Saturday, January 31, 2009

Age of Obama vs. Age of Reagan: 1981-1982 vs. 2008-2009

At the end of the week, the mainstream media (including the "financial media", joined by the fascists/Communists on Wall Street) were reportting the 3.8% contraction of the economy in the fourth quarter as if it were worse than the Great Depression. With the VOICE OF DOOM, the media was reporting that it was the economy's worst performance in 27 years. The message was that only the Federal Government, and Obama, could "save" us, with infinite spending and borrowing (to the extent we are not just printing the money). As usual, it is like the media people do not even read there own stuff. They defnitiely don't understand it.

27 years ago the economy was just as bad as it is today. That is the relevnat message. This is not the "worst econmy since the Great Depression (although our reaction to what might have been a normal recessson may make it so. Is that not what the mainstream media is reporting? If the economy was this bad 27 years ago, it is hardly a new situation. Whta is new is our reaction to it:: the maintstram media reaction, the political reaction, and the reaction fo the newly minted fascists/Communists on Wall Street.

In 1982 the country was still in our hangover from the disastrous Carter years (where intterst rates reached toward 20%m and inflation toward 15%, at the same time--the combination being Reagan's "misery index"). Howefver, in 1982, Ronald Reagan was President. There was no talk of socialism. There was no talk that we "had" to have the Federal Government spend our way out of our economic troubles--inevitably making them worse. There was no talk by Reagan (such a greater President than either Bush 41 or Bush 43 that the mere thought of the comparison depresses me as to how far the Repubican Party has sunk). Reagan did not go on television and say that we had to betray our free market principles in order to save the free market (as President Bush 43 did, to his eternal shame). President Reagain did not panic the country, as the combination of the media, Democrats, Wall Street, and the Bush Administration has done this time).

What Reagan did was stick to his philosophy of tax relief and limited government (to the extent Democrats in Congress would let him). Reagan put into effect his simple tax structure of two tax rates (three, if you include zero): 18% and 28%. There was no move to socialism. There was no panic. Reagan did not abandon his principles. He merely tolad people, in a way they believed (in contrast to the "modern" Republican Party) that his (Reagan's) vision was the right vision.

The result was about the greatest 20 year period any nation has ever experienced on in the history of humanity on this Earth. Yes, this includes the 8 years of the Clinton Administration, but with the aid of the second conservative revolution--led by Newt Gingrich--which resulted in Republican control of the House on a conservative agenda). That is why it is absolutely stupid to say that it is "mean spirited' to want Obama "to fail" in enacting his socialist policy (yes, I am saying that CNBC, MSNBC, NBC, and the rest are STUPID: Mark Haynes, that means YOU). Clinton extended the golden years iniated by Reagan exactly because he "failed" to move us toward socialism. Unfortunately, President Bush 43 did not so fail. And now Demcrats, led by Obama, are ready to take us the whole way to disaster.

Yes, Reagan resissted the temptation that ruined President Bush. His reward was to iniate the best 20 years in the history of not only this country but--as stated above--almost any country in the hisotry of the world. Our "punishment" for ignoring the lesson of Reagan is going to be dire. I have my doubts that we can survive it.

There was no "stimulus package" under Reagan. For Reagan, the tax cut was stimulus enough, along with trust in the power of the free market to recover and trust in his phiosophy that limited government was best--trusting to the American people to bounce back, as they did, if they were allowed to keep more of their own money (with less incentive to avoid paying taxes--as Reagan knew that, within reason, lower taxes meant MORE Federal tax revenue in the end).

Instead of Reagan, we are now getting socialism. We are now getting the Obama message that only the Federal Government can "bail us out" (although only the favored get bailed out, and not small businesses like that of my brother). The faxicsts/Communists on Wall Street are now running the country, along with the Obama socialists (that unholy alliance of the financial/big business community and authoritarian central planners that is fascism). We now have developed the idea that the Federal Government has to prevent recessions, as well as protect everyone (except the disfavored) int he country from economic pain.

Yes. We are now in the Age of Obama, and not the Age of Reagan. That is the true VOICE OF DOOM. This is going to doom us. The only question is whether we are too far down this road, even now, to recover. I am not optimistic. But then I am a cynical pessimist, even while recognizing that is not the most healthy kind of person to be.

I would feel better if I saw a conservative leader out there ready to return us to the golden days of the Age of Reagan. Michael Steele (new Republican chairman) is a decent start, but I have no illusions aobut Steele. He is not goiingo to be the conservative leader to again sell conservatism to the American people, although he can be a solid lieutenant to prepare the policial ground for that leader. Nor is Rush Limbaugh capable of being the political leader to do so, although he is doing his best (which is pretty darn good) to prepare the ground for that conservative political leader of the future. But is the "modern" Republican Party capable of producing, or supporting, a "new Reagan"? I will stop here, since we are back to my cynical pessimism again.

Friday, January 30, 2009

Michael Steele: Congratulatiions, Chairman

Michael Steele has been named Republican Party chariman (RNC chairman). I have previously said in this blog that Steele was the mot impressive Repubilcan running for office in 2006, when he lost his Senate race in Marylnad. He is one of the many examples to the sanctimonious hypocrisy gone nuclear that afflicts the mainstream media and other leftists. He got no media exposure in 2006 (unlike Obama from the moment he made that speech att he democratic Convention years ago). Yet, Steele eserved it. He is one impressive individual.

No, I do not think he is an Obam style Messiah to lead conservatives the the Promised Land. He is not even a person with a spotless conservative record. He comes from MARYLAND, for God's sake. But I applaud the choice of Steele for this position. He speaks well. He is smart. He is, of course, black. That, however, is the least of his qualificatiosn.

As I have said, conservatives desperately need a leader to lead a conservative coup taking over the Repubican Party, and leading it into the next Presidential election (and even the 2010 election and the struggle against Obama socialism). I don't think Steele is really that leader (could always be wrong here). As a solid lieutenant to that hoped for leader, Steele can still start the recovery of the Repubican Party and and set the stage for the return of conservatives from our present exile into the political Wilderness.

Republicans have disappointed me before. I hope Steele does not continue the tradition. I still like the choice, and have never changed my opinion that he is an impressive man. I just hope he realizes the Repubican Party needs to recruit conservative candidates willing and able to go out and SELL conservatism (instead of constantly being on the defesnive, and acting like they prefer to trash Rush Limabugh--for media approval--more than they like to criticize leftist Democrats like Obama).

Obama: "I Want Fire In MY Cave" (as my brother is totally vindicated)

You will remember my brother's plaintive cry: "I want a fire in MY cave", as he tired of big businesss and Wall Street getting bailed out, partially wih HIS taxes, while small business gets the shaft. Further, my brother has to watch the central planners themselves prosper (Obama, Gore, et. al)--hypocrites all.

Little did my brother know that he would be proved right so literally (see below for explantion of a "ire in my cave"). Yesterday, the New York Times reported that Obama had hiked up the themostat in the oval office to maybe the 80 degree level--enabling him to wear "shirt sleeves". One of the Obama "gurus" (maybe Axelrod) said (basically): "What can you expect? He comes from Hawaii (Chicago anyone?). He likes it warm."

Now let me be clear here. I like it warm too. That is why I live in El Paso. I don't care if Obama turns his thermostat way up. But my brother is right. Obama and Gore supposedly care. Last year (I think in Gernmany, as Obama was declaring himself a "citizen of the world"--hence this blog's nickname for Obama), Obama went through the anti-American, leftist, "global warming" litany of American "sins" (you know, like having the thermostat at 72 degrees--when Obama personally sets it higher than that). Yes, Obama mentioned the very example of the thermostat, as he ended with the usual, "phantom" statistic that America has 3% of the world's people, but uses 25% of the world's energy. To the extent true, of course, this merely means that the U.S.--before the Age of Obama--has been a successful country. "Global warming" people want to turn this into an unsuccessful country.

"I want fire in my cave" is my brother's shorthand description of the hypocrisy of Ice Age politician "Al Gorice". As Gorice was regularly featured in the world's first known newspaper: The Ice Age Times (published in the time of the when Neanderthal Man and the ancestors of modern man were facing the need to adapt to a WARMING wolrd). Like the real Al Gore, Al Gorice kept roaring fires in his own cave (even to the extent of having to vent smoke into adjoining caves, resultig in smoke inhalation to many). However, Al Gorice was mainly known for his campaign to elminate reduce the use of fire to "preserve the pristine, Ice Age way of life" (quote fromt he exclusive archeological translations made available by the archaeological team to this blog). There is a new scientific theory that Al Gorice caused the extinction of Neandertahl Man by selling them on the idea of preserving the Ice Age way of life, while modern man adapted to the warming world. It is a well established scientific theory that Neanderthal Man failed to adapt to changing conditions, including the warming Earth, which explains his extinction. This new theory on Al Gorice is only an extension of the well estabished, accepted scientifc theory

Yes, there is some suspicion that Al Gore is a modern descendant of Al Gorice. More reasonable people believe that the archaeological team is haiving a little fun with the translations of the Ice Age Times articles, and that "Al Gorice" is merely a convenient name for the Ice Age politician. But Al Gorice is clearly the "philiosophical", nypocritical, "inellectual" descendant of Al Gorice--as is Barack "World" Obama (it being a matter of conjecture, by the way, whether Al Gorice was "black").

My brother lives in Tennessee (Nashville). He is very familiar with Al Gore, and with energy bills in Tennessee. My brother has a fairly large house (for now, until Obama does him in). My brother could not believe the energy bills for the mansions of Al Gore. According to my brother, the man had to have the equivalent of "roaring fires" going to run up those kinds of electric bills.

Yes, that is what my brother means by: "I want fire in MY cave." He means that Al Gore does what he wants. And all of these big businesses, banks, and Wall Dtreet people are being bailed out. Meanwhile, my brother's small (but with 200 employees) trucking company is left out in the cold. "I want fire in MY cave" was my broth'er's plaintive cry of pain that he was willing to convert to socialism/Obamaism, if only my brother could be bailed out too (although my brother realizes his would be disaster for the country, but so are the monster bailouts for the prsent groups/businesses favored by the Obama central planners--and Bush central planners).

Now my brother has been totally vindicated. He not only can point to the example of Al Gore (and Al Gorice), but he can point to Obama. "I want fire in MY cave" fits Obama and Gore like a glove ("if it fits, you must convict"). So my brother's business may be doomed, in this Age of Obama, unless my brother can pull it out somehow with his own efforts. However, my brother has the satisfaction (which, wiht $5.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks) of being totally vindicated.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Mexico: A Failed Country

Yes, there is daily news from El Paso that Mexico is a failed country, and theat there are few more importnat issues facing this country than to secure our Southern border and deter illegal immigration.

Today's news is that the number of murders in Jurarez for this yer are already well above 200. This morning's news we woke up to in El Paso (the smae kind of news we wake up to almost every day in El Paso) is that the number of murders in Jurarez this January is triple the carnage of the previous, bloody Jaunuary. People are now being murdered in Jurarez at an "annual rate" of more than 2000 people. Yes, Jurarez is now officially a more dangerous city than Bagdad--surely one of the most dangerous cities, if not the most dangerous city, in the world.

And it is not just the drug war. News earlier this week was that some 58 women were murdered (officially) last year in Jurarez, even apart from the drug violence. For many years, the unsolved murders of women in Jurarez have been notorious, as hundreds of bodies of young women have been found in burial "dumping grounds". Mothers marched early this year in Jurarez because of this ongoing violence against women.

Nope. Mexico is a fialed country. We must stop the failure from spreading. Mexico is promoting illegal immigration (as are politicians in El Paso), for the very purpose of exporting their problems to our country (in the hope of taking the pressure off of Mexico).

No, I am not saying that El Paso politicians WANT us to experience Mexico's problems, but that is the effect of what they are promoting. You doubt me? Don't.

The El Paso City Council actually passed a "bill" propposing "discussions" (I think with Mexico, although it is not worth my time to examine this level of idiocy in detail) of LEGALIZING DRUGS as a desperate measure to reduce the drug cartel violence in Mexico. I could not make this stuff up. The mayor vetoed the City Council, and--miracle of miracles--his veto was upheld. This saved El Paso from natioinal mockery. The measure, as finally passed, just containted standard "open borders" pablum.

Do you see most o fthis is the national news? Nope. If El Paso had called for drug legalizatioin, the national "coverage" would only have been the leftist ikind of how "enlightened" it is to talk about legalizing drugs--especially since Americans are corrupting Mexico by supporint the illegal drug trade--by providing a market for the illegal drugs. IT IS ALL OUR FAULT THAT MEXICO IS A FAILID COUNATRY (This is how leftists think, and how the mainstream media leftists report things).

P.S. I am perfectly aware that some libertarians, and even William F. Buckley Jr. (virtual founder of modern conservatism), like the idea of legalizing drugs as a matter of FREEDOM. Need I tell you that leftists do not beliefve in "freedom", except the "freedom" to do what leftists want to do? Legalizing drugs would not help Mexico. I don't think it would help this country either. How hypocritical is it to talk about legalizing cocaine while the FDA can prohibit a person from obtaining a suopposed "cure" for cancer, even if the person wans to take the risk of being defrauded (likely)? Leftists want regulation of every aspect of your life EXCEPT recreatioinal drugs and sex. William Buckley Jr. was not that kind of hypocrite. However, I think he was wrong on this. I consider myself a "libertarian conservative". But I dont think we can afford to legalize all recreational drugs. It is a matter of protecting society, and our children (not of protecting people from themselves---leftist style).

Cash for Illegal Immigrants?


Yes, the aobve is the present large headline on Drudge (you gotta love Drudge). Yes, we continue to ENCOURAGE illegal immigration (especially the "open borders" people (leftist Democrats and establishment Republicans)

P.S. It is not just Republicans reporting that the $500/$1000 dollar tax payments prooposed in the Democrat "stimulus" bill will go to illegal immigrants as well as American workers (it was always known that these payments would be essentially welfare payements--made to people who pay no taxes as well as those--few?--who still pay taxes and support the rest). The New York Tiimes is reporting this monrning the very same thing: Thatt the "tax credit" (welfare payment) will go to illeal immigrants under the House "stimulus" bill.

Kim Komando: Conservative

Kim Komando is the self-styled "digital goddess" who gives computer/internet/electoric gadget advice on the radio. I have always thought she sounded intelligent, although I am not "modern" enough to really want to keep up with the computer age to the extent Kim Komando does. Therefore, I have never really listened to her, or followed her advice (while recognizing that I probably should).

But Kim Komando showed me something in her 'radio minute" today. She showed herself to think like a conservative, at least in part, which means she actually thinks rationally (not joining the leftist religion that the government can do everything for you).

Nope. I don't know Kim Komando's politics. She may disappoint me in her overall political philosophy. She is, after all, a woman. But Ronald Reagan could not have said it better today. I know that you can say that about some of the things Obama says (such as yesterday's snow job with big business CEO's, where Obama did a Reagan imitation), but you know Obama does not mean it. Kim Komando clearly meant it.

Yes, Obama is planning to have the Federal Government spend 6 billion dollars to "bring faster internet to every American home". Komando noted that the internet camae about mainly without government help, and--not coincidentally--without substantial government interference. Yet, the Communication Workers of America (a union, which probably has a lot to do with the Democrat "concern" that every American have access to fast internet--which, by the way, you can get at most libraries) is proposing that the Federal Government spend 25 billion dollars to bring fast fiber optics to every American home.

Kim Komando reasonably asked: Do we really need the government to do this? Why? Do peple have a "right' to "fast internet", as well as to abortion (the Supreme Court, by the way, did NOT say that there was a "right" to have an abortioin, although leftists act like that is the case)? That is absurd, and yet that is the ilmplicit message behind the idea that the Federal Government needs to make sure that every house, and every family, not only has an up-to-date computer, but access to the fastest internet possible.

As someone who just, finally, gave up "dial up" for DSL (it being an understatement to say that I am not "modern"), I can personally attest that fast internet is NOT one of the "necissities of life".

Kim Komando, I salute you. You are one intelligent woman (on the evidence available to me, anyway). That probably means you are unfit for the Age of Obama.

P.S. Note that my poor brother is again out in the cold, along with most other small business people not favored by the leftist central plannners in charge or by unions. You will remember that my brother is the co-owner of a trucking company which needs 2 million dollars (a mere 2 million) to survive. In fact, 25 billion dollars (the number the Communications Workers of America wants to spend on fiber optics--taxpayer money) is the figure previously used as the number needed by the automakers. I ran the numbers, and calculated 25,000 small businesses like that of my brother could be "saved" with 25 billion dollars, with the saving/creation of 5 million jobs. See archives of this blog. Yet, in that Age of Obama, trucking is clearly not as "important" as fast internet. You don't really need the foold truckers bring you!!! Take the advice of Marie Antoinette: EAT CAKE. As previously noted in this blog, my brother is willing to be BOUGHT. At this point, he is willing to turn socialist if only he was made part of the bailout (even though he recognizes it will be disaster for the country in the end). My brother has the nerve to actually resent HIS tax money (he makes slightly above $150,000, so long as his company stays in business employing some 200 people), and therefore is one of the leftist targets to be taxed) being used for the Communications Workers of America and for Planned Parenthood. As this blog has noted, that is the inevitable result of central planning: The Federal Government chooses the winners and losers. So my brother is willing to become a revolutionary (wanting every single present political officeholder to be thrown out of office or overthrown). However, I am ashamed to say that my brother has--again--admitted in this blog that he can be BRIBED to be a socialist. If the governement will bail him out, he is ready to join the crowd. Unfortunately, that is exactly what leftist Democrats are relying upon (not to mention establishment, Big Government Republicans like Paulson and Bush). They are relying up people to look to the Federal Government fo "save" them, and ultimately to provide them with everything they want in life. Already, more than half the country depends on the Federal Government (not even including state and local government) in one way or another. The present mantra of leftist Democrats, the mainstream media, and establishment Repubicans is: ; PEOPLE CAN BE BRIBED. Establshishment Republicans are just noe very good at it, which is why the Republican Party is DEAD. The present evidence is that leftist Democrats are right: PEOPLE CAN BE BRIBED. That is why I admire Kim Komand. It takes some courage to stand against the current tide. Would she leave her husband and marry me? Probably not. No other woman on EArth has proved to be that stupid, except my ex-wife--who soon learned her mistake. As I said, Kim Komando, unfortunately, seems to be an intelligent woman. I need a DUMB one. Oh weill, I still salute Kim Komando for her clear thinking.

Republicans and this Blog: House Republican "Stimulus" Vote Proves This Blog Superior (in thought) To Limbaugh

Yes, this blog has been proven correct, and Rush Limabaugh wrong, in a way you may not realize.

WHY did I tell you that I could not vote for John McCain? WHY did I tell you a McCain defeat would be better for conservatives, the Republilcan Party, and possibly the country? Nope. It is not because I said McCain was worse than Obama. In fact, I told you that, in isolaton, McCain was better than Obama.

Problem: We are in the real world, where Presidents do not act in isolation. Every single Republican in the House has just voted aginst the Democrat pork (including sex pork--see previous entry) bill--otherwise known as the "stimulus package--in the House. Say John McCain were President. Would the "stimulus" bill have been any better if John McCain were President? Nope. Not a chance. That is proved by the Bush stimulus bill Republicans supported last spring, AND the bailout bill that McCain supported this falll--McCain supporting the ridiculous Senate "pork" version with even funding for ACORN. In fact, that is probably what cost McCain the Presidency, or at least guaranteed his defeat. If you remember, that is when this blog abandoned McCain for good. Limbaugh, meanwhile, continued to support McCain, even though it was clearly the WRONG thing for conservatives to do. Limbaugh doesn't like to lose (and has a radio show, and a certain "establishment" he is unwilling to abandon, even though he is--to his credit--willing to take on the Republican "establishment").

Would every Republican in the House (good luck on those losers in the Senate!) have opposed a McCain "stimulus package". Of course not. You only have to look at President Bush's last term, and even some aspects of his first term, to see that. Thus, as with President Bush, the "stimulus package" (and the country's coninued push to the left) would have been a REPUBLICAN bill. Conservatives would not have been able to blmae leftist Democrats, because a REPUBICAN President would have done it. That would have been the worst of all possible worlds. That is what I told you in the election campaign, when Rush Limbaugh could not bring himself to tell you that. I have already been proven right, as conservative talk radio is talking about a "new" REpublican "backbone".

Hogwash. Yes, I said "hogwash". It is easy for Republicans to oppose Democrats, especially if they know the legistlation will pass anyway (thus meaing that Republicans can't be blamed for stopping the legislation). That is what happened when Newt Gingrich took on Billl Clinton. Republicans fought Clinton at the Democrats at every turn, and succeeded in producing eight years that were better than ever could have been produced under a Repubican President.

Problem: Peopl'e memory is not quite that short, unless it ist he mainstream "journalistic" "memory" we are talking about whenever the past would embarrass a leftist Demcrat. Republicans did get in power. They blew it. They acted just like Democrats. Unlike Gingrich, they now look like partisan opportunists rather than people of principle (something I would not say of Rush Limbaugh, who has been more consistent in this philosophy, despite my quibbles, than almost anyone else of political prominence). Therefore, what Republicans are doing now simply looks like partisan opportunism, rather than principle.

You know what? What Repubicans are doing now IS partisan opportunism. Until they start showing some real principle, and real recognition of where the Republcan Party went wrong, no one is going to pay any attention to what Republicans say. Oh,, Republicans have the advantage that at least Obama and the leftist Democrats are on the hook for the RESULT. That is why Repubicans are suddenly taking this partisan stance, even though they know the public is not really with them (as they know they have forfeited most public goodwill). The public will turn against Obama if his socialist policies fail, and they are bound to fail (certainly in part, in thata it is impossible for central planners to make everyone happy--see recent entries about my small busniness owner brother). As memory of Republican perfidy fades somewhat, the new perfidies of Obama, Pelosi and Reid will come to the fore. It is inevitable.

There is no doubt. The new Republican "backbone" is good partisan politics. Just don't ask me to forget that it is NOT the "backbone" of principle, but the "backbone" of partisan expedience. It is exactly what this blog predicted when I said that the defeat of John McCain would be good for conservatives, Republicans, and maybe the country.

"Wait a second,", you say. Whatever the reason, should you not be cheering on this new "backbone", just like conserative talk radio. Even if they have shown themselves to be people without principle, do not Repubicans need to be positively reinforced when they act in the interest of conservatives and the country? Yes and no.

Yes, it does not help matters much for me to continue to bash Republicans, even as they start to stand up for what I believe in. No, it does not help, in the long run, to give Repubicans the idea that their previous perfidy is easitly forgiven and forgotten. That would merely mean that they revert to type at the first opportunity.

Never doubt me. You only have to look at this week's entry on, and the bashing of RUSH LIMBAUGH by supposed "conservatives" in the House. Even though I see more clearly than anyone that the "flap" was egged on by the lying leftists at, the fact remains that Repubicans are willing to bash conservatives like Limbaugh more aggressively than they are willing to take on Obama and the Democrats. A leopard des not really chnage its spots, and the Republican "establishment" still has no spine. Political opportunism does not prove you have a spne. Rush Limbaugh stood against these Repubican turncoats when they were betraying conservatives. For them to be willing to trash Limbaugh, in what they think is their own interest, merely shows that the leopard has not changed its spots.

Yes, I welcome the Republican unity against the pork/"stimulus" package in the House. However, I predicted it, in foresight and during the election. Republicans are going to have to do better than this to have me again consider myself a Republican.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Sex Pork, House Democrats, and My Poor Brother (Left Out of the Democrat Pork Bill While "Free Sex" Is IN in the Age of Obama)

"Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases!The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned."

The above quote is from the story currently on Drudge, where you can read the entire story. Drudge, you will recall, broke the story earlier this week, with an enormous hedline under a picture of "Total Faiolure" Pelosi looking like a witch, of Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi trying to put $155,000,000 for "family planning" into the economic stimulus (translation: democrat champion pork bill of all time) bill. The publicity and absurdity (along with the obvious promotion intended fro Planned Parenthood and te abortion industry of death), caused Obama to suggest to "Total Failure" Pelosi that she "bakc off". See previous two entries earlier this week in this blog.

However, Democrats have evidently not given up on sex pork. Make no mistake about it. This is all about the leftist idea that one of the main goals of public policy is to make sure that sex has no consequences--not to make sure people are healthy. You only have to look at the 1950's and early 1960's (when I went to high school and girls generally didn't--either have sex in high school or get pregnant in high school. As the statitistics conclusively show, this is the healthy live style. IN fact, as this blog has conclusively shown time after time, SEX (outside of marriage) IS HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH> The next pandemic will most likely be a sexually transmitted disease, as was the last arguable pandemic (AIDS). Yet, the leftist approach to this problem is not to bring back the healthy sex habits of the 1950's and early 1960's, but to encurage sex "experimentation", while selling the idea of condoms, etc. As I have said in this blog with regard to Dr. Dean Edell and other leftists, their attitude toward sex and sexually transmitted diseases means that they HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. With AIDS alone, the failure to treat the disease as a "real" disease, for fear of stigmatizing gay sex, killed hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people worldwide. Yep. I am saying I blame the leftist attitude toward sexually transmitted diseases for the death of a whole lot of people, and not just because of AIDS. That is in addtion to the ruined lives caused by both early sex and pregnancy, in addition to the millions of abortion deaths. It is actually an understatement to say that leftists "have blood on their hands".

Nope. The "Playboy Philosophy" has this backwards. Their argument is that "conservatives" want people to be "punished" for sex with a sexaul transmitted disease or a baby. Obama bought into this leftist/Planned Parenthood religious creed when he said that he saw no reason for his daughers to be "punished" with a baby if they "made a mistake", despite their upbringing.

It is really the opposit. IN the Playboy/leftist Philosophy, sex is almost the ultimate good, and anythign that discourages "sexual freedom" is bad. Conservatives do don want to see people "punished" for ssex. Conservatives simply see clearly what the healthy lifestyle is, and think that "education" should tell people what it is. A campaign about how promiscuous sex is hazardous to your health, on the order of the campaign against smoking, would save more lives than any of the proposed "sex education" of leftists. Conservatives are aslo not blinded by the leftist attitude that sexual satisfaction is the ultimate good, such that conservatives buy the slogans of the left. It is not that conservatives believe theat people should be punished for sex. We simply believe that abortion is the killing of a human being, and that people are responsible for their actions. This means that we should not excuse killing in the name of "free sex" and "women's lib". Nor should ew ignore the most effective measures against sexually transmitted diseases simply because leftist prefer the diseases to taking effective action against them.

Yes, conservatives know that the "education" envisioned by the House Democrats is going to be leftist indoctrinatioin in the leftist idea of sex and human relations, from kindergarten on up. This is "central planning" with a leftist vengeance, as leftists try to remake the entire country in their image on all social and economic issues.

However, believe it or not, the above is not even the real point of this entry. I have called this "sex pork", because that is what it is. The entire bill is a "pork" bill, and this is just another example. Does leftist "education" on sexually transmitted diseases have anything to do with the economy? Of course not!!!!! This is pork, pure and simple, and Americans should realize that is what is coming with this "stimulius" bill--much more pork than stimulus. It is one large collection of "earmarks", as Obama dishonestly suggests that he is "eliminating" earmarks. If you put your pork in large spending bills like this, where no one can know everything that is in the bill--much less effectively complain about most individual items--you don't need earmarks.

That brings me again to that brother of mine, who is co-owner of the struggling trucking company that needs about 2 million dollars in capital and/or loans to be reasonably sure of not going under. In my previous entry on Planned Parenthood, I noted that the Democrat central planners were putting my brother's company behind Planned Parenthood for bailout--Democrts obviously believeing that small business is much less important to the economy of this country than Planned Parenthood.

Now my brother has to face another, bitter pill. Democrats obviously believe it is more important to the economy to "educate" about sexually transmitted diseases (probably increasing such diseases the way leftists want to do it), than it is to save small businesses like that of my brother. Again, adding insult to injury, my brother has to see HIS taxes used by the central planners to address a problem (sexually transmitted diseases) that he needs "education" on (and, unless my brother is doing things I don't know about, a problem that my brother does not "fear".

I have told my brother that he is a "total loser" in the Age of Obama. By that, I do not mean to criticize him. I mean to criticize the AGe of Obama, where the huge Federal Government is going to deterine the winners and losers. Small businesses, like that of my brother, are generally the losers. Wall STreet, Big Business, Planned Parehtnhood, the various "industries" dealing with "sexual freedom" and its consequnces, etc. are the winnters. The biggest winners, of course, remain the central planners themselves, as Big Government ("Big Brother") takes over our lives and controls the employment of more and more people.

California Leftist Leaders Crucify the State on a Cross of "Glbal Warmnig", as Leftists Plan To Do the Same for the Whole Country

"Let me see if i understand this. B.O. want's to allow EACH individual state to dictate to US automakers their fuel efficiency and emission standards. That ought to put the nail in the coffin."

The above is an email I got today. I would tell you from whom, but mention of his name has been banned from the blog for disrespect tot he blog and its author (as I experiment with the leftist attitude toward free speech). You will note how this email ties in with the privios entry. Yes, Obama and his fellow leftists fully intend to crucity our economy on a cross of "global warming".

We now come to my brother who co-owns the trucking company. If California is allowed to impose further restrictions on trucks operating in the state, my brother's co-owner has a simple solution (with which my brother concurs. My brother's company will simply pull out of California (which will prbably be the reaction of a lot of trucking companies). Thus, the insane leftists in California are ruining their state economy even faster than they are ruining the natinal economy. There may soon be no trucks in the state to even haul their food., No problem. Let them eat cake (to quote the perhaps unfarily falighned Marie Antoinette).

Al Gore Take Note: "Big Storm Covers Natioin With Ice, Snow" (Again)

"Big Storm Covers Nation in Ice, Snow"

The above is the present main AOL weather headline (headline on linked story). Drudge carried a story earlier this week about how Al Gore was expected to testify before John Kerry's Foreign Rlation's Committee (so help me, I would swear that is what it said) about "global warming" (at least in part (high priest saving the world, you know--it being more and more clear that "global warming" is a religion, and a bad one at that), However, there were indications that the appearance might be scrapped because of that very strom referred to above (latest of seeveral this fall and vinter). The late Michael Cricton has already shown conclusively (see charts in his eco-thriller, "State of Fear") that there never has been any consistent warming TREND in the Untied States, where temperatures have gone up and down since 1880 with no consistent, discernible trend.

This is the very reason that the high priests of "global warming", and the mainstream media, have tried to chanage the term to "climate change". "Climate change" is, of course, one of the stupidest political (not even a real pretense of relating to the "science") terms ever invented for political purposes (joining "pro-choice" and "sexual orientation" as politically inspired terms with an ridiculous objective meaning). It has always been the goal of the "global warming" religion to cast aside its moorings in "warming", because the religion was always about politics and not scinece. In case the world stopped "warming", as it has, the leftist socialists behind the "global warming" religion wanted to be able to still call it "heresy" to oppose the idea of a man-made "glboal warming" crisis. It does not matter to them that the climate is always changing. They want to blame all "climate change", and all "severe weather", on......what? MAN (the idea being to enact socialistic/central planning policies based on the ida such are necessary to "save" the planet).

Problem: The theory of "global warming" is based totally on the warming effect of "greenhouse gases (a theory which itself igonored that the Earth--alternating Ice Ages and tropical periods--is perfectly capable of "warming" on its own). This also ignored the cooling frp, 1940 to 1970 (see Crichton's book again, where the charts and bibliography are real). Still, there was at least some substantial evidence that the Earth was warming between 1970 (or so) and 1998--perhaps enogh evidence to suggest an hypotesis (not really a "theory"--in scientific terms) that greenhouse gases were helping the world to warm more than it otherwise would (ture, by the way, of radios, televisions, computers, and all other energy producing devices, including the human boday and all other living things on this planet--one of the Laws of Thermodynamics being that the production of energy always produces heat as a byproduct; but the effect is samll in comparison with the energy produced by the sun).

Thyus, in leaving the "warming" behind, "global waraming" priests have left the scince behind. Yes, the Drudge story contained the assertion by many "envrionmentalists" that this wint'er's "wild winter spells" (translation: COLD spells) are actually caused by man-made "pollution". Unfortunately for these leftist priests, once you abandon the "warming", you have no evidence for man-made climate change. The only evidence that ever existed was the warming. Once you do not have that, you do not have a theory--at least not a scientific theory. You have mere speculatiion and assertion for polical purposes (which "'global warming" always was, in any event, but at least with a scientific veneer). Yes, the theory of "global wrming" has abandoned all moorings in science. It is now openly a religion.

You doubt me? Surely you have learned by now. What is the ultimate test of a scientific theory? It is NOT whether the theory explans the past. It is whether the theory accurately predicts the future. Once "global warming" priests start saying that any kind of "cliimate change" supports their "theory", they have abandoned science. A scientifc "theory" that predicts "everything" (that is, that can explain anything after it happens) is totally worthless. If a scientific theory cannot be TESTED by prediction of future results, it is not really a scientific theory at all. Taht is one of theknocks against String Theory (theory that the building blocks of the entire universe are very tiny, vibrating "strings"). There seems to be no way of really testing the theory/hypothesis. "Global warming" is actually far worse than String Theory, because we do not know enough about atmospheric physics to mathematically "explain" exactly how greenhouse hases are affecting the (mythical) "temperature" of the Earth. "Global warming" is entirely a theory produced from computer models making assumptions about the magnitude of the "greenhouse" effect--partially based on observational "warming". Once the models fail to predict correctly--as they have, and once the warming stops, there is no real theory. You are totally into the realm of speculation and religion.

Yes, this winter's weather is weather. But so is essentially all of the "evidence" for "global warming". The melting of sea ice in summer in the arctice? WEATHER. "Global Warming" theory is based totally on an infintesimal (geologically speaking) sample of weather/climate from 1970 to 1998, where the "theory" proved totally unable to predict the "climate" of the Earth, or any portion of the Earth, year to year (or for the decade from 19998 to 2009). Without consistent warming of the Earth (and really of almost all porthings of the Earth as large as the U.S.--where no warming trend is evident since 1880), the "theory" of "global warming" falls completely apart. Since 1998, there has been no such consistent warming of the Earth, and we seem to be entering a COOLING phase (with some scientists even suggesting a possible new Ice Age!).

"Global warming" is a fraud. "Climate change" is a deliberate falsehood--as leftist leave the "sicence" totally behind. Any real theory of the climate of the Earth has to at least be able to predict the climate fairly accurately from year to year. "Glboal warming" ehtory has never even pretended to be able to do that, or even to predict the next decade accurately (it did not in 1998). The attempt to "save" the "bloal warming" religion with the term, "climate change", is simply a transparent deception--designed to use leftist dominance of the mainstream media--"the end justifies the means" philsophy of Communism--to sell everyone a bill of goods.

Therefore, even as Al Gore plannned to testify in an ice/snow storm, the media/establishment positioin is the Biden positiion (which should embarrass everyone on this side): " 'Global warming' is a fact। Accept it. Yo have to trust us on this. Our policies are necessary to "save" the planet, and you dhould not allow anyone to confuse you with the actual facts, or the ordinary tests of a "scientific" theory."

If you buy this perversion of real science (a skeptical process, rather than revealed orthodoxy), then you are either a leftist or have a malfunctioning brain (redundancy there).

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Rush Limbaugh vs. Republican Leadership (Fight Stopped as Leaderhsip Outclassed): Filtered Trhough Liars at

First, let me preface this entry with a simple, declarative statement: is composed of liars with a political agenda, and is worth no one's attention. If you want backup for this, consult my archive entries on This entry is about a article linked on Drudge (where I saw it, as I NEVER go to on my own). This article really confirms my view of, since it really represents the usual mainstream media attempt to use conservatives against conservatives--something has attempted before, and with LIES. This particular story has some credibility because of the way the Republican Congressional "leadership" supposdely played into the trap--so conveniently that I do not doubt that is distorting the matter somewhat. As I say, the people at are LIARS (whether they are as bad as the people at CNN--The Liar Network--is one of those questions like "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?").

The Politico headline (what did I just tell you about them?) is: Republican Leadership Tells Limbuah to Back Off". The story itself does not quite back up this headline, which I have to regard as a LIE. However, a House Republican "leader" (identified by as a leading "conservative", which is about the only time a person will be identfied favorably as a "conservative" on or anywhere in the mainstreamm media: when the person is attacking another conservative. Yes, I gurantee you that this story is meant as an attack on Limaugh and conservative talk radion--with the incidental benefit of stirring up trouble for Congressional Republicans with people like me). However, there is little doubt that the Republican establishment is unhappy with Limabaugh and conservative talk radio, and with people like me. The feeling is mutual, and LImbaugh was accurately expressing that feeling, and has been, in his attacks on the Republican "leadership" (or lack of same) in Congress.

Let me make another declarative sentence: I was rooting for Mitch McConnell (Republican Senate leader) to LOSE on election night, as I was rooting for almost every Republican Senator to LOSE on election night. Rush Limbaugh and I agree: We are no longer Republicans. However, Rush Limbaugh is actually more tolerant of the Republican Party establishment/"leadership" than I am. I aabaondoned the Republican Party before Limbaugh, and more strongly. I refused to support McCain, and I have been (accurately) disparagin Republicans in the Senate for YEARS. Limbaugh is actually late to this party. You will remember that McConnell tamely helped push through the first Paulson bailout the way the DEMOCRATS wanted it, with funding for ACORN. The man is a loser. I would not have voted for him if I lived in Kentucky.

Limbaugh is only expressing the frustrations of the conservatives out here in the country (including almost all of my brothers, including the one who owns the trucking company that no one is proposing to bail out, while Republicans support bailouts of all of these other people). Nope. I will tell you something that is as close to an absolute fact as things get in politics: If the Republican establishment, and Repubilcan "leaders" (whether called "conservative" or not), prefer to tell Rush Limbaugh to "back off" more than they prefer to tell Barack "World" Obama and Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi to "back off", as was the case with John McCain and seems to be the case with virtually all Republican "leaders", then the Repubican Party is surely dead.

Yes, this means this blog is proven right again. I have pronounced the Repubican Party, as we know it, as DEAD. That is D E A D. It now requires a conservative coup, or a complete new party (uhlikely as lthat is) to lead the conservative banner.

I agree totally with Rush Limbaugh: You can't rely on the present Repubican leadership to lead conservatives. They have proven they are unfit for that job. So my message to them, as well as to the liars at, is to BACK OFF. Your days are numbered, and your future is dark if all you can think of to do is trash Rush Limbaugh (emulating Barack "World" Obama, whose first Presidental interview was with ARAB media).

Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi

"House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income from an $825 billion economic stimulus bill, officials said late Monday, following a personal appeal from President Barack Obama at a time the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation."

The above is from an article now linked on Drudge. Yep. "Total Failure" Pelosi is too stupid even for Obama to stomach. This is hardly a matter of principle with Obama, since he has already authorized taxpayer money to be paid to worldwide organizations promoting abotion. It is, whoever, recognition that "Total Failure" Pelosi's attempt to "earmark" Planned Parenthood as a part of the "stimulus" bill was beyond stupid. See yesterday's entry, about how Pelosi tried to suggest that "family planning" was "good for the economy".

My brother should feel a little--only a little--better. His business is still not favored by the new central planners, as is true of most small businesses. In fact, small businesses are disfavored, since their owners (like my brother) still get the privilege of seeing the taxes they pay go to benefit OTHER businesses. Howvever, my brother can at least be comforted that "family planning" (Planned Parenthood) is not YET deemed more worthy of bailout than he is. Stay tuned. In the Age of Obama, Planned Parenthood is one of the designated winners.

Larry Kudlow and Doug Stephan: Fascists

Ever since the first Paulson bailout (little did we know then, although some of us predicted it, how fast and furious the bailouts would come), I have called Larry Kudlow a Communist, and have pretty much referred to all of Wall Street people (including "reporters" like those at CNBC) as Communists. That is obvious hyperbole on my part to make a pont. No, Larry Kudlow is not a Soviet style Communist (which basically, by the way, required allegiance to the Soviet Union). However, what Kudlow has consistently shown himself to be is a central planner whose main interest is central planning for the benefit of himself and his pals on Wall Street. That is the essence of Communism (with a capital "C"), if you take the Soviet part out. Read "Animal Farm", by George Orwell. Kudlow has totally abandoned "free market" principles, along with almost everyone on Wall Street, so lnog as the Federal Government takes action that Kudlow wants, to benefit the people (Kudlow's business and Wall Street plas) thata Kudlow wants to benefit. In short, Kudlow has become a central planning Communist, along with most of the rest of Wall Street people, so long as the central planning is done his way. That means no restrictions on the way Wall Street operates, or restrictions on business that Kudlow does not approve. Suggest something that Kudlow does not approve, and he becomes a "free market advocate (the intellectually dishonest hypocrite--another aspect of Commmunism), and suggests that the government is interfering where it shouldn't (where it should interfere being determined by Kudlow and his Wall Street pals).

Now I am calling Kudlow a fascist? And I am adding Doug Stephan? Have I gone round the bend? Nope. I merely see reality. As this blog has stated before, the "ar right" (allthough the "far right" is not a logical extension of modern, Reagan conservatism at all) and "far left" merge at the extremes. There is little differece between Hitler and Stalin--between National Socialism (note the "socialism") and Communism. The reason I have decided Kudlow more belogns under the "fascisst" label (even though this is again hyperbole, in the sense I am not equating Kudlow with Hitler) is that "fascism" really envisoned a partnership between government and big business to create a totalitarian system. That seems to me to be exactly the principle Kudlow is now advocating.

There is a book out (named in a prior blog entry, although the name escapes me as this is being typed) which describes the rise of fascims (not Hitlerism, but the fascism of Mussolini, Franco, and the "intellectuals" behind the movement). The book draws the startling parallels between the path down which we are heading today and that former movement toward fascism (and Communism). Michael Crichton, in his critique--in the appendix to "State of Fear"--of the (political) "science" of "global warming", describes the "eugenic" movement that would lead to Gitler's "Final Solution", although that "Final Solution" was never publicly part of the doctrine of fascism. Planned Parehtnood is a natural descendant of that "eugenics" move described by Crichton, and in this new book. In short, fascism was not just another word for Hitler. It was a philosophy of total central planning, even down to reproduction and eugenics, that is not far from where Larry Kudlow and Doug Stephan now stand (although I don't pretend to know what they think of eugenics, other than their kind of thinking easily leads in that direction, if it were not so "politically incorrect" these days).

That brings me to Doug Stephan. As I have said before, my problem is that my alarm is set to the station (Rush Limbaugh station) that carries the Doug Stephan radio program, and I tend to wak up to that program (big mistake--it is not worth listening to). Doug Stephan is a John McCain, Northeast kind of Republican, which means he is a total idiot. You know that because he considers Uri Geller an "expert" on the "mind". Part of my "You Are a Kook If:" series: You are a kook if you believe that Uri Geller has special mental powers, or special expertise in the mind. Uri Geller is the fraud (Amazing Randi basically proved it) who clamie (falsely) to be able to bend keys with his mind. I digress (sort of).

I woke up to Doug Stepnan today, as the alarm wen off (I HAVE to do something about that). Therefore, I got to hear him say that (besides totuing Uri Geller yet again):

"If we let the (free market) system alone, businesses and people would fail. It will be really bad (as I said, the John McCain, Kudlow, Republican establishment, central planning position). But if the government steps in and keeps businesses and people from failing, it may not be bad at all."

Notice how we are back to Kudlow fascism/Communism--a central planning partnership between government and big business to contrl all of our lives, and to pick the winners and losers (under Hitler, the Jews were some of the losers).

See my entries over the past two days, describing my brother. Contrary to what Doug Stephan says, the government is NOT proposing to "save" all businesses and all people. Rather, the government is proposing to "save" big business and Wall Street, as it forms that unholly, central planning partnership between Big Government and Big Business. If you are favored by the new central planners, you may get a destructive kind of help (Obama is killing GM off even at the time he is purporting to save it). If you are part of the disfavored, such a my brother and every small business in this country, you are on your own--worse than on your own since you have to pay for the baoilout of the favored people, and for the salaries of the central planners themselves.

Nope. I stand by it. Larry Kudlow and Doug Stephan are fundamentally economic fascists. In the end, both fascism and Communism do not work. They create worse problems than they solve. In fact, central planning not only does not work; it cannot work. There is no theoretical way for it to work (except by luck and chance, over a limited period of time).

Those who disregard the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. To call Larry Kudlow and Doug Stephan "doomed" is to be too kind to them. It is no accident that Kudlow was one of those "conservatives" invited to have that infamous dinner with Obama (no one considering Dough Stephan important enogh to have dinner with anyone important). The problem is that the new fascists, like Obama, Kudlow and Stephan, are going to doom the rest of us--not just themselves.

Monday, January 26, 2009

Planned Parenthood and My Poor Brother: Feel the Pain!!!!

Here is my poor brother's email reply to my previous entry:
I thought Planned Parenthood was already federally funded. How do they need a bailout?" My brother is, of course, corrrect. Planned Parenthood, even as it promises to use donor funds to abort minorities (taped phone conversations), already receives substantial Federal funds, along with state, local, United Way, and private foundation funds. Plus, leftist BILLIONAIRES swear by Planned Parehnthood. Cannot Planned Parehthodd get adequate funding from those sanctiomonious, homicidal hypocrites? Could not Obama's internet fund raising empire raise more than enought money for Planned Parenthood, without asking taxpayers to participate in funding what they regard (correctly) as an organization which promotes infanticide. Planned Parenthood is one of those groups that suppors unrestricted abortion up to the moment of birth. You can just feel the pain in my brother, as he realizes just how low on the present central planning list of priorities he is, except as a target (evil, carbon burning trucking comopany). Bill Clinton could "feel his pain". I doubt if Obama even notices, since he is too busy being the Messiah for his worshippers. What my brother fails to understand, of course, is that central planners, and central planning favorites, always want MORE. Oliver (in "Oliver Twist" and the movie) was a pker in comparison. Citigroup, AIG, Bank "Owned By" America, GM, Wall Street and PLANNED PARENTHOOD: They all want MORE. And they will continue to want more. The one rule of central planning is that when some amount of money and central planning does not do what it was supposed to do, the answer is always more central planning--more power for the central planners and more money for their favorites.

Planned Parenthood (Bailout), Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi, and My Poor, Disfavored Brother

Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi is proposing $155 million dollars for "family planning servieces" (translation: a bailout of Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry, even though contraception is the sales hook--there being no excuse for this bailout under any label, especailly when leftists can support these ogranizations themselves if they did not want to use their central planning power to make the taxpayres do it). Yep. It is the main headline on Drudge. "Total Failure" Peolosi actually said that birth control (including abortion, in leftist speak) will help the economy. No one could make this up. You wold be hard put to find a stupider woman than Nancy Pelosi. However, her stupdity is concealing an important point here, as my brother gets the shaft again. You remember my brother, the co-owner of a strugglig trucking company who needs a mere 2 million dollars to survive? Well, here is another bitter pill for my brother. The central planners now in charge regarnd Pallnaed Parenthood as more worthy of "saving" than his trucking company (and other small businesses). See my entry yesterday about how central planning means that the central planners choose the winners and losers in our country--with themselves and their favorites bein the winners. Planned Parenthood is one of the favorites of the current central planners. Obama, of course, defended abortion on January 22 (anniversary of Roe v. Wade), and--the day after--revoked the Reagan/Bush executive order that American taxpayer money not go to promote abortion in other parts of the world. Therefore, my brother is out in the cold. The new central planners do not care about small businesses. They care about Pallned Parenthood, big business, and Wall Street. More fundamentally, it is who they care about that are "saved" (they think), while the rest of the country--like my brother--are left to twist in the wind. This is tyranny, and Barack "World" Obama and Nancy Total Failure" Pelosi (not to mention Harry "Dirty Oil" Reid) consider themselves as tyrants/central planners who know best how all of us should live, along with who should "win" in this society and who should "lose". Fetuses don't vote. They lose. My brother does not control enough votes (although they should beware here, since small businesses may ultimately control enough votes), and therefore he loses. Leftist Democrats, who are the present central planners in charge, believe that Planned Parenthood fanatics, illegal immigrants (even though they supposedly can't vote themselves), unions, the poor, those dependnt on government or who can be made so, big business, and Wall Street can keep leftists in power. In the end, of course, central planning fails even the "favorties", and the whole house of cards crashes down. But the central planners care about their own power and "success", and the future is not theirs to see. Therefore, the abortion industry (modern "merchants of death", more than the arms industry ever was) is now favored. My brother is now disfavored, as his tax money is used to bail out pro-abortion organizations (in which he does not believe), and banks (trying to foreclose on him). This tyranny is the very essence of central planning. You want evidence it does not work? Obama today issued new executive orders telling the EPA to reconsider regulatioins preventing states with half the automobiles in the country (like California) from imposing more strict emission (and other pollution) controls on automakers selling in their states than the Federal Government is imposing. Obama also told the automakers to sell more fuel efficient vehicles by 2011. Again, I need to translate for you. These central planners are proposing to "save" GM by providing money, at the same time they are KILLING OFF GM (as anything other than a nationalized compnay--which is coming) by other parts of their central planning religion. My poor brother, in fact, is one of the disfavored here. California is already making it difficult for his trucks to operate in California (and Arnold wonders why California has a huge deficit). And Federal standards on truck enginnes (not to mentioin other Federal regulations) have increased the cost of trucks. In 2010, further regulations will go in effect requiring that new engines (using urea, of all things) put out exhaust that is CLEANER than most of the air taken in. "Global warming" laws and regulations threaten to do this kind of thing to most of the industry in this country, based on a "relgion" that is nothing less than a fraud. Obama's "energy czar" is a socialist who apparently buys into the idea that the "rich" countries of the world have to reduce their standard of living to help the poor countries deal with "global warming"--the China idea that "global warming" is a problem to be handled by the "rich" countries which "created" it. And here is my poor brother, who makes his living by trucking your food and other goods to you--perhaps one of the most disfavored industries of the new/old central planners ("new", in thtat they are now in power, and ready to help their favorites and punish those they do not favor). In the Age of Obama, some (defenseless fetuses up to the moment of birth) are going to die quickly. They may be the lucky ones. The rest of us may die slowly--or not so slowly, in the case of my brother's trucking company. Too bad that my brother is ot one of the favored ones. He has already said (perhaps, but only perahps, tongue in cheek) in this blog that he is ready to turn socialist if it will save him. I am afraid that plays into the hands of central planners, and results in the eventual doom of all, as all effort turns toward being "saved" by the Federal Government. When central planning and this tyranny fails, as it inevitably does, there is nothing left (except, maybe, someone like Hitler or Stalin--Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi, Barach "World" Obama, and Harry "Dirty Oil" Reid are bad enough). Enjoy the Age of Obama while you can--you favored ones. It will not last. P.S. Yes, Nancy Total Failure" Pelosi is the very lefits who firs denied that her position on abrotioin was contrary to her "Cathlic teaching". . Then she had to admit the obvious--that the Catholicism of her parents officially regards abortion as a mortal sin--meaning that if a Catholic is wrong on abortion, I may meet that person in Hell. It would be worth going to Hell to meet Nancy Pelosi there, as I have said about "journalists" and other leftists. As readers of this blog knows, I am an agnostic--tempted by religion only in that I would dearly like for Hell to exist, for the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and mainstream "journalist" types out there. Contrary to what some non-subtle thinkers may think, I am not wishing these people to Hell. I am just confident they will join me there if Hell exists, a question as to which I am neutral, and it would give me a lot of satisfaction to have lefitsts with no leftist judges with whom to appeal. But Nancy Pelosi revealed her position on religion to be the same as mine, although she is not honest about it. AFter admitting that she, in fact, does not follow her "Chatolic upbringing" , she stated (see archives for exact quote) that she understood that Cathlic teaching said she had free will, with a mind of her own. Therefore, she was entitled--had a "duty"--to use that mind to arrive at her own view of right and wrong, and she was willing to discuss her decisions with God when the time arose. While I would never put it quite that way (the woman is STUPID, after all), that is essentailly why I am an agnostic. I don't believe in faith overruling human reason. You will note that is exactly Pelosi"s position. In other words, she admitted she does not believe in religion. The very essence of religion is that you live your life according to the religion. Otherwise, it has no purpose (other than the leftist one of deception--most true leftists do not believe in religion; like me, they are much tooarrogant to agree with God if God disagrees with them). Now, Pelosi is too stupid to understand any of this. But I think it worthwhile to remind you that the woan is a total fraud, as well as being terminally sstupid.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Citigroup Gets Bailed Out Over and Over Again, as My Brother Is Left Twisting in the Wind

A headlined item on Drudge today (as part of a general theme that banks are failing, despite our lurch to socialism), was taht the FDIC has guarantted 12 billion more in loans to Citigroup. That is, the TAXPAYERS are guaranteeing those loans, making them risk free to the lenders. As I have previously said, 2 million would save my brother's trucking business, which is fundamentally healthier than Citigroup's banking business. Banks, in fact, are my brother's main problem right now (along with bank-like entities like GE and its financial units). Is trucking really less necessary to the country than banks? If all of the small truckng companies out there got money to get through this period, would it not create more jobs than giving banks money to cover their losses? Why is the government preferring banks over turcking companies? Over small businesses in general? These are the questions my brother is asking, which central planners have no way of answering. This is why my borther has converted to socialism (comlete socialism, where if Citigroup and Bank of America get bailied out, so do small businesses, which create most of the jobs in this country). Right now, we have socialism for Wall Street, the rich, and the poor. My borther fails to see why small business is being left out. If the ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission) or SBA were to guarantee loans for my brother, he could save his buinsess The same could be said of many small businesses in this country. Such loans may be the only way to save a competitive trucking industry in this country, but the fascists/'Communists out there want nothing left but central planning. For those who say that expanding government funding to this extent would be complete socialism, my brother agrees. He would understand if Citigroup and Bank of America were not getting bailed out. But he does not understand "socialism" for the favored few, while he is left to sink or swim in this struggling businesss. And he is right. There is no way to justify it, except our "leaders" simply saying that this is how we choose to do it (Big Business and Wall Street favoring central planners that we are). "We will choose the winners, and we will choose the losers." That is the message the government central planners are now sending (and it is the message of all central planners, which makes every central planning sysstem a form of tyranny mainly for the benefit of the central planners themselves, and their favored few).

Pfizer and Wyeth: Mergers Against the Public Interest, Violating Free Market Theory

A news item last week was that Pfizer was planning to buy Wyeth (another large drug company). Pfizer is already part of "Big Pharma", or "Big Drug". There is abstolutely no excuse for allowing Pfizer to pourchase product on the stock exchange,m when Pfizer has failed to develop good products of its own (as its big sellers are about to go off patent protection) . This is simply allowing, if we mistakenly allow it, the cration of a private, central planning empire. This is exactly what we did with the big banks like and brokerage companies like Bank of America and Goldman Sachs. Look at the results there ("too big to fail, as private central planning combined with government central planning to get us in the mess we are now in). Then there is Exxon and Big Oil, where we (including Democrats) allowed Exxon to purchase oil on the New York Stock Exhange, rather than have to develop its own resources. Then leftist Democrats had the nerve to complain about evil "Big Oil", and the lack of a free market, when those leftist Democrats did nothing to try to stop the big mergers that created Big Oil. This blog has revealed the dirty little secret. Lefitst Democrats want huge, central planning corporate empires that become the best argument Democrats have for a huge, central planning Federal Government (even though that compounds the mistake on an even larger scale). All Obama has to do to prove me right about this is fail to even try to take action against this kind of big merger. All Obama has to do is come out against the merger, and any other huge mergers concentrating power in the hands of already big corporations, and Obama can probably stop them Further, he has the votes in Congress to strenghen antitrust laws, if he wants to do so. This--contrary to most planned Obama actions--would not be interference WITH free markets, but protection OF free market theory (which presupposes market units not big enough to control or overly influence the market). All Oama has to do to prove that leftists are intellectually dishonest, and are perfectly willing to let Wall Street run the country, is to let these big mergers continue to happen. Any bets? The other dirty little secret is that these corporate empire builders, and newlly minted Communists on Wall Street (like Larry Kudlow) and the entire crew at CNBC, and really basically all of Wall Street) have become central planners who are pretty much Democrats (or establishment, leftist Republicans, like Paulson--really Democrats at their self-interested, central planning heart). Yes, I would support Obama on this. I would support him if he came out publicly against this kind of merger. I would support him if the trashed Pfizer fro trying to cover up its failure at developing drugs by buyng product (and research) on he stock excahnge. I would support Obama if he really went after big, merging corporations, Teddy Roosevelt style, instead of merely using the existence of big corporations as an excuse for ever bigger government--as they central plan together, fascism style.. and Ebay: The Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate Points at YOU!!!!

The Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate is this blog's unauthorized reincarnation of the old "Laugh In" award for outstanding stupidity and/or malfeasence that came to the Finger's attention in the previous week, even if sometimes it is recognition of a chronic, log-term problem. and Ebay (because it owns, although it may deserve the award in its own right) are the deservign reciipients of this week's Finger, represented by a statuette of a pointing INDEX finger. See the previous entry for the full story of why the Finger pointed at and Ebay this weekend. Award ceremony (as usual, a virtual ceremony, without grpahics, taking place entirely in the imagination, which is why it is suggested taht the iimage of Dick Martin presenting the old "Laugh In" version of the Finger be used solely as a visual aid); Imagine Dick Martin thrusting the poiniting Finge statuette at the camera and saying: " and Ebay, this is for you. You deserve it. I have been asked by the blog editor to announce that this week's o deserving recipients of the Finger have committed a special crime. They have proved thqat the editor of this blog is a total idiot--something leftists have failed to do for some 45 years (the time during which the editor has been an outspoken conservative)--a total idiot for continuing to deal with I, Dick Martin, wish to annouce my personal embarrassment at being the virtual visual aid/spoksperson--albeit without my permission--for such an idiot." and Ebay: Consumer Deception (Did Madoff Learn from These People?)

Yes, I am accusing and Ebay (primarily because it owns, although I don't think much of Ebay even berfore it bought of CONSUMER DECEPTION (inherent in the way they list, and/or allow sellers to list andor force sellers to list uadio books especially, although is not bery good in its listings of ordinary books and movies). As usual, you don't have to take my word for this. I am going to prove it to you, naming names and pointing fingers (as and Ebay are the recipients of this week's dreaded/coveted Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate--see next entry). First, let us identify the essential information for an online site to give a purhcaser interested in purhasing an audio boo: 1. Name of book; 2. author of book; 3. Whether book is Abridged or Unabridged; 4. Whether book is on tapes or comact discs; 5. (you won't believe I have to list this one, but with and sellers, I do) Whether the whole book is being sold, or only part of it, excerpts from it, or some different adaptation of it; 6. Name of reader (not perhaps essential, but almost); 7. Nujmber of companc discs/tapes, and hours of total reading (again,, perhaps not totally esssential, but important information. NEVER (and I mean never) gives all of this information as part of the listing required by Sometimes, most of the information is provided in the Seller comments, but often the most essential information (like whether the whole book is being sold) only appears on the SECOND screen, if the person purhasing clicks on the .... indicating that the seller comments continue on the next screen (requiring a "click" in the right place). This virtually guarantees CONSUMER DECEPTION, and consumer deception is what occurs. I will go further. It is CONSUMER DECTPION for not to list whether the bookd is abridged or unabridged, and whether it is only Part 1 or only Part 2, on the initial search results. That is absolutely fundamental information to tell you what is being sold, and lack of it makes the search listing a LIE. I stand by this statement, and will elaborate. Take "Bleak House", by Charles Dickes (which I recently listened to on tape). Blacksoneaudio (a seller) ordinarily does not offer books like this in one set of tapes. Rather, the book is offered in multiple parts (usually 2), which must be purhased separately . You can argue that this is deceptive in itself, since who wants to purchase only the first half of a book. It is like buying onlyl the first part of a VHS movie. Yes, has sometimes listed movies, like serials, where only part was being sold (again, not stated in teh listings, but only in the seller comments--if there). Now you can understand how maybe some people would, in fact, be willing to order audio books in seaparate transactions, if rarely, since the complete audio book can be 30 hours lonig. But it is a total deception, and a LIE, to represent that you are selling an 'unabridgeled book when you are selling only Part 1, unless it is clear on every page that the listing occurs that you are only selling Part 1 (or part 2). It is routinely NOT clear on, the third screen, and sometimes not even then. Blackstoneaudio routinely does not give this information unless you click on the Seller comments, and get to the THIRD screen (first screen being initial search listing, which mispresents what is being sold; second screen being the main listing page, which again misrepresents what is being sold; and the third screen representing the Blacstoneaudio page, which--not prominently, but almost in fine print--finally tells you that only part 1 is being sold and not the entire novel). I ACCUSE and sellers like Blackstoneatudio of CONSUMER DECEPTION--deception inherent in the way allows these audio books to be listed without essential informatioin being prominent. You can probably go to "Bleak House" on and see examples of this. However, I will use another Dickes book to illustrate my point: "Little Dorrit". Now Blacksoneaudio markets "Little Dorrit" in two parts, sold separtely . Right now, Blacksoneaudio lists "Little Dorrit" on The first search screen will give you a price for the book (a LIE, since it is not for the whole book). You get to the second screen and tells lyou the book is being sold "unabridged" (which I consider another LIE, in context, although I am aware that the term refers to every word being read, instead of to whether the whole book is beingsold, since it seems to suggest that you are getting every word of the whole book--"abridged" or "unabridged" not appearing on the search page, by the way, even though that is essential information as to what product is really being sold). provides a lot of totally USELESS informatiion on its main listing page that will give you the idea you are getting information to tell you whether you want the product. WRONG. It is only if you click on the ... indicating further sller comments that you MAY (not prominent) find out that Blacksoneaudio is only selling part 1 or "little Dorrit", and that you will only get half of the book if you order it. Blackstoneaudio is given 100% (lol) by as a seller. I would not give them more than 75%, although I admit their readings are generally very good. One of the "Bleank House" tapes, by the way, was recorded badly, and indecipherable, but that is the kind of glitch you regularly get with audio tapes. It is not nearly as bad as the deceptive marketing of the product. Wait. It gets worse. Under that same search listing for "Little Dorrit", has another seller ooffering the product (in used condition), at a lesser price. But, remember, the second, product description screen fails to tell you hat only Part 1 is being sold (or is it?). This new seller, Alibis_Books, also has an extension f the "seller comments". However, this merely tells you that "14 casettes" are included. Unless lyou are aware that "14 casettes" is only half of the complete book, you will not know that Alibis Books is LYLING to you when it repreents it is selling "Little Dorrit". It is only selling half the book. Which half? Ah, who knows? You might assume that it is part !, since this is listed on the same lising as the Balckstoneaudio item saying that Blacksoneaudio is selling only part 1 (which you do not see by clicking on the Aiibis Book itme, but only if you also click on the Blackstneaudio item). But clearly DOES NOT DISTINGUSIH between selling part 1 or part 2, since that information is not part fo the listing. So Alibis Books MIGHT be selling part 2!!!!! Who knows? Now, used ot have an obvous place to click on to ask a seller question. Now that Ebay is running the site, y9ou get a lot of distractin marketing information about Ebay (which tends to be deceptive in itself), but there is no longer any obvious way to ask seller questions about the product being sold. Thus, unless you do an FBI type investigation, you do not know what product Alibis Books is selling, AND CANNOT EVEN FIND OUT. I am sorry. I regard "deception" as a kind word for all of this. Now let us go to "Nichoas Nickleby". "Nichoas Nickleby" is one of the longest books ever written int the Engish language. You will find the usual listing of only PARTS of the book. But you will come to one listing of an "unabridged" version of the book for $28.00. Is this casettes or dics? Dont expect to find out from or any of the sellers. The listing does not tell you. How many hours? No clue. Who read the book? No clue. Is it only part of the book? well, you don't know. You would assume that it is the whole book, unless you had experience with But it is too cheap. Remember, this is a LONG book. Ordinarily, the price would be at least near $50.00, even on discs. Now is a discount seller (sometimes, as with Ebay itself). A $28.00 price MIGHT be the full book, EXCEPT that also tries to tell you your "savings" (another lie, since does not even know if it is the entire book in cases like "Little Dorrit")? tells lyou that the ordinary retail price of this book is in the 30's. That is SUSPICIOUS. So what are you getting if you order this $28.00 item? Who knows? And there is no easy way to find out. Does that exhaust the problems with Not on your life. In my experience, the wrong book or movie is routinely listed in the wrong place. Let us go to "The Talisman" by Sir Walter Scott. well, you might be aware that Stephen King also wrote a book by that name (with Peter Straub). I ordered "The Talisman" from (Kevabooks). See below as to how stupid that makes me. I ordered the Sir Walter Schott version. What I got was the Stephen King version. Yep. The seller said he will refund the money, AFTER I return the WRONG audio book. He did offer a label, but I presently have no working printer. This is a $20.00 purchase. It is hardly worth the $20.00 to go through the trouble of sending this kind of item back, although I did (as a matter of principle). Then I have to wait and see whether I get the refund. Yes, I can complain to, but that involes going through even more hoops. Does this seller even HAVE the Sir Wlater Scoott book? Note that I was not told the right book was being sent, but that I would get a refund. From previous experience with, the WRONG book is often listed in this kind of situation. makes little effort to police its listings. I know that not only because of my experience with books sent, but because I have seen sellers who list the WRONG book or movie under a listing, and TELL you that they are selling a different book or movie. Now that is hones, but gives you not confidence in the listings. Nope. Once you go beyond current best seller movies and books, is turly unreliable and inherently deceptive. That is especially true with regard to audio books. Bottom line; YOU ARE A TOTAL IDIOT IF YOU BUY ANYTHING FROM HALF.COM. JUST FIGURING OUT WHAT YOU ARE BUYING IS AN EXERCISE IN TIME CONSUMING FRUSTRATION. I admit that I have ALWYAS felt this way about the "auctioin" process of Ebay--a concept I regard as inherently suspect. But I started to buy from Half.comm before Ebay bought it. It is a discount site, and not an auction site. I have no experience with Ebay itself, because of my opinion of the whole concept. has always been bad in the way I describe. But it has gotten WORSE since it was bought by Ebay. As I say, there is now a lot more stuff in each listing, while things like asking seller a qutestion have been deleted or hidden. Again, YOU ARE A TOTAL IDIOT IF YOU BUY ANYTHING BEYOND THE MOST OBVIOUS FROM HALF.COM. Wait a minute. It may have occurred to you that I just called myself a "total idiot". I could try to excuse myself by saying that unfornately is the only convenient place to even find lots of books and movies (especially if you don't want to deal wth Ebay itself). But I would be kidding you. I DID just call myself a ttoal idiot, and that is what I am. That is the problem with being honest, and having a mind that leads you to the logical conclusion, even if that conclusion is that I am a total idiot. I have, in the past, quite for a year or two at a time. I am thinking about doing it again, although I have not yet decided (yes, I really am a total idiot. But this is a case of doing as I say and not as I do, undless lyou are willing to accept the CONSUMER DECEPTION and frustrations of dealing with If you buy from them, do so with your eyes open, and with the knowledge you are a total idiot. No, I have not found to be substantially better, but I do not have as much experience there (the experience I have has been frustrating, and there is a unversal lack at these online sites of adequte descriptions of the product being sold). I don't seee how someone unfamiliar with has any chance on buying something like an audio book. The pitfalls are numberous, and the information provided DECEPTIVE. All in all, and Ebay are more than deserving recipients of this week's Finger (the statuette of an INDEX finger pointing, representing the oustanding example of stupidity, dishohensty and/or evil to become manifest in the previous week).

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Obama, Messiah vs. Rush Limbaugh (Ideas): Burning Heretics at the Stake!!!!

"President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration." This is the lead from today's New York Post story headlined on Drudge. It is, of course, well known that leftist Democrats, including Obama and the mainstream news media, do not really believe in free speech for anyone other than themselves. Thus, the sanctimounious hypocrites can push for the destruction of conservative talk radio (by threatening to again impose a "Fairness Dcotriine", or just use the intimidation fo the Federal Government to threaten licenses of stations who carry Limbaugh, et. al. as not "acting in the public interest"--which leftists devfine as the same as their interest). But you don't need more than this statement to understand that leftists do not believe in "bripartisanship" either, or in compromise (other than the Soviet Union definition: "What is ours is ours; what is yours we negotiate."). To leftist Democrats, "bipartisan" means areeing with them. That is it. Pure and simple. And that is what Obama has just said. So long as Repubicans recognize the Messiah, and commit no heresy, they will have a place at the table. If, however, they stand on principle (wich is all Obama means by "listening to Rush Limbaugh"), and firht Obama because what he is trying to do conflicts with their fundamental principles, then Obama is going to burn them at the stake (figuratively speaking). He, and the Democrats in Congress, intend to freeze (neat mixing of metaphors here, from "buring" to "freeze") them out--not even let them participate in anything. Leftist Democrats, Obama, and the mainstream media think that they have been effective in trying to use Rush Limbaugh as an anchor to weigh down the Republican Party. There have been few greater miscalculations in the history of man (a miscalculation similarly made by the Republican Party establishment, which is why both Rush Limbaugh and I are no longer Republicans). The Republican Party is dead because it ceased to stand for anything--not because of Rush Limbaugh, who DOES stand for consistent principles that the Republican establishment has abandoned. Even with the handicap of a Republican Party that has lost its soul, and an economic meltdown caused by Democratic politicians creating a housing "bubble" and by the panic of Bush and Paulson, this Republican Party still almost beat Obama. Obama should have won by a double digit percentage, but he was not even close. What are these principles of Rush Limbaugh that Democrats think are so out of step with the American people? Well, let us list a few of them: 1. Rush Limbaugh does not think we should be moving toward socialism. The American people agree (turst me on these, even though I personally have taken no scientific poll, and don't believe in them anyway). 2. Rush Limbaugh des not beleve in bailouts of GM, Citigroup, Bank of American, etc., while small business like my brother's trucking company are left to fail (often because of the actions of those very banks that taxpayers like my brother are bailing out). Okay, Rus does not believe in bailing out my brother either. But neither does my brother, except when he sees banks, GM, and Wall Street being bailed out while small businesses like his are picked as "losers" in this new socialism. Again, I am confidant the American people agree. I am just not confident the Republican establishment agrees. In fact, I am confident they do not, as reflected by the domestic policies of that leftist mole, President Bush. 3. Limaugh opposes amnesy for illegal immigrants, supports enforcement of our immmigration laws, and supports real border security. So do the American people. 4. Rush Limabugh supports the death peanlty. So do the American people. Obama will appoint judges who he knows will outlaw the death penalty (doing his dirty work for him and Obama's fellow leftists), while Obama can talk around the subject. 5. Rush Limbaugh opposes gay marriage, and societal APPROVAL of the gay lifestyle. As the vote in California shows, so do the American people. Again, the Republican establihsment is on the wrong side, as with illegal immigration. Again, Obama wants to waffle and deceive, while appointing judges who will overrule the people (as in California) and opposing any attempt to overrule those judges. 6. Limabuh opposes abortion of nine month fetuses/babies before they have a chance to be born. Obama supports abortion on demand up to the moment of birth, as do real leftists. The American people are with Limbaugh on this one, too. Oh, I know Limbauh opposes abortion on demand back to conception, as do I, but you would be amazed at how close the American people (majority) are to agreeing on that one, too. Remember (because I was there when that fight was taking place then), the MODERATE LEFTIST position on abortion used to be that it was unthinkable to allow abortion on demand (deception on the part of Planned Parenthood and other leftists, since unrestricted abortion on demand was always their goal, up to the mooment of birth). The moderate lefist position was that reasonable exceptions should be made (which they wanted to eat up the rule). I am absolutely confident that this is, at worst (from my point of view), still the position of the American people. They just are unable to express that position, sinc the judges have taken over. 7. Limbaugh believes that the Federal Government is too big, never "sacrifices" its own power and growth, and that people should not look to the Federal Government to solve all of their problems. The American people believe this too (and vote to sabotage that belief). Even Obama SAYS he believes it. He LIES. You see what I mean? If the American people understand what Rush Limbaugh stands for, they will mostly agreee with him. If Repubicans stand for what Limabugh stands for (whether they say they are "listening" to Limbaugh or not, they can win. As it is they (Republicans) are a party without a soul, and without any discernible principles. That party deserves to lose, if the Republican establishment remains in control, and I fully intend to do my personal best to make sure that party does lose. Enough people think like me that the Obama/Republican establishment recipe for the Repubilcan Party merely spells doom for that party. The party rejected Limbaugh by nomnating McCain, and suffered a total disaster. It is not Limbaugh himself that the Republican Party needs to follow, as he, himself, says. It is the principles that Limbaugh stands for that remain the soulf of the real Republican Party. Or do they? That is what the present battle for the soul of the Reublican Party is all about, with the mainstream media doing its best to support Obama in making Limbaugh the "bogeyman" (meaning that the mainstream media and Obama do not have to fight Limbaugh's IDEAS, where they have no chance).

Dames: No Different in the Age of Obama

This blog has a recurring feature titled simply "Dames". The feature arose out of the hard boiled films of the 1930's, and the filmnoir films of the 1940's and early 1950's. This was a time when the fundamental nature of dames was appreciated more than it is today. As I have said, every 12 year old boy should be required to view at least 20 of the film noir films before reaching his 13th birthday. It is only by observing the truly terrifying, man-eating females of the documentary (disguised true documetaries) on the nature of women that young boys have any chace of being prepared for real life. The feature returns to this blog, after al long absence, albeit with truths on the nature of dames outside of film noir, and a little bit more modern (in terms of the date of the movie) than most of the examples cited in this blog. Indeed, "dames" are never mentioned in these quotes, but we know who is being talked about (and it is not the submissive ladies that Turner Classic movies and Jane Fonda suggested the movies were all about from the time the Production Code emasculated women to modern feminism). The first quote is from Janet Leigh, in "Fearless Fagin (rating 74 on 100 scale): A fellow like you should play with lions instead of girls. It is safer". ("Fearless Fagin" was the pet lion of the male lead/sap). The error here, of course, is to believe that only some fellows are safer playing with lions than with girs. The second quote is from the immortal John Wayne, as he watched Katerine Hepburn stomp away in "Sooster Cogburn" (rating 79): "God help us if they ever get the vote." They did, of course, get the vote, and look at the mess we are in. It was one of this country's greatest mistakes. This feature may return more often, depending on my mood, as I try to place blame for the absurdities of the Age of Obama. My brother callled me just to tell me this morninng: "Do you know how far this Messiah thing has gone. On television (this morning or last night--I was not clear on that), they showed a PICTURE (not a video clip, but a copy of a photograph) of Obama and Biden sitting in a meeting (apparently between them). You could really only see the back of Biden's head clearly. What kind of country have we become that the media is so worshipful that a mere unimportant PHOTOGRAPH is neessary to satisfy the media lust to show Obama (favorably) at every opportunity. I did not tell my brother this, but I blame this on dames. See the quotes above. Then think hard not only about recent election results and the feminized media, but about Michelle Obama. Q.E.D.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Caroline Kennedy: Leftists Lie (Will She Succeed Uncle Ted as Senator from MA.?)

It has been awhile since I have quoted this recurrent blog paragraph seeting forth a fundamental truth about leftists--especially lefitst "journalists" and leftist politicians: Leftists lie. They lie routinely, and as a matter of course. they lie without guilt, and in a "higher" cause than truth (their own agenda). They lie for perceived political advantage, and to advance their agenda. Segue to the Carolilne Kennedy farce in New York. Rush Limbaugh is right. We are living in a sitcom. The early "leaks" this week (anonymous sources, which meenat that the leftist "journalists" were lying, and passin on lies from people in the Caroline Kennedy camp with an agenda) were that Caroline Kennedy was withdrawing from consideration for alppointment to replace Hillary Clinton as Senator from New York because of the ill health of Ted Kennedy (lol as to this whopper). Ted Kennedy, of course, suffered his main health setbacks BEFORE Caroline Kennedy even started her very public campaign to be named Snator--despite no obvious qualifications. Now let us count the intellectually dishonest leftists (liars and hypocrites all, and Alan Colmes that specificallly includes YOU--leftist political hack that your are). If they had any shame (they don't), all of those leftists--especially if they trashed Sarah Palin--would fall on their sword (they won't, as they are without honor). Wait!!!! The absolute farce in New York got worse. That bit about Ted Kennedy was an obviious lie (by both the "journalists" and the sources). But Governor David Patterson was not to be outdone inshowing how leftists tend to be lousy human beings. He apppointed a CONSERVATIVE (ok, for New York, and she can be expected to move left quickly). That is not the scandal/comedy here. "Anonymous sources (meaning "journalists" let them conduct attacks from the safe "shadows" of anonymity) "close to the Governor" (meant to hint that Governor Patterson himself was putting this out) said that the "personal reasons" Caroline Kennedy "withdrew" (or was she pushed?) included: Illegal nanny; Failure to pay taxes, such as worker's compensation (no problem for Al Franken in Minnesota) and others, such as social security for the nanny; and unspecified PROBLEMS WITH HER MARRIAGE (who could make this up, after Hillary Clinton MOVED to New York with the biggest farce of a marriage in the known, or unknown, universes (with that lie about being a Yankee's fan). This, of course, was character assassination by malicious gossip (the stock in trade of modern "journalism"). Now you might wonder why Caroline Kennedy bothered to lie (bay anonymous source). Is not she politically dead? Not necessarily. These are leftists, and she is a Kennedy. Ted Kennedy killed a girl, and went to see his lawyer while she was dying under the dark water. Massachuseets leftists have elected him to the Senate ever sense. And remember the example of Hillary. She MOVED to New York (where she had never lived). Will Caroline Kennedy move to Massachusetts with the idea of succeeding her uncle Ted in the Senate? Don't bet against it!!!! You might think I am becoming too cynical (or that I always was too cynical). My opinion: I am not cynical enough. Today's politicians and "jounalists" require something beyond cynicism.