Saturday, May 31, 2008

Payback Time

Democrats are trying to convince voters that "Rev." Hagee is McCain's pastor (which he is not) so they can use him as "payback" for the "Rev." Wright controversy. They're trying to paint a picture of a similarity between a radical preacher who merely ENDORSED McCain to a radical pastor who has been preaching hate to Obama AND his wife for TWENTY YEARS. Wright WAS Obama's pastor for that long. He married them; he baptized their children. Don't try and make me believe that NOT ONCE in 20 years did Obama hear Wright's "hate preaching." Conversely, McCain doesn't even KNOW Hagee, has never attended his church, and he is CERTAINLY not his pastor. That is a lie by Democrats, trying again to fool the voters. McCain has also rejected an endorsement from another preacher who feels (rightly) that Islam, as it is presented to the world, is an "inherently violent religion" (It is). Violence against "unbelievers" is taught in the Koran. They can't escape that. (CNN)

Terrorism Victim Deaths Decline 40%!

That's a BUNCH! In spite of what the liberals (Democrats) want us to think, we ARE "making progress" in the "war on terror." But do you hear about this in the liberal media? Nope! Not a peep! They don't report things that go against their agenda. Just more evidence that the liberal media "slants" the news in many ways. One of those ways is to simply IGNORE news that "puts the lie" to their preconceived notions. (CNews)

Media Ignores Success in Sadr City

Just more evidence of liberal media's misconduct and malpractice. We've made a lot of progress in Sadr City, one of the hottest "hot spots" in Iraq. But have you heard about it on CNN? NBC? CBS? ABC? Doubtful. They simply IGNORE news they don't like, and they don't like this. Their "big thing" is Bush's "lack of leadership (whether or not it exists)." Concerning his "leadership" of conservatives, they're right. A conservative, he's not. But simple leadership? Certainly. He's the only politician I've seen lately who sees the problem, and is not afraid to DO what's necessary to solve it, in spite of opposition from liberals. (Houston Chronicle)

Friday, May 30, 2008

"Quit Looking At Her Butt!"

Now there's yet another thing the Democrats won't let us do: look at Hillary's butt. Frankly, I'd like to know what ANYBODY would be interested in concerning Hillary's butt. I've never seen Hillary as a "sex object," and I'm certain neither has Bill. I think they need to stop telling us what to do in all things if they want to get ANY of our votes (although she certainly won't get mine, in any case). They're just showing us what it will be like if ANY liberal Democrat gets elected. Every day there will be an announcement of yet another thing they want to prohibit us from doing or saying, with Obama's "elephant ears" and Hillary's butt right near the top of the list. (Just common sense)

Tennessee Refuses to "Recognize" Home Schoolers

They flatly refuse to issue diplomas to children who have been home schooled. I guess that's one way to kill home schooling and make sure those students are FORCED to go to public schools and be conditioned to believe that socialism is the way to go, and do it "bureaucratically," since they can't "git 'er" done legislatively. They don't want home schooled applicants for state jobs, even though they are proven to be more intelligent and better educated than public school students. Tennessee is below average in ACT scores nationally, but it is the PUBLIC school student scores bringing their average down. Tennesee public schools scored an average of 20.7, while home schoolers scored an average of 22.8, which is ABOVE the national average of 21.0. It's interesting to note that in 2005, the ACT organization stopped delineating the difference between home schooled student scores and those of the conditioned public school student scores. Could it be they didn't want to give help to those who wanted to home school their kids by keeping them away from the socialist indoctrination in public schools?

Maxine Waters "Steps in It"

She told the truth about Democrat plans in public. She flat told the oil executives that they intend to "socialize (nationalize)" the oil companies so the government can continue screwing up the oil business. She blames the oil companies for the Congress-created oil supply crisis, and no amount of "common sense" will change her mind. As with all liberals, it's already made up. It seems funny to me that "nationalizing" the oil industry in order to "solve" the problem when it was the policies of Congress (allowing the environmental crazies to block ALL petroleum refinery building in the nation for more than 30 years while disallowing the hunt for oil in this country altogether, FORCING us to rely on foreign oil and prices to go up astronomically) that created the problem in the first place. Why do people who aspire to the highest office in the land NOT understand this while a guy like me can? I'm not a "hifalutin' politician," but if I can see this, why can't they? (Rush Limbaugh)

Thursday, May 29, 2008

What IS Socialism?

Imagine my surprise when my own sister read the first few chapters of my new book, "What's WRONG In America" in manuscript form and asked me "What is socialism?" She said she became confused at all the "isms" I mentioned. I explained to her that socialism is just one form of collectivism, which is basically TAKING from those who EARN their way and GIVING that taken to those who DON'T. Their "mantra" is "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need, making "need" a DEMAND on the EARNINGS of those who can earn their own way. The major fight is between collectivism and individualism. Individualism is where a person earns his/her own way, and doesn't "need" anything from others. Looters can't stand this. They want others to "need" things so they can use that "need" to gain power over both the "producer" AND the "moocher.". I call these people the "moochers" (leeches) of society The "enablers" are the "looters" who to get themselves elected to positions of power over the rest of us, promise to TAKE from those who can, and will EARN, and "keep the goodies coming" so the "moochers" can live without having to work at anything except convincing the "looters" they are the most needy. Needless to say, she is much more educated in "the ways of the world" now. But that experience was, to me, an "epiphany." I had thought that EVERYONE knew what socialism was, and why it is EVIL. They do not. That is why I wrote that book, which, if you read it all, does a good job of explaining just what socialism is. The book will be out very soon. It is being printed right now. I'll let you know where you can get it then. (Just common sense)

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

U. N. to "Investigate" Racism in U. S. Election

What unmitigated gall! What a colossal, glittering jewel of ignorance! What big gonads they must have to claim racism in the U. S. presidential election because a few politicians can't get it through their fat heads that being half black is NOT the reason why people in the United states do not want a SOCIALIST as president and cry "racism." Why don't they "investigate" racism in other UN countries where it really exists? Where the governments themselves are committing genocide against black people, sometimes under the auspices of the United Nations itself? How do you think racism exists in a country where a (half) black man is seriously considered for president? They can't force a socialist (who happens to be half black) on us, or a WOMAN who is also a socialist on us, so it's got to be racism or sexism, right? What stupidity! I'd vote for Condoleeza Rice in a "New York minute." So would most Americans, and she's both black AND a woman. But the Democrats and those liberals in the Republican Party won't hear of it because she's a CONSERVATIVE. This is racism? Sheesh! I think this is just a case of another "racism hunter" LOOKING for racism, and will probably find it because he makes up the rules himself. For the first time in history a black man has a chance to be elected president and THAT'S reason to "investigate" us for racism? What kind of twisted thinking is THAT? (Free Republic)

Liberals "Tickle Me"

They say the stupidest things! Obama is "blaming Fox for one of his many losses. So what? Does he think Fox should be in HIS corner? I don't think so! He calls Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs "xenophobe" because they tell the truth about illegal aliens. And they think people who pay attention to politics believe them. I got news for them. It's only those who DON'T "pay attention to politics" until just before an election who will. And I don't think that's enough this time. It's really funny. The Damnocrats whine about "hurting someone's feelings and try always (mostly) to avoid it (unless that somebody is a conservative). They cry about "the politics of personal destruction," yet they are the best and most able practitioners of it. (Jonathan Martin)

That's The Way They Operate

And they get away with it all the time because mostly the courts in which they operate are their own "captive courts" where "evidence" can be nothing more than a worker's opinion. Where they screwed up this time is trying to do it in front of the world and NATIONAL media. They couldn't keep operating as judge, jury, and executioner themselves, and the judge who "caught the case" realized that. There may have been many underage "mothers" or mothers who were underage when they were forced into marriage with much older men. But unfortunately, the proof just wasn't easily obtainable and the "child protectors" just aren't used to operating under such restrictions). So these underage mothers or FORMER underage mothers will be reunited with their husbands and many co-wives, and things will "go back to (their kind of) normal." This isn't about multiple wives, which IS illegal everywhere in this country. It's about forcing CHILDREN to be screwed by old men and become the mothers of their many children. They need to keep on investigating this situation without involving the "child protectors," who routinely exceed their authority and, unless it's in THEIR courts, can screw it up royally. (Café Hayek)

Romanoff's Dream

This Cartoon does a good job of illustrating what the Colorado Legislature, led by Rep. Andrew Romanoff want to do with the money "in the pot" forced there by the TABOR Amendment. They want to "tap it" and have a LOT more of our money to spend. This is what ALL legislatures want to do, including the federal one, and most of their actions are toward that end.(John Caldera/Politix Cartoons)

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Losing Respect for Judgment

It amazes me how ignorant otherwise intelligent people can be. It seems like way too many top politicians who ARE otherwise intelligent are "buying" liberal fantasies. McCain, for instance, has "bought" AlGore's global warming swindle, as has George Bush and the top executives in many large corporations (or are they just "giving lip service" to it to keep the liberal environmental jerks off their backs?). In any case, they're making changes in response to those same environmental crazies' policies and imaginary "problem-solving." I was "blown away" when Newt Gingrich was seen sitting on the same couch with the queen of the liberal idiots, Nancy Pelosi, pushing a "green lifestyle." I immediately canceled my subscription to his online newsletter because I completely lost confidence in his judgment. They say "McCain's Global-Warming Plan Upsets Conservatives." Wrong. It upsets ANYBODY who is smart enough to know AlGore's swindle is a scam of unprecedented size. Pelosi, I'm not surprised about. She's known to be ignorant. That's why she's the top Damnocrat in the House. It's the others that concern me. Like George Bush actually saying something stupid like, "We're addicted to oil." Anybody with ANY intelligence knows you can't be "addicted" to something you need to survive, such as food and drink. But I'm sure Bush believes what he said, which is what bothers me. How is it that top politicians, who hold, or wish to hold, the top office in the land, are not even as intelligent as I am. It disturbs me that such people can seriously be considered for president of this nation. (Human Events)

Predictable Response From Liberals

Philadelphia has the highest rate of murder per 100,000 citizens in the country. The latest murder to cause them ire is the murder of a policeman in a bank robbery, committed by three known-to-be-violent criminals who don't obey anti-gun laws. So what's their answer? More anti-gun laws! This is the answer to violent crime EVERYWHERE by liberals, no matter how many times it is proven to be a response that kills more people (They don't work, so let's make more of them). What is WRONG with them? Are they stupid? Most likely. Maybe they're simply insane. Insanity is defined as "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." I would say the liberal response to violent crime, specifically "gun crime," fits this description. (John Lott)

Banning "Jihan Watch"

Many offices have actually banned the "Human Events" column, "Jihad Watch," saying it is "hate speech" because it tells the truth about Islam. One of the recent columns is "Who's Speaking At the Local Mosque?" This article tells the tals about Islamic speakers "preaching hate" in Mosques, right in your own town, sometimes in your own neighborhood, and even THINKING about having the cops "check them out" to see what they're preaching is considered "racism." Is this stupid, or what? When Nazis were "preaching hate," they didn't have churches right here in your own city in which to preach it, and no one ever criticized people for objecting to Nazis "preaching hate." But now they're calling "telling the truth about Islam" hate speech. What a way to kill more Americans! The people who do this get "all bent out of shape" if you just SUGGEST they're "anti-American," but I ask you: "What would they do differently if they WERE?" Gawd, what stupid people we've become! (Human Events/Jihad Watch)

Monday, May 26, 2008

Empty Holsters "Frighten" Students

What a bunch of weenies they are! To be "frightened" by an inanimate object. Schools are well known to be a "gun-free zone," telling criminals, "Come on in and shoot us. We don't have guns with which to protect ourselves here." "During the week of April 21-25, 2008, thousands of college students throughout the United States, organized under the banner of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC), will attend classes wearing empty holsters, in protest of state laws and school policies that stack the odds in favor of dangerous criminals and armed killers by disarming law abiding citizens licensed to carry concealed handguns virtually everywhere else." Notice, one of the things they're demonstrating against is not even allowing those who are LICENSED to carry concealed everywhere else on campus with their guns. That this policy does not even slow down those bent on killing people on campus was proven at several schools, one of the recent ones Virginia Tech, where more than 20 people were killed because none of the students OR faculty--or even security could carry a gun to use in their defense. School "authorities" say they're opposed to this demonstration because it "frightens" students. I'd say they'd be even more "frightened" if someone bent on killing them brings a REAL gun into their classroom. Do they really think a student or a faculty member would "go crazy" if guns were allowed in classrooms? Do they think a ban on guns in schools will actually keep "crazies" out? Come on! (SCCC)

Ignorant Professor Sues Students

What for? For criticizing her in "student evaluations." Apparently, she wants to frighten future students into giving her a phony good evaluation so she can keep her job, even if she is incompetent. Seems like she just doesn't believe in "academic freedom." She'll probably want to sue ME for this item. But I say to her, "if you want to waste your money and time, go for it! I'll be happy to slap her down." She apparently doesn't know you can't sue people for expressing their own personal; opinion in this country. Actually, you CAN sue them, but you won't win. (Paul Jacobs/Common Sense)

Beer-Drinking Hillary

Hillary will do ANYTHING to "outdo" Obama, who was recently seen "bowling" like a REAL American. So she just had to "pander" to the "average American," who is thought to swill beer and other forms of "alky" while standing in place and nodding their heads, calling that "dancing. No one knows if Obama actually bowled for a score, or even what that score was, (I suspect it was one throw of the ball, for the cameras) but neither display makes me think either Damnocrat candidate is a "regular American," so they can quit it and go back to being the "elitist liberals" they really are. (Pajama Pack)

Congress CREATES the Problems

Every time we have a major problem, somebody wants CONGRESS to "solve it." But most of our problems are CREATED by Congress. So how could anybody seriously suggest we ask CONGRESS to "solve" anything? The answer is simple: "problems" are routinely "created" by congressional policies in order to give them something to talk about before the next election. They think, since they created the problem in the first place, it will be easy to "solve" it. It's a scam, and if you believe it, you are "falling for" the scam. The scam is "The Hegelian Principle," which is, CREATE a "problem or build an existing one up out of proportion; PUBLICIZE the "problem. Build it up until people start demanding it be "solved"; offer a SOLUTION to the "problem," usually one that involves higher taxes and the loss of more rights. This is a scam that has been used for CENTURIES, but still works for politicians. Will YOU keep "falling for it?" (The Atlasphere/Economist Walter E. Williams)

Thursday, May 22, 2008

A "Perpetual Gaffe Machine"

They think George Bush mispronounces a word or two? How about Dan Quayle's misspelling of "potato?" They never let them forget it. But let Barack Obama talk about having been in "57 of 60 states," and they're "blissfully ignorant." When you come right down to it, Obama's gaffes aren't about misspelling or mispronouncing something, they're about his total ignorance of what's going on. "57 of 60 states?" Sheesh! And this guy wants to be president? He claimed that 10,000 people were killed in Kansas tornadoes when the actual death toll was 12; he says his parents got together during the Selma march and created him. Unfortunately, Selma didn't happen until FOUR YEARS after his birth. He's telling lies as if he were Hillary or Bill Clinton. Have you heard about any of these gaffes, or the ones in Michelle Malkin's article? I doubt it. The liberal media doesn't make a "big thing" out of Democrat gaffes. Only Republican gaffes. "Barack Obama--promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah--is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford? (Michelle Malkin)

You Won't Let Us Drill!

A senator was giving the CEO of Shell "what for," and he (The CEO) "scored a direct hit" on Senator Leahy. Patrick Leahy demanded to know why prices are so high in a "properly functioning free market." And the CEO came back with "There IS no free market! You won't let us drill!" (62% of oil drilling in the U. S. is prohibited)This is the first time an oil company CEO has "told the truth" in such a hearing. They're usually so cowed, they agree to whatever the Senator blowhards say. This guy "got his guts on" and told Leahy the truth to his face, and in front of the media. Ignoring such things, they now want to add an "excess profits tax," which would just be passed on to the consumer and not solve a thing. These politicians will never admit to their complicity in high gas prices. Instead, they'll completely ignore any reference to it. But the public is slowly figuring it out (Heard on the Rush Limbaugh show). But you probably won't hear much about it in the liberal media. (Just common sense)

You Can't Talk About That!

The latest thing is his (Obama's) wife. He won't let anybody talk about the stupid statements she makes. We can't talk about his "elephant ears," His grandma (unless he brings her up as a "usual white person, meaning a racist.). We can't call him a liberal (even though that's what he is); or a socialist (which he also is). We can't even say what he THINKS is about him, such as what the president said about "talking" to the terrorists (without mentioning his name or even a description). This is one of the "thinnest-skinned" presidential candidates I've ever seen. At least the others didn't call you down for saying things like that. They just tried to refute them. Barack doesn't even try. He just calls them down for even SAYING things. Does he think that will work if (Migawd!) he got elected president? For my part, I'll call him what he is, and if he doesn't like it, to hell with him. To Democrats, telling the truth about them is "not allowed," and they get very upset when you do. It's not just "elephant ears," it's all of them. (Rush Limbaugh)

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Oil Shortage?

The same people who have been CAUSING our "oil crisis" by not allowing us to drill for oil or even search for it anywhere in the U. S. or anywhere we control things are even now "raising a hue and cry" about an "oil shortage" within five years. Maybe if they admitted their mistake and let us drill and search within the U. S., and allowed us to build more new oil refineries within the U. S., maybe there would be no oil shortage in our future. But don't look for them to succumb to reason any time soon. Maybe when THEY can no longer afford to run their cars or they start getting cold in winter because they can't afford heating oil. Naaah; they're not that smart. (Financial Times)

Still Looking For The Racism

The New York Times is still digging, hunting for the "racism" in the ad they claimed was a "racist ad" against a "conservative Democrat" (what is THAT?). The candidate they called "racist" lost, so I guess they won. I hope they publish another story ON THE FRONT PAGE when they find there was actually no racism after all--but I'm not holding my breath. Turning blue is not my thing. (Ann Coulter)

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Just Waiting To Be Insulted

One of the best ways to get a lot of FREE publicity is to "respond" to a remark made by your opponent. Another is to "get insulted" by something somebody on "the other side" says, whether it is about you or not. Obama found it in Bush's reference to "talking to the terrorists" in his speech to Israeli lawmakers. Bush did not "breathe his name" in that speech, nor has he in other speeches, but Obama thinks it's "all about him" and took offense. It's a "cheap trick" on Obama's part, but it HAS gotten him a lot of press. Mission accomplished. (News Max)

"Addicted" to Foreign Oil

Boy, liberals love to "throw around" terms like "addicted." Now they've even got Bush believing it: "I found it remarkable that President Bush said in the state of the union that the US is 'addicted to foreign oil'. Who must he have been placating? Was this an olive branch to the left? What is a Republican president, a former oilman himself, doing making a statement like this? He can't mean it! What does it mean? Could he be serious?" I think he has just "drank the Kool-Aid" the left has been handing him on a regular basis. What IS an "addiction?" It is certainly not needing a substance that keeps you alive, such as food and water. According to the liberals' definition of an "addiction," I’m "addicted" to food and drink because I partake of both on a regular basis. What stupidity! We aren't "addicted" to "foreign oil." We just find it NECESSARY to use it because the liberal environmentalist extremists have found it easy to get us to agree to our own destruction by not allowing a SINGLE new oil refinery to be built in more than THIRTY YEARS, and stopping ALL oil drilling in territories we control. They've CREATED the problem and are now criticizing US for not "solving it," using THEIR ideas. No. We're NOT "addicted" to foreign oil. THEY (liberal environmental extremists) have made it necessary for us to continue using it because nobody has found ANYTHING that will do its job better. These people must be "dancing in the streets" with Bush repeating their "mantra," and giving it legitimacy. (Antivenom)

They Revealed Their Plan

Gay activists in California have revealed their plan when they said, "gay unions" aren't good enough. They want nothing less than the use of the word, "marriage." They won't settle for anything less. Even though many states have made laws that allow gay couples the SAME things they get when married, they're STILL not satisfied. It's like I've said many times, they WANT the word "marriage." Nothing else will satisfy them. I've got nothing against people having sex with people of the same sex if that's what "turns them on." But I am unalterably AGAINST calling it "marriage" and thereby destroying the meaning of the word. If gays want to have sex with people of the same sex and live like they were married, okay. But don't "throw it in my face" by calling it "marriage." That's pushing it too far. (Michael Reagan/News Max)

Never Say "Die"

Teddy Kennedy has a brain tumor. My father died of a brain tumor back in 1981 when they didn't have Cat-Scans for early diagnosis. Maybe they found Teddy's in time, and we will have to suffer Teddy being in the Senate for a few years longer. People are "falling all over each other" to find something good to say about him, the most often coming up with something about him being "a fighter" or being "a formidable man." I'm not going to join that chorus. I'm only 6 years younger than he is, and my own time might come soon. But from my point of view, a "Kennedyless Senate" might be a good thing, if he lives or dies. I'm not going to be a hypocrite and "wish him a speedy recovery," although medicine today might give him a few more years as patriarch of the "Kennedy clan," whether or not he ever returns to the Senate. (Fox News)

Monday, May 19, 2008

So She'll Steal It Instead

Norah O'Donnell (relation to Rosie, maybe?) tells Hillary Honcho Terry McAuliffe that "Hillary is mathematically unable to win the nomination." So what. So she'll steal it, instead. Knowing the Clintons, they're working hard "behind the scenes" to con the "super delegates" into making her the nominee. Watch for it. (News Busters)

Methinks He Doth Protest Too Much

President Bush spoke in Israel, noting a senator of the time who wanted to "talk to Hitler and maybe avoid all this." Obama immediately took issue with this and took Bush to task, even though Bush did not once use his name. Talk about "hackles being up!" Does Obama know how stupid is his wish to talk to the terrorists, hoping they'll kill him last? Obama has shown many times how little he knows about hot to run this country, as witness his recent remark about "having visited 57 of the 60 states." But this really takes the cake. I got news for ya, Barack. It's not ALL about you. Even if you think it is. (Yahoo News)

Pro-Terrorist Web Site Attacks Fox

First, they put words in their mouths, then they "insult" them by calling them "unbelievers." That would not be an insult to me because I most definitely don't believe the same way they do. I think they're stupid to believe that "74 virgins" crap. "So in reality, you are calling my Prophet, Muhammad--peace be upon him--a terrorist," the blog post continues. "But of course, you guys won’t say that directly because you fear the wrath of the Muslims." I will say it directly because I don't fear the "wrath" of a fifteenth century bunch of jerks. Moreover, I'll mention his penchant for 9-year-old girls. And I'm old enough, even if you send some thugs to kill me, it won't make any difference. Not to me, anyway. Frankly, I'm getting pretty tired of the drivel these jerks are spewing. They know nothing, and they display it every time they open their mouths. (Fox News)

Sunday, May 18, 2008

He Can't Do That! He's Dead!

Osama "Gives Us The Finger"
Osama bin Laden (or whoever is pretending to be him today) says he has "a big message for Muslims." Do you suppose they've found a better "look-alike" than they've had before? He says he will deliver this message, "God willing." But I don't think God is willing, since bin Laden had been a "crispy critter" since about 2002 when we blew him up in one of his "hidey-holes." They can act like he's still alive all they want, but I'm not going to believe it until I hear him refer to something that happened today. And with computer software able to do almost anything with an image, maybe not even then.(AFP)

No Spanking, Create Hoodlums

I've said many times that if you rule out spanking, you're going to create a hoodlum. Anti-spankers and "child protectors" who tend to be inveterate "anti-spankers" just refuse to notice that if there is no meaningful punishment, your children will predictably get in trouble. And when they do, the "child protectors" predictably want to blame the parents and punish THEM, rather than realize that the tru culprit here is not the parents; it's not the children who misbehaved, though they may need to be punished. It's the "child protectors and other "anti-spankers" who, buy their actions, teach the children they will not be meaningfully punished, so why obey the rules? I don't approve of "beating" children. But an occasional spanking, when they earn it, is NOT "abuse," no matter how much the "child protectors" want it to be. (To Spank or Not To Spank)

Saturday, May 17, 2008

The "Ghost of bin Laden"

Every so often we get a new "message" from bin Laden's grave. But the truth is a lot different from "common knowledge." Bin Laden's voice was detected regularly until [14 December 2001] by intelligence operatives monitoring radio transmissions in Tora Bora, according to the Pentagon. Since then, nothing has been heard from the al-Qa'eda leader and President Bush has hinted in private that bin Laden's silence could mean he has been killed. The London Telegraph called it "sick propaganda" when Bush hinted that bin Laden might be dead. But why IS it we have not heard his voice after that time, when we heard it regularly in "terrorist communications" until then? Why is it new "communications" are always from "his second-in-command," never from him (with proof that his message is really given TODAY?)? "With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, COULD not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with." (New York Times, July 11, 2002) I personally think bin Laden was "made into a crispy critter" many years ago when we bombed one of his caves in Afghanistan with him in it. Terrorists desperately want us to believe we "didn’t get bin Laden" so the liberals can keep on referring to us not even being able to get bin Laden, while knowing we did, along with Saddam. We just didn't "dig him out" of his "rat-hole" as we did Saddam. We just blew it up with him in it.

Whining Like A Baby

It's always instructive to me when Democrats (liberals) "whine like stuck pigs." It means we've told the truth about them and they don't like that. Such is the case when Bush mentioned an American senator's "appeasement" of Hitler. Bush did not breathe Obama's name, but Obama immediately took offense and "castigated" Bush for his remarks. You can always tell when you tell a "truth" about liberals that they don't like. They howl. All of them howl and they "circle the wagons." If Obama thinks this kind of thing (telling the truth about him) will stop if he gets elected president, he's got another think coming. Hopefully, he'll never get to find out. The whole point here is, you can always tell when you "score a direct hit." That's when they cry. John McCain says Obama shows "naiveté, inexperience, and lack of judgment," and he's SO right. (My Way)

Politics in the Comics

One of the most effective ways liberals have found to subtly condition our children is by introducing their liberals ideas into them. But sometimes a comic artist tells us exactly what they're doing. One example is the April 20 edition of "The Piranha Club" where our perennial con man (Sid) comes to Ernie's door dressed in his shorts, begging money to "stop global warming." The last picture shows Sid playing pool in the otherwise "falling apart" clubhouse with a new air conditioner paid for by "contributions" while Ernie still relies on a fan. That superbly illustrates what AlGore is doing on a much larger scale. Elsewhere, Berkeley Breathed in "Opus," gives us some insight on how the liberals "dictate" not only what we may say (Political Correctness), but what we may think, and say, as well. You can "denounce" someone all you want, but if you won't "poke him in the eye with a poker," that means you agree with him.

Friday, May 16, 2008

So What?

The Obama camp is blaming Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" for his loss in Indiana. So what? That's Rush's publicly announced goal: to cause the fight to continue in the Democrat Party, forcing them to continue to spend more and more money while McCain just "sits back" and watches the show. Why is Obama mad? That's politics. His own people did the same thing, but "in secret." They helped nominate liberal Republican John McCain that way. Obama needs to "move on" and find a way to get around such things. He's probably going to win the primary, anyway. Unless Hillary steals it. Both are (hopefully) going to lose in the general election. (News Max)

Just Waiting to Be Offended

Some people are just waiting to be offended by SOMETHING. Such is the case with the San Diego group calling for a boycott of Starbucks Coffee because they went back to an old logo. I don't know why they did, but I don't care. I have much more important thing to think about than a logo that is "indecent" only in the eyes of this "way-out" group. "Bare breasts and legs spread like a whore, " indeed! Click the link. Do you see anything like that? Yes, she is "bare-breasted," but they are adequately covered by her hair. "Legs spread?" WHAT legs? NO legs are shown! Gawd, I can't believe some people! I'm not a big Starbucks person. In fact, I've only been in one of their stores once--and that was "under protest." But such unfounded criticism is unwarranted. (Minneapolis Star-Tribune)

Shut Up About It!

An "illegal alien" with a Spanish (Mexican?) name rapes a 10-year-old girl and that makes her pregnant, and we're supposed to "shut up about it" or be called "racist" for bringing it up. Bullpoop! I don't care if he's Swahili or any other nationality. To rape a ten-year-old girl is as reprehensible as it comes and he deserves the worst we can give him. If we could execute him, I'd volunteer to pull the lever or make the killing injection. The problem is, we're seeing more and more criminals with Spanish-type names (who turn out to be illegals) and nothing is said about that because they don't want to be called "racist." We\ll, I don't care. That's their "modus operandi" to avoid any kind of criticism of this kind of person. Another thing. There are more and more people with the same kind of names being elected to office who make laws to make it easier on illegals, and liberals want us to "shut up about that, too." Maybe the Mexican Army couldn't win when they tried to take over America, but the "covert" Mexican Army who are coming across our borders without uniforms in such numbers and with the support of the liberals will soon be in elective offices in sufficient numbers as to make any effort to control our borders useless. If that makes me "racist," then so be it. I judge people as INDIVIDUALS and I judge these people (those who want to "take back" that part of the U. S. they couldn't win by war) to be INDIVIDUALLY dangerous, whatever the liberals say. I have no use for anything liberals say, anyway. (Komo TV)

Liberals Want To "Criminalize" Talk Radio

Mostly because they can't make it in that medium and they're jealous. They've tried and tried, but every effort has failed. "Air America" is still going, but only because of massive amounts of money given them by liberal millionaires, not through any advertiser payments. They still say the medium "needs to know the other side," but the problem is, people get "the other side" everywhere ELSE but talk radio. They SAY they're "being objective," but as an Objectivist, I know they're not. I have all but stopped watching and listening to the liberal media because of the lies they tell, either by omitting important facts, or by simply lying. If they do manage to get Rush and his kind of talk show hosts off the air, that won't end it. He won't be on the air, but the First Amendment stops them from muzzling him in the marketplace with his newsletter and in other places. (News Max)

Thursday, May 15, 2008

"Change"--To What?

Every politician now running for president is calling for "change." But nobody can get any of them to tell you what "change" means to them. Obama cries, "change" every time he makes a speech, but nobody asks him what that means. Do we want "change" when it means swifter movement toward socialism, where faceless bureaucrats and other politicians get to make decisions FOR you that you ought to be able to make for yourself? We need to examine much more closely what politicians say in their "stump speeches" and how they change it slightly (tailor it) for each group to whom they speak. (American Thinker)

He's A "Great Artist"

He does beautiful work, and I should know. I'm an artist. But unfortunately, he's not so great when it comes to truth in his editorial cartoons. A recent Mike Thompson cartoon in the Detroit Free Press showed a beautiful picture of a landscape somewhere, pretending it was the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with Bush and his vice-president admiring a very small oil spout, their backs to the beauty and saying, "Breathtaking" about the tiny oil spout. The only problem is, ANWR is not like that where oil producers want to drill. There, it is a "wasteland" and represents only a small amount of land in the refuge. A little like a bar of soap in the corner of a football field. But that's not the image of ANWR the environmental extremists want to paint, so we get the "great art" represented by this lying editorial cartoon. (FREEP)

Turbabout Is Fair Play

Obama and other Democrats have been "dissing" Bush on a regular basis for a long time, and it's about time Bush "got even" as he did in his speech in Israel where he talked about a senator of the time wanting to "just talk to Hitler" so "we could avoid all this." Unfortunately, Hitler was on a "world conquest" kick and no amount of talking would stop anything. The more we showed a willingness to talk, the weaker he would think we are. That this would cause a "hardening" of his response goes without saying. Obama thinking he can "talk" to the terrorists is even more stupid. The Islamic terrorists are no more amenable to "talk" than was Hitler. they just want to kill ALL "Infidels" ("Infidel" meaning anyone who doesn't believe exactly the same way they do). They're calling Bush's reference to an unnamed senator of the time as an "unprecedented attack from foreign soil." What is it when Democrats do the same? This is NOT "unprecedented." Democrats do it all the time. Especially Bill Clinton. (American Thinker)

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Finally Got Smart

Schwarzenegger will drop his plan to release 20,000 prisoners from California jails before their sentences are up. But when is he, among ALL politicians going to learn tat there would be NO "prison population problem" if his state, among all others, would just stop imprisoning the VICTIMS of "the drug scene," leaving the cops with more money and time to go after the GUILTY, the sellers and pushers? (Sacramento Bee)

A Consummate Politician

"Ahnold" Speaks
Actually, a "consummate LIBERAL politician." Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for governor of California as a conservative, but has governed increasingly as a liberal. This last suggestion of his is VERY liberal. You know: the one where the state STEALS money from the lottery fund (which is "dedicated" money that the lottery buyers were told would be used for ONE purpose). Since it is "fungible," taxpayers don't know that states are reducing the budgets for the designated recipients of lottery money by the same, or a larger amount than they receive from the lottery. But what "Ahnold" is suggesting is pure thievery from a fund that has already been stolen by political "sleight-of-hand." (Sacramento Bee)

Ten Years to ANWR

Liberals, global warming crazies, and environmental extremists have been telling us for at least fifteen years that "It'll take ten years to get anything out of ANWR, so why bother?" But if we had actually DONE something there fifteen years ago, we'd now be five years into realizing benefits from drilling there. They're still resisting development there, still lying about the area we want to drill in being a "winter wonderland." What it actually is, is a "winter wasteland." The entire area we'd need for oil drilling is like a bar of soap laid in a CORNER of a football field and is a "wasteland." Yet they continue to fight us at every turn whenever we even MENTION ANWR. How stupid is this when we need domestic oil so badly? One of those stupid politicians fighting ANY drilling for oil in the United States actually said, "We can't drill our way to oil independence." That is one of the stupidest remarks I've ever heard. Isn't that how we DO it? (

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

For Want of a Gun . . .

If Steven Daniel Furtado had been allowed to carry a gun for his own protection he and his sweetheart might still be alive. But NO. Not in California, where a "weapon" is still described as something "that can be directed at a person in such a way as to cause him discomfort or injury." It was that way in the sixties when I first took up the sales of less-than-lethal self-defense items and it remains so to this day. This is so "vague" and wide it even covers my hands and feet, which I can CERTAINLY "aim at someone and cause him discomfort or injury." Did the ex-boyfriend "project something at Steven" that could injure him? Was what he used LEGAL? No. But if Steven had been armed, maybe he and his girls would still be alive. A typical result of liberal anti-gun laws. (Sacramento Bee)

Removing Consequences

I've long said that when you remove the consequences for an act, people are going to DO that act and expect to get away with it. The biggest example of this is the "know-nothing do-gooder" who knows nothing about what is going on, but who sticks her/his nose in it anyway. Nothing is a better example than the situation below: "The liberals have been taking away our rights and liberties for years, and this is just another example of this invasion of our privacy. ‘The woman that started this whole thing took offense to a child being spanked for acting bad. She had no idea what was really going on, but she made it her business to butt in. And I will tell you where this whole idea of crap is going to end up. We are going to have, in the future, a generation of hoodlums who have grown up without any idea of what is right and what is wrong. [That's in bold because it's the most important thing in this post. -RT] To them there will be no consequences for their actions, and there will be no stimulus for them to do the right things. The only input that these children will have, is negative input because when they are good, nothing will be said. When they are bad, they will be called victims by the authorities and they will be coddled by the government and taken away from good parents." This is liberalism at work. (Tired of Liberal Rhetoric)

Monday, May 12, 2008

Chavez Helps Colombian Rebels

"Documents that Colombia says it recovered from a slain guerrilla leader give the clearest indication yet that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sought to arm and finance insurgents across the border. The documents--more than a dozen internal rebel messages--detail several years of close cooperation between top officials in Venezuela's government and military and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, including the construction of rebel training facilities on Venezuelan soil." Looks like Chavez is trying to emulate Saddam, even though he doesn't have nukes and is not in any danger of getting any. We're going to have to "clean out" his "nest of evil" before long, before he becomes strong enough to be a real threat to America. (Yahoo News)

Leave It to Teddy

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which forces people to hire homosexuals against their better judgment is being heavily pushed by Sen. Edward (Teddy the Swimmer) Kennedy in the Senate. Now I have nothing against the hiring of gays, so long as they don't try and push their sexual preferences onto me, or my family. But the funny thing here is Teddy (Waitress Sandwich) Kennedy having the gall to push such a bill, with his history. Kennedy has one of the worst sexual history in the workplace or playplace and has gotten away with it because he is a Democrat, And he's the big muck in passing this bill? Gimme a break! Actually, I would be in favor of such a bill if it only allows employers to make hiring decisions based on an applicant's ABILITIES, not his sexual preferences. But KENNEDY pushing it? That's a good laugh! (Human Rights Campaign)

Obama Makes More Gains

In spite of Rev. Wright and all his other negatives, he's a few points closer to becoming the assumed Democrat nominee and has made it a lot harder for the Clintons to steal the election. But they will try, whether or not they get the job done. They'll put unmerciful pressure, probably using information from those well known, but whose whereabouts is still unknown FBI files. I'd hate to be a Democrat (Damnocrat?) "super-delegate" right now. I don't much care which Democrat gets the nomination (I'm ashamed to say Hillary won in my home state). I only care that whichever does, loses in the general election so we will not have to suffer yet another Democrat fiasco in the White House. As we move ever closer to socialism (which we will, if either Democrat wins), I move closer to being declared subversive and a lawbreaker, for speaking the truth. Personally, I hope Obama wins the nomination because I want to see "Queen Hillary" taken down a few notches by being beaten by someone she considered nobody and somebody she thought could be beaten by using the "race card." A "woman president?" Yes. I'd vote for the right woman for president. But not this one. I notice Rush's "Operation Chaos is working well. She had to dip into her own money to the tune of $6 million dollars, hoping to buy the election. If the Clintons are able to steal the nomination, it will be devastating for the Democrats. But the Clintons don't care. They just want to win, at ANY cost. (TMJ4 Milwaukee)

Saturday, May 10, 2008

"Nightly News" Gleefully Reports Loss of Jobs

How much better to illustrate the liberal method of doing everything it can to hinder business? The NBC "Nightly News" was almost unable to contain itself over the report of the loss of 80 jobs when a Home Depot store closed in Brattleboro, Vermont. They prattle on about "the economy," while doing everything they can to destroy it. They're happy about the "non-opening" of a Wal-Mart store in Chicago. They even spent the money for a billboard to proclaim their "success!" Frankly, I can't see the intelligence in these acts. These people must be stupid if they think a DOWNTURN in the economy would be good for ANYONE, themselves included. I've always known liberals were stupid, but they confirm it every day. (News Busters)

Higher Food Prices

Is anybody really wondering why food prices have increased so much? Mostly it's because of the liberal (environmentalist/global warming freaks) push to force people to use food products for "biofuel," something that costs more, and is not nearly as efficient as oil-based products. Even President Bush (who should know better) is beginning to "buy" AlGore's fantasy about "man-made global warming." He was recently heard to say that "America is 'addicted' to oil," which is irritatingly ignorant, especially for a man who makes some of his money from oil. The fact is, we use as much oil because with all the "research" into "alternative fuels," we haven't been able to come up with ANYTHING that will do the job better than oil. It is a NECESSITY to our very survival, just as food and drink is to MY personal survival (which means my use of both daily is NOT an "addiction," it is survival). There's a good reason why oil is so important to us. That's because nobody has been able to come up with a substitute that even COSTS the same and does the job as efficiently. (Paul Jacob/Common Sense)

Oil "Boom" to Go "Bust"

Like the "boomlet" just before the "great depression," pressure is mounting for lower oil prices globally. Soon, it's going to "go bust," according to Lehman Bros. They predict $83 a barrel oil in 2009 and $70 a barrel in 2010. Which is STILL way higher than it was before. Hillary blames the oil companies, who seem to be making "record profits" because her liberal buddies in the environmental racket won't allow any new refineries to be built in the U. S., nor any oil to be drilled for there, either. So the money that would normally be spent to find and refine oil stays in their bank accounts. That's HER fault, not theirs. Meanwhile the government, at all levels, goes on making MORE PROFIT than the oil companies on the same oil--WITHOUT any investment. (Lehman Bros.)

Friday, May 9, 2008

Compact Fluorescents Dangerous

The media has discovered, but refused to report, the fact that ONE bulb, if broken and dropped into a lake, has enough mercury in it to contaminate 6,000 gallons of water beyond "safe levels." " Each CFL contains about 5 milligrams of mercury. That’s enough for state environmental agencies to recommend complicated and expensive cleanups for accidental bulb breaks in homes." And THIS is what the "environmental crazies" want you to use in your child's bedroom in place of the proven safe incandescent bulb? I have ONE of these bulbs, placed above my computer as a test. I hope I never break it, but if so, I will NOT replace it. I will get an incandescent bulb to do its job. (Business & Media Institute)

"I'm Not Responsible!"

Denying responsibility is a standard scam for liberals and Barbara Walters uses it when she denies responsibility for Rosie's remarks that are tantamount to "inciting to riot." She IS "responsible" for those remarks because she HIRED Rosie O'Donnell and can fire her just as easily. I don't know why she seems to have a penchant for hiring people for whom she has to apologize, but she does. How stupid does she think we are (Pretty stupid, I guess; she's a blatant liberal)? (Justin McCarthy)

"Torpedoing" Obama

Everybody wonders why "Rev." Jeremiah Wright surfaced at just the wrong time, actually "torpedoing" Obama's run for the presidency. No one seems to credit the idea that this was his intention. They don't seem to understand that the very idea of a black man being elected president, or even being a serious candidate, runs completely counter to the racism he as been preaching for most of his career. So Obama has to be "torpedoed." And he's just the man to do it, without even saying anything he hasn't said within his church for years. All he has to do is do it before the nation, all of whom don't buy his crap, and who will react. He doesn't have to worry about it. He's "retired," and somebody bought him a big, expensive house in a "rich" neighborhood. (Black writer Larry Elder/Atlasphere)

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Kennedy Would Be A Conservative

He was a member of the NRA (National Rifle Association); he cut taxes and so increased the "tax take" by billions of dollars; he was pro-national defense and anti-racial preferences. Doesn't this make him a conservative by today's "standards?" No wonder he got shot! (Teri O'Connor/Associated Content)

I Didn't Even Know Hillary Could Tap Dance

Rush Limbaugh played her answer to the question George Stephanopolous asked her about if she could find ONE economist who agreed with her proposal to eliminate gas taxes this summer while she said a lot of words without answering the question with the sound of tapdancing in the background. What caused George, who is (was) one of her "stalwarts" to ask a REAL question, I don't know. But he persisted, and she finally said, "I really don't put a lot of confidence in economists," which meant she thinks she knows more than economists about the economy. I don't think so. I think she just THINKS she knows more than ANYBODY about anything. She still didn't answer the question although her "offhand" answer to his second question revealed a lot about her even if it didn't answer the question. (ABC News)

"If You Fail, Do It Again the Same Way"

Many psychiatrists have said, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." But that seems to be the way the liberals operate. " Air America Radio may have tried and failed to use washed-up comedians like Janeane Garofalo and Al Franken to make liberal talk radio work, but their rule seems to be that if first you don't succeed, flop, flop again. When wacky radical Randi Rhodes resigned over a nasty and profane denunciation of Hillary Clinton, Air America replaced her in afternoon drive time with... Roseanne Barr. And in no time flat Roseanne behaved like Roseanne. On April 28 she suggested leftists should ignite riots at the Democratic convention in Denver. "We should, a bunch of us, go there and repeat the Democratic Convention from Chicago. Like, let's just cause a bunch of trouble!" There's even a leftist group called "Recreate 68" building up the rioting nostalgia." And they want to criticize Rush Limbaugh for talking about his "nightmares" of a riot in Denver. No wonder people who "don't pay attention to politics" are all confused. (Brent Bozell/Media Research)

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

High Medical Costs?

Yes. Medical costs are unconscionably high, and John McCain, along with all presidential candidates, wants GOVERNMENT to "do something about it." Hillary just wants to "take over" the entire medical profession like it is in Britain and Canada. And as in those countries, she's "willing to take that chance" (with oither people's lives) when people ask her about the long waits and rationing of services their systems have caused. Government meddling in medicine, where they have NO expertise, is what has CAUSED the high medical costs--and they want GOVERNMENT to "solve the problem" THEY created? (John McCain)

"Take, Take, Take!"

That's what all the Democrats want to do. Take from people who PRODUCE goods and services and give to the NON-producer who doesn't. PUNISH the "producer" and REWARD those who sit around and let the government take care of them (I'm not talking about those who CAN'T help themselves. I AM talking about those who CAN, but WON'T.) Hillary talks about "taking" the "excess profits" that were CAUSED by liberal environmental extremists not allowing them to spend those profits hunting for oil in America or areas we control and "forcing" them to support research into "alternative fuels" whose efficacy has not, and MAY never be proved. Seems to me, the liberals are the very ones who created an atmosphere where the oil companies MADE "excessive profits," and now they're whining about it. Hillary even wants a "poverty czar" to do what liberal Democrats haven't been able to do in the more than 50 years they were "in charge," eliminate poverty. They couldn't do it before, why should anybody think they can do it now? I saw a bumper sticker on a car the other day, saying, "Enough is Enough! Vote Democrat!" I wanted to stop that car and ask the Democrat driving it, "Enough WHAT?" I'd bet he can't answer. He's just "parroting" the Democrat "line." (Kansas City Star)

"Recreate "68"

The whole purpose of this organization is said in its name. They want to recreate the riots and bloodshed of the 1968 Democrat Convention in Denver this August. And they're trying to lay it on Rush Limbaugh when he said "I'm dreaming of riots in Denver." What Rush meant is he was "having nightmares" about "Recreate '68" being successful. I hope they're not, because that's "too close for comfort" for me. I was in Indianapolis in 1968, and THAT was too close. I don't want to be anywhere near this convention for many reasons. That's one of them. I still find it funny (ha, ha funny) that liberals will demonstrate against liberals who aren't liberal enough). (News Busters)

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Obama Favors Unions

Why is that bad? Simple: because unions today represent the worst socialism or communism has to offer: the elevation of mediocrity over excellence. If you are in a union you don't have to do your job well. The union will protect you from being fired for non-performance. That's a socialistic concept, and socialism (or communism) is just one form of COLLECTIVISM, where the individual is "just a cog in society" and has no importance except as that "cog." Obama and Hillary are BOTH socialists, and if they (either of them) are elected, you can expect this country to move ever closer to a socialist society, more quickly. McCain has shown socialistic tendencies, too. But I think he is simply pandering to socialists in this society. He seems to think he can't get elected without pandering to socialists, but hopefully he isn't the "dedicated socialist" Obama and Hillary are. (News Max)

TABOR In Danger?

Democrats in the Colorado legislature have been trying to get rid of the "TABOR Amendment" (to force politicians to ask permission before enacting new tax laws and to require them to give back money they got by overtaxing us) ever since is was passed. They've been "nibbling at it" in every legislative session since, and now they want to "take it out" in one "last gobble." ANY law that forces politicians to "get along" on less money is DOOMED from the start, and this is ample proof. The new Democrat legislature is "moving on" TABOR just as they are "moving on" the Republican-passed "concealed carry" law. Anything the Republicans passed, they're not going to leave alone for long. (Rocky Mountain News)

Monday, May 5, 2008

"Atlas Shrugged" Movie

"Variety" says there is an "Atlas Shrugged" movie in the works and Angela Jolie is to be its star. Jolie says she is a long-time admirer of Ayn Rand and is excited to play the part of Dagny Taggart, one of the most powerful women in any of Rand's novels. It is the story of a railroad that is run by her and her "wimpy" socialistic brother and the fate of the world (and her railroad) when a great inventor (John Galt) got tired of his accomplishments being stolen by "society" and "went on strike," getting other "producers" to do likewise. He promised to "stop the motor of the world," and did, by withdrawing the people who "produced" the most from it, requiring it to make it without them and their ideas, which it could not. One by one, the key people in what was at any given time the key industry, disappeared. Consequentially the world economy collapsed without the ideas and output of the "producers" of the world. It'll be interesting to see if they can make this movie without reversing its meaning and making it into a sales talk for socialism. I'll be watching. Unfortunately, they don't say anything about when it will be in theaters. (Variety)

Hillary's "Fatal Flaw"

One of the things she didn't plan on when saying "yes" to an interview with Bill O'Reilly is that he would "sneak in" a question that would reveal her "fatal flaw." Which is that she wants to "surrender" in Iraq" and in the war on terror. She says she will "replace force with diplomacy." Which is a usual Democrat "wish" that will never be fulfilled if used against the Islamic terrorists. "Bill O'Reilly asked Hillary Clinton the key question about the war in Iraq: What happens if we pull out and the Iranians move in? She talked around and around the issue, but never gave a convincing answer to O'Reilly's question. She said she would replace force with diplomacy. But, as Frederick the Great said, 'Diplomacy without force is like music without instruments.' If our troops are long gone from Iraq, the Iranians will snub our diplomacy and laugh at our entireties. They will add Iraq to their other trophies in the region: Syria, Lebanon and Gaza." Obama will do the same thing, even if he calls it something different. McCain, at least, has pledged to continue until we win (which is something liberals and Democrats insist the most powerful country in the world can't do against a "fifteenth century" enemy. (Town Hall,com)

Sunday, May 4, 2008

Who Makes the Most Profit on Gas?

The government, that's who! The feds get 18 cents a gallon and the state gets 7.2 cents a gallon, all while putting NOTHING into searching for, drilling for oil, or refining it into gasoline. It's ALL PROFIT to them. There's a big "gas crisis" in the United States that comes from oil prices being way too high. So what does the government want to do? Make it worse, that's what! The Transportation Commission wants to increase gas taxes by 200%! Talk about being "out of touch with reality!" Apparently, they don't understand the effect such an increase as this time would have on the economy. But then, NO liberals know the effect of their policies will have on the economy. They constantly carp about the economy while doing everything they can to destroy it. So this recommendation by Washington liberals is not surprising. We know they're ignorant, but they don't. They think only THEY know what's best for us. In Danville, Illinois, they've ALREADY enacted a 4 cents a gallon gas tax, on TOP of whatever any other government does to loot its citizens.

Saturday, May 3, 2008

Newt's Lost Credibility

I couldn't believe it when I saw Newt Gingrich sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi. What does he hope to gain by "surrendering" to her position on global warming, while "science" is showing us clearly that AlGore's swindle is as phony as a three-dollar bill? You'd think Newt would be more intelligent than that. By doing this, he has lost all credibility with me, as well as ALL Americans who can see through AlGore's swindle--which apparently doesn't include Newt AND President Bush. (Rush Limbaugh)

Do We REALLY Need Government Regulation?

I don't think so. Yes, we do need government for some things; such as building and maintaining highways and police and fire service. But do we need it to regulate business? Probably not. We know government regulators are quite lax when it comes to regulating airlines, but flying has never been safer. I think their message is that airlines "put profit before safety." But how much profit does an airline make from an air crash resulting in the death or serious injury of hundreds of people, each of which will sue them for "big bucks?" Seems like they'd make more profit from safe flights. But that's not the message the government sends you. And why is that? They want YOUR MONEY to use in "regulating" the airline, even though they don't. They only "go through the motions" and make loud noises after a crash that is sometimes CAUSED by their indifference to safety problems. Then they blithely blame it on the airlines "putting profits before safety." Baloney! Their basic message is: "profit is a dirty word." That's what they preach, everywhere, all the time (not just about airline safety), all the time making a LOT of "profit" themselves by taxing airlines, "to pay for the regulating, of course." But little of that money goes into really regulating the airlines. Most of it goes into other things they do to buy votes. We never know where all that tax money goes, and anytime there is a crash, private enterprise (the airlines) gets the blame. When someone comes up who says it's the fault of the government, they "poo-poo" them. Such is the "conceit" of federal regulators. "The latest 'crisis' was launched when the FAA fined Southwest Airlines, which has an excellent safety record, $10.2 million for missing inspection deadlines. When Rep. Oberstar criticized the FAA for being too close to the airlines, the agency sprung into overreaction. An industry-wide ‘audit’ commenced, and FAA inspectors set about finding something -- anything -- to show Mr. Oberstar and other Congressional overseers that the agency was up to the job of enforcing federal maintenance requirements to the letter,' said The Wall Street Journal." What they fail to understand is this: "Fortunately, the market, and in some cases the liability system, provide sufficient incentives for firms to behave in a socially beneficial manner.” What they're saying is, it’s not profitable to have air crashes with the loss of millions of dollars' worth or aircraft and millions of dollars they have to pay the injured and the survivors of the dead. So profit works both ways. That's what they don't want you to know.[Emphasis mine. -RT] (John Stossel/The Atlasphere)

Friday, May 2, 2008

Hillary Decries Deal BILL and Soros Made

She tries to "pin it on Bush" by saying the jobs didn't go overseas until the Bush administration took over. She (and Bill) never saw anything wrong with selling the company to the communist Chinese as long as the jobs stayed here. She ignores the fact that the whole deal was supported by George Soros and APPROVED by her husband. "What Clinton never includes in the oft-repeated tale is the role that prominent Democrats played in selling the company and its technology to the Chinese. She never mentions that big-time Democratic contributor George Soros helped put together the deal to sell the company or that the sale was approved by her husband's administration." This is "typical Hillary." Blame Bush for her own shortcomings. “ 'They would have us believe Bush was behind this sale,' added Fred Sliger of Valparaiso in another letter, 'when in fact the Clinton administration rubber-stamped this along with the sale of numerous other high-tech secrets to the Chinese. …Let's get the facts straight.' ” (McClatchy News Service)

Kwame Kilpatrick Indicted

(How do people with such names get elected when the very name tells us of his bias?) The Mayor of Detroit was indicted on many counts in his scandal of a sexual relationship with a then-married subordinate and he even fired the cop whose suit brought the affair to light. But nowhere in the liberal media is his political affiliation (Democrat) mentioned. If he were a Republican, that would be the first word in every report. But never does the word "Democrat" appear in liberal news reports of his indictment. They HAD to report it. They couldn't avoid it. But they're still trying their best to "protect" the Democrat Party by ignoring the fact that he IS a Democrat (News Busters)

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Is This The "Fox Bias?"

Fox reported the death of an al Qaida leader and many of his followers while the liberal media ignores it or relegates any report it DOES give to the back pages of newspapers "below the fold." This is what liberals hate about Fox. They tell the truth. ALL the truth. They don't ignore terrorist deaths while "playing up" American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I guess they ARE "biased," after all. At least by the definition of the liberals. (Fox News)

Blame the Economy

Home Depot is closing some stores, citing the "bad economy" for their woes. But I have seen the result of inefficiency and incompetence in many different hierarchies, leading to bad management that results in this kind of thing. Politicians AND businessmen want to blame the economy when their bad business decisions and incompetence causes them problems, mainly because they find willing accomplices in government, and in the liberal media. The idea behind it is to make the economy look bad any way they can, to get us to APPROVE the things the liberals do to eliminate incentive in society and punish excellence while rewarding mediocrity. (Yahoo News)