Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Everything is "Racist"

Obama thinks he can dictate what people say, or even what they make fun of in this election. He has a long list of things we mustn't discuss, and another of words we can't use regarding him OR his running mate. Mallard, as usual, makes a joke of it, but there is always more than a "kernel" of truth in a joke--and in this case it's more than a "kernel." (Mallard Fillmore)

Macaca Means "Nigger"

That's what the Washington Post is trying very hard to accomplish. They beat one (Republican) politician because he uttered this word in public, even though he probably didn't even think about it meaning the word the liberals fear to say. I didn't even know until the Democrats told me, and I'll bet most black people didn't, either. Now they're trying hard to redefine the word so that ANYBODY who utters it can be accused of being a racist, as they did that (Republican) politician. Typical liberal baloney. Now anybody who wants to give me grief because I actually USED the word, "bring it on." I don't subscribe to "political correctness." When there is a REASON to actually USE a word instead of a substitute "weasel word," I'm not afraid to do so. (News Busters)

More Obama Censorship

Obama is against self-defense. He thinks we should just let illegally armed criminals kill us and hurt us without fighting back. And to that end, he wants NRA ads to be BANNED because he's afraid such ads will "influence" too many people away from his election as president. "Earlier this week, the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama's longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama's real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment. They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF's ads. The Obama camp is particularly angry with an NRA ad entitled "Hunter" which lays out Obama's record on gun control." Obama actually thinks there are GROUNDS to sue these people for running NRA ads--or he knows there are NO grounds and means to bankrupt the stations. That's the kind of president he will be if elected. If you write or say ANYTHING against him, he will threaten you with expensive lawsuits he KNOWS he can't win, but which will cost you a LOT of money to fight. That's the "modus operandi" of Democrats. Sue their opponents, knowing they will have to pay their own legal costs. They've been doing it to gun makers for years, and several are now out of business because of it. What we need in this country is a law forcing people like him to pay the legal costs of people they sue and lose. That'll put an end to this scam. (News Max)

Monday, September 29, 2008

Harry Reid is Mentally Ill!

He says they "had an agreement in principle" until John McCain came in at the last minute and "screwed it up." One (Democrat) Senator even went so far as to say the president should tell McCain to "get out of town." What actually happened is that they tried to put Obama in charge early on, and HE "screwed it up." He even ADMITTED it later when he said, "I'm better at dealing with people over the phone" (which makes me wonder what's going to happen when "President" Obama has to face his first real life challenge that doesn't come over the phone). This makes me wonder what meeting Reid was attending. It certainly wasn't the one in which both presidential candidates spoke. Reid and the Democrats are seizing on this opportunity to "put McCain away" in the presidential race. But it won't work. There are too many honest people who were in that room who know what REALLY went on. If, and when they DO come up with an agreement and implement it, we'll just have to see if it works--and who is REALLY responsible. We KNOW who is responsible for the economic upheaval. Reid and his Democrat cohorts. And now THEY are "in charge" of "fixing" it. Reid said that they only had to do the paperwork and have a vote, and McCain "screwed it up" with a few words. If they were actually all that close, how could ANYBODY "screw it up" with a few words? I think Reid is just trying his best to "sink" McCain with words. (Michelle Malkin)

"Macaca" Means "Nigger"

That's what the Washington Post is trying very hard to accomplish. They beat one (Republican) politician because he uttered this word in public, even though he probably didn't even think about it meaning the word the liberals fear to say. I didn't even know until the Democrats told me, and I'll bet most black people didn't, either. Now they're trying hard to redefine the word so that ANYBODY who utters it can be accused of being a racist, as they did that (Republican) politician. Typical liberal baloney. Now anybody who wants to give me grief because I actually USED the word, "bring it on." I don't subscribe to "political correctness." When there is a REASON to actually USE a word instead of a substitute "weasel word," I'm not afraid to do so. (News Busters)

Sunday, September 28, 2008

What is Nancy Smoking?

Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader, says "we're back on track" with the bailout plan. As if they were ever ON track. If they pass anything in the next few days it will be bogus, and will not work. Why? Because she's "part of the problem," having been "right in the crowd" when Democrats passed the "Community Reinvestment Act of 1977" (the one that FORCED lenders to make loans they KNEW could not be repaid--a "recipe for disaster if I ever saw one) during the Clinton administration. And now, when their "chickens have come home to roost, SHE and the others who were instrumental in CREATING the problem are "back on track" with a plan to SOLVE the problem they CREATED? Sheesh! Gimme a break! When are going to get rid of these con men/women in the Democrat Party? How do they keep getting away with ripping us off and keep getting re-elected? Mostly because most of the people who vote for them "don't pay attention to politics" and thus are easily scammed. (Reuters)

Eleven Kids Abandoned in Nebraska

Some of the older ones because their parents were not able to control them. And why is that? Because the "child protectors" and their propaganda have convinced people's children that all they have to do if they're "dissatisfied" in any way with their treatment at the hands of their parents, is to call CPS and they'll "take care of it." Some kids have "made the call" simply because their parents would not let them go to the movies or have confined them to their rooms with all their toys because they had violated the rules. And CPS routinely sides with the kids, "chiding" parents about "being too restrictive." Soon those kids "get the message" that their parents no longer have any authority over them and, when they predictably get in trouble, they (CPS) want to blame the parents. Pretty soon those kids are no longer able to be "handled." I don't blame some of those parents for "abandoning" those kids in a safe manner. Things can get pretty nasty if kids REFUSE to be "controlled. If my children were in that age bracket and continually defied my authority, making them impossible to handle, I would tell them if they kept it up I'd turn them over to the "child protectors" and they wouldn't like that, not a bit. I would hope that would "cure" the problem and make them more amenable to the rules. If they kept it up, soon they'd be "in the system," being passed around from foster home to foster home, even being abused and sexually abused, sometimes by the foster parents, and other times by fellow foster children. I would hope they didn't push me that far. They don't know just how hard it would be to get themselves back home. Maybe not possible at all, because once the "child protectors" get their hands on them, they're like leeches, and just won't let go unless forced. And when they become adults, the "child protectors" will just abandon them without even giving them a change of clothes and a little money, the way the prison system DOES for criminals when they let them out of THEIR "system." (Yahoo News)

Friday, September 26, 2008

"Green" Extremists Trying to Hijack Bailout

They're saying that ANY "bailout should have "green" tie-ins. In other words, even if such tie-ins destroy what is trying to be done, they want them anyway. That's what columnist Thomas Freidman (not to be confused with economist Milton Freidman) thinks. They want the power to implement "green" requirements. Talk about taking advantage of others' problems! These environmental crazies just can't wait to take advantage of the "financial market's problems." That's their "modus operandi." Stick their oar in ANY major problem and try to make "green concessions" a REQUIRED part of ANY bailout. (News Busters)

Obama's Censorship Attempt

When David Freddosso, author of "The Case Against Barack Obama," a well-researched book that, if enough people read it will SINK the Obama campaign was engaging in a taped debate on a popular Chicago radio show, "Extension 720," Obama sent out a mass e-mail to supporters telling them to call in and demand the show be canceled because Freddosso "has made a career out of dishonest (sic), hate-mongering (sic), even calling legislation to protect people from hate crimes 'thought police.' " That last might be true, but not under Obama's wording. "Thought police" legislation just adds one more layer of "enforcement" to crimes that already have a punishment, and represents "double punishment" for what a person is THINKING. Since when do we lhave laws against THINKING? So ANY right-thinking person would be against it. In any case, they wanted the show summarily canceled (pure censorship of ideas he doesn't agree with), not knowing it was on tape. Obama particularly disliked the sentence telling people he wanted to "raise taxes on the rich," the "rich" being described as anyone making more than $32,500 a year. Obama is well known to wish to "tax the rich," but over $32,000 a year (he actually voted FOR a bill that did just that)? I used to make more than $40,000 a year, and I wasn't anything LIKE rich--and that was in a time when $40,000 a year was real money. Rich? Not on your life! Obama is a socialist and a "rich-hater," even though he, himself, is rich. He just hates those who make THEMSELVES rich through hard work and good ideas. Not the "coupon-clippers" like Teddy Kennedy and his ilk who INHERITED all their money and haven't needed to do a day's work their whole life). Do you want that kind of man in the White House where has REAL power? (Timothy Carney/Human Events)

Thursday, September 25, 2008

A Good Reason

Alcee Hastings is a good reason why those who have been impeached from one government job should be forever banned from ANY government job, especially one to which they must be elected. Hastings was impeached as a federal judge, then he ran for Congress, and won. This man, who was impeached for corruption, is now helping to make our laws. His most recent gaffe is his statement, made before a group of Jews and Blacks, was this: ““Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t (sic) care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through,”” Aside from the lack of knowledge of the use of language, what the hell does THAT have to do with anything? Why anybody would even LISTEN to such a man is beyond me. Maybe it’s because this group is mostly Democrat. But, being a Democrat, he’ll just keep on making such ignorant remarks as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (creators of the “financial mess”) do. (Hot Air)

They "Want In"

Both Obama and McCain "want in" on what is going to happen in the "economic disaster" we're in now. There is going to be a new bureaucracy created to "deal with" this situation and they want their names to be connected to it. Of course, if it fails, they'll be at the front of the line of those running in the other direction. Nut they want in, now. Because that's more "free face time" on television. McCain says he is "suspending his campaign" to go to Washington and help, while Obama just spouts his opinion on what should be done (most of which is more government and higher taxes). All of it is socialism. (Yahoo News)

Panic and Fear on Capitol Hill

But not for the reasons talked about in this “Evans-Novak Report.” They’re frightened that it will be found out that they actually CAUSED the crisis they SAY they’re trying to “solve.” It was the Democrat-controlled Congress that passed the law that FORCED financial institutions to make “risky loans” that could NOT be paid back, or suffer “investigation” by the Janet Reno Justice Department for “redlining.” Funny: seems like most people who can’t repay loans live in the same places, which makes it hard to defend against the “redlining” charge. But Democrats definitely have the gall to push it. (Evans-Novak Report)

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Krugman Tried to Lie

But he was foiled by facts. He said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "weren't involved" in the "subprime loan" fiasco because they weren't allowed to buy loans without adequate down payments and proof of ability to pay the loan back. He described it as "reasons why regulation works." Unfortunately, that's not true. Fannie and Freddie were involved in $434 BILLION dollars' worth of such loans in just two years between 2004 and 2006. Their failure is proof that "regulation (such as that provided by liberal Democrats who just wanted "poor people" to own their own homes to buy votes) does NOT work. They try to complicate it (FHA, Freddie Mac, Fannie May, and other unintelligible acronyms) so you can't understand it, but it's as simple as that. (Café Hayek)

Lies and Misinformation

I'm really getting tired of the lies and misinformation being put out as truth by not only the media, but also by business in advertising. One such place is the emphasis on "self-esteem" in the media AND in various ads. Self-esteem is simply your opinion of yourself based on LACK of knowledge of your talents and abilities. They willfully HIDE such information(if it's negative) from you so you will "think of yourself as a beautiful person." Self IMAGE, however, is your view of yourself because of KNOWLEDGE of your own talents and abilities. Another area is oil. Even President Bush has been heard to talk about "our oil addiction." That's false! We are NOT "addicted" to oil, nor are we "addicted" to air, water, and fire. These are NECESSITIES of life! Without them, life, as we know it, would END. That is NOT an "addiction." Another is a political ad that says a certain candidate "has been named the most corrupt." By whom? Her opponent or his friends, of course. So listen to those who push such ideas with skepticism. (Just common sense)

Monday, September 22, 2008

Linsay Graham (As Expected) Spouts Liberal Line

Apparently, he has "bought" the Democrat (liberal) lie that "we can't drill our way out" of the "oil crisis. He said, "The worst thing we can do as a nation is taking the easy way out. If you start opening up offshore drilling, then you are buying time and you are not addressing the fundamental problem with fossil fuels." But we CAN "drill our way out of it!" Banning drilling is how the Democrats got us into this mess in the first place, and drilling WILL "get us out of it." Drilling is NOT "the easy way out," it is the ONLY way out, if Democrats (liberals) would just let us do it. That, and "easing" the restrictions on building oil refineries in this country. (Just common sense)

We're NOT Safer?

That's what liberals say, constantly. But they can't explain the complete ABSENCE of a "meaningful" attack upon us since 9/11. What has happened is that we're now alerted. Even if our southern border is very porous, all America is "on the alert" for anything that might herald an attempted attack. Yes, some people simply "go after" Muslims, and that's going to happen because they are so identifiable and some people are simply dumb. I know some Muslims who are "good people," but when they can be seen off to the side, their rear ends in the air, "praying to the East," they're easy to identify. Their women wear at the very least a headscarf, and follow their men closely, from behind, with their heads down, never speaking unless spoken to. Most people (myself included) will not harm them just because they're Muslim. But they watch them closely and report ANY strange things they do that could help Islamic terrorists make an attack, such as taking pilot training with no interest in takeoffs or landings, just in how to "fly." We've foiled more than a few possible attacks because there are so many eyes on ALL Muslims. Roosevelt carried it a lot further when he imprisoned even American-born Japanese during WWII. That was a little overdone (Okay, a LOT overdone), but "eyes on Muslims" help stop further attacks. That's not "racism," it's simple common sense. (Just common sense)

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Partisan "Bickering"

Politicians everywhere decry "partisan bickering." But isn't that why we have more than one party? Should we have only ONE party and so "end" the "partisan bickering?" Sounds a lot like a dictatorship to me. It amazes me that politicians are able to convince so many people that "partisan bickering" is a bad thing in politics. I think it is a "good thing," and often keeps some politicians (liberals, mostly) from enacting things that are patently bad for us. I say "Hooray for partisan bickering" between politicians!" In fact, I am FOR a Congress that is a "do nothing" Congress because then no new taxes get passed, no new "pork barrel" measures get passed, and they (somehow) spend less of OUR money. The big difference between a politician and a "drunken sailor" is that the drunken sailor is spending HIS own money. (Just common sense)

President vs. Congress

Why do people constantly blame the president (whoever he/she might be) for everything that happens? why is Bush being blamed for the "economic downturn" just because he's in office? Why do people ignore the fact that the Democrats (socialists) are "in control" in Congress (and have been for almost two years at this writing), where such things get done? Yes, the president has to "approve" their efforts. But there are many reasons why the president might find it necessary to sign such bills into law after they're presented to him whether or not he likes it. But Congress has PRIMARY responsibility for such things. Frankly, the possibility of Democrats (socialists) gaining control of the EXECUTIVE while increasing their control in Congress scares the hell out of me and makes me glad I'm an old man and won't have to live through much of what they create in the future. Unfortunately, my children and grandchildren WILL. (Just common sense)

A "Little-Known Truth"

I don’t always agree with Wiley (Non Sequitur), but sometimes he hits it so much “on the head” I wonder how he could possibly believe in some of the things in which he believes. One of his most famous ideas is “Obviousman,” whom I first noticed when he was straightening out an old man with a beard carrying a sign saying “There are no absolutes,” which caused his (the old man) head to explode when he explained the obvious contradiction. He didn’t know the words on his own sign were a “statement of an absolute,” which not only discredited his words, but also his very philosophy. In this one, he spoofs the idea of the “forbidden fruit,” logically. Unfortunately, many liberals deny the existence of logic. (Non Sequitur)

Saturday, September 20, 2008

So What?

So what If Sarah Palin fired a member of her cabinet for being insubordinate? She has that right! She is the GOVERNOR! They serve "at her pleasure!" Maybe it WAS over his refusing to fire her former brother-in-law "for cause" or because he wouldn't follow her orders on his budget? From what I've seen, it's a wonder this guy (the cop) lasted as long as he did! What's the big deal? Frankly, if I were a state trooper, I certainly wouldn't want to anger the governor, whatever state I was in and ESPECIALLY if I was related to her. You just don't DO that. Not if you want to keep your job. If you're the slightest bit intelligent, you don't threaten to make the governor's father "eat a bullet" and not expect to get fired (or even go to jail). (Weekly Standard)

Obama Racism

The liberal media is on a "tear" to convince people who care about what liberals think about them that a vote for McCain is RACISM. That's a LOAD! Maybe there is a SMALL number of people in this country who would not vote for Obama because he's half black ("one drop of black blood, ya know"), but I seriously doubt it is a large enough group to make a difference. I judge everybody as an INDIVIDUAL and I find Obama (as an individual) to be a SOCIALIST, and I wouldn't vote for him on a bet! I don't care if he's purple with pink polka-dots! I STILL won't vote for him. If that makes me a racist, so be it. At one time there might have been a problem with racism for a black candidate, but no more. Count the number of black council members, mayors (even in the South), senators and representatives, on a city, state-wide, or national level for proof. You might also notice that about the same number of whites and blacks in politics get in trouble for taking advantage of their offices. (Yahoo News)

A Promise is A Promise

Unless you're a politician trying to get elected, apparently. This story is about Rick Heller, who promised FAITHFULLY to "limit himself to eight years in office." But when the eight years was up, he kept running, saying he "didn't realize how important seniority was." Apparently, now he does. But it seems to me if you promise to quit after eight years, you should DO it, or you are a liar. This story is all too often repeated. There are many politicians who promise to "term limit" themselves, but when it comes right down to it, they "like the power" too much to quit. For my part, I would NEVER vote a politician who is exceeding his promised time in office back into his office--and neither should anybody else. This guy should be defeated in the next election. (Common Sense)

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Dems Blocked Mortgage Cleanup

Five years ago, the Bush administration tried to improve the regulation of two Democrat supporters (They gave MILLIONS to Democrats and a "little trickle" to Republicans. But the Democrats immediately objected. Rep. Barney Frank (ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee), whose boyfriend started a brothel in his apartment said, ”These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis." Democrat Melvin Watt said, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing. I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing.” They probably wish they had not said those things now, and hope we will forget it. "The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended [They always mean well. -RT] Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but 'predatory.' It was the Bush administration that wanted to rein in the madness in the credit markets, and the Democrats who wanted to extend the Clinton policies that created the crisis we have now. After the fit hit the shan, as Michelle {Malkin] says, these same Democrats want to shift blame back to the administration that wanted to increase oversight and curtail risk in lending practices while reducing patronage at the giant GSEs." So now it's Bush's fault because "he didn't get his plan through." John Lott (Author of "More Guns, Less Crime")predicted this "crisis" six months before it happened. But was anybody listening? (Hot Air/Ed Morrissey)

Rush Fights Back at Obama Lies

Obama ran an ad in Spanish (hoping only the Spanish-language people would see it, I suppose, and English-speaking people wouldn’t know what was going on) using verbiage Rush used years ago to pillory the Mexican government’s own “illegal alien” laws). That’s what Rush does. So the Obama folks “turned it around” and said Rush was saying,”shut up and go home” to Mexican illegal immigrants, when in fact, it was the Mexican government saying that to THEIR illegal immigrants. I can’t say this is typical of the Obama camp, but I’m not surprised. (News Max)

Liberals Hate Mallard

As they hate ANYTHING that sees them for what they are and isn't afraid to use their own stupidity to show everybody. They hate Rush Limbaugh for the same reason. He uses their own words to pillory them, as Mallard does in this September 18 strip, showing how most people vote in this country. That MIGHT even work in our favor this time, as the Republican vice president candidate is, according to one liberal pundit, "hot." Liberals say the Mallard strip is NOT funny. Which tells me a lot about their intelligence and their ability to laugh. The elite liberal CAN'T laugh. He has NO sense of humor. Especially for a comic strip that consistently "gores his ox." (Mallard Fillmore)

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Why Did The Teleprompters Fail?

The teleprompters failed several times at the Republican convention. Most notably during Sarah Palin's speech. Did anyone notice? No, she just kept right on speaking, "from the cuff" with one of the best-known remarks, the one about the difference between a woman and a pit bull being lipstick, was NOT on the script. Could this be because those with the responsibility to keep them “up and running” are union members? Remember, union members (not necessarily all of them) promote the Democrats over everybody else. It’s very suspicious when teleprompters fail so often in one event (Former Mayor Rudy Juliani and Sarah Palin at this one convention). It would be very easy for the people responsible for keeping them working to “forget” to do “one small thing” so they’d fail. (Just common sense)

Are Guns A "Good thing?"

They are if they're in the hands of honest people. You can't stop criminals from getting guns, so why make it easier for them to terrorize honest people by keeping those "honest people" from having the means to self-defense? John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime" notes: " . . where guns are banned, crime increases." The USA is often criticized for having widespread gun ownership, but Lott states that "the states with the highest gun ownership rates have by far the lowest violent crime rates. And similarly, over time, states with the largest increases in gun ownership have experienced the biggest drops in violent crime." This is unarguable. But the gun-control freaks continue to "make noise" about "dangerous guns." Guns are NOT "dangerous." CRIMINALS with guns ARE "dangerous" and they'd be less so if honest people were allowed the right to own guns, as "guaranteed" by the U. S. Constitution. The bureaucrats and politicians get around this and get away with effective gun bans by saying, "Sure, the Constitution allows Americans to own guns. But that doesn't stop the need for reasonable restrictions." What is a "reasonable restriction?" That is subjective and is usually "defined" by those politicians and bureaucrats to suit themselves. And by the time honest people can successfully contest it, criminals have already killed them with their ILLEGAL guns, which HAVE no such "restrictions." One of the stupidest "reasonable restrictions" is the trigger lock. There's no point in having a gun around for self-defense if you have to fumble with a gun lock while the criminal is already armed with a gun unfettered by such a silly thing as a trigger lock. Sometimes I think the "anti-gun freaks" want to kill everybody who wants to own a gun for self-defense. I think every person who wants a gun should be allowed unfettered access to them; even criminals. They're going to get them anyway, so why shouldn't their intended VICTIMS be able to defend themselves? (The Progress Report)

Obama "Disagrees"

He says he "disagrees" with most of Justice Thomas' decisions and his defining of the Constitution. In what way? I wish Obama would be a little more specific, if he can. I don't think he can. He's no more qualified to criticize the decisions of Justice Thomas than he is to be president. "Speaking of 'setting aside,' let’s set aside a few things about Obama-as-critic of Clarence Thomas: that Obama has never published a scholarly article, even though head of the Harvard Law Review nearly twenty years ago; that he is barely a lawyer, having a degree but hardly ever practiced law (let alone constitutional or appellate law); that his vaunted teaching at the University of Chicago was as an outside 'lecturer,' not a regular tenure-track faculty member. In short, let’s put aside that candidate Obama’s credentials as legal scholar, legal practitioner, and law teacher are as virtually non-existent as his other credentials, especially those from his time in the Illinois and United States Senates." If he even TRIED to be more specific he'd destroy any vestige of his credibility. (Atlasphere)

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Censorship in Los Angeles

The "Los Angeles Times" has forbidden its bloggers to even MENTION the problems "Mr. Haircut," John Edwards is having about a supposed "affair" between him and a blonde. They call it "salacious rumors." (Unfortunately for "Mr. Haircut," it's true. He admitted it.) Seems to me they're a little selective about which "salacious rumors" they'll publish. I seem to remember a few about conservatives they published right away. Like the one about a Republican congressman who was arrested on the word of ONE cop who "interpreted something he did as "asking for gay sex." Meanwhile. Not much was made of the story about a Democrat whose gay boyfriend got caught running a gay whorehouse out of his apartment. Selective? You bet! (News Busters)

This is So Common

Building something "out in the weeds"and then having people build up around you, then getting complaints about what you're doing. It happened to three racetracks in the Denver area that I know of. One is now a private warehouse facility; the other now has a tree growing out of its grandstand. The third (which STILL has no near neighbors) is just closed, and destroyed. Its nearest neighbor is Denver International Airport, which was also "out in the weeds" when it was built (as was its predecessor, Stapleton Airport, now closed). People built up around them and started whining about "noise." DIA (Denver International Airport) has paid millions of dollars to the City of Aurora for "anti-noise violations" and will probably one day succumb to the whining of those neighbors, as did the others. I wondered why they allowed Denver to "annex" so much of their property for DIA. I think people who build next to an airport or a race track, or something else where something happens they don't like ought to be forever STOPPED from complaining. The same is true of this Utah farmer who built a "Redneck Stonehedge" out of derelict cars, just to show his neighbors he could do what he wanted on his own property. (Fox News)

Monday, September 15, 2008

"Having Your Cake and Eating It, Too"

That describes the liberals (socialists) nicely. They clamor about a "soup-kitchen-economy" while at the same time talking about "fat kids" and how tro keep them from becoming fat. I look at pictures on the TV about the "plight" of all the "poor people" out there in places like New Orleans (a liberal-run city) and I notice: most of them are fat. You can't have it both ways. Either we have a "fat problem" in this country or we're "poor." But the liberals aren't smart enough to figure that out; or they don't think YOU'RE smart enough. I wonder which it is. this is not the only thing on which they promote BOTH SIDES of an issue while thinking you can't see it. (Common Sense)

Why Doesn't He Become a Republican?

Joe Lieberman ran on the Democrat ticket in the last election and has been an "independent" ever since. This news item is about his non-attendance at Democrat lunches. Why SHOULD he attend their policy lunches? After losing the vice-president spot as a Democrat, the Democrats "excommunicated" him. So he ran for re-election to his old Senate seat as an independent, and WON. They couldn't beat him then and they can't beat him now. Why he doesn't just become a Republican, I don't know. We could use one more vote in Congress. But for some reason, he refuses. Maybe one day we'll find out why. (Yahoo News)

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Palin Scares the Hell Out of Obama

Obama and his accomplices are so terribly frightened of Sarah Palin, they've forgotten all about John McCain in their haste to destroy her so she can't "bring down their house of cards." They thought it was "in the bag." That there was no way McCain could win over their silver-tongued, "black," YOUNG candidate--until Sarah burst on the scene the night of Obama's "big speech" and "took the wind out of his sails." for all time. Obama just barely got a "bump" out of his big speech at his convention when word of her selection made the news. Since then, you can't hardly find Obama's name in the news. It has him so frightened that, while he and Biden tell his people to "stay away from her family," everybody in his camp are vomiting all over her with everything they can think of. They're coming up with new lies every day. So thinly disguised it takes only a few moments to prove the lie. They take things from the "kook left-wing blogosphere," and without any kind of fact-checking, "run with it." This kind of thing will mean their ruin, and I'm all for it. (Yahoo News)

Franken Easily wins Primary

I see the Democrats are as stupid as usual. He won easily in a field of seven, probably because he is better-known than any of his competitors, and Democrats are well-known to vote for celebrities, no matter how ill-prepared they are to "govern." They re-elected Bill Clinton after the many sex scandals and lies to Congress, didn't they? They STILL say Clinton was one of our best presidents! I'd like to see their list of reasons WHY they think he was that good (other than his lies about "balancing the budget). Maybe because he moved us ever closer to socialism, which is one of their main goals. I don't know why they don't just change their name to the Socialist Party. Oh! I know! They know they couldn't win that way! Franken SAYS he "put his career as a talk show host "on hold" to "dabble" in politics. What a load! He had to quit his job on "Air America" because they couldn't afford to PAY him! And they couldn't afford to pay him because nobody was interested in the drivel he spouted. If, somehow, he won this election against a "seasoned veteran," his state is in for a bad time. The very fact that he has enough Democrat support to have spent millions, and is able to spend millions more to get this (for him) low-paying job tells me a lot about the intelligence of the Democrats. But then they did that when they supported Bill Clinton and now Obama. Clinton was a "dedicated horn-dog" more interested in sex than anything else and still is. Obama is a socialist and Franken is just stupid. (Yahoo News)

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Domestic Drilling Won't Help for 10 Years!

That's the Democrat mantra. But they're wrong, as they are in most things. Just the SUGGESTION that we were going to be able to drill domestically contained in the president's opening of domestic drilling by rescinding the presidential ban (even though the Congress ban still exists) caused oil prices to drop like a stone, and at this writing, they're STILL dropping. I wonder what will INSTANTLY happen to oil prices if Congress likewise removes ITS ban on most domestic oil drilling. Even announcing we are going to drill in ANWR will cause oil prices to drop even faster. And when we DO start domestic drilling, I say we should not sell a single drop outside the United States. You don't walk three blocks to a grocery store to buy bread when you have a cabinetful of it at home. Use what WE have. Let the Saudis and other Middle-East oil barons sell their oil to those who USED to buy from us at a greatly reduced price. (Just common sense)

Is the "Drug War" Working?

No. The number of people abusing drugs today after YEARS of "the drug war" that has allowed the passage of laws that reduce freedom for EVERYONE are passed, "to fight the drug war." Meanwhile, everything they do accomplishes NOTHING. I've felt the need to say SOMETHING about this for a long time. The "drug war" people will say they NEED to keep fighting the "drug war" or drugs would "overrun us." I ask you? What are drugs doing now, in spite of all their activity? Somebody once defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." Doesn't that describe those engaged in the "drug war?" They are doing what they are doing while further limiting our freedoms in the NAME of the "drug war." I think the "drug war" is merely a device politicians and bureaucrats USE to be able to "tighten the noose" on the rest of us. How would it be different if we made laws to allow addicts to get their drugs in a drug store at reasonable prices? (Which would eliminate the "robber baron prices" dealers charge) How would THAT make it worse than it is, now? Then keep up the pressure on those who sell drugs ILLEGALLY? The cops say they NEED to go after the addicts (the VICTIMS of the drug culture) to get them to "turn over" and name their dealers, then for the dealers to "turn over" and name their suppliers, etc. Not so. This is just "the easy way (and it's not working)." There are many other ways to get to the drug pushers and their suppliers if they would get off their lazy butts and DO it. Harassing the VICTIMS of the "drug culture" and putting them in prison for long terms for HURTING ONLY THEMSELVES will only make the "prison population" problem much worse. I say this as the father of TWO children who are dead because THEY were victims of the drug culture. So don't give me a lot of crap about how "I don't know what it's like." Stopping the harassment of the VICTIMS will give the cops a lot more time and money to go after the REAL "villains" in this piece. Those who are making BILLIONS off other people's misery. If they legalize the USE of drugs and make drugs less expensive, there won't be as much PROFIT in selling them and thus, many drug dealers would be looking around for other crimes in which to engage. The "drug cops" will say I'm just saying this so I can get drugs easier. I've got news for them. I've NEVER used drugs and never will. I'm one of the few people remaining who doesn't even know what pot TASTES like. I DO know what it SMELLS like, (After 18 years of scraping drug scene VICTIMS off the streets as a paramedic). they paint EVERYBODY who objects to their insane drug war the same: "we wouldn't object if we didn't "have a dog in this fight." In other words, the only reason (in their minds) to object to their insane drug war is if we wanted to make it easier to get drugs ourselves. That's STUPID! As long as they "fight drugs" the same was as now, the worse the "problem" will get, until it DOES "overwhelm" us and drug use becomes "the norm." (Drug Policy Alliance Network)

Thursday, September 11, 2008

What A Difference A Republican Governor Makes

That's Ann Coulter's conclusion. Liberals WANTED another "Katrina" so they could again "blame it on Bush," as they do EVERYTHING except the GOOD things, like the fact that we haven't had an Islamic terrorist attack in this country for SEVEN YEARS (So I used the word "Islamic." So sue me!). But you'd never realize it if you listen to the liberal media. Liberal "shockumentary" maker Michael Moore says the hurricane that was approaching New Orleans during the GOP Convention is "proof there is a God," which is about as stupid a statement as most liberals make. But a Republican governor in Louisiana helped minimize the damage. I'd even bet he told Democrat Mayor Ray Nagin to "be sure and get those school buses out of harm's way so they can be used, this time." I don't think Nagin is smart enough to have done it on his own, without instructions from someone smarter than he is (So I called a stupid black man "stupid." So sue me.). "As many have pointed out, the reason elected officials tend to neglect infrastructure project issues, like reinforcing levees in New Orleans and bridges in Minneapolis, is that there's no glory when a bridge doesn't collapse. There are no round-the-clock news specials when the levees hold. You can't even name an overpass retrofitting project after yourself -- it just looks too silly. But everyone's taxes go up to pay for the reinforcements. Preventing another terrorist attack is like that. There is no media coverage when another 9/11 doesn't happen. We can thank God that President George Bush didn't care about doing the safe thing for himself; he cared about keeping Americans safe. And he has, for seven years." And is he getting any credit for that? Not from the liberal media! (Ann Coulter)

Chuck Norris on Gov. Palin

Yes, I know; he's "just an actor" and I've said many times that being an actor and thus famous is NOT a qualification to be a political pundit. But Chuck has many times proven that he IS a lot smarter politically than all thosae "Hollywood type" celebrities who think their celebrity makes them qualified to speak on politics. When Chuck Norris speaks, I listen. I don't agree with EVERYTHING he says (as I don't agree with everything said by anybody), but in this, he is very right. He details why he likes Gov. Palin and, if not for her choice of a VP nominee, he would be "going third party." Which would have "wasted" his vote. Desperation is the only reason I can see for him to do that. I've even toyes with it, but I haven't found any third party I thought could win. And I don't want to "throw away" my vote. Chuck says, "All joking aside, one real fact about Gov. Palin is that both Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are shaking in their boots [They wet their pants at the sound of her name. -RT] over her candidacy and prospective appointment to the vice presidency. Obama talks about change, but McCain further lived out his commitment to reform with his choice of Palin to be his running mate. Obama chose government-as-usual Sen. Biden. McCain chose Washington outsider and corruption confronter Gov. Palin." I agree that Sarah Palin has "reenergized" the Republican Party, which was showing signs of going the way of the Whig Party after Lincoln was elected. She may be the reason McCain is actually ELECTED, and may even be the next president after him, either by his death in office (which is very possible) or by being elected as many VPs do after "their president" has his "time at bat." I don't wish anything bad for McCain, but I'd feel a lot better if Sarah was "standing behind the president" than Joe Biden, who is simply another political hack. Another thing: I think Sarah can help "keep McCain 'in line' " if she's "standing at his shoulder. She'd see to it there was not another (unconstitutional) "McCain-Feingold" law passed. (Chuck Norris)

How Abysmally Stupid!

I just heard a man on the radio talking about the election and he was whining about "REAL war hero" (John Kerry) being dissed in the last election while a "hero pretender" was being praised in this one. There's only one problem here. The man he called "a REAL war hero" wasn't anything of the kind. He spens a few months over there. living in "special quarters" and putting in for purple hearts every time he got a hangnail or cut himself shaving. Then when he came home, he (wrongly) accused those left over there of murder, throwing (someone else's medals) over the White House fence, claiming they were his. McCain, meanwhile, spent a LONG TIME over there, including FIVE YEARS as a prisoner of war, being tortured. Then when he went into politics, he stayed there for a long time, too, doing his best to make things better for us (even if he DID sponsor McCain-Feingold). At least he is not an avid socialist, as is John Kerry AND Barack Obama. It pains me, and I wanted to vomit when I heard this abysmally ignorant man "dissing" John McCain and "deifying" John Kerry. I hate it that there are so many people in this country who are just as ignorant as he is; which is why this country elects and RE-elects such ignorant stooges and liars as Bill ("oral sex is not sex") Clinton and Barack (socialism is great) Obama. If people would just PAY ATTENTION to politics longer than just a few months before an election when the lies are flying, maybe they'd be better able to see through such people. (Just common sense)

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Is That All They Have?

They’re criticizing Sarah Padin because her speech was written and she used a teleprompter (One that didn’t work. Did anybody notice?). Show me a politician who DOESN’T have speechwriters and use a teleprompter! I’m sure if she didn’t agree with what was in her speech, she wouldn’t have given it. Obama is well known to be an abysmally LOUSY speaker when he’s forced to do it without a prepared speech and a teleprompter. So where does HE get off criticizing Sarah for using one? If that’s all they’ve got besides the “sea of lies” Democrats are putting out about her, he’s in “big trouble.” And he’s frightened for his political life! (Just common sense)

This is Terrible!

Sarah Palin charged the state 80% LESS than did her predecessor. Yes, she DID charge “per diem” sometimes when at home, but specifically removed “lodging” from the bill (There are other things covered in “per diem”). Also, she mostly did not charge for her children, and some bills specifically left out food while on the road! This is bad, according to the Washington Post. Again, ANY politician who can REDUCE expenses by 80% is MY KIND of politician! (Red State)

Why Did Republicans Lose?

We were all excited about what was going to happen when the Republicans “took over” the Congress in 2004, but it didn’t happen. Republicans, instead of “changing Washington,” let Washington change THEM! They decided that being invited to the best parties and pleasing the liberals was more important than stopping “pork barrel” spending, and the result was predictable: they lost the majority and now Democrats will do everything they can to make government bigger (all the time couching it in such terms as to fool the public and make them think that they’re doing something good) while moving us closer and closer to socialism. That’s their mission, and nothing we can do, short of removing them (and their unelected cohorts in the bureaucracy and academia) from office and hope upcoming Republicans have learned from what happened before. (Common Sense)

Monday, September 8, 2008

Why Strike Now?

Don't unions realize that the more they take from the businesses that are struggling now, the more likely there soon won't be any business there to employ their members? They priced themselves out of the Steel market, and it disappeared as a U. S. industry, leaving many, many union employees without jobs. Now they're trying their best to do the same in the airplane-building industry. They talk about labor being "outsourced" as a "Gripe." But it's actually a SYMPTOM of the REAL problem, which is wages and other costly things companies must provide being "too much." so they outsource so they can afford to stay in business. Boeing says they're losing $100 MILLION dollars a DAY because of this strike (the second strike in TWO contract negotiations). They don't realize that maybe, just maybe, if they made it a little easier on Boeing, they might not outsource. If the wages and other costs involved in employing these unionized employees were not WAY too high, they wouldn't NEED to outsource. (Yahoo News)

Into the Lion's Mouth

Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of slain Pakistan President Benezir Bhutto, was elected president in a landslide. I guess he likes "living dangerously." If my wife and her father both had been assassinated, why would I want to put myself in the position to be killed, too? I guess even the thought of being killed doesn't stop politicians from seeking office--unless your name is Teddy Kennedy. Frankly, I don't think it's worth it. (Yahoo News)

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Criminal Charges Against Bush

That's what Obama/Biden hope they can "conjure up" if they win the White House. Imagine what would have happened if Bush had not put out a "hands-off Bill" message when he got elected. Trust the Democrats (socialists) not to be as nice. If "Obama & Co." get elected, they'll spend a LOT of YOUR money trying to "get" Bush and some of his people for imagined "crimes." Forgetting that the list of "crimes" that can be committed by a president is very short. He can do an "executive order" to make almost ANYTHING legal, for him and any other government employee he wishes. But don't tell Obama that. He has "high hopes" of "getting" Bush. (Boortz)

Democrats Spreading Lies (As Usual)

"Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Thursday blamed supporters of the Democratic presidential ticket for spreading "misinformation and flat-out lies" about her and her family." That's what Sarah Palin is saying. What did she expect? We're talking about DEMOCRATS, here. If they don't "spread lies" about you, that means they're not worried about you. The mere fact they're "spreading lies" about you means you have "scared the hell" out of them. I'd just go on and tell the truth about everything, and their lies won't make any difference. This is how presidential politics works. As long as the Republican candidate doesn't scare them, they usually let him alone, to some extent. But if they "go crazy" with lies and innuendo on a BIG basis, they're frightened--and in your case, they have good reason to be frightened. (News Max)

Run Them Out of Money

I guess if you can't win any other way, just bankrupt them. The ACLU has lost almost every time they've come up against the Boy Scouts in court, but they keep suing them anyway. It's so obvious that their goal is to "wear them down" and "run them broke," that any fool can see it. Maybe some of the fools that contribute money to ACLU so they can keep "beating" on the Boy Scouts will stop giving them money. this is how big organizations who have an unlimited money supply win against smaller, less well-financed organizations, even when they're patently wrong. They should be STOPPED from repeated frivolous lawsuits designed to "wear down" their smaller opponent which has a habit of winning every lawsuit. (Traditional Values Coalition)

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Liberal (Socialist) Hatred

I've noticed one thing that is habitual: whenever ANYBODY promotes an idea that will HELP America, they become subject to liberal HATRED. They hate the war in Iraq; even though this war was NECESSARY to keep the Islamic terrorists occupied while we "killed them off," so they couldn't come here and do their stupid, vivious deeds in American cities, rather than in Iraq or Afghanistan. Bush lowered taxes, and they HATED it. He banned the country's government paying for stem-cell research and they LIKED it. Anything they HATE, I must LOVE, because I know that if they hate it, it must be "good for America." (Of course, this is not my ONLY motivation. I think for myself, too.) This is a "constant," because EVERY time something "good for America" happens, the liberals (socialists) hate it. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin IS "good for America," and I want her "waiting in the wings" in case McCain (who is only one year younger than I am) dies in office. I KNOW my "time is short." I accept it, and wouldn't SERIOUSLY run for high office unless I had someone like Sarah ready to take my place. She's a lot smarter than ANYBODY (with the possible exception of McCain and his troops) knows. I just know she is poised, good-looking, has the legs to wear a skirt (not like some I've seen lately), and is NOT a "Washington politician." She knows how to "take on" those Washington politicians, and win. Watch for a BIG "shakeup" in Washington when they get there. If they don't win, look for this country to "go socialist" in the next 4 to 8 years. (Just common sense)

"Addicted" to Foreign Oil? Nope!

I'm getting really tired of people who should know better talking about "our addiction to foreign oil." Oil is an absolute NECESSITY, as is water and air. Are YOU "addicted to air or water? I don't think so, but you need both to survive until something better comes along. The same is true of oil. And people are trying mightily, and so far without result, to come up with "something better." They talk about "wind power," and "natural gas," and electric cars (which need coal or oil to produce electricity with which to charge), and even nuclear power. So far, only nuclear power shows any promise when it comes to replacing ANY amount of oil. Everything else does a little, but not nearly enough. So we have to continue using oil until something better (or even as good) comes along to replace it. Even President Bush talks about "our addiction to foreign oil." But the Congress still flat REFUSES to do ANYTHING to facilitate domestic drilling; the one thing that can alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. Liberals (such as has-been comedian and former liberal talk show host (on the slowly disappearing "Air America"), and now pursuing a doomed run for Congress (to join his friends there in obstructing domestic drilling), wants to "Tax somebody. They won't notice it." This is the typical liberal (socialist) response to ANYTHING. “Since Al Franken's Democrat colleagues have been in the majority, the cost of a gallon of gas in Minnesota has nearly doubled,” added Sheehan. “Given the Democrat's track record, Minnesotans have every reason to be skeptical of Al Franken's commitment to lower fuel prices.” This, from Al Franken't opponent in the election. (Norm Coleman)

Sarah "Scares the aHell" Out of Democrats

Because she's REAL. she has "energized" the Republican Party like no one else has ever been able to do since Reagan. She doesn’t screech at them as Hillary does. She merely “talks” and makes her point, scraping them off the field with ease. On Obama, she simply said, “Obama gives a good speech, but speechmaking doesn’t solve problems. McCain DOES things. He has a HISTORY of DOING things, and the liberals (socialists) HATE what he does. He withstood five years of horror and came out the other end a better man. He doesn’t care either if liberals like what he does. Let ‘em cry,” he says, as he “goes his own way.” Sarah Palin is a “female John McCain” who would also “come out the other end a better person” if she were to be subjected to the things to which McCain was subjected. Like always, I don’t agree with EVERYTHING (McCain-Feingold) McCain has done, and I have my problems with Bush, too (Not pardoning the Border Patrol agents falsely imprisoned for doing their jobs, and his stance on stem-cell research). But McCain and Sarah are the best thing we have. If Obama gets into the Oval Office, he will quickly destroy this country as we know it. And that’s not ”political rhetoric.” It’s truth. (Just common sense)

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Terrorists Use U-Tube to Teach Children to Hate America

The video they show is of children discussing their dreams. But they don't want to be doctors, firemen or police. They want to "become martyrs to the Islamic cause." That means they want to DIE for Islam. And this is being taught on an AMERICAN web site, in an effort to recruit OUR children! They'd never buy it, you say? Some have, and more will. Even in a land of plenty, there is ignorance, and they play on that ignorance to get recruits. You Tube has hosted far too many such sites. They need to be more capable of "weeding out" propaganda from our enemies. Additionally, they use these sites to send coded messages to "terrorists in place" for the attacks they're expected to conduct. Hitler and Stalin never had it so good. (News Busters)

End Dependence on Foreign Oil?

The liberals make a lot of noise about "ending our dependence on foreign oil" while constantly FACILITATING it by doing everything they can to make drilling for oil in America impossible. Further, there has not been an oil refinery built in this country for more than THIRTY YEARS because environmentalists won't let us. Even if we were able to drill here, we couldn't refine what we drilled! The refineries we HAVE are old and falling apart, and are based on 30-year-old technology. Some are "held together with baling wire and toothpaste." What happens when they fail and kill people? The liberals whine about how dangerous they are, completely ignoring the fact that THEIR policies, forced upon the country, made them that way, while ENSURING our dependence on foreign oil. (Just common sense)

"Right on the Head," As Usual

Mallard Fillmore's latest strip hits it right on the head when he "translates" "teacher-speak" into English. Bruce Tinsley, the cartoonist, has a unique ability to "cut right to the chase" and "tell it like it is," in one cartoon strip after another. The liberals hate him, and that's as it should be, because he shows them for what they are on a regular basis. They SAY this strip is not funny, and I'm not surprised. They have NO sense of humor, especially when THEIR ox is gored. I think this strip is amazingly funny, in ways liberals just can't grasp. (Mallard Fillmore)

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Is That All They Have?

Envy of his riches? No comments on his ability to govern? How about his age? Any questions about his choice of VP candidate? Anything else besides "rich envy?" In that case, I'd say McCain is going to have an easy time of it unless they get enough votes from people who think McCain is just "too rich" to remember how many homes he owns. In that case, we're ALL in BIG TROUBLE, because that's no reason to elect a president. How rich is Obama? How about his big-time Democrat "behind-the-scenes-friends?" Most (if not all) liberal Democrats are rich and I doubt if any of them can remember how many homes they own. But they, unlike McCain, did not EARN the money that bought those homes. They were LEFT the money by their ancestors. But they don't want you to know that. It's a classic case of "the pot calling the kettle black." Now they'll call me a racist because I used the term, "black." That's what they do; that's how they operate. When you say something that "calls them out," they don't answer your charges; they simply start calling you names so you'll spend your time defending against those names rather than demand an answer. (Common Sense)


Singer Amy Winehouse may be brain damaged, due to SEVERAL overdoses at the same time. She may die this time, and she apparently didn't learn from the times before. She may die this time, or be a "vegetable" the rest of her life. I can't understand why people who have "made it" sometimes "self-destruct" with drugs or alcohol. Do they think they "don't deserve it?" Do they think their success came too easily after liberals keep harping on the idea that ANY "rich people" got rich by taking something from people who aren't rich (the "zero-sum" game)? I don't know the answer, and anything I might say is a guess. Why did the actor who played the Joker in a wildly successful movie (his first major starring role) die of an overdose, even before the movie came out? It's a mystery to me. Can anybody tell me the answer? (Fox News)

Viagra Good for More Than an Erection

"Natalie Archibald, from Musselburgh, near Edinburgh, was diagnosed with primary pulmonary hypertension after she collapsed on Christmas Day two years ago, the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph reports. Primary pulmonary hypertension causes abnormally high blood pressure in the arteries of the lungs. As a result, the small arteries of the lungs become narrow, which makes it hard for blood to flow, according to the National Institutes of Health. The Viagra works by opening the arteries and improving the blood flow." So I guess Viagra is good for many things related to high blood pressure. Good news for seniors who have high blood pressure. If their doctor prescribes Viagra for their blood pressure, it may solve another problem they may have. (Fox News)

Monday, September 1, 2008


That's what they are at "Accountable America." They find out personal information on candidate's contributors and threaten them with smears and legal harassment if they don't stop contributing to conservative candidates. Of course, THEIR contributors' names are "confidential." Tom Matzzie, a left-wing political activist, and the boss of this group, brags that he is "going for the jugular." WHOSE jugular? For what? They attacked one donor to Tom Delay, intimating that because he was INDICTED, that was wrong. Funny; I heard people were not guilty until they were convicted in this country. And Delay hasn't been convicted of ANYTHING. Only "indicted" by a left-wing prosecutor who is well known for "indicting" his enemies, but who actually convicts few, because most of them are not guilty of ANYTHING except being conservative. This guy needs to have the same tactics he uses, used on him. (Common Sense)

Nice to Be A Democrat Politician

Detroit Mayor Kwame Fitzpatrick has been offered a deal (though prosecutors have denied it) to keep him out of jail. He is to plead guilty to two felonies and give up his law license and not run for office for two years, while doing 300 hours of "community service." Do you think he would have been offered such a "deal" if he wasn't a Democrat politician? If he was "just one of us?" Doubtful. And to agree "not to run for office for two years?" How silly is that? He's facing "removal proceedings," but who knows if they will be successful. In any case, a felon should be forever barred from political office, even if his constituents are stupid enough to vote him in. This has all the earmarks of the Washington, DC situation, where the mayor was CONVICTED in a drug scandal, but who came back and ran for office there again, and WON. (Yahoo News)

Sorry Folks

We're having technical difficulties. We're trying to solve the problem.