The-Decline-and-Fall

Post #322 Fair!?!

2012-01-27T12:18:00.001-08:00

Fair? Romney's tax returns show extent, complexity of wealth | http://ajc.com - http://shar.es/fWiux

Yes, look, Mitt Romney paid all his taxes and gave a lot to charity -- unlike, say, Donald Trump. My question is, will Romney now advocate everyone who can afford it to pay income tax at an equal rate?

We should all be treated equally under the law. How is taking from some -- the middle -- but not from others -- the rich -- to pay for something everyone receives equal? The only fair way to collect taxes is to make everyone who can afford it pay an equal rate.

Note that I am not including the poor because I am a decent human being with compassion for those less fortunate than I am. You?

The shame of America is not that we are letting 47% of Americans get away with not paying federal income tax; the shame of America is that we have 47% of Americans who cannot afford to pay federal income tax.

Post #322 The Strange And Bizarre World Of Sarah Palin

2012-01-20T12:01:00.001-08:00

Sarah Palin has kind of, sort of endorsed Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich -- the worst insult I can think of -- is a career politician who went to D.C. in 1979 and never left, even after resigning as the first Speaker having been found guilty of an ethic violation. He has used his political connections to enrich himself to the tune of some $32 million.

He will bend to benefit himself -- how much did he get for his consulting with the Right's #1 whipping boy of BIG government, Freddie Mac? Would not you like to know what that work entailed?

Gingrich's political skills are suspect -- he led the politically unpopular government shutdown and Impeachment while banging wife #3 but still married to wife #2 (who was the product of an affair, too). And he tries to hide behind Ronald Reagan's divorce, ignoring the fact that Reagan did not even meet wife #2 until after his divorce.

Gingrich is unmotivated -- how else do you explain his failure to qualify for the Virginia ballot? -- except to himself. Now, as the Virginia failure shows, he's more interested in running a book tour than a campaign -- as his campaign staff who resigned in June said. And then he compares the Virginia failure to Pearl Harbor. WHAT!?! He is NOT the United States of America, and the Virginia law has been in effect for some 40 years!

I would not vote this guy to be dogcatcher. Newt Gingrich IS part of the problem.

But Sarah Palin would -- which actually says A LOT about her. But Palin does not really endorse Gingrich: Her motive is to keep the process going -- which that kind of double-talk actually says even more about her.

Palin said, "Because we know the mistake made in this country four years ago was having a candidate that was not vetted to the degree he should have been."

No, ma'am. The only candidate who was not properly vetted four years ago was YOU. Only Tea Party fanatics believe that Obama was not properly vetted because he did not show his birth certificate from Kenya.

Only in the strange and bizarre world of Sarah Palin is she relevant -- and Paul Revere is a traitor who warned the British. :p I am only writing about her because it feels good to kick a bag when she is down. ;O

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #321 Happy Days Are Here Again!, Pt. IV

2012-01-17T12:14:00.001-08:00

Two things I want you, gentle reader, to take from the previous Post:
1) The company Freightliner received incentives -- bribes -- from the county to maintain a 'skeleton crew' until the economy picked back up and they could re-hire., Isn't that a positive example of BIG government at work?
2) The company expanded -- new jobs to increase supply -- in response to the economy picking up -- demand. Yes, supply & demand. What is missing from that equation? Tax cuts -- tax cuts have nothing to do with job creation; tax cuts are how the right redistributes wealth. It's social engineering brought to you by your favorite (R).

Post #320 Happy Days Are Here Again!, Pt. III

2012-01-13T12:01:00.001-08:00

NC Freightliner factory to add 1,100 jobs - http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/01/12/1772308/nc-freightliner-factory-to-add.html

Who is this job creator? Didn't he get the GOP memo about waiting until after the election?

Post #319 The Three Men Who Brought Down Wall Street (E-Mail Hoax)

2012-01-10T12:02:00.001-08:00

I have an e-pal who consistently sends out-of-date political smears -- the funniest I've gotten was clearly aimed at President Bill Clinton over 10 years ago (complete with a reference to Obama and his wife Hillary).

And I got another one the other day -- The Three Men Who Brought Down Wall Street -- intended to smear President Barack Obama's re-election bid. The original went around in September of 2008 intended to smear Obama's election bid, and now it is popping up again to smear Obama's re-election bid.

The three men who brought down Wall Street -- really? These three men -- Franklin Raines, Tim Howard, Jim Johnson -- did indeed work for Fannie Mae and left office under a cloud for having done some hijinks and shady stuff and received 'golden parachutes' to go. Um, they were forced out in 2004, 2004 and 1998. The e-mail did not make clear how they were responsible for the meltdown in 2008.

Um, 2004 -- was not George W. Bush President then?

The kicker was that these three men were identified as being economic advisors to the Obama campaign, but that is not true. Raines did receive a phone call from the campaign, and Johnson was appointed to the Vice-Presidential search committee but resigned one week later before doing any work. And now these three are again being identified as Obama's financial advisors. * sigh *

An UPDATE: Raines is paying the biggest fine in history levied by Obama's Department Of Justice in 2010.

Post #318 And The Winner Is...

2012-01-03T12:07:00.001-08:00

... Mitt Romney.

No, I do not have some kind of crystal ball here to know what is going to happen in Iowa. but the winner should be Romney -- if the Republicans want to have a chance to win the White House.

To win the Presidential election of 2012, Republicans must oppress the 'Obama vote' of 2008 -- not by legal maneuvers, as they are already doing. * sigh * But by offering a reasonable alternative to Obama. 'Birthers' need not apply -- 'birthers' stir up the 'Obama vote' and scare away moderates. That leaves Romney.

Now, the other half of the equation is, to win the Presidential election of 2012, Republicans must increase the 'McCain vote' of 2008. The real question of 2012 is, can Republicans rally around Romney or will the 'birthers' lead to another defeat?

All politics is local, and all political questions are personal -- so:

I have diabetes. As you may or may not know, diabetes is an expensive disease to have and is -- Thank Goodness -- covered by Medicare. A couple of years ago, I developed a heart rhythm problem and was prescribed some drugs under George W. Bush's infamous Plan D complete with a 'doughnut hole.'

Obamacare closed the 'doughnut hole' -- thusly, saving my life.

So, yes, I am asking what my country can do for me -- how can my country secure my unalienable right to Life? Of the Republican Presidential candidates still standing, I most trust Romney to keep the 'doughnut hole' closed. I will be looking for him to address that issue in the next 10 months.

Post #317 Happy Days Are Here Again!, Pt. II

2011-12-30T13:02:00.001-08:00

No, obviously, President Barack Obama does not deserve credit for every bit of good news -- I was just sticking it to those who do not give Obama any credit. The truth is somewhere in between.

Two things I want you, gentle reader, to take from the previous Post:
1) Grand Ol' Pissers :p -- an appropriate name, I thought, for the 'Just Say No' crowd, todays GOP;
2) The 'loyal opposition' needs to offer a better view of the future and how to achieve that future. 'Restore America To A 19th-Century Country' does not cut it -- we live in the 21st-century. [rolleves]

Post #316 Happy Days Are Here Again!

2011-12-23T12:10:00.001-08:00

Santa Clause has been good to the Obamas, and President Barack and First Lady Michelle are dancin' a jig in the East Room.

Osama Bin Laden is dead.

The guy who was to replace Bin Laden is dead.

Muammar el Qaddafi is dead.

Kim Jong-II is dead, and the New York Times dutifully reported that the CIA "missed" Kim's illness.

Iran's top nuclear scientist is dead, and another has been wounded in a assassination attempt, and the Iranians blame Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

And we are finally letting the Iraqis fight it out themselves.

Hosni Mubarak is out-of-power.

Bashar Assad is nervous, and Ahmadinejad can't sleep.

On the home front, consumer confidence -- whatever that is -- is up, and consumer spending is at a higher level now than when George W. Bush tanked the economy. The stock market is healthy again. Unemployment is down. The trade deficit is down. And America is on the verge of becoming an oil-exporter nation again -- for the first time in nearly a decade, we will export more oil than we import.

The point is, despite the efforts of the GOP -- the Grand Ol' Pissers, the economy is coming back, and the GOP will pay a political price in 2012 -- in 2012, the voters will say no to the 'Just Say No' crowd. They never should have bet against America.

Of course, anything could happen -- Martians could attack. But things look good for those in the White House now. l'd hate to be betting my political future on the fear that something could happen. Can't the 'loyal opposition' offer a better view of the future?

Post #315 How Washington Works... Or Does NOT Work!

2011-12-20T12:36:00.001-08:00

lnteresting crap here: Boehner says House opposes Senate payroll tax bill: http://on.msnbc.com/uMnK9Q

* * *

Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House.

One is from Chicago, the second is from Tennessee and the third is from Minnesota. All three go with a White House official to examine the fence.

The Minnesota contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. "Well," he says, "I figure the job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me."

The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, "I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me."

The Chicago contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, "$2,700." The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?" The Chicago contractor whispers back, "$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence." "Done!" replies the government official.

And then the Republicans give a tax cut to the guy from Chicago because he is a job creator!

And that my friends, is how Washington works!!!

Post #314 War Is Over!, Pt. II

2011-12-16T12:07:00.001-08:00

Good afternoon,

After nearly nine years, our war in Iraq is ending.

In recent days, many of our troops have come home and been reunited with
their families for the holidays. Over the next few days, a small group of
American soldiers will begin the final march out of Iraq.

This moment of success is because of their sacrifice. More than 1.5
million Americans have served in Iraq. More than 30,000 of these brave
men and women were wounded. Nearly 4,500 gave their lives.
America's military families have borne a heavy burden.

As we mark the end of this war, we need to show our veterans and their
families that they have the thanks of a grateful nation.

Take a minute to look back at the moments that brought us to this point,
then share a personal message of gratitude with those who have served.

Send your message of thanks

Part of ending a war responsibly is standing by those who have fought it.
It's not enough to honor our heroes with words; we must do so with deeds.

That's why we've worked to send 600,000 veterans and family members back
to school on the Post-9/11 GI Bill. That's why one of Michelle's top
priorities as First Lady has been to support military families and why
she's worked with the private sector to get commitments to create 100,000
jobs for those who've served and their spouses. That's why we worked with
Congress to pass a tax credit so that companies have an incentive to hire
vets and have taken steps to help veterans translate military experience
to the private sector job market.

In America, our commitment to those who fight for our freedom and our
ideals doesn't end when our troops take off the uniform.

You can be a part of this effort to honor our heroes.

Help mark this moment. Write a quick note that troops and veterans all
over the world will be able to see:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/iraq

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Post #313 Who Is The Real Joke, Donald?

2011-12-09T12:12:00.001-08:00

Look in the mirror, pal. Trump: Huntsman and Paul are 'joke candidates': http://on.today.com/rLvMcdP

The real 'joke:' Trump: The Least Charitable Billionaire | The Smoking Gun http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/trump-least-charitable-billionaire-109247

You, Mr. Trump, are part of the problem!

Post #312 Thrilled To Have Heard From John McCain

2011-12-02T12:21:00.001-08:00

But disappointed to have received a form letter that did not address my concerns or questions. As you know -- my Post #281, I e-mailed Senator John McCain with my concern over what I see as a waste of taxpayer money -- his Social Security payment.

I received a reply... almost 5 months later. I do not know yet if I'll bother to reply, but, if I do, it will be something like this:

* * *

Senator John McCain,

Thanks for the reply -- tho I am pretty sure some flunkie wrote that advertising brochure for you. A decent human being -- giving you the benefit-of-the-doubt -- would have offered condolences for my Grandma's death. But that was some flunkie, right?

I would have expected you -- assuming you really wrote that -- to address my question as to why you made over 4 times from Social Security than my Grandma. I'm guessing that you would have said something like: "I paid into the Social Security system; therefore, I am entitled to all the benefits under the rules."

Is that right, Mr. McCain? I'd love to hear a different explanation from you.

Well, I say that sense of entitlement is what is ruining this country -- first and foremost, the sense of entitlement by people like you who have 'won' in life sticking their snout in the trough of big government. You could support 4 Grandmas with your Social Security snort. Why not give it back? It's called leadership -- setting an example for others who have 'won.'

Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

So, I laid out my contention that you ought to return your Social Security payments under the theory that you'd be providing leadership by setting an example for others who have 'won' in life to my Dad -- a Reagan Democrat who is a good no-nonsense sounding board for my political ideas. My Dad said "it'd be nice if McCain returned his Social Security payments, buy the rules are that he gets what he gets."

And then it dawned on me: You, Senator McCain, are in a position to change the rules. The problem with this country is too many deadbeats looking for a handout -- and it starts at the top. Make those deadbeats who have already 'won' get their snout out of the trough of big government.

What do you say?

P.S.: My Mom -- bless 'er heart! -- gasped "John McCain, war hero?" -- meaning, of course, 'how dare I ask a war hero for sacrifice?' I answered, "Who better than a patriot would understand the need for sacrifice from EVERYBODY?"

Post #311 Happy Black Friday!

2011-11-25T14:53:00.001-08:00

How was your Thanksgiving? I read an e-mail from the White House in Washington, D.C., written by our First Lady, Michelle Obama:

* * *

Good morning,

Every Thanksgiving, Barack sits down to call some of our troops and thank them for their service.

When he tells me about these conversations, it always reminds me of how blessed we are to live in a country where men and women will stand up to protect our freedoms and preserve our way of life. And whenever I've had the chance to meet with these heroes and their families, I've always walked away inspired by their courage and in awe of their strength.

I can't think of any better way to spend Thanksgiving than letting our service members know how grateful we are for everything that they do. So this year, we're making it easy to do just that.

We've partnered with the USO to create a program called Thanks From Everywhere. To get involved, simply visit JoiningForces.gov/Thanks and write a quick note that troops and veterans all over the world will be able to see.

Add your message to Thanks From Everywhere.

Your note will be added to a map with messages from people all over the country, showing our troops and their families just how much we appreciate their service and sacrifice.

If we all do our part, we'll help to build a wave of support to honor our veterans and their families -- and ensure they get the recognition they deserve this holiday season.

At a time when we are sitting down to share the blessings we've received this past year, please take a moment to be a part of this effort to thank America's heroes and their families.

Send a message to Thanks From Everywhere today:

http://www.JoiningForces.gov/Thanks

Happy Thanksgiving,

Michelle Obama

* * *

And how many "anti-Obama" e-mails did you "Fwd" today? How many did you verify? A misinformed electorate, that is what we need.... :p

Post #310 Missing Michelle Bachmann's 'Cajones,' Pt. II

2011-11-15T13:44:00.001-08:00

Good Lord, woman.

"[I]f anyone will not work, neither should he eat."
-- Michelle Bachmann

As Bachmann knows -- or should know, the above quote from the Bible concerns Christians who will not work in anticipation of the Second Coming, not the poor. Indeed, there are over 300 verses in the Bible on how to deal with the poor -- not one verse says to let 'em starve!

Either Bachmann knows this -- and is (mis)using the Bible to advance her own agenda, or she is just stupid.

The campaign needs to end now BEFORE Bachmann says something else stupid, like, say, endorsing torture. Oh, wait.... :p

Post #309 Put Me In Charge . . .

2011-11-04T12:06:00.001-07:00

I got this in e-mail, http://www.theveteransvoice.com/Put-me-in-charge.html -- tho it was wrong attributed to a 21 year old female who was concerned with the socialism she is being forced to live under:

* * *

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or xBox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the common good..

Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

* * *

And, of course, the e-mail included this little embellishment:

* * *

AND While you are on Govt subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Govt welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job. Now, if you have the guts - PASS IT ON.

* * *

WOW. No wonder Hitler got elected. Hitler stirred up fear and resentment, too. The comments I have seen in support of this have been jaw-dropping....

We have man who wants to fight socialism by being in charge of socialist programs and making welfare recipients second-class citizens. It's like Jim Crow based on the size of your wallet.

I, too, would like to see welfare streamlined and better regulated -- there are too many abled-bodied people collecting benefits who don't deserve help. However, I also realize that most welfare recipients need help thro no fault of their own -- they did not make "bad choices."

Governments are instituted among men to secure the unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Ho Ho's; our government is NOT supposed to deny rights to certain people. It is disheartening to see a 'conservative' who does not seem to understand the proper role of government and can come up with such ideas based on irrational fears and raging paranoia and other 'conservatives' cheering on.

I think many 'conservatives' would benefit from more Sunday School -- "Love thy neighbor," "Do unto others..."

Post #308 The Wage Of Jihad Is Death! Pt. II

2011-11-01T12:17:00.001-07:00

Subject: Bin Laden's Liquor Store

http://www.politesociety.com/binladenliquors_ol10[1].swf

Post #307 Missing Michelle Bachmann's 'Cajones'

2011-10-28T12:04:00.001-07:00

Well, not yet.

As of this writing, Michelle Bachman is still a Presidential candidate. But I do expect her to drop out soon -- it's inevitable. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are way out in front in money -- the cool alternative vs. the hothead.

If Republicans are smart -- [rolleyes] -- and really want to win the White House in 2012, they'll rally around the cool alternative instead of the hothead. In one debate, Romney said of Obama: "He's a nice guy, but he's gotta go." -- a much more appealing sentiment to moderate voters than the hotheaded rhetoric coming from Perry, Cain, et al. To win the election of 2012, Republicans must not stir up Obama's base and drive away moderates -- which is exactly what they are doing.

But I'll miss Michelle Bachmann.

Now, don't get me wrong. With the possible exception of Rick Santorum among the Republican candidates, a President Michelle Bachmann would most scare the stuffing out of me. Her lack of knowledge and judgment is terrifying. It's not what you know; it's what you know to be 'right' that is actually 'wrong.' A lack of knowledge can be overcome if you have the judgment to know you need to study.

But at least she had the 'cajones' to run -- unlike other people who criticized President Obama's every move as tho they were a candidate themselves but eventually decided to instead fly around the country raising millions of dollars by stirring up fear and resentment.

If Michelle Bachmann needs to raise money to pay off her campaign debt, sell a T-shirt --"Michelle Bachmann: Bigger 'Cajones' Than Sarah Palin." I'd buy one. :p

Post #306 War Is Over!

2011-10-21T17:59:00.001-07:00

Foreign policy -- you either get that right, or nothing else matters....

* * *

Good evening,

I'm writing to tell you that all US troops will return home from Iraq by the end of December. After nearly nine years, the American war in Iraq will end. Our servicemen and women will be with their families for the holidays.

The war in Iraq came with tremendous cost. More than a million Americans served in Iraq, and nearly 4,500 gave their lives in service to the rest of us. Today, as always, we honor these patriots.

When I came into office, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. As Commander in Chief, I ended our combat mission last year and pledged to keep our commitment to remove all our troops by the end of 2011. To date, we've removed more than 100,000 troops from Iraq.

This is a significant moment in our history. For more information, including video, please visit WhiteHouse.gov/BringingTroopsHome.

The end of the war in Iraq reflects a larger trend. The wars of the past decade are drawing to a close.

As we have removed troops from Iraq, we have refocused our fight against al Qaeda and secured major victories in taking out its leadership -- including Osama bin Laden. And we've begun a transition in Afghanistan.

On the first day of my Administration, roughly 180,000 troops were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the end of this year that number will be cut in half, and we'll continue to draw it down.

As we welcome home our newest veterans, we'll enlist their talents in meeting our greatest challenges as a nation -- restoring our economic strength at home. Because after a decade of war, the nation that we need to build is our own.

Today the United States moves forward, from a position of strength.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

Post #305 Free John Edwards! :p

2011-10-18T12:17:00.001-07:00

Well, an out-of-control prosecutor has succeeded into turning the most hated man in North Carolina, John Edwards -- personally, I would like to see him hounded to his unmarked grave, into a noble victim. OK, maybe not so "noble" -- :p

George Holding, the U.S. attorney at the helm of the investigation, recently announced his plans to seek a congressional seat as a Republican in 2012 after the conclusion of the Edwards investigation. Holding contributed to the campaign of former Senator Lauch Faircloth in 1998, whom Edwards defeated for the U.S. Senate.

And now we have a 'witch hunt.'

Yes, it disgusts me to think that Edwards paid 'hush' money out of his campaign funds to cover up his affair with that "freak," Rielle Hunter -- to use Edwards' own word. But I think, too, what we have is a prosecutor who continued to abuse his governmental office until he got something to stick.

What stuck?

Um, $900,000 went directly to Rielle Hunter -- not to the Edwards campaign -- to cover living, medical and other expenses. Prosecutors argue the donations exceeded legal limits and were campaign contributions because they were meant to be used to hide his pregnant mistress from the public during his 2008 presidential run.

Even if the motivation is true -- and I think so, do not go there:

Edwards is the first person ever to be criminally prosecuted under the theory that such payments -- going from one person's private account to the private account of someone other than the candidate -- can be deemed a campaign contribution. There has been no such civil enforcement action, either.

Giving money to a candidate's pregnant mistress is not a campaign contribution. Maybe it should be.

The thing to do is to write that giving money to a candidate's pregnant mistress is a campaign contribution into the rulebook -- call it the 'Edwards' rule. But to allow a prosecutor to retroactively change the definitions invites more and more prosecutorial abuse -- and wastes of taxpayer money.

Edwards, a slimy sleezeball, played by the rules as they were written at the time. It's time to move on.

Post #304 Who Lost Continental Tire?

2011-10-11T13:53:00.001-07:00

Continental Tire is a BIG international company -- based in Germany, I believe -- that was looking for a place in America to build a $500,000 plant with 1300 jobs, and we, Louisiana and our dim-witted cousins in South Carolina were the finalists. The plant is locating in South Carolina. End of story? No, North Carolina Republicans and Democrats are blaming each other over who 'lost' Continental Tire.

Democratic Governor Beverly Perdue's son works for the law firm that helped Continental Tire chose a site in North Carolina as one of the finalist sites -- a site that is owned by a Democratic state senator and political supporters of the Governor.

Republican Senate leader Phil Berger said the proposed deal with Continental "reeked with cronyism." "She had nothing to do with that site," Jim Bradshaw, who heads the Brunswick County Economic Development Commission -- they offered the site at the middle of the stink. The company had considered eight locations in North Carolina before focusing on the one in question, but there is no evidence it preferred that one because of political relationships -- as of today.

"I don't know if I have all the information to connect those dots," Berger backpedaled. A Republican having trouble with the dots -- imagine that! Hey, look up Bev's skirt, there might be some WMD up there.... :p

So, who lost Continental Tire?

Jochen Etzel, CEO of Continental Tire the Americas, said at a news conference, "South Carolina offered us the most compelling business climate that allows us to create these jobs with competitive pay and benefits for the people of this great state."

Um, well, what kind of "business climate" does South Carolina have? Well, they have an industrial park with the infrastructure built in, including a research facility associated with Clemson University -- two automotive firms have already located there. And South Carolina offered a $31 million bribe.

Continental Tire demanded $45 million from us. The Republicans balked.

Last month, in a letter to Governor Perdue, Berger raised objections to paying $45 million demanded by the company -- up front. "We all share your commitment to attracting jobs for North Carolina," he wrote, "but the negative impacts to North Carolina’s fund availability for education, overall fiscal stability and economic strength outweigh the speculated job creation in this instance." The Republicans offered $45 million spread out over 15 years.

From where I sit, the Republicans lost Continental Tire. But they should also be proud of not giving in to extortion. Only time will tell if this was a good decision of if, as Perdue said, that Berger concluded "the jobs were not worth it."

It seems obvious to me that North Carolina should invest in their own move-in ready industrial park and education, But the Republicans are too busy cutting thousands of education jobs here in North Carolina.

Or we need the NC JOB Fund -- the North Carolina Just Ol' Bribery Fund. Give it a try -- it worked for Rick Perry. :p

Post #303 Welfare In Florida : A Crime To Be Poor?

2011-10-04T12:05:00.001-07:00

I got another "Fwd" e-mail -- "Hooray for Florida!!!!" -- and was asked to "Fwd" it if I agreed 100%. No, I do not agree 100% with that e-mail, and I refuse to engage in narrow-minded stereotyping to as a reason to violate the Constitution.

The e-mail said: "In signing the new law, Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, 'If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free.' Applicants who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment. Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving funds for three years! Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional ?"

This policy is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. The Constitution says that the government may conduct searches based on the reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed, and it is unreasonable to suspect a welfare recipient of a crime just because they receive welfare.

That is not just my opinion; it is an opinion held by the courts, including the Supreme Court -- Scalia and Thomas, you may have heard of 'em. :p

Yes, I am aware that 'peeing in a cup' is NOT a big deal, but that, too, has been ruled a 'search' by those same courts. You know, a search of your home computer is NOT a big deal, either -- how about we target those lazy Social Security recipients who scam the system?

The problem, I think, is that many people are mistakenly thinking the Bill Of Rights applies to private employers. Of course, the truth is a private employer can violate an employee's rights willy-nilly and order searches -- non-evasive searches will not raise a peep. Nor should they -- when conducted by a private employer.

The first rounds of testing in Florida showed that 96% of welfare recipients were clean -- a better average than the general public -- while 2%.were dirty and 2% refused to take the test. Maybe they should test college students... or politicians. :p

But people say -- as the e-mail stated: "It's completely legal that every other working [person has] to pass drug tests in order to get a J-O-B" -- FALSE: I've never taken a drug test to get a J-O-B and do not know anybody who has. Indeed, being a policeman is the only J-O-B around here that requires a drug test.

The e-mail began: "I-95 will be jammed for the next month or so........Druggies and deadbeats heading North out of Florida .."

A joke or an exaggeration is NOT funny when it leads to discriminatory policy -- such as, most child molesters are bald men, let's take all bald men downtown and give 'em a psychological test to prove they are OK. That's NOT funny if you're bald! :p

You want to help? Call the police 'tip line' and report a welfare recipient you know to be using drugs. Or tell the lawmakers to spend money on more police or rehab instead of targeting 'them' with drug tests. Or de-criminalize drugs.

Making sure 'they' are drug-free may or may not be a worthy goal, but try a different -- constitutional -- approach.

Post #302 The Wage Of Jihad Is Death!

2011-09-30T12:13:00.001-07:00

Post #301 "It's class warfare..."

2011-09-27T12:50:00.001-07:00

... said the rich man.

Yes, it is.

After 30 years of being trickled on, We the People want our country back from the political elite who rob from the poor and give to the rich. The difference between the "haves" and the "have nots" is greater now than anytime since the Great Depression started. It's pretty obvious who has been waging 'war' on whom, and now is the time for We the People to fight back.

Yes, 'class warfare' is on.

Let me be clear. The wealth gap doesn't bother me; the way the gap has widened does -- gifts to the rich and corporations and policies that ensure their gifts remain gifts with no strings attached. We the People don't want to punish those who have achieved the American dream and those who have achieved the American dream don't want to punish their fellow citizens. Stop trying to divide us, Mr. 'Class Warfare' Republican!

President Barack Obama has proposed to make sure those making more than $1 million a year pay at least the same rate as middle-income taxpayers -- Obama will call it the "Buffett Rule." Billionaire Warren Buffett said that the wealthy are sometimes effectively taxed at a lower rate than others -- investment income is taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income.

Duh. Income is income. Who's responsible for saying investment income is not 'real' income?

As I researched as to why Republicans were so upset by this leveling of the playing field -- I mean, beside the obvious of an uppity black man doing the proposing, a recurring theme was that this would hurt small businesses. So, I found on the FOX Business 'site interviews with small business owners as to how the "Buffett Rule" would effect them. All of the interviewees said that it would not effect them because they did not make more than $1 million a year.

And then it dawned on me: A business that makes more than $1 million a year is not exactly "small."

But... but... but... class warfare is bad. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, obviously hit hard by the recession [rolleyes] -- he now ranks 12th on the list of wealthiest Senators up from 38th at the beginning of the recession in 2008, said:

"We can't let the people who've been hit hardest by this recession and who we need to create the jobs that will get us out of it foot the bill for the Democrats' two-year adventure in expanded government."

Republican populism at its best! Concern and compassion for those who still can pay for their food, who still can live in comfort and luxury, who aren't losing their jobs and health insurance in great numbers, and who aren't living paycheck to paycheck.

Of course, too, McConnell forgets his own role in that runaway train of expanded government.

Mr. McConnell, you are on the losing side. We the People will see to it.

Post #300 05/08/12: A Day Of Infamy

2011-09-20T14:07:00.001-07:00

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
-- Thomas Jefferson

A quote from ol' TJ is a good place to start any political discussion....

On May 8, 2012, North Carolina will be exposed as having as many bigots as Alabama, Mississippi or -- gasp! -- South Carolina for, on that day, North Carolinians will vote to oppress a minority by an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that says that marriage rights, privileges and responsibilities shall be confined to couples consisting of one man and one woman, and that the state shall not recognize any other domestic partnership among consenting adults.

So, North Carolina will join the rest of the Southeast in having an 'anti-gay marriage' amendment in their state Constitution. Now, I've always known that North Carolina was full of bigots, but I enjoyed having a 'good no-nonsense' reputation. But that will change on May 8.

Yep, the Republican-controlled Legislature of North Carolina, with unemployment creeping above 10% in North Carolina, decided to call a special session -- at a cost of $150,000 -- to put this important issue on the primary ballot when Republicans can vote for Rick Perry in the Presidential primary. And how does this make 'em good stewards of our money!?!

All in the name of protecting marriage. It seems to me that the best way to protect marriage would be to outlaw divorce -- tho Newt Gingrich who is on wife #3 might object!

This means that unmarried couples - gay or straight - will be constitutionally barred from numerous benefits automatically given to married couples. No right to visit a loved one in the hospital, no right to make medical decisions on behalf of their incapacitated partners, no inheritance rights shall be extended to a boyfriend or girlfriend. Indeed, a boyfriend or girlfriend cannot make funeral and burial decisions or have access to Social Security and government medical care. Indeed, the General Accounting Office listed over 1000 federal benefits to married couples.

That is why I oppose all marriages -- straight, gay, or the marriage to your dog or your daughters: The government has no interest in promoting unions of any kind -- thro tax breaks or any incentives.

It can be argued that, during the 19th century, the government had an interest in promoting unions and therefore children. The country needed to be populated, and government codifying the value of religious marriage was the way to go. But that changed sometime during the 20th century.

However, the government does have an interest in promoting the establishments of homes to raise children as this would be cheaper than government-financed orphanages. Therefore, gay couples who want to raise children should get government benefits for doing so.

Please note that my argument as of today has nothing to do with religion -- neither for nor against a religious definition of marriage. This amendment is an intrusion by the government into the church's domain. I believe in the separation of church and state....

Post #299 Foaming-At-The-Mouth Insanity: A Personal Story, Pt. II

2011-09-13T13:10:00.001-07:00

Again, Vice President Joe Biden did NOT "out" SEAL Team 6 nor did he disclose any operational details.

But, boy, you never would have known that by trudging thro many right-wing blogs -- as I did. In search for the truth, I checked out quite a few blogs that advertised themselves as being for truth, justice and the American way.

Uh-oh, I have long believed that, if somebody threatens you with the truth, you are about to hear spin. Well, these blogs spared no kind of personal insult to Biden and President Barack Obama while ignoring Admiral Edward Winters, the one who "outed" SEAL Team 6. When the truth hurts, just ignore it....

A side note about the right-wing universe: The e-mail I originally got -- "Biden Outs SEAL Team 6" -- was posted word-for-word at numerous blogs without attribution. Or the e-mail was copied from a blog without attribution. It seems like the vast right-wing conspiracy is alive and well. :p

The "Foaming-At-The-Mouth Insanity" charge comes because many of these same blogs, after that helicopter carrying SEALs went down, accused Biden and Obama of plotting and planning to kill SEAL Team 6. The theory: The Bin Laden raid was a hoax -- Bin Laden was already dead, and Team 6 members needed to be silenced.

Good Lord. I need a shower. It's frightening to me that peeps with the ability to connect to the 'net talk such garbage. We really should require a license to use the information highway.

Post #298 Foaming-At-The Mouth Insanity: A Personal Story

2011-09-09T14:10:00.001-07:00

I got a "Fwd" e-mail the other day -- "Biden Outs SEAL Team 6." It was full of the same ol' same ol' -- "that dirty stinkin' Obama is a crooked no-good Muslim from Kenya." And since Biden is part of the Obama administration -- blah, blah, blah....

But the actual charge turned out to be true -- well, kind of. The e-mail quoted Secretary of Defense Bob Gates: "Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out Bin Laden -- [May 1]. That all fell apart on Monday, the next day [May 2]."

I did some research. That quote is true. What happened on May 2?

The current chief of the Navy SEALS, Rear Admiral. Edward Winters, at Naval Special Warfare Command in California, sent an email on May 2 congratulating his forces and cautioning them to keep their mouths shut. "Be extremely careful about operational security. The fight is not over."

Well, the news media -- including FOX News -- reported SEAL Team 6 as being the guys who killed Bin Laden and cited Winters' e-mail as government conformation. Let us point out that FOX News and other media had been speculating that it was the SEALs, but now the cat was out of the bag.

The next day, May 3, Vice President Joe Biden spoke at Washington's Ritz Carlton Hotel at a dinner event to mark the 50th anniversary of the Atlantic Council. "Let me briefly acknowledge tonight's distinguished honorees," he said. "Admiral James Stavridis is the real deal. He can tell you more about and understands the incredible, the phenomenal, the just almost unbelievable capacity of his Navy SEALs and what they did last Sunday."

So, Biden did NOT "out" SEAL Team 6 nor did he disclose any operational details.

The "Foaming-At-The-Mouth Insanity" comes next.

Post #297 9/04: A Day Of Infamy

2011-09-04T12:14:00.001-07:00

President George W. Bush's Cabinet held its first meeting on the threat of Al-Qaeda on September 04, 2001. One week later, Bush got the word of the 9/11 attacks, stared like a deer caught in the headlights and pondered 'who could have done this?' Really? No idea, huh?

The CIA had been tracking Bin Laden for five years, and Bush had received 40 Presidential Daily Briefings concerning Bin Laden, and Bush was taken by surprise. [rolleyes]

I do not blame Bush for not connecting the dots; I do blame Bush for ignoring the dots. He did NOTHING -- no warnings, no follow-up questions. That's why I say, George W. Bush was derelict in his duty -- he willing refused to perform his duties of keeping Americans safe -- and should have been impeached.

I realize "impeachment" is a political trial, and, maybe, the outcome would have been to have left him in office -- a la Clinton. But, if his incompetence had of been laid out in a trial, maybe, we would not still be in Afghanistan and Iraq. * sigh *

Post #292 GWB's Pearl Harbor Speech

2011-09-02T12:06:00.001-07:00

President George W. Bush strutted to the podium before Congress on December 8, 1941, and said:

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the darn tootin' Empire of Japan.

Remember the character of the onslaught against us, daggumit.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger, gosh darnit.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help me God.

I declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

Here is what we gonna do:

I'm not gonna ask Congress to declare war against Japan, but I will ask Congress for an authorization to use military force against Mexico.

The leader of Mexico, Don Juan, is bad man. He invaded a neighbor ten years ago, and he tried to kill my Daddy. Also, British intelligence indicates that Don Juan is building submarine bases for use by the Germans.

See, it's as easy as 1 - 2 - 3. Get rid of Don Juan: Mexico falls, then Germany falls, finally Japan falls. That will teach 'em!

Now, y'all have a Merry Christmas. Go shopping. And God bless America!

Post #196 He Answered Duty's Call

2011-08-30T16:29:00.001-07:00

Meet a Hero: Wounded in Iraq

Michael Dinkel

After the towers fell in the terror attacks on 9/11/01, Michael Dinkel dropped all other plans. He chose to answer duty's call.

He fought for you and me in Iraq. He gave his leg for our country!

That's the kind of sacrifice you salute each time you choose to help heroes through the Disabled American Veterans (DAV).

Michael was wounded while coming to the aid of troops hit by a roadside bomb. Insurgents had planted a second bomb in the path they thought a rescue team might take. They were right.

A violent blast destroyed Michael's right leg, broke his back, mangled his face, and knocked out four of his teeth!

But because you chose to be there through your fervent support of the leader in service to disabled veterans, Michael isn't looking back.

Michael feels no self-pity, no regrets. He's just grateful for your help.

Keeping Patriots Alive in Our Hearts!

Arthur H. Wilson, National Adjutant
Disabled American Veterans

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

OUR MISSION:
Since its founding more than 90 years ago, Disabled American Veterans has
been dedicated to a single purpose: Building Better Lives for America's
Disabled Veterans and Their Families.

P.O. Box 14301 | Cincinnati, OH 45250-0301

Please thank a disabled veteran for their sacrifice and service!

Post #195 Rick Perry -- The Real Deal?

2011-08-26T13:20:00.001-07:00

According to Bob Harris, a North Carolina political operative and a Michele Bachmann supporter, Rick Perry is a Republican LBJ, a career politician who's enriched himself and his friends through government connections. Uh-oh, does that mean he has been slurping at the trough of BIG government while politicking against that same BIG government?

Rick Perry accepted over $80,000 in farm subsidies over an eleven-year period while he was a Texas Legislator and Texas Agriculture Commissioner until he sold his farm in 1998 -- including several years in which he was paid NOT to farm. Yes, Perry received government funds to NOT work -- isn't that kind of like welfare!?! :p

Rick Perry controls the Texas Enterprise Fund and the Texas Emerging Technology Fund.

The Enterprise Fund has dispensed $435 million in grants to businesses since 2003. More than a quarter of the companies that have received grants from the Enterprise Fund or their chief executives made contributions to either Perry's campaign dating back to 2001 or to the Republican Governors Association since 2008 when Perry became its chairman.

The Technology Fund has doled out nearly $200 million to companies since 2005. This, too, operates on a similar pay-to-play scheme -- or, as I saw one commentator colorfully describe it, "incest."

1. I can hardly believe that Texans feel these gifts are an appropriate use of taxpayer money -- how does this sit with the idea that governments are instituted among men to secure unalienable rights for the people? Whatever happened to the idea that businesses would succeed or fail based on their own merits?

2. I can hardly believe that Texans feel the governor should be in control of gifts from Texas. Who is benefiting here? Mr. Average Texan or Rick Perry who, as Governor, has raised more than $100 million in campaign funds? That is, for every five dollars that Texas gave out in gifts, one dollar goes into Perry's pocket.

Yeah, but is Rick Perry the real deal? Well, he is a real politician alright....

P.S.: "We are fed up with bailout after bailout and stimulus plan after stimulus plan, each one of which tosses principle out the window along with taxpayer money."

Sound familiar, Rick? It's from your own book "Fed Up" -- written BEFORE you balanced the last two state budgets using stimulus money.

And, of course, stimulus money -- $10 million -- is being used to repair the Governor's mansion while the Texan taxpayer is paying nearly $10,000 a month for Perry to live in a three-story mansion with a heated pool, cabana and guest house.

I saw a commentator defending Perry's extravagance by snidely asking "What is he supposed to do? Live in a trailer?" Yes, I thought, show some leadership -- set an example.

Post #194 Racism 101, Pt. II

2011-08-16T13:13:00.001-07:00

Nothing stirs up like 'racism.' Gimme another chance -- and please note that I am using 'black' as a shorthand for 'minority' (in other words, any minority faces these same issues):

The question remains: "Why is it that only whites can be racists??"

Blacks do not have the power to enforce their prejudices in America.

Of course, it's also true:

Blacks do have the power to enforce their prejudices in Kenya.

Now, I am HAPPY TO BE WHITE with the privileges associated with being a member of the dominant group in society. America is a WHITE society, most of the power and wealth are in white hands. Whites' wealth pulls far ahead of minorities - http://t.co/8PoFZfX The redistribution of wealth IS happening... in whites' favor. HAPPY TO BE WHITE! :p

I have the economic, political, social power in this society. If I use a racial slur, it is offensive -- I have the power to threaten a black's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; a racial slur against me means nothing -- a black has no power to threaten my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

We have eliminated the direct political expressions of racism. Until the mid-'60s, all sorts of laws and rules were enforced to support the prejudices of whites -- blacks had to ride in the back of the bus, for example. In contrast, today, blacks do not have the power -- even with a black living in the White House -- to make Glenn Beck use a 'whites only' entrance to the White House. :p

Now, political expressions of racism are sneaky. Today, you may oppose public school funding -- which may or may not be related to prejudices, but surely blacks will bear the brunt. That is what is known as "institutional racism" -- and, too often, is just a front for prejudices. Think about that the next time you are asked to sign a petition for 'neighborhood schools.'

Take the O.J. Simpson case, for example, in which blacks were able to enforce their prejudices and return a "not guilty" verdict. Why were blacks in that position? Because the WHITE criminal justice system put 'em there -- NEVER again.... :p

Of course, socially, things seem to be improving -- well, maybe not. But the economy is firmly in white hands!

And that is why it is that only whites can be racists. Racism = prejudice + power. A white who uses a racial slur is a racist; a black who uses a racial slur is a fool. There is your answer. NOT saying that "Racism = prejudice + power" is 'correct' or the only definition, but it does answer "Why is it that only whites can be racists??"

Of course, I am speaking collectively. Individually, I laugh at Billy Bubba Jim Bob who cries in his beer every night because somebody called him a "Honkey." :p

Of course, too, I am not laughing at the examples sent to me of blacks acting on their prejudices. I hate that a black kid kicked a white kid in the head because of the prejudice that all whites have a snotty tude. That black kid should have the book thrown at 'im! Being racial? Yes. Being racist? No. There is a difference -- what this Post is about.

Post #193 Racism 101

2011-08-09T16:58:00.001-07:00

Nothing stirs up like 'racism.' Gimme another chance:

The question remains: "Why is it that only whites can be racists??"

The answer: Blacks do not have the institutional power to enforce their prejudices in America.

Of course, it's also true:

Blacks do have the institutional power to enforce their prejudices in Kenya.

I am HAPPY TO BE WHITE with the privileges associated with being a member of the dominant group in society. America is a WHITE society, most of the power and wealth are in white hands. Whites' wealth pulls far ahead of minorities - http://t.co/8PoFZfX The redistribution of wealth IS happening... in whites' favor. HAPPY TO BE WHITE! :p

If I use a racial slur, it is offensive -- I have the power to threaten a minority's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; a racial slur against me means nothing -- a minority has no power to threaten my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Until the mid-'60s, all sorts of laws and rules were enforced to support the prejudices of whites -- blacks had to ride in the back of the bus, for example. Blacks do not have the power -- even with a black living in the White House -- to make Glenn Beck use a 'whites only' entrance to the White House. :p

Today, you may oppose public school funding -- which may or may not be related to prejudices, but surely blacks will bear the brunt. That is what is known as 'institutional racism' -- and, too often, is just a front for prejudices. Think about that the next time you are asked to sign a petition for 'neighborhood schools.'

Take the O.J. Simpson case, for example, in which blacks were able to enforce their prejudices and return a "not guilty' verdict. Why were blacks in that position? Because the WHITE criminal justice system put 'em there -- NEVER again.... :p

And that is why it is that only whites can be racists. Racism = negative prejudice + power. A white who uses a racial slur is a racist; a black who uses a racial slur is a fool. There is your answer.

Of course, I am speaking collectively. Individually, I laugh at Billy Bubba Jim Bob who cries in his beer every night because somebody called him a "Honkey." :p

Of course, too, I am not laughing at the examples sent to me of blacks acting on their prejudices. Being racial? Yes. Being racist? No. There is a difference -- what this Post is about.

Post #291 9/11: A Day Of Infamy, Pt. II

2011-08-06T12:18:00.001-07:00

Look at August 06, 2001, and Bush's Presidential Daily Briefing: "Bin Laden determined to attack inside U.S.," the "historical" document which had no "actionable" intelligence. No, obviously, that PDB did not specify a time, date or place, but surely a warning must not be specific in order for a President to take action.

The only thing new in that PDB -- Bush had received 40 PDBs concerning Bin Laden by that time -- was that the FBI was conducting 70 investigations. This was a good point for Bush to have called the FBI -- "70 investigations? That's a lot. What's up with that?"

Bush was not engaged against terrorism BEFORE 9/11. Having a President who is not engaged before disaster has implications -- ask the survivors of Hurricane Katrina.

Jihadists hijacking planes in the air, flying the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missiles against buildings was not "unimaginable."

In 1996, when the Olympics were held in Atlanta, I paid attention to the preparations because 1) it was close, and 2) it was supposed to be the last Olympics before the end of time. Of course, they were worried bout terrorism, such as commandoes Munich-style or truck bombs World Trade Center-style or Oklahoma City-style or planes flying into buildings.

Indeed, when Amanda Beard won her swimming medals in what was basically an outdoor arena, the TV cameras would scan the night sky and show the lights of the planes landing at the Atlanta airport, and the TV guys talked about how dangerously close they were even tho the FAA had ordered a three-mile no-fly zone.

Why were they worried about planes flying into buildings? Well, at the trial of the first WTC bomber, they laid out the details of a plot from the Philippines to blow up 11 planes over the Pacific and hijack two others in the air and fly them into buildings.

Remember the plane in France jihadists wanted to hijack and fly into the Eiffel Tower in 1994? Commandos stormed the plane on the ground -- jihadists learned that they needed to hijack planes in the air and fly them themselves. The intelligence community -- and anybody else paying attention -- picked up on hijacking plane in the air, flying the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missilesagainst buildings as a way of the jihadists.

Indeed, different pre-9/11 plots have named the Sears Tower, CIA headquarters, the Seatle SpaceNeedle, the TransAmerica building in San Francisco among others as targets for the jihadists to hijack planes in the air, fly the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missiles against buildings.

Yes, Bush was taken by surprise -- obviously. But the U.S. intelligence community warned Bush about an imminent attack wherein jihadists would hijack planes in the air, fly the planes themselves, using the planes as large guided/cruise missiles against buildings, and Egypt, France, Israel and Russia passed on their own warnings in the month before 9/11; Bush did NOTHING -- other than to tell a messenger, "You've covered your ass now."

I would expect a President -- any President -- to do like Franklin Delano Roosevelt in November 1940 and at least issue a war warning: Have the FAA warn the airlines about the threat of hijackings and tell them to take precautions; step up the air marshals; call the FBI -- "hey, buddy, the CIA is here having a fit 'bout terrorism. What do ya know 'bout that?"

Again, Bush did NOTHING. That's why I say, George W. Bush was derelict in his duty -- he willing refused to perform his duties of keeping Americans safe.

The bottleneck is at the top of the bottle. Um, 9/11 was NOT an intelligence failure; the failure was in the White House. I think a President should be aware of what his intelligence community had been working on for five years. Does the buck stop in the White House -- yes or no?

And they gave us Iraq instead....

President George W. Bush stood atop the rubble of the World Trade Center, wrapped his arm around a firefighter and said, "These terrorists shall hear from us. But, if we can't get 'em, we will invade a country that did not attack us and does not threaten us."

Wait -- was that a dream or a nightmare?

Indeed, at a 9/13 meeting in the Oval Office with Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer of New York and Senators John Warner and George Allen of Virginia about getting aid for their states. Bush said, "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

And so the Decider decided. He wouldn't repeat President Clinton's 'mistake' of chasing shadows -- he was going after bigger fish....

Post #290 9/11: A Day Of Infamy

2011-08-05T12:12:00.000-07:00

Ten years later, the question remains: Does a President have any responsibility for the failures of his own government? Does the buck stop in the White House?

I consider a successful terrorism attack to be a failure. I'd expect a President -- any President -- to review what happened and fire those responsible. George W. Bush opposed the 9/11 Commission, refused to give a formal interview to Congress and promoted Condoleezza Rice. I think he failed to be responsible.

The most depressing thing I saw on TV during MSNBC's replay of the coverage of that morning was, before 12 noon, Tom Brokaw identified the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden, and cited a speech he had given in London the month before in which he threatened the United States.

Why wasn't Bush all over this?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)

SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

As Senator Carl Levin said as the new administration took office, "I'm concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center."

And where was Bush?

On January 25, 2001, five days after Bush took office, Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, sent Condi Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda." It was, Clarke wrote, "developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools."

On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, "What they will do
is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?"

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Ari never did.

Clarke had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq.

Why a meeting with the deputies and not the Secretaries themselves? Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries. As Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, "It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies' committee didn't meet urgently in January or February."

The Secretaries' first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001.

Post #289 BE PROUD TO BE WHITE, Pt. III

2011-08-02T15:01:00.001-07:00

And why do those Italian-Americans get their own crime syndicate, the Mafia? Why are we so divided?

Post #288 YOU Are Being Fleeced!, Pt. IV

2011-07-31T15:17:00.001-07:00

America held hostage by idiots. Raising the debt ceiling is a no-brainer -- the time to curb spending was when the House passed the 2011 budget, ya stupid sh*ts!

"There's Kool-Aid in my Tea!"

Post #287 YOU Are Being Fleeced!, Pt. III

2011-07-29T16:50:00.001-07:00

Dude, I just said that!

"It's not a vote that allows Congress to spend more money. Raising the debt ceiling simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. I want to emphasize that. The debt ceiling does not determine how much more money we can spend, it simply authorizes us to pay the bills we already have racked up. It gives the United States of America the ability to keep its word."
-- Barack Obama, June 29, 2011

Wonder if I can sue for plagiarism!?!

Post #286 YOU Are Being Fleeced!, Pt. II

2011-07-29T13:20:00.001-07:00

ANIMATION: The 400 Wealthiest Americans Could Pay Off Everyone's Student Loans http://t.co/pjoXi4c

Seriously, I am not opposed to student loans or those who took 'em out repaying 'em. I did. The point is, there is plenty of wealth to solve our 'debt crisis.' We are having a 'debt crisis' because of the unwillingness of the ruling class to rule effectively.

The ruling class? Whites' wealth pulls far ahead of minorities - http://t.co/8PoFZfX - The redistribution of wealth IS happening... in WHITES favor. HAPPY TO BE WHITE! :p

And what has our ruling class given us? A 'debt crisis.' Speaker of the House John Boehner criticized the President for deficits. Uh, the President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the Speaker of the House? He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

And, now, the United States has to borrow money to pay for what the House has already spent. This is not about new spending. Raising the debt ceiling is about being a Man and paying our debts.

But the ruling class wants tax cuts here and tax cuts there. Every tax cut represents a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed, those who are wet and have no shelter. Tax cuts are not just throwing away money; tax cuts are throwing away the sweat of our laborers, the hopes of our children. It is humanity hanging by a noose of greed. It is not ruling effectively.

The ruling class needs to study 18th century history and the French Revolution to see what happens to the ruling class that does not rule effectively. Just saying....

Post #285 BE PROUD TO BE WHITE, Pt. II

2011-07-26T12:47:00.001-07:00

And what is the deal with those Irish-Americans? Why do they get their own holiday, St. Patrick's Day? Can't we all just get along?

Post #284 BE PROUD TO BE WHITE

2011-07-22T13:02:00.001-07:00

I got an e-mail entitled "BE PROUD TO BE WHITE" in which a racist screed was wrongly attributed to Michael Richards, the actor/comedian. How dare I say the screed was racist? It was based on prejudices and stereotypes related to race, the very definition of racist. Read my reply:

* * *

First, you owe Michael Richards an apology. He did not say that and dropped out of the limelight after his racial 'incident' -- trying to let it die, I guess. And, now, five years later....

But, to the essay:

Seriously? "Why is it that only whites can be racists??"

You do not know? Seriously?

Because America is a WHITE society, most of the power and wealth are in white hands. A racial slur used by a white is offensive -- a white has the power to threaten a minority's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; a racial slur against a white means nothing -- a minority has no power to threaten a white's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. And that is why it is that only whites can be racists.

Of course, I am speaking collectively. Individually, I am sure that Billy Bubba Jim Bob cries in his beer every night because somebody called him a "Honkey." :p And I bet that you can cite examples of others or maybe even yourself being called "Honkey." All I can say is that I have never been called "Honkey" or anything like that. Maybe it depends on how you comport yourself.

Can you name a black President, a black Senator, a black Representative or a black member of the Supreme Court? Of the 545 people responsible for the federal government. I can name four -- I'm even worse regarding state governments.

Take the National Football League, a prime example of good wholesome All-American enterprise. Can you name a black quarterback, a black head coach, a black General Manager or a black owner? The point is, power in the NFL only gets distributed as far as Da Man sees fit -- Da White Man. Power trickles down from the owners, Da White Man.

And where are NFL games televised? White Entertainment Television -- ABC, CBS, NBC, ESPN. BET has white producers, white writers, white advertisers and even white performers. And BET was started in response to racism: MTV would not play videos by black artists in the early days.

Of course, today MTV does not play any videos, but that is a rant for another time.

Where do NFL players come from? WHITE colleges -- see a list of schools in the Bowl Championship Series. Even black colleges admit whites. And black colleges were started in response in racism: WHITE colleges used to not admit black kids -- now, if those kids can play that 'ball.... :p

And what do NFL players study in their WHITE colleges? WHITE history -- March thro January. And, of course, Black History Month was started in response to racism: We now give 'em the shortest month of the year.... :p

Do you see a theme here? Speaking of being started in response to racism, Miss Black America was started because Miss America did not allow blacks to enter. Yes, Thank Goodness, blacks can now enter and win Miss America, and Miss Black America goes on.

Why does Miss Black America continue? Maybe they want to honor the courage of those who started the pageant. Conservatives know something about honoring the past. Why are there Elvis fan clubs today? Elvis has not done anything since he retired from Wal-Mart.... :p

BE PROUD TO BE WHITE? Uh, no. I am proud of my accomplishments. Many WHITE accomplishments leave me ashamed -- slavery, Jim Crow laws, the 'Trail Of Tears,' James Earl Ray. Some WHITE accomplishments do make me smile -- the Civil Rights Act, the criminal justice system that got James Earl Ray. But why be proud of an accident of birth? I did not accomplish being white.

Now, I am HAPPY to be WHITE with the privileges associated with being a member of the dominant group in society.

HAPPY TO BE WHITE. It could catch on.... :p

Post #283 YOU Are Being Fleeced!

2011-07-15T13:05:00.001-07:00

When Speaker Of The House John Boehner, minority leader Senator Mitch McConnell and President Barack Obama emerge from the White House with 'peace in our time' -- a debt deal, do not believe it. Nothing from Washington works as well as advertised.

The debt crisis is a hoax. Ever since Thomas Jefferson ran up wine bills he could not afford, we have been living beyond our means. Actually, the debt goes back to Year 1 of the United States -- ol' T.J. was just an outrageous example.

That is why I say the 'debt ceiling' is a political number -- it has nothing to do with the realities on the ground. I agree with Warren Buffet: It is a farce and should be eliminated. It just gives Michele Bachmann something to rant about instead of 'Anti-American homosexuals!' :p

Look, our debt equals roughly one year of our Gross Domestic Product -- kind of silly to be in a crisis mode. Oh, sure, the debt is important and will be important tomorrow. I'd like to see Rudyard Kipling working on the debt -- "If you can keep your head..."

But our "leaders" will announce a deal to avert the crisis, involving 'sacrifice' from everybody... but themselves. If our "leaders" would like to remove the quotes, they can start with themselves. Leadership is setting an example.

No federal employee should make more than $106,000 a year. Payments into Social Security are capped at a tax on $106,000 a year -- meaning that, using very generous and rounded-up figures, a person making $106,000 a year is taxed at a rate to support two Grandmas a year. If you make more than $106,000 a year, well, that is FREE money....

That is what is wrong with this country: Too many deadbeats looking for a handout -- and it starts at the top....

Before President Bachmann repeals Obamacare, she ought to repeal that government-run health care for Congress. Perhaps John McCain will lead a bill to cap Social Security benefits paid to Congress -- say $470 a month (Post #278). Maybe Michelle Obama will open a daycare for illegitimate children to support her husband's give away to unwed mothers (Post #279).

Leave Grandma alone -- or those who want to be a Grandma one day. The point is, there is a lot a leader can do -- just in government itself. Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. And then look at your donor list BEFORE asking Grandma for 'sacrifice.'

* sheesh * Why is this so hard?

Post #282 Happy 4th!

2011-07-02T15:17:00.001-07:00

Gather your neighbors, black, brown and white, red and yellow, and green, 'round. As your great uncle, Billy Bubba Jim Bob, dressed as Thomas Jefferson, reads the Declaration of Independence, in the faint glow before the fireworks start, be sure and give a special nod of 'Thanks' to the Founding Fathers -- and their sons -- who worked tirelessly to end slavery.

Ya learn something new every day.... :p

Post #281 Grandma, Aug. 26, 1920 - Jun. 1, 2011, Pt. V

2011-06-29T13:16:00.001-07:00

My e-mails to Barack Obama, John McCain, Michele Bachmann:

* * *

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

President Barack Obama,

My Grandma died this past June 1. She was 90 years old.

Grandma fell ill on May 1 and was taken to the hospital. Medicare kicked Grandma out of the hospital after four days, she got 20 at the 'swing bed' -- a cross between a hospital and a nursing home -- and would have gotten 34 at the nursing home. For those keeping score, that is 58 days -- pay your taxes for 72 years, stay off welfare, do charity work to keep others off welfare, and the government rewards you with 58 days. Grandma died before her 58 days were up -- saving the American taxpayer a couple of grand.

And where is that couple of grand going? College tuition for unwed mothers.

Yes, a woman has sex and makes the mistakes of not using effective birth control and choosing a partner who does not want to be a daddy, and the mother is rewarded with college tuition. Who thought that was a good idea? Who's responsible!?!

You.

I am a BIG supporter of the poor -- and support Obamacare, by the way. But I also feel that there are no -- or should not be -- FREE lunches. These grants need to be tied to a community service -- nothing hard, an hour per week of sweeping streets, for example. Anything to contribute to the society that is contributing to her.

Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

I also realize that there are other examples of a waste of taxpayer's money out there -- John McCain's $23,000 Social Security slurp, Michele Bachmann's slurp of $250,000 in government subsidies for her family farm. And they will be getting e-mails, too.

But this is your baby.

There is only so much taxpayer money to go around. If only Grandma had of had more intense treatment from Medicare....

* * *

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.contactform

Senator John McCain,

My Grandma died this past June 1. She was 90 years old.

And where is that couple of grand going? Your Social Security payments.

Yes, Grandma got Social Security -- $470 a month. That covered her food, clothing and shelter needs. Anybody who cannot retire on $470 a month is not living right. Grandma did. You made $405,409 last year and sucked up $23,000 in Social Security.

Why did you need that money? What makes you four times better than my Grandma? I thought we were all in this together, but the rules seem different for you. Can't you give it back? It's called leadership -- setting an example.

Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

I also realize that there are other examples of a waste of taxpayer's money out there -- Barack Obama's college tuition for unwed mothers, Michele Bachmann's $250,000 in government subsidies for her family farm. And they will be getting e-mails, too.

There is only so much taxpayer money to go around. If only Grandma had of had more intense treatment from Medicare....

* * *

http://bachmann.house.gov/Contact/ZipCode.htm

Unfortunately, Michele Bachmann does not accept e-mails from outside her district -- which actually makes sense but does me no good. So, to look elsewhere:

http://www.michelebachmann.com/contact/

Representative Michele Bachmann,

My Grandma died this past June 1. She was 90 years old.

And where is that couple of grand going? Farm subsidies -- like the $250,000 your family farm got over a 10-year period.

Yes, Grandma was in on that socialism, too; she got Social Security -- $470 a month. That covered her food, clothing and shelter needs. Anybody who cannot retire on $470 a month is not living right. Grandma did. Let's be generous and say $50,000 over a 10-year period.

Why did you need $250,000? What makes you five times better than my Grandma? I thought we were all in this together, but the rules seem different for you. Can't you give it back? It's called leadership -- setting an example.

Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

I also realize that there are other examples of a waste of taxpayer's money out there -- Barack Obama's college tuition for unwed mothers, John McCain's $23,000 Social Security slurp. And they will be getting e-mails, too.

There is only so much taxpayer money to go around. If only Grandma had of had more intense treatment from Medicare....

* * *

Of course, there is always snail mail.... :p

Post #280 ... from DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

2011-06-25T12:24:00.001-07:00

Unfortunately, I do not know how to include the graphics of this e-mail in here, but I do think the text of this e-mail is worth a "Fwd" -- as opposed to the usual crap that goes around....

* * *

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

OUR MISSION:
Since its founding more than 90 years ago, Disabled American Veterans has been dedicated to a single purpose: Building Better Lives for America's Disabled Veterans and Their Families.

http://www.dav.org/

P.O. Box 14301 | Cincinnati, OH 45250-0301

Summer heats up with compassion for disabled veterans as the DAV rallies support from volunteers, professional athletes, corporate donors and concerned patriots like you!

As you read the stories below, I hope you'll see the many ways that you help the DAV lead the fight for veterans' rights.

Carrying the Flame of Patriotism!

Arthur H. Wilson, National Adjutant
Disabled American Veterans

Tornadoes, Floods Harm Disabled Veterans

In the wake of widespread tornadoes and floods, DAV staff and volunteers are still spread out across America, reaching out with vital aid to disabled veterans stricken by disaster. A year of severe weather is putting the DAV's Disaster Relief Fund to the test.

VA Finally Delivers Aid to Heroes & Families

After leading the charge for a new law to aid the families of profoundly disabled veterans, the DAV criticized long VA delays in providing this urgently needed aid. Finally, the VA is accepting applications from full-time caregivers who meet the criteria and are eligible for vital training, financial assistance and health care.

Helping Disabled Service Members Make a Smooth Transition

Across the country, DAV transition officers are helping disabled service members understand the benefits and services they earned before they leave the armed forces. Explains DAV Commander Wally Tyson: "We want to get to these veterans before they're released so we can help get them on a path toward reinstituting a life."

Ford Motor Company Continues DAV Support

Ford Motor Company and DAV held a special ceremony at DAV's National Service and Legislative Headquarters in Washington, D.C., where Ford made another generous donation to purchase additional vehicles for the DAV Transportation Program.

Lt. Dan Band Movie: For the Common Good

Longtime Disabled American Veterans friend and supporter, Gary Sinise's documentary -- Lt. Dan Band Movie: For the Common Good -- will premier online July 4th!

Inspiring a PGA Pro to Give His All for Disabled Vets

Keep an eye on PGA Pro Jeff Klauk because every time Jeff finishes in the top 10, Golden Corral donates $5,000 to DAV! Plus, Kids Eat Free on the Monday after a top 10 finish! The DAV thanks Golden Corral for its devotion to building better lives for disabled veterans.

Keep Patriotism Shining Bright -- All Summer Long!

As we enjoy our many freedoms this summer, it's a great time to thank our heroes for protecting the land that we love. And with July 4th right around the corner, you'll keep the spirit of patriotism alive as you give to DAV now!

Please thank a disabled veteran today for their sacrifice and service!

Post #279 Grandma, Aug. 26, 1920 - Jun. 1, 2011, Pt. IV

2011-06-22T16:44:00.001-07:00

What else have I learned?

Medicare kicked Grandma out of the hospital after four days, she got 20 at the 'swing bed' -- a cross between a hospital and a nursing home -- and would have gotten 34 at the nursing home. For those keeping score, that is 58 days -- pay your taxes, stay off welfare, do charity work to keep others off welfare, and the government rewards you with 58 days. Grandma died before her 58 days were up -- saving the American taxpayer a couple of grand. You're Welcome.

And where is that couple of grand going? College tuition for unwed mothers.

Barack Obama, http://scholarshipsforwomenx.com/scholarships-for-single-moms-gives-free-money-to-women/ , who will soon be getting an e-mail from me.

Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

There is only so much taxpayer money to go around. If only Grandma had of had more intense treatment from Medicare....

Post #278 Grandma, Aug. 26, 1920 - Jun. 1, 2011, Pt. Iii

2011-06-15T15:10:00.001-07:00

What have I learned?

So, the next time some politician rants about 'BIG government taking care of people from cradle-to-grave,' I'll shout "Ya lying sack of sh*t!"

Actually, that BIG government will not take care of people from cradle-to-grave is nothing new that I've learned-- it has just been reinforced. And the next step in logic: That 'BIG government taking care of people from cradle-to-grave will lead to a lazy and irresponsible public,' I say "Prove it."

I'd gladly stack up Grandma's contributions to society with anyone.

Yes, Grandma got Social Security -- $470 a month. That covered her food, clothing and shelter needs. Anybody who cannot retire on $470 a month is not living right. Grandma did. Let's cap Social Security benefits, not the payments into it.

Payments into Social Security are capped at a tax on $106,000 a year -- meaning that, using very generous and rounded-up figures, a person making $106,000 a year is taxed at a rate to support two Grandmas a year. If you make more than $106,000 a year, well, that is FREE money....

Note that I am not including the matching payroll taxes paid by business in my figuring. I believe people, not business, should be responsible for those taxes which benefit people, not business.

Well, I do not make $106,000 a year -- you probably do not either. But I'm paying at that rate. Who pays at a less rate than I do?

http://www.paywizard.org/main/VIPPaycheck/politiciansalaries

Barack and Michelle Obama who made $1,728,096 last year and supported two Grandmas in retirement.
John McCain who made $405,409 last year and supported two Grandmas in retirement -- McCain also sucked up $23,000 in Social Security, the greedy lil' pig!

Indeed, all members of Congress receive a base salary of $174.000 a year -- that could support three Grandmas in retirement, but they only support two.

Please note that I am not including the outrageous salaries of private citizens. Let politicians clean up their own act BEFORE asking us for 'sacrifice.'

I used to think we were all in this together. But the dividing line is at $106,000. * sigh *

Post #277 Grandma, Aug. 26, 1920 - Jun. 1, 2011, Pt. II

2011-06-08T12:17:00.001-07:00

At my Grandma's visitation, I saw a man I'd thought had been dead for 15 years. Some 15 years ago, my Dad said that a guy he'd worked with for some 20 years had terminal cancer and three months to live. Obviously, he got better -- I'm glad I did not scream! My parents did not go to his funeral, of course, but they never talked about him either -- I just assumed that was my parents way of dealing, ya know....

Post #276 Grandma, Aug. 26, 1920 - Jun. 1, 2011

2011-06-01T12:52:00.001-07:00

: (

Post #275 George W. Bush's 'Cajones' Have Been Shriveled, Pt. III

2011-05-24T12:04:00.001-07:00

The following Post has nothing to do with George W. Bush's 'cajones' -- I just like the title. But, then again, I guess it does.

---

Subject: Re: jihad over?

"jihad over?" Of course not.

I got a note from a e-pal asking that, and he included this llnk to an article he agreed with:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/osama-bin-laden-chicken-or-egg/

The two quotes referenced in the article did not say jihad was over -- that was the author's interpretation. The article was effective without the quotes.

Jihad -- the 'holy war' of terrorists -- can trace it beginnings to Mohammed himself and the beginning of Islam. That's why we say "radical Islam" and jihad will never be over until radical Islam is over.

Ah, does that mean we should be at war with radical Islam or, to get at the root, Islam?

No, it is impossible to kill every Muslim and eliminate Islam from human history. We should do what Rambama is doing: Manage the threat by using the 'scalpel' approach -- issuing 'death warrants' against those who organize, finance and inspire terrorist acts against us. None of that 'building roads' nonsense. I think Al-Qaeda's #2 ought to be getting ready to meet 72 virgins -- do some sit-ups, pal! :p

Post #274 Rambama says....

2011-05-20T12:25:00.001-07:00

"Get off your scrawny white ass and get a job!"

Post #273 George W. Bush's 'Cajones' Have Been Shriveled, Pt. II

2011-05-17T12:06:00.001-07:00

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, September 14, 2001)

GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people --

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

BUSH: And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

The operative word is "soon." Osama bin Laden escaped our grasp at Tora Bora, and Bush changed his tune. Less than six months after his stirring Ground Zero talk, Bush addressed the subject of bin Laden, the leader of "the people who knocked these buildings down:"

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, March 13, 2002)

GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Again, I don't know where he is. I repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Bush had given up. Late 2005, he made it official -- Bush dissolved the CIA unit that tracked bin Laden, Alec Station, which had been formed in 1996.

Yes, I have heard the opinion that those who criticize Bush's decision to close Alec Station do not understand intelligence. To that I say: Those 'Bushies' do not understand leadership -- Bush should have informed the American people when he made that decision and why he made it. Instead, the news leaked out six months later....

And, now, Bush wants a TY.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bin-ladens-death-and-the-debate-over-torture/2011/05/11/AFd1mdsG_story.html

Thank You, Weasel, for all you did. [rolleyes]

Post #272 George W. Bush's 'Cajones' Have Been Shriveled

2011-05-10T12:06:00.001-07:00

Bedtime falls on Dallas. A faint glow shines from the bedroom of former President George W. Bush. W. steps out of the bathroom, buck naked. He makes some movement at his crotch.

W. (looking down): Look, Laura.
LAUBA (sitting up in the bed): I know. (Laura swivels, hangs her legs over the side and pats the bed, inviting W. over. He sits next to Laura.) That's what happens when somebody does something you could not do. Obama killed bin Laden, and now his 'cajones' are nice and full, and yours.... (Her voice trails off.)
W.: Who knew bin Laden was so important?
LAURA: Everybody knew -- except for those in the White House.
W.: Yeah, you're right -- it was Dick and Don who insisted we go after Saddam Hussein. But we got him.
LAURA: Yes, you did, dear.
W.(plaintively): He was a bad man... and probably would have liked to have had WMD one day.
A minute of silence.
W.: I saw a poll on FOX News where 11% of Americans said that I deserved credit for bin Laden's death.
LAURA: Oh, they are giving you credit for leaving Obama a target.
W.: Does this mean I'll lose my place on Mt. Rushmore?
LAURA: Take your nightly sip of your 'cough medicine' (Laura hands him a bottle. W. takes a snort and lies back on the bed. Laura messages his temples.) and go to your 'Happy Place,' and I'll dream of Obama for you.
W.: Thanks, Laura.
LAURA: Goodnight, Bar -- uh, George.

Post #271 Obama's Birth Certificate

2011-05-03T12:08:00.001-07:00

Osama bin Laden is dead. Hope they got his birth certificate. :p

Well, I kind of miss the fuss about birth certificates -- it was so easy to see exactly where you stood. And I really miss the Republicans who'd play it cool on TV but exhort the crowds at fundraisers. And do not forget Shepard Smith on FOX News who almost used the 'f-word' to describe the mess -- I'm sure Shep really enjoyed it, too. :p

"As a schoolkid, I was taught that a kid born to an American citizen was a citizen, no matter where they were born."

Yes, you are correct. If he was born in Kenya, Barack Obama is qualified to be President, born to an American mother. The same logic applies to John McCain who was born in Panama and Barry Goldwater who was born in the Arizona territory. That is what a natural born citizen is.

Obviously, 'birthers' believe differently, that a President needs to be born here, a native. But Title 8 of the U.S. Code defines a citizen as: "Any one who is born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)." So, the 'birthers' are wrong to question Obama's legitimacy to be President... even if he was born in Kenya.

Wait -- it's not over yet. Look next for 'birthers' to harp that Obama has dual citizenship and therefore dual loyalties and should not be President. They will try to scare folks by saying that Osama bin Laden could get -- or could have gotten -- an American citizen pregnant and the kid could get elected President. Good Luck with scaring the sane there. [rolleyes]

Post #270 Consumer Confidence Is Down Due To The Debt Crisis

2011-04-29T12:41:00.001-07:00

Be afraid. Be very afraid. It's a sign of the Apocalypse.

I was watching FOX News* the other day and saw the headline: "Consumer Confidence Is Down Due To The Debt Crisis." I appreciate the BIG BOLD graphics on FOX for those of us who don't see as well as we used to; I also appreciate the short headlines for those of us who don't like to think too much; and I appreciate the easy-on-the-eyes FOX girls. :p

"Consumer Confidence Is Down Due To The Debt Crisis" - what does that mean? What is 'consumer confidence?' How do they measure that? Is that different from 'consumer indifference?' :p

Nobody explained. FOX seemed to expect that their viewers would know exactly what 'consumer confidence' is, how they measured it and that President Barack Obama was to blame for it being down.

"Consumer Confidence Is Down Due To The Debt Crisis"-- why not gas prices or jobs, jobs, jobs as being the reason 'consumer confidence' is down? Because Republicans have no answers there.

But the 'debt crises' is something they hope to hang around Obama's neck. Make no mistake: The debt ceiling is a political number -- having nothing to do with economic realities, the conditions on the ground.

It's all politics.

I criticize Kelly's producers for airing such a non-story -- a political hatchet job.

* I still have a crush on Megyn Kelly -- tho she was off that day, replaced by another Bleach Blonde Bobble-Head.

Post #269 Send In Another Clown, Pt. II

2011-04-22T12:11:00.001-07:00

"Well, what is Donald Trump?"

asshole/politician

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/15/debunking-the-birther-claim/

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #268 Send In Another Clown

2011-04-12T13:46:00.001-07:00

Dear Donald Trump,

If your investigators find Barack Obama's birth certificate located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health in Hawaii, will you apologize to Obama?

If your investigators explain to you that Obama -- or any other Hawaiian resident requesting their own birth certificate -- can not legally remove the birth certificate from the Department of Health building or even make a copy of what is know in Hawaii as a 'vital' record and is instead issued a 'certificate of live birth,' will you apologize to the American people for leading them on a wild goose chase?

Thank You, Mr. Trump, for exposing yourself so early in the campaign as somebody who is willing to pander. The answers to your questions -- where is Obama's birth certificate?, why has he not shown it? -- are easily available on the 'net. That you are not willing to look and instead chant with the mob makes you what you are.

Speaking of birth certificates, where is yours, Mr. Trump? I'll be sitting on my front porch, you bring me a copy of your birth certificate and an impartial observer of my choosing to verify the certificate is real, and I'll issue a statement that I cannot prove you are a fraud. I'm waiting....

One of the poor who is robbed to support the rich

Post #267 Pres. Obama Launches His Billion Dollar Reelection Bid

2011-04-08T12:16:00.001-07:00

Be afraid. Be very afraid. It's a sign of the Apocalypse.

I was watching FOX News* the other day and saw the headline: "Pres. Obama Launches His Billion Dollar Reelection Bid." I appreciate the BIG BOLD graphics on FOX for those of us who don't see as well as we used to; I also appreciate the short headlines for those of us who don't like to think too much; and I appreciate the easy-on-the-eyes FOX girls. :p

"Pres. Obama Launches His Billion Dollar Reelection Bid" - what does that mean? Is that Obama's goal? Who is the campaign manager for such an obscenely mess? Do they have a web site for donations?

Hhmph! No good, high-falootin' fancy pants Democrats. George W. Bush had the decency to wait until May of the year before the election to launch his re-election bid.

Well, two 'political analysts' explained to Megyn Kelly that some anonymous 'conservative critics' have claimed Obama is, uh, launching a billion dollar bid, and,... well,... that's bad....

Hogwash, I say! This is America!! Money talks -- whining walks!!! If Obama raises a billion dollars, well, good for him....

I criticize Kelly for airing such a non-story with a dubious headline. What happened to her journalistic skills that got her that job?

* I still have a crush on Megyn Kelly -- tho I'm beginning to think that maybe her headline writers are not really 'fair and balanced.'

Post #266 Sarah Palin's Birth Certificate?, Pt II

2011-04-05T12:14:00.001-07:00

In my previous Post, I was NOT dumping on Sarah Louise Palin; I was dumping on 'birthers.' I got another e-mail the other day about Barak Obama and how he was an 'outsider.' I used much of the same language and logic in my Post but substituted Sarah Palin for Barak Obama to highlight my point: What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

You a fan of Sarah Palin? Why? Well, I'm NOT. To me, she has political instincts -- and that is NOT a virtue!

Look at her "Bridge to Nowhere" experience. She was for it before she was against it. She campaigned for governor with a selling point of her support for the Bridge.

Once the Bridge became a national outrage of BIG government wasteful spending, Palin followed her political instincts, read which way the political winds were blowing and flip-flopped.

To make matters worse, she followed more political instincts and tried to have it both ways. She made a BIG production out of killing the Bridge but accepted the earmark money for the Bridge and applied it to other projects -- that's the same kind of double-talk as seen in my previous Post, "I'm not going to criticize Obama, but...."

Palin is just another politician, repeating the same ol' tired clichés when it suits her purpose of stroking her own ego -- getting cheers from a crowd, getting more Facebook friends, winning elections for others, appearing on TV, being a 'player.' Another politician is the last thing we need.

It is true: She will NOT be elected President -- neither will Newt Gingrich, by the way, for the same reason of being a politician. But we do not need her or other political windbags in the national debate.

This can fairly be called dumping on Sarah Palin! :p

Post #265 Sarah Palin's Birth Certificate?

2011-03-25T12:05:00.001-07:00

Have you ever seen Sarah Palin's birth certificate? Neither have I.

We all know that Palin's parents went into Canada to slurp at the trough of socialized medicine for the Palin kids. Is it that big of leap in logic to think that Ma Palin went into Canada for pre-natal care and then the birth?

Who has seen Palin's actual birth certificate -- not some copy -- and verified that it was authentic? Who says that observer was impartial? How about a video of the birth and a video of the video -- and sworn oaths all around.

Who is Sarah Louise Palin? Why no medical records, dental records or school transcripts? What is she hiding? Have you seen an interview with a former classmate who has proper identification from a school Palin claims to have attended? Neither have I. All I 'know' is that Palin won Miss Alaska during the early '80s.

But what Palin claims is frightening enough. Palin is not one of us. She's from Alaska. Palin was so obsessed with looking good that she had a tanning bed installed in the governor's mansion -- charged to the Alaskan taxpayer, by the way. Most of us in the lower 48 are not that superficial.

Also, most of learned that communist North Korea invaded democratic South Korea and our ally was -- and still is -- South Korea. Apparently, they teach something different in
Alaska. What else has Palin learned that is wrong?

Here's Palin on what she would have done differently than President Obama in Libya.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH PALIN, FORMER ALASKA GOVERNOR: The U.S. has a tradition, of course, of Americans as we travel to foreign soil, we don't criticize our president's foreign policy. Even as friendly as soil as India is, I won't criticize what his foreign policy has been. But to answer your question, certainly there would have been more decisiveness -- less dithering and more decisiveness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Well, that's not criticizing. More Alaskan values, eh?

And what does "decisiveness" mean? Palin would have declared a 'no-fly' zone BEFORE all Americans were out of Libya? I'm sure the hostages would thank President Palin.

Palin would have declared a 'no-fly' zone BEFORE our military was ready to enforce it? That would have made us look foolish. She is ready to throw America's reputation under the bus so that she can look good. An Alaskan value, eh?

Please pass this on to every patriotic America who thinks we ought to know more about this 'outsider.'

God Bless America!

Post #264 Want Cheap Gas?

2011-03-18T12:27:00.001-07:00

Three options:

1. Invade Iran. Claim they have WMD/terrorists. Steal their oil -- make 'em pay war reparations. George W. Bush's second biggest mistake in Iraq was not making 'em pay.

We've already got the WMD/terrorists argument covered -- indeed, John McCain wants to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Of course, it is irresponsible to not follow a bombing campaign with troops on the ground to make sure we got what we were bombing and the Iranians are not rebuilding -- but surely McCain knows that.

Surely, McCain knows, too, that Iran will not be a push a pushover, will not welcome us as liberators, and our over-stretched military may be thrown out without using 'the bomb.' Of course, use of 'the bomb' will not win us any friends -- our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will be the first targets for terrorism. How many trillions are we willing to spend to pacify three terrorist-filled countries?

2. Invade Saudi Arabia. Steal their oil -- no apologies, no excuses. Naked colonialism at its best. This will send a message that the United States will do anything to maintain our standard of living. We hold this truth to be self-evident: That Billy Bubba Jim Bob who wants to drive to the lake to fish every weekend is more important than some camel jockey who wants to feed his family.

3. Park your car. Ride a bike or a moped or a golf cart or your city's electric buses -- reduce your demand. Your city not have electric buses yet? Make that a campaign issue. Not "you" individually -- "you" collectively. Unfortunately, Billy Bubba Jim Bob will not help.

To me, the decline of America began with the '73 Arab Oil Embargo -- America no longer had control of the energy that powered our standard of living. Then, we imported 37% of the oil we used; now, we import 50%. Our negative trade balance in energy runs well over $1 billion a day, a sum much greater than the trade deficit with China or the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Consider the title of this blog: "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire is due to a failure of leadership." And what have we gotten in the way of leadership since '73? Gerald Ford gave us the 55 mph speed limit. Jimmy Carter wore a sweater as he turned down the thermostat in the White House. That has been pretty much it. [rolleyes]

It will all be over in 2012 anyway.

Post #263 New Concern That President Obama Will Be Known As 'The President Who Lost Egypt,' Pt. II

2011-03-03T13:57:00.001-08:00

"'Egypt is a defeat for jihad' -- please explain." OK, and I apologize -- again, see my Post #208 -- for being too short, for tending to throw things out there without fully explaining. I foolishly think we are all on the same page in the same playbook -- but that is not always the case.

Jihad -- the 'holy war' declared by terrorists -- holds that violence -- especially coordinated violent attacks by terrorist groups -- is the way to drive America, her allies and her puppets out of the Middle East. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak was seen by many Arabs as an American puppet -- including Al-Qaeda's #2... who is Egyptian.

But Mubarak had survived coordinated violent attacks -- jihad has not worked in Egypt Yet it was peaceful protests that got him. Indeed, a rejection of jihad got rid of Mubarak -- thusly, Egypt is a defeat for jihad.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-01/opinion/cruickshank.egypt.alqaeda_1_zawahiri-al-qaeda-egyptians?_s=PM:OPINION

Post #262 New Concern That President Obama Will Be Known As 'The President Who Lost Egypt'

2011-02-25T13:00:00.001-08:00

Be afraid. Be very afraid. It's a sign of the Apocalypse.

I was watching FOX News* the other day and saw the headline: "New Concern That President Obama Will Be Known As 'The President Who Lost Egypt'" I appreciate the BIG BOLD graphics on FOX for those of us who don't see as well as we used to; I also appreciate the short headlines for those of us who don't like to think too much; and I appreciate the easy-on-the-eyes FOX girls. :p

"New Concern That President Obama Will Be Known As 'The President Who Lost Egypt'" - what does that mean? Who has that concern? Obama's 2012 Reelection Team or Obama himself?

Well, four 'political analysts' explained to Megyn Kelly that Obama is weak and sold out a ally and sided with jihad. To make the point -- if they did, there was a video of rioters in the streets and tanks, and then the images blurred behind a wall of flames, and a picture of Jimmy Carter appeared in the lower-left of the screen, and a picture of an ayatollah loomed overhead in the middle , and a picture of Barak Obama appeared in the lower-right.

FOX is missing the point -- the revolution in Egypt has nothing to do with jihad. Of course, terrorists may try to hijack the movement, but, as of today, Egypt is a defeat for jihad, and Obama did the smart and right thing by quickly identifying America to be on the side of the protesters.

You'd think that FOX would be celebrating this rejection of jihad. But, NO. Could it be that FOX is so obsessive with their hatred for Obama that they are willing to throw under the bus what is in America's interests in the hopes that some mud will stick to Obama? I ask; you decide.

"New Concern That President Obama Will Be Known As 'The President Who Lost Egypt'" -- I criticize Kelly for airing such a non-story. Indeed, the headline should have read: "New Hopes That FOX News Can Label President Obama As 'The President Who Lost Egypt'"

* I still have a crush on Megyn Kelly -- tho I'm beginning to question her journalistic skills.

Post #261 Obama Has His 2012 Reelection Team In Place

2011-01-28T12:38:00.001-08:00

Be afraid. Be very afraid. It's a sign of the Apocalypse.

I was watching FOX News* the other day and saw the headline: "Obama Has His 2012 Reelection Team In Place." I appreciate the BIG BOLD graphics on FOX for those of us who don't see as well as we used to; I also appreciate the short headlines for those of us who don't like to think too much; and I appreciate the easy-on-the-eyes FOX girls. :p

"Obama Has His 2012 Reelection Team In Place" - what does that mean? Who is the campaign manager? Where is the headquarters? Do they have a web site for donations?

Karl Rove explained to Megyn Kelly that Obama had filled the major jobs in government. Does that include the Assistant to the Under-Secretary of Agriculture!?! :p

I saw yesterday that the White House is getting a new press secretary. Does that make Robert Gibbs the first rat to jump the sinking ship?

Just out of historical curiosity, how does that compare with the last President who ran for reelection. Rove did not say.

"Obama Has His 2012 Reelection Team In Place" - is that a bad thing? Wouldn't Obama have more time to govern while letting his Reelection Team worry about politics?

Well, Rove was animated -- he sweated, his veins bulged, his glasses fogged. I still did not get it -- guess I am not paranoid enough for FOX.

I criticize Kelly for airing such a non-story. What happened to her journalistic skills that got her that job?

* I still have a crush on Megyn Kelly -- even during this, uh, awkward time.

Post #260 Consequences, Arizona, Pt. II

2011-01-18T14:07:00.001-08:00

DON'T SHOOT!

Let me rephrase my previous Post to make it clearer: No, Sarah Palin does not get any of the blame for the recent shootings in Arizona. No. She was exercising her First Amendment rights to say anything and thusly will suffer no legal consequences.

In this life. But she broke The Golden Rule -- "do unto others..." Palin undeniably has contributed to the coarseness of public debate -- as has many others -- which may or may not have contributed to the Arizona shootings. But God and God only will judge. I suspect that the 'First Amendment' defense or the 'everybody else does it' defense will not fly when she stands before God -- but I do not know that.

So, there will be no consequences in this life -- unless you count failed Presidential ambitions. Of course, Palin will deny ever having had Presidential ambitions. Fine. Whatever.

I think that Palin's videotaped message in which she cast herself as the victim has effectively ended her support -- except among the "Reloaders For Palin." You know, there is a woman in the hospital with bullet fragments in her brain -- the 'blood libel' against Palin pales in comparison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-ostroy/palin-remains-defiant_b_810231.html

In conclusion, Palin gets no blame for the Arizona shootings. But she is being held accountable for what she said in response to the shootings.

Being held accountable for what you say -- what a novel concept! It may catch on. :p

Post #259 Consequences, Arizona

2011-01-14T12:43:00.001-08:00

"Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they've gotta realize there are consequences to that action."
- Currently serving Congresswoman from Arizona Gabrielle Giffords and assassination target

"Does Sarah Palin get any of the blame for the recent shootings in Arizona?"

Legally? No. She was exercising her First Amendment rights to say anything and thusly will suffer no legal consequences.

Morally? Yes. She broke The Golden Rule -- "do unto others..." Sarah Palin undeniably has contributed to the coarseness of public debate -- as has many others. But God and God only will judge. I suspect that the 'First Amendment' defense will not fly when she stands before God -- but I do not know that.

So, there will be no consequences in this life -- unless you count failed Presidential ambitions. I think that Palin's videotaped message in which she cast herself as the victim has effectively ended her support -- except among the "Reloaders For Palin." You know, there is a woman in the hospital with bullet fragments in her brain....

My Dad is a stereotypical Reagan Democrat and a military/history buff, and Palin's comment "We must stand with our allies in North Korea" offended him. My Mom has been offended by Palin's 'unladylike' TV show. The jokes have flowed. Palin is a punch line in my family.

Goodbye, Sarah Palin. Leave us alone please.

Post #258 Received In E-Mail

2011-01-11T13:02:00.001-08:00

"So, what have we learned in 2,065 years?

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the
assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.
- Cicero - 55BC

"Evidently, nothing."

Exactly. The only thing I would add is "ALL" as in "ALL people must work; nobody who does not need it will get public assistance"

That's why I say ALL Senators and Representatives and the President and Vice-President and the Supreme Court justices should not get Social Security. Keep their snouts out of the trough of big government. That's what's wrong with this country: Too many deadbeats looking for a handout....

Let's hold accountable those responsible for the deficits -- see my Post #174 Subject: 545 People -- BEFORE we start fiddling with the retirement age.

Heck, I'm in favor of no pay for our elected federal officials -- and some state officials, too. If they can't manage to get by on their own personal fortune, we do not need them in D.C.

President John F. Kennedy donated his entire salary to charities -- George Washington was the only other President not to have his hand out. "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." Indeed.

Post #257 Christmas past

2011-01-04T13:26:00.001-08:00

Read this sappy -- uh, I mean, "heart-warming, touching" -- piece:

http://www.alandcalledamerica.com/pa-and-the-rifle

I kept waiting for the rest of the story: "Then these niggas broke in, raped Ma and killed Pa because I didn't have a rifle. Pa shouldn't have violated my 2nd Amendment rights."

Maybe I'm reading too much NRA stuff.... :p

Why didn't the widow pull herself up by her own bootstaps and get a job!?! Do like my cousin who had three little ones at home and open a daycare. That's what's wrong with this country: Too many deadbeats looking for a handout....

How did this GOP brochure get in here!?! :p

Post #256 hee hee

2010-11-16T13:45:00.001-08:00

'Round here, peeps are always looking for a sign from God. Is NOT that it!?! "Thou shall not interrupt funerals."

http://www.hapblog.com/2010/11/westboro-baptist-protesters-get-tires.html

Post #255 Olbermann's Down!

2010-11-12T12:25:00.001-08:00

I've been asked to comment on the controversy surrounding the benching of Keith Olbeermann by MSNBC:

Um, there is no controversy. Olbermann broke a company rule and was suspended for it.

I agree with Jon Stewart: "It's a stupid rule, but at least it was enforced poorly."

The company policy that Olbermann broke was to make a political contribution without asking for permission first -- which was NOT in Olbermann's contract. Simply, MSNBC wants its employees to give up their right as a U.S. citizen.

I think MSNBC now understand how stupid the rule is -- hence, the whopping two-day suspension. MSNBC is Entertainment, and Olbermann is an Entertainer. I happen to like Olbermann's smug cynical style -- as opposed to the overblown pomposity on the other channels.

And what is your company's policy regarding political contributions? Do not know, do you?

Post #254 History, Pt. IV

2010-11-05T12:46:00.001-07:00

I got some comments covering the past 50 years of Presidents from an e-pal that he picked up on a blog somewhere and wanted my opinion -- so: First, interesting -- a good starting point, but I thought the commentator played arm-chair psychiatrist too much -- I'm more interested in what each President did or did not do in office. This is Pt. IV. My additional responses and additions... in [brackets]....

* * *

OBAMA - There is no time either for me to compose further about Barack Obama, or at this point to take up a review of what is a freshly-begun Administration. But in general Obama is a breath of fresh air and a cause for optimism after the dismal record set by Presidents since 1980. In all cases, Obama is a complete improvement over the miserable failure and criminal incompetence of the Bush Regime II.

[Well, I'll try. Let's see what Obama has accomplished during his first two years -- with little or no help from the 'loyal opposition:'
1. The stimulus. There has been a TV commercial playing in this state about the "failed stimulus" -- with "failed" in dripping red letters. Oh, really? Well, I looked out my window for evidence that the stimulus has failed to prevent the Great Depression Pt. II. There are no tent cities, no soup kitchens, no food riots, no sieges of town hall, no abandoned children wandering the streets looking for handouts. Nobody has declared martial law -- the National Guard is not on patrol. And there have been no layoffs at the public school where I work. In fact, it did not take me long to find concrete evidence of the stimulus at work: The little community down the road has a new main intersection complete with a stoplight and sidewalks and landscaping. Things must be pretty bad where the makers of that commercial live, but, around here, the stimulus has not "failed."
2 Health care reform. Anything that breaks the chain of paying for health care that is around the neck of business is good. The Republican plan -- or no plan -- is to continue to choke American business.
3. Financial reform. Even Wall Street seems happy.
4. Saved GM. The Republican plan -- and mine, too, by the way -- was to let a huge potion of this country's manufacturing base go belly-up. Even Pat Buchanan knew the importance of our manufacturing base and the real and political risks of letting it go -- see his "As GM Goes, So Does The GOP" column. Now, GM has already paid off its government-backed loans, and the Obama-as-car-salesman-in-chief joke falls flat.
5. Kept us safe. Obama has beaten George W. Bush's nine months, and the terror threat level has not risen after every bit of bad news. And Obama has not had a weenie roast at the White House for his terrorists pals to turn over the keys to this country -- oh, yeah, that will be after 2012, right?.
6 Ended the Iraq war. Well, in name only, but the symbolism is important. And Obama has not bombed Iran -- ya know, I thought that Iran was supposed to have 'the bomb' by now.
7. Looking to end the Afghanistan war. Obama has 'surged' -- progress or come come. Take the 'scalpel' approach -- which is Constitutional -- instead of the hammer' -- which is unConstitutional.
At the end of the day, Obama, as a black man in power, has treated the white man better than the white man in power treated the black man. There is no 'whites only' entrance thro the basement kitchen of the White House -- even Glen Beck can walk thro the front door! :p]

Post #253 Election Day!

2010-11-02T12:13:00.001-07:00

It's Election Day, and I haven't had a chance to blog my Rand_Paul/Aqua_Budda jokes! :p

Post #252 History, Pt. III

2010-10-29T13:18:00.001-07:00

I got some comments covering the past 50 years of Presidents from an e-pal that he picked up on a blog somewhere and wanted my opinion -- so: First, interesting -- a good starting point, but I thought the commentator played arm-chair psychiatrist too much -- I'm more interested in what each President did or did not do in office. This is Pt. III. My additional responses and additions... in [brackets]....

* * *

CLINTON - Arguably the most intelligent and thoughtful President ever to hold office, Bill Clinton's poor judgement doomed his time in office from the outset. Initially optimistic and enthusiastic supporters had great expectations - the town hall meetings conducted between Election and Inaugural Days were invigorating. The performance, afterward, was a massive letdown.

Clinton promised a major energy policy initiative - and failed to follow through. he promised a major urban revitalization program, a major effort with education, health care and numerous other policies, and failed to deliver. Instead, Clinton wasted his initial political capital with the "Don't Ask, don't Tell" policy, activating opposition from all sides. he then took an overblown and impossible health care project on and used up what residual goodwill he owned before the 1994 elections.

After that, the ultra-right campaign under Newt Gingrich to cripple Clinton went into full swing, and the battle was never let up - it continues to this day, now aimed at Obama. Clinton's bad judgment and personal dishonesty only made matters worse during the Lewinsky affair. Ultimately, Clinton did achieve more than many today admit, but the taint of his failures follows him like a bad smell.

[;O -- A good summary. But I give Gingrich more credit for the balanced budgets than the writer probably does -- 50/50, but Clinton showed his political mastery by blaming Gingrich for the government shutdown. That should doom Gingrich's chances in 2012. Who wants a President who'll shut down the government?]

BUSH II - No President has ever done a worse job in office, damaged the nation's international standing more, or lied and manipulated the country more than George W. Bush. He led the country into the Iraq war on a platform of lies...

[Well, the "lies" were as a result of incompetence -- peeps in his own government were warning him about his overheated rhetoric concerning WMD in Iraq, but he was too lazy to reach out for contrary opinions -- instead of evil, but that is a distinction that doesn't need to be made. Ask the over 4000 who died for Bush's lies if that distinction is important. A lie is lie.]

... for reasons that were never disclosed to the nation.

[I doubt if Bush knows why.]

He abandoned the more important war in Afghanistan, which in its early successes had had a chance of being completed well and effectively before Bush's diversion allowed Al Quaeda and the Taliban to regroup and damaged irretrievably the faith of Afghanis in American commitment to the country.

[That is a good summary of our adventure in Afghanistan. Bush lost that war. Tho the war initially was justified, once we lost -- let Bin Laden escape, what is our justification for staying?]

Bush attempted to buy votes in 2001 with his ill-advised "rebates." His tax policies increased burdens on the middle class. His abandonment of environmental regulations wrought physical ruin and death across the nation. His absolute incompetence in office was evident long before the horrendous crisis after Hurrican Katrina.

[I had assumed that Bush was a decent guy but was being steamrolled by the darker influences in his Administration. But Hurricane Katrina showed that Bush just did not care. Nero fiddled while Rome burned -- where was Bush while New Orleans drowned? He was strumming his guitar on stage at a Republican fundraiser in San Diego.]

His insouciant urging of the nation to run up massive mounds of debt, coupled with utter lack of regulatory oversight of the financial industry (among others) culminated in global economic crisis. He manipulated national elections in 2000 and 2004 and is arguably the only President since Rutherford B. Hayes to hold office in spite of truly losing the election.

[The 2004 campaign was full of lies and smears and fear-mongering -- ya know, the usual stuff. I have no problem with 2004 -- we got what we deserved.]

[However, Bush was an illegitimate President during his first term. Not because he lost the popular vote nation-wide and not because Florida's electoral votes were in dispute but Bush was an illegitimate President during his first term because he was appointed by the Supreme Court instead of following the law -- ironically, the law was in Bush's favor.]

Post #251 History, Pt. II

2010-10-22T12:07:00.001-07:00

I got some comments covering the past 50 years of Presidents from an e-pal that he picked up on a blog somewhere and wanted my opinion -- so: First, interesting -- a good starting point, but I thought the commentator played arm-chair psychiatrist too much -- I'm more interested in what each President did or did not do in office. This is Pt. II. My additional responses and additions... in [brackets]....

* * *

REAGAN - Today almost beatified by Conservatives and other admirers, in office Ronald Reagan was extremely controversial, widely disliked, and inconsistent. He began in 1976 attempting to build a coalition to revitalize the Republic Party, which had been (incorrectly) declared at death's door as the Presidential returns were counted. Reagan made a number of alliances with very conservative faction leaders and fundamentalist Christian leaders - making promises on issues that he did not keep once in office.

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Reagan violated the spirit, if not also the letter, of the law by making secret arrangements to deliver arms and other benefits to Iran if the American hostages were kept until after the election - assuming, of course, that Reagan won that election. As he completed his oath of office in January, 1981, the airplanes carrying the released hostages touched down in northwest Africa, payoff for a despicable act that opened an Administration marked by corruption and criminal convictions and many more international adventures in defiance of Amecan laws and customs.

[Did Reagan cheat to win? Well, he was certainly trading arms for hostages in violation of official policy and funding 'the Contras' in violation of the law -- only unlike Richard Nixon, he was not exposed until it was too late, late in his second term when it was considered too politically damaging to have an impeachment.]

[You know me, damn politics -- let's follow the law. I would have loved to have seen the Gipper on trial -- maybe he would not be so revered today if peeps had of seen him put on his 'out-of-the-loop' defense.]

Reagan did not end the Cold War, as some claim (Gorbachev did that). His investments in military technology and reorganization were indeed vital, and unmatched by the Soviet Union, but they were also corrupt contracts in many cases.

[I have no problem with giving Reagan his due in defeating 'the bear in the woods' -- as long as it is recognized that 'the bear' was wounded and bleeding from its misadventure in Afghanistan. Reagan lucked into the right time to try "Peace through Strength" -- but it worked out. All's well. :)]

Reagan's massive deficits were, by one account published in the 1990's, a deliberate attempt to bankrupt the country so that Libertarian conservatives could succeed in closing down much of the government and eliminating every social program from Medicare to welfare and the Public Health Service.

[Just because something bad happens -- or almost happens, does not mean there is a conspiracy behind it. Libertarian conservatives are not that stupid. Before you shut down government and eliminate social programs, you'd better shut down the 2nd Amendment. "When in the course of human events..."]

Reagan's adoption of Milton Friedman's concept of "free market" policies led to deregulation which resulted in 30 years' worth of economic disaster, business collapses, and the current global economic crisis. In 1988, the greastest single-day drop in stock prices almost precipitated another Depression, and did eventually lead to the Reagan-Bush recession that lasted for more than two years.

[For me, the economy is personal -- how much I add to my own private retirement account. I have been adding a small steady amount for the past 20 years -- the only time I've had enough disposable cash to significantly increase my contribution was during the balanced budgets of the Clinton years. There is a lesson there. What I've learned about "trickle-down" is that the benefits do not trickle down but the bills sure do.]

[No, I do not think much of Reagan. Unfortunately, Republicans think they've hit on a winning formula -- "anti-minorities" for those non-minority voters and "free money" for those wealthy voters in the form of tax cuts, deregulation and deficits. When it all goes belly-up -- as it always does, google 'ronald reagan black monday,' guess who pays?]

BUSH I - This President was entirely disconnected from American society. He revealed he never went grocery shopping when he was astonished at a supermarket checkout laser reader. His social policies were driven entirely by a desire to continue in the Reagan path, his failure to support environmental protection, workplace protection and many other initiatives opposed by business nearly devastated the EPA, OSHA and other agencies, and his persistent inability to pursue economic policies to help end the recession led to the ruin of millions of American families and small businesses. The cities of Dallas, Phoenix, Denver, St. Louis and others especially affected by this recession took nearly a decade to recover.

[I do not put much stock in his failure to go grocery shopping, but, boy, his following of Reagan's social policies sure hurt. But he broke with Reagan by signing 'the largest tax increase in history' -- well, then. Oh, sure, it offended many Reaganites, but I give him credit for recognizing that "voodoo economics does not work -- and he gets credit for coining the phrase "voodoo economics."]

Bush's mixed signals to Saddam Hussein in the period leading up to the first Gulf War resulted in Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in the belief the U.S. would not actually do anything about it.

[I criticize Bush for launching a unConstitutional war -- then and now. But I always thought Bush was the better half of Reagan/Bush.]

Post #250 Vote 4 Da Rich Whitey -- Ya Know Ya Wanna! :p

2010-10-19T12:53:00.001-07:00

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/10/rich-whitey-misspelling-that-just.html

Well, most politicians ARE rich whiteys -- just wondering how close that hit to home! ;O

Post #249 Richard Burr, Part Of The Problem

2010-10-15T12:03:00.001-07:00

There is a political advertisement airing in this state about the re-election of Senator Richard Burr, a smiling Republican -- yes, I mean "smiling" in a negative way. I think Burr has out-smarted himself, tho.

The ad starts out by appealing to the populist 'Tea Party' sentiment against big government -- two ol' geezers straight out of central casting are sitting on front porch in rocking chairs and railing against politicians and the political establishment of D.C. A woman steps forward to calmly and quietly campaign for Burr.

My Dad didn't hear her. He was too busy railing against "that Damn Richard Burr... who ain't done squat for North Carolina." If Burr had his way. North Carolina would have been without $8.9 billion in stimulus money. Maybe we could have had tent cities and soup kitchens. [rolleyes]

I'd thought Burr would share the North Carolina value of not voting for something without paying for it -- the only exception is during a time of Constitutionally-declared war. But Burr fell in with the other smiling Republicans and voted for, as a Representative, George W. Bush's inflated and unbalanced budgets and, as a Senator, Bush's infamous Plan D for Medicare -- the largest expansion of government into health care since the start of Medicare, an expansion that wasn't paid for. And Burr blames President Obama for his own irresponsibility.

That's why the ad for Burr's opponent, Elaine Marshall, makes sense: "It's time for a change!"

Post #248 Government Run Amok!

2010-10-08T13:02:00.000-07:00

Personally, I would like to see John Edwards hounded to his unmarked grave. But the news that federal prosecutors have issued new subpoenas in their probe of former Senator Edwards' 2008 Presidential campaign finances gives me pause.

What was the crime? I bet the grand jury that has been investigating for over a year is wondering the same thing.

Yes, it disgusts me to think that Edwards paid 'hush money' out of his campaign funds to cover up his affair with that "freak," Rielle Hunter -- to use Edwards' own word. But guess what? Um, 'hush money' IS political and thusly an appropriate use of campaign funds.

I think what we have is an out-of-control prosecutor who will continue to abuse his governmental office until he gets something to stick.

Post #247 History

2010-10-01T12:31:00.001-07:00

I got some comments covering the past 50 years of Presidents from an e-pal that he picked up on a blog somewhere and wanted my opinion -- so: First, interesting -- a good starting point, but I thought the commentator played arm-chair psychiatrist too much -- I'm more interested in what each President did or did not do in office. My additional responses and additions... in [brackets]....

* * *

KENNEDY - JFK was a conservative hawk with a very strong anti-Communist theme to
his policies. His inauguration speech was almost a war warning to the Soviets. Although he did not plan nor get too deeply involved in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, it was laid at his feet because he did not approve of pushing that invasion any further and withheld some anticipated air and sea support from the invasion. His very determined and careful management of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis was probably the high point of his entire administration. His work on civil rights was reluctant but had begun movement forward in 1963. Perhaps his greatest legacy was the inspiration he gave to the country.

He had little opportunity in the 2 1/2 years in office (before assassination) to develop his domestic programs, and was more caught up in foreign affairs. It appears from an historical perspective that JFK was on the verge of reducing or ending U.S. involvement in Vietnam when he was killed - and several historians believe that was why he was killed.

[Do not blame your goofy ideas on "several historians." We all know it was 'the mob' who killed Kennedy. :p]

JOHNSON - There may not have ever been a President as complex as Lyndon Baines Johnson - at once crude, heavy-handed and overbearing, and also personally insecure, more sensitive to the problems of poverty and injustice than most admit today, and highly-motivated by a craving for approval. Johnson emerged from an earlier career in one of the country's most racist states to nearly single-handedly end 100 years of oppressive official racism and establish the concept of civil rights as a bedrock principle of American philosophy for ALL persons.

[ ~ Give him a standing ovation. ~ ]

Despite some cronyism and problems with the corruption of a few of his closest friends and advisors (remember the chinchilla coat?), Johnson led a reasonably honest and effective administration. His "Great Society" programs, even weakend by opponents terrified of empowering the poor, were actually successful in many ways - and today at least Head Start survives.

[Um, isn't Medicare a "Great Society" program? After all, Medicare is, as Senator Chuck Grassley famously said, part of the "social fabric."]

His greatest weakness was fear that a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam would tar his legacy as President - and Vietnam indeed did so, but for the opposite reason.

[ ~ Sit down. ~ Do not forget that Johnson lied to get us into that war -- "Gulf of Tonkin" anyone? -- and couldn't withdraw without admitting his lie. Sound familiar? A President who lies deserves a special place in....]

Johnson's astonishing mastery of the legislative process and ability to reach down to the Hill is unmatched in U.S. history. Thus his time in office was capped with the landmark Civil Rights Act, and the creation of Medicare.

NIXON - No President ever better understood the national political process better than Nixon, but no President was ever worse-suited to attempt its manipulation. Ultimately, Nixon had no god but himself, and that destroyed him. He had no compunction about lying to the nation or to himself, a hallmark of his first Administration that is almost entirely forgotten today. His personal weaknesses, at the core of which was a desperate and nearly paranoid insecurity, caused Nixon to become more isolated and more vicious in response to critics as time went by. His 1972 re-election campaign was a vile exercise in attack, retribution, manipulation and deviousness.

[And Nixon tried to cheat to win -- ironically, not necessary. That is what Watergate was all about. And he took 'ownership' of Vietnam.]

Nixon achieved an astonishing result with his rapprochement with China - undertaken for weltpolitik purposes to help split Russia and China. He also made what had begun as promising initiatives to deal with the Middle East, but ultimately failed thanks to his preoccupation with domestic problems. The 1973 Arab Oil Embargo was more than a disaster for Americans, it exposed the United States as vulnerable in ways that helped encourage the development of Middle East terrorism, which has bedeviled the country since long, long before 9/11/2001.

FORD - Gerald Ford, vilified by many for his pardon of Nixon, was a caring, gentle and humane person perfectly suited, although purely by accident, to fill the Presidency when Nixon resigned. His good humor, genuine interest in the nation, and respect for his office probably saved the Presidency after the ruin Nixon's "imperial" style had wrought upon the office.

[Ford was a good guy -- more proof that nice guys finish last... or at least second.]

Unfortunately, Ford as a mildly conservative Republican was unsuited to develop and pursue policies that were then pressing, ranging from new standards for auto safety and economy to environmental protection, from reorganizing and rebuilding the military after the debacle of Vietnam (which came to a sorrowful end during his Administration) to effectively directing America's response to the great flood of Southeast Asian immigrants after Saigon fell. Ford's worst moment in office was not the Mayaguez incident, but the "Whip Inflation Now" button that proved he had no idea what to do about an economy in ruins.

CARTER - Jimmy Carter is most unjustly pilloried by the right wing and considered generally a failure in office. Yet he was the first and nearly only President to achieve significant progress in the Middle East, rebuild American prestige and respect abroad, finally launch a comprehensive program of environmental protection, take initiatives to improve worker health and safety on the job, protect new mothers (and fathers) when time off was needed after birth, and pursue dozens of other important, human domestic policies.

Unfortunately, Carter was also a technocrat more interested in process than in political leadership. He was not much of an admirer of America's military, and thus did not attend to the corrosion in the ranks or the officer corps caused by the debacle of Vietnam. Further, he was unwilling during times of considerable economic stress to invest heavily in development of advanced weapons systems or other improvements in pay and circumstances of military personnel. The 1979 oil embargo was but one of several developments that doomed his reputation and his reelection.

[And it was the Iranian hostage crisis -- unfairly exploited by his opponent -- that doomed him. More on this later....]

Post #246 Comrades Unite!

2010-09-24T12:29:00.001-07:00

There is a five-part essay at http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/08/30/ideological-war-spells-doom-for-americas-schoolkids/ worth reading.

Great satire -- a communist conspiracy to take over America! Woo-hee!! The only thing missing is the Black Helicopters. :p

I loved the way the author, Zombie, kept saying what liberals believe -- as tho he knows. All I can say, Thank Goodness I'm not a Liberal -- I'd been worried that my libertarian belief that government should stay out of the doctor's office and thusly abortion should be legal might get me called 'the L-word.'

It was clever to include criticism -- apt criticism, I add -- of the Texas School Board, criticism which of course lead the reader to think the author was going to be fair and balanced. ;)

And painting President Barack Obama as the head of the conspiracy was brilliant -- using a 30-year-old "quote" without attribution -- bravo! Our President is really a Muslim from Kenya, you know.

I criticize the author for not explicitly identifying his piece as satire. I shudder to think how many peeps took it seriously. You know, some peeps see a conspiracy everywhere.

The recommendations at the end in Part V were good -- tho I think Part V should have been a separate essay to avoid the silliness of I-IV.

I would like to point out that home-schooling or private schools are already an option, Indeed, I went to a private school 30 years ago as my parents did not want me to go to school with black kids -- a bogus reason, I know. But they scrimped, saved and sacrificed to pay the tuition but at least were honest about it -- that is why I say the push for neighborhood schools today is dishonest: Those parents want segregated schools but are unwilling to pay for it.

My private school had one valedictorian, and 'capitalism' and 'imperialism' were not bad words. Same today. No communism.

As for textbooks, I agree -- there is no need for textbooks in todays info age. My U.S. History book ran out with LBJ in '64, and the course itself ran out with WWII; my nephew's book ran out with Reagan in '82, and his course ran out with the Cuban Missile Crisis. The point being that there are other evils -- 'papers, TV, 'nets -- out there worse than textbooks.

As for 'union-busting,' my state has a 'right-to-work' law, non-union workers can be hired thusly 'breaking' unions -- everybody should be so enlightened.

Anywho, gotta go. It's time for our weekly meeting of us conspirators in the basement of the White House. I'll tell Zombie "Hello" for you.

P.S.: If you didn't "get it," Zombie was making fun of you.

Post #245 Robert Byrd, "We Stand Passively Mute"

2010-09-17T12:31:00.000-07:00

Robert Byrd, November 20, 1917 - June 28, 2010, was a United States Representative and Senator from West Virginia. He served in the the House of Representatives from 1953 to 1959 and the Senate from 1959 to 2010. He is the longest-serving Senator and the longest-serving member in the history of the United States Congress.

A highlight of his career was the following speech:

"We Stand Passively Mute"
Wednesday 12 February 2003

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

Post #244 The Snot Fires Back!

2010-09-14T13:53:00.001-07:00

Instead of just ignoring those e-mails that make me * sigh *, I've decided to fight back in my own small way by replying to -- um, well,....

"Do you enjoy looking like an idiot who hits 'Fwd' on every e-mail without doing any research to see if it's true?

" http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/australia.asp

"Or are you convinced that you are being smart and helping the public debate by spreading 'news' the mainstream ignores?"

Post #243 9/11, revisited, Pt. IV

2010-09-10T12:28:00.001-07:00

As I said in my Post #175 and Post #204, every time I think about forgiving George W. Bush for 9/11, I read my Post #104 -- which follows. It is a Damning indictment of the Weasel's ineptitude and doesn't even include some of the most obvious examples -- Condoleezza Rice's July '01 meeting with George Tenet or the August '01 Presidential Daily Briefing. Nor did I mention Bush's opposition to the 9/11 Commission or his refusal to give a formal interview.

Why wasn't Bush all over this?

* * *

Post #104

Subject: 9/11, revisited

Wait -- was that a dream or a nightmare?

Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq

Why a meeting with the deputies and not the Secretaries? Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries. As Clarke told the 9/11 Commission, "It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies' committee didn't meet urgently in January or February."

The Secretaries' first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001.

On January 25, 2001, five days after Bush took office, Clarke sent Condi Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda." It was, Clarke wrote, "developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Senator Carl Levin said as the new Administration took office, "I'm concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center."

And where was Bush?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Ari never did.

On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, "What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?"

And they gave us Iraq instead....

* * *

Bill Clinton knew. In Australia on 9/11, the former President immediately knew who the culprit was. But yet in the White House on 9/12, there was an obsession with Saddam
Hussein as there was an obsession with Saddam on 9/10 -- 9/11 just gave an excuse to take out the bad man. So what if there had to be lies about the actual connection between Saddam and Osama? There was a get-Saddam mindset BEFORE 9/11.

Indeed, at a 9/13 meeting in the Oval Office with Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer of New York and Senators John Warner and George Allen of Virginia about getting aid for their states. Bush said, "When I take action," he said, "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

And so the decider decided. He wouldn't repeat President Clinton's 'mistake' of chasing shadows -- he was going after bigger fish....

Subject #242 * sigh *

2010-08-31T16:30:00.001-07:00

I got another "Fwd" e-mail the other day:

-----

----- Start Original Message -----

If each person sends this to a minimum of twenty people on their address list, in three days, all people in The United States of America would have the message. I believe this is one proposal that really should be passed around.

[IMAGE -- sorry, I do not know how to add a picture here, but it was of then-candidate Barak Obama carrying a book]

The name of the book Obama is reading is called: "The Post-American World," and it was written by a fellow Muslim. "Post" America means the world after America! Please forward this picture to everyone you know, conservative or liberal. We must expose Obama's radical ideas and his intent to bring down our beloved America!

----- End Forwarded Message -----

-----

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/postamerican.asp

The author is NOT Muslim; the book is NOT about America defeated....

* sigh *

The author has brown skin and a strange name -- therefore, he's a Muslim. I guess that sums up the intellectual firepower of the 'loyal opposition,' eh?

Why must peeps get their news from e-mail? Stick to blogs. :p

Or 'real' news:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38786992/

The quiet resurgence of George W. Bush? Well, the article does not advocate --note the "?." So, l rest easy, right? But, if ya read the comments, it seems that a lot of folks get their news from e-mail.

I got one 'nutty' e-mail not long ago that included a link to info about the e-mail at " snopes.com " and claimed that the info was true because it was at " snopes.com ." Being the curious type, I clicked the link... and found the e-mail was %100 false. How many of the 1000s who got that e-mail bothered to click that link? Um, I do not really want to know.

* sigh *

Post #241 The Mosque: A Sensitive Opinion

2010-08-24T14:50:00.001-07:00

President Barack Obama should not express an opinion on the 'Ground Zero' mosque. Neither should anybody else who holds an elected office nor anybody who wants to be President or hold any other elected office.

The Constitution of the United States clearly states in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- government should stay out of religion. Article 6, Section 3, states: "[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" -- religion should stay out of government. What could be clearer than that!?!

This issue is about sensitivity: Let's be sensitive to the Constitution, shall we? Do not let the mob rule. In a free society, the only legitimate role of government is to protect liberty.

If you believe that we are at war with Islam, then opposition to the mosque makes sense. If you believe that we are at war with a bunch of thugs who (mis)use Islam to justify their terrorist acts, then the whole debate is a waste of time. Indeed, the protests are a recruiting tool for terrorists and their 'holy war.' The protesters are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy.

I believe we must kill them before they kill us. I also believe that we must correctly identify 'them.' If we do not, if we act as tho a religion is our enemy, we risk becoming terrorists ourselves.

It does me no injury if Obama prays to Jesus or Allah or an oak tree. But there seems to a religious test going on. I'm not sure how Jesus got into the public discourse. Oh, fudge, I know exactly: The specter of Jesus stirs up fears and resentments... and votes -- 'they' is getting ahead 'us.'

Post #240: :D

2010-08-17T17:11:00.001-07:00

I've been cleaning out my e-box, and I just got to blog this....

That "almost a woman" line -- ;O

Johnstown, PA (GlossyNews) - Local and state police scoured the hills outside rural Johnstown, Pennsylvania, after reports of three animal rights activists missing after attempting to protest the wearing of leather at a large motorcycle gang rally this weekend. Two others, previously reported missing, were discovered by fast food workers "duct taped inside several fast food restaurant dumpsters," according to police
officials. "Something just went wrong," said a still visibly shaken organizer of the protest. "Something just went horribly, horribly, wrong."

The organizer said a group of concerned animal rights activist groups, "growing tired of throwing fake blood and shouting profanities at older women wearing leather or fur coats," decided to protest the annual motorcycle club event "in a hope to show them our outrage at their wanton use of leather in their clothing and motor bike seats." "In fact," said the organizer, "motorcycle gangs are one of the biggest abusers of wearing leather, and we decided it was high time that we let them know that we disagree with them using it... ergo, they should stop."

According to witnesses, protesters arrived at the event in a vintage 1960's era Volkswagen van and began to pelt the gang members with alloons filled with red colored water, simulating blood, and shouting "you're murderers" to passers by. This, evidently, is when the brouhaha began.

"They peed on me!!!" charged one activist. "They grabbed me, said I looked like I was French, started calling me 'La Trene', and duct taped me to a tree so they could pee on me all day!"

"I... I was trying to show my outrage at a man with a heavy leather jacket, and he... he didn't even care. I called him a murderer, and all he said was, 'You can't prove that.' Next thing I know he forced me to ride on the back of his motorcycle all day, and would not let me off, because his girl friend was out of town and I was almost a woman."

Still others claimed they were forced to eat hamburgers and hot dogs under duress. Those who resisted were allegedly held down while several bikers "farted on their heads."

Police officials declined comments on any leads or arrests due to the ongoing nature of the investigation, however, organizers for the motorcycle club rally expressed "surprise" at the allegations.

"That's preposterous," said one high-ranking member of the biker organizing committee. "We were having a party, and these people showed up and were very rude to us. They threw things at us, called us names, and tried to ruin the entire event. So, what did we do? We invited them to the party! What could be more friendly than that? You know, just because we are all members of motorcycle clubs does not mean we do not care about inclusiveness. Personally, I think it shows a lack of character for them
to be saying such nasty things about us after we bent over backwards to make them feel welcome."

When confronted with the allegations of force-feeding the activists meat, using them as ad hoc latrines, leaving them incapacitated in fast food restaurant dumpsters, and 'farting on their heads,' the organizer declined to comment in detail. "That's just our secret handshake," assured the organizer.

Post #239 Modest Proposals For Arizona

2010-08-13T12:36:00.000-07:00

I've been doing a lot of thinking about Arizona lately -- which is probably not a good thing. :p

My first proposal for Arizona immigration reform is based on the idea that carrying your 'papers' is not a big inconvenience -- an opinion I've heard expressed a lot. OK, based on the fact that most illegal immigrants jump the fence, so to speak, at night, I propose a dusk to dawn curfew. After all, decent people are home at night anyway.

Maybe something can be worked out for when the Suns play at home -- armed escorts for fans?

Oh, of course, I'm not serious. I just wanted to point out that one man's minor inconvenience is another man's big hassle.

I am disappointed that libertarian/conservatives who rail against big government support Arizona 1070 with its expansion of police powers. In the name of Barry Goldwater, where is the voice that will cry "Don't shred my Constitution for your security" -- who will that be?

A serious proposal -- which I've had this idea for quite a while, by the way -- involves amending the Constitution to change the requirements for citizenship. I'm not sure why this idea has created such a stir lately.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers provided a way for the Constitution to be amended. If you could bring 'em back in a time machine, I'm sure the Founding Fathers would be proud tnat we're still using their Constitution and appalled that we haven't amended it more since we are no longer a 17th century rural society.

Look, the 'born here' part was put in the Constitution to protect former slaves -- well, their children. It should have been changed in 1920 when we began to have an immigration policy and any former slaves were beyond child-bearing years -- "Any child born in the United States with at least one parent being a citizen of the United States shall be a citizen of the United States, too." And that should take care of the 'anchor babies' problem.

In contrast, I also propose -- and I haven't decided yet whether I'm serious or not -- opening the doors to everybody, a pre-1920 immigration policy. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" -- a nice ring, huh?

Post #238 Revolution

2010-08-10T18:12:00.001-07:00

;O Read this piece -- it's funny:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/if-life-hands-you-lemons-dont-make-lemonade-without-a-permit/

Sadly, some of the commentators seemed too have taken this a little too seriously.

To all politicians and political supporters: Either have the balls to kill a program -- stand up and take responsibility, or fully fund the program. To cut off funds -- 'to starve the beast,' as one commentator eloquently put it -- is the coward's way.

I'm not sure where all the anti-government paranoia comes from. At least, the girl was not taken by the Black Helicopters. And neither will you be.

Post #238 All Is Quiet On The Arizona Front

2010-08-06T12:40:00.001-07:00

My TV was on the news the other night -- I was not really paying attention, but some flashing police lights caught my eye. There were two police cars with their lights flashing pulled around a -- I presumed -- dead body, and there were several cops standing around. And a voice of doom said, "War rages in Arizona. Details next."

Well, during the commercials, I thought about the 'invasion' -- 1000s of armored vehicles pouring over the border, house-to-house combat, search-and-destroy missions, right? Well, Ft. Sumter has not been fired upon; Pearl Harbor has not been bombed; there has been no Bunker Hill.

But the 'invasion?' "This is a media-created event," Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said. "I hear politicians on TV saying the border has gotten worse. Well, the fact of the matter is that the border has never been more secure."

Oh, pardon me, surely, there is a crime wave that's got 'talking heads' talking. I did a quick 'google' -- Arizona crime rate -- and found that the hype is overblown. Indeed, the crime rates in Arizona are at their lowest point in decades. The violent crime rate in Arizona is lower than any year since 1983. The property crime rate in Arizona is lower than any year since 1968. Simply, there is no war raging in Arizona... or even a crime wave.

Why listen to the 'talking heads' in Washington and New York with their overheated rhetoric? Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris: "Proponents of [1070] have repeatedly said that the new law provides a tool for local law enforcement. But I don't really believe that that's true or accurate. We have the tools that we need to enforce laws in this state to reduce property crime and to reduce violent crime, to go after criminals that are responsible for human smuggling, to go after criminals that are responsible for those home invasions, kidnappings, robberies, murders. We have those tools."

The 'invasion' is a scam -- it stirs up fears and resentments... and votes. Ask Arizona Governor Jan Brewer where her poll numbers are now.

Oh, by the way, that scene on my TV had nothing to do with immigration. I guess they just liked the dramatic lights.

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #237 George W. Bush is a Towel-Head *

2010-07-30T12:41:00.001-07:00

Well, well, well, it makes sense now Connect the dots, peeps.

Who was the President who issued a Christmas stamp for Muslims on 9/01 in 2001?

Who forgot the Muslim bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon?

Who forgot the Muslim bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Who forgot the Muslim bombing of the WorldTradeCenter in 1993..

Who forgot the Muslim bombing of the American embassies in Africa.

Who forgot the Muslim bombing of the USS Cole.

And who forgot the Muslim bombing of 9/11 and renewed the stamp in 2002, 2006, 2007 and 2008?

Who was the President who let Osama bin Laden go and turned his attention to the secular Saddam Hussein?

I think, when George W. Bush gave up alcohol and began 'paling around' with Daddy's Saudi friends, that he converted. I hope he enjoys his 72 virgins when he gets to heaven.

* This is satire aimed at those who get their news from e-mail. If you'd like to know more about the e-mail I'm making fun of:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/stamps/eidstamp.asp

Post #236 Human Decency

2010-07-23T13:12:00.001-07:00

"conformity with the commonly accepted standards of what is right and respectable"

In life, there are certain things you just do not do. You do not mock somebody's religion. You do not make fun of someone's handicap. You do not take pot shots at race. Some things are off limits because of basic human decency.

Mark Williams is indecent. A Tea Party Express spokesman, he wrote an online post of a fictional letter from what he called "Colored People" to President Abraham Lincoln. He called it satire.

I'm sure that many will breathlessly jump to defend Williams' Constitutional right to write satire Nobody is arguing against Williams' Constitutional right to be indecent -- just as surely nobody is arguing that Williams should be accepted and his views endorsed.

Now, I like satire and enjoy all sorts of humor. Of course, Williams can joke. Nobody has to laugh.

That's why the National Tea Party Federation expelling a member group after it failed to rebuke and remove Williams was the right thing to do. "They have no intention of taking the action we required for their group to continue as a member of the National Tea Party Federation," the federation stated. "Therefore, effective immediately the National Tea Party Federation is expelling Tea Party Express from the ranks of our membership."

Federation spokesman David Webb, interviewed Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," called the blog post "clearly offensive."

Yes, it was. The racial hatred shown by some at Tea Party events dooms the overall movement. Many moderates would much rather vote for a Democrat than a Tea Party candidate -- probably some Republicans, too.

Good call, David -- keep it up!

Post #235 The Haircut

2010-07-20T16:19:00.001-07:00

One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut. After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied,'I cannot accept money from you, I'm doing community service this week.' The florist was pleased and left the shop. When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop came in for a haircut, and when he tried to pay his bill, the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you, I'm doing community service this week.' The cop was happy and left the shop. The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a'thank you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Then a Congressman came in for a haircut, and when he went to pay his bill, the barber again replied, 'I can not accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The Congressman was very happy and left the shop. The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were adozen Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut....

Post #234 God Bless Texas -- Texans Need It

2010-07-16T12:23:00.001-07:00

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1782

Hmph! That attitude makes it harder for people who believe correctly to impose their beliefs on those heathens who do not.

One female school board member in Texas, who home-schools own her children, by the way, and therefore doesn't have a dog in this fight, said, "There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."

I got news for ya, lady: Ya wouldn't recognize the God of most of the Founding Fathers.

For example, Jefferson, that guy ya want to downplay in history, said, "... the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Ooo, dang, there is that confounded idea again. No wonder Jefferson is to be downplayed in the history taught to Texas children -- they might get the idea that religion is nobody's business.

I remember the assignment I had in 4th grade U.S. History class: Who are the four Presidents on Mt. Rushmore, and why were they chosen? Maybe Mt. Rushmore can be downplayed, too.

Post #233 Newt says "maybe;" America yawns

2010-07-13T12:22:00.001-07:00

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Monday he's seriously considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination and will announce his decision early next year.

Why? What will Gingrich bring to the table as a candidate? And why make this announcement now?

Gingrich, 67, said that he would focus on helping Republican candidates through the midterm elections in November, then decide in February or March whether to seek the GOP nomination.

"I've never been this serious," Gingrich said. "It's fair to say that by February the groundwork will have been laid to consider seriously whether or not to run."

Gingrich predicted President Barack Obama would be a one-term president. Obama's poll numbers have dropped below 50 percent, and Gingrich predicted they would continue to fall, making him vulnerable in 2012.

But why, Newt, why? You smell opportunity and...

Gingrich had a long congressional career and was House speaker from 1995 to 1999. He was given much of the credit for the Republican takeover of the House in 1994. But he abruptly resigned from Congress in 1998 after his party faired poorly in midterm elections. He also was reprimanded by the House ethics panel for using tax-exempt funding to advance his political goals.

The former speaker, who championed a family values agenda, spearheaded efforts to impeach President Bill Clinton for perjury over his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Ah, yes, that is why the Republicans faired poorly in midterm elections. So much for Gingrich's political nose. :p

I, personally, was proud to see Lindsey Graham on the House floor reading the impeachment charges -- the rule of law, ya know. I also was proud that the Senate voted NOT to remove Clinton -- a political smear is what it was, ya know. Is Gingrich proud of his role?

Gingrich later admitted having an extramarital affair of his own in 1998 with a former congressional aide. He married her after divorcing his second wife whom, I believe, had also been a former congressional aide. His second wife was dying anyway.

Is that Gingrich's calling card, a hypocritical political opportunist?

Post #232 Merry 4th!

2010-07-02T12:49:00.001-07:00

The signers of the Declaration of Independence showed courage -- by putting their names on a document that repudiated their own government, they had every reason to believe at the time that they might well be hanged for having done so. We should honor that.

I got a stirring "Fwd" e-mail that told of the hardships some of the signers endured. Unfortunately, the e-mail was full of 'embellishments,' politely speaking.

Have you ever wondered what really happened to the 56 men who signed The Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British.

Four were captured during battle and served time as a prisoner of war. George Walton was captured after being wounded while commanding militia at the Battle of Savannah in December 1778, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., Arthur Middleton, and Edward Rutledge -- three of the four signers from South Carolina -- were taken prisoner at the Siege of Charleston in May 1780. All four men were eventually released.

Only one signer -- Richard Stockton of New Jersey -- was taken prisoner specifically because he signed the Declaration of Independence. He was able to get a pardon and his release from imprisonment by disavowing his signature on the Declaration and signing an oath of allegiance to King George III.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned -- as did thousands of other colonists who lived in the war zone.

One lost his son serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured. John Witherspoon of New Jersey had his eldest son, James, killed in the Battle of Germantown in October 1777. Abraham Clark of New Jersey had two of his sons captured.

Nine died during course of the Revolutionary War. Eight died of natural causes, and Button Gwinnett of Georgia died of wounds received in duel in May 1777.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty could be death if they were captured.

But no one was hanged, tortured or died in poverty -- as all the signers were able to recover at least some of their fortune. To 'embellish' the hardships of the signers diminishes the courage and sacrifices to support the revolutionary cause by people whose names are not immortalized on a piece of parchment.

Let's honor them all.

If you'd like to know more about the e-mail I got:

http://snopes.com/history/american/pricepaid.asp

Post #231 ... more from FOX News

2010-06-22T17:19:00.001-07:00

I saw Anne Coulter on FOX News* today, and she was spewing some garbage about President Obama playing golf while that oil well is still spewing in the Gulf of Mexico. I thought surely that she was full of crap -- much like Bill O'Reilly had been when he claimed to have the socialistic ramblings of Barak Obama's college thesis. That turned out not to true, but O'Reilly "stood by the document" as it sounded like what he believed Obama would say.

But then I saw the video.

My apologies to Coulter: For there on the video, President Obama was playing golf.

Megyn Kelly -- who is not just another pretty face -- smartly asked if the President wasn't deserving of a break, we don't need a President who is cooped up in the Oval Office, 24/7. right? Of course, said Coulter, but he shouldn't take a break during a "crisis."

Uh, what was a bigger "crisis" than 9/11? And where was your criticism of the President who took breaks while Osama was on the lose?

Consistency, please.

* I still have a crush on Megyn Kelly, OK?

Post #230 Stop the Ignorance!

2010-06-18T12:48:00.001-07:00

I do not know whether to laugh or cry. I got another "Fwd" e-mail the other day.

Jt was about immigration -- more specifically, the idea that 'they' are taking over 'our' country. It lists 10 facts that were published in the "Los Angeles Times" -- it said, as tho that made facts true. Well, only one fact was from the "L.A. Times" and all of them were in dispute.

http://snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp

But I was in luck: I got two 'nutty' e-mails in one.

The second half was about Nancy Pelosi and her proposed windfall profits tax on retirement income... which is %100 false -- the quotes attributed to Pelosi are %100 made-up.

http://snopes.com/politics/pelosi/windfall.asp

The e-mail ironically asks, "WHERE DO WE GET THESE MORONS?"

Post #229 Secure Communities?

2010-06-15T16:24:00.001-07:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100610/cm_csm/307078

And how does using fingerprints in a database constitute racial profiling? Obviously, there are flaws here -- NO way to fight detention, %5 of the 'hits' are wrong.

But I think the author just wants to criticize President Obama. He says that Janet Napolitano should appear before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to answer questions about this program. Yes -- and the obvious implication is that Obama is hiding her.

The real problem is that NOBODY has asked -- Congress should be criticized for not asking.

My Dad has said that people often get into trouble at their jobs because they do not know what their duties are and that it is the responsibility of the boss to explain those duties. Well, guess what? We the people are the boss.

Post #228 OBAMAMAN! *

2010-06-11T12:36:00.001-07:00

Our tall lanky hero work as President during the day,...

On the White House backporch watching the sunset, his ears tune in: "Help us, Mr. President. Help us." Barack Obama steps back into the living quarters and ducks into the closet, He emerges in green tights, white trunks and with a gold shield covering his chest and abdomen labeled with a big red "O" -- OBAMAMAN! He emerges, puts one foot on the porch railing and... takes off.

On a beach in Louisiana, a small boy points and says, "Look. Up in the air. It's a bird." A girl chimes in, "It's a plane." A black man steps forward, "It's OBAMAMAN!"

OBAMAMAN plunges to the depths of the chilly Gulf of Mexico, wraps his lips around that spewing oil pipe and blows -- creating enough pressure to stop the flow. He then pinches the pipe and covers it with sand. OBAMAMAN flies back to the White House.

As he enters the living quarters, there is a knock at the door: "Daddy, can you help with my spelling list?" Into the closet goes OBAMAMAN; out comes Barak Obama: "Sure, sweetie."

Obama puts his daughter on his knee and picks up the list. "The first word is 'superior.'" "What does that mean, Daddy?" Obama looks at the audience and winks.

* patent pending

Post #227 Shocked, Appalled, Dismayed, Pt. III

2010-06-04T12:25:00.001-07:00

Re: immigration

I've got no dog in this fight -- regarding immigration -- unless the price of food goes up! No experience here with legal or illegal immigration. A good thing, tho, to realize is that every law effects real people.

Prior to 1921, anybody could show up in the United States and be a legal immigrant. If we had the same rules for citizenship for everybody that are in place for immigrants today, we could eliminate some idiots from sucking up social programs that are available only to citizens.

We apply much tighter rules for immigration today on our neighbors from Mexico than our own ancestors faced. Indeed, the irony is that we acquired much of the southwest, including Arizona, by illegal immigration. In the 1820s, after Mexico gained independence from Spain, immigrants from the United States poured in. Those 'settlers' declared independence and eventually were able to 'secede' from Mexico with half of Mexico's original territory and 'unite' with the United States.

Which, of course, doesn't make the Arizona immigration law bad. But you now have something to think about when somebody shouts "ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL!"

But the Arizona law stinks -- smells like politics. I think 'Bumper Sticker' politics came into play.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer remained silent on the measure while weighing the consequences. During the bill's development, her staff had gone over its language line by line with the bill's author, State Senator Russell Pearce -- tho tellingly not with her attorney general. But she has claimed that she also had concerns about several of its provisions.

A poll showed wide support for the bill among likely voters in the state -- 70 percent in favor and 23 percent opposed. Governor Brewer faced an upcoming Republican Party primary in the 2010 Arizona gubernatorial election from other conservative opponents supporting the bill.

United States Senator from Arizona John McCain faced a primary battle against the more conservative J. D. Hayworth -- who had made measures against illegal immigration a central point of his candidacy. McCain said, "It's the drivers of cars with illegals in it that are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway. Look, our border is not secured. Our citizens are not safe." Uh, it sounds like McCain is criticizing the Arizona Highway Patrol for not doing its job.

McCain has been saying that the state had been forced to take action given the federal government's inability to control the border. He is correct. But who has been a part of that federal government, Senator McCain?

Look, I don't know what to do about immigration -- only that it should be comprehensive covering all issues, from 'anchor babies' to the greedy capitalists who hire illegals. But I do know the Arizona law stinks -- it allows each individual cop to decide how much his own prejudice goes into law enforcement. If the Arizona lawmakers could not define "reasonable suspicion," they just should have stayed home that day.

Post #226 Shocked, Appalled, Dismayed, Pt. II

2010-05-28T12:12:00.001-07:00

Re: Arizona immigration law

UnConstitutional? I don't think so. I understand the arguments about the federal government taking the lead in immigration and violations of civil rights. But let's face it: This Supreme Court will not throw out a law that is popular with the Republican base.

The Arizona immigration law makes it a crime to be caught in Arizona without your 'papers.' Police must make an attempt, when practicable during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official," to determine a person's immigration status.

It is not well-thought-out. It is vague and may have unintended negative consequences. The problem with this law is it gives too much power to the cop on the street -- prosecutor, judge, jury, executioner. It calls for racial profiling -- despite language against that -- under the guise of "reasonable suspicion."

Let's be honest: There is NOTHING a person can do that will create a reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant -- except for having brown skin. Even a "I'm an illegal immigrant" T-shirt should be reasonably seen as a political statement -- especially when worn by Megan McCain. :p The legal definition of "reasonable suspicion" will be tied up in court for years.

I criticize the Arizona lawmakers for coming up with a week law that will drain the resources of Arizona's courts.

And other resources. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police criticized the legislation, saying that it will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner. Simply, solving crimes against Arizona citizens gets harder as you scare a portion of the population into not cooperating.

However, there is still no reason to applaud the Mexican President's criticism before Congress.

P.S.: There are two things I learned while researching this topic:
1. No illegal immigrant is living 'the American Dream.'
2. It's harder to become legal than I thought.

Post #225 Shocked, Appalled, Dismayed

2010-05-25T12:28:00.001-07:00

I saw Anne Coulter on FOX News* the other day, and she was spewing some garbage about Dems cheering when the Mexican President criticized the Arizona immigration law before a joint session of Congress. I thought surely that she was full of crap -- much like Bill O'Reilly had been when he claimed to have the socialistic ramblings of Barak Obama's college thesis. That turned out not to true, but O'Reilly "stood by the document" as it sounded like what he believed Obama would say.

But then I saw the video.

My apologies to Coulter: For there on the video, the Democratic side of the joint session of Congress cheered -- a standing ovation, for goodness sake -- the Mexican President's criticism.

That was an unpatriotic act -- no matter how you feel about the Arizona immigration law. And politically stupid, too, for Republicans will play that video over and over for the November 2010 eletions -- as well they should.

There are two places where it is appropriate to applaud during a speeh by a foreign dignitary before a joint session of Congress: the beginning and the end. Is that too hard to understand?

If I was President Obama, I'd fire every Cabinet member who participated in the spectacle and fire my vice-president. If he does not, well, that says a lot.

* I have a crush on Megyn Kelly, OK?