something. Picture Michelle with a bag over her head.... She couldn't display her biceps for fear of being stoned. Has she or the Comrade considered that?
On the other hand --
Just for one moment, imagine what life would be like if we had a president who understood American values, was committed to upholding the US Constitution and the principles behind it, and who believed in individual rights and free enterprise.
I'm almost in tears.
Imagine what it would be like to NOT have to get on a bus every other week to go to Washington to demonstrate against some fascist or socialist legislation. And then be snubbed and mocked by the likes of useless idiot and marxist tool Pazzo Pelosi.
Imagine what it would be like if the feds responded appropriately to a national disaster without turning it into an ineffectual political fiasco.
Imagine what it would be like to have a government committed to defending our borders.
Imagine what it would be like to have a functioning government that stayed inside its own rules, rather than a predator state that casts a shadow over the land, kinda like a hungry vulcher.
Imagine... and share this dream of the Founding Fathers -- Imagine a place where you could be free to peacefully practice your own faith, make a living, raise your kids -- all without being relentlessly harrassed by ruthless, power-mad dictators and their pompous and ignorant minions, like SEIU.
I just wanna cry.
What a mess these assholes in the White House have made. What a freaking mess. And for what? To try to establish yet another doomed-to-fail experiment in marxism?
Hey, doofus! Marxism doesn't work! It never has! It never will! Millions of people have been anihilated over exactly this issue in several countries, as marxist loonies were "breaking eggs to make an omelet." Forget the pie-in-the-sky you absorbed from your radical, nihilist professors. Look at reality for a change!
The people in and around the White House are heartless -- no, soul-less -- creatures, steeped in bizarre and actually anti-human abstractions created by a guy who could never get his own life together. They're hell-bent on "proving" that they're "right", and dammit, they'll do it even if they have to kill you. At least that will shut you up.
But shutting us up still can't make marxism work. And God knows, Stalin and Chavez and Castro and Lenin -- the whole nasty and vicious pack of killers -- have tried and tried. AND IT STILL DOESN'T WORK.
But just imagine what life would be like if we had a government like the one Thomas Jefferson and George Washington envisioned. Free. Prosperous. Rational. Getting along with our neighbors. Winning the respect of others around the world. Sounds like heaven, doesn't it?
Life could be so good.
Save the republic.
Iran getting an atom bomb is the worst, of course. I mean, let's face it, Abracadabrajab is a complete lunatic. He's going to have a finger on the button? Apparently Turkey and Brazil regard a relationship with Abracadabrajab as some kind of ticket to their own position of power. Well, we'll see how that works out for them.
And the Comrade seems to be using the BP Gulf oil spill as a really effective way to alienate the US from the UK, who may be the only friends we have left... Since the Comrade has embraced Israel's enemies in the name of promoting the wonders of pre-Medieval, tribal Shar'ia law, or something. Picture Michelle with a bag over her head.... She couldn't display her biceps for fear of being stoned. Has she or the Comrade considered that?
On the other hand --
Just for one moment, imagine what life would be like if we had a president who understood American values, was committed to upholding the US Constitution and the principles behind it, and who believed in individual rights and free enterprise.
I'm almost in tears.
Imagine what it would be like to NOT have to get on a bus every other week to go to Washington to demonstrate against some fascist or socialist legislation. And then be snubbed and mocked by the likes of useless idiot and marxist tool Pazzo Pelosi.
Imagine what it would be like if the feds responded appropriately to a national disaster without turning it into an ineffectual political fiasco.
Imagine what it would be like to have a government committed to defending our borders.
Imagine what it would be like to have a functioning government that stayed inside its own rules, rather than a predator state that casts a shadow over the land, kinda like a hungry vulcher.
Imagine... and share this dream of the Founding Fathers -- Imagine a place where you could be free to peacefully practice your own faith, make a living, raise your kids -- all without being relentlessly harrassed by ruthless, power-mad dictators and their pompous and ignorant minions, like SEIU.
I just wanna cry.
What a mess these assholes in the White House have made. What a freaking mess. And for what? To try to establish yet another doomed-to-fail experiment in marxism?
Hey, doofus! Marxism doesn't work! It never has! It never will! Millions of people have been anihilated over exactly this issue in several countries, as marxist loonies were "breaking eggs to make an omelet." Forget the pie-in-the-sky you absorbed from your radical, nihilist professors. Look at reality for a change!
The people in and around the White House are heartless -- no, soul-less -- creatures, steeped in bizarre and actually anti-human abstractions created by a guy who could never get his own life together. They're hell-bent on "proving" that they're "right", and dammit, they'll do it even if they have to kill you. At least that will shut you up.
But shutting us up still can't make marxism work. And God knows, Stalin and Chavez and Castro and Lenin -- the whole nasty and vicious pack of killers -- have tried and tried. AND IT STILL DOESN'T WORK.
But just imagine what life would be like if we had a government like the one Thomas Jefferson and George Washington envisioned. Free. Prosperous. Rational. Getting along with our neighbors. Winning the respect of others around the world. Sounds like heaven, doesn't it?
Life could be so good.
Save the republic.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Come to the cabaret, my friend!
Wilkommen, bienvenue, welcome....
Watched Glenn Beck today and as usual, it really scared me. Actually, it reminded me of a few things.
Ever see the movie "Cabaret"? It came out in 1972 and won a bundle of Oscars. I saw it the night it opened in Chicago. I've never seen the stage show, so all comments here relate to the movie.
I was pretty young at the time, and "Cabaret" got me thinking about the relationship between moral corruption and poltical totalitarianism. There is a definite link there. Like, when individuals refuse to assume the responsibility for themselves, refuse any accountability for their own actions.... What results is crime, social disorder, rip-offs on both sides of the trade transaction -- fraudulent sellers and people buying without any clue about how to pay for things....
In general, the collapse of human civilization as we know it. Or at least as I've known it, in a relatively free country for most of my life.
Lost, corrupted, injured, dazed, confused people start looking to a "higher power" to solve their problems -- usually either God or the government.
God I have no objection to. If God can inspire people to take care of themselves -- and that is what Protestantism teaches -- then that's a valuable and viable answer.
Government -- no. Government is only "other people" who have no better answers than you do. And more often than not, if these people are in government to begin with, they have some kind of agenda and are looking for lost, corrupted, injured, dazed and confused recruits. (See Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer".) They need an army -- you -- to carry out their plans to run the world. And if someone's goal is to run the world, that person is probably profoundly insane and very likely vicious and dangerous to human life.
Hey! What if we can actually create the kind of moral, social, and economic confusion and disorder that would drive people to look for a "higher power?"
Yeah. Whaddaya think? Who would do something like that? Destroy a peaceful and prosperous society to install himself in a position of authority?
Gee, I wonder.
Not entirely unrelated, crude oil is still spewing out into the Gulf of Mexico. BP has managed to cap the well, but it's still leaking.
Meanwhile, while Carol Browner-and-browner has claimed "We're in control!" and the Comrade himself has accomplished two (two! count 'em! two!) photo ops on white sand Gulf beaches, it seems everyone but Bobby Jindal is running around like headless chickens regarding not the leak itself, but the clean-up.
Jindal has had a couple little boats out in the Gulf with something like vacuum cleaners sucking up the oil. He wants some help with this.
Well, maybe the Comrade can come down and have his picture taken next to the workers in the little boats. Will that help?
Got to give credit to Bobby Jindal. He's a real person trying to really do something real about this real mess.
Can't say the same for ANYONE in the federal government so far. At least not those at the top, who, behind closed doors, are probably hoping the crude will creep around Florida and come up the East Coast so they'll have an enormous disaster to exploit.
All of the above fits into the Cabaret thing in this way: You can sit on your ass and wait for Uncle Sam or the Comrade to promulgate some kind of holy bull to fix your problems (any problems) or you can accept the responsibility and do what you can.
Want to see a fine, terrifying, cinematic example of those who wait for authority to respond? Look up "Tomorrow Belongs To Me" on YouTube.com. It's a scene from the movie "Cabaret." I'd give you a link, but that seems to be illegal, or YouTube will drop the video or something. So just look it up.
Anyway, that's it for now.
Save the republic! WE CAN DO IT. WE'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN.
Watched Glenn Beck today and as usual, it really scared me. Actually, it reminded me of a few things.
Ever see the movie "Cabaret"? It came out in 1972 and won a bundle of Oscars. I saw it the night it opened in Chicago. I've never seen the stage show, so all comments here relate to the movie.
I was pretty young at the time, and "Cabaret" got me thinking about the relationship between moral corruption and poltical totalitarianism. There is a definite link there. Like, when individuals refuse to assume the responsibility for themselves, refuse any accountability for their own actions.... What results is crime, social disorder, rip-offs on both sides of the trade transaction -- fraudulent sellers and people buying without any clue about how to pay for things....
In general, the collapse of human civilization as we know it. Or at least as I've known it, in a relatively free country for most of my life.
Lost, corrupted, injured, dazed, confused people start looking to a "higher power" to solve their problems -- usually either God or the government.
God I have no objection to. If God can inspire people to take care of themselves -- and that is what Protestantism teaches -- then that's a valuable and viable answer.
Government -- no. Government is only "other people" who have no better answers than you do. And more often than not, if these people are in government to begin with, they have some kind of agenda and are looking for lost, corrupted, injured, dazed and confused recruits. (See Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer".) They need an army -- you -- to carry out their plans to run the world. And if someone's goal is to run the world, that person is probably profoundly insane and very likely vicious and dangerous to human life.
Hey! What if we can actually create the kind of moral, social, and economic confusion and disorder that would drive people to look for a "higher power?"
Yeah. Whaddaya think? Who would do something like that? Destroy a peaceful and prosperous society to install himself in a position of authority?
Gee, I wonder.
Not entirely unrelated, crude oil is still spewing out into the Gulf of Mexico. BP has managed to cap the well, but it's still leaking.
Meanwhile, while Carol Browner-and-browner has claimed "We're in control!" and the Comrade himself has accomplished two (two! count 'em! two!) photo ops on white sand Gulf beaches, it seems everyone but Bobby Jindal is running around like headless chickens regarding not the leak itself, but the clean-up.
Jindal has had a couple little boats out in the Gulf with something like vacuum cleaners sucking up the oil. He wants some help with this.
Well, maybe the Comrade can come down and have his picture taken next to the workers in the little boats. Will that help?
Got to give credit to Bobby Jindal. He's a real person trying to really do something real about this real mess.
Can't say the same for ANYONE in the federal government so far. At least not those at the top, who, behind closed doors, are probably hoping the crude will creep around Florida and come up the East Coast so they'll have an enormous disaster to exploit.
All of the above fits into the Cabaret thing in this way: You can sit on your ass and wait for Uncle Sam or the Comrade to promulgate some kind of holy bull to fix your problems (any problems) or you can accept the responsibility and do what you can.
Want to see a fine, terrifying, cinematic example of those who wait for authority to respond? Look up "Tomorrow Belongs To Me" on YouTube.com. It's a scene from the movie "Cabaret." I'd give you a link, but that seems to be illegal, or YouTube will drop the video or something. So just look it up.
Anyway, that's it for now.
Save the republic! WE CAN DO IT. WE'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN.
Hypocrisy on stilts
Interesting.... Film all over the news today of the Comrade giving a commencement speech at a high school, and cautioning the kids not to blame their problems on other people, but to accept responsibility and work through their errors and shortcomings.
Does this guy ever listen to himself?
Best part of the speech was the kid in the cap-'n-gown in the background, yawning first, then slowly nodding out. Yeah. I know exactly how he feels.
Anyway, so this whole thing reminded me of this movie called "Disclosure," starring Michael Douglas and Demi Moore.
They have an affair -- or did have an affair or something like that. Michael Douglas, at least, is married to someone else. And Demi Moore seduces him, and then files a sexual harrassment suit against him and possibly against the high-tech Seattle-based corporation where they both work.
Meanwhile, company operations are going to hell in a handbasket.
Douglas is stuck in this sexual harrassment thing, distracted by it, and may be facing either a big promotion or being fired.
Then he starts getting these emails that say "Take care of business." Not signed.
Anyway, the whole upshot of the situation is: Demi Moore also wanted the big promotion and was using the sexual harrassment suit to keep Michael Douglas from figuring out that the company's manufacturer in China or someplace had a fairly straightforward manufacturing problem. See, if Douglas couldn't handle the manufacturing problem he's toast -- entirely apart from the problem of sexual harrassment. And apparently Demi Moore figured she'd get the promotion. It's all politics.
Long and convoluted way of saying to the Comrade: Take care of business.
He's all kinds of busy with his foot on the throat of BP and all, and taking his Obamacare Road Show out for a summer tour....
Just take care of business, Comrade.
Lots of things the US government could be doing with the help of BP, private business, and recruited assistants (like all those Gulf fisherman who can't fish right now) to clean up the oil spill.
No, more important to promote the socialist agenda.
And there were primaries in 11 states today. Interesing results. Lots of women won, a few of them supported by the Tea Parties. In Nevada, Sharron Angle, who was barely in the race three weeks ago, won the candidacy against better known competitors, including a woman who's head of the Nevada Republican Party.
Commentators say Angle has less of a chance against Harry Reid in the general election because she's so conservative. Same with Fiorina winning the Republican senate candidacy to run against Boxer in November. In both cases, commentators say that "more moderate" or "less radical conservative" candidates would have a better chance against the dems.
I don't know.... I think we've pretty much had our fill of socialist democrats, even in California.
And as to the Comrade picking off the scabs about socialized medicine again -- and during the forthcoming congressional campaigns -- go ahead, make my day.
Save the republic.
Does this guy ever listen to himself?
Best part of the speech was the kid in the cap-'n-gown in the background, yawning first, then slowly nodding out. Yeah. I know exactly how he feels.
Anyway, so this whole thing reminded me of this movie called "Disclosure," starring Michael Douglas and Demi Moore.
They have an affair -- or did have an affair or something like that. Michael Douglas, at least, is married to someone else. And Demi Moore seduces him, and then files a sexual harrassment suit against him and possibly against the high-tech Seattle-based corporation where they both work.
Meanwhile, company operations are going to hell in a handbasket.
Douglas is stuck in this sexual harrassment thing, distracted by it, and may be facing either a big promotion or being fired.
Then he starts getting these emails that say "Take care of business." Not signed.
Anyway, the whole upshot of the situation is: Demi Moore also wanted the big promotion and was using the sexual harrassment suit to keep Michael Douglas from figuring out that the company's manufacturer in China or someplace had a fairly straightforward manufacturing problem. See, if Douglas couldn't handle the manufacturing problem he's toast -- entirely apart from the problem of sexual harrassment. And apparently Demi Moore figured she'd get the promotion. It's all politics.
Long and convoluted way of saying to the Comrade: Take care of business.
He's all kinds of busy with his foot on the throat of BP and all, and taking his Obamacare Road Show out for a summer tour....
Just take care of business, Comrade.
Lots of things the US government could be doing with the help of BP, private business, and recruited assistants (like all those Gulf fisherman who can't fish right now) to clean up the oil spill.
No, more important to promote the socialist agenda.
And there were primaries in 11 states today. Interesing results. Lots of women won, a few of them supported by the Tea Parties. In Nevada, Sharron Angle, who was barely in the race three weeks ago, won the candidacy against better known competitors, including a woman who's head of the Nevada Republican Party.
Commentators say Angle has less of a chance against Harry Reid in the general election because she's so conservative. Same with Fiorina winning the Republican senate candidacy to run against Boxer in November. In both cases, commentators say that "more moderate" or "less radical conservative" candidates would have a better chance against the dems.
I don't know.... I think we've pretty much had our fill of socialist democrats, even in California.
And as to the Comrade picking off the scabs about socialized medicine again -- and during the forthcoming congressional campaigns -- go ahead, make my day.
Save the republic.
Monday, June 7, 2010
White House adds insult to injury on socialized medicine
Well, the Comrade and the merry marxists have finally figured out that THEY ARE GOING TO LOSE REALLY, REALLY BIG IN NOVEMBER, largely due to their criminal lack ethics, shocking naivete and lack of experience in actually running a country as opposed to getting elected, their complete disregard for the public, and their contempt for the US Constitution, so they're mounting a big public relations campaign to try to sell us all on their socialized medicine scheme. Which they finally understand that NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WANTS.
Actually, the Comrade and the merry marxists are only adding insult to injury through all this. I mean, back to this -- how stupid do they think we are? They might be surprised to find out what's actually in that piece-of-crap socialized medicine legislation, but we actually read the bill and tried very passionately to get them to NOT pass this garbage. Spending a proposed $125 million more of OUR MONEY on this b.s. isn't going to convince anybody that the USA needs death panels or drek-for-brains federal agents advising us on diet and exercise.
I can see it now, Anita (pup-tent-on-her-head) Dunne dressed in a white coat with tongue depressors and colorful lollypops (for the kids) in her breast pocket: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one in the nation's capitol..."
The New York Times reports that one major concern driving this huge investment of public money -- at a time of 10% unemployment among other things -- is that the Comrade and his band of crazy-ass marxists have come to recognize that a majority of the public demands a repeal of socialized medicine, and that candidates who promise to vote yes on repeal will probably be elected.
Some butthead from the Comrade's regime commented in the Times that Republican candidates will attack socialized medicine and socialized medicine must be defended.
You know, if socialized medicine was a good idea, a good law, we-the-people would be defending it. We wouldn't need a government-funded p.r. effort. After all, we aren't half as stupid as the people in Washington.
And why change tactics and move to a soft, persuasive approach? Socialized medicine is law. Just continue to shove it down our throats. That's all they have to do. They can just put us in jail if we refuse to pay for it, or comply with it, or take all our medical business to the black market.
But the marxists really don't want to lose their congressional majorities. They aren't done yet. Let's see, they've destroyed the US auto industry, wrecked the credit and banking system, are working hard on ruining the availability of energy, made college scholarship political plums, and have turned the Gulf Coast into a toilet.... Nope. Not done yet. There may be one or two families in the USA still living a decent life. That certainly can't be tolerated.
Tomorrow is a big primary day across the country. Funny, too, lots of disputed races among the dems, but not many dems -- no matter which of them win the candidacy -- stands much of a chance of winning against their Republican and/or Tea Party opponents.
Does that tell you something?
Hey, Comrade, give me the $125 million you're donating to Anita Dunne's little p.r. campaign. I do p.r. And I guarantee, I'll spend more wisely than she could ever imagine.
Save the republic.
P.S. Long-time White House press corps fixture Helen Thomas, was compelled to retire today, after confiding, "Kill all the Jews! Kill all the Jews!" Or something like that.
Good riddance, know what I mean? Actually, I suspect she's just a knee-jerk liberal who has completely lost track of exactly where the hell the liberals are in the USA. Exactly the same reason the Comrade is losing the blockheads who elected him. They can't figure out where he's headed and refuse to face the fact that he's a rigid marxist.
Actually, the Comrade and the merry marxists are only adding insult to injury through all this. I mean, back to this -- how stupid do they think we are? They might be surprised to find out what's actually in that piece-of-crap socialized medicine legislation, but we actually read the bill and tried very passionately to get them to NOT pass this garbage. Spending a proposed $125 million more of OUR MONEY on this b.s. isn't going to convince anybody that the USA needs death panels or drek-for-brains federal agents advising us on diet and exercise.
I can see it now, Anita (pup-tent-on-her-head) Dunne dressed in a white coat with tongue depressors and colorful lollypops (for the kids) in her breast pocket: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one in the nation's capitol..."
The New York Times reports that one major concern driving this huge investment of public money -- at a time of 10% unemployment among other things -- is that the Comrade and his band of crazy-ass marxists have come to recognize that a majority of the public demands a repeal of socialized medicine, and that candidates who promise to vote yes on repeal will probably be elected.
Some butthead from the Comrade's regime commented in the Times that Republican candidates will attack socialized medicine and socialized medicine must be defended.
You know, if socialized medicine was a good idea, a good law, we-the-people would be defending it. We wouldn't need a government-funded p.r. effort. After all, we aren't half as stupid as the people in Washington.
And why change tactics and move to a soft, persuasive approach? Socialized medicine is law. Just continue to shove it down our throats. That's all they have to do. They can just put us in jail if we refuse to pay for it, or comply with it, or take all our medical business to the black market.
But the marxists really don't want to lose their congressional majorities. They aren't done yet. Let's see, they've destroyed the US auto industry, wrecked the credit and banking system, are working hard on ruining the availability of energy, made college scholarship political plums, and have turned the Gulf Coast into a toilet.... Nope. Not done yet. There may be one or two families in the USA still living a decent life. That certainly can't be tolerated.
Tomorrow is a big primary day across the country. Funny, too, lots of disputed races among the dems, but not many dems -- no matter which of them win the candidacy -- stands much of a chance of winning against their Republican and/or Tea Party opponents.
Does that tell you something?
Hey, Comrade, give me the $125 million you're donating to Anita Dunne's little p.r. campaign. I do p.r. And I guarantee, I'll spend more wisely than she could ever imagine.
Save the republic.
P.S. Long-time White House press corps fixture Helen Thomas, was compelled to retire today, after confiding, "Kill all the Jews! Kill all the Jews!" Or something like that.
Good riddance, know what I mean? Actually, I suspect she's just a knee-jerk liberal who has completely lost track of exactly where the hell the liberals are in the USA. Exactly the same reason the Comrade is losing the blockheads who elected him. They can't figure out where he's headed and refuse to face the fact that he's a rigid marxist.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Seeking one honest mechanic
Here's the problem: I pulled into the street near my home Sunday night, returning from a shopping trip. I stopped to check my mail. Stepped on the brakes -- suddenly spongy, which usually means there's air in the brake lines. Not a really good sign. Checked my mail, got back in the car.... No brakes at all, hardly. Unless I practically stand up on them. The pedal went right to the floor. Not good.
Got to my driveway without destroying anything. Next day a holiday. So the day after that, called a local garage that seemed to have a good rating -- I'm new to this area -- and had the car towed over there.
Let me explain, I've had mostly junk cars all my life. Two of the really nice-running cars I had were stolen. I mean, one by one, not both at the same time. One car I owned only enjoyed the luxury of brakes intermittently, and I had to drive that thing about 20 miles back and forth to work every day in city traffic. So you learn to drive very carefully and very well. And you also learn a whole lot about: 1) How cars work; 2) The scams mechanics perpetrate. I can usually tell where the problem is in a car is by listening to it. And, of course, the scent of leaking fluids is a dead giveaway.
One really fun adventure was having the hood of one car pop open one day while I was barreling along down Lake Shore Drive. That was interesting. You do realize, you can't see anything in front of you when the hood is up. And no shoulders. Had another car that the points and timing were so bad, it kept backfiring and the engine would just shut off when you took your foot off the gas. Of course, turn the ignition and it would start right up again. I remember negotiating the "S" curve on Lake Shore Drive, one hand on the steering wheel, the other on the ignition key.... Oh, the good old days....
So, anyway, I bought my current ride brand new a few years back when it was still possible to make a living in the USA, and have had almost no problems with it at all. (It even has an automatic transmission.) I figured I probably broke a hose. The brakes went out suddenly -- I mean within minutes. No slow loss of braking over time. No little puddles left in the driveway. Ever. And I could smell the brake fluid. I told this to the woman who answered the phone at the garage. Her immediate answer was, "It could be the master cylinder."
Cha-ching. Suddenly what could be a relatively minor repair now is at least a couple hundred bucks. And, curiously enough, I actually had the master cylinder go out in one piece of junk I owned, so I knew exactly what she was talking about.
But wait! There's more!
Had the car towed over there and the mechanic called me about it. It's not a hose, he says. It's not even the master cylinder. All my brake lines are rusted out. And, "if you touch one part of it, all the rest of it just comes apart." He estimates the job will cost about $2,000.00, and on top of that, I should have the front brakes replaced, and something done with the back brakes, yada yada yada, for another $900.00. All kinds of exotic terms, like "shoes" and "drums" and so on. (As though we haven't all taken our brakes apart at one time or another and carried the discs in a tote bag over to TraxAuto to have them re-ground.) He doesn't even think the car's worth fixing! Until I suggested, "Well, maybe I'll just junk it, then." He got rather quiet at that.
So I go to the internet and look up brake lines, something that I wasn't all that familiar with, as opposed to hoses and master cylinders, calipers, etc. And find some kind of Q&A list about brake problems, and -- lo and behold! -- here is a person describing MY brake line problems -- in exactly the same words this mechanic used to describe them. The question was written about a year ago.
But wait! There's more!
I checked the internet for pricing for the job, and the highest possible price for these repairs seems to be about $2,000.00 -- but that for high-performance and custom cars, foreign cars, classic cars, and maybe certain trucks. A couple people (who claimed to be mechanics) suggested that you shouldn't pay more than $150.00 per brake line replacement. That's like $600 max, given that most cars have four wheels and four brake lines.
In addition, I looked up the reviews for several auto repair places in my area. Funny thing -- it seems that every damn time a car gets towed to a shop without its owner -- any shop -- the repair is suddenly thousands of dollars and takes at least a week. No matter what the original problem was.
Seems that the towing is key. If your car is towed as opposed to driven in, the repair shop apparently believes they've got you by the short hairs. I mean, you're walking. Know what I mean? And maybe you can't walk to the repair shop very easily to verify their claims.
Anyway, so I figure I probably REALLY just cracked a hose, but I can't drive the car without brakes, and tows are $75.00 each. So what to do?
If anyone reads this and knows an honest mechanic in northern Illinois, please leave me a message. Pretty please. With sugar on top. Maybe my insurance agent knows someone. Because that's another thing I've learned: If you're a friend of a friend, garages actually fix your car at a reasonable price.
No wonder the nation and the world is such a mess. Are there no honest people anymore?
But we have to approach this diplomatically, because if there's anything liars and cheats really, really hate, it's realizing that you're onto them. I mean, look at how bitter the Comrade is becoming, along with many other democrats.
Save the Intrepid! I mean, the republic!
Got to my driveway without destroying anything. Next day a holiday. So the day after that, called a local garage that seemed to have a good rating -- I'm new to this area -- and had the car towed over there.
Let me explain, I've had mostly junk cars all my life. Two of the really nice-running cars I had were stolen. I mean, one by one, not both at the same time. One car I owned only enjoyed the luxury of brakes intermittently, and I had to drive that thing about 20 miles back and forth to work every day in city traffic. So you learn to drive very carefully and very well. And you also learn a whole lot about: 1) How cars work; 2) The scams mechanics perpetrate. I can usually tell where the problem is in a car is by listening to it. And, of course, the scent of leaking fluids is a dead giveaway.
One really fun adventure was having the hood of one car pop open one day while I was barreling along down Lake Shore Drive. That was interesting. You do realize, you can't see anything in front of you when the hood is up. And no shoulders. Had another car that the points and timing were so bad, it kept backfiring and the engine would just shut off when you took your foot off the gas. Of course, turn the ignition and it would start right up again. I remember negotiating the "S" curve on Lake Shore Drive, one hand on the steering wheel, the other on the ignition key.... Oh, the good old days....
So, anyway, I bought my current ride brand new a few years back when it was still possible to make a living in the USA, and have had almost no problems with it at all. (It even has an automatic transmission.) I figured I probably broke a hose. The brakes went out suddenly -- I mean within minutes. No slow loss of braking over time. No little puddles left in the driveway. Ever. And I could smell the brake fluid. I told this to the woman who answered the phone at the garage. Her immediate answer was, "It could be the master cylinder."
Cha-ching. Suddenly what could be a relatively minor repair now is at least a couple hundred bucks. And, curiously enough, I actually had the master cylinder go out in one piece of junk I owned, so I knew exactly what she was talking about.
But wait! There's more!
Had the car towed over there and the mechanic called me about it. It's not a hose, he says. It's not even the master cylinder. All my brake lines are rusted out. And, "if you touch one part of it, all the rest of it just comes apart." He estimates the job will cost about $2,000.00, and on top of that, I should have the front brakes replaced, and something done with the back brakes, yada yada yada, for another $900.00. All kinds of exotic terms, like "shoes" and "drums" and so on. (As though we haven't all taken our brakes apart at one time or another and carried the discs in a tote bag over to TraxAuto to have them re-ground.) He doesn't even think the car's worth fixing! Until I suggested, "Well, maybe I'll just junk it, then." He got rather quiet at that.
So I go to the internet and look up brake lines, something that I wasn't all that familiar with, as opposed to hoses and master cylinders, calipers, etc. And find some kind of Q&A list about brake problems, and -- lo and behold! -- here is a person describing MY brake line problems -- in exactly the same words this mechanic used to describe them. The question was written about a year ago.
But wait! There's more!
I checked the internet for pricing for the job, and the highest possible price for these repairs seems to be about $2,000.00 -- but that for high-performance and custom cars, foreign cars, classic cars, and maybe certain trucks. A couple people (who claimed to be mechanics) suggested that you shouldn't pay more than $150.00 per brake line replacement. That's like $600 max, given that most cars have four wheels and four brake lines.
In addition, I looked up the reviews for several auto repair places in my area. Funny thing -- it seems that every damn time a car gets towed to a shop without its owner -- any shop -- the repair is suddenly thousands of dollars and takes at least a week. No matter what the original problem was.
Seems that the towing is key. If your car is towed as opposed to driven in, the repair shop apparently believes they've got you by the short hairs. I mean, you're walking. Know what I mean? And maybe you can't walk to the repair shop very easily to verify their claims.
Anyway, so I figure I probably REALLY just cracked a hose, but I can't drive the car without brakes, and tows are $75.00 each. So what to do?
If anyone reads this and knows an honest mechanic in northern Illinois, please leave me a message. Pretty please. With sugar on top. Maybe my insurance agent knows someone. Because that's another thing I've learned: If you're a friend of a friend, garages actually fix your car at a reasonable price.
No wonder the nation and the world is such a mess. Are there no honest people anymore?
But we have to approach this diplomatically, because if there's anything liars and cheats really, really hate, it's realizing that you're onto them. I mean, look at how bitter the Comrade is becoming, along with many other democrats.
Save the Intrepid! I mean, the republic!
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Let's just erase all the laws
Los Angeles voted today to boycott Arizona because of Arizona's law to report illegal aliens to the feds.
The federal law about illegal aliens is much worse than Arizona's. Hell, Mexico's law relating to illegal aliens is much, much worse than Arizona's or the US fed's. But let's ignore the facts when they get in the way of our political bullshit.
I'd like to know, Los Angeles, and other like-minded "sanctuary city" buttheads: What is the alternative?
No borders at all?
Anyone can just come and go to and from the US as they wish, robbing, raping, murdering and stealing -- and terrorizing, I assure you -- as much as they want. And like diplomats, they all will be magically immune from prosecution -- or at least deportation. After we read them their rights.
Would that be better? Is that what you want?
No, I think the asshole liberals promoting Latino unrest are just a bunch of lying phonies hoping to attract ANY vote in November. These liberal assholes are so damn incompetent and such a threat to civilization that no one in their right mind supports them -- except criminals and terrorists.
So the US has no right to protect its borders and other recent events, neither does Israel.
Nice going buttheads!!
Save the republic.
The federal law about illegal aliens is much worse than Arizona's. Hell, Mexico's law relating to illegal aliens is much, much worse than Arizona's or the US fed's. But let's ignore the facts when they get in the way of our political bullshit.
I'd like to know, Los Angeles, and other like-minded "sanctuary city" buttheads: What is the alternative?
No borders at all?
Anyone can just come and go to and from the US as they wish, robbing, raping, murdering and stealing -- and terrorizing, I assure you -- as much as they want. And like diplomats, they all will be magically immune from prosecution -- or at least deportation. After we read them their rights.
Would that be better? Is that what you want?
No, I think the asshole liberals promoting Latino unrest are just a bunch of lying phonies hoping to attract ANY vote in November. These liberal assholes are so damn incompetent and such a threat to civilization that no one in their right mind supports them -- except criminals and terrorists.
So the US has no right to protect its borders and other recent events, neither does Israel.
Nice going buttheads!!
Save the republic.
Professional victims: Islamo-terrorists
So here we have a ship in the Mediterranean headed for the Gaza Strip. It's coming from Turkey, and supposedly is loaded up with medical supplies and other "humanitarian aid" type of things. Loaded up by organizations like Hamas, to name one.
So here we have Israel, the perennial target of Hamas and like organizations, who have promised to "push Israel into the sea."
Israel has a naval blockade up around the ports that feed the Gaza Strip. Any ship that comes in has to be inspected by Israel to be sure it isn't carrying weapons and armaments. (Or, they can choose to be inspected by Egypt, if they prefer.) Because these ships are sponsored by groups like Hamas, which has promised to "push Israel into the sea." And Hamas actually works at it tirelessly and has done for decades.
On the one hand, some ships coming to Gaza have been inspected and haven't been carrying arms. On the other hand, Israel has allowed the "humanitarian aid" to reach the Gaza Strip after inspection -- without stealing it and selling it on the black market, as is common in many Third World nations.
Anyway, so a bunch of Islamo-terrorists are riding on one of the humantarian aid ships coming into the Gaza Strip. En route, these Islamo-terrorists announce to anyone who pays attention to them that they are going to break through Israel's naval blockade. Just for the hell of it, I suppose.
I mean, if an Islamo-terrorist says he's only carrying humanitarian aid and not weapons, why would you not believe him?
Maybe because he's an Islamo-terrorist? Good enough reason for me. I mean, these particular Islamo-terrorists are actually rather more honest and forthcoming than most, who routinely just wrap themselves in explosuves and blow themselves up in highly populated market places and things like that. They usually don't announce their intentions beforehand for fear of reducing the number of their victims, I suppose.
So Israel stopped the ship for inspection. And the Israeli soldiers were beaten with metal rods and thrown over the side to a lower deck in one case. The Israeli soldiers fired upon the Islamo-terrorists and killed about 10 of them.
(Nice shot, by the way.)
Anyway, so now the wolrd is all pissed off at Israel. I mean, as stated above, who wouldn't take the word of an Islamo-terrorist when he claims he's carrying nothing but bandaids and aspirin?
The world is an idiot and probably deserves to be blown up by Islamo-terrorists. And it probably will be -- surely it will, if Abracadarajab gets his bomb.
Have to hand it to the Islamo-terrorists, though. They have this victim thing down pat. If I got really skinny and walked aroud barefoot with an AK-47 slung over my shoulder, would you take pity? Stop me in the airport and ask my how my mother was doing? Offer me money or a missile launcher?
I mean, why the sympathy? These are psychotic killers, as they've proven over and over and over again.
And Israel has it right... The world can't accommodate the Islamo-terrorists. You certainly can't trust them. You can't co-exist with people who relentlessly lob rockets into your population centers and blow up school buses. Can't be done.
The US is finding this out. The Europeans seem to have forgotten it. Maybe they've just gotten used to it, they've been at each others' throats over so many hundreds of years.
So, I repeat, the world is an idiot. But I guess the world loves to slobber over self-proclaimed victims just as much as the Islamo-terrorists love to whine how much the world owes them -- for what? The Crusades? Islamic culture doesn't seem to have advanced much since then.
So perhaps it's a co-dependency made in heaven. (I'll be Richard Lionheart and you can be a Saracen, OK? I mean, what is this, the Renaissance Faire?)
On September 12, 2001, I would have "tested" a few nukes. That's my take on it. Apparently Ronald Reagan's relatively low-level buzz-over of Crazy Colonel Qadaffi's big tent in Libya drove the colonel mad. And shut him up. And made him nothing but a rather clownish asterisk in history.
These guys really don't have much guts. And they certainly don't have a moral leg to stand on. They label themselves victims of (?), and wear that like a badge. Their apparent inability to do anything but kill people is supposed to generate sympathy for them?
I don't understand.
Maybe it's just that they're so damn stupid, all Europeans can do is feel sorry for them? Or maybe Europe has entirely forgotten what human decency is. After all, they're all socialists over there; reason enough to hate humanity when you're compelled to carry it on your back.
This is something we're also learning in the US.
On another subject, I think it was Bill O'Reilly who played a tape of Pazzo Pelosi yammering on and on about religion. I have no idea what she was trying to say. Is she even capable of constructing one logical and complete sentence? It doesn't seem so. But I bet she sure feels sorry for those Islamo-terrorists.
Save the republic.
So here we have Israel, the perennial target of Hamas and like organizations, who have promised to "push Israel into the sea."
Israel has a naval blockade up around the ports that feed the Gaza Strip. Any ship that comes in has to be inspected by Israel to be sure it isn't carrying weapons and armaments. (Or, they can choose to be inspected by Egypt, if they prefer.) Because these ships are sponsored by groups like Hamas, which has promised to "push Israel into the sea." And Hamas actually works at it tirelessly and has done for decades.
On the one hand, some ships coming to Gaza have been inspected and haven't been carrying arms. On the other hand, Israel has allowed the "humanitarian aid" to reach the Gaza Strip after inspection -- without stealing it and selling it on the black market, as is common in many Third World nations.
Anyway, so a bunch of Islamo-terrorists are riding on one of the humantarian aid ships coming into the Gaza Strip. En route, these Islamo-terrorists announce to anyone who pays attention to them that they are going to break through Israel's naval blockade. Just for the hell of it, I suppose.
I mean, if an Islamo-terrorist says he's only carrying humanitarian aid and not weapons, why would you not believe him?
Maybe because he's an Islamo-terrorist? Good enough reason for me. I mean, these particular Islamo-terrorists are actually rather more honest and forthcoming than most, who routinely just wrap themselves in explosuves and blow themselves up in highly populated market places and things like that. They usually don't announce their intentions beforehand for fear of reducing the number of their victims, I suppose.
So Israel stopped the ship for inspection. And the Israeli soldiers were beaten with metal rods and thrown over the side to a lower deck in one case. The Israeli soldiers fired upon the Islamo-terrorists and killed about 10 of them.
(Nice shot, by the way.)
Anyway, so now the wolrd is all pissed off at Israel. I mean, as stated above, who wouldn't take the word of an Islamo-terrorist when he claims he's carrying nothing but bandaids and aspirin?
The world is an idiot and probably deserves to be blown up by Islamo-terrorists. And it probably will be -- surely it will, if Abracadarajab gets his bomb.
Have to hand it to the Islamo-terrorists, though. They have this victim thing down pat. If I got really skinny and walked aroud barefoot with an AK-47 slung over my shoulder, would you take pity? Stop me in the airport and ask my how my mother was doing? Offer me money or a missile launcher?
I mean, why the sympathy? These are psychotic killers, as they've proven over and over and over again.
And Israel has it right... The world can't accommodate the Islamo-terrorists. You certainly can't trust them. You can't co-exist with people who relentlessly lob rockets into your population centers and blow up school buses. Can't be done.
The US is finding this out. The Europeans seem to have forgotten it. Maybe they've just gotten used to it, they've been at each others' throats over so many hundreds of years.
So, I repeat, the world is an idiot. But I guess the world loves to slobber over self-proclaimed victims just as much as the Islamo-terrorists love to whine how much the world owes them -- for what? The Crusades? Islamic culture doesn't seem to have advanced much since then.
So perhaps it's a co-dependency made in heaven. (I'll be Richard Lionheart and you can be a Saracen, OK? I mean, what is this, the Renaissance Faire?)
On September 12, 2001, I would have "tested" a few nukes. That's my take on it. Apparently Ronald Reagan's relatively low-level buzz-over of Crazy Colonel Qadaffi's big tent in Libya drove the colonel mad. And shut him up. And made him nothing but a rather clownish asterisk in history.
These guys really don't have much guts. And they certainly don't have a moral leg to stand on. They label themselves victims of (?), and wear that like a badge. Their apparent inability to do anything but kill people is supposed to generate sympathy for them?
I don't understand.
Maybe it's just that they're so damn stupid, all Europeans can do is feel sorry for them? Or maybe Europe has entirely forgotten what human decency is. After all, they're all socialists over there; reason enough to hate humanity when you're compelled to carry it on your back.
This is something we're also learning in the US.
On another subject, I think it was Bill O'Reilly who played a tape of Pazzo Pelosi yammering on and on about religion. I have no idea what she was trying to say. Is she even capable of constructing one logical and complete sentence? It doesn't seem so. But I bet she sure feels sorry for those Islamo-terrorists.
Save the republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)