Monday, February 28, 2011


Either President BO is set on using scare tactics, he is ignorant or he is a bald faced liar.

There are no other options for this stupid, uneducated, ill-informed statement:

"And I think people should be careful about being too loose in terms of talking about a government shutdown, because this has — this is not an abstraction. People don’t get their Social Security checks. They don’t get their veterans payments. "

He's such a brilliant man!

That statement is simply not true.


In the last "government shut-down," during the Clinton administration, those parts of the government that are required by law to do certain things did them.

And Social Security checks and veterans' payments are required by law.

So stop fretting!

If there is a government shut-down, Social Security recipients and veterans will still get their spite of the stupidity of the president.

You liberal/progressives will believe anything, won't you?

You elected an amateur.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

TAKE A MOVIE TO WORK: Forbidden Planet

See Bill Whittle's analysis of this movie.

Well worth the effort to click on the link.

Not very long...even a liberal/progressive can do it.

Friday, February 25, 2011


A regular commenter on blogs commented on mine a few days ago.

What he commented revealed everything there is to know about the extreme leftist attitude toward The United States of America.

He goes by the name "Ducky," and is a rank liberal/progressive.

First of all he challenged my contention that bus drivers in Wisconsin are being paid extremely high wages, some into the $100 thousand dollar range and up.

He ridiculed the concept as impossible and demanded that I produce evidence of such a delusional thought.

When I produced evidence of same, he failed to respond.

An honest person would have said something like, "Wow! I never realized that!"

But not Ducky.

He did what he always does when presented with facts: he ran and hid.

There was a particular one-liner he made that really caught my eye.

He said, "Rights are whatever we as a culture decide they are. "

Lots of people think like that.

Those people, like Ducky, would have sided with the Red Coats early on in our history, for they do not believe, as did Thomas Jefferson, that certain rights are unalienable (remember the Declaration of Independence: "...that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?").

Today, those same people's ideological descendants still believe in the morally relativistic dogma that "rights are whatever we as a culture decide they are."

What these people don't get, is that real rights are NOT whatever we as a culture decide they are. They are unalienable. They are God given.

That one does not happen to believe in God is irrelevant, much like not believing in lightning is doesn't matter what you believe, you will not change the fact that lightning exists, nor will you change the fact that God exists.

The happenings in Egypt, Libya and other places demonstrate that deep in the heart of every man, woman and child who ever has lived, who lives today and who ever will live beats a desire for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is only the despots of the world who restrict and deny them those rights that they have but are not allowed to enjoy.

As usual, the Duckster has demonstrated, as he always does, that he is incapable of rational, linear thinking and is nothing more than a pseudo-philosophical sophomore, seeking to vomit out figments of his infertile imagination.

I think of him as a pathological, putrid piece of protoplasm whose prime purpose on this painful path of pedantic progress is to pause and ponder pathetic platitudes.

Come on,'re not too old to open your mind and actually learn something are you?

Maybe so.

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Thursday, February 17, 2011


A majority of the people in Wisconsin voted for a governor who pledged to reduce government spending and bring fiscal responsibility to the state.

Did you get that?

A majority of the people.

In a democracy.

Now when duly elected Scott Walker began to implement his pledge, a small group of people suddenly didn't want him to do what the majority elected him to do.

The trouble came when he started "messing" with the public sector unions.

Get the picture: Public sector unions are paid by tax dollars.

That is not the case with private sector unions.

But the public sector unions want to be off-limits to government cuts. They want the citizens to continue to give them FAR more than their private sector counterparts in benefits and such.

In other words, the public sector unions want to be considered very special. They see themselves as more important than others; more worthy; of more value.

Not only that, they are willing to threaten the average citizen with an "We know where your family is" type of protest, designed to frighten the people into giving them what they want.

And they are willing to pretend that people bussed in from other states and locales should have a voice in how this matter is dispatched.

They think they should have more power than the general run-of-the-mill citizens, because somehow they are special.

As Patrick McIlheran puts it in the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel: "Walker, remember, is not removing unions' fundamental power to bargain for wages. He is demanding that state workers put 5.8% of their wages toward retirement and that they cover 12.6% of their health care premiums, which would still have them paying more than $100 less a month than the average schmoe."

"...figure that if they bring 13,000 shouting people to Madison, they can overrule the election."

Unions in general, and specifically public sector unions (think SEIU), are willing to go to any extreme to impose their will on employers and employees (which they like to call "workers," after the fashion of communist countries like the former Soviet Union and Cuba).

They will go to any extreme to get their or not.

I know an employee whose union poured sugar in her car's gas tank when she dared to put the financial needs of her family above the "needs" of the union.

In the end, Unions are based on thuggery.

That's why President BO supports the efforts of the public sector unions' activities in Wisconsin.

They're of his ilk.

Do you remember back during the election how angry the left pretended to be when people hinted that President BO was Hitleresque.

Well, they do the same thing.

But that's OK, because they're so intelligent...much more than you and I.

The unions in Wisconsin are calling Governor Scott Walker "Hitleresque."

But that's OK because there can be no double standard for the liberal/progressive, just for those on the radical right.

Liberal/progressives (and union leaders) are rank idiots.


Friday, February 11, 2011


The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, in sworn testimony before the House Intelligence Committee declared the Muslim Brotherhood to be a secular organization that only seeks political reform in Egypt.

In response to questioning from Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) about the threat posed by the group, Clapper suggested that the Egyptian part of the Brotherhood is not particularly extreme and that the broader international movement is hard to generalize about.

“The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’…is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam,” Clapper said. “They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera…..In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.”

Did you get that?

That was sworn testimony from the guy who is supposed to provide us with information about things going on that might not be just right for our country.

Do you feel more intelligent and safer now that you've heard from this bobble-head?

In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood uses the slogan, "Islam is the answer," and advocates for government in accordance with Islamic principles. The movement has as a broad goal unifying what it perceives as Muslim lands, from Spain to Indonesia, as a "caliphate."

Why on earth do you liberal/progressives keep supporting an administration that is so pathetically amateurish and incompetent...even dangerous?

Does that speak to your own level of "intelligence?"

Wednesday, February 9, 2011


To raise taxes or not to raise taxes...that is the question.

At least it's one of the questions.

Suppose you have 10 small business that show a profit (after all other expenses) of $20,000 before taxes.

Then suppose you (just for the sake of simplicity) tax them in such a way that 40% of their profits must be used to pay taxes.

40% of $20,000 on 10 businesses will net the government $80,000 in tax revenues.

Suppose, on the other hand, you have 30 small businesses that show a profit (after all other expenses) of $15,000 before taxes and you tax them in such a way that 25% of their profits must go to taxes.

25% of $15,000 on 30 businesses will net the government $112,500.

So, which is bigger, $80,000 or $112,000?

Now, suppose you are a person contemplating starting a small business.

In which environment are you most likely to take the risk of starting a business, the one in which you will be taxed such that 40% of your profits (after all other expenses) must be used for taxes, or the one in which you will be taxed such that 25% of your profits (after all other expenses) must be used for taxes?

If you have half a brain, you would choose the latter.

Look, I know the example is simplistic, but true economics is just not that tough. If I have $10.00 to spend and you take $4.00 of it away, I only have $6.00 left to pour into the economy.

If I have the same $10.00 and you only take $1.50 of it away, I have $8.50 left to pour into the economy.

Multiply those examples by millions of workers and potential workers and you are no longer talking chump change.

One part of the answer to encouraging the establishment of small business is to keep taxes low.

Using the same line of reasoning, you can also encourage the establishment of small business by making it relatively easy for them to do what they do.

That means the fewest possible rules and regulations to restrict their ability to make that $15,000 profit.

When government wakes up to just these two factors, we will soar out of the recession.

If President BO (and congress, by the way) would adopt the principles that lead to the establishment of many more risk takers, we will have many more business paying taxes, thus increasing revenues.

With more business come more jobs.

More jobs equals more people paying taxes.

More people paying taxes means more revenue for the government.

And the same principles apply: more people, paying lower taxes, means more people with money in their pockets to spend on those small business, thus increasing their profits (after all other expenses) and more revenue for the government.

And the government does not have to earn its gets it for free from us.

Want to heal the economy?

Take the appropriate steps to lower the total amount of money being confiscated in taxes and fees, and make it easier for people to go into business.

Everybody wins...even the governmnet.

Will it happen?

Not as long as we have people in power who believe that the government should have at least something to say about every aspect of American life.

Not as long as we have people in power who are in power for the sake of the power and not for the sake of the nation.

Liberal/progressives think the government's basic job is to gather as much money as they can in order to give it to as many people as they can, not realizing (or not caring) that such an approach kills incentive, distroys ambition and reduces the number of people willing to take the risks associated with building businesses and thus creating jobs.

President BO, in a recent interview, stated that he had lowered taxes.

What he really did was to move them around, hurt those who took the biggest risks and provided the most jobs and rename them so they were no longer called taxes.

A rose by any other.....

The result was still less money in individual and corporate pockets and therefore less money with which to do what Americans are best at doing: starting businesses and providing jobs.

Isn't it time to wake up?

Monday, February 7, 2011


I love football.

I loved Vince Lombardi and so I leaned toward wanting Green Bay to win, but I really just wanted to see a good game.

It wasn't too bad.

There were some stupid penalties.

I have never understood why grown, educated professionals either don't know or can't follow the rules.

Then I look at President BO.

He's a grown man, although very immature for his age and position.

He either doesn't know the principles of our rule book or just can't bring himself to follow them.

A Florida court (the referees of our American "game") says he broke the rules.

His response...I don't care. Surely a Supreme Court as brilliant as we have will see that I am right.

If he keeps loading it up with lefties, he might be right about that, anyway.

Fact is, he is wrong about being right.

The Constitution (our rule book) is designed to restrict the power of the government.

He does not like that, so he ignores it, saying that it is a flawed document because it does not say what the government can do.

The Constitution is not really a mystery.

It's pretty straight forward, much like the NFL rule book.

When you violate NFL rules, the referee throws a flag, the other referees get together and clarify what rule has been broken and who broke the rule.

The courts are designed to do the same kind of thing.

The Supreme Court (sort of the instant replay head referee) then determines whether a rule has been broken.

They have not always gotten it right (witness Dread Scott and "Women's choice" with regard to abortion), just like the NFL referees don't always get it right.

But I have a feeling that our present Supreme Court will see the importance of getting the "Obamacare" rulling right.

President BO would rather ignore the rule book on this one.

Color him Pittsburgh Steelers.

He is a looser.

Saturday, February 5, 2011









Did you see President BO's speech about Egypt yesterday?


What an impressive speech!

With a stern look on his face, President BO said, "First, we continue to be crystal-clear that we oppose violence as a response to this crisis. In recent days, we’ve seen violence and harassment erupt on the streets of Egypt that violates human rights, universal values and international norms. So we are sending a strong and unequivocal message: Attacks on reporters are unacceptable. Attacks on human rights activists are unacceptable. Attacks on peaceful protesters are unacceptable..."

Did you get that?


What does that mean?

Who, exactly, is it who cares whether or not we ""accept" what's going on in Egypt?

Wolf Blitzer looked right into CNN's camera and vomited praise for President BO's forceful and powerful words.

Are you kidding me?

Are liberal/progressives so stupid that they think those words caused anybody in Egypt to perk up and pay attention?

See, that's the thing about liberal/progressives.

They are just mouths full of words with absolutely no substance.

In my next life I'm going to major in political science so I can learn to say many words without saying a single thing.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011


Prior to 1885, if you had suggested to scientists that rabies could be prevented by injecting dead, dried rabies material into someone bitten by a rabid animal, you would have been laughed out of your science university.

Scientists believed in and taught "spontaneous regeneration," the theory that malevolent entities came into being in the form of disease out of nowhere.

Since they were scientists, their theory was trusted and everyone interested in science learned the "truth" of spontaneous regeneration in school.

When Louis Pasteur proposed injecting someone bitten by a rabid animal with actual rabies material, he was scorned and ridiculed in scientific circles.

Then, on July 6, 1885, the very first rabies vaccination for postexposure treatment was given to a 9-year-old boy by the name of Joseph Meister.

Joseph Meister had been mauled by a dog infected by rabies. Two French scientists, Emile Roux and Louis Pasteur, developed the first vaccine and administered it to the boy.

Joseph Meister recovered and lived until the age of 54.

Science had been wrong. Dead wrong.

Millions of people are alive today because Roux and Pasteur refused to bow to conventional thinking. They were truly open minded scientists who looked for truth, not political agenda.

Russian scientists have discovered that some of their oil wells have seemed to "refill" themselves over time.

They attribute this to a theory that refers to "abiotic oil," that purports that oil occurs naturally by the result of continuous chemical, heat and pressure conditions present in the earth's mantle.

Could they be right?

They are not wrong simply because they are Russians, are they?

Pasteur and Roux were French.

Is it possible that scientists have taken the same type of stand that they took prior to Roux/Pasteur and are mistaken about the origin of oil?

Is your mind opened enough to consider such a possibility?

What would be the ramifications if such a theory proved true?

Could it be that oil is a renewable resource?

Does the earth continue with the oil replenishment process?