What Ignorance At CNN!

CNN's Christine Romans thinks Bill Clinton was "too conservative! What ignorance that displays on the part of someone who SHOULD be "paying attention but who obviously was not (except when her professors in college taught her to be a good socialist). The idea that Bill Clinton was "too conservative" is ludicrous. He's about as liberal as they come, and so is his wife. How do people GET so ignorant while still being able to land well-paying jobs? Sheesh! (Lynsi Thomas)

Dog and Pony Show

I'm getting very tired of the "dog and pony show" going on (today at Mile High Stadium/Invesco Field) in Denver this week. It's impossible to avoid it because the so-called "news sources" ALL are "wall-to-wall" with it. It's as if there is NO other news in the world. There is no way to avoid it short of just hitting the off button" on your television or radio. The worst part of it is there's no respite after the DNC gets finished because then they go directly to Minnesota for the REPUBLICAN National Convention where similar expensive, but unimportant things will go on all NEXT week. Just before that was the Olympics, also "wall-to-wall." What amazes me is that they think all this "sound and fury signifying nothing" is important. It's not. They've already picked their nominee (Hillary fizzled) for both spots, on both sides, so why do they need to spend all this money? Because they can; it's their biggest party in four years and they both mean to make the most of it.

I just hope all the politicians survive all the drinking and partying at our expense. It's also a podium from which the Democrats (and their accomplices) can say "good things" about their lame candidates and be taken seriously, just as if what they were saying was important. And there is going to be "more of the same" all next week, and the "sound and fury" will continue right up to the election. The only problem with this so-called "free society" of ours is the election process, which has not stopped since the LAST election in 2006. People wonder why I'm not right in the middle of it, since this blog is all about politics. The answer is, these "shows" are NOT politics. They're a "show" for "the masses," to convince us they're important. What IS important is what these politicians DO after they get elected, and THAT'S what I cover, bringing you news and info the liberal press means to keep from you. (Just common sense)

Insight Into the Liberal Press

I'm almost afraid to look at the "Mallard Fillmore" strip. He's not only right so often, he's more insightful than anybody else I know of and that makes a lot more work for me as I need to feature his wisdom and insight. In this one he illustrated graphically how the press is treating this election. The last time I said "Mallard" is right just about all the time I got a comment from a reader simply saying "You are wrong." So I asked him/her (an anonymous comment) to be more specific, and the silence from his/her direction is "golden." I guess he/she can't come up with any specifics. But I'm still wrong, right? (Mallard Fillmore)

Cocksure, But Ignorant and Arrogant

Obama has shown that he just has NO understanding of how the world works when he promised to "get us off the fossil oil standard within ten years." He made it worse when he cockily claimed he could "get one million 150 MPG cars on the road by 2015." (If it was so easy to do, why hasn't it already been done? He presumes to know how much of the profit EARNED by the oil companies is "excess profit" (who gets to DICTATE how much profit is "excess profit?"). And what makes him think he will have the power to TAKE that "excess profit" to spend elsewhere? I'm sure the oil companies would LOVE to spend that "excess profit" the environmental extremists (Democrats all) won't let them spend on exploration to do so. But they're forced to keep it in their bank accounts instead of looking for new sources of oil within the United States. (Café Hayek)

Success Envy

That's what I see when Democrats attack McCain for not knowing how many houses he (or his wife) own(s). Not a peep out of them if a Democrat DEFAULTS on a loan gained from "political friends" and their influence. Paul Jacob (Common Sense) says, " Hmmm. Silence when politicians use their positions for material gain? Attacks when McCain pays his own way!" Wonder how many huts Obama's half-brother (who lives on a dollar a day) owns. Actually, who cares? (Common Sense)

Hybrids Only

Reserved For a Prius

I'm getting tired of liberals in Congress giving special privileges to those "dumbos" who "buy their crap." The latest is the "special parking" for drivers of those now ubiquitous "hybrids" (that cost so much money it would take YEARS to pay for in saved gas, if any) Even cab companies are buying them and there are drivers "lined up around the block" to drive them because they, too, have "bought the bullcrap" that they get better gas mileage) and the cab companies think they can get more business by "being green." They'll ultimately find out that they won't (both of them) and then the liberals in government will "rescue them" by giving them a "green subsidy." Debbie Schussel asks, "What's next--special parking spots for illegal aliens, the non-English speaking, Muslims, vegan lesbian yoga teachers who were artificially inseminated?" (Debbie Schussel)

Why Ed Koch (a Democrat) Supports Bush

It's one of the main reasons why I don't "write him off," too, even though he has done (or not done) some things that make me shake with anger (Such as allowing one of his personal friends to imprison two Border Patrol agents for more than ten years for doing their jobs, and not pardoning them). When asked, Koch said, "Bush surprised and impressed me with his resolve after September 11 to go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them. He had the grit to topple the Taliban [in Afghanistan -RT], drive Saddam Hussein from power and press on in what is going to continue to be a grinding conflict." I like the fact that he has the courage of his convictions. Yes, mistakes were made by his subordinates and are in the process of being corrected. Another reason is there is NO ONE on the Democrat side that I'd trust with the presidency. Especially not Obama; OR Hillary; OR Kerry. All for much the same reasons: they're socialists and promote socialist programs. (Just common sense) Something most liberals and Democrats don't have. If they did have, they wouldn't be liberal Democrats.

Female Islamic Terrorists?

Now that's hard to believe, considering the way Islamics treat their women, but it's true. Seems to me, their women would be HAPPY to be out from under their yoke. And you can't blame it on ignorance, either. The latest one has several PHDs and is a scientist, in her own right. How could SHE be so stupid as to do the work of the Islamic terrorists? Maybe that's her way to get out from under their thumb. (No, not the one this story is about) (Israel Insider)

Teaching Terrorism

Did you know that almost 1,000 AMERICAN children are currently being "educated" (translated: "conditioned") abroad in fundamentalist Islamic schools known as "madrassas?" What sane American would allow their children to be abused in this way? About the only "learning" going on there is the MEMORIZING of the Koran, and if any of the kids "gets out of line," he is beaten for his trouble. They sleep on thin mats on the floor and start their 12 hour a day sessions at dawn. These kids will no doubt return home with implacable, radical, extremist Islamic views while "blending seamlessly into society." The pictures of these kids in News Max, taken while they were "studying," show two kinds of expressions: profound boredom, or "teeth-gritting" anger. People who allow their children to be subjected to this are the ones the "child protectors" ought to be "looking into." Not the innocent parents who have been "reported" by people who are suing them for other things, to get their attention off the suit, knowing they can't be punished, even for false reports. It normally takes about seven years to memorize the Koran, and they will come home completely conditioned to think like Muslim extremists; they're "walking time-bombs" who will probably go off in future years. Read the article, "Teaching Terrorism," in the September 2008 issue of News Max Magazine. It's available on most major newsstands, or you can subscribe (or ask for a specific issue if it is still in stock) by going to (NewsMax.com)

Avoiding Being Specific

This is how Obama and his henchmen keep America from knowing his REAL convictions, which are pure socialism. Every time someone asks about specifics, we get generalities, and if we persist, they call us names. We'll never find out his specific ideas until (if) he gets elected and begins making "changes" that are not to our liking, but are very much to HIS. This is how it will be for at least the next 4 years if he gets elected. Eight years if people don't "wake up" to his socialism after he and his accomplices take over all their decisions, money, and life. I really hate watching as Americans prepare to APPROVE people (liberals) stealing all they own. (Mallard Fillmore)

Twisting Facts

I've finally found out what Doonesbury is good for, if anything. It's showing you graphically how to "twist the numbers" and "knock" Fox in the bargain. Fox News has always, since it was started, been the liberals' favorite "evidence" of media bas "in favor of the right. Never mind that ABC, CBS, NBC, Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, and ALL other news outlets are plainly biased toward the left (with 90% of their newsmen ADMITTING they vote Democrat). This ONE outlet, which they call "biased" because it tells BOTH SIDES of the story instead of just the liberal side, represents "media bias to the right" for them. This strip by Doonesbury shows how the left "creates big figures" for something they IMAGINE, but can't prove. Showing a Fox reporter saying he'll report "both numbers" and let the viewers decide is really stupid, because it makes MY point. Why do I say this? Because it wasn't necessary to IDENTIFY Fox News to make THEIR imaginary point. (Doonesbury)

Intimidating the French

The Taliban is trying to intimidate the French by targeting them in heavy attacks. But it's not working. The French, under Sarkozy, have "found their backbone" and they killed 13 of the Taliban attackers in a day-long battle. The Taliban managed to kill 10 of the French in the first moments of the surprise attack, by blowing themselves, AND some French soldiers up in "suicide bomb" attacks. But they were largely unable to kill many more in the day-long battle that followed, which shows their incompetence in actual fighting. (Yahoo News)

To Destroy the Republican Party

The liberal media is urging John McCain to pick a "pro-choice" (pro-baby killing) candidate for his vice-president. To do so would literally DESTROY the Republican Party because it would drive the Republican "base" to "stay home," or worse, vote Democrat (Which is just what Democrats want). If he does it, I fear for the future of this country because it would result I the election of Obama, a proven SOCIALIST, who would end up taking all you own by instituting a socialist (collectivist) system in this country. Don't believe it? Just listen to his every word; words that tell you how much he's going to DO for you (with other people's money). That is socialism, pure and simple. If you don't understand what socialism is, and why it's bad for you and the rest of the country, PLEASE do some research and see it that's what you REALLY want. (Just common sense)

Dems to Destroy Our Economy

And thus the country, cause the price of oil, a substance on which this country runs, to rise until it's too expensive for the average person to buy. Then the price of EVERYTHING will also go up because transportation companies will have to also raise their rates precipitously and EVERYTHING you buy MUST be shipped. At the same time, they promote the use of corn, which is almost as ubiquitous as oil, as a fuel source, forcing the price of CORN and everything that depends upon it up and causing a shortage of corn. It's a "domino effect," which will, if it is allowed to continue, destroy our economy and make socialism (collectivism) look good; and that's what Democrats want, something that makes their failed system (which has failed in time, everywhere it has been tried), look good. They refuse to allow us to build ANYTHING (except Ethanol refineries) without having to wait for endless "environmental studies" that raise the cost of ANY project while delaying it unconscionable amount of time. Everything the liberals (Democrats) do is bad for the economy and they "sell it to you" as the "bread and circuses" they intend to provide, with someone else's money (not theirs). We need to wake up to their scam and vote the ones now in office, out; while keeping new ones OUT of office at all costs. (Tri-City Forum)

This is the Way They Twist the Law

Use the "abandoned property law" to steal property that is NOT "abandoned, but which is actively under court forfeiture action with owners and their lawyers in court every day to fight the action. This is how the government wins such cases; by "stacking the deck in their own favor. Yes, I know that it's mostly [people ACCUSED of drug dealing who are harmed by this, but aren't they entitled to an "even chance" in court, just as you are? Aren't they "innocent until proven guilty?" The very stated intent of the RICO Laws under which such "forfeitures" are done is unconstitutional (to stop drug dealers, who have a lot of money, from using it to hire the best lawyers they can). That seems to me to be an effort to force drug dealers to suffer under the sometimes inexperience and disinterest of some government-employed lawyers who might be just "going through the motions." That, in itself seems to be "stacking the deck" in the government's favor. I don't like drug dealers any more than anybody else, but they still should have an "even chance" in court until they ARE convicted. (Star-Press)

Muslims Intimidate Publisher

Random House paid $100,000 for "The Jewel of Medina", a detailed story about Muhammad's 9-year-old wife. Muslim sources put pressure on them, and they capitulated, saying they didn't want to "offend" Muslims. Actually, what they didn't want was Muslims killing any of their editors. This is the kind of threatened violence that sometimes intimidates people and is a well-known tactic of the Muslim terrorists to keep people from publishing the truth about them. (Jihad Watch)

"The People Want Change!"

This is an excellent picture of Obama as he is. He will bring "change," even if it kills us. "Change," for change's sake, is not always good. This is a good example. The overall "change" Obama will bring us is from our SUCCESSFUL capitalist system to the universally UNSUCCESSFUL socialist system, with him and his pals in charge. Is this what you want? Do you want the government making ALL your decisions for you, right down to when you can go to the bathroom? Do you want them controlling (or taking) your property (for the good of the nation)?" This is what you'll get if Obama is elected. (Mallard Fillmore)

He's A "Dead Man"

His own father will probably kill him (Just as many do their own daughters who get raped) because the Muslims are so terrified of people who leave their religion, to do so is a "death sentence" their own family must carry out. If they don't, other Muslims will kill ALL of them. Look for it to happen soon. Hamas just can't afford to have the son of one of their top men to convert to ANY other religion because it might incite other conversions. I'd hate to be under such a religion; one that controls my life absolutely and will itself condemn me to death if I leave it. (World Net Daily)

Solzhenitzyn is Dead

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the author of The Gulag Archipelago, a monumental chronicle of the horrors of the Soviet labor camps, has died at the "tender age" of 89, just as the ideals of Russian freedom is dying under their new premier, former President Vladmir Putin, a former KVD officer who conned his way into the presidency and is now "Premier for Life" while eliminating most (so far) of the new changes made in the wake of the Soviet communist "collapse," moving Russia back into Soviet-style socialism/communism. Bush "bought" his charade, and so did Solhenitzyn, to some degree. It's good that he did not live to see the results of Putin's machinations. (Common Sense)

"Defining" Racism

"DEFINING" RACISM: Mallard Fillmore is right again as he shows how liberals streeetttcch the truth to be able to call ANYBODY with which they disagree racist. This is a method they have been using for eons, but it's getting a little thin. People are getting tired of hearing things they never thought of as being racist being described that way. This is how they do it. Simply DEFINE any action or opinion you don't like as racist and stick to your story. Many gullible people who "don't pay attention" will believe you, and "ostracize" the person accused of racism. In some cases, he can even lose his job, as one university president did for saying women might not have the ability to learn that men do. Now THAT'S a stretch. I don't believe it, but to get a man fired for saying it is a stretch and an irresponsible application of power. (Mallard Fillmore)

It's The Wrong Purpose

Bob Burg says, "In the parking lot of my local Publix grocery store, I saw a pickup truck recently with a bumper sticker that read: 'Gun control means hitting your target.' Ha ha. That’s really funny. Actually, it kind of is funny. And, those of us who agree with the Supreme Court’s recent decision--that gun ownership is an individual right--would probably agree that this is exactly how gun control should be defined. However, it is not a particularly effective bumper sticker if our goal is to persuade gun control advocates to re-think their position." Frankly, I think he is very wrong. You're not going to convince gun-control activists anytime in this century that they're wrong. They KNOW they're wrong, and they don't care. They're determined to disarm America so the "federal agents" they send in the future to take what's ours won't be met with guns when they break in our doors. These people aren't dumb. They realize that a CRIMINAL, who breaks laws for a living, won't obey a law that says he can't be armed. It's not their goal to disarm CRIMINALS, no matter what they say. It is to disarm HONEST people who OBEY laws. If anybody can convince me otherwise with LOGIC, not slogans, I'd be happy to change MY position. (Atlasphere)

A "Nation of Thieves"

That's what any socialist/collectivist nation is, and that's what we are fast becoming. Using government to steal from one another. I recognize that there ARE some people who just can't do for themselves. This is one of the most generous countries in the world in terms of helping each other when we really need it. But I refuse to allow someone else's NEED to become a DEMAND on my earnings. Whenever I drive through areas of town where most welfare recipients live, and see able-bodied men AND women standing on the street corner waiting for their next "fix," I rebel against the "welfare state" America has become. The fact remains that the poorest among us (who would be considered RICH in many countries by their "poor") have one thing by right of citizenship: a vote. And that's what causes liberal politicians and bureaucrats to "kowtow" to them. To GET that vote and stay in power, because that's what welfare is all about: making as many people as possible DEPENDENT upon those politicians so they will give them their vote to keep the "bread and circuses" coming. Now they're even trying to give the vote to illegal immigrants, most of whom are expected to vote democrat. I have said this many times, but nobody seems to care. Saying it does not create the "uproar" it should create. Probably because most people are just not "paying attention," and don't even KNOW what is being done to them--or have "bought" the spin the politicians have put on it and approve. (Walter E. Williams)

Why Are There Still "Poor?"

Economist Professor Walter E. Williams enumerates: " In 2005, total federal, state and local government expenditures on 85 welfare programs were $620 billion. That’s larger than national defense ($495 billion) or public education ($472 billion). The 2005 official poverty count was 37 million persons. That means welfare expenditures per poor person were $16,750, or $67,000 for a poor family of four. Those figures understate poverty expenditures because poor people are recipients of non-welfare programs such as Social Security, Medicare, private charity and uncompensated medical care. The question that naturally arises is if we’re spending enough to lift everyone out of poverty, why is there still poverty?" That's a question neither Democrats, nor Republicans can answer. Democrats, because they've spent TRILLIONS to "fight poverty" with NO results. Republicans because Democrats have blocked their every attempt to alleviate poverty (Walter E. Williams)

"Tabloid Trash" Is True

What former vice-presidential candidate John Edwards described as "tabloid trash" as close as a month ago (at this writing) turned out to be true. He was futzing around with a woman who worked on his campaign way back when he was running in John Kerry's failed campaign. He has now admitted it, and I give him credit for that. But the whole thing shows you just how easily a Democrat candidate can avoid the consequences of his acts by simply lying about it, while the liberal (Democrat) media just laps it up like a dog laps up ice cream. Personally, I think he owes the tabloid newspaper (and the whole tabloid industry) a fervent apology for his insults, repeated over and over, knowing what they were saying was true. Now let's see what the liberal media does about the story about McCAIN'S supposed sexual liaison. Will they "play it up" or will they "play it down?" He's a Republican, so the liberal media will probably play it up. There's no shame there. Unfortunately, McCain being a Republican, denying it will not work as it did with Edwards, whether true or not. Notice how he emphasized that he was "not the father" of the child, knowing the numbers would prove him right, also knowing there was no way of proving he actually DID have sex with her. That's known as "diverting attention." To me, all it proved was that she had sex with others, in addition to him. (Yahoo News)

"Let Them Eat Dog Food!"

That appears to be the opinion of the Sulzbergers, the "royalty" on the New York Times. They're losing money hand over fist, but it hasn't affected the dividends paid to the Sulzberger/Ochs family, who hold voting control even though they only are minority stock owners. They're not even generating enough to pay such dividends without "dipping into the capital," though they recently voted themselves a BIG increase in the size of dividends. If they don't watch out, their stock will degenerate to "junk" status. Meanwhile, employees are being laid off and bought out as they try to cut costs enough to offset reductions in revenue. "Financial pain is for the little people at the New York Times Company, to paraphrase Leona Helmsley." George S. commented: "Fear not, for the federal government is sure to ride to the rescue should they start to go under. Too valuable a propaganda tool to lose in the first place and the housing bailout started a precedent that will haunt taxpayers in the years to come." If that happens, you can bet the Sulzbergers and their pals will be the only ones who profit. (Just common sense)

Obama Lies, Nobody Cares

The book by the "swiftboaters" who served with John Kerry and who knew him best as a dilettante who was trying very hard to get a purple heart without having to RREALLY get hurt literally SANK Kerry's hopes to be president. Democrats STILL use "swiftboating" as a synonym for "lying about us," but they forget that not one thing about that book has ever been proven to be false. I can only hope this book (The Case Against Obama) does the same for ultra-liberal Barack Obama. He "came from nowhere" and rose so swiftly (with the help of his accomplices in the liberal press) that nobody ever asked questions about his past and what he has supported in the past (which were mostly collectivist [socialist] programs). "Why Obama's inexperience and extreme left-wing voting record is more dangerous than any other threat we face today; why the Rev. Wright debacle reveals Obama's poor judgment of character and deceitful nature; why it won't be politics of change with President Obama, it will be liberal politics as usual ("Change" only from Republican "non-socialist" principles)." The only reason he has been able to come this far is because he is the "darling" of the liberal media, who made him into a "rock star." Hopefully, this book will end that "adulation" by people who "pay no attention" to politics until just before an election when the lies and "sales pitches" abound. I think it's about time people realize that while voting is a right, there are RESPONSIBILITIES in voting; the responsibility to know for whom you are voting, and what he/she stands for so you don't vote for someone "because he is pretty." Frankly, I don't think he is so "pretty, either." (Amazon)

I Wondered How Long it Would Take Them

Russia has invaded tiny little Georgia and has killed many people. Looks like Putin and the other KVD'ers running things there are back on the attack on their neighbors. They tried real hard to look like they had changed when "communism failed" there by allowing many "Iron Curtain countries" their "freedom." As Mikhael Gorbachev, the then Soviet Premier told the ruling congress, "it is all a façade to allow the West to go to sleep." Now I guess they don't care if we wake up. Nobody seemed to notice that the SAME people were "in charge" after "the fall of communism" while claiming not to be communists any more. Meanwhile, they were still a SOCIALIST nation. (Communism and socialism are merely two different kinds of COLLECTIVISM where they TAKE from the EARNERS and GIVE to the NON-EARNERS to keep themselves in power. If you don't notice the similarity between this and what is currently happening in the U. S., you're just not paying attention. We're halfway there now, and if we elect somebody like Obama, we'll move much faster in that direction. Remember, the people who supported the Bolsheviks thought they had something really good. They didn't know what communism was, and how it would ruin their lives for 70 years. They found out the hard way. Let's not do that. (Yahoo News)

Will We EVER Learn?

Out of nowhere comes . . .Obama. Nobody knows what he stands for, except a few of us who pay attention. The same thing happened when another man "appeared from nowhere" promising "bread and circuses" with someone else's money and was elected president. Nobody ever asked this man what all this was going to cost, and who got to pay. This man was one of the worst presidents EVER, from the view of people who like freedom, smaller government, and lower taxes. His presidency was an utter failure, from our perspective. But he is STILL being seen as "the best president ever" by ignorant liberals (mostly Democrats), who LIKE socialists. His name was Bill Clinton and he was IMPEACHED, not for sleeping around, but for lying to Congress. Unfortunately, he "knew where the bodies were buried (probably buried a few himself)" and wasn't convicted, So he remained in office to the end of his term, to our detriment, and committed even more crimes, for which he was never prosecuted. He was "the Messiah" of his time. Do we need another? (Just common sense)

Where Are Obama's Millions Coming From?

Mostly from people who can't afford to "invest" in a political campaign. At least, that's what they want us to think. In reality, it is coming from people who want to influence his actions after he becomes president; and some of those people are from other countries. These people channel money through "money launderers" into his campaign and give money to paupers to "give" to Obama. Even the Communist Party USA has "endorsed" Obama. That should tell you something about him, right there. I note again the ad to the "left" of this item in the link below: pictures of a "mean-looking Arab Sheik," George Bush, and a British Petroleum logo; none of which are the REAL people responsible. There are several choices when you go to the vote page, but again, none of them are the American Congress. It is the American Congress, that has been opposing domestic drilling AND refining and thus, depressing supply, forcing prices higher and higher who are responsible. But they don't want you to know that. (News Max)

Why NOT Eliminate that Racist "Affirmative Action?"

Mainly because liberals still insist that we (today) still owe something to (mostly now dead) blacks who were once discriminated against. How that makes anything better for those now living on either side is beyond me. But nothing elite liberals do make sense to human beings, so it is not unexpected that they still oppose getting rid of that racist "affirmative action" that makes things easier for black people and sometimes women and maybe Mexicans at the expense of white people. They'll call that "racist" of me, but who cares? I know I judge ALL people as INDIVIDUALS and I judge those people are the racists THEY are. Why do I call it "racist?" Because it gives "certain people" (mostly blacks) special privileges (such as lowered standards) at the EXPENSE of other people (all others). To me, that's racism, Period. It is NOT "affirmative." It is NEGATIVE for everybody but blacks and, sometimes, women. (Common Sense)

Olympics Are NOT About Politics!

Yeah, riiiiight! It's never about politics. But China is not allowing any contact from within their country with Amnesty International; they've "cracked down" on beggars and disabled persons (people we call "homeless" in America) who are being ordered off the streets. (Isn't that what they're doing in Denver so the [shudder] Democrats won't have to look at them)? They've also told people who for some inexplicable reason walk around in their pajamas not to do it. Also, no one is going to be allowed to unfurl banners that might "embarrass" the communist Chinese government. When bidding to host the games, they PROMISED that journalists would "enjoy complete freedom to report," including unfettered access to the Internet. But it ain't happening, due to a "last minute negotiation" with the Olympic Committee (where they told the IOC to "go to hell"). The IOC learned, too late, what it was like to "negotiate" with a communist dictatorship that feels it doesn't have to obey ANY rules it doesn't make itself. It's always a mistake treating a communist dictatorship like you would a "free country." They're learning that, now. (Common Sense)

China Lies About Everything

Even when it isn't important. Apparently, they think the child that sang at the opening ceremonies ought to be "perfect in every way" to be featured. So they selected another child, slightly better looking (both children are adorable) to lip-sync the song. Communist China lies about many things, but this just proves they'll lie when it doesn't even matter. And the Olympic Committee chose THIS country to host the "Summer Games" this year? We need an "intelligence test" for members of this committee. (Times Online)

Saying The Word "Jesus" is Illegal

At least as far as Sandra Day O'Connor is concerned. Now, I'm not big on religion. I believe in a "supreme being" that orders this universe. But otherwise, my beliefs may not be the same as yours. But to make the very saying of the name "Jesus" illegal is an outrage to me. They do this in the name of making all references to religion "non-sectarian," without reference to a "named deity." They figure this way, they don't "deny": access to people of other religions. What doubletalk! Their action denied access to this meeting to THIS man. How this "keeps religion out of politics" is beyond me, but most of what ALL liberals do is "beyond me." It defies logic! And for a former Supreme Court Justice to go along with it FURTHER defies logic. How the hell did she get in this, anyway? (Stiff Right Jab)

It Means What it Says

Not what liberal anti-gun freaks SAY it says; and the Supreme Court said so. That's what they do; tell us what the Constitution SAYS, not what liberals WANT it to say. Unfortunately liberals still can "wreak havoc" with our right to be armed in self defense by making what they call "reasonable limitations" on it. One of those "limitations" is to require that our guns are completely disabled so that illegally armed criminals (who don't obey gun laws, or any other laws) can kill us while we're trying to put our guns together and loading them, while there are no such limitations on them (as if they would obey them if there were). The battle is not over because liberals are STILL able to obfuscate the issue, but the Supremes have given us a powerful "lift" by affirming that the Constitution did, indeed mean "individuals," not government agents. (Just common sense)

It Isn't Working

Obama is saying that about the work to control our borders, but he attributes the problem to the wrong people and the wrong thing: "Speaking at the National Council of La Raza convention in San Diego on July 13, Obama told the largely Hispanic audience that the nation’s immigration system 'isn't working.' According to Obama, the problem with the system is that 'communities are terrorized by ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] immigration raids' and 'nursing mothers are torn from their babies'." Right and wrong. It ISN'T working, but not because of ICE raids. They are only a symptom. The problem is caused by both the executive AND the legislative branches being unwilling to do what is necessary to limit immigration to those LEGALLY entering the country. It's a typical politician trick to blame a REAL problem on something that is NOT at fault (to an audience ready and willing to buy the lie), just to divert attention from the REAL cause. The feds are VERY angry, and rightly so. There are enough cases of the feds "running wild" that Obama doesn't need to lie about it. (News Max)

"Creating Criminals"

This man COMPLIED with one government agency and got in BIG TROUBLE from another government agency for doing what the first one said. Then the judge said they could not introduce ANYTHING about the original agreement, and NOTHING that had happened from 1980 to 2002 (Talk about CRIPPLING the defense and "stacking the deck against him!"). Now he has been sentenced to 16 years in PRISON for doing what one federal agency told him to do while another later told him he had broken the law while doing it! Talk about an outrage! (Stiff Right Jab)

"Swiftboating" Obama

The Obama camp and all the other liberals are "jumping up and down" about the new book just out, "The Case Against Obama," which tells me it's "all true." They won't be able to prove ANY of it untrue, so they'll have to content themselves with calling it a "Swiftboating" of Obama (The "Swiftboat" book, you'll remember, SANK John Kerry and has not, at this writing been proven untrue although they use "Swiftboating" as a synonym for "lying about us"). Now they'll have a new book to use as a false synonym for lying. And I hope this book has a similar effect on Obama's campaign. The only problem is, "waiting in the wings" is Hillary, who COULD still bring off an "upset" at the convention. And she's just as much of a socialist as he is. (News Max)

Fighting City Hall--And Winning

Bronx prosecutors tries to frighten the bloggers on "Room 8," a blog about New York politics by subpoenaing the names of the anonymous bloggers on that site and told them that "even telling people the subpoena existed could be "obstruction of justice." Which means they don't want anybody knowing they're trying to "strong-arm" a blogger be citing a very SUBJECTIVE definition of the law. Well, they "picked on the wrong guys, who got a lawyer and had the subpoena withdrawn. But don't think their troubles are over. Politicians who "get hurt" by a blog telling the truth about them will try again . . .and again . . .and again. What amazes me is they think they can keep people from even MENTIONING the existence of a legal order, which is public information. I think this whole thing shows how much such politicians FEAR blogs and think they can intimidate them. (Common Sense)

Fuel Prices WILL Go Down!

Just as stock prices tend to rise over time (something people won't admit while their own stocks are going down), gas prices will go down. High prices tend to depress usage and depressed usage will always cause prices to go back down. It has happened more than many times in my own lifetime. This will happen naturally, so why do people DEMAND solutions from politicians--sometimes the very politicians whose policies CAUSED the rise in prices? Why can't people understand such a simple thing like NO NEW REFINERIES IN 30 YEARS in America and how that acts on demand that keeps going up while the ability to refine what we have does not? That, coupled with the congressional AND executive ban on most drilling in America and you have high gas prices--which leads to a "shaky economy" caused by high transportation costs related to the high fuel prices that those who CAUSED it can blame on the president in power when it happened--as if the president in power could stop it. Be patient, people. The very pressure created by high fuel prices will eventually cause them to go down. Don't demand the government "solve the problem." That's like sending the fox to solve the problem of disappearing chickens. Government laws and regulations CAUSED the problem. They don't know HOW to "solve the problem." Anything they do will make it worse. Fuel prices will not go down to where they were, but they WILL go down. (Common Sense)

"Consent" Searches

I've always wondered why somebody who knows he has drugs or other contraband in his car "consents" to allow a police officer to search his car in connection with a traffic stop. Most such searches are the result of intimidation on the part of the officer, with people who aren't sure the cop doesn't have the right to search his car anyway. The fact is, if the cop actually HAS "probable cause," he doesn't NEED to ask for permission. I don't care how many times he tells the citizen that refusal is "evidence" that he has some kind of contraband and that his refusal will GIVE the cop probable cause. Not so. That's a lie. If the citizen refuses, the cop MUST allow him to go on his way, unless he DOES have probable cause, in which case he needn't ask. To intimidate a citizen in this way is the worst kind of abuse, and any cop guilty of it should be FIRED, on the first occasion. I remember one time a cop demanded my son's Social Security number and told him he'd have to hold him for identification if he refused. My son told him that was only in his imagination, that his driver's license is sufficient identification, and that he had no power to compel him to divulge his SSN, and the cop "backpedaled" because he knew he could not make such a thing stick. (Chicago Tribune)

Fooling Themselves

The liberal media really think they can still keep you from knowing what they don't want you to know. They just aren't smart enough to know that their former "corner" on the information market is now over and we can "go around them" to find out what is REALLY happening, not what they want us to THINK is happening. They've killed the story about John Edwards actually having a child with another woman (if it's true at all) while gleefully publishing stories about McCain, a 70-year-old man having a similar affair--because he's a Republican. I'd think he'd have trouble even FINDING a woman who wanted to do it. I speak from experience. Frankly, I think he'd be STUPID to go out on his rich wife, especially at his age. Usually such an old man with such a good-looking wife, HE is the one with the money, not her. If he actually DID do such a thing, she could "cut him off" for more things than in the bedroom. (Ann Coulter)

"Culturally Appripriate" Health Care

What the hell does THAT mean? Simple: it means, health care specifically tailored for Mexicans or Spanish-speaking people, not for anybody else. Not for blacks; not for whites; not for Russians; not for ANYBODY but "Spanish-speaking people." That sounds like "racism" to me. Just like having colleges just for black people that do not accept whites. That's racism. What if someone started a "whites-only" college? It would be out of business in a day because that is so OBVIOUSLY racism. But the racists on the "other side" don't recognize that kind of racism when they see it among their own. I see it, and I'm among the few who aren't afraid to SAY it. So they call ME a racist because I'm not afraid to criticize "reverse racism?" So what? They've called me racist for that before, and it doesn't bother me. They can call me racist and go to hell with it. I don't care. (Café Hayek)

So Who Cares Wnat Paris Hilton Says?

After McCain's ad poking fun at her, she decided to "rebut" his ad, proving it correct by posing nearly naked next to a pool while giving us the usual Democrat crap as a "solution" to the "fuel crisis." I enjoyed the ad, but it didn't "rebut" anything. It just gave me another opportunity to enjoy the view of a wasted debutante who has never had to work a day in her life, and thinks that makes her competent to comment on presidential politics. (Yahoo News)

Obama Offers "Economic DOOM!"

That's DOOM, with a "D. Not "boom," with a "B". "Have you tried to count up the total dollars it would cost this country to do everything Obama is offering to do? There aren't enough dollars IN this country to accomplish it all! Like most pro-socialists, Obama hasn't tried to count it up, either. He figures he can always raise taxes (make YOU, the "earners" of society pay) enough to pay for all the "bread and circuses" he's offering to those who want the government to give them as much as possible and can't see the consequences. If we elect McCain, we'll probably get much the same, only it will differ in SPEED. Obama will move us closer to complete socialism a lot FASTER than will McCain, but rest assured, both will do it. (Dick Morris)

Environmental Disaster

The environmental crazies have way too much influence over Congress and are directly responsible for the upcoming "environmental disaster" they've created. "There you go again, accuthing environmentalith for the gath crunch." Yes; there I go again, and I'm getting tired of having to repeat the same thing over and over again while people who "don't pay attention to politics" until just before an election keep voting those liberal Democrat dolts into office again and again because they just DON'T KNOW what's really going on. Professor Walter E. Williams says, "Let’s face it. The average individual American has little or no clout with Congress and can be safely ignored. But it’s a different story with groups such as Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, and The Nature Conservancy. When they speak, Congress listens. Unlike the average American, they are well organized, loaded with cash, and well positioned to be a disobedient congressman’s worst nightmare. Their political and economic success has been a near disaster for our nation." And as long as Congress pays so much attention to them, we will continue to have an "environmental disaster." Now, while making it impossible to build new OIL refineries, they're making it EASIER to build refineries for Ethanol (corn gas). My question is this: If building ONE kind of refinery is bad, what about the other? That's a question they won't answer. CAN'T answer. (Professor Walter E. Williams)

"Fraidy Cat" Obama Flees From Debates

John McCain has invited (no, CHALLENGED) barrack Obama to more debates than are usually part of a presidential campaign, but he is "running for the hills" in an effort to avoid any more debates than he just HAS to attend. What's more, McCain challenged him to a "town hall" style debate, without all the "candidate's controls" on what questions will be asked that are on those usually scheduled debates. At first, he said "that's a great idea." But when he thought about it, that's when he started running the other way. I guess he thinks he doesn't need to do that now that he's (temporarily) in the lead. (My Way)

You Can't Shut Us Up!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to shut Republicans up by using her "power" as Speaker to lock the doors of the House and turn out the lights. She also ordered the cameras turned off--cameras that are required to be on whenever the Hose is in session. All this with about 100 Republicans scheduled to speak at the end of the day, something that is routine. Republicans didn't take that lying down. They demanded the House be opened again, and the cameras to be "up and running" while they made their speeches, most of which demanded Pelosi and her liberal friends return to the House and have an "up or down vote" on opening domestic oil drilling so they'd be on the record and everybody would know where they stand (of course, they already do). But she and her cohorts didn't want that, so they fled homeward in their private planes. "This is the people's House," said Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.). "This is not Pelosi's politiburo." Then they kicked reporters out, demanding, "You're not covering this, are you?" To which those reporters probably replied, "What, are you insane? Of COURSE we're covering it!" Democrats are calling this "A Republican tantrum," But to me it looks more like a "DEMOCRAT tantrum." Pelosi and her accomplices think they can shut the Republicans up, but she can't, as this has proved. Republican speakers accused Democrats of "trying to stifle dissent," and that's exactly what they're doing--aside from running from a vote on the "fuel crunch" issue, that is. (Politico/The Crypt)

A Blight On YOU

Be careful; your local government might declare YOU a "blight." That's how they gain the power to "take" your property to turn over to private contractors who want to build a new "big box store" or an apartment/condo complex. They declare the property "blighted" by THEIR definition and "take" it from you. Their "compelling need" is probably not a highway or right-of-way for anything. It is the "need for more tax money." That's right. They have even cited THAT as a "compelling reason" to "take" your property, paying you what THEY think it's worth (which is usually a LOT less than it's REALLY worth) and increasing their "tax base." To me, that's not a "compelling reason" to "take" private property and turn it over to a private contractor who will build something that will increase their tax base. That's simple THIEVERY. But, of course, they'll deny that, and "jump up and down" about it being said, even though it is true. But then, governments have been stealing from their citizens for a long time, now. So it's nothing new. (Common Sense)