Friday, September 24, 2010

Post #246 Comrades Unite!

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.

Friday, September 17, 2010

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

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.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Post #244 The Snot Fires Back!

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?"

Friday, September 10, 2010

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

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.

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?

* * *

Post #104

Subject: 9/11, revisited

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?

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)

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)

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)

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.

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....

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Subject #242 * sigh *

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 *

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Post #241 The Mosque: A Sensitive Opinion

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.'

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Post #240: :D

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.

Friday, August 13, 2010

Post #239 Modest Proposals For Arizona

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?

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Post #238 Revolution

;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.

Friday, August 06, 2010

Post #238 All Is Quiet On The Arizona Front

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 -----

Friday, July 30, 2010

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

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

Friday, July 23, 2010

Post #236 Human Decency

"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!

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Post #235 The Haircut

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....

Friday, July 16, 2010

Post #234 God Bless Texas -- Texans Need It

"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.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Post #233 Newt says "maybe;" America yawns

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?

Friday, July 02, 2010

Post #232 Merry 4th!

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

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Post #231 ... more from FOX News

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?

Friday, June 18, 2010

Post #230 Stop the Ignorance!

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?"

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Post #229 Secure Communities?

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.

Friday, June 11, 2010

Post #228 OBAMAMAN! *

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