Monday, January 31, 2011



Saturday, January 29, 2011


If you are a geologist, please explain to me why, if oil is a fossil fuel, we are extracting it from 30,000 to 50,000 feet below the surface, if fossils are invariably found at above 16,000 feet.

Thursday, January 27, 2011


There are an estimated 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States according to a DOT study.

That does not count commercial trucks and other types of vehicles.

Let's just say 300,000,000, for the sake of discussion...OK?

President BO said in his SOTU address that in the next 15 years he wants 1,000,000 electric vehicle on American roadways.

So he wants about 1/300 of vehicles to be electric over in 15 years! About 67,000 new electrics per year.

Oh! Don't forget to allow for attrition, as some of them (maybe MOST of them) won't last 15 years and will have to be replaced.

What a lofty goal!

Never mind that Americans don't want these vehicles.

Never mind that they have to be plugged into those little magic boxes in the know, the ones that find their source of energy from those coal burning power plants.

Never mind that you get about 40 electric miles on one 12 hour charge.

Never mind that SUVs are the fastest growing segment of vehicle sales in the U.S.

Never mind that these cars are more unsafe in ANY collision than almost any other vehicle.

Never mind all of that.

Don't worry!

The government will use their hard earned money to help subsidize these fake cars for us.

What's that you say? The government does not have one red cent of hard earned money?

Wait a minute!

I thought the government had trillions of dollars!

Well, yes, but they didn't earn those dollars...they took them from you and me...without even asking and under penalty of law if you don't let them have yours.

(Harry Reid calls that "voluntary.")

Oh, and don't forget, the Volt is manufactured by the "grace" of government money and its sale will be subsidized.

1/300 of the vehicles on the roadway in the next 15 years...about 1/500 increase each much of a dent in the so-called toxic emissions is that going to give us did you say?

More form without substance!

I'm changing his name from President BO to President Don Quixote

Wednesday, January 26, 2011


Our amateur president pulled a fast one on me in the SOTU address.

He proclaimed this a "Sputnik" moment.

First of all, what the heck does that even mean?

Secondly, how many Americans even understand the metaphor?

Sputnik happened in 1957!

President BO said that the country needs to “reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race.”

I remember those days. I was there.

One thing I remember is that public schools were really public, not the government imitation learning centers they are today.

And they produced capable graduates.

They're the ones who put us on the moon, to which we have not been back since.

Surprise! "Government" does not equal "Public," no matter what you may have been taught.

Not only did President BO surprise me with that amateurish metaphor, he actually made one statement of content.

"Over the next ten years," Obama said in the State of the Union, "... we want to prepare 100,000 new teachers in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math."

Let me do the math.

Click, click. Punch, punch.

Well, given that there will be a lot of retirements, fewer recruits from college and some natural attrition, that's an interesting goal.

Ten thousand net new science...teachers per year.

Does anybody know how many new teachers per year we hire now?

According to a California report, they hire about 17,000 new teachers per year.

In California alone, in ten years at that rate they will hire 170,000 teachers.

What percentage of those do you suppose teach in science...?

So, what's with this "100,000" new science...teachers crap?

It's a number that sounds big, so he used it.

That's the way President BO works.

All sound and fury, signifying nothing.

That is what the whole speech was.

But you liberal/progressives fawned all over it, didn't you?


Tuesday, January 25, 2011


Tonight we will find out.

President BO will give the State of the Union address...we know that. What will he say?

Well, I have some predictions.

He will say that the state of the union is strong.

Every president says that.

It goes without saying, so they say it.

He will say that we have some problems.

All of the problems are the fault of George Bush (which President BO will now call "the previous administration.")

We need to produce more jobs.

He'll say that, but he won't tell us how he'll go about accomplishing that.

Remember, he has no experience creating jobs of any kind...ever...anywhere.

There will be form in creating jobs, but no substance.

He'll tell us that every American now has access to health care.

That will be a lie...flat out...but he'll tell us that anyway.

He's an accomplished liar, and can do that with an earnest, straight face.

He'll tell us that we need to work on reducing the size of government.

Before he leaves office in 2012, he will have grown the size of government more than 30%.

All in the name of the "good of the people."

But he won't tell us that tonight.

He will tell us of how the stimulus saved millions of jobs and how much worse unemployment would have been if it hadn't been for him.

That's like saying how much worse your head ache would have been if you hadn't had so many cups of green tea.

It is simply unmeasurable...a figment of an overactive imagination.

He will say that we are headed in the right direction; that the economy is beginning to recover and it's all because of his policies.

While Gabby (as well as the other wounded in Arizona) recovers slowly in a hospital, he will tell us that we are safer.

He will not mention the dozen or so police killed in the line of duty this past week, or the extraordinary inconvenience at airports.

He will tell us that we are making "progress" in becoming a green nation.

Never mind that the fastest growing segment of automobile buying is trucks and SUVs.

Never mind that the Volt can only go 40 or so miles before it becomes as un-green as all of the other vehicles on the road.

Never mind that the Volt gets charged with electricity generated by fossil fuel burning power plants.

In fact, never mind about almost anything.

Republicans are evil and Democrats are god's.

But if Republicans will just give up their standards (which he will call "cooperate") we will move neither right nor left, but forward.

And he will say that with a straight face, too.

He will lift his chin, adopt an air of superiority, point to himself and his policies a hundred times or more and will lie through his teeth.

And the state of the union will be strong because we will largely ignore him.

That's a good thing.

Monday, January 24, 2011


The point of my last Friday's post is this: If the newly elected Congress is going to make a real difference, they can't be talking in thousands or millions of dollars in cuts to the budget, they HAVE to think in terms of billions.

That will hurt for a while. It really will.

But in the end, if they have the guts for it, it will save the country from economic oblivion.

Write, call, email or whatever TODAY and let the newbies know that we REALLY WANT them to reduce the size of government...even if it hurts.

And then we MUST support them when they do it.

Even when it hurts US.

Friday, January 21, 2011


In the end, it's all about perspective.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011


On December 6, 2010, the following letter was sent to President BO:

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write today in response to a speech given on November 10, 2010, at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta, Indonesia, in which you stated “But I believe that the history of both America and Indonesia should give us hope. It is a story written into our national mottos. In the United States, our motto is E pluribus unum – out of many one…our nations show that hundreds of millions who hold different beliefs can be united in freedom under one flag..”

E pluribus unum is not our national motto. In 1956, Congress passed and President Eisenhower approved the law establishing ‘In God We Trust” as the official national motto of the United States. This motto is also referenced in our national anthem and is engraved on our coins and currency.

Additionally, during three separate events this fall, when quoting from the Declaration of Independence, you mentioned that we have inalienable rights, but consistently failed to mention the source of the rights. The declaration of Independence definitively recognizes God, our Creator, as the source of our rights. Omitting the word “Creator” once was a mistake, but twice establishes a pattern.

In your speech in Indonesia, you mentioned being unified under one flag. The Pledge of Allegiance to our flag says that we are “one nation under God.” As President of the United States, you are our representative t the rest of the world. By misrepresenting thins as foundational as the Declaration of Independence and our national motto, you are not only doing a disservice to the people you represent, you are casting aside an integral part of American society.

John Adams said, “It is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.” If Adams was right, by making these kinds of statements to the rest of the world, you are removing one of the cornerstones of our secure freedom. If we pull the thread of religious conviction out of the marketplace of ideas, we unravel the tapestry of freedom that birthed America.

As members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, a bi-partisan group of 68 members of the United States House of Representatives, we are dedicated to preserving America’s religious heritage and protecting our religious liberty. We respectively request that you issue a correction to the speech you gave, as it does not accurately reflect America and serves to undercut an important part of our history. We are willing to meet with you to discuss this further if you would like. As President Ronald Reagan warned, “If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”


J. Randy Forbes (VA-04)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
John Shadegg (AZ-03)
Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
Steve King (IA-05)
Louie Gohmert (TX-01)
Donald Manzullo (IL-16)
Joseph Pitts (PA-16)
Gregg Harper (MS-03)
Robert Aderholt (AL-04)
Glenn Thompson (PA-05)
Jeff Miller (FL-01)
John Boozman (AR-03)
David Reichert (WA-03)
Jason Chaffetz (UT-03
Jim Jordan (OH-04)
Steve Austria (OH-07)
Mike Pence (IN-06)
Cathy Morris Rodgers (WA-05)
Scott Garrett (NJ-05)
Joe Wilson (SC-02)
Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
John Kline (MN-02)
Phil roe (TN-01)
Peter Roskam (IL-06)
John Carter (TX-31)
K. Michael Conway (TX-11)
W. Todd Akin (MO-02)
Zach Wamp (TN-03)
Randy Neugebauer (TX-19)
Todd Tiahrt (KS-04
Robert Wittman (VA-01)
Vernon Ehlers (MI-03)
Tom Price (GA-06)
Spencer Bachus (AL-06)
Roscoe Bartlett (MD-06)
Mike Rogers (AL-03)
Virginia Foxx (NC-05)
Thaddeus McCotter (MI-11)
Trent Franks (AZ-02)
Phil Gingrey (GA-11)
Michele Bachmann (MN-06)

You can check this out at Snopes as being true.

Monday, January 17, 2011


It has been a bad time to be a bird.

5,000 redwinged blackbirds (is that four and twenty?) were not baked in a pie, but fell from the sky.

1,000 starlings joined them in their fall.

Also falling this weekend were Ravens, Falcons and Seahawks.

Of course those last three belonged to the National Football League and were in their respective playoff games.

In my earlier post, I suggested that the cause of the death of 5,000 redwinged blackbirds was suicide.

I still hold to that theory.

As for the Ravens, Falcons and Seahawks...

I cannot say.

But I did notice bullet holes in their shoes.

Sunday, January 16, 2011


Nearly every newspaper, TV newscast and Internet site has asked why someone with the strange behavioral history of Jared Lee Loughner was not removed from society or given appropriate psychiatric treatment before he committed the terrible shootings in Arizona.

A journalist would be able to discover the answer to that question rather easily and quickly.

Unfortunately, instead of journalists, we have the likes of Paul Krugman and Katie Couric commenting and "reporting" the news.

The fact is, it is not easy to remove mentally ill or social deviants from society.

And who is it who has made it difficult to do so?

Liberal/progressives, that's who.

Under their "leadership," the law in the country as a whole requires that the mentally ill person needs to first cooperate with law enforcement, the courts, and the hospitals before any record of his illness ever becomes documented.

The ACLU was instrumental in making certain that such laws are in existence.

It was their lawsuit in California that forced then Governor Ronald Reagan to sign the 1966 Lanterman Petris Short Act, on behalf of patients who were being involuntarily hospitalized.

Lanterman Petris has been duplicated in at least 44 other states.

No one seemed to recognize the potential unintended consequences of that act. They just seemed to think it was the answer to the antiquated state of mental institutions in California and other states.

Recent history is replete with examples of the law gone awry.

Even in a state with "stringent" laws about the treatment of such people, it is difficult to do anything about them until after they commit some horrific act.

According to the Arlington, VA based non-profit Treatment Advocacy Center:

Arizona rules apply to someone who needs treatment but is unable to seek it voluntarily.

Arizona mental health laws outline what steps must be followed and what standards must be met before someone can be ordered into treatment in the hospital or in the community.

Arizona is one of 44 states that allow court-ordered treatment in the community, often called “assisted outpatient treatment” or “outpatient commitment.”

Arizona is also among half of the states whose treatment standard is based on a person’s “need for treatment” and not just on the person’s likelihood of being dangerous to self or others.

Mr. Loughner was not deemed to be even close to that point yet.

So while Arizona had only submitted 4,465 mental illness cases for gun disqualification to the federal government in almost three years, Mr. Loughner was never documented as being mentally ill by authorities yet anyway, despite suspicions from college classmates and officials.

In the wake of the Arizona shootings, isn't it time to revisit what we do with societal deviants?

Thursday, January 13, 2011


If you think Sarah Palin is responsible in ANY WAY AT ALL for the shootings in Arizona;

If you think Rush Limbaugh is responsible in ANY WAY AT ALL for the shootings in Arizona;

If you think Glenn Beck is responsible in ANY WAY AT ALL for the shootings in Arizona;

If you think Sean Hannity is responsible in ANY WAY AT ALL for the shootings in Arizona;

If you think Conservative talk radio is responsible in ANY WAY AT ALL for the shootings in Arizona;

If you think George Bush is responsible in ANY WAY AT ALL for the shootings in Arizona;

If you think red winged blackbirds falling from the sky is responsible in ANY WAY AT ALL for the shootings in Arizona;

If you think Sarah Palin's "blood libel" comment is responsible in ANY WAY AT ALL for the shootings in Arizona;

If you think conservative blogs are responsible in ANY WAY AT ALL for the shootings in Arizona;

If you think The Tea Party movement is responsible in ANY WAY AT ALL for the shootings in Arizona;

If you think the right to bear arms is responsible in ANY WAY AT ALL for the shootings in Arizona;


The Arizona shootings are the result of the deranged thinking of a mentally disturbed leftist, Marxist, nihilist who acted out his fixation on Congressperson Gabrielle Giffords on his own accord.

Against such things there is no defense.

You cannot blame the media, you cannot blame God, you cannot blame yourself, you cannot blame me and you cannot blame any faction of society.

If you are rational, you can only blame Jared Lee Loughner, and he is the one, and the only one, who must pay for his actions.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011


Tuesday, January 11, 2011


Michael Lind wrote the following in an article entitled Let's stop pretending the Constitution is sacred:

"Will conservatives restore America to constitutional government? The new Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has promised not only to begin the new congressional session by reading the Constitution in its entirety, but also to require that every new piece of legislation cite the passage in the federal Constitution that authorizes it.

"These gestures are certain to please the conservatives of the Tea Party movement who are the ascendant force in Republican primary elections. But Tea Party constitutionalism represents a deeply flawed understanding of America's founding, which ought to be based on the revolutionary idea of the power of the sovereign people to make and unmake constitutions of their design, not on superstitious veneration of particular constitutions handed down by wise demigods."

So, the reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives is deemed to be inappropriate or superstitious?

I know of no one, Republican, Tea Party member or conservative, who believes that the Constitution is "sacred" in the usual sense of the word.

But the word "Sacred" is defined as:

•concerned with religion or religious purposes; "sacred texts"; "sacred rites"; "sacred music"
•worthy of respect or dedication; "saw motherhood as woman's sacred calling"
•consecrated: made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use; "a consecrated church"; "the sacred mosque"; "sacred elephants"; "sacred bread and wine"; "sanctified wine"
•hallowed: worthy of religious veneration; "the sacred name of Jesus"; "Jerusalem's hallowed soil"
•(often followed by `to') devoted exclusively to a single use or purpose or person; "a fund sacred to charity"; "a morning hour sacred to study"; "a private office sacred to the President"

According to some of those definitions, the Constitution certainly can be considered sacred.

Nevertheless, for this discussion, let's agree that it is not "sacred" in the religious sense.

It is, at the very least, the document that brought into being the United States of America, and that far too many in government have never read or applied it to lawmaking is a travesty.

The liberal/progressive may argue that it is a "living, breathing" document that is designed to change with the times.

That is a half-truth, and a half-truth is a lie.

The Constitution is designed to live and breathe, but very, very slowly.

It is breathes by the amendment process, not by judicial decision or decree.

Furthermore, it is the basis upon which our laws are supposed to be made.

Ours is the only constitution among nations that is specifically restrictive of government power, and that is by design.

President BO complained that it tells us what the government can't do, but fails to tell us what the government can do.

He sees that as a flaw.

It is not a flaw.

That's the whole point!

The suggestion that a law being considered "...cite the passage in the federal Constitution that authorizes it..." is a pretty good idea.

First of all it will slow the process of lawmaking down, as congresspersons who never have will now have to read the document to determine whether or not the proposed legislation is legal.

Secondly, in order to prevent legislative chaos, it will encourage "one bill, one subject," something I have championed for decades.

Thirdly, it will reduce the number of court cases filed that challenge laws' constitutionality, that having already been tacitly established by the citing thereof. That can only frighten lawyers, and should bother the average American not at all.

Finally (and I say "finally" only for the purposes of this post, as there may be many other reasons), it will force Congress to think through proposed legislation before passing it (something that would have been appropriate before passing the "we have to pass the bill so we can know what's in it" horrible bill that has become known as "Obamacare.")

I wonder what liberal/progressives are so afraid of, with regard to the reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives?

Why should they even care?

Most of them have never read it. How do they know it's so scary?

Is it sacred?

Not in the religious sense, only the Bible fits that definition.

(Yeah, yeah, I know...Koran is held sacred by many, but it is not sacred at all. It is a vicious, anti-societal, malevolent book that is exclusive and hate-filled at best.)

But it is in the "specific" sense.

For having read it, I say, "Good on them."

Now let's follow it.

We'll all be "libertized" by it.

Trust me, LIBERTY is a good thing.

Sunday, January 9, 2011


It has already happened.

Idiot liberal/progressives have already tried to make the shooting in Arizona about conservatives.

Jared Loughner, the gunman who included Arizona Jewish Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords as one of his victims, has already been portrayed by some leftists as a "right wing nut case."

A visit to his Facebook page reveals another story altogether.

His favorite book, for instance, is Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler, which may or may not help to explain his attack on a Jewish politician.

That's socialist left wing stuff, not conservative stuff.

It's also been noted that Loughner used an "automatic" weapon, and therefore automatic weapons should be illegal.

Liberal/progressives love the idea that if only there were a law against automatic weapons, there would be fewer murders.


There are already laws against murder, but that has not stopped anyone who wanted to commit one from doing so.

Laws only apply to honest, decent. LAW abiding citizens.

Criminals and murderers do not believe the law applies to them in their situation.

Laws against owning automatic weapons only keep LAW abiding citizens from having them.

By definition, criminals and murderers are not LAW abiding citizens, and they don't care one whit whether possessing an automatic weapon is against the LAW.

Besides, as we all know, just doing something against the law is not against the rules.

People from south of the border routinely break the law by entering this country without the proper papers.

But we can't even call them illegal immigrants any more. They must be referred to as "undocumented workers."

When the news came out that John F. Kennedy had been shot, I was in my university book store, waiting to pay for my books.

The student in front of me shouted out, "I hope the #$%^&*!*& dies!"

I said to him, "Whether you like his politics or not, this is not the way we do it in America."

Loughner, whatever else is true about him, did not behave as an American.

The shooting was senseless, mindless, useless and inexcusable.

I do not agree with Congresswoman Giffords' politics, but that has nothing to do with anything regarding this shooting.

I pray from the depth of my being that Gabby Giffords will be OK (which will be a miracle in-and-of itself).

You should, too.

Friday, January 7, 2011


For those of you who read my posts regularly or semi-regularly and enjoy them, I apologize for having been a little slack.

As you know, I recently found work after searching for over a year. My poor old body is not used to work and is going to sleep on me quite early each evening.

For those of you who read my posts on the sly and don't really enjoy them (although I have to admit that is hard to fathom), don't get your hopes up. I'll be back in full swing as soon as I adjust.

My thought for today centers around the new congress.

It is my opinion that conservatives have an opportunity to make a permanent, positive mark on the country if they don't get caught up in the "GOOD OLD BOY" system of Washington DC "cap and trade." (You know: I have this nice cap for you if you'll do things my way; and I'll trade you this program for that, and will scratch your back if you'll scratch mine).

The reading of the Constitution yesterday seems to have been like reading a horror story for some liberal/progressives, who hate it with a passion. For many, it was the first time they had ever read it. For others, they had read it, but twisted its meanings to fit their liberal/progressive agenda.

There are two sacred writings in the universe: the Bible and the Constitution. (Yeah, I know about Qur'an, but there is nothing sacred about it).

I love the idea of having to justify each and every law passed by demonstrating its source in the Constitution.

I also love "one bill, one subject," and idea I have espoused for years and which I heard spoken of in DC just the other day!

Maybe, just maybe, we can get the real America back... the one with individual freedoms, fewer imposing regulations and that encourages business and employment.

Here's hoping!

Monday, January 3, 2011


Fed up with the bad economy, angry with President BO's socialist agenda and despondent over the price of gasoline at the pump, over 1,000 red winged blackbirds (and a few sympathetic starlings) committed suicide and fell to their death over Arkansas.

Look, it's as good an explanation as anyone else has come up with.

The first report scientists came up with blamed lightning.

A thousand birds hit by lightning...all of them red winged blackbirds?


One environmentalist group linked the death of the birds to man-made pesticides particulated in the atmosphere.

Only one species affected...right?


One very serious looking biologist said that it looked like some sort of disease phenomenon.

What a disease! It kicked in on a thousand birds at the same time, killing them in such a way that they fell in unity to the earth.


Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission ornithologist, Karen Rowe, speculated that high altitude hail might have been the cause.

Very selective hail, don't you think?

Given that it was the beginning of the new year, some suggested that the birds were traumatized by fire works.

Red winged black birds and starlings are sensitive about fire works...right?

Someone said that children's author, Judy Blume, might have suggested that a flock of flying pigs might have singled out red winged blackbirds in some sort of bird terrorist plot.

I don't think she actually said that.

In the final analysis, I like my explanation best.

Saturday, January 1, 2011