Thursday, June 30, 2011

Truth from MSNBC? Amazing!

While the American public is on tenterhooks wondering what is going to happen next in the Casey Anthony trial, the fallout from the Presidents speech yesterday gets relegated to the back of the list of media stories that are important.

Are we truly insane?

Yes, the whole Casey Anthony thing was tragic and I am sure most people have views on whether she is innocent or not. All I know is that a child is dead, and that is tragic.

But seriously? How much time do we as a society want to waste worrying about something that has already happened? How much time do we want wasted, listening to talking heads sprouting their opinions on everything from the defense tactics to the prosecutorial mistakes, to whether she wore makeup, or cried or what she had for breakfast?

Who cares?

Let me ask you something....if she is found guilty, will that change your life? If she is found innocent, will that change your life?  I thought so...either way is totally irrelevant to what you are going to do today, or tomorrow, or next week or next year. It will not get you a job, it will not pay the bills, it will not give you an education, it will not even provide good why do we obsess about it?

I understand that most people want to see justice....but really? You want to watch every second of a trial that will eventually provide justice? Why? Are you waiting for the next obscure statement? Or the next big revelation?

Again, I ask , why do you care so much about something that will ultimately be irrelevant to your life, while things are taking place right now that WILL effect your life?

Yesterday we had the Liar-in-Chief delivering more lies than you would find in a jocks changing room, and yet no-body remembers or even cares about this today. It has been relegated to the dung-heap of history in less than 24 hours.

Even conservative biased news outlets have done this...the speech was sooooo yesterday...and the Anthony case is today! The defense rests! We have to cover this crap! The people want it!

Not me. I know I am in the minority...what is shown or written about is what sells. What I do here does not sell (just as well I don't rely on it for a

So...let me take you all back to yesterday. In my post yesterday I talked about some of the lies the Weasel-in-Chief sprouted from his slimy mouth.

Today I am going to look at it in a different light. I am going to ignore the lies and take a cold look at the intent of the speech.

And what I found, I liked not a bit more than I liked his lies.

At a time when there is a perceived crisis coming our way, and the President feels a need to manage the crisis with strong leadership, he comes out and does two very odd things:-

1. he states that he doesn't want to "spook" the folks so he will be careful what he says so as not to be accused of scare tactics. Really? You would think that the mere fact that you state you do not want to spook anybody clearly will spook people, right? And if that was not enough he tells us that if we dont agree with him, then our food supplies will become unsafe! Good way of not spooking the people Mr President!

2. the American people were looking for leadership from their President. And what did he deliver? Something very different and as far removed from leadership as it could possibly be. He delivered a partisan speech that was totally inappropriate for the occasion and supported my opinion that this jerk is nothing more than the Candidate-in-Chief. He is not Presidential...he is not a leader...he acts and sounds like a candidate, and a very bad one at that.

His advisers were very good...I can hear their pre-speech discussion right now...."Mr. President, you have to put all the people off guard. Tell them that you have to raise taxes to keep food safe. Tell them that corporate jets are evil and they are the reason that the food will be unsafe. Don't forget to mention the kids...wrap that in to how jet fuel costs the kids their well deserved education. These are all winning ideas, Mr. President. Your base will love you if you blame the rich, soak the rich, and use the money to make food safe. A winning strategy!!"

Ummm...but doesn't the President use a private jet? A jet that the taxpayer pays for? What is the reason for this war on private jets when you use, and misuse, several all the time?

This is just one more dissapointment for the people of this country.

Let's hope that there is never a real emergency when we need real leadership. If that happens, Mr. Obama is likely to dilly dally, refuse to do anything, and then when he has no choice will rush into the private bathroom on his private jet, put on his best suit and appear in front of the cameras to deliver his leadership speech...
...and be just another candidate.

His words will be of such import that even an MSNBC host will be heard saying "He was kind of a dick" before being tossed off the air. I am not a big fan of MSNBC - it is simply a tool for the left to spread their lies...but in this case Mark Halperin spoke the truth....and for that he gets taken off the funny!

Short of being called a dick, Obama's words will be forgotten within 24 hours, doomed to appear on page 3 next to the picture of a topless girl in UK newspapers. Words have meanings, I always say....unfortunately, in our President's case, words are meaningless.

The Candidate-in-Chief amounts to zero when the country needs/wants/hopes for ...a leader.

Stupid is as stupid says.


Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Mr. President! You lie!

Today is a very sad today. I pondered wearing a black arm band today to signify the passing of something I hold dear...but decided that that would have been a tad dramatic.

So, here I sit with nothing but a keyboard in front of me as a tool to express my deep sorrow.

This morning I made a major mistake. I thought I would try to understand what the Liar-in-Chief was really trying to do with the budget/debt discussions. Perhaps if I really listened to his press conference, I would be able to see some wisdom buried deep below the hyperbole. Perhaps some secret herebefore unseen gem of logic and reasonableness would appear despite his best efforts to keep it buried...after all, I believe the truth always has a way of trickling to the surface (usually at the worst possible time for the liar!).

But alas, those hopes were dashed within the first few minutes.

And now I have a new name for the Liar-in-Chief. He is also the Weasel-in-Chief.

I mourn today because I believe the last vestige of honor, responsibility, and accountability by this president were sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.

Truth has no place in politics. Obama made that very clear today. He cares nothing about truth...his only weapon is disinformation, lies, fear-mongering and pandering to the illogical thought waves of the liberal audience and the liberal media who refuse to call him out on his lies.

Following his lie-filled speech I witnessed a parade of journalists asking questions that made them feel good that they had the opportunity to ask. They were answered with more waffle than you could find at the Waffle House on a Saturday morning. The journalists refused to call him out for not answering the questions and refused to call him out for blatant lies. Along with truth, the art of journalism was confirmed dead today.

The Waffler-in-Chief did not even attempt to cover his flagrant evasion...even stating that "he doesn't even need to answer the question" after waffling for ten minutes justifying his actions in Libya in response to a question about the Constitutionality of the War Powers Act.


It was at this point that I realized that I would be better informed, better entertained and had a great chance of hearing more fundamental truths if I changed channels and watched an infomercial selling me the latest weight reduction fad. At least the narrators in that could speak well, pulling me in with well selected phrases and encouraging me to buy with emotional calls to action.

But, passing a train wreck, I couldn't bring myself to change channels....I needed to hear the next lie...and did not have long to wait.

Just for fun, let's look at some of the lies the Deceiver-in-Chief tried to sell today:-

1. Obama made it clear that he is pushing for tax increases, along with spending cuts to create a "balanced approach" to dealing with the deficit. He claimed to have spent the last  "two and a half years providing tax cuts to the middle classes".

Really? He has provided tax cuts for the middle class for the last two and a half years? If I recall correctly he was dragged kicking and screaming to a point where he had no alternative than to extend what is euphemistically called the Bush tax cuts. So now, an extension of a previously existing but time expiring condition is "creating tax cuts"?

He knows that his spin is nothing but a lie...and so do we.

2. Obama made a number of claims that I find very interesting. One of these was that "if we do not tax the rich more, we will be unable to provide scholarships for your kids, we cannot guarantee the safety of the food you eat, and we may not be able to fund the National Weather Service".

Really? That is where you are going to cut spending if you can't get a tax increase? Ahhh...I thought not. The reality is that if you cut spending in these areas you will destroy your base, and by letting them think you will, you will gain their support in the fight for tax increases. Count on the liberals to use fear tactics to generate support. know very well that these are not where you would make spending cuts....not gonna happen. So your lies are designed to strike fear into the hearts of your audience. "Oh my God, our food supplies will become unsafe if we don't increase taxes!!!"

Obama, this is an out and out lie.

3. Obama stated that his team has identified over $1 trillion in spending cuts. That sounds like a good start to wards a balanced budget for 2012. Leaves only $600 billion more to find. Of course, he did not mean that that was an annual saving. In fact, he slipped up a little later and declared that "the spending cuts would be achieved over ten years". Oh? Ten years.....? You mean that sometime in the future there MAY be spending cuts over a ten year period amounting to a saving of $1 trillion? Or, if they happen, a whole $100 billion a year? Wow, Obama....I guess you didn't actually lie about spending cuts that had been identified (although the fact that you did not give one single example of where those cuts may be made indicates that this was a throwaway line and not truthful). A skeptic would doubt the truth. But, assuming it is true...a $100 billion a year does nothing to address the debt level issues faced today.

Obama, your attempt to provide disinformation to show something that is not real is a flagrant lie that you should be held accountable for.

4. While listening to a question from a journalist about a "balanced solution" Obama rudely interrupted the journalist with a statement "Republicans do not want a balanced solution.!"

Really, Mr President? You have finally understood this? While I think your arrogance and rudeness are second only to your deceit, I am surprised that you slipped and allowed this truth to escape your lips. I know you meant it to be a slam on this case your lie has a grain of unintended truth.

Here's the thing, Mr. President. Republicans swept to power in the House last November because they stood on a platform of reduced government spending and lower taxation. These Congressmen and women are not your slaves. They do not answer to you. They will not be bullied by your thuggery and will not compromise on what they were sent to the Hill to do. If they do any of these things, they will be looking for a new job next election.

Where you lie is here. They are not necessarily unwilling to take a balanced approach. They have their orders from their new taxes. They have also been told very clearly that compromise is not acceptable. (In my opinion compromise leaves both parties dissatisfied!)

The balanced approach the Republicans are willing to take is simple. Cut spending. Cut spending more. Cut spending even more. Do it now....not over ten years. Do it on wasteful spending first and then find a way to deal with entitlements. That is balanced. Taxing the rich is not the balanced solution they can accept.

5. Here is the greatest lie of all. Obama spoke of the cuts in spending the Pentagon was finding. He couched it in terms of "while others are examining their sacred cows, surely the republicans can do the same" and "we have all carried the burden, so , is it too much to ask the millionaires and billionaires to do the same and have higher taxes...they can afford it....they can still fly their private will just cost them a little more".

Obama...what burden have you personally carried? Where have you personally reduced spending on your sacred cows? In fact your sacred cow has just spent an estimated $1 million on a trip to Africa , where she disgraced herself on numerous occasions. Is that what you mean by bearing the cost of reduced spending?

Where are your instructions to reduce wasteful spending on green technologies that have little chance of success? You want to reduce concessions to oil and gas companies while increasing subsidies to green technologies. Where is your pain, sir?

You are a degenerate liar who's hypocrisy know no end.

But you are clever, I will give you that. You understand that a lie tinged with the slightest truth has more chance of being accepted as truth. You understand that the "people" are compassionate. You use that, you use their fear of inequality as the foundation for your lies., my hopes of seeing truth were sadly unrealized.

Today, journalism and truth were both sacrificed.

But that is not the reason for my mourning.

Today, I mourn for the people of America. I mourn for the loss of innocence as the realization that we elected a despotic liar as our President seeps through our numbed consciousness. I mourn for the millions of sycophants who still fail to see the Liar-in-Chief for what he is. I mourn for those lost in an internal turmoil of their own making. The uneducated who believed in the Messianic nature of "the one", the ignorant who knew no better. I mourn for this country's future, and for the children who will be exposed to the hate and vitriol that explodes each day as the progressive movement continues to destroy lives while fooling its adherents.

I mourn for the loss of faith as more good people fall by the wayside because their energy to fight is sapped by the lies form the President.

Perhaps, the conservative movement will find a leader who can infuse strength, moral character and truth into the political process. A leader who shows by example, who is not afraid of the taunts of the left. A strong man or woman who will call the President out without fear of being called a racist. A person of the people, with faults and issues like everyone else, but one who will honestly accept responsibility, yearn accountability, and lead the people.

Without such a person emerging, this country is doomed to make the same mistake in 2012 as it did in 2008. It will be doomed to elect the sort of President who stands in front of the people unabashedly lying to their faces, and believing his own BS.

America, please, do not let this happen. If you do...

Stupid is as stupid says.


Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Is the Pledge of Allegiance the same as the Communist Manifesto?

Today I want to talk about something that will get great support from some of my readers and will be scoffed at by others.

I want to talk about the Pledge of Allegiance.

I want to talk about the meaning of words...the reason for the Pledge, and then to look at the stupidity that reigns in some quarters in this country.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy. It quickly became part of the fabric of America as school children recited it every morning (with their hands across their heart). The original Pledge did not contain the words "under God"> These were added by an act of Congress in 1952 at the behest of the Knights of Columbus and other groups. Since 1954, "under God" is a part of the Pledge. Story over.

Various groups have condemned the Pledge, arguing that it amounts to the U.s. Government establishing a religion in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the Pledge of Allegiance (including the words "under God") does NOT violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

So...we have the Pledge written in 1892, modified in 1954 to include the words "under God". Its Constitutional validity was questioned but upheld by Federal court.


End of story!

So, why do we see so many challenges to its use?

The latest act of stupidity can be found in the small town of Eugene, Oregon. This paragon of liberal acceptance and all-inclusiveness has stepped out of bounds and shown the world the nature of the inclusivity that its liberal citizens endorse.

Such inclusivity apparently does not include the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance at City Council meetings.

The back story is simple.

Councilman Mike Clark thought that in this city of diversity and acceptance, it would be a good thing if his conservative constituents could be shown that the more traditional conservative values could be supported even within this progressive leaning city. He proposed that the Pledge of Allegiance be VOLUNTARILY recited before every Council meeting. Nothing in the proposal REQUIRED either Council members or members of the public to participate, but rather provided an opportunity for those who wished to participate, to do so.

I think there is nothing wrong with this. In my humble opinion, the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance could indeed remind Council members of what they should be striving for, and in every way is uniting in a common purpose, rather than the individual agenda that politicians continually pursue. I can see nothing bad coming form this proposal.

But of course, it could not pass. The end result was that a measure was passed allowing the Pledge of Allegiance to be recited prior to Council meetings on just 4 occasions per year. The Council Meetings held closest to 4th of July, Memorial Day, Veterans Day and Flag Day could all include the Pledge of Allegiance, but no others.

More shocking were the comments coming from the Council members who voted against this measure:-

Councilman George Brown voted against the compromise, saying the Pledge of Allegiance had no place at City Hall. “People can say it in their front yard or backyard,” Brown says. “It really doesn’t help move the city business forward. It does not unite us.” 

Councilwoman Betty Taylor compared saying the Pledge of Allegiance to reading from "The Communist Manifesto." 

So, this city of diversity, this city that prides itself on being non-judgmental, this city that welcomes folks of all sexual persuasions, is so anti-conservative that it denies the truth of the Pledge of Allegiance.

To you clowns of the Council in the City of Eugene, Oregon, I can only say that you are a sad bunch of ignorant and pathetic tools of the progressive movement.

Since you clearly do not understand what the Pledge of Allegiance is all about, and since you are total idiots and clowns, the only way I can think of to help you is to get one of the greatest comedians of all time to explain it to you. I promise he does not use big words...but if you clowns listen closely, you will hear the wisdom behind his words.

Just 4 minutes and 20 seconds of your understand that words have meanings, and that those meanings do not change no matter how much you want them to mean something else.

After hearing this do you still think the Pledge of Allegiance is akin to the Communist Manifesto?

Stupid is as stupid says!


Monday, June 27, 2011

Not another lily livered wannabe?

Wow! Has it really been over a week since I last posted?

I assure you, the gap in posting was not caused by a lack of stupidity to discuss, nor a lack of opinions to express. More a matter of time constraints than anything else. Yes, I understand there is 24 hours in a day, but when 17 of those are devoted to earning an income and another 1 is devoted to travelling to and from my place of employment, it makes it difficult to devote quality time to putting my thoughts on paper.

Now, I am not complaining. They say "sleep is for the weak", and 30 or even 20 years ago I would have agreed completely. The whole "work hard, play hard" mantra made sense then, but now that I am on the wrong side of 55, I find my intellectual capacity can no longer keep up with 4 hours sleep a night!

So, I guess I am

Which brings me to today's discussion.

There is a lot of hype out there about how we want our reporters to report the news, not make news. To identify when they write an opinion piece, and not disguise it as news. We want them to ask hard hitting questions, to really grill those politicos they interview. We want them to play hard.

But when they do, it appears we have selective memory. It appears we determine the correctness of the hard hitting question by our own expectations of the interviewer.

The talk today is all about Chris Wallace and his interview of Michelle Bachman on Fox this last Sunday. Toward the end of the interview Chris ran into a problem. He wanted to ask a question that made him a little uncomfortable....but he knew it was the type of question that his viewers wanted answered.

He wanted to say to Michelle Bachman something like this..."Michelle, you have not had the easiest road to where you are today, a possible Presidential candidate. Indeed, you have made some verbal gaffes along the way, and at times have not handled tough questions in the best way possible. This has enabled your political foes and the press to raise doubts about the bona fides of a run for President should you decide to do that. How do you overcome these issues?"

This is what Chris really wanted to ask...

Instead, he sat a little straighter, rolled his eyes a little higher in search of the right words, looked a little uncomfortable and then blurted out...

"Are you a flake?"

Good question, Chris! Well done...beautifully couched in the most poetic language.

At least there was no spin on that question!!

Chris soon understood his mistake and offered an apology to Michelle...which he posted online in a video.

This was not the sort of apology that some people make when they think their target is too stupid to understand what the apology was about or how the apology can be misinterpreted. No. This was a heartfelt apology that acknowledged the tactlessness of the question, and the potential harm that could have been done to Ms. Bachman.

Fast forward to today and the Politico story that explains that Michelle Bachman has refused to accept this apology. A quick read of the story tells us that on two occasions, Michelle Bachman was given the opportunity to verbally accept the apology, and on both occasions she sidestepped the question with answers (paraphrased) that sounded like this...."That question was not suitable to ask a person who is a viable candidate for President of the United States" and "That is a small thing to be concerned about. I am concentrating on the big issues".

Oh Michelle....Today you announced your run as a Presidential candidate, and scant minutes later you tripped at the first hurdle. Who is it that advises these people that they can make such fundamental mistakes?

Here's the thing:-

1. Chris Wallace is a very good journalist who simply made an error and asked the question that everyone does want answered. His tactlessness in asking the question the way he did was not planned, but rather slipped out. It was a mistake. Nothing sinister and nothing wrong.

2. Chris Wallace accepted responsibility for his lack of tact and made a very public apology.

3. Chris Wallace and Fox are not the enemy. They can be powerful allies providing great positive exposure. Likewise, they can be very powerful enemies, denying access to the conservative base if they desire. I am not suggesting they will take sides but I am suggesting that Bachman should have accepted the apology.

4. I do not understand why Bachman didn't simply say something like this..."Chris is a fine reporter and exceptional journalist, and I have no doubt that he did not mean to be as tactless as he sounded. Nevertheless, that question is likely to be asked of me many times between now and the end of the primaries, and more times should I win the Republican nominations. If I can not deal with honest questions such as this, I have no right throwing my hat into the presidential candidate ring. I look forward to further interviews with Chris, and welcome candor in the questions he asks. There is no need for him to apologize, although I do appreciate his acknowledgement, and of course I accept it."

5. Michelle Bachman missed a great opportunity to put this question to bed in one simple statement. By refusing to acknowledge that, although tactless, the question was nevertheless a valid one, she has given ammunition to every left wing journalist to shoot at her whenever they want. Rather than hoping this thing would die a quick death in the press, she has chosen to give it legs so that it will come back and haunt her at every interview in the future.

When are our politicians going to learn? Whenever you try to hide something, it will come back to bite you when you least expect it. Whenever you try to ignore that something happened, it will come back to haunt you at the very time you least expect. Whenever you try to push something under the carpet, there are a million people willing to pick up said carpet just to see what tasty morsels are under there.

And most importantly...if you want to be treated as a serious contender, you MUST be ready to answer the questions that WILL be thrown at you, regardless of whether the question was worded tactfully or not.

And when a member of the press apologizes to graciously and gratefully accept such apology without making a fuss or big deal....for that is the ONLY way that such stupidity can be put to rest. It is the only way that the American people will see you for the strong and capable candidate you claim to be. When you avoid situations like this, you simply show that you are not the strong "water off a duck's back" candidate you want to present.

You simply start to look like a coward, a lily livered pathetic excuse for a leader that can't deal with a tough question asked tactlessly....

You start to sound and look EXACTLY like what we already have in the White House.

AND THAT, dear friend, is NOT the way to defeat Obama should you win the nomination.

Once again, stupid is as stupid says.


Thursday, June 16, 2011

LIberals want to create even more unemployment!

Today is just too much fun for words.

I cannot believe how easy it is to show how mentally ill liberals really are.

Let me explain.

Liberals hate Rush Limbaugh, I get that. They hate Fox News...I get that too. Their hate for the Koch brothers knows no end. They love unions and they hate Republicans and Conservatives.

That is such an easy platform to understand.

But...this is kind of confusing for me.....if they love unions and want jobs (even if they are union jobs), why are they boycotting the very firms that provide jobs to hundreds of thousands of people? By doing this they are actually CREATING more unemployment!!

SO...if I don't like someone I use the ultimate form of censorship...I change the channel. Nobody forces me to watch morons like Shultz, Anderson and Maddow.  However, I do not try to prevent them from having their shows. I do not try to get them censored or taken off the air. It is not my responsibility to ensure that they are not allowed their first amendment rights to free speech.

So why does the left think it is theirs? Why does the left stoop to ever lower ways to try to get those whose opinions they don't like, taken off the air? Mr. Liberal, who gave you the moral superiority to determine who I am able to listen to or watch? Huh? Who? Do you really think you are that superior to me?

So, what do you morally superior people do? You try to boycott advertisers who advertise on these programs.

For anybody interested in what I am talking about check out "The People Boycott" Facebook pages...

For a list of the hundreds of products being boycotted go to....

The list includes products from Kraft, Proctor and Gamble, General Mills, Coca Cola, DuPont, GM, Amoco and literally every major producer in America. (It is actually quite laughable that any of the "followers" of this boycott will refuse to buy all of the products listed, but I guess it makes them feel good to SAY they support the boycott - as usual with progressives, what they say is often different to what they do!)

Let's ignore our own logic for a few minutes and assume that a boycott like this can be wildly successful.

There are a number of possible scenarios depending on the level of success, but the most likely ones are:-

1. the boycott is so successful that advertisers refuse to buy spots on Fox News. Fox News can not survive without advertising revenues so it closes down. And the boycotters have created thousand of unemployed people. Who have lost their jobs? Producers, directors, researchers, reporters, camera people, sound people, technicians, lighting specialists, writers, drivers, secretaries, and many many more. The list is really long. Some of these people could be your relatives, could be your friends and neighbors...and you, Mr. Boycotter have just caused them to be unemployed!! Why? Because you think you are so morally superior that you can't abide free speech and you know better. There are words for people like you that start with  "A" and end with "S".

2. It may be that the advertisers will spend their ad dollars elsewhere, but they advertised on Fox for a reason. That reason is that Fox viewers buy their products. Your wildly successful boycott means that there are no Fox viewers anymore. They may have changed their viewing habits but most certainly have dispersed across a wide array of other programming. They no longer form or represent a cohesive demographic that the advertisers can appeal to in one place. The advertisers understand this and cut their advertising budgets accordingly. The manufactures look at their product lines and cut those as they no longer have that cohesive market to promote to. Entire product lines cease to exist.

So, you stupid liberals have succeeded in closing down product lines, putting thousands of blue collar employees out of work. The people who make the products have no job now. The truck drivers who deliver the products have no work. The farmers who grow the food that goes into the products have no market.

I can see that you really care about people when your actions, if they are wildly successful, will lead logically to huge unemployment, and a massive drain on the economy. The results get worse. All the unemployed people face losing their homes, cannot spend to keep the economy moving and are part of the domino effect that will pull this economy to a complete standstill.

All because you think you have the right to tell me who I can and can't watch on my television, and you think you have the right to stop people from having a platform for the right of free speech!


Now...let me explain why this boycott cannot be wildly successful.

1. If we have learned anything, we have learned that liberals and progressives are nothing but hypocrites and liars. They say all the things that make them feel good, but do not practice what they preach. They want the rich to feed the poor, but they don't do it themselves. They are conflicted, angry, and ugly people inside. Their penchant for violence, intimidation and downright thuggery is par for the course. When they cannot win on the intellectual battlefield they revert to name calling and verbal intimidation before running away and hiding. They are nothing but a pack of cowards.

The Peoples Boycott Facebook page has a whole 4,460 people who like it. Facebook has what? 40 million users? When I looked at the People Boycott page yesterday, it had a mere 4,452 likes, so it has gathered 8 likes in 24 hours. Not exactly a big movement. Not exactly a movement that strikes fear into the hearts of conservatives or advertisers.

Let me tell you morons will be better off going out to save gay whales than you are being involved with this stupid boycott.

2. Advertisers do not care if you boycott them. If every one of you morons was 100% true to the products being boycotted and NEVER again bought that product, the advertiser would not notice. Your pathetic stand has no effect. And here's some truth for will not grow the movement because most people are not stupid enough to think that it can succeed, that it can make any difference...or that it is the right thing to do. Only you loons who have not thought about it will sign up for it.

3. Your boycott is so asinine that even the most hardened Democrat will see that you have no right to try to prevent free speech. The fact that you fear these things so much that you are prepared to sell your souls to stop them, that you are prepared to ignore the bounds of constitutional rights, simply confirms to all that see this, that you are nothing more than the thugs and cowards stated in 1 above.


OK...rant over.

To my conservative friends, I offer you hope in the face of lunacy. But that hope is not some mindless expectation of something better in the future. Certainly not the hope that Obama preached.

No...your hope comes from within your own hearts and minds. Whenever you see stupidity such as this, be strong and outspoken. Show it to be exactly what it is. Attack it and defeat it with logic.

There is no doubt that idiots abound. No further proof is needed than to spend a few minutes reading the comments on those Facebook pages. Those people hide behind their own perverted view of Christianity and scream the gospels as reasons for their own moral superiority. Do not be intimidated by this. Be armed to discuss with logic what they cannot defend. If you doubt this is possible, spend some time reading my posts...I think you will find that there are gems of arguments in them that will stop liberals in their tracks.

We can not allow the creeping destruction of our beliefs, our morals, our language, our borders, our culture....OUR the hands of these progressives. We have allowed it in the past because it all sounded good and reasonable...and without realizing it, everything that made America great has been turned upside down.

I't time. It's time for US to stand up and say "We are not going to take it any more." The lies, the deception, the ignorance and the deceit stops now.

What saddens me is that so many otherwise intelligent folk have succumbed to the feel good hypocrisy of the liberal mantra. My heart breaks that we have failed them. We have failed to educate them in the truth and have allowed the progressive movement to steal their minds. We can not point fingers without first examining our own faults, and the role we have each played as individuals in allowing this country to get where it is today.

It is not too late, though.

If we each stand up and take personal responsibility for not allowing the lies to continue, for calling out those that would spread them, and to confront progressive stupidity wherever we see it, I believe we can become an unstoppable force ....deceit and lies wither and die in the face of untarnished truth.

So be bold, be truthful, be honest and be strong.

It's time.


Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Presenting...the Doofus of the United States

It is a rare day that I make more than one post. A rare day indeed.

Today is one such day.

Let me ask you you think technology is the biggest problem facing America today? Do you think the advent of the computer has cost jobs? Or do you think that the efficiencies that the computer created has been a major step forward for economic growth and job creation?

Maybe the Wright brothers should not flown, because the end result of their efforts is that many jobs have been destroyed. Train conductors and drives as an example. Passenger ships and their crews. Of course, we don't want to count all the new jobs created by the airline industry.

What about motor vehicles? Did the invention of the motor vehicle cost jobs or create jobs?

I don't know about you, but I can not think of a single technology that has not created economic growth. From the invention of fire through to the invention of microchips, every invention has created economic growth, improved standard of living ....and jobs.

If I said otherwise, you would think I was a crazy person right? You would scream at me, call me an idiot (or worse) and point me in the direction of any business, economics or history book at the nearest corner store.

So how is it that the leader of this country, our President, the man we entrusted to fix our economy, can get a pass when he states that the reason for slow economic growth and lack of jobs is technology!!

“It’s not as fast as it needs to be to make up for all the jobs that were lost. The other thing that happened, though, and this goes to the point you were just making. There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to be much more efficient with a lot fewer workers,” the President said. “You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM,” he added. "or when you go to the airport and check in through a kiosk."

Can you believe this?

He didn't really say that, did he?

Oh yes, he did.

Stupid is as stupid says!


Political correctness has discovered the "r" word!

Here's the latest piece of stupidity.

You won't believe it came from a Democrat...and surely not a Californian democrat?

But there you have is the stupidest quote I have heard today....

"Rep. Laura Richardson, D-Calif., suggested the hearing was "racist," 
asking why Muslims in prisons are being targeted as opposed to other 
religious or ethnic minorities."

I need to put this into some form of context so that you can fairly determine the degree of utter stupidity here.

The hearing Rep. Richardson is referring to is a hearing held by Representative King on the Islamic radicalization. More specifically this comment was made in reference to a former New York prisons official testifying that radical Muslims have made "sustained efforts" to indoctrinate inmates in America.

Do you the stupidity here?

A hearing to determine the extent of Islamic radicalization is called racist because Muslims in prison are being targeted for examination?

I don't know how people like Rep. Richardson ever get elected, but hey, it is California. 'Nuff said.

Let me get this right, Ms. Richardson....

Adherents to Islam have been responsible for virtually every act of terrorism in the world in the last 20 years.

Adherents to Islam have been homegrown in America and have been responsible for many more attempted acts of terrorism.

Ethnic minorities and other religious groups have been responsible for virtually no acts of terrorism in the last 20 years.

Ms. Richardson, where do YOU think we should be expending our efforts? Perhaps we should be holding hearings on why Methodist ranks are reducing? Or the Catholic bible reading lessons in prisons? Maybe we should be studying the impact of the Tora on all those Jewish radicals out there threatening to kill every American they can find?

Nope. Here is a reality check for you folks who are too stupid and too politically correct to see the truth.

Muslims want us dead. Muslims want nothing less than world domination. Muslims are NOT good people. Muslims are NOT peaceful. The only peaceful and good Muslims are those who deny the existence of significant parts of the Koran. They are not adherents to Islam at all, they are people who "pick and chose" which laws to obey. Sooner or later they will come to the understanding that they are not following the Koran. Some will leave Islam then...but many more will become radicalized.

If the USA and indeed the Western world, civilization, is to survive in the long term, it MUST drop the stupidity of political correctness and accept the truth that Islam is BAD. Islam will destroy civilization as we know it and thrust the world back into the dark ages.

If stating the truth makes me a racist, so be it. I do not condone a witch hunt...I do, however, believe that Islamic influence must be examined wherever it is found. Mosques should be watched closely, especially those with radical Imams. The prisons should be watched closely as they are the perfect breeding grounds for the dissent that leads to radical Islam converts.

It is time for us to use our heads, and our logic.

If 99% of crime is committed by adult males under 5 feet tall, where would you want your police dollars going? In search of all possible adult males, or targeted at those under 5 ft? My liberal friends would call it profiling...and so would I. The difference is that I have no problem with profiling. None.

It is a legitimate use of the knowledge built up over time, and leads to more efficient and effective crime fighting at a significantly lower cost to everyone. Well, the same goes for examining the prisons and targeting Islamic radicalization. Why would you spend money and effort on examining something that has not proven to be a problem, while that which has cost the lives of thousands of Americans, Australians, and other westerners remains free of examination because to do so would be racist?

Ms. are a moron. You are an idiot. You and your left wing, liberal, progressive followers have traded in common sense and logic for the lie that is political correctness.

God help this country.

Stupid is as stupid says.


Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Wanna win? Forget the debates!

Did anyone watch the debate last night?

I did not. I avoided it like I would the plague. Why? Because I wanted to see what normal "non political- junkie" type people would hear from the press the morning after. I wanted to see what the average Joe would see, and not have that tarnished by my own recollections.

Here's what I know so far:-

1. Huffington Post tells me that the republican candidates have lots of kids, that Ron Paul delivered over 4,000 of them before becoming a politician, and that Romney is definitely a spicy kinda guy.

OK...all good stuff to base an election on!

2. Fox news tells me that Pawlenty failed to deliver a killer blow to Romney when given the opportunity to attack Obamaney care.

3. MSNBC tells me that Cain runs from his black roots and hates Muslims, while Romney clearly won the debate.

What a lot of dribble. The only thing substantial to come out of the reports was that Michelle Bachman appears to have solidified as a serious contender, and should not be underestimated. Several reports covered that angle.

Here is my problem.

The reporting of the debate is nothing but a big yawn to me. The candidates did not create a moment that the press could not ignore. AND I suspect that the debates will have NO influence on the election results.

So I am addressing the rest of this post to the Republican candidates!

You Republican candidates need to understand this. At every opportunity you MUST take a risk and say or do something that the press cannot ignore. Now, you need to take care and not do or say something stupid that will set your campaign back weeks or months a la Newt Gingrich, but you must create a moment. Just one...just one EVERY time you are in a public meeting.

If you want to win the next election here are my thoughts on what you must do:-

1. have a simple plan and slogan that everyone can understand....Obama had his with Hope and Change....your's does not need to mean anything but DOES need to tug at the emotions...
How about something like..."It's time"?? Let the electorate determine for themselves, the individual voter, what exactly it is time for...they could read that as "It's time to stop illegal immigration" or "It's time to lower taxes" or "It's time to cut spending"....whatever THEIR issue is can be wrapped up in those two little words...It's time!

(Makes a great and easy sign to hand out too!)

2. you have a simple message that means exactly what the voter needs it to mean. What next? You have to deliver on plans that support the notion. You have to have have to sell the people the belief that not only is it time...but YOU are the person to make it happen.

To be effective you have to be strong on several simple issues:-
a). be strong on illegal immigration, strong borders, no amnesty, and rapid deportation of existing illegals. Be strong on supporting state rights on illegal immigration. Be strong on borders. Do not budge from your position. When people call you racist (and they will) stand proudly and say you are American. Do not give one inch on your position. Let everyone know exactly where you stand. Do not get caught up in explaining why you are not racist, do not play into their ONLY on your own.

b) be strong on small government/ cutting waste/ lower taxes. Do not allow the opposition to smear you with talk of unemployment rates, poor people eating dog food and reduction in handouts. Keep it simple...a possible simple step that EVERYONE will understand is to immediately slice 15% off the spending of every department in government. We all understand that. Do not talk budgets, do not talk about future reductions. Keep it simple. A sharp knife to cut 15% of spending TODAY. If businesses can do it, Government can do it. At the same time, reduce taxes, with a promise to revise the tax system to a fair tax or a flat rate tax in your first term.

c) you will not win without some suitable plan to deal with the likes of Social Security and Medicare, some plan to reduce entitlement spending in the future. This plan will be unpopular but has to be packaged in a way that the loss of entitlements can be seen as a benefit. The easiest way to do this is to tie it in with massive reductions in the nations debt. Every time you speak of changing the entitlements  you must relate it to the reduction in debt and the near term future for everybody. Take time to show how it will assist the children and grandchildren by reducing their debt burdens.Talk about the future and it's successes, and how the changes in the entitlements programs will be the direct cause of that NEAR future success.

d) the economy. It will all be about the economy at election time. You MUST have a simple plan to develop the environment where jobs will be created. You MUST not suggest that you will create jobs. You must NOT suggest that the Government will create jobs. You MUST state clearly that the Government will get out of the way and allow free market forces to enable the flow of capital to the most efficient and competitive industries, creating job growth and economic growth. You must state clearly that the Government will NOT be deciding which company's get funds, but the free market will determine that.

e) Finally you must wrap all this up in a platform that makes sense to the non-political person. They must see your sign saying "It's time" and know in their hearts that it is, and that you have the knowledge, skills and strength to make it happen.

Above all, you must be believable. You must be strong and positive. You need to call on their help, to make them feel like they are part of the team that will do it. You need to draw on their emotional attachments while also bringing them into your action plan. They need to know that by voting for you they are also saying that they will get into the trenches WITH you...and be a part of the change that is needed.

Just as Obama did in 2008, you need to empower the voters. You need to infuse them with a sense that they and you create an unbeatable and unstoppable force that can and will achieve all that you promise. You CAN achieve it because your voters are doing it too.

3. You need to ignite the imagination. Obama did that with his hope and change thing. He did that with his clever use of race. He did that with his ability to change "how" he spoke depending on his audience. He became one with the people he wanted to vote for him.

While I think he is a dope, and has really screwed up this country, I cannot refute the fact that he can campaign. He knows his message, his knows his voters. He promises them what they think they want. If you wish to be a truly competitive candidate you have to do this better than he does. You need to be able to change your delivery style while maintaining the strong message. You need to be able to be seen as "at one with the people" even though one day the audience may be scholars and the next day simpler folk. Your words must be changed, your language changed, your appearance changed. Your message NEVER changes. Just your delivery.

You need to become a chameleon...with one message for all people.

And you need to create moments. You need to be real, you need to put people above presentation. You need to speak from the heart, while never deviating from your message.

You need a simple message. If it cannot be stated clearly in 50 words or less, it will be too complex.

Do you want to win the election against Obama? You have just read the secret recipe!

But what do I know? My suggestions are free. I do not have a pedigree of political achievements behind me. I just know what appeals to me, and I suspect many millions of folk in this country who are sick of mealy mouthed politicians who lie at every opportunity and spin every statement. No more.

Someone who stands up and says...this is me, this is who you get and this is what we will do together...will have a huge advantage over the current actors in this Shakesperean tragedy.

By the way...if anybody wants to use that slogan, "It's time" all means do. Just make sure that you do everything else right as well!


Friday, June 10, 2011

A "Christian beat-down" comes my way!

A few days ago, maybe a week, I had an interesting experience that was akin to being in a bad rendition of Alice in Wonderland. It was actually bizarre, but reminiscent of my school days when I learned to never bow down before bullies.

Since then, I have been the recipient of a few beat downs from bullies, have won a few, have been the target of kidnapping attempts by Nigerian rebels, been held for ransom by said rebels, been the target of failed muggers in Boston and Tangiers, and numerous other events. I won't even start with my battles with legal thugs (state police) in East Germany and Russia in the days of the Soviet Union!

For a slightly overweight 200 pound 5'11" white accountant, I have had more than a few worldly experiences that have toughened me beyond what my 55 year old middle class looks imply.

Anyway, I tell you this as it has a direct bearing on how I responded to the situation I found myself deeply embroiled in.

The story starts when I drop my car off at my mechanic for some much needed repairs. My mechanic is one of the good guys and he always arranges to have a loaner vehicle for me so that I can go about my business when he is working on my car. These loaners are usually vehicles that he has bought and reconditioned for sale, and are usually older but in great mechanical condition.

The downside of this arrangement is that often there is not much gas in the tanks of the loaner, and that was the case on this day. Now, my mechanic is located pretty much in the center of my town. To the West is the better part of town while the East is sometimes described as the wrong side of the tracks, or more accurately, ghetto.

I needed to pass through the East side of town to get to my destination. And the car was low on gas. And as I drove, looking for a gas station, it did not take long for the dash lights to start blinking at me and the annoying verbal cues to start "binging" with increasing urgency.

Being in a strange car and not knowing when I was going to run out of fumes, I was relieved when I saw a gas station just in front of me. In the worst part of town. The sort of place that had bars on the windows. And broken signs displaying the prices...broken from rocks...or gunfire? Impossible to tell.

Anyway, I had no choice than to pull in. As I turned off the busy main road, a flashy new Chrysler 300 driven by a 40's black lady in a peacock blue dress was coming across the car park on my left. She stopped, smiled and waved me through.

I waved a thank you back and drove into the gas station and pulled up at the of at least 3 that were available.

The loud and incessant honking of a car horn behind me drew my eyes to the rear view mirror, where I saw a peacock blue blur pounding her steering wheel, filling the view in the mirror. She had driven so close to the rear of my vehicle that I could see nothing but her ample body and glaring face, as she punched her horn again.

I confess to being more confused than anything. What was this all about? She waved me through, there were several open pumps...what did I do wrong to cause such anger?

As I climbed out of the car, she exited hers and started yelling something about me not being nice, cutting her off, and whatever else she was yelling in her version of English.

I mouthed an apology, said she waved me through anyway, and then tried to use my card to pay for gas at the pump.

Of course, I had forgotten where I was. In this part of town you do not pay at the pump, presumably for the same reason that the bars were on the windows, so I walked inside to pay. The Chrysler had been repositioned to another free pump and I gave no further thought to it as I walked inside.

As I was paying for my gas I hear from behind me....

"He cut me off..."


"That white boy."

"What white boy?"

"That one standing there."

"Oh, that wasn't nice."

"No, it was not. But it is ok. I am a Christian and I will just let it go."

I hear the door open....presumably another customer has entered...

"He cut me off!"

The peacock was more stringent this time...louder, more aggressive. I refused to turn around, or show any concern.

"Who cut you off ?"

"That white boy standing there!"

"That wasn't nice."

"NO IT WAS NOT! And I bet he wouldn't be standing there smugg like that if a brother was around!!"

Forgive me for laughing here...I couldn't help thinking that this was a rather peculiar way of "letting it go because she was a Christian". And now she is coming out with the threats..."the brothers". Wow!

I finished paying and turned to go fill up my car.

The peacock stepped in front of me...worked up that head and neck wobble that they do so well and said in the loudest and shriekiest voice she could muster...

"You got no right cutting me off like that! Just wait till the brothers arrive. They will fix you up!"

That was it for me. I looked her in the eye and said..."Lady, I don't know what your problem is. You waved me through. I apologized for taking your spot (wishing I could add "but I don't see any sign saying reserved for the lady in the peacock dress"). Now, I am going to fill my tank and leave. If you are waiting for the "brothers"...bring it on. I am not scared of you or your threats. I am not scared of the brothers, they are no worse than the goons I have dealt with many times. Now, get out of my way."

She took a step back, clearly surprised that I would talk that way, and clearly very surprised that she did not scare me. I wonder what she thought of the smile that crossed my face as I laughed at the thought of the "Christian beat down" she must have been planning?

I filled my car, and got in, ready to drive out of the gas station. I was being careful to be aware of what was going on around me, as in these situations, surprise can be your worst enemy. I was not at all surprised when a Chrysler 300 suddenly appeared in front of my car, preventing me from driving forward.

I guess the peacock did not know, or, in the excitement of the moment forgot, that vehicles have a reverse gear. I just selected reverse and calmly drove backwards until I had room to drive past her. My last view of her was of a peacock blue dress and a mouth opening and closing like a clown fish. The image was so funny, I burst out laughing, and made a mental note to warn my mechanic that if he should ever happen to need gas at that station, "the brothers" may be waiting!

SO...a totally bizarre experience...but unfortunately one that is played out in many variations on a daily basis.

I told you about this true story because I believe we can all learn a number of things from this experience and I want to share some of them with you.

1. Things are not always as they appear.

In this case, the gas station was exactly as it appeared. A potentially dangerous place. By contrast the lady in the Chrysler was the exact opposite of what she appeared. Dressed nicely, if not uniquely, driving a nice car, pleasant enough looking....but with an anger management problem that rivals Michelle Obama and a mouth that matches. For all her middle class trappings, she was nothing but a ghetto queen who relied on threats and bullying to get her way. I am saddened to think that people like this exist. She must spend her days searching for opportunities to express her rage, and if those opportunities do not exist, she creates them.

I can't help help comparing her to the liberals of today. I recall Rahm Emmanuel saying "Never let a crisis go unrewarded". I recall Barack Obama telling the banks and car manufacturers what they will do, or else. I can recall many times in this administration where threats and bullying tactics have been used to further the left's agenda.

And it has all been done under the facade of peacock blue dresses.

2. Bullies are cowards.

This woman was a bully. There is no doubt about that. She uses her verbal skills and not insignificant physical presence to intimidate people. She uses the threat of violence to get what she wants when her verbal skills are insufficient. She uses her connections as the people who will mete out said violence (she couldn't risk discoloring her peacock dress in a physical confrontation). After all, she has the power to manipulate the fools she calls her "brothers" to do her dirty work for her.

But at the end of the day, she is nothing more than a coward. When I showed no fear of her, her threats or her "brothers" she had no power left. She became nothing more than a peacock blue dress making fish faces.

The current administration uses the exact same tactics. At first, verbally abuse and try to get other people to support you. When that doesn't work, become louder, more strident, more frequent in that abuse. If your target does not wilt from this onslaught, it is time to get in their face (didn't Obama tell his sycophant followers to "get in their faces"?). When that doesn't work it is time to bring out the big guns. The threat of violence from the thugs...the unions will organize and destroy you if you don't tie the line.

Wow. The liberal playbook comes from the surprise there!

3. Racism is alive and well in the USA.

OK...I get it. The blacks are still angry over the slave trade. They want reparations from whitey. They blame every bad thing in their lives on the white robber barrons. I get it...I really do.

What I don't get is why a segment of the black population does everything in their power to destroy their own futures, rather doing what the white man does and securing it? Can somebody tell me why this is?

Being poor is tough. Believe it or not I understand that all too well. I have been there, where I could not afford to buy food, and did not know where my next meal would come from. But I didn't trash my home...I didn't go out and steal from my neighbor...I didn't do any of the things that go on in ghetto land.

Now, racism in ghetto land is stronger than ever. A white man can not get gas without being abused and threatened with the combined strength of the brothers. Pleeaaasee!!

You racist thugs out there, take heed. I am not, now ever will be scared of you. I will not bow to your demands, I will not hang my head before your physical intimidation. I will stand up to you. You are nothing but racist goons and thugs, bullies of the first order. I have received beat downs from bullies before and I am sure to receive them in the future. But you will not win. You will not make me cower, and you will not prevent me from speaking the truth.

Racism is alive and well in this administration. Eric Holder has plunged the Department of Justice into a darkness that has not been experienced since the second world war and the anti-semitism that was rife then. The DOJ is now one of the most racist organisations on this planet. I do not care what was done in the past. I care only about where this country is headed.

The DOJ is supported by the likes of Sharpton, Jackson et al. The unions are their bully boys...the "brothers" stalk the corridors of power looking to mete out a beat-down on anyone who disagrees.

We must make a stand and make it clear that we will not run away from racist bullies. That we will not cower under their thinly disguised threats. That we will stand up for what we believe and never bow before them.

Even if we take a few beat-downs along the way.

The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them, never fear them,  and in so doing eventually show them to be the cowards they are.

4. Stupidity abounds

Remember that as I was readying to leave the gas station, the peacock drove her car in front of mine in an idiotic gesture to prevent me leaving the station (presumably so that the brothers could finish their crack pipe before coming to give the beat down I so much deserved)?

The message here is simple. Bullies know of only one way to get what they want. You have many ways of avoiding their stupid attempts. I was not for one minute concerned when she drove in front of me. There were so many ways  I could go, she could not block them all. She was useless, and stupidly attempting to block me. She was stupid because she knew it would do no good, but she did it anyway. She could not admit defeat.

The current administration knows only one way of doing things. Unfortunately, too often the opposition falls into their traps and does not look at other options. It is our responsibility to see that when the way forward is blocked, there are many other ways to get to where you are going. Calmly seeking those ways will allow us to get around the roadblocks, and taking the game out of the ghetto where their rules apply, and into the open where the rules of common sense and logic rule.

Never fall into the trap that the only way forward is through the roadblock set up by the bullies. That is what they want you to try to do, where they can rely on their strengths and the one thing they know well. Intimidation.

Find another way where their intimidation tactics have no more success than their cowardice.

Thus ends the lesson for today.

Should anyone want to correspond with me privately, please email me at

I will try to respond to all emails...but be warned, you could become the subject the next dose of reality. last thing. I have no idea what political philosophies and beliefs are held by Ms. Peacock....but the Hope and Change sticker on her car may provide some indication.

Stupid is as stupid says.


Thursday, June 9, 2011

Who wants a Weiner?

Oh my!

Are we condemned to hearing a bunch of Weiner jokes for the next 3 months? Maybe through the next election cycle?

I was not going to comment on Weiner's unfortunate but nevertheless self imposed quandary. I was going to give it the attention it deserved....none. But the press seems obsessed with him...will he or won't he?

When airlines offer Weiner specials, and even the Food Network gets in the act with a "month of Weiners" I knew I could not remain oblivious. If the esteemed chefs at Food Network are into Weiners, who am I to remain out of the fray?

So...while I doubt that Anthony Weiner even knows of my existence, and even if he did, would, in most likelihood ignore my advice, I remain convicted to give him some

Dear Mr. Weiner,

Get a grip!!


There you go! Done.

Now we can move on to more interesting subjects, but of course they are all related to the favorite subject of the Where would this world be without sex and sex scandals? An entire industry would disappear over night. And the porn industry would go as well. Print magazines would go the way of the dinosaur as would television and movies. Life as we know it would fact it would never have started.

So, the reality is that we are stuck with it. And, we are free to enjoy it in the many variations we like. It is not for me to judge whether a person's specific sexual proclivity is a perversion or simply the manifestation of their deepest erotic passions. In either case, I simply do not care. What adults do in their own private lives is none of my business...and none of your business either.

If someone enjoys multiple partners inside or outside of marriage, that has no bearing on the strength of my own. If someone enjoys same sex sex, that does not change my hetero inclinations. I do not care.

So, why do we all get so pompous and upset when our political leaders display the same human passions that everybody else has? Why do we get inflamed when we hear of extra-marital affairs, homosexual liaisons, sexting incidents?

In reality, who gives a rat's ass about that stuff?

Let me tell you something. I DO!

I don't care what they do, what bizarre or unusual sex acts they enjoy. I don't care who they enjoy it with.

What I care about is this. It is simple really.

I care about the fact that the person who is leading my country, or representing me in Congress is nothing more than a lying, cheating, despicable creep who is willing to throw the trust the electorate bestowed upon him on the trash heap of his sexual proclivities.

I suppose if you want a lying, cheating, despicable creep representing you, you wouldn't care about his sexual dallies, or his lies, and deceit.

Here is my problem. If a politician is married, as most are, and they maintain some sort of relationship outside of that marriage, and hide that relationship from their spouse (as most do), they are lying in the worst possible way to the woman or man they claim to love.

If they can so brazenly lie to the person they love, what do you think they will do to you? Do you think they will care about being truthful to someone they have never met, wouldn't know from Adam and will probably never have to answer to personally?

I don't care if the person in question is named Clinton, Gingritch, Foley, Spitzer....or Weiner....the same rules apply. IF you are willing to lie to your wife(or husband) about anything, you no longer have the right to expect my trust.

So to all the philandering , lying, deceitful Representatives, Senators, Governors, Mayors and elected dog catchers out there....take note. I do not care that you have sexual perversions, tastes different to mine, preferences that I can not ever understand. However...if you EVER have to stand up in front of us with your long suffering spouse by your side (or refusing to be at your side) with the aim of confessing your faults and asking forgiveness, here is what you will get.

You will get my forgiveness...that is what we are called to do. Not because it helps you but because it serves as the first step to repairing MY hurt. You will NEVER regain my trust, nor will you ever get my vote again. When you have proven yourself to be nothing but a lying, deceitful piece of crap, it is done.

So, Weiner....back to you.

I don't know which is worse. That you are refusing to resign and thereby not allowing the faith of those who trusted you to be put where it will be rewarded with honor, is indicative of a man who has no honor. The fact that there is an electorate willing to accept you as the lying cheating bastard that you are, and defend you as simply having made a mistake, and even contemplates your re-election is symptomatic of how low our expectations have fallen. An electorate that even considers re-electing or supporting a lying cheating scumbag is sure to get what they deserve.

Stupid is as stupid says.


Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Liberalism...societal change, lifestyle...or mental disorder?

This past week or so I have been battling government bureaucratic stupidity and the inertia it produces. I have battling customer service focused enterprises in the free market, only to find that big government stupidity has reached deep into the collective activities of many corporations.

This gave me cause to stop and think. Why is the world moving in the direction it is heading? Why don't people do their jobs any more? Why is it that nothing happens smoothly, and customer service departments find themselves over-run with irate customers?

These are big questions, and as one of those irate customers, I need to try to find a logical answer. Only then can a solution be found.

In my way of thinking, I believe many of this county's woes (and indeed those of the world) have been a direct result of a fundamental change in the way people think.

This fundamental change has been labeled many things....liberalism, progressivism, semi-socialism....but it has never, to my knowledge, been named exactly what it is...STUPIDITY.

I have come to the conclusion that liberalism has to be one of three things:-
1) a societal system whereby everyone gets everything they want regardless of effort
2) a lifestyle where liberals can go around being all inclusive of everybody else, not judging anyone and  living in a world of peace because they want it so (of course, all-inclusive excludes all conservatives, whites, heterosexuals and Christians - if you fall into one or other of these categories, the all-inclusive rules do not apply)
3) a mental disorder

In an honest attempt to understand, I will look at each of the three things listed above individually.


A part-time and not very interested reader of history will soon discover one truth above all others. The human ability to always be searching for a societal system that represent greater freedom, greater flexibility, greater opportunities for success. In fact, mankind's ability to survive against the harshest of weather, and the dangers posed by animals that are faster, stronger and better equipped for the climate and hunting, is testament to his ability to evolve and adapt to the circumstances. This is seen in all cultures from the most primitive New Guinea tribes to the most sophisticated ancient modern man. The search for an improvement in life has never ceased and is unlikely to ever stop.

Along the way there have been many failed experiments. Systems of societal life have been hypothesized and tried. Mankind's numerical expansion required learning of different skills for hunting, feeding the tribe, nurturing the children and providing a structure that allows the next generation to thrive.

The transition from small independent tribes to nations was the direct result of a need to combine tribes for protection, to develop political structures for beneficial security from outsiders. Armies grew for defense and in some cases expansion. Borders were created to delineate the areas controlled by groups of tribes. Nations grew from disparate tribes all holding similar views of culture and lifestyle.

Mankind's history is filled with change, filled with experimentation, filled with successes and failures. And definitely full of progress.

Of great interest is the structures that have succeeded most. The monarch type society has been very successful and has created generally happy nations with successful development over long periods of time. Most of Europe developed under monarchical system, initially at the local level with local chiefs or warlords and then ultimately at a national level where one person found him/herself as having supreme power over a number of tribes. The industrial revolution was a major success under a monarchical system. Along the way and since there have always been the dictatorial systems, the mad men that want complete power, and the influence of the Church (Christian and Muslim) which try to obtain power through creating rules that effect the way you live your life.

Socialists watched the church and saw how power can be transferred by changing the way people think. The early socialists sought to remove the power of the church and replace it with the power of free thought. They changed the meanings of words, they created class warfare, they supported the people and taught their followers that equality was essential for the next step in human societal development.

Their heroes were seen as normal men who were fighting the rich in the name of the poor. That is, until the revolution...when almost overnight, the socialist leaders became the elite...the rich...and the people became the slaves, the poor, the abused.

This was one of mankind's greatest mistakes in the historical context of societal change.

The socialist/communist states collapsed under the weight of their own programs.And that experiment clearly failed, however many proponents remain who believe that ultimate success was "just around the corner".

Among all of this change was the American experiment. A group of people challenged the existing understanding of how the world works and created a new country. How successful was this experiment? Well, in less than 200 years this Nation became the most prosperous, the most powerful, the most creative and the most successful society ever known in the history of the world. Sure, mistakes were made, faults appear, and the Nation is not perfect....but there is no doubt that something was right in what she did.

So where does that leave the liberals of today? Their societal direction is more aligned with the socialist concepts of the European story than with the capitalist free market thoughts that drove America to where she is today. To me, this looks like a major step away from success and toward failure.

Why would you go backwards to a failed system when a successful system is already in place? Mankind's success has always been tied to moving forward. Moving backward is heading for failure. And yet this is what the liberal societal change is all about.

The reality is that not everyone is equal, not everyone has the same abilities, and not everyone will reap the same rewards for their labor. The fact that this is an ideal espoused by liberals is frightening. It undermines the very foundations of mankind, and will ultimately lead to destruction.

Nope. I don't see liberalism as being a means to societal systems that work, but rather as the highway to destruction.


This concept puzzled me for a while as I had never considered what I call a "political bent" to actually be appealing because of its lifestyle implications. It turns out that this was a serious error on my part and that lifestyle could easily be a major driver in the appeal of calling oneself a liberal.

The progressive agenda has been extremely successful in framing the political conversation and writing the agenda. They have been very good at defining the stereotypical liberal as the "freedom loving, accepting of differences, caring, protective of children and the elderly, gatekeepers of all that is good" people who have a moral authority to dictate to others how they should live.

Conversely, conservatives are defined as the"rich by illegal means, robber barons who want to let people die and will throw grandma off the cliff if they can make a buck doing it, gun toting religious nuts"

It is clear from these definitions that most people would prefer to be defined as a liberal than as a conservative. If I accepted these definitions, I would certainly not want to be called a conservative.

But labels are just labels, and while some labels have greater appeal than others, how do they effect one's lifestyle?

In my experience, there are two different lifestyles that are actually related to the labels conservative and liberal:-
1. the "liberal" label conjures up a few realities. Liberals are the foul mouthed thugs at rallies. They are the ones that propose class warfare. They physically intimidate those who disagree with them. (In fact virtually every act of political violence occurring in America since Lincoln was shot by a crazed liberal actor, have been perpetrated by a liberal.) Liberals tend to be angry. They tend to attack discussions and arguments with verbal assault and running away. And worst of all...they are hypocrites.

In what way are they hypocrites? They say they care for the poor...but want the rich to pay for it. Not them. They want everyone to have a certain standard of living but they do not invite the homeless to share their 5 bedroom house. They want the trappings of success...the house, the car, the toys, the restaurants etc....but they do not share it with the very people they want to help. Their words are empty noises.

And my contention is that this is the reason they are angry. They are conflicted in their personal lifestyle choices. They cannot match their lifestyle with their rhetoric. And they cannot justify what they want by talking about what they think should be. They are searching for validation but their lifestyle actually denies that relief.

Nope. Lifestyle is not the right reason to be a liberal...on the other hand...

2) the conservative label also conjures some harsh realities. God fearing, constitution loving people who care deeply for the unfortunate. People who give to faith based charities, give to their neighbors who are in need and generally support each other. People who want the government to take a back seat. People who believe i n their own ability to support their families and themselves. People who find NO conflict between their lifestyle and their political beliefs. They have no guilt about the trappings of success as they believe that all people should enjoy that...but they need to get it themselves, not on the back of someone else.

They do not blame the poor for being poor, and want them to succeed. They offer jobs, not handouts....they offer education , not food stamps. They value and enjoy family and friends as do the liberals...the main difference being that they do not try to convert their liberal friends to being conservative and get angry when they don't. Education is a slower process than a "Road to Damascus" type conversion that the liberals seek.

If true lifestyle was the reason for being a liberal, then liberals would not exist as their lifestyle does not compare. It is only the "idea" of the lifestyle that is appealing. The reality is something else entirely.

Which brings me to....


If societal change does not drive liberals, and lifestyle is not the reason, there can be only one other alternative. It is a mental disorder.

A logical person with no political agenda at all, could look at the positions of a liberal and a conservative and see the difference:-

- liberals philosophize about a real world where everyone is equal and the poor do not exist (of course they know that everyone is not equal in this world but they see themselves as being among the more equal "elite" class) - this is an illogical thought pattern indicating mental illness

- liberals want to take from someone else and give to the poor . As long as the someone else is not them, this feeds their need to be altruistic, and helps them feel better. It also hinges on being psychotic - a mental disorder

- liberals create Messiahs, someone to lead them out of the wilderness and into the promised lands...they bow down before mere men as though they were demi-Gods. They fawn over these creations of their own minds and wonder why everyone does not bow at the feet of their creations. This is a mental disorder.

- liberals live in a fantasy world where they want bears no resemblance to what is. The laws of economics do not apply in their fantasy world. Reality is irrelevant. They live in a world far divorced from the real world. - mental illness

I can go on, but will refrain from boring my readers any more than I already have.

I have come to the conclusion, through logic and example, that liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.

There is simply no other explanation.

I hope they all seek treatment.


Thursday, June 2, 2011

Stop the Republican extremists!!

What a great headline that is.

It is actually a promotion started by (who else?) the left, to discourage qualified candidates from the right in running for office. It is also designed to solidify the agenda of the left by doing what they do so well...stealing words and changing their meanings.

They have already done this with the word "racist" and have many people believing that if someone disagrees with the policies of the incumbent President then that person must be racist. See my post a while ago about the race card...

Of course, all this manipulation of words and recreation of meanings has been a process for a long time, starting with the evil of political correctness. Surprisingly, I have some thoughts on that too....

And now we come to the left's new ploy.

If racist does not make 'em run, maybe extremist will?

Nobody wants to be called an extremist, do they? We all know that being an extremist is close to being a fundamentalist, and fundamentalist adherents to Islam are close to if we can call the right extremists, the people will associate that with terrorists and the game is over!! Right?

Ok. Good plan.....maybe.

Let's look at the definition of "extremist".

A quick trip to reveals this gem...
"a person who favours or resorts to immoderate,uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in beingpolitically radical"

And close by, a quote from Robert Kennedy...
"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." [Robert F. Kennedy, 1964]

Now, I can live with both the definition and the quote.

I think they combine to show pretty clearly what an extremist is and what the dangers are.

So...let us now look at the different beliefs of the conservative and the progressive. Let us look at what they say, and see whether the definition actually fits....

This is gonna be fun!!

Point 1: 
Conservatives believe that the power should be in the hands of the people, that ever man, woman and child should have the freedom to make their own choices, follow their own journey in life and be responsible for the outcome of their decisions.

Progressives believe that Government is the right organization to control the populace, that the people do not have the intellect or capacity to determine what is good for them, and that it is the role of Government to ensure people do what is best for them by providing a structure to prevent them from doing what is not good for them. This structure is "law" with significant painful penalties if you eat the wrong food, drive the wrong car or use the wrong sort of energy (as a few minor examples). These laws are enforced by a plethora of agencies paid for by the very people controlled by them.

OK. So one group seeks freedom for all and personal responsibility. Sounds good to me. Nothing too extreme there. The other group wants government control and enforcement to make sure you do what you are told. Ummm...that sounds like forceful control of everyone...that kinda sounds extreme to me.

Point 2:

True Conservatives believe in small and limited government with the responsibilities and obligations of the government limited by the Constitution under which the law of this republic was created. laws were created to limit government and conservatives support that. Doesn't seem too extreme to me.

On the other hand, progressives want to rewrite the Constitution to include all manner of things that help them create larger government and more control over your life. They want to make you all believe this Nation is a Democracy and not a representative Republic governed by law. A democracy on the other hand is little more than control by the masses and the masses can be easily bought off with a few shekels. Progressives want to fundamentally change this country. Ummm....a bit too extreme for me!

Point 3:
Conservatives want people to be responsible for their own actions, to be responsible for their own families and to be responsible for their own success (or failure). That sounds very reasonable to me....certainly not extreme.

Progressives want the state to be responsible for ensuring that everybody can look after themselves, their families and their future. This state responsibility extends to those who make poor decisions, fail to take education seriously, or simply are too lazy to take responsibility themselves. Since the state has no money of its own, it needs to take money from those who are responsible and give that to those who are not. Umm...isn't that a bit extreme?

Point 4:

Conservatives seek lower taxes. This means that when you work for a living, you get to keep more of what you made. Does that sound extreme to you?

Progressives want to punish the hard workers by taking more of his money and giving it to the lazy or others that the elites determine in their own minds are worthy. I call that stealing...and very extreme.

Point 5: 

Conservatives believe that God and the belief in him and faith are the cornerstone of American culture. Belief in God has never (until now) been considered extreme.

Progressives want all reference to God be taken out of every Government activity, in case someone may be offended. Every reference. Doesn't that sound extreme to you?

Point 6:

Conservatives want the producers and risk takers and workers to all share in the profits of their efforts. They understand that capital flows to successful efforts and flows away from unsuccessful enterprises. They want the free flow of capital and labor to determine which markets thrive, fail or just meander along. The great American free market has not been a free market in 200 years, and yet the principals of a free market remain solid. Is it extreme to want to let the consumer determine which producers succeed or fail?

Progressives want success to be determined by some form of "fairness quotient" and not by what the market determines. They want to prop up inefficient and failing businesses and manage the flow of capital to those business government believes SHOULD exist (not caring what the people want - the people are not smart enough to know what is good for them.) Since the government has no money of its own, it will take money from the successful producers and business and give it to the unsuccessful business (without government funding those businesses would fail because capital does flow toward failing businesses). Once again, progressive steal from the successful to give to the unsuccessful. That sounds pretty extreme to me.

So, in just a few minutes, on a side by side comparison, it seems that what we have here is the progressive movement trying to transpose their program of extremist desires onto the true conservatives. This is exactly what a great progressive, Robert Kennedy warned of.

If you didn't get it before, I shall repeat it here...

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." [Robert F. Kennedy, 1964]

Does this give you pause to think?

Even Robert Kennedy, a stalwart of the progressive movement was able to see, over 50 years ago, where the greatest threat lies. 

You progressives out you still think Republicans are extremists? Or do you have the moral certitude to know in your hearts that your beliefs are the extremist views, and conservatives are simply showing you the way.

Progressive words do have meanings. Robert Kennedy understood this, and at least had the moral honesty to point out that what you call your opponents is the greater evil.

Take note.

Stupid is as stupid says.