Thursday, October 28, 2010

WTF, Dude?

I watched Jon Stewart's 'interview' with Obama last night. Ordinarily, I wouldn't have wasted my time, but I was curious ... sometimes Stewart actually has a moment of clarity and questions what the far left is doing. Not often, but ...

What I saw was pretty sickening. Stewart lobbed slow, soft pitch after slow, soft pitch, allowing Obama to spit out all of his desired talking points. It was as if Obama's handlers were in control of the interview - and you know, unless someone can prove otherwise, I believe that His Highness' staff either wrote the questions, or approved them ahead of time. It might as well have been a campaign speech - as far as newsworthy ... sorry, it wasn't.

There were two very telling points during the speech, and both of them should have been shocking. I say should have been, because if it had been anyone but Obama, they would have been headline news.

First, Obama referred to his predecessor directly only once. He blew normal protocol away when he referred to him as "Bush". Not President Bush, not Mr. Bush ... just Bush. That he spoke the name with such unbridled hatred was plain and evident to anyone who saw it.

Second, Stewart interrupted Obama's speech a couple of times, once calling him 'Dude'. Not Mr. President, not Mr. Obama, not Your Holyness. As soon as it came out, you could see Obama give a pause - he was clearly not expecting to be addressed by a loyal subject in that manner. Says a lot about the left that this is what they deem to be a respectful way to address the President of the United States. Says a lot more about the left in that this is very respectful compared to how they address President Bush.

I have seen some left leaning media outlets congratulating Stewart for his hard hitting interview, his tough handling of the President. Huh??? The only thing Stewart was complaining about was that Obama hadn't gone far enough with his agenda.

Monday, October 25, 2010

This Really Ought To Scare You...

A couple of days ago, the Dallas Morning News ran an article detailing how sex offenders in the City of Dallas were being turned away from their yearly registration process because there were too many of them for the number of officers devoted to that task, and the number of hours the office was open during the week. A DPD spokesperson said the Department had 'erred badly' by limiting the number of registrants who could be processed for yearly re-registration to 3 dozen a day. Waiting rooms are packed, and lines stretch outside. Frustrations mount as sex offenders try to comply with their lawful requirements to maintain their registration. The DPD spokesperson said that only a few of the 3100 offenders the Department is tasked with overseeing may not be in compliance with the registration requirements.

3100? In the City of Dallas proper? And that's just the ones they know about? Far more than 3 dozen per day have to be registered?

I called up my local Police Department's on-line sex offender location map ... I have over 50 REGISTERED ones living within a 5 mile radius of my home. In my city, there are too many to count as represented on the map. They are numerous, and they are all over the place.

If your town has such a map on-line, study it. See how many there are, and how close they are to you. See how many of them were labeled because of violations involving a child. Take the time to take a look, and understand what is around you and your kids.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Nazified Progressive Radio Stomps On Free Speech

I'm not going to get into the details of NPR's firing of Juan Williams. It has certainly been discussed plenty over the past couple of days.

I do think it should scare all Americans that the left wing kook fringe has so much control over the mainstream media. NPR has always been known for its liberal views and policital stances - no surprise there. But to fire one of their own, a devout liberal, because he wasn't liberal enough? Because he dared to appear on Fox News to help represent liberal viewpoints?

This should serve as yet another lesson on who is controlling most of our media. Soros, Huffington, Move-On, etc ... they are spending millions of dollars buying up journalists and media outlets to make sure that their story is the only one heard by the public. They scatter like cockroaches when the light of real journalism, real truth finds them. They fight to stay in the dark, manipulating what we see and hear to help further their left wing socialist agenda. Think I'm a right wing kook for saying that? How many liberals has Fox News fired for voicing their opinions on the air? How many conservatives have they shown the door because they weren't speaking from the Fox News printed guidelines? Not a single one ....

Update -

"Americans feel, you know, that there's nothing wrong in telling someone how you feel. And then to be punished for that is unfair, and it amounts to censorship. It is important that people be able to talk to each other across political lines." - Juan Williams, Oct. 24

Mr. Williams ... I do not agree with much that you say on air, your stances are far too liberal for me. However, you have always been fair, even handed, and respectful of those who don't agree with you - at least when I've seen your appearances. Nothing that has happened in this fiasco should be a surprise to you. You know as well as anyone that to the far left, Freedom of Speech is only applicable to speech that agrees with them. In their viewpoint, alternative views are evil, to be demonized, and to be prevented whenever possible.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

What Will November 3rd Bring To Us?

If all goes according to what is being predicted, we will wake up on Nov. 3rd with a much different looking government. From Congress to local races, this is looking like the most historic turnaround in an off year election in our country's history. The only real question anyone with any sense is asking is 'how bad will it be for Democrats?'.

The polls that I trust most (which doesn't mean that any poll is worth the paper it is written on) say that 55 current Democrat seats will change to Republican in the House of Representatives. This will give the Republicans a 16 seat majority. The same polls show Democrats holding onto control of the Senate, but only by 1 or 2 seats. If Republicans had put up some strong candidates in 3 or 4 very close Senate races, instead of the weak ones that are running, Republican control of the Senate would have been assured. As it is, I believe Congress will be split.

What does that mean, beyond the obvious? What should we expect to start happening 'The Day After'?

Maybe not as much as you think ...

Passing laws:

Republican control of the House and Dem control of the Senate will mean legislative gridlock in Washington for the next 2 years. Nothing of any consequence is going to get done. Anything Obama wants to get done will have to originate in the Senate, and Republicans in the House will block it.

Republican control of both the House and Senate will not be much different. Obama has the veto on his side, and he will use it to defeat any measure that slows down or repeals any of his agenda. It takes a 2/3 majority to override his veto, and Republicans won't have that big an advantage on either side.

Republicans can either accept this and let nothing happen for 2 years, or they can force the issue. They should pass legislation over and over that calls for spending cuts, for repeal of Obamacare, to roll back all of what Obama has forced on this country. I've heard Boehner actually talk about this - sending one bill per week up that calls for spending cuts. Force Obama to use his veto. Force him to show himself as the obstacle to recovery. Show America that Republicans are doing everything they can to rescue the country.

Repeal of Obamacare:

In spite of some Republicans campaigning with this as their stated goal, don't hold your breath expecting Obamacare to be rolled back. Repeal of this massive mess would take an overwhelming amount of support in both houses of Congress, from both Republicans and Democrats. The votes aren't there to override an Obama veto, which would certainly be used on any piece of legislation attacking Obamacare.

The timetable for Obamacare's implementation was well thought out. The majority of its financial hit on the average American won't be felt until 2014 - after the mid terms, and after the 2012 presidential election. By that time, no amount of public outcry will be enough to derail Obamacare - it will be so entrenched in our society by then, there will be no way to get rid of it.

In addition, there are reports circulating around that top Republicans in the Senate are quietly assuring their biggest private and corporate donors that no such attempt at repeal will be made. Some tweaks and streamlining is all they will allow to happen. Why? Follow the money ...

Sadly, I feel that our hopes will rest on just being able to cut back a little bit on Obamacare - to perhaps dull some of the more blatant harm it will do to us. I might be wrong, but the history of Washington politics indicates it is here to stay.

Congressional leadership:

John Boenher (R-OH) should become the next Speaker of the House. This, however, is not guaranteed, even given Republican control of the House. His Republican colleagues must vote for the Speaker's position - there are no clear challengers to Boehner at this point, but it should not be a surprise if a more conservative Republican challenged him for the post.

In any case, it would be better than the creature that occupies that position now. How many of you realize that Nancy Pelosi is the #3 person in the United States? If something happened to Obama and Biden, Pelosi would be President. (Feel free to experience a shiver of horror up your spine as you think about that).

If Republicans take control of the Senate, the field appears to be very open as to which Republican would take the position as leader of the Senate. I don't care who he/she is - if anyone in the Senate (other than Al Franken) other than Harry Reid takes that position, it is an improvement.

If Dems keep control of the Senate, things will be very interesting. If Harry Reid loses his Senate seat election, the Dems will be fighting tooth and nail amongst themselves to see who takes over. If Reid wins his seat back, do not be surprised if other Democrats mount serious attempts to remove him as leader of the Senate - he's a disgrace, and embarrassment, and Dems know it. Talk about a pack of wild hogs turning on themselves - that will be the Democrats in the Senate if they keep control.

Whether Dems keep control of the House or not, Pelosi is going to be in a fight to keep her place - whether it as Speaker or Minority Leader. Many moderate Dems have come out against her during this election cycle, campaigning against her and Obama as much as their Republican opponent. Her poison power politics are a primary reason many House Dems are going to lose their jobs on Nov. 2. It would not surprise me at all to see her challenged for the leadership position. Dogfight !!!!

Congressional Committees/Investigations:

The party that controls each side of Congress gets to appoint whomever it wants to to lead all of its various committees. It gets a majority of seats on those committees. It controls what those committees do, what subjects they can look into. They can use the committees for any political purpose they want to. Just look at Henry Waxman and Barney Frank to see how this can be used for evil purposes. Republican control of either (or both) houses means Republican control of these committees. These Democrat mini-Hitlers who have used their positions to kickoff witch hunts will find themselves out of control, and unable to stop what happens. Several top Republicans in the House have already stated that they will launch investigations into Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al, as soon as they are seated. Good ... don't pull any punches. Throw these a*holes in jail if you can. Keep them so busy defending themselves that they don't have any time left to continue to screw the country.

Some folks in power have said to take the high road, to not be vindictive. Bullshit ... George W. Bush took that stance when he took power, giving a de facto blanket immunity to everyone in the Clinton Administration for what they had done. Did Obama do that when he took office? No ... using Waxman as its designated hit troll, the Dems went after anyone and everyone remotely associated with the Bush Administration. Republicans should do the very same to them.


The 2012 Presidential race begins on Nov. 3. The Democrat strategy, no matter how much Republicans control, will be to villify Republicans. The GOP will be painted as the part of NO, obstructionists, racists, and worse. Everything negative that happens will be attributed to Republicans ... while everything positive will be credited to Obama. Here's what you will hear, over and over ..."If Republicans would have just let Obama do what he needed to do, everything would have been fine. Republicans derailed Obama's recovery, just when it was picking up steam and saving America."

Just get ready for it - it will be loud and constant, and if Republicans aren't strong with their message and take the offensive, the Dem lies will result in 4 more years of Obama.

Public Perception:

Republicans will probably ride a large wave of public outcry into Nov. 2. Outcry against what our government has done to us over the past 2 years. Many folks who identify themselves as independents, and even Democrats, will vote for change (how ironic is that?). They are going to expect results, and they will expect them quickly. If Republican leadership in the House and Senate don't come up with working, hard hitting, successful methods of rescuing our economy ... if they sit back and congratulate themselves on achieving power once again ... if they fall into the 'same old Washington' way of doing things ... the backlash in 2012 will likewise be historic.

So Sue Me .....

For this, the historic 500th posting I've made on this blog, I find myself asking a critical question ...

Can I sue myself?

I suffered some minor injuries recently as the result of a household accident. Nothing critical, nothing requiring hospitalization. However, it was (and continues to be) painful.

Looking at the news reports of people filing lawsuits over anything and everything, it occurs to me that someone ought to pay for my suffering. The fact that it was my fault ... why should that get in the way? If a woman can sue McDonald's for burning her crotch because she spilt hot coffee on herself is a valid example.

As I sat semi-lucid in the fog of some pain killers the doc gave me, it came to me. It was like one of those moments you see in Cheech and Chong (or other 'stoner' movies) when the high out of his mind character sees enlightenment ... "WOW, man ...".

I ought to sue. I don't know who. The who doesn't matter, even if it is myself. If Obama has taught me anything, it is that someone else should have to pay. Now, I just need his DoJ to tell me who is going to send me the money ....

Thursday, October 14, 2010

My Money Supports This?????

A substantial part of my paycheck goes to Texas Tech University each month. The cost of sending a kid to college is outrageous (Hey Obama - why aren't you doing something about THAT?).

The biggest user of money on that campus, and many other university campuses across the nation, is the football program. The university will deny it, but a good sized chunk of what I pay them goes to fund the football team and their bazillion dollar stadium. The football program makes the university millions of dollars annually, from ticket sales, revenue sharing, sponsorships, and hundreds of licensing deals. They take in far more than it takes to operate the football team. Does that money go back into the school, to improve facilities, hire teachers, or help cut tuition costs? Hell no ... all of it goes right back into expanding the football program.

You would think that all of that money, not to mention the fact that Tech is known as an engineering school, would mean that you'd have a high caliber, well coached, intelligent student athlete representing the school on the football field. Apparently not, at least not in this case ...

Texas Tech vs. Baylor recently. Tech tries an onside kick. The kick doesn't go the required 10 yards. What follows should be an embarrassment to the entire school, and cause the coach to resign for allowing it to happen ....


Obama's DoJ In A Quandry

US District Judge Virginia Phillips, a Democrat and Clinton appointee in Riverside CA, ruled on Sep. 9 that Bill Clinton's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy forced on the military was un-Constitutional. On Oct. 12, she issued an injunction against the US military, demanding that they cease all processing of any action under this policy immediately.

One of Obama's campaign promises, made specifically to galvanize support of the gay and lesbian communities, was the abolishment of "Don't ask, Don't tell".

The lawsuit which prompted Judge Phillips' ruling and injunction was brought by a gay Republican organization "Log Cabin Republicans", against the US Government. Representing the US Government was Obama's DoJ lawyer team.

The Judge's ruling and injunction have been denounced by military leadership. The abolishment of "Don't ask, Don't tell" is a touchy subject in the military, and there are very valid concerns over what abolishment will do to the services and its members. Studies are underway to examine the issue and determine what the likely effects will be. Obama himself has signed on to the studies, publicly saying that we have to be careful when addressing this. He has not backed off his desire to get rid of the policy, he's just making what appears to be a sensible approach to it. (This sensible approach has pissed off his gay and lesbian supporters, who feel like repeal of the policy should have been immediate, consequences be damned.)

Obama's DoJ, and Obama himself since he directs their efforts, are in a hell of a sticky position on this. Obama wants to get rid of the policy. The lawsuit and the Judge's rulings put his DoJ in the position of deciding whether to appeal the Judge's decision, to block her injunction and keep "Don't ask, Don't tell" in force for the time being.

One has to wonder if the DoJ will fight the ruling, to give the studies the time Obama promised to give them, or if they will quietly back off and let the injunction stand - which will in effect deliver to gays and lesbians what Obama promised them. Quite the dilemma for Mr. Obama.

I hope the DoJ plays straight with this one, and fights the injunction - but I think they'll roll over, play dead, and let it stand - and then Obama can blame the court for the chaos which will follow.

As a sidebar, I have to wonder this... Setting aside any personal feelings I have about the base issue, I am concerned over how this sets a precedent for the courts to stick their noses into the military world and tell our armed services what they can and can't do. Congress and the President have control over the military (Congress through funding, the President through his capacity as Commander-In-Chief). The Judicial branch really has nothing to do with military opeations or policy. Allowing a lower level Federal Judge to issue an injunction that invalidates a standing military policy sets an incredible precedent. Where are the limits to this? What is to stop the left wing loonies on the 9th District Court from issuing an injunction against the military forbidding operations in Afghanistan? All they would need is some kook to file an applicable lawsuit to give them a vehicle to issue such an order. If you think this is a wild impossibility, just look at the lunacy that is going on in our government right now and you will realize that the far left thinks they can do anything they want to at this point in time.

Update - almost before I could get the above post done, the DoJ actually urged Judge Phillips to stay her ruling, to leave "Don't ask, Don't tell" in place for now. Their arguments were not based upon whether the policy was right or wrong, but to avoid the confusion and disruption that would occur in the military if the policy was halted with no plan for implementation.

Obama once again stated his goal to have the policy rescinded, but that he wanted it done according to the studies underway and in controlled fashion.

I applaud Obama and his DoJ for apparently playing this straight up. If he and the far left, and the gay and lesbian communities want the policy gone, there is a proper path to accomplish that, and Obama is trying to follow it. He may secretly wish that the Judge is successful, and take the matter off his hands, but as C-in-C he is supposed to do it the right way. Publicly, at least, he is doing that, and I have to recognize the correctness of his approach.

Damn ... it hurts me to say that ...

Adam Lambert Caves

Adam Lambert ... as big an 'in your face' gay person as there is. Not only openly gay, he goes out of his way to make sure you know it. I have never seen him sing, have no interest in him whatsoever. I don't care about his lifestyle- I find his arrogant style mildly annoying, but no big deal. He is no more worth consideration than Lady GaGa - or whatever the hell that creature calls herself today.

Lambert is in Malaysia on tour. The local government told him to tone his act down, to cut out some of the more risque antics on stage, including his staged kissing of one of his male musicians.

The government of this primarily Muslim country routinely demands that 'artists' comply with their standards of conduct. Lambert agreed to do so, saying:

" ... main goal is to keep people entertained, not to make them uncomfortable."

"It's something I'm doing out of respect. It's just one little thing. Man kissing another man is something their government really doesn't appreciate."

OK, Mr. Lambert. I don't have any real problem with any of this. However, I must ask you this ...

You have caved in to a Muslim demand to tone down behaviour that is viewed as repulsive and against their religious beliefs.

If a city in the United States, whose population was primarily of a religion that also found your behaviour to be offensive, asked you to eliminate the offensive parts of your act for a performance in that town, what would your answer be?

Be honest now. Would you comply, and respect their wishes as you have to the Muslims in Malaysia? Or would you go kicking and screaming to the press about what an outrage it is, what an infringement of your free speech it is, how homophobic it is? Would you not go out of your way to further outrage that city's residents by showing off an even more 'in your face' display?

Mr. Lambert, I don't care if you are gay. I don't mean this posting as any kind of statement on gays or lesbians. It is a statement about the hypocrisy and manufactured outrage that is shown in this country about subjects like straight/gay, or racism.

Friday, October 1, 2010

NASA Head Bolden - Fire This A*Hole Right NOW!

Charles Bolden, head of NASA - chosen by Obama to head the NATIONAL AERONAUTICS and SPACE ADMINISTRATION.

This jackass needs to be fired right now.

Hundreds of NASA and contractor workers who have been on the space shuttle program are being laid off right now. The Shuttle program is on the edge of retirement. Manned space flight as we know it has been shot down by Obama's Administration, with Bolden's agreement. NASA's budget is in a shambles, and money is being wasted at an incredible rate on projects and initiatives that have absolutely nothing to do with aeronautics or space.

Bolden told the world that Obama had made NASA's primary objective to help relations with Muslims around the world. Just WTF does that have to do with the NATIONAL AERONAUTICS and SPACE ADMINISTRATION?????????

Well, Charles Bolden, who has apparently been named ambassador to the Muslim religion by Obama, is embarking upon an overseas trip this weekend. The first country he will stop in is Saudi Arabia. There he will be attending a Saudi sponsored technology conference, and participating in a celebration marking the 25th anniversary of the first Muslim to fly in the Space Shuttle (a member of the Saudi Royal family).

Okay, why was there not a celebration of the first Christian to fly in the Space Shuttle? First Jew? First Buddhist? First Atheist?

From Saudi Arabia, he will fly to Nepal, where he will give a keynote address to a climate change conference.

That's right ... the head of the NATIONAL AERONAUTICS and SPACE ADMINISTRATION is spending a boatload of taxpayer money going overseas to suck up to foreign Muslims and schmooze with a bunch of eco-nazis.

What a F***ing joke ... just exactly the kind of thing you'd expect from Obama and his cronies.