Enough Is Enough

Just another WordPress.com weblog

A different point on the Electoral College.

So I was thinking about some of the arguments that have gone around about dismantling the Electoral College, mostly centered around how the popular vote should win and all that. The counter to that roughly boils down to that only California, New York, and Texas would choose the President then. Of course there was that map of all the counties that showed the sea of red and only small pockets of blue, highlighting this point.

Well this week I’ve made a spreadsheet. It’s what I do, and yes I am “that guy”. I went to the states’ returns with two points I wanted to ask.

  1. For those states where Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, did she also win the majority of the counties as well?
  2. Even though the Jill Stein count is pretty much moot, I wanted to see how many counties she chose to ignore the “integrity of the vote” and continued the  “disenfranchisement”.

First off, I am not touting that this is the official list of states, there are websites devoted for that. I’m merely going from those sites to make a point. If you want, I can email you the spreadsheet and you can correct any area you might find. Also, I’m only accounting for Trump, Clinton, Johnson and Stein in my spreadsheet, so I’m not accounting for states that have other candidates.  Although, Nevada had “None” on their ballot, and 28,824 votes for that, so you go guys! Lastly, some states, and you know who you are, had so many bleepity-bleep counties, you need to consolidate to a dozen, I’m not going through this again. Anyway…


So the highlighted states where I mentioned, that’s where the popular vote went for Hillary, but not representing the full state. That’s what I foresee will happen if we eliminate the Electoral College.


So here are the states.

Yeah, Washington….I don’t know how to read that one. But the rest I see as Hillary supporters surrounded by vast amounts of Trump supporters, yet the state went for Hillary, thus taking away their voices. How about people that live in those states. Do you feel you are representative of what you voted for?

Now on to the Stein recount. I know at this point it’s beating off a dead horse and all, but I have a spreadsheet and I know how to use it, I mean it man. Now to be fair I do not know what criteria they are using to decide on which counties to focus exclusively on. I don’t even know which counties, nor care, so they may be included in this count. I just went with a difference between Trump and Clinton, that’s all. If you see at the top I have 500. That means that if the difference in that county’s margin was so small say 500 votes then that should “trigger” a recount, right? Here’s how changing the numbers gets different results.


So obviously I changed that number, got different results, which on each tab of the states will show which counties this affected.


Again, I know it’s a moot point, it’s just to showcase the hypocrisy of the scam that’s being perpetuated here. If the “integrity of the vote” actually mattered they would’ve gone into other states. It’s the lying to our faces, again, that I just find offensive.

Anyway, just had this buzzing in my head, took a lot of time, I hope this helps.




December 15, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Why America is great!

Over the years I’ve seen many people on the left decry the U.S. for a multitude of reasons. “The Founding Fathers were slaveholders, so we were born from racism.” “We have the blood of millions on our hands.” “We drink decaf instead of regular!”

Let me give a brief history of myself. I’m from New Yawk, damn proud of it, still feel it every day. Yet I moved away, it kept veering further and further left, so I decided to head to Arizona. I felt I no longer connected with the New York scene, I left. Which to me makes me wonder: if those on the left are so incensed about this country, why stay? Why not leave us in this pigsty and laugh at us from France?

Instead we get all this invective, blaming every ill on us because of the “past”, therefore we of today need to pay someone for it. Let’s start with conceding that this country was founded on the death of many people, slavery was an atrocity, and decaf is decaf.

So what?

I don’t ask that as to be snarky, it’s a genuine question. If everything that is said is true, then again “so what?” But let me step back and give my reason for saying that.

When you look at the pages of history every one is written in blood. Not just America’s, but every nation. Not one nation arose without some form of death within its borders. The Mongols, the Roman Empire, Greeks, the Crusades, on and on. Even today there is slavery and barbarism, we see it now with ISIS. So for the left to say that all of life was sweet cream, THEN AMERICA WAS FOUNDED AND ALL WENT EVIL is absurd.

We as a society throughout history has tried to evolve (leftists love evolution so much). Learning from mistakes, trying to make up for past misdeeds, each iteration attempts to “civilize”. The bar is raised. Does every nation meet up to that bar? No of course not. The Romans tried, barbarity conquered them. Europe brought the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, yet how many of those nations remained powerful? “The sun never set on the British Empire” lasted for a few centuries, now today?

Our Founding Fathers knew of history, the influence of barbarism, yet they sought to create a nation that at its core buttressed against that. Were they perfect? Far from it. But they put mechanisms in place that would move the nation, evolve it, towards perfection, away from barbarism, and ultimately become the Civilization.

Instead the left sets the bar to an unattainable height, compares the Founding Fathers to that height along with the rest of us, then declares in sweeping terms to be null and void. To “fix” it they then propose to use the tools of barbarity to bring it down: violence, intimidation, oppression.

As an example we see the strife caused by illegal immigration. The left justifies this behavior because of our initial immorality therefore we cannot compel them to return. However if you look at some of the arguments of groups such as La Raza (which is Spanish for “the race”) the justification is often because the U.S. “stole” Mexican land in the first place.

If that is the standard that they insist, then what about the Incans? Didn’t Cortez, and Spain in general, murder the Incans for Southern and Central America? If La Raza and other leftists were true of their convictions they should find any descendants of the Incans, hand them the keys and head back to Spain. That is essentially what they’re expecting of “European settlers”. Hmm… I guess not.

The question then goes back to “So what?” The country is moving away from those very complaints, with means in writing that allows us to fix these issues as they arise. Are we going to tamp down every wrong? We’re trying, but using the tools of barbarism will never correct anything.

November 25, 2015 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Conversations in my head – A missed moment I regret.

To set the stage, several months ago we were going through the State replacing the PCs in the courts and all that, 3200 PCs I think, took six months or so. Anyway on this particular day I was in a Juvenile facility, I think it was a half-way house type of setup.

So here I am, setting up the PC, and I’m hearing the staff talk to some of the “clients”, one of which was this young man I can’t say was more than maybe 14. He would talk, all sorts of stuff, and then would say “I’m so stupid”. He said this a few times, it actually hurt that this seemed like a feedback loop on this poor guy.

While I was working on this PC I started this whole conversation in my head, which I’ll get into quickly. However, I didn’t end up talking to the kid, I lacked the courage. Since then I feel regret that I didn’t say this, maybe it might’ve done something, who knows.

“Excuse me, I couldn’t help overhear, but I noticed you have a tendency to say ‘you’re stupid’. I know this isn’t a Good Will Hunting moment, like some stranger can fix your life in five minutes. But I felt it was important to say this.

If you could indulge me in a favor. During the day, just say ‘thank you’. I’m not suggesting you thank these guys, heck say it to the wall, or your pillow, your corn flakes, whatever you want. Just….. ‘thank you’.

Now this is ridiculous. No way this might actually work, some strange guy saying ‘thank you’ will fix everything. Well, maybe because it’s ridiculous it might work. Something simple. Completely absurd. A small effort. Will never work. Could it hurt?

Here’s why I think it will work. Often times people learn not only by reading but also by hearing as well, that’s why we go to class for the lectures instead of staying home and reading. If you hear something, even in the background, your brain picks up on it and creates that pathway.

But here’s where it works even more. When I was about your age I once read about ancient sorcerers and wizards, how they started out as apprentices no older than you are. Every day they would practice the same routine, saying the word, making the hand gesture, over and over. What the scientific theory behind this was that the repetition of this would create electrical circuits within the brain. Eventually the word or the gesture would become meaningless, the thought itself would engage the circuit, the energy would flow, the reality would change. The thought changes reality.

So now let’s take you as an example. You say to yourself over and over that ‘you’re stupid’. This creates the reality that you live in, you become this reality. Every time you say that it repeats within that feedback loop, it becomes real for you.

All I’m suggesting is, change the programming. ‘Thank you’. Whether you believe you’re thanking God if you wish, or just expressing appreciation for being alive. ‘Thank you’. I try to say it every day, I don’t always remember, but I do feel a little relief. ‘Thank you’. Maybe it’ll mean nothing, give it a try though.“

Anyway, that’s it. I feel bad I chickened out though.

September 11, 2015 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

So where was I?

At the time I was living in Staten Island, a ferry-ride across the Hudson from Manhattan. I worked for a company that serviced the train stations for Amtrak, so I would go up to Boston, down towards DC, all the main points in between. Eeeeehvery month. My base-of-operations was Penn Station, so I would regularly take the bus to the ferry, then the subway up to Penn.

That Tuesday I was supposed to start the run, probably go upwards to Boston, however I decided to play hooky. I was going to watch some TV, there was this all male version of the View, honestly don’t remember the name, I think Donnie Banaducci was in it.

Anyway I turn on the tv……what the hell is this? It took maybe three loops of the footage for me to finally get what was going on, by this time the first tower had collapsed. I try calling my family, let everyone know I’m fine, but circuits are busy. Instead I just email everyone I can.

The thing is, my usual travel-pattern as I mentioned was to take the subway, the 1/9 line which ran directly under the Twin Towers. So had I gone….. Either I would’ve been stranded at Penn, having to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge to get home, or I would’ve been stranded in the station I happen to be at, maybe even having to take an expensive taxi home. I doubt though I would’ve been directly underneath though, when this started subway traffic was re-directed away.

It wasn’t until a week later when people, other than emergency personnel, were allowed into lower Manhattan. I remember that ferry ride was so quiet, everyone was pressed forward to see. No one spoke. I was tempted to sing “We Are The Champions” by Queen, decided against it.

There wasn’t any motorized traffic at all, so everyone was walking to the nearest subway station, which was over by Wall St. It was so eerie, not hearing any motors at all, just people walking, and hardly any voices. And there was an odd smell in the air, a weird taste to it. Then there was the men in camo holding the big guns every few blocks.

September 11, 2015 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Response from last week.

[Note: I originally wrote this last Friday, however Julie suggested I waited. So I’m sending as-is. I also was going to send it to Facebook, baby-steps.]

I have to admit I have mixed feelings about today. Let’s start with that I am happy about the results of the ruling, although I have not read any of the particulars. What I do know is that the case was clearly unConstitutional and should not have gone the way it did.

So let’s first get into the good part. Many years ago, at least 15 I think, I really didn’t have an opinion either way on gay marriage. I wasn’t gay and I wasn’t married, so I wasn’t concerned. However if someone came to me and said that only I had to make the choice on whether to allow it or not, sheesh digging the bottom of the barrel are we? ooookay then.

First I would sit both sides down and tell them each how they have more common ground than they realize, how each side had valid points, and how each side was full of [bleep] and acting like children. After about ten hours of that, hey you chose me remember?, I would come down on the side for gay marriage. In the end love is love, no matter the packaging, and governments have no place defining that.

So let me tell you about my Uncle Rich and Uncle Tom. Now I do not know nor do I care if they had a marriage ceremony, a commitment event, a love bracelet exchange, not important to me at all. I’ve seen them together, >I< say they’re married. I don’t need no [bleeping] piece of paper to tell me that. I can see it in how they act with each other. To me he’s my Uncle Tom, end of discussion.

This now leads into my deep concern. When this all got my attention the mayor of New Paltz, honestly couldn’t remember his name, and Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco both decided that, despite laws that said outright that gay marriage was not allowed, they went against that and started marrying people anyway. I don’t care if you don’t like the law, work to change it but don’t do this.

Shortly after this there were these activists that shopped around the courts, we know this because they bragged about it, and came across one in Massachusetts that made it “legal”. Also happened that they couldn’t correct it even if they wanted to, required two consecutive State Congresses to forward an amendment to the State Constitution.

Let me be clear. I firmly believe that gay marriage will happen, there is a natural evolution within society where ultimately it will be as normal as inter-religious marriage or inter-racial marriage. There will always be people that have problems with this, how many centuries on religious marriages alone?

However, stunts like this undermine the entire point. All that is seen is the stunt, that’s it. Whenever there is an actual eye-to-eye discussion those on the side for gay marriage have the moral side. Yet do this and it’s gone, all is left is “you can’t win unless you cheat”.

So back then around Massachusetts I told some friends of mine who are in the lifestyle that this was bad, serious bad. Within the decade after how many states passed laws or state Constitutional amendments saying marriage was man/woman only? I lost count. California kept passing laws, even their own Constitutional amendment, and it still was ignored. That is not working the moral high-ground, that’s cheating.

I was seriously feeling like the scene in the Birds, people are screaming at this guy who’s standing in gasoline not to light his cigar, then boom! You want a clean win, so no one can say anything.

At the time, which was roughly I’m going to say 15 years ago, I told them what they needed to do was to educate the populace. Keep it out of the courts, keep it outside of politics, that’s the worst thing that could happen. If you went to the people that disagreed with you, won’t let you get married and talked to them. They have valid points, treat them as such, work with them. Eventually you will show them that you’re not the Boogey Man after all. Do that and you’ll have it as normal as any other marriage in 30 years. Every time these stunts happen it’s only going to add on a decade.

Instead what happened was that the vitriol increased, bakeries and photographers were bullied, people shouted down. The Boogey Man became real.

So to me I see today, and even yesterday, as a loss. Bad behavior won, not the merits of the case. It should never, EVER, have gone into the political realm. I am more offended that they went (not bleeping this, deal) on fucking bended knee to the god politic, which has it’s own physics. It’s dependent on polls, votes, and sound-bites. Then get annoyed when this works against them like California or a bakery?

“But it ended the way you say you’re wanting.” Not this way. The left often says “the ends justify the means.” No, the means DEFINE the ends. Can you honestly tell me that in oh say a decade, when the political winds change, that this won’t be undone? That the same party that voted against Civil Rights in 1964 before they saw their power wain and went for it won’t see someone new batting their eyes and go that way? That when ultimately someone that you disagree with, and it always happens, are you comfortable with the weapons you put on the table could potentially be used against you? I would prefer those weapons not be there, but now they’re there, so don’t complain.

Let’s take a hypothetical. I know a couple, J and D. D gets murdered, horribly. The guy is caught, goes to trial. J sits in the trial every day, he wants justice for D. However he’s seeing the defense attorney file motion after motion, evidence getting tossed out left and right. He’s obviously concerned that the guy might go free. So what does he do?

Let the process take it’s course? No, he goes and plants incriminating evidence, then goes on the stand and says he saw the guy do it even though he wasn’t there. Hey framing a guilty man isn’t wrong after all, it’s for justice.

So it’s found out, does the judge get the justice part? [Bleep no!] He throws the case out and let’s the guy go. Does the prosecutor understand that justice was involved? [Bleep no!] He may even prosecute J. “Yeah the defense got those thrown out, but that was expected, that’s part of the process, the rest though was going to put him away, and now it’s all considered part of the ‘poisoned tree’, no jury would believe it now.”

In case you’re wondering, in this analogy I am the prosecutor, screaming at the top of my lungs “stop!! That’s a serious bad idea! Everything is going to crumble if you keep doing that!”

So I hope I’m wrong, but the people that made these laws you disagreed with didn’t go away. Did you convince them of the error of their ways? Or just push them into a box? That won’t last, never does. So how confident do you really feel, that foundation filled with concrete or sand?

[Anyway this is where I originally ended it. Since then I’ve read and heard some disturbing things. First, gay marriage is legal in Canada, since 2005. However suppose I was there and said marriage was only man/woman, did you know I would get hauled in front of a committee, have to spend thousands of dollars in legal costs, so even if I win I still lose. And if the committee finds I did say it I would have to pay the person that brought the complaint.

Now if I had children in Canada teachers could ask them what I’m teaching them, so if I tell them man/woman they could take the kids away. This to me is chilling.

Here in America there are stories of couples purposefully, gloating about it, going to churches and other venues to find those that refuse to marry them. Why? To embrace their first amendment rights, to applaud as Hillary once said “I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration”. No, they outright say they’re targeting these places to either strip away their tax-exempt status or sue them like the photographers and bakeries.

This to me is the problem, what I was warning against years ago. This is fascista, undiluted and brazen. The trouble begins when someone actually does have the moral point, but then gets blinded by the “anything goes”. It’s very alluring since it can bring quick victories, however it’s like a diet pill, you get that five pounds off but never stays. Ultimately fascista loses each time, just look at Germany and Italy.

This I just don’t get, the point is made, yet still the need to kick-’em-while-they’re-down, I don’t see it. There’s also the move to “make sure they can’t take it away”, meaning to keep Republicans out of office. This to me is very telling.

First it’s an admission that the Supreme Court did not bestow any rights for marriage. If it can be taken away so easily by the government, it’s not a right. As I said, house built on sand. So ten years from now it’s going to be taken away, twenty years returned, thirty years gone, forty back, and on….. That’s not a right.

Secondly, this shows that it was never about gay marriage, it was a means to say “bad Republicans”. This is now another “if you vote for them they’re gonna take X away from you, vote for us, we’re nice.” This game has been played by the Democrat party for about 50 years now. “They’re coming for your welfare, Mabel, your Medicaid is next, and they’re going to take away your abortion-rights too, we’ll save you.”

Lastly, why worry about Republicans in office, unless you’re afraid they’ll use those weapons on the table, like I said before. This should never have been brought into the political realm, it wasn’t a mistake, it was a tragedy.

I used to be a Democrat, I saw the absurd games they played, the pretzel-logic they had to use to hold the positions they have.

So ultimately I will be for gay marriage, no doubt. But not if it involves fascista, I will fight against that every time. The means DEFINE the ends.]

July 3, 2015 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

So where’ve ya been?

The last time I was blogging, which was over a year ago, I was trying to find out about the Article V legislation that was going through the AZ State House and Senate. I then went to see the folks in Austin (waves hello), found out when I got back home that it was resting comfortably collecting dust in a desk drawer in the Senate. I actually made an entry here but for some reason it didn’t save, let the wind out of the sails I guess.

This past year State Representative Townsend tried it again, even getting it over to the Senate in plenty enough time. However, like last year, Senate President Andy Biggs, or Diggs, or whatever, never assigned it for committee. During November prior I watched him in a debate on the Article V question, he is very much against it. So it’s no surprise that he’d kill it, but not even allow it for a debate? Coward. I am so glad I tried to vote against him in the Primary, failed I’m afraid.

So I’ve been going in my head this entry and others for almost a year, just never got to sit and do it. Insomnia, wooooo….. Anyway I will try.

July 3, 2015 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The perfect solution on immigration even a liberal can love.

I believe I have the solution to the immigration problem. The left often sees these poor migrants crossing vast deserts, hoping to come to this country to escape the drug cartels and poverty. Yet they’re constantly saying how America is so racist, makes you wonder why we would be considered their solution.

However putting all that aside I propose the following to fix every issue that’s arising. For every migrant that crosses the border, looking and yearning for a better life, one liberal gets deported to a place of their choosing. That migrant could then stay in said liberal’s house/apartment, use the car which we’ll be happy to give them a license for. And the liberal can then get out of this cesspool of a country and summer on the Seine. A total win-win for all. The poor and indentured gets to upgrade instantly to a better life, the liberals get to live in their Socialist utopia, today, right now.

Of course only a heartless, hypocritical liberal would pass up this sweet deal. They get a paid flight to wherever they want, first class even. After all, it’s for these poor children, you don’t hate those children, do you?

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

July 16, 2014 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

As You Wish

(250 points reference)

So I watched the Series Finale of Once Upon A Time In Wonderland. For those that don’t know that’s a spin-off of the Once Upon A Time series, which is a modern take on the classic stories like Snow White, Wizard of Oz, et al. The Wonderland series dealt with of course Alice as well as the Genie/Jafar storylines. I liked how it ended (note to writers Carter Bays & Craig Thomas), they did it really well.

Anyway the series did give me a thought: if I ever came across a Genie, what would I wish for? This actually brought on an entire series of thought, hence the post.

First off, I believe the Universe is a grand machine meant to create life, beautifully balanced: energy, time, matter, gravity, and probably more than my imagination could contemplate. So then a question: Why would a balanced machine allow reality to be optional? Sentience-in-play or not, any movement of energies in one direction has to have an equal and opposite reaction, there’s a law on that I hear. That whole storyline of wishing for a million dollars, it’s granted, then my mother’s plane explodes and I get the insurance money.

So since whatever wish I would make would have an opposite reaction, and I don’t believe it would a one-to-one ratio, the wisest course would be: Not to make a wish.

Anyway, just thought I’d mention it.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

May 7, 2014 Posted by | Television | Leave a comment

A couple of responses on Feminism.

So on occasion I read this blog, Misfit Politics, a group of young Conservatives, they make me so proud. Anyway one of the contributors, Brandon, had an article on Feminism, here’s his post. http://misfitpolitics.co/2014/04/brutally-honest-things-i-and-other-men-truly-think-about-feminism/ An interesting read.

Anyway what my point for this post is to give my two responses in the comments. You probably would need to read the article to get the full context of what I’m responding to, but it can be stand-alone, I guess.

Yeah you hit the thing the left could never convince me of, that there’s a “wage gap” between the sexes. Here’s the “logic”.

We currently have an immigration problem. Why? “Because there are jobs that Americans won’t do”.

Well sure there are, you just need to pay them. “What, and have $15 a head lettuce???”

Sooooo.. then you need to have labor cheap. “Well yea…um no they have to be on a ‘livable wage’”

But when you increase the minimum wage businesses either close, fire people, or hire as only part time. “Well that’s because they’re greedy capitalist oooooh I hate those capitalists!”

So then it would make sense for those “greedy business owners” to keep the wages low to stuff their pockets? “Yeah yeah now you got it ooooohhh I hate those capitalists!”

Then if women make less than men for the same work, why won’t they just hire more women and pocket the cash? “………ooooh I hate those sexist greedy capitalists!!”

And for the record, I make about $46k a year, my wife $120k.

I also find the same generation that coined “free love” now chastises men for engaging in their sexual needs as though that’s a bad thing. How Puritanical of them. They develop a culture that has, daily, movies, television, magazine advertisements, etc. practically pornographic, yet I’m just “being a man”? How about the next time my wife has PMS I should say “oh you’re just being a woman”. That’ll work, although I have found the couch is a bit comfortable. On many occasions.

WWBD? What Would Brietbart Do?

And the second comment.

Here’s the problem actually. The left often leads with a false logic where you would be a fool to disagree. Take the “women earn less money than men”, where if that’s the entire story sure, it’s an outrage. They then lead with their solutions, which never actually solves the problems, but let’s back up to the original point. If you smoosh the entire data into a pancake, forgetting the fact that men tend to go into careers with higher pay such as CEO of Fortune 500 companies while women gravitate towards teachers as an example, leave out the maternity time, number of hours worked, sacrificed, sure you get the numbers they foist. (Ignoring of course that for the last few years (Obama’s reign) women’s pay has gone down, and that in the Obama administration they’re paying women .74 cents to the man. Hmm….)

So if we just go with the canard as that solely, that getting different pay for the same work is morally wrong, this isn’t new. It’s been talked about since the Industrial Revolution began, and there have been mechanisms put into place to correct. Child labor laws, equal pay laws, entire governmental oversight on pay, and on and on. Yet the “problem” still persists….. “Inconceivable. You keep saying that. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

Now if we get to the entire point of one person getting more pay over another based on an intangible reason i.e. skin color, gender, sexual preference, often the Conservative reaction is to work to correct that so everyone will get the same pay. The left’s knee-jerk is to get the government to make an artificial pressure in that direction which will make things all better. Definitely. Wait, it’s still not working? Better but in another government program to create pressure in this direction now. Nothing? Ok another government program…….

Conservatives work to get everyone to enjoy their full liberties. That was borne out with a Civil War, passing the Equal Rights amendment, passing Civil Rights laws, defeating Democrat Jim Crowe laws, fighting against the Democrat-terrorist-arm KKK, desegregating the schools, each and every time Conservatives are the ones to remove the barriers to freedom.

The left however only seek ways to make their Cause-Celebes-of-the-day gain advantage over others by restricting freedoms. Listen to all the “solutions” that the feminists put forth, are there any that don’t take away from men’s rights? I am all for removing the obstacles, but hobbling others to do it is just swapping victims. You only have to listen to the reactions of the left to legitimate claims of reverse discrimination to verify this. Piracy under a banner is still piracy.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

I have to admit I stole that “piracy” quote from my favorite book. Ten thousand points to anyone who knows it.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?




May 7, 2014 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

New update on HCR2027.

Well on the 3rd of this month it was voted down, however it was then revoted on (don’t ask me how) on the 12th which it was passed. It was then sent to three committees; Government & Environment, Judiciary, and Rules. Unfortunately the bill wasn’t put on any calendar before the deadline, which was the last day of last week. The good news is that the sponsor of the bill, Representative Kelly Townsend, was able to get it onto SCR1016, which did pass. Here’s the committee meeting, the part of the discussion for 1016 specifically starts at 1:41:26. http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=13951 There’s are real jerk around 2:13 who refused to give up the mike, everyone had a three minute time limit that he went way over, he refused saying it was “his house”. No, you’re a guest, and you’re being rude to the other guests who want to speak. Unfortunately I was not able to go there, so I’m not on the video, next time.

So during that time I was calling all the committees, let’s get it on the agenda, let’s start working it, almost every day. Who knows if I did anything, we’ll see. Anyway not sure where it goes from here, so as my niece says “crossing fingers, toes, elbows and nose”.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?


March 26, 2014 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

On to the Senate…..

OK I called my State Senator to say I support it, so in case anyone is interested here’s the list.

Name District Party Email Phone (602) 926- Room
Ed Ableser 26 D eableser@azleg.gov 4118    303A
Nancy Barto 15 R nbarto@azleg.gov 5766 307
Carlyle Begay 7 D cbegay@azleg.gov 5862 315
Andy Biggs – President 12 R abiggs@azleg.gov 4371 205
David Bradley 10 D dbradley@azleg.gov 5262 313
Judy Burges 22 R jburges@azleg.gov 5861 302
Olivia Cajero Bedford 3 D ocajerobedford@azleg.gov 5835 314
Rich Crandall 16 V Vacated seat on 8/31/2013
Chester Crandell 6 R ccrandell@azleg.gov 5409 304
Andrea Dalessandro 2 D adalessandro@azleg.gov 5342 312
Adam Driggs – Majority Whip 28 R adriggs@azleg.gov 3016 212
Steve Farley 9 D sfarley@azleg.gov 3022 311
David Farnsworth 16 R dfarnsworth@azleg.gov 3020 304
Steve Gallardo  – Minority Whip 29 D sgallardo@azleg.gov 5830 313
Gail Griffin  – President Pro Tempore 14 R ggriffin@azleg.gov 5895 300
Katie Hobbs 24 D khobbs@azleg.gov 5325 308
Jack Jackson Jr. 7 V Vacated seat on 7/12/2013
Leah Landrum Taylor 27 D llandrum@azleg.gov 3830 315
Linda Lopez 2 V Vacated seat on 1/13/2014
John McComish  – Majority Leader 18 R jmccomish@azleg.gov 5898 212
Barbara McGuire 8 D bmcguire@azleg.gov 5836 314
Al Melvin 11 R amelvin@azleg.gov 4326 303
Robert Meza 30 D rmeza@azleg.gov 3425 311
Rick Murphy 21 R rmurphy@azleg.gov 4444 305
Lynne Pancrazi  – Assistant Minority Leader 4 D lpancrazi@azleg.gov 3004 213
Steve Pierce 1 R spierce@azleg.gov 5584 301
Michele Reagan 23 R mreagan@azleg.gov 5828 303
Don Shooter 13 R dshooter@azleg.gov 4139 200
Anna Tovar  – Minority Leader 19 D atovar@azleg.gov 3392 213
Kelli Ward 5 R kward@azleg.gov 4138 306
Bob Worsley 25 R bworsley@azleg.gov 5760 310
Steve Yarbrough 17 R syarbrough@azleg.gov 5863 309
Kimberly Yee 20 R kyee@azleg.gov 3024 302
Democrats 13
Republicans 17

Please remember to be respectful.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

March 13, 2014 Posted by | Politics, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

HCR2027 New Results.

So Monday my heart sank when I found out that the bill was voted down, however there was a bit of hope in that it was scheduled yesterday for reconsideration. I looked at all the ten Rs that gave a Nay vote and I called, most of them ended up on voicemail. However I was able to speak to a few of the staff, gave my name and number (no one called back pout), and said that I was in support of the bill so please change to a Aye? Maybe? I also called my own rep, who’s a Democrat, and I told the staff member that the way DC is running things the Governors and State Legislators might as well tender their collective resignations, Obama will run things. (He still voted Nay in the reconsideration) Here’s how it turned out.

BILL STATUS VOTES FOR HCR2027 – Reconsideration
Y = Yes NV = Not Voting V = Vacant
N = No EXC = Excused
 Vote  Vote  Vote
Member Name 3/6 3/12 Member Name 3/6 3/12 Member Name 3/6 3/12
John Allen R Y Y Lela Alston D N N Brenda Barton R Y Y
Sonny Borrelli R Y Y Paul Boyer R Y Y Kate Brophy McGee R N Y
Chad Campbell R N N Mark A. Cardenas D N N Heather Carter R N Y
Demion Clinco D N N Doug Coleman R N Y Lupe Chavira Contreras D N N
Jeff Dial R Y Y Juan Carlos Escamilla D N N Karen Fann R Y Y
Eddie Farnsworth R N N Thomas Forese R Y NV Rosanna Gabaldón D N N
Ruben Gallego D NV N Sally Ann Gonzales D N N Doris Goodale R Y NV
David M. Gowan Sr. R Y Y Rick Gray R N N Albert Hale D N NV
Lydia Hernández D N N John Kavanagh R Y Y Adam Kwasman R Y Y
Jonathan Larkin D N N Debbie Lesko R Y Y David Livingston R Y Y
Phil Lovas R Y Y Stefanie Mach D N N Debbie McCune Davis D N N
Juan Mendez D N N Javan “J.D.” Mesnard R Y Y Eric Meyer D N N
Catherine H. Miranda D N N Darin Mitchell R Y Y Steve Montenegro R Y Y
Justin Olson R Y Y Ethan Orr R N Y Lisa Otondo D N N
Jamescita Peshlakai D N N Warren Petersen R Y Y Justin Pierce R NV Y
Frank Pratt R N Y Martín J. Quezada D N N Bob Robson R N Y
Macario Saldate IV D N N Carl Seel R Y Y Andrew Sherwood D N N
T.J. Shope R Y Y Steve Smith R Y Y Victoria Steele D N N
David W. Stevens R Y Y Bob Thorpe R Y Y Kelly Townsend R N Y
Michelle Ugenti R Y Y Bruce Wheeler D N N Andy Tobin R Y Y
AYES: 32   NAYS: 25     NOT VOTING: 3   EXCUSED: 0   VACANT: 0

So woooooo! It passed! Of course it still needs to go to the Senate, so that’s going to be my next post. But hey, it’s a step closer.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?






March 13, 2014 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

HCR2027 Results

Some days….. Anyway, here’s the vote, it didn’t pass. Here’s the break down:

Y = Yes NV = Not Voting V = Vacant
N = No EXC = Excused
Member Name Vote Member Name Vote Member Name Vote
John Allen R Y Lela Alston D N Brenda Barton R Y
Sonny Borrelli R Y Paul Boyer R Y Kate Brophy McGee R N
Chad Campbell R N Mark A. Cardenas D N Heather Carter R N
Demion Clinco D N Doug Coleman R N Lupe Chavira Contreras D N
Jeff Dial R Y Juan Carlos Escamilla D N Karen Fann R Y
Eddie Farnsworth R N Thomas Forese R Y Rosanna Gabaldón D N
Ruben Gallego D NV Sally Ann Gonzales D N Doris Goodale R Y
David M. Gowan Sr. R Y Rick Gray R N Albert Hale D N
Lydia Hernández D N John Kavanagh R Y Adam Kwasman R Y
Jonathan Larkin D N Debbie Lesko R Y David Livingston R Y
Phil Lovas R Y Stefanie Mach D N Debbie McCune Davis D N
Juan Mendez D N Javan “J.D.” Mesnard R Y Eric Meyer D N
Catherine H. Miranda D N Darin Mitchell R Y Steve Montenegro R Y
Justin Olson R Y Ethan Orr R N Lisa Otondo D N
Jamescita Peshlakai D N Warren Petersen R Y Justin Pierce R NV
Frank Pratt R N Martín J. Quezada D N Bob Robson R N
Macario Saldate IV D N Carl Seel R Y Andrew Sherwood D N
T.J. Shope R Y Steve Smith R Y Victoria Steele D N
David W. Stevens R Y Bob Thorpe R Y Kelly Townsend R N
Michelle Ugenti R Y Bruce Wheeler D N Andy Tobin R Y
AYES: 26   NAYS:   32   NOT VOTING: 2   EXCUSED: 0   VACANT: 0
Republicans 37
Democrats 23
R Voting NAY 10
D Voting AYE 0

I would expect Democrats to toe-the-line, but if half of the Republicans that voted NAY change their vote we can get this to pass. If you want to call your Representative here’s the phone numbers:


Remember, be respectful. Anyway the good news is that it’s up for reconsideration this Wednesday. So let’s start calling.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

March 10, 2014 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

Wow I actually did it. HCR2027 in Arizona. {Updated}

Today I went to the Capital building, House side specifically, to watch some of the deliberations on HCR2027, which is meant to authorize delegates for an Article V Constitutional Convention. They did start a half an hour late, I joked they were on “Congressional time”. Anyway they had public testimony, one woman was trying to posit that George Soros is behind this push and is paying off Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, etc. Well, she read it on MoveOn, so it must be true.

Well I was able to give a speech, here’s what I said. Whew, I was nervous too.

Good afternoon Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for allowing me to speak. I wanted to raise my voice in support of this bill to allow the State to convene an Article V Constitutional Convention. Most notably over the last five years, but pretty much over the past few decades, the Federal government has increased its scope of power beyond those proscribed within the Constitutional framework. I may not be a Constitutional Scholar, however I can read. It’s not in there.

Every couple of years we elect people to represent us, yet once they pass the DC border they forget one key point: We are their employers. Instead they treat us as peasants and serfs, passing hundreds of laws, creating faceless bureaucracies which generate tens of thousands of pages of regulations, taxes upon taxes, yet treat us with disdain. “We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it.” When asked “where, specifically, does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate” we’re given the response “are you serious? Are you serious?”(Both Nancy Pelosi.) When asked about reading the bill the response is “why read the bill?” (John Conyers)

If I order steak I do not expect it to come out overcooked. If it does I tell them it’s not how I ordered it, which case I get an overworked manager apologizing and telling me it’s on him. I do not expect a burly, sweaty cook come out and tell me “you will take it, you will eat it, you will like it”. And then proceed to charge me for twelve more steaks. After all, there is an unequal distribution of steak in America.

  • 2 steaks are for EPA “green” compliance
  • 2 steaks go to the treasury to pay for foreign debt
  • 3 steaks are for the IRS
  • 4 steaks cover the ObamaCare mandate
  • And maybe, maybe 1 steak goes to its intended target.

Somewhere my math has to be off.

This is why we need to return power back towards the State, and ultimately to the People. It’s on loan from us, we can call it back. When Congress has an approval rating of 8%, the President’s approval around 44%, and even the Supreme Court’s approval is at 43%, it’s time to remind them who we are. We’re the employers.

I know some Constitutional Scholars consider the Bill of Rights a “charter of negative liberties”, but what do you call a government that ignores their own populace, create law without authority, no appeal considered? No, the Constitution is a charter of restraint against a government. It’s a carefully thought out document that balances between the liberties and rights of the populace, and the needs of the State to protect the Freedoms, to protect the Freedoms, of the populace. Not provide, not “transform”, not redistribute, not to give tax dollars to friends and contributors, but for specific enumerated powers that are clearly defined yet ignored.

So I ask you to pass this in the hopes of creating more “negative liberties” which will actually return government to its natural and appropriate boundaries. The insanity must end, even the Constitutional Scholar admitted that this path is “unsustainable”, yet he continues. The States have a responsibility demanded of them as proscribed in the Tenth Amendment to be a counter to this government. We need to stop the “transformation” and return power back to the People.

Thank you.

So I hope that helps, we’ll see. I actually did it. Of course now I have to get back to work…….ahem…


So this is the video for the hearing, I’m at 1:21:18 if anyone is interested. The woman that was talking about Soros is at 1:01:45. Yeow, yeah, I can’t explain her. The woman before her? The Illuminati? Yyeeahhhh…oookay……


I did want to address one point though that the “Soros” woman and another brought up, and that’s the “runaway convention” trope. We have a runaway government as it is, doing nothing is no longer an option. Besides that, suppose the delegates made amendment suggestions that are outside of the boundaries they were sent, so what? “I think we should have an amendment to force everyone to have blue hair.” Yeah, passed. 38 states (I was corrected yesterday on that so it’s worse then I thought) have to ratify it.

One speaker suggested the convention could be used to nullify the Constitution directly. Not if it’s voted down. So how can it be a “runaway convention” if the majority of the country can simply ignore it? Yeah it’ll be a wasted effort, but not damaging.

Anyway, that’s all I have for now. I wish I had thought to tell these elected officials how DC is making them irrelevant, look how they’re suing Arizona. Didn’t think of it until today. Next time I guess.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

February 11, 2014 Posted by | Politics | 2 Comments

Conversations with myself – Boot Camp

I admit there are times I watch a movie or tv program where I think “what if I was there….?” What would I say or do type of situation, just thought pieces really. Often these lead me to some interesting points, such as the one here.

So I was watching Stripes a few years ago, which pretty much generated this line of thought, specifically the scene where they’re all talking together with Hulka’s “big toe”. What would I have said if I was there?

Now I have to mention, I’ve never been in the service, I haven’t gone through Boot Camp or anything like this. I leave the judgment of this to those who’ve actually gone through it on how close I am, I could be completely wrong here, this is only how this made sense to me.

First I would start by saying I understand the Sarge. He has to have the loneliest job in the world. He can’t afford to get close to any of the recruits, simply because after a couple of months they’re out the door and in comes another group. After that, even if he trained them to do everything right, there’s still a possibility that one or more gets killed. So emotional attachments simply cannot enter in the equation.

This does lead the question though, how good are you, Sarge? How many letters have you written, and I know you know what letters. The ones that start “it is with deep regret I must inform you the passing of…” Accidents happen during training, however that’s what the training is for, to reduce the chance of accidents. Create that muscle-memory so in the “heat of battle” training will take over and people can survive. The lower the number of letters the better I’ll feel, the more trust I’ll have in the Sarge. He’s trying to give me the tools to survive in war, not be friends or show me how to dance.

So does he have to do it “this way”? Yeah, I think he does. Man has been killing man for thousands of years, war is not an unknown habit. I would think somewhere along the line someone figured out all the mistakes and formed a way of training soldiers to win. My observations on that are:

1) You cannot bring a group of people, with different backgrounds, personality, etc. and devise and tailor the program to each. So what has to be done instead is to break everyone down to their bare-bones, then build them up the “Military way”. Politeness doesn’t count. “The hottest flame makes the strongest steel.” You then get Drill Sergeants yelling in your face, told to run 30 miles in the rain, eat questionably grey food, and on and on.

2) Which then leads to the running and food. You think all that running and push-ups are meant as a means of sadism? Boot Camp is, essentially, Weapons Manufacturing. They need to get you increasing your strength and stamina, rather quickly. The food, you think you’ll eat better in the field? They’re getting you used to what’s out there, put a little ketchup on it. Same goes for training in the rain, in the snow, you’re getting used to weather of 110 degrees or minus 20 in theatre. “Comfort” in that arena is foreign.

3) The Sarge acts like the meanest SOB to everyone? So he has to take a group of say 30 people, who at the beginning my not care about each other. At the end they all have to be a one-way thinking unit that trusts and depends on each other. How? Create a common enemy. Everyone HATES their Drill Sergeant. Loathes. You hate him? Me too. Let’s bond together in that.

So at least for me in this scenario, the worst it gets the better it’ll be for me in the long run. Anyway that’s how I see it, I could be wrong. Regardless I salute those who serve and who have served, thank you.

December 20, 2013 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Undercutting my own point, but…

I admit, I’m a pessimist, and I have a spreadsheet to prove it. I’m looking at the odds of actually getting these amendments passed. Granted the groundswell can be such that it’ll move the dial, we’ll see. Again, call your local reps.

First I think we need 33 or 34 States, not sure exactly.

List by State Governors.

Governors 30
Alabama Bentley, Robert Republican
Alaska Parnell, Sean Republican
Arizona Brewer, Jan Republican
Arkansas Beebe, Mike Democratic
California Brown, Jerry Democratic
Colorado Hickenlooper, John Democratic
Connecticut Malloy, Dan Democratic
Delaware Markell, Jack Democratic
Florida Scott, Rick Republican
Georgia Deal, Nathan Republican
Hawaii Abercrombie, Neil Democratic
Idaho Otter, Butch Republican
Illinois Quinn, Pat Democratic
Indiana Pence, Mike Republican
Iowa Branstad, Terry Republican
Kansas Brownback, Sam Republican
Kentucky Beshear, Steve Democratic
Louisiana Jindal, Bobby Republican
Maine LePage, Paul Republican
Maryland O’Malley, Martin Democratic
Massachusetts Patrick, Deval Democratic
Michigan Snyder, Rick Republican
Minnesota Dayton, Mark Democratic
Mississippi Bryant, Phil Republican
Missouri Nixon, Jay Democratic
Montana Bullock, Steve Democratic
Nebraska Heineman, Dave Republican
Nevada Sandoval, Brian Republican
New Hampshire Hassan, Maggie Democratic
New Jersey Christie, Chris Republican
New Mexico Martinez, Susana Republican
New York Cuomo, Andrew Democratic
North Carolina McCrory, Pat Republican
North Dakota Dalrymple, Jack Republican
Ohio Kasich, John Republican
Oklahoma Fallin, Mary Republican
Oregon Kitzhaber, John Democratic
Pennsylvania Corbett, Tom Republican
Rhode Island Chafee, Lincoln Democratic
South Carolina Haley, Nikki Republican
South Dakota Daugaard, Dennis Republican
Tennessee Haslam, Bill Republican
Texas Perry, Rick Republican
Utah Herbert, Gary Republican
Vermont Shumlin, Peter Democratic
Virginia McDonnell, Bob Republican
Washington Inslee, Jay Democratic
West Virginia Tomblin, Earl Ray Democratic
Wisconsin Walker, Scott Republican
Wyoming Mead, Matt Republican

So that’s 30, and no I do not believe for a moment that the Democrats are actually Statesmen and not beholden to Harry Reid. Make me a liar, I dare you.

The next two are how the States’ Legislatures lean, either Republican or Democrat.

State Legislatures 28 Leans
Alabama Legislature House of Representatives R 65–40 R
Alaska Legislature House of Representatives R 25–15 R
Arizona Legislature House of Representatives R 36–24 R
Arkansas General Assembly House of Representatives R 51–48, 1 Green R
California State Legislature Assembly D 55–25 D
Colorado General Assembly House of Representatives D 37–28 D
Connecticut General Assembly House of Representatives D 98–53 D
Delaware General Assembly House of Representatives D 27–14 D
Florida Legislature House of Representatives R 76–44 R
Georgia General Assembly House of Representatives R 119–60, 1 Ind. R
Hawaii Legislature House of Representatives D 44–7 D
Idaho Legislature House of Representatives R 57–13 R
Illinois General Assembly House of Representatives D 71–47 D
Indiana General Assembly House of Representatives R 69–31 R
Iowa General Assembly House of Representatives R 53–47 R
Kansas Legislature House of Representatives R 92–33 R
Kentucky General Assembly House of Representatives D 55–44, 1 vac. D
Louisiana Legislature (self-designated) House of Representatives R 58–45, 2 Ind. R
Maine Legislature House of Representatives D 89–58, 4 Ind. D
Maryland General Assembly House of Delegates D 98–43 D
Massachusetts General Court House of Representatives D 131–29 D
Michigan Legislature House of Representatives R 59–51 R
Minnesota Legislature House of Representatives DFL 73–61 D
Mississippi Legislature House of Representatives R 64–58 R
Missouri General Assembly House of Representatives R 110–52, 1 vac. R
Montana Legislature House of Representatives R 61–39 R
Nebraska Legislature Unicameral and   non–partisan Senate with 49 members (affiliations: R 30, D 17, 2 Ind.)
Nevada Legislature Assembly D 27–15 D
New Hampshire General Court House of Representatives D 221–179 D
New Jersey Legislature General Assembly D 48–32 D
New Mexico Legislature House of Representatives D 38–32 D
New York State Legislature (unofficial) Assembly D 106–43, 1 Ind. (D) D
North Carolina General Assembly House of Representatives R 77–43 R
North Dakota Legislative Assembly House of Representatives R 71–23 R
Ohio General Assembly House of Representatives R 60–39 R
Oklahoma Legislature House of Representatives R 72–29 R
Oregon Legislative Assembly House of Representatives D 34–26 D
Pennsylvania General Assembly House of Representatives R 110–93 R
Rhode Island General Assembly House of Representatives D 69–6 D
South Carolina General Assembly House of Representatives R 76–48 R
South Dakota Legislature House of Representatives R 53–17 R
Tennessee General Assembly House of Representatives R 70–28, 1 Ind. R
Texas Legislature House of Representatives R 95–55 R
Utah State Legislature House of Representatives R 61–14 R
Vermont General Assembly House of Representatives D 98–44, 4 P, 4 Ind. D
Virginia General Assembly House of Delegates R 67–32, 1 Ind R
Washington State Legislature House of Representatives D 55–42, 1 vac. D
West Virginia Legislature House of Delegates D 54–46 D
Wisconsin Legislature Assembly R 60–39 R
Wyoming State Legislature House of Representatives R 52–8 R


State Legislatures 30 Leans
Alabama Legislature Senate R 22–12, 1 Ind. R
Alaska Legislature Senate R 13–7 R
Arizona Legislature Senate R 17–13 R
Arkansas General Assembly Senate R 21–14 R
California State Legislature Senate D 27–11, 2 vac. D
Colorado General Assembly Senate D 20–15 D
Connecticut General Assembly Senate D 22–14 D
Delaware General Assembly Senate D 13–8 D
Florida Legislature Senate R 26–14 R
Georgia General Assembly Senate R 38–18 R
Hawaii Legislature Senate D 24–1 D
Idaho Legislature Senate R 28–7 R
Illinois General Assembly Senate D 40–19 D
Indiana General Assembly Senate R 37–13 R
Iowa General Assembly Senate D 26–24 D
Kansas Legislature Senate R 32–8 R
Kentucky General Assembly Senate R 23–14, 1 Ind. R
Louisiana Legislature (self-designated) Senate R 25–14 R
Maine Legislature Senate D 19–15, 1 Ind. D
Maryland General Assembly Senate D 35–12 D
Massachusetts General Court Senate D 36–4 D
Michigan Legislature Senate R 26–12 R
Minnesota Legislature Senate DFL 39–28 D
Mississippi Legislature Senate R 31–21 R
Missouri General Assembly Senate R 24–10 R
Montana Legislature Senate R 29–21 R
Nebraska Legislature Unicameral and   non–partisan Senate with 49 members (affiliations: R 30, D 17, 2 Ind.) R
Nevada Legislature Senate D 11–10 D
New Hampshire General Court Senate R 13–11 R
New Jersey Legislature Senate D 24–16 D
New Mexico Legislature Senate D 25–17 D
New York State Legislature (unofficial) Senate Coalition 35–26, 2 non-affiliated
North Carolina General Assembly Senate R 33–17 R
North Dakota Legislative Assembly Senate R 33–14 R
Ohio General Assembly Senate R 23–10 R
Oklahoma Legislature Senate R 36–12 R
Oregon Legislative Assembly State Senate D 16–14 D
Pennsylvania General Assembly Senate R 27–23 R
Rhode Island General Assembly Senate D 32–5, 1 Ind. D
South Carolina General Assembly Senate R 28–18 R
South Dakota Legislature Senate R 28–7 R
Tennessee General Assembly Senate R 26–7 R
Texas Legislature Senate R 19–12 R
Utah State Legislature Senate R 24–5 R
Vermont General Assembly Senate D 21–7, 2 P D
Virginia General Assembly Senate R 20–20 R
Washington State Legislature Senate Coalition 25–24
West Virginia Legislature Senate D 24–10 D
Wisconsin Legislature Senate R 18–15 R
Wyoming State Legislature Senate R 26–4 R

Not looking promising there actually, especially when it gets to the States’ Legistlatures. How about we go with how the States went in the 2008 election?

Alabama McCain
Alaska McCain
Arizona McCain
Arkansas McCain
California Obama
Colorado Obama
Connecticut Obama
Delaware Obama
Florida Obama
Georgia McCain
Hawaii Obama
Idaho McCain
Illinois Obama
Indiana Obama
Iowa Obama
Kansas McCain
Kentucky McCain
Louisiana McCain
Maine Obama
Maryland Obama
Massachusetts Obama
Michigan Obama
Minnesota Obama
Mississippi McCain
Missouri McCain
Montana McCain
Nebraska McCain
Nevada Obama
New Hampshire Obama
New Jersey Obama
New Mexico Obama
New York Obama
North Carolina Obama
North Dakota McCain
Ohio Obama
Oklahoma McCain
Oregon Obama
Pennsylvania Obama
Rhode Island Obama
South Carolina McCain
South Dakota McCain
Tennessee McCain
Texas McCain
Utah McCain
Vermont Obama
Virginia Obama
Washington Obama
West Virginia McCain
Wisconsin Obama
Wyoming McCain

Not good. In 2012 when more people knew who Obama was? But then despite knowing 3 million Conservatives stayed home….not sure.

Alabama Romney
Alaska Romney
Arizona Romney
Arkansas Romney
California Obama
Colorado Obama
Connecticut Obama
Delaware Obama
Florida Obama
Georgia Romney
Hawaii Obama
Idaho Romney
Illinois Obama
Indiana Romney
Iowa Obama
Kansas Romney
Kentucky Romney
Louisiana Romney
Maine Obama
Maryland Obama
Massachusetts Obama
Michigan Obama
Minnesota Obama
Mississippi Romney
Missouri Romney
Montana Romney
Nebraska Romney
Nevada Obama
New Hampshire Obama
New Jersey Obama
New Mexico Obama
New York Obama
North Carolina Romney
North Dakota Romney
Ohio Obama
Oklahoma Romney
Oregon Obama
Pennsylvania Obama
Rhode Island Obama
South Carolina Romney
South Dakota Romney
Tennessee Romney
Texas Romney
Utah Romney
Vermont Obama
Virginia Obama
Washington Obama
West Virginia Romney
Wisconsin Obama
Wyoming Romney

Only picked up two States. OK, those States that were so mad they sued over ObamaCare.

New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
West Virginia

Ok how about for when things matter, like passage of Jessica’s Law?

Passed Jessica’s Law Passed Fully 37
Alabama Passed Partially 44
Kansas Partial
Minnesota Partial
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico Partial
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Pennsylvania Partial
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota Partial
Texas Partial
Washington Partial
West Virginia

So there’s hope. I’m just trying to define the problem, maybe show where we need to work hard on. I really do hope I’m wrong on this analysis, but we need to be careful not to run in with guns empty.

I’ve got a spreadsheet and I ain’t afraid to use it!

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

December 19, 2013 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

“Liberty Amendments” by Mark Levin – my thoughts.


So I finished the “Liberty Amendments” by Mark Levin, I sincerely think everyone should read these and hopefully try to get them enacted. I did have some questions though, hence the post. I hope somehow it filters up to the Great One, it is that time of the season for hope right? Anyway…

The main point of the book of course is to propose amendments to the Constitution to curtail the out-of-bleeping-control government. And since Congress neither has the will or inclination, as he quotes “an oppressive Congress would never agree to propose amendments curtailing its own tyranny”, it’s up to the States to return power back to the People. (So call your local reps today.)

After reading though I do have a thought or two. Or twelve.

Chapter Four: Term Limits For Supreme Court Justices

First off, I do agree that court cases should be reviewed. After all the left keeps touting that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document”, yet the decisions by the Supreme Court are so sacrosanct they remain for all perpetuity? Tell that to Dred Scott.

I disagree with Section 8 though, which essentially allows the States to override a Supreme Court decision, however it must be done, by either Congress or the States, within 24 months after the decision. I feel that this allows the minority to “run out the clock” on cases that are past that point. So suppose this gets approved on say January 1st, 2015. All cases up to December 31st, 2012 can’t be touched including ObamaCare? You can conceivably have a small number of states purposefully holding the process hostage to get past that limit, right? How then do we get rid of those acidic rulings?

What I propose, in addition to the amendments put forth in this chapter, is that provisions for review of court cases up to the date of passage of the amendment (say the January 1st, 2015 as an example), where sure at that point any and all cases passed afterwards would be of that probation. However during the deliberations of these amendments a secondary committee would be formed where each state could put on a list of the fundamental court cases, even if it’s been during the past century. That way not only ObamaCare could be up for review, but Roe v. Wade, heck maybe even Marbury v. Madison if the case is made.

What would happen is each state brings in their pet court cases, they explain before the committee the validity of each case, either a simple majority or super-majority (depending on how the rules are set up) would then agree to be put on the list. This way they could weed out the trivial cases. The cases would then go on the list in order of the number of States that had the same case, secondary order in reverse chronological order:

States         Case

48               Abbot v Costello (1998)

47               Laurel v Hardy (2002)

47               U.S. v Widget, Inc. (2001)

On down to

3                Happy v Golucky (1972)

So then let’s just say for number’s sake that list is a total of 100 cases. These cases would then go to the State Legislatures as the book described for review and an up-or-down vote in whatever manner the State provides (ballot initiatives, etc.). Now since resources are limited for the States they could select say the top 20 for that year. The following year might be only 10, and so on. They would of course have to vote on that group, not jump around the entire list, although they could choose to approve some of that batch and not the rest.

I would also disagree with the “24 months” clause that’s suggested. Since the announcement by the Supreme Court could possibly be near the end of a State’s legislative calendar (granted a Governor could recall back into session, but we shouldn’t count on the whims of a Governor) how about instead we have it as two full consecutive legislative sessions for a State. This also allows any State such as Texas, with only one session every two years, to be able to be a part of the conversation. So yeah, the other States would essentially be “waiting” for Texas, however as long as their votes are in during their two sessions what does it matter?

Now what about States that drag their feet? California might like ObamaCare, so they’ll just stall. Well by agreement by all in the committee, all cases that are approved on that list would essentially be as though the Court had not made the decision and fall back to the previous lower court’s ruling. You want that applicable law or ruling? Best not to stall then. Well then what if a State puts on a law and no State goes near it, even after it’s been passed onto that list? There’s a five year expiration, after five years from the acceptance of that list by the States no approval or disapproval by the States (say that Happy v Golucky for example), then it returns to post-decision.

This also give a sense of urgency to these court cases. Many of these were outright power grabs by the Federal government away from the States, so the State legislatures might want to put lesser matters on the back burner, just suggesting.

Lastly a section should be added that all deliberations, decisions, and arguments to the Supreme Court will only encompass within the territorial lines of the United States. Absolutely no foreign law or precedent will be introduced or considered otherwise it will automatically make the decision null and void.

Chapter Five: Limits to Federal Spending and Taxing

I wish to add the following:


Section 7: Added “And approved by three-fourths State Legislatures (since they’ll have to pay for it)”

Section 9: The National Debt shall not exceed, as a combined whole, more than 30% GDP, unless voted by three-fourths Houses of Congress, to be Paid and Closed no later than two fiscal years. No additional debt is allowed until two fiscal years after Closed. (The 30% is negotiable, but the point is, set it.)

Section 10: Continuing Resolutions shall be in effect no longer than thirty (30) days of passage. Only one (1) Continuing Resolution is applicable per Congressional term. Any and all legislation passed during a Continuing Resolution is null and void. Any and all tax collection will be suspended during a Continuing Resolution and will only continue once a budget is passed. (Simple. Pass the budget.)

Section 11: All salaries and operating expenses for Senators and their staff shall be paid directly by their individual State. All expenses shall be submitted for payment according to State policy and law. Any increases in salary will therefore be at the discretion of the Governor, State Legislature and applicable law and statute. (This stops the practice of Senators perpetually voting for their pay increases.)

Chapter Six: Limits on Bureaucracy

Section 5: Wouldn’t this just be an incentive for the committee members to rubber-stamp and just vote “yes”? “Hey, we’re forced to do this, everyone just agree to say yes and we’ll get lunch?”

Chapter Seven: Promote Free Enterprise

We absolutely need Chapter Seven. Today.

Chapter Eight: Private Property Protection

There should be a “Double Jeopardy” protection for private owners, if the government with unlimited resources could keep coming after coming after coming after…….a private owner.

Chapter Eleven: Protect the Vote

Real simple. Any evidence of voter fraud will mean the Republican candidate wins. All votes made by those without ID will be cast towards the Republican candidate. See how fast the left runs away from this.

I would also suggest other amendments.

First, we need something to clarify the First Amendment and the so called “Separation of Church and State” that we’re being bludgeoned based on a lie. Not exactly sure how to word it, something along the lines of “No agencies, whether government or private, shall prohibit the free exercise or expression of Religion.”

Secondly, since we’re seeing treaties and UN policy suborning Constitutional protections as well as Federal and State law, there should be an amendment that no treaty will subordinate the Constitution, Federal and State law, as well as the sovereignty of the U.S. and States. If the treaty is in line with what the People believe, then fine, amend the law and Constitution. Why should we have countries that are hostile to U.S. interests determine policy, such as the Second Amendment, that clearly wouldn’t pass Constitutional muster?

Anyway I hope this helps, and I hope you’re able to respond. Thank you.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

December 19, 2013 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

A “non-religious” view of religion.

The blog I hang out on occasion, Misfit Politics, had a good article on religion. So I added in the comments the following (originally here http://misfitpolitics.co/2013/12/to-atheists-from-a-former-atheist-with-love/):

I wanted to touch on what you were saying, on how if the Atheists were truly outraged by the encroachment of religion they should be annoyed at the “Tooth Fairy, Cupid, or leprechauns”. I often find it amazing that it’s only during the Christmas holidays that they focus on, if they really want to impress me they should also vent their anger on other days as well, let’s start with:

The week.

  • Sunday – The “Lord’s” day, often referred in the Testament as commanded by god to rest and keep holy.
  • Monday – Old English, also Northern Germanic mythology where the Moon is personified as a god.
  • Tuesday- Old English, Norse mythology for Tyr.
  • Wednesday – Old English, Norse mythology for Wodan or Odin, depending on which Marvel comic you read.
  • Thursday – Old English, Norse mythology for Thor.
  • Friday – Old English, Norse mythology for Frige, name of the planet Venus.
  • Saturday – Roman, named after the Roman god Saturn.


So any of you atheists don’t celebrate any of these days or you’re hypocrites. Don’t refer to them, don’t use them in any way.

The month.

  • January – Roman, named after Janus, the god of the doorway
  • February – Roman, means purification in Latin
  • March – Roman, named for Mars, Roman god of war.
  • April – Roman, to “open”, possibly for how flowers open
  • May – Roman, named for Greek goddess of fertility, Maia.
  • June – Roman, named for Roman goddess of marriage, Juno, wife of Jupiter
  • July – Roman, named after Julius Caesar, who did see himself as a god but I’ll give it to you.
  • August – Roman, named after Augustus
  • September – Latin for Seven, Wiki doesn’t say much else.
  • October – Latin for Eight, Wiki doesn’t say much else either.
  • November – Latin for Nine, Wiki’s mum.
  • December – Latin for Ten, Wiki doesn’t say more.

(All these were individually looked at on Wikipedia.)

So four months you have to be outraged at.

The year.

I wonder, when you sign your checks, do you still write 2013? Isn’t that a religious creation? Shouldn’t you use year 5 after the glorious Obama revolution? (5 A.O.) How about after the Marxist revolution? Or Mao’s?


So how come you don’t sue over the use of these holidays?

  • Valentine’s Day – Celebrates the Christian martyr St. Valentine
  • Ash Wednesday – Begins the Christian season of Lent. I don’t see any lawsuits against this entire time
  • St. Patrick’s Day – Celebrates St. Patrick, patron saint of Ireland.
  • Passover – Jewish holiday celebrating the eve of the Exodus.
  • Palm Sunday – Day where Jesus entered Jerusalem.
  • Good Friday/Easter Sunday
  • Earth Day – Essentially it’s the day of Gia worship.
  • Rosh Hashanah – Jewish holiday, end of the Ten Days of Penitence.
  • Halloween – Eve of All Saint’s Day, used by the church from an originally Pagan holiday.
  • Hanuhhah – Jewish Festival of Lights
  • Kwanzaa – African American holiday

See you would have credibility if you also protested against these, instead you show you’re the KKK with a law degree. If it’s so unbearable to use any religious convention that you’re forcing the entire country to suit your bigotry, the problem is not the country.

Anyway tomorrow I’ll get into another point I wanted to get to, but thanks.

I then wrote this post following that.

I first wanted to describe myself and my journey, briefly of course. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, however I never really understood any of it so it fell out of fashion. It wasn’t until my 30’s that I started going to this really cool, Gothic-looking church that it was rekindled, though sadly when I moved to Phoenix I haven’t found a church like that. sigh.


Anyway I never read the Bible, couldn’t tell a verse from a psalm, not an expert in any aspect of Theology I admit. A lot of the beliefs I have though were reasoned out, with science I must say, hence why I’m writing this.

I do believe in God. I do admit the exact classification I would fall under I’m not sure about: Deist, Catholic, don’t know. Actually I couldn’t tell you the difference between a Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Good Humor Man. Catholics though, we get wine with the wafer, that’s all I know. I do believe that we are all Seekers, even the Atheists. I simply do not believe that we as a species of say ten thousand years have enough wisdom among us to be able to hold the entire knowledge of the Universe within our fist and therefore declare anything outside isn’t real. My wife, before we even met, was into magic, voodoo, all sorts of mysticism. I don’t have a problem with that. She’s a Seeker as am I.

Now if anyone comes to me and say they have all the answers to everything in the Universe, especially the Atheists, I would call them a liar. No one has access to everything, it’s not possible in one lifetime. If that man insists, then I would posit that we stop spending money on research, after all, we have all the answers. No telescopes, no super-colliders, it’s all a waste of money, right? Of course not. We have been given a spark, a thirst for seeking out knowledge, and by extension to seek out Divinity. To engage Science IS the pursuit of God, in all its branches, and yes even Evolution.

I’ll give an example of what Science has taught me about God. We use telescopes and probes to view the stars, we can see galaxies racing and swirling that are billions of miles away from us. We have grand mathematical constructs, that admittedly I can’t get near, that can explain how galaxy Z1234 will act. We’ve even postulated that one galaxy is going to collide with our galaxy in, oh, a billion years? So I have a question.

If life is so random, how is it all explainable with mathematical proof, laws of physics, reason, logic? If we’re here by leaf-in-the-wind accident, yet aren’t you ignoring that wind that’s moving that leaf? How is it that the physical laws, such as gravity, light, etc., work on that galaxy in the same way ten billion miles from us? The light we’re seeing now from stars and galaxies existed thousands of years ago, yet they show Physics Happened. What “Physics cop” keeps gravity working the same here as on a planet in that galaxy over there, consistently throughout the billions of years?

Now I’m not suggesting Angels, or saying that therefore PROVES there’s a God, but something is there. Somehow randomness turned concrete amongst a vast distance in such a way that it can become predictable and dependable such that life can become the norm, how did this happen? That’s what I believe we’re all trying to figure out. The fact that I see that evidence, and more, and I conclude TO ME that there is a God, it proves it TO ME. As to you, I concede you can look at the same facts and conclude, TO YOU, that it proves otherwise, and I’m fine with that. Who’s right? I see it as we’re all going to find that answer when we each reach that finish line. If the Atheists are right then nothing happens. If I’m right….well, that’s a good question for me, isn’t it? But I look forward to finding out.

I once read a long time ago how the ancient magicians worked. The apprentices would of course say the words over and over, making the hand motions day-in-day-out, until it becomes so ingrained that it’s automatic. What was really happening was that as he trained it would create new pathways in the brain, an electric circuit if you will, so that when complete the word or gesture becomes meaningless. The actual thought would complete the circuit and create the reality.

Which leads me to Santa Claus.

I do believe in Santa Claus. Now I am not delusional in thinking a fat man is actually flying around and giving children toys. But I do believe in the magic that is created this time of year. People are nicer, they’re more generous, there’s a sparkle in the air. There’s Magic.

That actually is important. I enjoy watching magic shows, like Criss Angel for example, seeing all the flash and dance. Even when he does a trick that I know how it’s done, it’s still special. “Oh, he has that with the thing there, and it switches to that….but it’s still so cool.”

So for me there’s that wonder, that spark. That “Magic”.

Now I am not the type that believes that you need to “know Jesus to know joy”, look you find joy in whatever suits you; a baby’s laugh, the bottom of a bowl of your favorite ice cream, that song you once heard long ago that reminds you of someone you loved. And maybe that “opiate of the masses”.

Which begs the question, why exactly do you want to deny that of people? What purpose does it bring to tell people there is no joy at that bottom of the bowl, no Santa Claus, or no God? Do you shout out the ending of “Sixth Sense”? Do you take three parking spots instead of one? What difference is it to you if some imaginary sky god tells you not to be a dick? How about you not be a dick, just because? Instead we get “oh there’s no god, so I can act like a dick”. If I concede there is no God and some guy invented religion to, what, have people be nice to each other? gasp and horrors.

“Just keep your religion out of my gay marriage and money and that cross on government land.”

OK so then you’re talking policy, not religion. Since I admit I don’t have proper schooling in the religious side of the Bible, I do remember some of the lessons and view them as history, granted centuries after the fact it’s one long game of Post Office. However the main message still remains intact: We’ve done all this before. There isn’t anything new here, all we’ve done is change the drapes.

If I concede there is no imaginary sky god, the religious content is stripped away, then what part of the history of where “we tried that, it was bad, let’s never do that again” is there a problem? Just because “we’re different”? When did we evolve? If you’re so insistent that we follow Evolution and not Religion, that we’re no different than the other animals in the food chain, then we as a species are still the barbaric primates hitting each other with animal bones. Kinda denounces Evolution, but, if we are on a path towards Evolution, wouldn’t that also mean our thought can evolve as we learn from our mistakes? If we see the dollar bill gets eaten by the machine, wouldn’t we stop putting dollars in? Couldn’t we do that with society in general? Can’t society evolve, hasn’t it evolved? We used to be hunters wearing furs, now we’re in business suits. Some things change, some remain the same. Isn’t that more of a reason to have guard-rails so we don’t fall back to the Planet of the Apes?

So during the course of history people wrote about how “that was a bad idea, here’s what we did to make certain we don’t do that stupid thing again” in the mediums they would have at the time. Today, we blog. A century ago it was newspaper & phonograph. A thousand years ago, the medium was Religion. Just because the medium changes doesn’t negate the message, if the equivalent thousand-year-old-losing-dollar analogy still fits today, why ignore it? Just because “it’s Religion”?

I once read the definition of Faith is to hold a belief despite the facts, you guys have great Faith. Heck we see in the last century some ponderous mistakes that were made, yet people keep trying them over and over again, “it’ll be different this time, you’ll see”.

What it then comes down to, image-wise on the Atheists’ side, is that those who fight the hardest against religion want to have action without consequence. If I concede the non-existence of Santa Claus and the imaginary sky god, those were crucial to teach and allow people to know there were consequences to bad behaviors. They were important at that time in history to civilize us. Ignoring the imaginary sky god doesn’t mean those consequences disappear thus it’s now fine to engage in those actions. It means that the consequences are still borne, maybe not by you but by others around you, always does. It amazes me that for example those that propose the legalization of drugs as though it’s harmless. Yet no one ever talks about the consequences of spouses and children. I’m an expert on those consequences.

What ends up PR-wise is a child’s view of wanting to eat candy for breakfast, lunch and dinner, the parents then have to foot the bill for the dentist. We can have sex anytime, well we can always take a pill for the STD or have an abortion. We can slack off and play video games all day, oh Obama will give us our food and health care. We can play the knock-out game, eh who cares if we’re caught, put it on YouTube. We can twerk on live tv, not like it’ll affect the kiddies.

It then turns to where it’s no longer one side is right on the point or not, but one side engages in outright hostility to the other. True there have always been people that have been hostile to religion, ask the lions. Yet those that continue to use that same tactic fail to learn that lesson of history, never “evolve”. “We ain’t going nowhere.”

So the opinion I’ve garnered over the years, granted it’s not towards the “rank and file” atheists but those that are the loudest on tv, is that:

  • they want their way
  • they want to do whatever they want with zero consequence (well, as long as others pay for it it’s fine)
  • that any attempt at disagreement is met with hostility, intimidation and subjugation.

They’re five years old. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNf4_S2A6Xk

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

December 17, 2013 Posted by | Religion | Leave a comment

How to lose when you’re winning, by John Boehner.

So here’s how you take a winning argument, with your constituency supporting you, and just walk away from it. After all, it’s not like there will be any consequences, right?

First, the Senate vote:

Name Party Cloture Motion 00218 Passage of Bill 00219 2014 Primary Date
Lamar Alexander R TN Yea Yea Running 8/7/14
Kelly Ayotte R NH Yea Yea 2016 9/9/14
Tammy Baldwin D WI Yea Yea 2018 8/12/14
John Barrasso R WY Yea Yea 2018 8/19/14
Max Baucus D MT Yea Yea Retiring 6/3/14
Mark Begich D AK Yea Yea Running 8/26/14
Michael F. Bennet D CO Yea Yea 2016 6/24/14
Richard Blumenthal D CT Yea Yea 2016 8/12/14
Roy Blunt R MO Yea Yea 2016 8/5/14
John Boozman R AR Yea Yea 2016 5/20/14
Barbara Boxer D CA Yea Yea 2016 6/3/14
Sherrod Brown D OH Yea Yea 2018 5/6/14
Richard Burr R NC Yea Yea 2016 5/6/14
Maria Cantwell D WA Yea Yea 2018 8/5/14
Benjamin L. Cardin D MD Yea Yea 2018 6/24/14
Thomas R. Carper D DE Yea Yea 2018 9/9/14
Robert P., Jr. Casey D PA Yea Yea 2018 5/20/14
Saxby Chambliss R GA Yea Yea Retiring 7/15/14
Jeff Chiesa R NJ Yea Yea Cory Booker ?
Daniel Coats R IN Yea Yea 2016 5/6/14
Tom Coburn R OK Yea Nay 2016 6/24/14
Thad Cochran R MS Yea Yea Undeclared 6/3/14
Susan M. Collins R ME Yea Yea Running 6/10/14
Christopher A. Coons D DE Yea Yea Running
Bob Corker R TN Yea Yea 2018
John Cornyn R TX Nay Nay Running 3/4/14
Mike Crapo R ID Nay Nay 2016 5/20/14
Ted Cruz R TX Nay Nay 2018
Joe Donnelly D IN Yea Yea 2018
Richard J. Durbin D IL Yea Yea Running 3/18/14
Michael B. Enzi R WY Nay Nay Running
Dianne Feinstein D CA Yea Yea 2018
Deb Fischer R NE Yea Yea 2018 5/13/14
Jeff Flake R AZ Yea Yea 2016 7/31/14
Al Franken D MN Yea Yea Running 8/12/14
Kirsten E. Gillibrand D NY Yea Yea 2018 6/24/14
Lindsey Graham R SC Yea Yea Running 6/10/14
Chuck Grassley R IA Nay Nay 2016 6/3/14
Kay R. Hagan D NC Yea Yea Running
Tom Harkin D IA Yea Yea Retiring
Orrin G. Hatch R UT Yea Yea 2018 6/24/14
Martin Heinrich D NM Yea Yea 2016 6/3/14
Heidi Heitkamp D ND Yea Yea 2018 6/10/14
Dean Heller R NV Nay Nay 2016 6/10/14
Mazie K. Hirono D HI Yea Yea 2016 8/9/14
John Hoeven R ND Yea Yea 2016
James M. Inhofe R OK Not Voting Not Voting Running
Johnny Isakson R GA Yea Yea 2016
Mike Johanns R NE Yea Yea Retiring
Tim Johnson D SD Yea Yea Retiring 6/3/14
Ron Johnson R WI Nay Nay 2016
Tim Kaine D VA Yea Yea 2018 6/10/14
Angus S., Jr. King I ME Yea Yea 2018
Mark Kirk R IL Yea Yea 2016
Amy Klobuchar D MN Yea Yea 2018
Mary L. Landrieu D LA Yea Yea Running 11/4/14
Patrick J. Leahy D VT Yea Yea 2016 8/26/14
Mike Lee R UT Nay Nay 2016
Carl Levin D MI Yea Yea Retiring 8/5/14
Joe, III Manchin D WV Yea Yea 2018 5/13/14
Edward Markey D MA Yea Yea ? ?
John McCain R AZ Yea Yea 2016
Claire McCaskill D MO Yea Yea 2018
Mitch McConnell R KY Yea Yea Running 5/20/14
Robert Menendez D NJ Yea Yea 2018
Jeff Merkley D OR Yea Yea Running 5/20/14
Barbara A. Mikulski D MD Yea Yea 2016
Jerry Moran R KS Yea Yea 2016 8/5/14
Lisa Murkowski R AK Yea Yea 2016
Christopher Murphy D CT Yea Yea 2018
Patty Murray D WA Yea Yea 2016
Bill Nelson D FL Yea Yea 2018 8/26/14
Rand Paul R KY Nay Nay 2018
Rob Portman R OH Yea Yea 2016
Mark L. Pryor D AR Yea Yea Running
Jack Reed D RI Yea Yea Running 9/9/14
Harry Reid D NV Yea Yea 2016
James E. Risch R ID Nay Nay Running
Pat Roberts R KS Nay Nay Running
John D., IV Rockefeller D WV Yea Yea Retiring
Marco Rubio R FL Nay Nay 2016
Bernard Sanders I VT Yea Yea 2018
Brian Schatz D HI Yea Yea Running
Charles E. Schumer D NY Yea Yea 2016
Tim Scott R SC Yea Nay 2016
Jeff Sessions R AL Nay Nay Running 7/15/14
Jeanne Shaheen D NH Yea Yea Running
Richard C. Shelby R AL Nay Nay 2016
Debbie Stabenow D MI Yea Yea 2018
Jon Tester D MT Yea Yea 2018
John Thune R SD Yea Yea 2016
Patrick J. Toomey R PA Nay Nay 2016
Mark Udall D CO Yea Yea Running
Tom Udall D NM Yea Yea Running
David Vitter R LA Nay Nay 2016
Mark R. Warner D VA Yea Yea Running
Elizabeth Warren D MA Yea Yea 2018
Sheldon Whitehouse D RI Yea Yea 2018
Roger F. Wicker R MS Yea Yea 2018
Ron Wyden D OR Yea Yea 2016


Now the House Vote:

District Name Party Phone H.R.2775
Alabama 1 Bonner, Jo — Vacancy R 202-225-4931
2 Roby, Martha R 202-225-2901 Nay
3 Rogers (AL), Mike R 202-225-3261 Nay
4 Aderholt, Robert R 202-225-4876 Nay
5 Brooks, Mo R 202-225-4801 Nay
6 Bachus, Spencer R 202-225-4921 Yea
7 Sewell, Terri A. D 202-225-2665 Yea
Alaska At Large Young, Don R 202-225-5765 Yea
Arizona 1 Kirkpatrick, Ann D 202-225-3361 Yea
2 Barber, Ron D 202-225-2542 Yea
3 Grijalva, Raul D 202-225-2435 Yea
4 Gosar, Paul A. R 202-225-2315 Nay
5 Salmon, Matt R 202-225-2635 Nay
6 Schweikert, David R 202-225-2190 Nay
7 Pastor, Ed D 202-225-4065 Yea
8 Franks, Trent R 202-225-4576 Nay
9 Sinema, Kyrsten D 202-225-9888 Yea
Arkansas 1 Crawford, Rick R 202-225-4076 Yea
2 Griffin, Tim R 202-225-2506 Yea
3 Womack, Steve R 202-225-4301 Yea
4 Cotton, Tom R 202-225-3772 Yea
California 1 LaMalfa, Doug R 202-225-3076 Nay
2 Huffman, Jared D 202-225-5161 Yea
3 Garamendi, John D 202-225-1880 Yea
4 McClintock, Tom R 202-225-2511 Nay
5 Thompson, Mike D 202-225-3311 Yea
6 Matsui, Doris O. D 202-225-7163 Yea
7 Bera, Ami D 202-225-5716 Yea
8 Cook, Paul R 202-225-5861 Yea
9 McNerney, Jerry D 202-225-1947 Yea
10 Denham, Jeff R 202-225-4540 Yea
11 Miller, George D 202-225-2095 Yea
12 Pelosi, Nancy (Democratic Leader) D 202-225-4965 Yea
13 Lee, Barbara D 202-225-2661 Yea
14 Speier, Jackie D 202-225-3531 Yea
15 Swalwell, Eric D 202-225-5065 Yea
16 Costa, Jim D 202-225-3341 Yea
17 Honda, Mike D 202-225-2631 Yea
18 Eshoo, Anna G. D 202-225-8104 Yea
19 Lofgren, Zoe D 202-225-3072 Yea
20 Farr, Sam D 202-225-2861 Yea
21 Valadao, David R 202-225-4695 Yea
22 Nunes, Devin R 202-225-2523 Yea
23 McCarthy, Kevin (Majority Whip) R 202-225-2915 Yea
24 Capps, Lois D 202-225-3601 Yea
25 McKeon, Buck R 202-225-1956 Yea
26 Brownley, Julia D 202-225-5811 Yea
27 Chu, Judy D 202-225-5464 Yea
28 Schiff, Adam D 202-225-4176 Yea
29 Cárdenas, Tony D 202-225-6131 Yea
30 Sherman, Brad D 202-225-5911 Yea
31 Miller, Gary R 202-225-3201 Yea
32 Napolitano, Grace D 202-225-5256 Yea
33 Waxman, Henry D 202-225-3976 Yea
34 Becerra, Xavier D 202-225-6235 Yea
35 Negrete McLeod, Gloria D 202-225-6161 Yea
36 Ruiz, Raul D 202-225-5330 Yea
37 Bass, Karen D 202-225-7084 Yea
38 Sanchez, Linda D 202-225-6676 Yea
39 Royce, Ed R 202-225-4111 Nay
40 Roybal-Allard, Lucille D 202-225-1766 Yea
41 Takano, Mark D 202-225-2305 Yea
42 Calvert, Ken R 202-225-1986 Yea
43 Waters, Maxine D 202-225-2201 Yea
44 Hahn, Janice D 202-225-8220 Yea
45 Campbell, John R 202-225-5611 Yea
46 Sanchez, Loretta D 202-225-2965 Yea
47 Lowenthal, Alan D 202-225-7924 Yea
48 Rohrabacher, Dana R 202-225-2415 Nay
49 Issa, Darrell R 202-225-3906 Yea
50 Hunter, Duncan D. R 202-225-5672 Nay
51 Vargas, Juan D 202-225-8045 Yea
52 Peters, Scott D 202-225-0508 Yea
53 Davis, Susan D 202-225-2040 Yea
Colorado 1 DeGette, Diana D 202-225-4431 Yea
2 Polis, Jared D 202-225-2161 Yea
3 Tipton, Scott R 202-225-4761 Yea
4 Gardner, Cory R 202-225-4676 Yea
5 Lamborn, Doug R 202-225-4422 Nay
6 Coffman, Mike R 202-225-7882 Yea
7 Perlmutter, Ed D 202-225-2645 Yea
Connecticut 1 Larson, John B. D 202-225-2265 Yea
2 Courtney, Joe D 202-225-2076 Yea
3 DeLauro, Rosa L. D 202-225-3661 Yea
4 Himes, Jim D 202-225-5541 Yea
5 Esty, Elizabeth D 202-225-4476 Yea
Delaware At Large Carney, John D 202-225-4165 Yea
Florida 1 Miller, Jeff R 202-225-4136 Nay
2 Southerland, Steve R 202-225-5235 Nay
3 Yoho, Ted R 202-225-5744 Nay
4 Crenshaw, Ander R 202-225-2501 Yea
5 Brown, Corrine D 202-225-0123 Yea
6 DeSantis, Ron R 202-225-2706 Yea
7 Mica, John R 202-225-4035 Nay
8 Posey, Bill R 202-225-3671 Nay
9 Grayson, Alan D 202-225-9889 Yea
10 Webster, Daniel R 202-225-2176 Yea
11 Nugent, Richard R 202-225-1002 Nay
12 Bilirakis, Gus M. R 202-225-5755 Yea
13 Young, C.W. Bill R 202-225-5961 Not Voting
14 Castor, Kathy D 202-225-3376 Yea
15 Ross, Dennis R 202-225-1252 Nay
16 Buchanan, Vern R 202-225-5015 Yea
17 Rooney, Tom R 202-225-5792 Nay
18 Murphy, Patrick D 202-225-3026 Yea
19 Radel, Trey R 202-225-2536 Nay
20 Hastings, Alcee L. D 202-225-1313 Yea
21 Deutch, Ted D 202-225-3001 Yea
22 Frankel, Lois D 202-225-9890 Yea
23 Wasserman Schultz, Debbie D 202-225-7931 Yea
24 Wilson, Frederica D 202-225-4506 Yea
25 Diaz-Balart, Mario R 202-225-4211 Yea
26 Garcia, Joe D 202-225-2778 Yea
27 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana R 202-225-3931 Yea
Georgia 1 Kingston, Jack R 202-225-5831 Nay
2 Bishop Jr., Sanford D. D 202-225-3631 Yea
3 Westmoreland, Lynn A. R 202-225-5901 Nay
4 Johnson, Henry C. “Hank” Jr. D 202-225-1605 Yea
5 Lewis, John D 202-225-3801 Yea
6 Price, Tom R 202-225-4501 Nay
7 Woodall, Robert R 202-225-4272 Nay
8 Scott, Austin R 202-225-6531 Nay
9 Collins, Doug R 202-225-9893 Nay
10 Broun, Paul C. R 202-225-4101 Nay
11 Gingrey, Phil R 202-225-2931 Nay
12 Barrow, John D 202-225-2823 Yea
13 Scott, David D 202-225-2939 Yea
14 Graves, Tom R 202-225-5211 Nay
Hawaii 1 Hanabusa, Colleen D 202-225-2726 Yea
2 Gabbard, Tulsi D 202-225-4906 Yea
Idaho 1 Labrador, Raul R. R 202-225-6611 Nay
2 Simpson, Mike R 202-225-5531 Yea
Illinois 1 Rush, Bobby L. D 202-225-4372 Not Voting
2 Kelly, Robin D 202-225-0773 Yea
3 Lipinski, Daniel D 202-225-5701 Yea
4 Gutierrez, Luis D 202-225-8203 Yea
5 Quigley, Mike D 202-225-4061 Yea
6 Roskam, Peter J. R 202-225-4561 Yea
7 Davis, Danny K. D 202-225-5006 Yea
8 Duckworth, Tammy D 202-225-3711 Yea
9 Schakowsky, Jan D 202-225-2111 Yea
10 Schneider, Brad D 202-225-4835 Yea
11 Foster, Bill D 202-225-3515 Yea
12 Enyart, William D 202-225-5661 Yea
13 Davis, Rodney R 202-225-2371 Yea
14 Hultgren, Randy R 202-225-2976 Nay
15 Shimkus, John R 202-225-5271 Yea
16 Kinzinger, Adam R 202-225-3635 Yea
17 Bustos, Cheri D 202-225-5905 Yea
18 Schock, Aaron R 202-225-6201 Yea
Indiana 1 Visclosky, Peter D 202-225-2461 Yea
2 Walorski, Jackie R 202-225-3915 Nay
3 Stutzman, Marlin R 202-225-4436 Nay
4 Rokita, Todd R 202-225-5037 Nay
5 Brooks, Susan W. R 202-225-2276 Yea
6 Messer, Luke R 202-225-3021 Nay
7 Carson, André D 202-225-4011 Yea
8 Bucshon, Larry R 202-225-4636 Nay
9 Young, Todd R 202-225-5315 Yea
Iowa 1 Braley, Bruce L. D 202-225-2911 Yea
2 Loebsack, David D 202-225-6576 Yea
3 Latham, Tom R 202-225-5476 Yea
4 King, Steve R 202-225-4426 Nay
Kansas 1 Huelskamp, Tim R 202-225-2715 Nay
2 Jenkins, Lynn R 202-225-6601 Yea
3 Yoder, Kevin R 202-225-2865 Nay
4 Pompeo, Mike R 202-225-6216 Nay
Kentucky 1 Whitfield, Ed R 202-225-3115 Yea
2 Guthrie, S. Brett R 202-225-3501 Yea
3 Yarmuth, John A. D 202-225-5401 Yea
4 Massie, Thomas R 202-225-3465 Nay
5 Rogers, Harold R 202-225-4601 Yea
6 Barr, Andy R 202-225-4706 Nay
Louisiana 1 Scalise, Steve R 202-225-3015 Nay
2 Richmond, Cedric D 202-225-6636 Yea
3 Boustany Jr., Charles W. R 202-225-2031 Yea
4 Fleming, John R 202-225-2777 Nay
5 Alexander, Rodney — Vacancy R 202-225-8490
6 Cassidy, William R 202-225-3901 Nay
Maine 1 Pingree, Chellie D 202-225-6116 Yea
2 Michaud, Michael D 202-225-6306 Yea
Maryland 1 Harris, Andy R 202-225-5311 Nay
2 Ruppersberger, Dutch D 202-225-3061 Yea
3 Sarbanes, John P. D 202-225-4016 Yea
4 Edwards, Donna F. D 202-225-8699 Yea
5 Hoyer, Steny H. (Democratic Whip) D 202-225-4131 Yea
6 Delaney, John D 202-225-2721 Yea
7 Cummings, Elijah D 202-225-4741 Yea
8 Van Hollen, Chris D 202-225-5341 Yea
Massachusetts 1 Neal, Richard E. D 202-225-5601 Yea
2 McGovern, James D 202-225-6101 Yea
3 Tsongas, Niki D 202-225-3411 Yea
4 Kennedy III, Joseph P. D 202-225-5931 Yea
5 Markey, Ed — Vacancy D 202-225-2836
6 Tierney, John D 202-225-8020 Yea
7 Capuano, Michael E. D 202-225-5111 Yea
8 Lynch, Stephen F. D 202-225-8273 Yea
9 Keating, William D 202-225-3111 Yea
Michigan 1 Benishek, Dan R 202-225-4735 Yea
2 Huizenga, Bill R 202-225-4401 Nay
3 Amash, Justin R 202-225-3831 Nay
4 Camp, Dave R 202-225-3561 Nay
5 Kildee, Daniel D 202-225-3611 Yea
6 Upton, Fred R 202-225-3761 Yea
7 Walberg, Tim R 202-225-6276 Nay
8 Rogers (MI), Mike R 202-225-4872 Yea
9 Levin, Sander D 202-225-4961 Yea
10 Miller, Candice R 202-225-2106 Nay
11 Bentivolio, Kerry R 202-225-8171 Nay
12 Dingell, John D 202-225-4071 Yea
13 Conyers Jr., John D 202-225-5126 Yea
14 Peters, Gary D 202-225-5802 Yea
Minnesota 1 Walz, Timothy J. D 202-225-2472 Yea
2 Kline, John R 202-225-2271 Yea
3 Paulsen, Erik R 202-225-2871 Yea
4 McCollum, Betty D 202-225-6631 Yea
5 Ellison, Keith D 202-225-4755 Yea
6 Bachmann, Michele R 202-225-2331 Nay
7 Peterson, Collin C. D 202-225-2165 Yea
8 Nolan, Rick D 202-225-6211 Yea
Mississippi 1 Nunnelee, Alan R 202-225-4306 Nay
2 Thompson, Bennie G. D 202-225-5876 Yea
3 Harper, Gregg R 202-225-5031 Yea
4 Palazzo, Steven R 202-225-5772 Nay
Missouri 1 Clay Jr., William “Lacy” D 202-225-2406 Yea
2 Wagner, Ann R 202-225-1621 Nay
3 Luetkemeyer, Blaine R 202-225-2956 Nay
4 Hartzler, Vicky R 202-225-2876 Nay
5 Cleaver, Emanuel D 202-225-4535 Yea
6 Graves, Sam R 202-225-7041 Nay
7 Long, Billy R 202-225-6536 Nay
8 Smith, Jason R 202-225-4404 Nay
Montana At Large Daines, Steve R 202-225-3211 Yea
Nebraska 1 Fortenberry, Jeff R 202-225-4806 Yea
2 Terry, Lee R 202-225-4155 Yea
3 Smith, Adrian R 202-225-6435 Yea
Nevada 1 Titus, Dina D 202-225-5965 Yea
2 Amodei, Mark R 202-225-6155 Nay
3 Heck, Joe R 202-225-3252 Yea
4 Horsford, Steven D 202-225-9894 Yea
New Hampshire 1 Shea-Porter, Carol D 202-225-5456 Yea
2 Kuster, Ann D 202-225-5206 Yea
New Jersey 1 Andrews, Robert E. D 202-225-6501 Yea
2 LoBiondo, Frank R 202-225-6572 Yea
3 Runyan, Jon R 202-225-4765 Yea
4 Smith, Chris R 202-225-3765 Yea
5 Garrett, Scott R 202-225-4465 Nay
6 Pallone Jr., Frank D 202-225-4671 Yea
7 Lance, Leonard R 202-225-5361 Yea
8 Sires, Albio D 202-225-7919 Yea
9 Pascrell Jr., Bill D 202-225-5751 Yea
10 Payne Jr., Donald D 202-225-3436 Yea
11 Frelinghuysen, Rodney R 202-225-5034 Yea
12 Holt, Rush D 202-225-5801 Yea
New Mexico 1 Lujan Grisham, Michelle D 202-225-6316 Yea
2 Pearce, Steve R 202-225-2365 Nay
3 Lujan, Ben R. D 202-225-6190 Yea
New York 1 Bishop, Timothy D 202-225-3826 Yea
2 King, Pete R 202-225-7896 Yea
3 Israel, Steve D 202-225-3335 Yea
4 McCarthy, Carolyn D 202-225-5516 Not Voting
5 Meeks, Gregory W. D 202-225-3461 Yea
6 Meng, Grace D 202-225-2601 Yea
7 Velázquez, Nydia M. D 202-225-2361 Yea
8 Jeffries, Hakeem D 202-225-5936 Yea
9 Clarke, Yvette D. D 202-225-6231 Yea
10 Nadler, Jerrold D 202-225-5635 Yea
11 Grimm, Michael R 202-225-3371 Yea
12 Maloney, Carolyn D 202-225-7944 Yea
13 Rangel, Charles B. D 202-225-4365 Yea
14 Crowley, Joseph D 202-225-3965 Yea
15 Serrano, José E. D 202-225-4361 Yea
16 Engel, Eliot D 202-225-2464 Yea
17 Lowey, Nita D 202-225-6506 Yea
18 Maloney, Sean Patrick D 202-225-5441 Yea
19 Gibson, Chris R 202-225-5614 Yea
20 Tonko, Paul D. D 202-225-5076 Yea
21 Owens, Bill D 202-225-4611 Yea
22 Hanna, Richard R 202-225-3665 Yea
23 Reed, Tom R 202-225-3161 Nay
24 Maffei, Daniel D 202-225-3701 Yea
25 Slaughter, Louise D 202-225-3615 Yea
26 Higgins, Brian D 202-225-3306 Yea
27 Collins, Chris R 202-225-5265 Nay
North Carolina 1 Butterfield, G.K. D 202-225-3101 Yea
2 Ellmers, Renee R 202-225-4531 Nay
3 Jones, Walter B. R 202-225-3415 Nay
4 Price, David D 202-225-1784 Yea
5 Foxx, Virginia R 202-225-2071 Nay
6 Coble, Howard R 202-225-3065 Yea
7 McIntyre, Mike D 202-225-2731 Yea
8 Hudson, Richard R 202-225-3715 Nay
9 Pittenger, Robert R 202-225-1976 Yea
10 McHenry, Patrick T. R 202-225-2576 Yea
11 Meadows, Mark R 202-225-6401 Nay
12 Watt, Mel D 202-225-1510 Yea
13 Holding, George R 202-225-3032 Nay
North Dakota At Large Cramer, Kevin R 202-225-2611 Yea
Ohio 1 Chabot, Steve R 202-225-2216 Nay
2 Wenstrup, Brad R 202-225-3164 Nay
3 Beatty, Joyce D 202-225-4324 Yea
4 Jordan, Jim R 202-225-2676 Nay
5 Latta, Robert E. R 202-225-6405 Nay
6 Johnson, Bill R 202-225-5705 Nay
7 Gibbs, Bob R 202-225-6265 Nay
8 Boehner, John A. (The Speaker) R 202-225-6205 Yea
9 Kaptur, Marcy D 202-225-4146 Yea
10 Turner, Michael R 202-225-6465 Nay
11 Fudge, Marcia L. D 202-225-7032 Yea
12 Tiberi, Pat R 202-225-5355 Yea
13 Ryan, Tim D 202-225-5261 Yea
14 Joyce, David R 202-225-5731 Yea
15 Stivers, Steve R 202-225-2015 Yea
16 Renacci, Jim R 202-225-3876 Nay
Oklahoma 1 Bridenstine, Jim R 202-225-2211 Nay
2 Mullin, Markwayne R 202-225-2701 Nay
3 Lucas, Frank R 202-225-5565 Nay
4 Cole, Tom R 202-225-6165 Yea
5 Lankford, James R 202-225-2132 Nay
Oregon 1 Bonamici, Suzanne D 202-225-0855 Yea
2 Walden, Greg R 202-225-6730 Nay
3 Blumenauer, Earl D 202-225-4811 Yea
4 DeFazio, Peter D 202-225-6416 Yea
5 Schrader, Kurt D 202-225-5711 Yea
Pennsylvania 1 Brady, Robert D 202-225-4731 Yea
2 Fattah, Chaka D 202-225-4001 Yea
3 Kelly, Mike R 202-225-5406 Yea
4 Perry, Scott R 202-225-5836 Nay
5 Thompson, Glenn W. R 202-225-5121 Yea
6 Gerlach, Jim R 202-225-4315 Yea
7 Meehan, Pat R 202-225-2011 Yea
8 Fitzpatrick, Michael G. R 202-225-4276 Yea
9 Shuster, Bill R 202-225-2431 Yea
10 Marino, Tom R 202-225-3731 Nay
11 Barletta, Lou R 202-225-6511 Yea
12 Rothfus, Keith R 202-225-2065 Nay
13 Schwartz, Allyson Y. D 202-225-6111 Yea
14 Doyle, Mike D 202-225-2135 Yea
15 Dent, Charles W. R 202-225-6411 Yea
16 Pitts, Joseph R. R 202-225-2411 Nay
17 Cartwright, Matthew D 202-225-5546 Yea
18 Murphy, Tim R 202-225-2301 Yea
Rhode Island 1 Cicilline, David D 202-225-4911 Yea
2 Langevin, Jim D 202-225-2735 Yea
South Carolina 1 Sanford, Mark R 202-225-3176 Nay
2 Wilson, Joe R 202-225-2452 Nay
3 Duncan, Jeff R 202-225-5301 Nay
4 Gowdy, Trey R 202-225-6030 Nay
5 Mulvaney, Mick R 202-225-5501 Nay
6 Clyburn, James E. (Assistant Democratic Leader) D 202-225-3315 Yea
7 Rice, Tom R 202-225-9895 Nay
South Dakota At Large Noem, Kristi R 202-225-2801 Nay
Tennessee 1 Roe, Phil R 202-225-6356 Nay
2 Duncan Jr., John J. R 202-225-5435 Nay
3 Fleischmann, Chuck R 202-225-3271 Nay
4 DesJarlais, Scott R 202-225-6831 Yea
5 Cooper, Jim D 202-225-4311 Yea
6 Black, Diane R 202-225-4231 Nay
7 Blackburn, Marsha R 202-225-2811 Nay
8 Fincher, Stephen R 202-225-4714 Nay
9 Cohen, Steve D 202-225-3265 Yea
Texas 1 Gohmert, Louie R 202-225-3035 Nay
2 Poe, Ted R 202-225-6565 Nay
3 Johnson, Sam R 202-225-4201 Nay
4 Hall, Ralph M. R 202-225-6673 Nay
5 Hensarling, Jeb R 202-225-3484 Nay
6 Barton, Joe R 202-225-2002 Nay
7 Culberson, John R 202-225-2571 Nay
8 Brady, Kevin R 202-225-4901 Nay
9 Green, Al D 202-225-7508 Yea
10 McCaul, Michael T. R 202-225-2401 Nay
11 Conaway, K. Michael R 202-225-3605 Nay
12 Granger, Kay R 202-225-5071 Nay
13 Thornberry, Mac R 202-225-3706 Nay
14 Weber, Randy R 202-225-2831 Nay
15 Hinojosa, Rubén D 202-225-2531 Yea
16 O’Rourke, Beto D 202-225-4831 Yea
17 Flores, Bill R 202-225-6105 Nay
18 Jackson Lee, Sheila D 202-225-3816 Yea
19 Neugebauer, Randy R 202-225-4005 Nay
20 Castro, Joaquin D 202-225-3236 Yea
21 Smith, Lamar R 202-225-4236 Nay
22 Olson, Pete R 202-225-5951 Nay
23 Gallego, Pete D 202-225-4511 Yea
24 Marchant, Kenny R 202-225-6605 Nay
25 Williams, Roger R 202-225-9896 Nay
26 Burgess, Michael R 202-225-7772 Nay
27 Farenthold, Blake R 202-225-7742 Nay
28 Cuellar, Henry D 202-225-1640 Yea
29 Green, Gene D 202-225-1688 Yea
30 Johnson, Eddie Bernice D 202-225-8885 Yea
31 Carter, John R 202-225-3864 Nay
32 Sessions, Pete R 202-225-2231 Nay
33 Veasey, Marc D 202-225-9897 Yea
34 Vela, Filemon D 202-225-9901 Yea
35 Doggett, Lloyd D 202-225-4865 Yea
36 Stockman, Steve R 202-225-1555 Nay
Utah 1 Bishop, Rob R 202-225-0453 Nay
2 Stewart, Chris R 202-225-9730 Nay
3 Chaffetz, Jason R 202-225-7751 Nay
4 Matheson, Jim D 202-225-3011 Yea
Vermont At Large Welch, Peter D 202-225-4115 Yea
Virginia 1 Wittman, Robert J. R 202-225-4261 Yea
2 Rigell, Scott R 202-225-4215 Yea
3 Scott, Robert C. D 202-225-8351 Yea
4 Forbes, J. Randy R 202-225-6365 Nay
5 Hurt, Robert R 202-225-4711 Nay
6 Goodlatte, Bob R 202-225-5431 Nay
7 Cantor, Eric (Majority Leader) R 202-225-2815 Yea
8 Moran, James D 202-225-4376 Yea
9 Griffith, Morgan R 202-225-3861 Nay
10 Wolf, Frank R 202-225-5136 Yea
11 Connolly, Gerald E. “Gerry” D 202-225-1492 Yea
Washington 1 DelBene, Suzan D 202-225-6311 Yea
2 Larsen, Rick D 202-225-2605 Yea
3 Herrera Beutler, Jaime R 202-225-3536 Yea
4 Hastings, Doc R 202-225-5816 Yea
5 McMorris Rodgers, Cathy R 202-225-2006 Yea
6 Kilmer, Derek D 202-225-5916 Yea
7 McDermott, Jim D 202-225-3106 Yea
8 Reichert, David G. R 202-225-7761 Yea
9 Smith, Adam D 202-225-8901 Yea
10 Heck, Denny D 202-225-9740 Yea
West Virginia 1 McKinley, David R 202-225-4172 Yea
2 Capito, Shelley Moore R 202-225-2711 Yea
3 Rahall, Nick D 202-225-3452 Yea
Wisconsin 1 Ryan, Paul R 202-225-3031 Nay
2 Pocan, Mark D 202-225-2906 Yea
3 Kind, Ron D 202-225-5506 Yea
4 Moore, Gwen D 202-225-4572 Yea
5 Sensenbrenner, F. James R 202-225-5101 Nay
6 Petri, Thomas R 202-225-2476 Nay
7 Duffy, Sean P. R 202-225-3365 Nay
8 Ribble, Reid R 202-225-5665 Yea
Wyoming At Large Lummis, Cynthia M. R 202-225-2311 Nay


Now I do admit I have not gone through the House’s primary list, but look up your Rep and find out. Over time, eh, maybe.

I have a spreadsheet, and I ain’t afraid to use it.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?


October 17, 2013 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

Harry Reid, shutting the government down so he can shut America down.

Here’s the vote today that the Senate took, down party lines, that will force a government shutdown. Thank you, Harry Reid.

Name Party Twitter Phone On The Motion To Table (Kill)   00210
Lamar Alexander R TN @SenAlexander (202) 224-4944 Nay
Kelly Ayotte R NH @KellyAyotte (202) 224-3324 Nay
Tammy Baldwin D WI @SenatorBaldwin (202) 224-5653 Yea
John Barrasso R WY @SenJohnBarrasso (202) 224-6441 Nay
Max Baucus D MT @MaxBaucus (202) 224-2651 Yea
Mark Begich D AK @SenatorBegich (202) 224-3004 Yea
Michael F. Bennet D CO @SenBennetCO (202) 224-5852 Yea
Richard Blumenthal D CT @SenBlumenthal (202) 224-2823 Yea
Roy Blunt R MO @RoyBlunt (202) 224-5721 Nay
John Boozman R AR @JohnBoozman (202) 224-4843 Nay
Barbara Boxer D CA @SenatorBoxer (202) 224-3553 Yea
Sherrod Brown D OH @SenSherrodBrown (202) 224-2315 Yea
Richard Burr R NC @SenatorBurr (202) 224-3154 Nay
Maria Cantwell D WA (202) 224-3441 Yea
Benjamin L. Cardin D MD @SenatorCardin (202) 224-4524 Yea
Thomas R. Carper D DE @SenatorCarper (202) 224-2441 Yea
Robert P., Jr. Casey D PA @SenBobCasey (202) 224-6324 Yea
Saxby Chambliss R GA @SaxbyChambliss (202) 224-3521 Nay
Jeff Chiesa R NJ (202) 224-3224 Nay
Daniel Coats R IN @SenDanCoats (202) 224-5623 Nay
Tom Coburn R OK @TomCoburn (202) 224-5754 Nay
Thad Cochran R MS @SenThadCochran (202) 224-5054 Nay
Susan M. Collins R ME @SenatorCollins (202) 224-2523 Nay
Christopher A. Coons D DE @ChrisCoons (202) 224-5042 Yea
Bob Corker R TN @SenBobCorker (202) 224-3344 Nay
John Cornyn R TX @JohnCornyn (202) 224-2934 Nay
Mike Crapo R ID @MikeCrapo (202) 224-6142 Nay
Ted Cruz R TX @SenTedCruz (202) 224-5922 Nay
Joe Donnelly D IN @SenDonnelly (202) 224-4814 Yea
Richard J. Durbin D IL @SenatorDurbin (202) 224-2152 Yea
Michael B. Enzi R WY @SenatorEnzi (202) 224-3424 Nay
Dianne Feinstein D CA @SenFeinstein (202) 224-3841 Yea
Deb Fischer R NE @SenatorFischer (202) 224-6551 Nay
Jeff Flake R AZ @JeffFlake (202) 224-4521 Nay
Al Franken D MN @alfranken (202) 224-5641 Yea
Kirsten E. Gillibrand D NY @SenGillibrand (202) 224-4451 Yea
Lindsey Graham R SC @GrahamBlog (202) 224-5972 Nay
Chuck Grassley R IA @ChuckGrassley (202) 224-3744 Nay
Kay R. Hagan D NC @SenatorHagan (202) 224-6342 Yea
Tom Harkin D IA @SenatorHarkin (202) 224-3254 Yea
Orrin G. Hatch R UT @OrrinHatch (202) 224-5251 Nay
Martin Heinrich D NM @MartinHeinrich (202) 224-5521 Yea
Heidi Heitkamp D ND @SenatorHeitkamp (202) 224-2043 Yea
Dean Heller R NV @SenDeanHeller (202) 224-6244 Nay
Mazie K. Hirono D HI @maziehirono (202) 224-6361 Yea
John Hoeven R ND @SenJohnHoeven (202) 224-2551 Nay
James M. Inhofe R OK (202) 224-4721 Nay
Johnny Isakson R GA @SenatorIsakson (202) 224-3643 Nay
Mike Johanns R NE @Mike_Johanns (202) 224-4224 Nay
Tim Johnson D SD @SenJohnsonSD (202) 224-5842 Yea
Ron Johnson R WI @SenRonJohnson (202) 224-5323 Nay
Tim Kaine D VA @timkaine (202) 224-4024 Yea
Angus S., Jr. King I ME @SenAngusKing (202) 224-5344 Yea
Mark Kirk R IL @SenatorKirk (202) 224-2854 Nay
Amy Klobuchar D MN @amyklobuchar (202) 224-3244 Yea
Mary L. Landrieu D LA @MaryLandrieu (202) 224-5824 Yea
Patrick J. Leahy D VT @SenatorLeahy (202) 224-4242 Yea
Mike Lee R UT @SenMikeLee (202) 224-5444 Nay
Carl Levin D MI @SenCarlLevin (202) 224-6221 Yea
Joe, III Manchin D WV @Sen_JoeManchin (202) 224-3954 Yea
Edward Markey D MA @EdMarkey (202) 224-2742 Yea
John McCain R AZ @SenJohnMcCain (202) 224-2235 Nay
Claire McCaskill D MO @clairecmc (202) 224-6154 Yea
Mitch McConnell R KY (202) 224-2541 Nay
Robert Menendez D NJ @SenatorMenendez (202) 224-4744 Yea
Jeff Merkley D OR @SenJeffMerkley (202) 224-3753 Yea
Barbara A. Mikulski D MD @SenatorBarb (202) 224-4654 Yea
Jerry Moran R KS @JerryMoran (202) 224-6521 Nay
Lisa Murkowski R AK @lisamurkowski (202) 224-6665 Nay
Christopher Murphy D CT @ChrisMurphyCT (202) 224-4041 Yea
Patty Murray D WA @PattyMurray (202) 224-2621 Yea
Bill Nelson D FL @SenBillNelson (202) 224-5274 Yea
Rand Paul R KY @SenRandPaul (202) 224-4343 Nay
Rob Portman R OH @robportman (202) 224-3353 Nay
Mark L. Pryor D AR @SenMarkPryor (202) 224-2353 Yea
Jack Reed D RI @SenJackReed (202) 224-4642 Yea
Harry Reid D NV @SenatorReid (202) 224-3542 Yea
James E. Risch R ID @SenatorRisch (202) 224-2752 Nay
Pat Roberts R KS @SenPatRoberts (202) 224-4774 Nay
John D., IV Rockefeller D WV (202) 224-6472 Yea
Marco Rubio R FL @marcorubio (202) 224-3041 Nay
Bernard Sanders I VT (202) 224-5141 Yea
Brian Schatz D HI @SenBrianSchatz (202) 224-3934 Yea
Charles E. Schumer D NY @SenSchumer (202) 224-6542 Yea
Tim Scott R SC @SenatorTimScott (202) 224-6121 Nay
Jeff Sessions R AL @SenatorSessions (202) 224-4124 Nay
Jeanne Shaheen D NH @SenatorShaheen (202) 224-2841 Yea
Richard C. Shelby R AL @SenShelbyPress (202) 224-5744 Nay
Debbie Stabenow D MI @stabenow (202) 224-4822 Yea
Jon Tester D MT (202) 224-2644 Yea
John Thune R SD @SenJohnThune (202) 224-2321 Nay
Patrick J. Toomey R PA @SenToomey (202) 224-4254 Nay
Mark Udall D CO @MarkUdall (202) 224-5941 Yea
Tom Udall D NM @SenatorTomUdall (202) 224-6621 Yea
David Vitter R LA @DavidVitter (202) 224-4623 Nay
Mark R. Warner D VA @SenatorWarner (202) 224-2023 Yea
Elizabeth Warren D MA @SenWarren (202) 224-4543 Yea
Sheldon Whitehouse D RI @SenWhitehouse (202) 224-2921 Yea
Roger F. Wicker R MS @SenatorWicker (202) 224-6253 Nay
Ron Wyden D OR (202) 224-5244 Yea

I have a Spreadsheet, and I ain’t afraid to use it!

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?


September 30, 2013 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

This is how liberty dies

“So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause.” – PADMÉ Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith

“What if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists, and the Republic has become the very evil we have been fighting to destroy?” – PADMÉ Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith

So the Senate voted to take out the ObamaCare defund mechanism for the Continuing Resolution. It’ll then go back to the House where they confer to “keep the government working hard just as tax-payers do” as Senator Mikulski said. In my opinion House Republicans need to stand firm.

Anyway, here is the list of how they voted. Please help them remember this day at Primary and Election Day.


Name Party On The Cloture Motion 00206 On The Motion 00207 On Passage Of Amendment 00208 On The Joint Resolution 00209 2014 Primary Date
Sessions, Jeff R AL Nay Nay Nay Nay Running 7/15/14
Shelby, Richard C. R AL Nay Nay Nay Nay 2016
Begich, Mark D AK Yea Yea Yea Yea Running 8/26/14
Murkowski, Lisa R AK Yea Yea Nay Nay 2016
Flake, Jeff R AZ Not Voting Not Voting Not Voting Not Voting 2016 7/31/14
McCain, John R AZ Yea Yea Nay Nay 2016
Boozman, John R AR Yea Nay Nay Nay 2016 5/20/14
Pryor, Mark L. D AR Yea Yea Yea Yea Running
Boxer, Barbara D CA Yea Yea Yea Yea 2016 6/3/14
Feinstein, Dianne D CA Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018
Bennet, Michael F. D CO Yea Yea Yea Yea 2016 6/24/14
Udall, Mark D CO Yea Yea Yea Yea Running
Blumenthal, Richard D CT Yea Yea Yea Yea 2016 8/12/14
Murphy, Christopher D CT Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018
Carper, Thomas R. D DE Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018 9/9/14
Coons, Christopher A. D DE Yea Yea Yea Yea Running
Nelson, Bill D FL Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018 8/26/14
Rubio, Marco R FL Nay Nay Nay Nay 2016
Chambliss, Saxby R GA Yea Yea Nay Nay Retiring 7/15/14
Isakson, Johnny R GA Yea Yea Nay Nay 2016
Hirono, Mazie K. D HI Yea Yea Yea Yea 2016 8/9/14
Schatz, Brian D HI Yea Yea Yea Yea Running
Crapo, Mike R ID Nay Nay Nay Nay 2016 5/20/14
Risch, James E. R ID Nay Nay Nay Nay Running
Durbin, Richard J. D IL Yea Yea Yea Yea Running 3/18/14
Kirk, Mark R IL Yea Yea Nay Nay 2016
Coats, Daniel R IN Yea Nay Nay Nay 2016 5/6/14
Donnelly, Joe D IN Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018
Grassley, Chuck R IA Nay Nay Nay Nay 2016 6/3/14
Harkin, Tom D IA Yea Yea Yea Yea Retiring
Moran, Jerry R KS Nay Nay Nay Nay 2016 8/5/14
Roberts, Pat R KS Nay Nay Nay Nay Running
McConnell, Mitch R KY Yea Yea Nay Nay Running 5/20/14
Paul, Rand R KY Nay Nay Nay Nay 2018
Landrieu, Mary L. D LA Yea Yea Yea Yea Running 11/4/14
Vitter, David R LA Nay Nay Nay Nay 2016
Collins, Susan M. R ME Yea Yea Nay Nay Running 6/10/14
King, Angus S., Jr. I ME Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018
Cardin, Benjamin L. D MD Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018 6/24/14
Mikulski, Barbara A. D MD Yea Yea Yea Yea 2016
Markey, Edward D MA Yea Yea Yea Yea ? ?
Warren, Elizabeth D MA Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018
Levin, Carl D MI Yea Yea Yea Yea Retiring 8/5/14
Stabenow, Debbie D MI Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018
Franken, Al D MN Yea Yea Yea Yea Running 8/12/14
Klobuchar, Amy D MN Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018
Cochran, Thad R MS Yea Yea Nay Nay Undeclared 6/3/14
Wicker, Roger F. R MS Yea Yea Nay Nay 2018
Blunt, Roy R MO Yea Yea Nay Nay 2016 8/5/14
McCaskill, Claire D MO Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018
Baucus, Max D MT Yea Yea Yea Yea Retiring 6/3/14
Tester, Jon D MT Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018
Fischer, Deb R NE Nay Nay Nay Nay 2018 5/13/14
Johanns, Mike R NE Yea Nay Nay Nay Retiring
Heller, Dean R NV Nay Nay Nay Nay 2016 6/10/14
Reid, Harry D NV Yea Yea Yea Yea 2016
Ayotte, Kelly R NH Yea Nay Nay Nay 2016 9/9/14
Shaheen, Jeanne D NH Yea Yea Yea Yea Running
Chiesa, Jeff R NJ Yea Yea Nay Nay Special Election 6/3/14
Menendez, Robert D NJ Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018
Heinrich, Martin D NM Yea Yea Yea Yea 2016 6/3/14
Udall, Tom D NM Yea Yea Yea Yea Running
Gillibrand, Kirsten E. D NY Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018 6/24/14
Schumer, Charles E. D NY Yea Yea Yea Yea 2016
Burr, Richard R NC Yea Nay Nay Nay 2016 5/6/14
Hagan, Kay R. D NC Yea Yea Yea Yea Running
Heitkamp, Heidi D ND Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018 6/10/14
Hoeven, John R ND Yea Nay Nay Nay 2016
Brown, Sherrod D OH Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018 5/6/14
Portman, Rob R OH Nay Yea Nay Nay 2016
Coburn, Tom R OK Yea Nay Nay Nay 2016 6/24/14
Inhofe, James M. R OK Nay Nay Nay Nay Running
Merkley, Jeff D OR Yea Yea Yea Yea Running 5/20/14
Wyden, Ron D OR Yea Yea Yea Yea 2016
Casey, Robert P., Jr. D PA Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018 5/20/14
Toomey, Patrick J. R PA Nay Nay Nay Nay 2016
Reed, Jack D RI Yea Yea Yea Yea Running 9/9/14
Whitehouse, Sheldon D RI Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018
Graham, Lindsey R SC Yea Yea Nay Nay Running 6/10/14
Scott, Tim R SC Nay Nay Nay Nay 2016
Johnson, Tim D SD Yea Yea Yea Yea Retiring 6/3/14
Thune, John R SD Yea Nay Nay Nay 2016
Alexander, Lamar R TN Yea Nay Nay Nay Running 8/7/14
Corker, Bob R TN Yea Nay Nay Nay 2018
Cornyn, John R TX Yea Yea Nay Nay Running 3/4/14
Cruz, Ted R TX Nay Nay Nay Nay 2018
Hatch, Orrin G. R UT Not Voting Not Voting Not Voting Not Voting 2018 6/24/14
Lee, Mike R UT Nay Nay Nay Nay 2016
Leahy, Patrick J. D VT Yea Yea Yea Yea 2016 8/26/14
Sanders, Bernard I VT Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018
Kaine, Tim D VA Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018 6/10/14
Warner, Mark R. D VA Yea Yea Yea Yea Running
Cantwell, Maria D WA Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018 8/5/14
Murray, Patty D WA Yea Yea Yea Yea 2016
Manchin, Joe, III D WV Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018 5/13/14
Rockefeller, John D., IV D WV Yea Yea Yea Yea Retiring
Baldwin, Tammy D WI Yea Yea Yea Yea 2018 8/12/14
Johnson, Ron R WI Yea Nay Nay Nay 2016
Barrasso, John R WY Yea Nay Nay Nay 2018 8/19/14
Enzi, Michael B. R WY Nay Nay Nay Nay Running

September 27, 2013 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

“Under The Dome” physics.

OK I think I’ve figured out the “Under The Dome” thing, at least the physics side of it. However to be fair I am a couple of episodes behind, however… To recap, I noticed in the first episode that the dome sliced through things, like a cow or a barn for example. The second episode showed that the wall was still permeable to water, a slow seepage at best though but still slightly. The third episode had the wall appearing in an underground tunnel, however I did notice that the wall didn’t slice through the ground and concrete.

So if we were to look at matter, a solid is really a lot of empty space between the molecules, it’s the electromagnetic fields that give the chair you’re sitting on its strength to prevent you from falling to the floor, or to the center of the planet for that matter. What if there was an electric field that was generated such that the air surrounding that town was solidified? We see what happens when oxygen is turned to a liquid state, albeit that’s dependant on extreme low temperatures. In theory if this field were used in a vacuum like in space it would be useless.

The only question I have is why it would be clear? When materials such as glass or water solidify they turn essentially crystalline, why would “frozen” oxygen do that? At least for water, where an oxygen atom with two hydrogen atoms at the bottom creates a more negative charge on one side than the other, so as the water compresses due to the temperature it lines up like magnets in a row. An O2 molecule is by definition electrically stable, so what would cause it to line up so light can pass through? Now I do get why sound wouldn’t, the field is essentially turning the oxygen into concrete.

I wonder though if I were to walk along that dome line if there would be anything that does not contain oxygen that didn’t get cut through? I’m sure it would be stuck there in the “air concrete” like a tree branch stuck in a frozen-over pond. However a decent push or pull could probably get it through.

This of course means that the people inside the dome are fubar-ed, as they’ll slowly suffocate. Sure the trees and grass would replenish some, but that’s dependant on the season and a lot of water, which they have a finite amount. They’re in summer, which in the second episode was already pointed out that they had no rain for days prior. As CO2 begins to increase it should get mighty toasty inside.

Now why doesn’t that smart kid at the beginning that was trying to map out the line find the center of the dome and see what’s there? “Hey, it’s farmer Johnson’s house. Oh look, he had a new well dug before….hey wait, let’s see what’s inside…..” But then they couldn’t milk this for another season, could they?

August 12, 2013 Posted by | Television | 1 Comment

An immigration post.

I often read another blog, called Misfit Politics. Some good kids there, I hope they can pick up the banner. Anyway there was this one post on immigration that was stellar, I really think you should read it, which I then made a response which I also have here.


So here’s my response on there, which has a bit that I’m responding to that post, but it’s minor.

Often times the reason we’re told we need Immigration Reform is because “the system is broken”, yet their solution is to add on laws to the “broken system”. That’s like adding more duct tape to the eighteen layers of duct tape that you put on that plane’s wing, then complain that the plane doesn’t fly. Here’s a thought….hhmmm… how about enforcing the existing law? There’s already law on the books that says “build a wall and enforce immigration law”, let’s start with that and THEN see. Instead we have people who talk a lot about enforcement but don’t actually give the resources to enforce.

Then there’s talk about that they need to “come out of the shadows”. Exactly how does that work, being in the shadows? We see them in Home Depot parking lots, we know where they’re working. We see them at rallies, there they are on tv. I don’t see ICE vans rounding them up, not even a parking ticket. (Remember that whole lack of enforcement I mentioned?) “Hey all you bank robbers and rapists! Come out of the shadows, it’s ok!” Sure, the “system is broken” if you’re breaking the system to begin with, you don’t get Mana points for that.

Oh, but I’m racist. How about we just adopt the “racist” immigration policy of Mexico, after all if it’s good enough for the Mexicans coming here it must be great. As you said, the “racist” card is the only card they have in their hand, and actually the fact that they’re using it shows them to be the racists. Every nations as you described has an immigration policy, some more restrictive than others. Why is it that the “open borders” people never march in those nations? Instead they insist we open our borders without an infrastructure to handle it, then claim the “system is broken”.

So let’s see, is it racist for a movie theatre to have one sole entry point where you present your ticket to pass on, or should they just open all the doors to let everyone come in? Is it racist to go on a line at the DMV, oh those racists ooooooooooooooo. Is it racist to fill out all those forms on April 15th? How about a fast food restaurant, people should all go to the front counter and demand the food all at once, right? Damn racists!

Everywhere you go, in all functions of government or business or even personal life there’s some order to how people are moved around, with traffic lights and “do not walk on the grass” signs, (sign says you’ve got to have a membership card to get inside….huh!) we as a society have created rules and patterns and laws and policies and dictums that are meant to allow everyone to flow in a reasonable manner. “The bus isn’t scheduled to come for another fifteen minutes? Racist!”

There is policy already in place to handle the inflow of people that come to this nation, either to visit, work or live here, even up to becoming a citizen. The fact that a large number of people choose to ignore it for their own interests does not equate to it being broken, it actually shows that the rules are working. They’re in the shadows? Real simple, follow the rules and you don’t need to be in that shadows.

Ultimately it shows these “compassionate” activists their true intentions, they have no desire for the plight of these people to improve, just increase their power base. Sure, we’ll give amnesty today, we’ll give them work visas and “free-to-cross-the-border” passes, but they do not get food stamps, welfare, or any rights or privileges to vote. After all they’re still citizens of Mexico, they’re only working here, they can come out of the shadows at last and work, that’s what they say they’re here for. If you say “but but but…” after that then you betray yourself as what your true motives are, and that’s why you lose the argument, and why you’re a hypocrite and a racist, and why you’re never for “those in the shadows”. And we all see that.

“So then what do you say we should do then?”

First thing is we tell these people we’re sorry. “Look, you were lied to. I’m sorry you were lied to. There isn’t any excuse for it but all we can do now is move to correct it. You were lied to by a political party who’s entire focus is their power over your misery, which is an actual crime. That’s why they keep inciting you, your outrage means votes to them. Prove me wrong, next election cycle suggest, the merest rumor, that you’ll vote for the other side.

“Now the businesses don’t get a free pass, they lied to you too. And the other party does tend to listen to the businesses, only we’re ashamed of that whereas the other party isn’t ashamed at their conduct. So you want to get even? Report on those businesses and we’ll shut them down.

“So because you were lied to, we’re going to be compassionate in how we treat you. Now you did break the law, and that cannot be ignored, but it can be mitigated. What we’ll do is we’ll give you 90 days to register. If after that time you are not on that list then anything that’s compromised later will not apply to you and you will be deported, no excuses. What that will do is put your status on hold, your place in line will be frozen, however if you’re just here we won’t deport you without due process. Now if you’re committing a crime, you’ll be taken off that list, put on a ‘not allowed entry list’ and you’ll be deported.”

The next thing we do is tell Mexico to knock it off. Any and all foreign aid we’re sending them is going to have deducted from it all the costs associated with the care of their citizens; food stamps, school tuition, medical care, etc. So if we’re sending oh say ten billion, we’ll drop that by oh…half? Whatever the numbers are, then send that money to the states for their costs.

We then tell Mexico that if the Socialist utopia is so great that their poor, starving people would risk trekking through 120 degree desert to come to such a “racist country”, then maybe they need to rethink their strategy. How come no one yells at Mexico, there’s a reason they’re fleeing to come to here? Why doesn’t el Presidente fix his own house before condemning others? Instead we have to clean up his mess? Yeah, as I said, they were lied to, but if as the left says “we can’t be the world’s police” to bash Bush, then we can’t be the world’s employer either.

Either that or why don’t we just stop tap-dancing and annex Mexico. Congrats, you’re now the 51st state. You’ll be taxed as the rest of us Gringos, fall under the same rules and laws. And you’ll get to vote. And we get vacation spots while you guys clean our pools. Cool. Democrats love a slave state.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

July 14, 2013 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

Immigration Reform

First off, can we just save time and rename the bill the “Republican Party will slit its own throats” law?

So I made a spreadsheet (it’s what I do) of the vote, who Yea’d and Nay’d, as well as whether they are up for re-election in 2014 and the Primary dates for the particular state. All this info I got from Wikipedia, the Congressional website, and http://www.thegreenpapers.com/, so if there are any errors please let me know so I can change it. Also, I’m a part-timer here, ok? Regardless, check your local Election Board just to be certain.

The point of this is we need to Primary those that are responsible for this debacle. I called my Senators, told them outright (ok their receptionists) that this bill is suicide, so vote No. They voted for it anyway, so they lost my support. I’m hoping this gives a nice easy-to-read view so you can decide for yourself. And yeah, the Democrats can probably use this too (waving hello). feh.

As soon as I finish this post I’m going to create a spreadsheet on the House of Reps, just in case.

United States Senate 
Name Party 00168 On Passage 2014 Primary Date
Alabama Sessions, Jeff  R Nay Running 7/15/14
Alabama Shelby, Richard C.  R Nay 2016
Alaska Begich, Mark  D Yea Running 8/26/14
Alaska Murkowski, Lisa  R Yea 2016
Arizona Flake, Jeff  R Yea 2016 7/31/14
Arizona McCain, John  R Yea 2016
Arkansas Boozman, John  R Nay 2016 5/20/14
Arkansas Pryor, Mark L.  D Yea Running
California Boxer, Barbara  D Yea 2016 6/3/14
California Feinstein, Dianne  D Yea 2018
Colorado Bennet, Michael F.  D Yea 2016 6/24/14
Colorado Udall, Mark  D Yea Running
Connecticut Blumenthal, Richard  D Yea 2016 8/12/14
Connecticut Murphy, Christopher  D Yea 2018
Delaware Carper, Thomas R.  D Yea 2018 9/9/14
Delaware Coons, Christopher A.  D Yea Running
Florida Nelson, Bill  D Yea 2018 8/26/14
Florida Rubio, Marco  R Yea 2016
Georgia Chambliss, Saxby  R Nay Retiring 7/15/14
Georgia Isakson, Johnny  R Nay 2016
Hawaii Hirono, Mazie K.  D Yea 2016 8/9/14
Hawaii Schatz, Brian  D Yea Running
Idaho Crapo, Mike  R Nay 2016 5/20/14
Idaho Risch, James E.  R Nay Running
Illinois Durbin, Richard J.  D Yea Running 3/18/14
Illinois Kirk, Mark  R Yea 2016
Indiana Coats, Daniel  R Nay 2016 5/6/14
Indiana Donnelly, Joe  D Yea 2018
Iowa Grassley, Chuck  R Nay 2016 6/3/14
Iowa Harkin, Tom  D Yea Retiring
Kansas Moran, Jerry  R Nay 2016 8/5/14
Kansas Roberts, Pat  R Nay Running
Kentucky McConnell, Mitch  R Nay Running 5/20/14
Kentucky Paul, Rand  R Nay 2018
Louisiana Landrieu, Mary L.  D Yea Running 11/4/14
Louisiana Vitter, David  R Nay 2016
Maine Collins, Susan M.  R Yea Running 6/10/14
Maine King, Angus S., Jr.  I Yea 2018
Maryland Cardin, Benjamin L.  D Yea 2018 6/24/14
Maryland Mikulski, Barbara A.  D Yea 2016
Massachusetts Cowan, William M.  D Yea Special Election 9/16/14
Massachusetts Warren, Elizabeth  D Yea 2018
Michigan Levin, Carl  D Yea Retiring 8/5/14
Michigan Stabenow, Debbie  D Yea 2018
Minnesota Franken, Al  D Yea Running 8/12/14
Minnesota Klobuchar, Amy  D Yea 2018
Mississippi Cochran, Thad  R Nay Undeclared 6/3/14
Mississippi Wicker, Roger F.  R Nay 2018
Missouri Blunt, Roy  R Nay 2016 8/5/14
Missouri McCaskill, Claire  D Yea 2018
Montana Baucus, Max  D Yea Retiring 6/3/14
Montana Tester, Jon  D Yea 2018
Nebraska Fischer, Deb  R Nay 2018 5/13/14
Nebraska Johanns, Mike  R Nay Retiring
Nevada Heller, Dean  R Yea 2016 6/10/14
Nevada Reid, Harry  D Yea 2016
New Hampshire Ayotte, Kelly  R Yea 2016 9/9/14
New Hampshire Shaheen, Jeanne  D Yea Running
New Jersey Chiesa, Jeff  R Yea Special Election 6/3/14
New Jersey Menendez, Robert  D Yea 2018
New Mexico Heinrich, Martin  D Yea 2016 6/3/14
New Mexico Udall, Tom  D Yea Running
New York Gillibrand, Kirsten E.  D Yea 2018 6/24/14
New York Schumer, Charles E.  D Yea 2016
North Carolina Burr, Richard  R Nay 2016 5/6/14
North Carolina Hagan, Kay R.  D Yea Running
North Dakota Heitkamp, Heidi  D Yea 2018 6/10/14
North Dakota Hoeven, John  R Yea 2016
Ohio Brown, Sherrod  D Yea 2018 5/6/14
Ohio Portman, Rob  R Nay 2016
Oklahoma Coburn, Tom  R Nay 2016 6/24/14
Oklahoma Inhofe, James M.  R Nay Running
Oregon Merkley, Jeff  D Yea Running 5/20/14
Oregon Wyden, Ron  D Yea 2016
Pennsylvania Casey, Robert P., Jr.  D Yea 2018 5/20/14
Pennsylvania Toomey, Patrick J.  R Nay 2016
Rhode Island Reed, Jack  D Yea Running 9/9/14
Rhode Island Whitehouse, Sheldon  D Yea 2018
South Carolina Graham, Lindsey  R Yea Running 6/10/14
South Carolina Scott, Tim  R Nay 2016
South Dakota Johnson, Tim  D Yea Retiring 6/3/14
South Dakota Thune, John  R Nay 2016
Tennessee Alexander, Lamar  R Yea Running 8/7/14
Tennessee Corker, Bob  R Yea 2018
Texas Cornyn, John  R Nay Running 3/4/14
Texas Cruz, Ted  R Nay 2018
Utah Hatch, Orrin G.  R Yea 2018 6/24/14
Utah Lee, Mike  R Nay 2016
Vermont Leahy, Patrick J.  D Yea 2016 8/26/14
Vermont Sanders, Bernard  I Yea 2018
Virginia Kaine, Tim  D Yea 2018 6/10/14
Virginia Warner, Mark R.  D Yea Running
Washington Cantwell, Maria  D Yea 2018 8/5/14
Washington Murray, Patty  D Yea 2016
West Virginia Manchin, Joe, III  D Yea 2018 5/13/14
West Virginia Rockefeller, John D., IV  D Yea Retiring
Wisconsin Baldwin, Tammy  D Yea 2018 8/12/14
Wisconsin Johnson, Ron  R Nay 2016
Wyoming Barrasso, John  R Nay 2018 8/19/14
Wyoming Enzi, Michael B.  R Nay Running

So using the filter of those Republicans that voted for this…

Name Party 2014 Primary Date
Alaska Murkowski, Lisa  R 2016 8/26/14
Arizona Flake, Jeff  R 2016 7/31/14
Arizona McCain, John  R 2016 7/31/14
Florida Rubio, Marco  R 2016 8/26/14
Illinois Kirk, Mark  R 2016 3/18/14
Maine Collins, Susan M.  R Running 6/10/14
Nevada Heller, Dean  R 2016 6/10/14
New Hampshire Ayotte, Kelly  R 2016 9/9/14
New Jersey Chiesa, Jeff  R Special Election 6/3/14
North Dakota Hoeven, John  R 2016 6/10/14
South Carolina Graham, Lindsey  R Running 6/10/14
Tennessee Alexander, Lamar  R Running 8/7/14
Tennessee Corker, Bob  R 2018 8/7/14
Utah Hatch, Orrin G.  R 2018 6/24/14

I can’t believe I have to wait for mine…….harumf…. Anyway I hope this is helpful, I’m going to start on the House next and post it soon. Please let me know if I have any incorrect info. Thanks.


WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

June 28, 2013 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

Lessons Learned From Judge Judy

First of all I watch Judge Judy (and People’s Court) for my daily affirmation: “I am not this jackass that stiffed this woman five grand, I am sooo not this jerk for hitting this woman……”

Anyway last year I’m watching Judge Judy, and she can be self-deprecating at times when it deals with technology. For example if a litigant has pictures on a cell phone she makes a bit of a deal on how she tries to figure out how to work it. Well on one episode she mentioned that people put their entire lives on those things.

This gave me the idea. Take pictures. Every time.

So say I drop off laundry at the dry cleaners, say five shirts. Before I drop them off I take pictures of them, both sides. After I get them back I delete the pictures, usually. If there’s a problem, and I’ve already had this happen twice, where I’m missing a shirt they ask for me to describe it. “Oh…. this one”. “Ah yes, that’s in the back, we’ll get it”.

I also take a complete walk-around my car, taking pictures of it, before I put it in for the car wash, then take a second walk-around after. Do not leave the lot, that’s another lesson learned, once you leave you can’t come back.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

June 28, 2013 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The most anti-Constitutional President ever.

With each new controversy, I’m beginning to sense more than a pattern. I’m seeing an out-right breaking of Constitutional safeguards, designed to prevent such gross government intrusion. Let’s start with the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof“. We see in ObamaCare how those religious institutions that do not wish to participate with abortion were set to be punished.

“Abridging the freedom of speech”, the IRS scandal involving the suppressing & intimidation of donor groups towards elections.

“Abridging the freedom of the press”, well Obama has had most of the media in their pocket since the beginning, yet he still spied on them and the opposition i.e. Fox News & James Rosen.

“Abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble”, what is the PRISM & Meta-data from Verizon et al about? The government gathering a massive database of peoples’ phone records, to what end? To look at “patterns”? Um, who’s writing the algorithms? Can we look at them too? Otherwise it is “guilt by association”, looking at a target phone number of a political enemy and see who’s their constituents.

So suppose in the last year I called or emailed Senator Hornblower, for whatever reason. Since Sen. Hornblower is a Republican, Obama could look at who’s called, oh I’m on the list. I wonder why.

This also violates the Right to Privacy, as well as the Fifth Amendment, whereupon if there is any and all court proceedings I have a right to face my accusers, as well as Lois Lerner pushed, I can’t be forced to incriminate myself. However those records aren’t being used for criminality, other then the fact that they are criminalizing politics.

If you recall in 2009 Janet Napolitano, head of the Department of Homeland Security, released who they considered was the “threat” that they were going to investigate.

“Paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the
1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group
visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia
movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements
(particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement
on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social
issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s,
these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist
and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities,
law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.”

So anyone they see as disagreeing with them. Notice who the IRS targeted? “Abridging the freedom to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

He’s gone after the Tenth Amendment when sued Arizona for daring to enforce Federal law. He’s going after the Second Amendment after every tragedy. The PRISM violates the Fourth Amendment which protects against Search & Seizure. His drone attacks on Americans violates the Sixth and Seventh Amendments. The ObamaCare, which was held Constitutional only because “it was a tax” is a violation of the Eight Amendment, which talks about prohibiting excessive fines. Which Amendment is next?

June 10, 2013 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

The promise and the victim.

I realized something yesterday. I was wondering why Latinos & African-Americans continue to see themselves as “the victims”. This continued to be a dis-connect from reality, yet this election showed that there are a large number of people that believe this. Then it came to me.

America has a promise, that’s what makes it so great. But what exactly is that promise? As it turns out that’s the key here. The actual promise is that everyone has an equal opportunity. However some are selling it as everyone has an equal outcome, of prosperity. That’s a high hurdle, everyone? Prosperous?

So obviously not everyone is going to reach that, especially if the work, effort, & even sacrifice is not put in first.

“I didn’t get what was promised, you’re at fault!”

Well now did you work for it?

“Doesn’t matter, I didn’t get what was promised!”

Now, a Democrat happens to walk by, “you didn’t get what you were promised? Vote for me & I’ll take it from him, (with a ‘small’ fee of course)”

Then a short time later ….. “I’m still not getting what I was promised!”

“Oh well they must have made you a victim then, but I’ll protect you from them so keep voting for me.”

This is the lowest form of snake-oil salesmen, to prey on another man’s suffering, feeding him poison to keep him suffering, and then benefit from that pain. “Want the pain to stop? Oh well that won’t happen if you vote for them. Sucker.”

So how do you combat that? When you’re dealing with pain and denial, what can cut through that?

Well for starters the “rebranding” will always fail. Right now the left has convinced these people that they have the cure that ails them. Looking back through the centuries at the “norms” of that time it was considered medically sound to use leaches and drill holes in the head to “release the evil spirits”. In a hundred years, hopefully, the fallacy of Socialism will be considered the equivalent of drinking Mercury. http://www.cracked.com/article_15669_the-10-most-insane-medical-practices-in-history.html

The question then is: what forces were there at those times in history that moved the society in general away from the “norm”? What will be our equivalent of discovering Penicillin?

What are you looking at me for? Damned if I know, pft.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

March 27, 2013 Posted by | Politics | 2 Comments

Looking for my next book.

Anyway I’m nearing the end of this book I’m reading, “Arguing With Idiots – Glenn Beck”, and looking toward the next book to read. However I’m kinda deciding which direction I want to go. Here’s what I’ve read so far.

  • In The Garden Of Beasts – Erik Larson (If you want to see where we’re heading today, spooky parallels)
  • Mugged – Ann Coulter
  • Demonic – Ann Coulter
  • Boss Tweed – Kenneth D. Ackerman
  • Liberal Fascism – Jonah Goldberg

I also read a couple of Star Trek books around there as well (Kirk, all the way, baby) so I’m going back and forth on what I want to read. Go to the next political book, I have dozens. Go onto so something light, like maybe Lord of the Rings or Sherlock Holmes? A mix of the two, like re-reading 1984? Heck, I have a couple of Alton Brown’s cookbooks I can read. Then there’s what I downloaded on the Kindle, about a couple of hundred there. Just not sure what next.

It’s like looking at a buffet with only a small plate and trying to figure out what I’m hungry for. meh.

February 28, 2013 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Case in point….

So yesterday I went to one of my local Outback Steakhouse restaurants, I usually go once a week, and I order the same thing, the Filet Wedge. It’s simple, it’s iceberg lettuce with dressing and a side of steak, what’s not to love? (The higher-plane-thinkers at Corporate though took it off the menu for some reason, however the manager here still makes it for me, nice guy.)

Anyway, I have an issue with onions, a bit of an allergy. Garlic too, sigh I miss garlic. Well yesterday I get this waiter who just does not listen. First I tell him outright that I want my order without onions, and I use the word “allergy”. Not a hard concept, it’s not like I’m asking to have the croutons taken off, I have an “a l l e r g y”. I also tell him that I have a lunch rush since I happen to need to be at work for a mandatory meeting, so I can’t be late.

So, I’ve been in restaurants where I tell them I’m in a bit of a rush, sometimes it helps and other times not. It still takes a while for my order to come out, another server brings it, and ….. it has onions.

I admit I was pissed, still am actually. How hard can this be? No onions, and raw onions at that. I make it perfectly clear to the server that I don’t want them to bring it back and just flick off the onions, then serve it to me. However I also chastise him because now it’s going to take longer to make a new set. I timed it, I received the “new” order in eight minutes. At one point the manager did apologize to me, but it still took extra time.

Now here’s where I’m super-pissed. How long does it take to “cook” a salad? And if the chef tells me personally he cooked a new filet I’ll call him a liar to his face, the steak I had though cooked was cold. So it had to have come from the last order.

The waiter did come out and talk with me, I had told the server that I wanted to talk to the person who specifically put the onions on and find out why he ignored it, so the waiter said it was his fault and not the chef’s since he didn’t put the “no onions” in the computer. Then the chef is an idiot too, ‘cause I order the same thing every week, on various days, this is not new. I order it the same way each time, no onions and regular seasoning instead of the wood-grilled seasoning. “Oh, it’s that guy, he’s back, sure I know exactly how it’s done. Wait, it doesn’t say ‘no onions’ are you sure? Go check, he said there’s an allergy involved, I don’t want to call 911 today.”

So the waiter screwed up my order, he didn’t fill my drink, and I had to ask him twice for extra dressing. Time-wise? Well, to be safe I left for lunch 15 minutes early, however even after that I ended up getting back late. I made my meeting, however that was only because I went early. I still had to wolf down my meal, it was cold, and I ended up having my stomach in knots for hours because of this.

Anyway as I was leaving I talked to the hostess at the front and told her what happened, and asked her to do me a favor and not sit at his table again. I also called the corporate headquarters and left a voicemail about it and suggested the waiter just do dishes, that’ all he’s suited for.

But this is what my earlier post was about, the managers of these restaurants have to realize their customers are not there for hours, they have a finite time for lunch, and if there is a request for a change especially when it involves an allergy that needs to be emphasized. How hard can this be?

February 28, 2013 Posted by | Food | 3 Comments

Not trying to be a “foody”, but….

I figure I might as well mention a few places I like around the Phoenix area, at least my opinions of them, so take what you like from this.

The first place is “The Parlor”, which is on Camelback across the mall by the 51. From what I’m told it used to be a beauty parlor, hence why they kept the name. My wife and I have had three meals there, different on each one. The first time was a simple meat and cheese platter with a pizza split between us. It was pretty good (although I’m originally from NY, so I admit I go by that standard, have yet to see anything like that here.) The second time we each had our own individual pizzas, which you can custom make to how you want it. Next time I have to remember to ask specifically for cherry tomatoes. The last time we had the shrimp and calamari, which was quite tasty, and we both did pasta dishes. I had this Pappardelle Bolognese dish with large pasta, which was quite good, my wife had a ravioli dish with white bean puree and mushrooms, I tried it and it was quite creamy.

We also tried “The Vig”, nice place but the food we both felt was a bit bland, the appetizer and the main dish we had.

Lastly we tried this tapas place by us, the “Timo Wood Oven Wine Bar”, very nice décor, the patio with a fireplace, quite stylish. We tried several different tapas, cheese course, bruschetta, and a couple of the lamb chops (mmmmmm meat lollipops, ahem, sorry.) So far we’ve only been there once but we’re looking forward to the next time.

Anyway I’m not sure if I’ll do regular entries here on restaurants, maybe. We’ll see. I do want to mention something off of my chest here. I often go out to eat for lunch, some of the restaurants around me are good, some so-so, the usual gamut. The one word of advice I really wish I could impart on restaurant owners: please remember that people on their lunch break are often trying to get back to work, so please please pick up the pace. There are places I’ve stopped going BECAUSE the service is so slow, I may like the food but if I’m getting back late from lunch what happens? I either have to wolf the food down, which means I’m not enjoying it, or I’m leaving bad tips for the wait staff. Dinner time is completely different, usually that’s after work is done. But lunch time I usually estimate 20 minutes from sit down to signing for the check. If that’s a problem then mention it at the door with the Maître D. Otherwise, I’ll stop going there.


Edited 2/28/13

Sorry I realized I didn’t mention where the other two were. The Vig is on 16th St., I think close to Bethany Home. The Timo Wood is on Central Ave. up close to Dunlap.

February 27, 2013 Posted by | Food | Leave a comment

Lessons from working at an airport.

I just read some tweets about how we shouldn’t engage in Hollywood since they’ll never accept Conservatism. I admit I get that point, however I also had an equally opposing view from when I worked at an airport mumblemumble years ago. So I thought it might help to clarify.

I used to work at JFK airport, way back at the TWA terminal. My job was working on the baggage sorting computer, so I fix from that system up to the wall, that’s it. From there Building Maintenance  is supposed to work on things: photo-eye misalignments, motors not running, belts slipping, etc. The problem often would be if there was anything wrong with the system, “it’s the computer’s fault”, meaning I need to fix it. Didn’t matter if flights were delayed, I had to prove it wasn’t me, it’s them.

Now of course I was not allowed to go into their arena, take a look in this cabinet or anything. Yeah, those are high voltage cabinets and I’m not rated, also it’s a union shop, so I have every reason to say “not my problem”. But what would I do? I would go into those cabinets and show them where the problems were. “It’s this relay, right there, see? Says so on the diagrams and everything”.

What I learned is that it doesn’t matter who’s fault it is, just get the bleepin’ thing fixed. Something is in your way? Go around it, under it, or what the heck, through it. Get it working, now.

So yeah, Hollywood is 100% biased against us. We will never, ever, change their mind. Screw it. Go around them, under them, over them, even through them. They are not the only media outlet. There’s a reason they are no longer the gold standard, that it’s going to other media outlets around the world. When you look at ticket sales from Conservative movies, like D’Nesh D’Sousa’s 2016 ($5.8 mil in opening weekend), when there is a market for it there will be a new “Hollywood”. Maybe in Houston or Omaha or wherever, we can build it.

And so what if we don’t get an “Oscar”, let’s create our own awards show. I wonder what we can call the statue…..

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

February 25, 2013 Posted by | Movies, Politics | Leave a comment

Random stuff I’ve said.

I basically just went thinking of all the random stuff I’ve said over the years, figured I’d write it all down. In no particular order.

  • If at first you don’t succeed, use a bigger hammer. (Works in all sorts of situations, tax audits, guy cuts you off…)
  • They say that Road Rage is a problem. It’s not a problem. It’s a solution. If it gets people out of my way so I can get where I need to go, it’s a good thing.
  • If you’re the only sane man in an insane world, does that make you Anti-Social?
  • He’s as subtle as a case of herpes.
  • If there is any justice Bill Clinton & Sandra Fluke would be locked in a phone booth.
  • I watch Judge Judy for my daily affirmation: “I am not this loser that stiffed this woman.”
  • Every time someone re-tweets me an angel gets his wings. Or follow me. Or something, I don’t know. Do it or the puppy gets it!
  • Every sarcastic tweet you make a puppy dies……why do you hate puppies?
  • “The Means Justify the Ends.” No, the Means Define The Ends.
  • I can’t believe today was completely wasted. All I did was work, not one bit of twitter. feh.
  • Is it me, or is it weird seeing a 65 year old woman at Costco thumbing through 50 Shades of Grey? It’s just me then.
  • Sigh. I am so far behind I can look back and see my own birth.
  • I was wondering, if the Pope sneezes what do they say? “It’s ok, you don’t need to ‘bless me’, I’ve got the hat & the ring, so I’ve got it.”
  • Can you imagine if everyone in the Vatican had a cold? I can see the memo, “until further notice the term ‘bless you’ will be suspended”.
  • I just once want to see video of the Pope motorcade with the theme from Shaft going in the background. Just once. YouTubing the theme from Shaft now. “The Pope baby, can ya dig it?”
  • I just had a thought…..nope sorry, false alarm, as you were.
  • Definition of Wisdom: The art of taking “Ow, dammit, that was really really stupid” into useful information.
  • Salad is just a means of eating dressing.
  • It is never moral or appropriate to take from someone else to fulfill your own feelings of compassion for another, do it yourself!
  • Republican definition of charity: Here, let me help you up to be as successful as I am, here’s a little something to help with that.
  • Democrat definition of charity: Oh, you poor thing, it must be those people who took away from you, here take his wallet. Money from me? pft
  • Every night I give my cats treats, to bribe them so they won’t smother me in my sleep. Cute furry little death machines.
  • Coming this fall on NBC: Are you smarter than a Vice President?
  • Someone actually asked me what I was going to do for the holiday. Really? I’m a simple guy: Sleep, Eat, Crap, Repeat.
  • I find it funny that the New York New York hotel in Las Vegas has authentic homeless guys at the entrance.
  • Arizona has two seasons: Hot, and Not-So-Hot.
  • Fourteen out of ten people say math is hard.
  • I’m a Master at Fung Shway Anything, where the mouth and the mind are totally separated.
  • I must say ladies, I am amazing in bed. But then I wake up.
  • Want to know the secret to losing weight? If you eat twice as fast it’s in you half as long.
  • You know you’re getting old when songs your parents hated, like ACDC, Madonna & Twisted Sister, become elevator muzak “Hmm, isn’t that ‘Big Balls?'”
  • I don’t consider myself a Calvinist, Hobbes was much better anyway. Gotta love those imaginary friends.
  • I used to think the number of years gauged a man’s age, now I see it’s the number of pills you need to take in the morning. “I’m up to 4.” “Eh, you’re young. Talk to me when you’re in the teens.”
  • Life is too short for grudges. So get your revenge early.
  • Sarcasm is my mutant super power.
  • Tomayto potahto
  • Ever notice there isn’t enough evil laughter at inappropriate times? “Hey Gramma, wanna go to the lake? Mwwawawaaa.”
  • I find it funny that the Left is opposed to death penalty, for assisted suicide, yet put Sandiuski on suicide watch.
  • The saying “if you can’t beat em, join em”, now said by Unions “if they don’t join? Beat em!”
  • I think this solves Arizona’s Immigration problem, we just ship all the illegals to Chicago.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

January 28, 2013 Posted by | Humorus, Politics | Leave a comment

We’re All Gonna Die!!!!!!……reposted.

I posted this at the beginning of this year, figured I’d repost it. While I still can……{creepy organ music ensues}.

I wish I can remember where I read this, but I saw a cartoon about a year-ish ago. It was a two-panel piece, the left side had an archeologist reading some Mayan hieroglyphics and says “according to this the world is going to end in 2012!”. The right-side panel has the Mayan guy writing on the stone tablet….” Tink tink tink… please remember to order next year’s calendar”.

December 19, 2012 Posted by | Funny, Humor, Humorus | Leave a comment

Democrats: Still the party of slavery

Ever since this nation’s founding there have been two sides, usually falling between two political lines. Whether the names change, from the Know-Nothing party and the Whigs to the current iteration of Democrats and Republicans, certain philosophies have remained at their central cores. For Democrats, the history has shown them to be the party of the subjugation and suppression of an entire populace for their own benefit.

From the Civil War, to Unions keeping “the negros out”, to the passage of the Jim Crow laws, the “back of the bus” laws, school segregation, all policies were created and enforced by Democrats. Each time there has been attempts at redress, Democrats have blocked it; the creation of the Klu Klux Klan (violence and intimidation), blocking the Civil Rights act of 1964, bodily blocking schools and announcing “Segregation today and segregation tomorrow”.

Oddly though there was this weird game of Musical Chairs. Long ago there was a chair labeled “racism”, which Democrats sat gleefully. They drew power from it, they got elected by using it, so they enjoyed a lofty perch. KKK Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd won election after election on this platform. Lestor Maddox and Bull Connor used attack dogs and fire hoses with impunity.

Republicans though never sought that chair, they instead fought against it with passages of the Civil Rights laws and taking on Unions and KKK members. Over time their power began to grow, newly freed slaves voted Republican in droves. Until….

Democrats saw the writing on the wall, got off the racism chair, pushed the Republicans into it and told everyone they were the non-racists all along. A bit of re-writing of history, and Republicans did all the crimes that they themselves did. That story-line is in effect today, still using the racism chair but not actually sitting in it, they don’t need to since their followers believe the switch. “We’ve always been good, it’s those mean Republicans that were the racists all along.”

This allows them to use the exact same methods of intimidation, violence, and subjugation towards the means of slavery. Their “logic” is simple. They view the Republicans, without evidence, to be racist, they’re Fascists, they’re coming to take away your rights. Therefore that gives them license to use violence, intimidation, whatever Fascism is necessary to take away the Republicans’ rights. “Bush is Hitler, Republicans are Fascists, so that means we can beat them down!” That’s subjugation and suppression, justified in their view. Even the current talk of tax increases is another means of their subjugation.

Let’s take an example. Which is larger, $100,000 or $1 million dollars? $1 million right?

So now pull back to the “bigger picture” for the context of that question. Just for math’s sake, let’s suppose Mitt Romney made $10 million a year. And because he’s a greedy Capitalist with friends in the Congress he’s able to skate with say 10% income tax rate. That would be a bad thing, right? After all he should pay his “fair share”. Of course Jeffrey Immelt and GE paid $0 taxes BECAUSE they do have friends in Congress. They also have all their companies overseas for cheap labor to evade those taxes, but Romney has a few mil in the Cayman Islands and we hate that, but Google’s ok, move along.

Ok Romney of course hates people. He found out that Congressman Blankity passed a law that gave everyone a minimum salary, along the lines of the minimum wage, of oh say $100,000 a year. That’s a good deal of money, that’s more than double what I make now, cool beans. So eeeeevil Mitt Romney calls up his boys in Congress, “curses, foiled again. I know, let’s raise their taxes, how about 100%, that’ll show them!” Now that $100,000 you’re making all goes to Uncle Sam instead of you. Well that’s not fair!

However, even at that rate, who still pays more in taxes? “Which is larger, $100,000 or $1 million dollars?” The amount of money from Romney is still ten times more than if they were to confiscate every penny from you.

“But it’s the rate, it’s the rate!”

Fine, we’ll put you back at his 10%, that’s $10,000. Which is larger, $10,000 or $1 million dollars? He’s now paying 100 times more, how is that fair?

“But having the taxes at 100% for me isn’t fair, how can I live?”

That’s true, and no one is actually suggesting that, on the Republican side that is. Forcing someone to work without compensation is, what class? “Slavery”, that’s right. To expect someone to work for you, to provide for your needs, wants and comforts, without providing an adequate compensation for that work is not only illegal (we went to war, passed some laws, maybe a Constitutional amendment or two, but who can keep track) but it’s also immoral. This week we saw Unions protesting that they want a decent wage. I, as the employer, would be acting immorally to have those workers provide for me without pay.

Now my raising that tax rate to 100% is no difference. In that example the government would be benefiting from slavery of a group of people, and as the bloated bigot Michael Moore says, there’s only 400 of them. Wouldn’t that make them a “minority”? Guess subjugating a minority is cool then.

“They need to pay their “Fair Share!”

What’s fair? How is it fair for a man to be forced to pay 100 times more then the next guy? Does he get 100 times more benefit from the government then you do? Does he magically grow 100 times bigger? Is his life 100 times better that he somehow needs to atone for daring gasp to achieve the American Dream?

How about the other direction, what about the 50% of the country that pays 0% in taxes? How is that fair? By what right do they have to then say “we’re poor, therefore that gives us the right to have you be our slaves to work hard without getting your fair compensation”? How about finding out how those people made all that money and try it for yourselves?

I, as a worker, have value. My time is valuable to me. My skills, experience, intelligence, motivation, full-on sweat, bone and sinew, all have a value that I decide to place on the market. I go to an employer, here is my value. The employer then decides if those skills, experience, and sweat will allow him to make him money. If he uses my value without compensating in equivalent amounts (i.e. slavery) then I walk. If I over-reach and expect that the employer to give me more then he’s willing to provide, he won’t hire me. I need to be able to show that the addition of my value will benefit that employer more then what I am costing, otherwise the business ultimately won’t be able to pay for other costs, such as other employees, rent, utilities, etc., and have to shut down.

“But the employer shouldn’t make money, that’s greedy.”

And that’s your problem. You are insisting that he work for free, that he needs to work under slave wages. Just because a man opens a business doesn’t mean that physics stops, that he doesn’t need to pay his own mortgage, utilities, food, gas, “Lisa needs braces”. Should he tell the supermarket that they should work for him for free and just give him food? Wouldn’t that be passing along slavery onto others?

“Yeah, we don’t want to be slaves to the man, we’re all just a slave. Freedom man!”

We all are, yes. We all have needs, some wants, and a few healthy desires. In theory. If none of us had zero needs, then yes we could unleash all of those shackles. I tend to still need to eat though. I need to have a roof over my head so that I can keep the rain off of my Xbox. I want to have entertainment on this magic box every night, and those super zippy messaging over those ‘puters too. However that does not mean that my wants become a need at someone else’s expense. My own wants, needs and desires are my own responsibility, no one else’s.

That unfortunately means that I have a value on those things. Other people that wish to provide them also value them, so they will trade that with me for the appropriate compensation. To not do that would be immoral as that is theft and slavery. The appropriate response then becomes “yeah, we’re all slaves, until Star Trek becomes real and we get personal food synthesizers and teleporters.” Otherwise, no matter what, if you want to call it that then yes we are all slaves to ourselves.

The ultimate “slave states” BTW are the Communist nations, people in work camps, making stale bread for people to wait on long lines for the basics. That’s the Democrat party’s wet dream.

“Well shouldn’t they just make what they need? Why does he need to $10 million, why not $5 million and give the rest to us?”

Again, that’s the same trap. He’s now getting less for his labor for your benefit, that is not moral. Besides who is to say that his needs are no more or less than mine, or yours? I think you don’t need a computer……. so why aren’t you getting rid of your computer? It’s the exact same thing, I get to determine what your needs are if you get to determine what Mitt’s needs are. Maybe I should say your needs are to live in a six by eight room eating only Ramaan noodles. By what moral or legal right do I make that determination? I don’t. And neither do you.

So Romney and others work hard to earn their millions, they provide a service to the company that benefits from that work and skill so that it, and the employees along with him, are able to get their compensation. If he goes to a company and says “ten million, right here”, he better perform such that the company not only earns that to pay him, also the employees in the company, the lights have to be paid for, gas for the trucks, and on and on. He needs to in essence produce more then he’s worth, we all do.

I may think that my skill-set is worth ten times more then I’m getting now, you may think yours is twenty times. Ultimately there is always going to be the loss, you never get twice as many crops as the work you put into it, you never get more than a dozen eggs at the store, there’s no way of changing it. The “solutions” of the Democrat party are meant to artificially unbalance it so that somehow it does allow more energy out then put in, which always leads to, repeat after me class, subjugation and suppression. In any given electric circuit the power-in will never equal the power-out, there is always a loss, unless you take from another source. In order to create that type of “economic circuit” some have to have their resources tapped so that others can have that benefit. However it’s always parasitic, it never benefits the “source”.

Ultimately this type of policy fails in the long-run. Con men throughout the generations try to bring out “perpetual engine”, snake oils, Ponzi schemes, and so on to create that false sense of “you’ll get more coming out then you put in, trust me”. Eventually enough people see through it and walk away, always happens. Unfortunately it doesn’t mean that it stops people from trying, they just change the card on the side of the truck to something new. “Oh no that wasn’t us, that was Johnson’s snake oil. We’re Frederick’s tonic.”

It’s going to take time. I read an interesting article about the medical practices over the centuries, from a few decades ago on to a couple of hundreds. From sawing off limbs and leeches, drilling holes in the head, to drinking water laced with radioactive pellets, if any of these were even suggested today people would recoil in horror. However if you were to talk to each of those doctors they would swear that they were doing what was best for the patient, they are so ingrained with that belief as those that believed the sun rotated around us. Yet if you were to time-travel any of them to today to show them the error of their ways I’m sure they would also recoil in horror at what damage they’ve done.

The current political climate is no different. The Democrats are true-believers. They are of the same mind-set as those that torched Galileo, they are so ingrained that what they’re doing is the right course, unfortunately oblivious to the damage it’s causing. Hopefully it won’t take a hundred years for them to see, maybe a single generation. Conservative philosophy does work and has shown to be the cure for what ails, we just have to convince them to put down the leeches.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

December 17, 2012 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

A book review of Boss Tweed by Kenneth D. Ackerman

I’m originally from New York, Long Island for most of my life, then on to the big city, and lastly to Phoenix for the past six years. However I still see myself as a NewYawker, probably always will. There were always great names of people, always in the background though. Like, who was LaGuardia? Robert Moses? Some guy named Tweed, really? (Hey New York educators, maybe if you stopped warehousing kids and try teaching them about NY? Aw who am I talking to, Randi won’t let ‘em.)

So considering the current political climate I decided to read up on the infamous Boss Tweed, where I found Kenneth Ackerman’s book. I found it well written with great historical context, giving not only the characters but the events surrounding them. The book is a great illustration of how corruption in politics has always been something that’s surrounding big money, and that ultimately had to be fought back.

The book goes into great detail of the rise and fall of the hero of Tammany Hall. I’ve heard that term on occasion, “Tammany politics”, but never knew where it came from. As a side-note, it’s on par with the Chicago-style of politics that we’re seeing from the current administration. Tweed was the “Mayor Daley” a hundred years earlier. In fact I find it interesting that Tweed’s party, which was Democrat, and Daley’s party, also Democrat, were using the exact same tactics that the current Democrats use today. As I’m reading this book I could easily substitute any number of names into it as synonyms: Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barak Obama, take your pick.

There’s also great detail about Tweed’s protagonists, such as the New York Times and Thomas Nast. I found it ironic that originally that paper was Republican-leaning and a lone voice against the corruption, completely unlike today’s leftist cheerleader for the corruption. Interesting how they’ve turned into the very same people, tactics and all, that tried to run them out back then, hmm.

Thomas Nast of course was the brilliant cartoonist that put the entire Tweed Ring into simple images, such as the Tammany Tiger and the Tweed Ring stealing from the State Treasury. In fact at one point Tweed had escaped prison and was later found and identified from one of Nast’s cartoons. I think that’s actually a key point, the effective use of humor and ridicule against this administration, to point out how the Emperor has no clothes, distilling each and every corruption to its undeniable essence.

Lastly there’s not only the theme of political corruption and the cost that it creates on the body politic, but also the story of eventual redemption of the city itself. After all it’s been 140 years since Tweed’s death, and we can see New York City is still shining bright. The book details how the Tweed Ring bilked (at today’s dollar’s-worth) possibly over a billion dollars, racking up enormous debt on the city from European investors. Sound familiar? When the scandal was uncovered it wasn’t until a change in management when European banks would begin to trust New York again. Maybe we should try that.

To compare and contrast, New York City under Tammany rule did see benefit to the graft and corruption, for example property values tripled in Manhattan as construction boomed. Today we see massive graft and corruption with Solyndra et al, yet we’re seeing an economy in distress. Graft was considered at that time to be part of normal business, the grease that made the machinery move. Another example the author at the end hints that were it not for Boss Tweed there may not have been a Brooklyn Bridge, which is debatable. It was however the extreme level that Tweed engaged in that caused his downfall. Today’s analogy is that graft is an acid to the machinery, damaging the entire body politic.

So I took from this book that corruption in politics is going to be around, that it has to be fought back each generation, we just have to work at recognizing it and standing against it. Tweed used dishonest means for what he felt were honest ends. Tweed’s “weapons of choice” were voter repeaters, paid-off judges, paid-off legislators that ultimately “legally” voted his city charter to essentially “legally” bilk millions. He used intimidation, bought-off newspapers, and attempted bribery to fight against his enemies such as the Times.

Of course nothing at all like today’s Democrats, who claim voter suppression when voter ID laws are discussed, which allow people to vote for Republicans? No, Democrats. Judges who create law instead of following it, laws that benefit Republicans of course. No, Democrats? Wow. Legislators that create entitlements that essentially pay off votes, votes for Republicans too right? No, Democrats. Say anything against this? Well then aren’t those Republicans protesting on the front lawn? All those Republican-leaning newspapers reporting all this?

Yeah, Tammany Politics still lives, and that’s what we have to stand against. The saying “The Ends Justify The Means” isn’t really true, the Means Define The Ends.

September 19, 2012 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

The Parable Of A Dog Named Spot

There once was a dog named Spot. He was your basic mutt, a mix of breeds from all around. His owner was as conscientious as any other owner, regrettably though over the years he fell into the usual routine. Spot would yelp for food, so he would get the food whenever he wanted. However the owner wouldn’t watch over how much he gave. Over time Spot would get heavier and heavier, to the point where just walking would make poor Spot lethargic and wheezing. Where in his youth he would bark enough to cause ner’do’wells to pass his house by, now they openly mock him.

It’s of course quite apparent that something has to be done. Spot’s health is getting worse by the day, some even warned the owner of the urgency. Yet the owner, although still caring for Spot, simply did not see the danger.

“Perhaps if you just put Spot on a diet?” some suggested.

“And starve my poor dog? Surely he will die! You fiends!”

“No no, just do with a little less, that way he gets back to his youthful size and he can run and play and not sound all wheezy, ok?”

“That will make him skin and bones, he’s working just fine as he is, I will never listen to anyone who hates dogs as much as you do!”

The point of course is that our government, whom we as a society have entrusted for a specific purpose, has grown past that purpose. It is bloated and wheezing, a mockery among the international community. Every time there are serious people who suggest one dollar less to the government there’s a reaction as though they’re suggesting a complete and total dismantling of the government.

“Close that office? (That’s obsolete, redundant, and duplicates three other offices) Why you want to shut down all of the entire United States?!? Good day Sir! I said ‘Good Day’!”

The idea that every dollar sent to government is a) beneficial, b) efficiently used, c) used for its stated and intended purpose, d) used in a manner that cannot in any way be duplicated in the private sector in a more beneficial and efficient manner, is as cruel as feeding a dog more and more without limit.

September 19, 2012 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

Liberalism, a psychological discussion

Well, I think the first thing we have to realize is that Liberalism could be classified as a mental disorder, albeit one that is learned instead of caused by a malignancy. There are many cases where once a Liberal is hit with facts, truth and logic that they simply cannot refute they ultimately break from that fantasy world and move back to reality.

The manner in which this manifests itself could be analogized as a parent/child dynamic. Conservatives are often called the party of “No”. That’s often true, at times you have to be told No. “Can I have some candy?” No, you’ll spoil your appetite. Now go wash your hands for supper. In all aspects of life there has to be boundaries, that’s unavoidable. But the child often disregards the boundaries, even when it’s for their own good. “I want to do drugs”, um, No that’s bad.

Liberalism is the philosophy of the child. “I want, therefore I get it. What do you mean I have to pay for it? My parents do that, other people do that, not me.” Any time you actually attempt at logical discourse you get the result of a child: tantrums, name-calling, twisted and inane “logic”, and often the refrain of “I hate you!”.

This also leads to secondary issues. First is the fantasy world that’s created: Global warming exists, tax cuts harm the poor, Democrats were always for civil rights & never oppressed anyone, standing up for your own rights therefore means a war on [Fill in here]. Attempts at “intruding” on that fantasy world often get the reaction of a child: tantrums, name-calling, twisted and inane “logic”, and often the refrain of “I hate you!”

Next is the projection. The “child” develops reasoning through emotion, not logic and fact. “I feel I should have a cookie, therefore it’s true. I didn’t get the cookie, therefore it’s unfair!” You then get that “bad man” absolutism, where if you’re not with me you’re automatically against me and you’re automatically “bad” for all time. As with all emotional extremes, if you have passionate love for something the opposite can also happen, passionate hate. “Oh look at those cute fuzzy bunnies, oh I just wuv you to death. Those bad meanies want to hurt you so I really hate them!” Hence the projection, since in their world they easily get into the love/hate modality, if you don’t agree with X, which means you’re not passionate in-love with it, well then you must hate it. “I wuv blacks, and I’m going to give them all this candy, oh they’ll just eat it up. Candy doesn’t give them cavities, you must hate blacks, you bad man!” The result: tantrums, name-calling, twisted and inane “logic”, and often the refrain of “I hate you!”.

Lastly you get the simplification of the child. If you were to explain why it’s good to eat broccoli because of the health benefits or it will lead to better eating habits in the long-run, it’s not going to be understood. So you tend to give quick and simple answers. “Because I said so.” “There are starving children in China.” At some point though children are supposed to develop reasoning abilities that allow them to get past that. However if that reasoning ability is suppressed, you remain in “sound-bite” mode. “Bush lied people died!” “No blood for oil!” “I know you are but what am I?” etc.

This last part alone I think could be classified as a learning disability, and pretty much a purposeful malpractice on children in general. If it was the sole problem it could be corrected, but unfortunately we have an ideology that’s modus operendi is to not only enforce this lack of reasoning, but also inflict infantilizing its constituency. An enforced child philosophy as public policy.

How to overcome it. Well unfortunately the Republican party has had a dalliance with this philosophy, mostly the “try to be friends with your child” attitude that allows their kids to do sex and drugs without responsibility. “We need to cross the aisle, be friends, bosom buddies, bi-partisan, all the world will love us then”. Yeah, that’s worked for 50 years now. So now the house is a mess, the kids are running around screaming and making trouble, the neighbors are complaining, and the parents are hiding in the basement.

It’s now time to say No. The child needs to have a time-out. The adults need to clean up and restore sanity.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

August 17, 2012 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

On Public Sector Unions

On another blog I posted this in response to someone’s post on Teacher’s Unions, these were two responses I had.

The problems aren’t that the unions are or are not protecting the workers that they represent. First off it’s the means of representation what’s got a lot of the people rightfully concerned about, i.e. beating a black man daring to speak his mind. The leadership of these unions are using tactics that would make into the Great Fascists Hall Of Fame yearbook. They have in the past been great forces of increasing safety in the workplace, bringing workers’ rights and benefits, just to name those few. However the Means Define The Ends.

Using a different analogy, a man rapes and murders a woman, the cops eventually catch the guy and it is the right guy. However the cops beat the stuffing out of him to get a confession. Should the confession stand? After all, it’s where the just thing would eventually lead to, right? No, it’s thrown out because the means to get to that were tainted.

The same with all the union intimidation and violence. They may have the valid and moral high ground, 100%. But once they pass that line then forget it, out you go.

Then there’s the main reason that unions are in big trouble today, and that’s the public unions. FDR knew it way back when that they were a bad idea, that’s why he fought against them. In a private business the workers have a grievance, say work hours. A union would represent them to the management where there is either an agreement or there isn’t. Each side then has their own options, one side can strike, the other side can lock out, all sorts of things. In between all that, which is forgotten every time, is the customer, who represents them? All they can do is either go to someone else, wait it out, or maybe even side with their chosen team to add sway in the negotiations. Ultimately, hopefully, a compromise is reached because the union needs to recognize that management has the jobs that they need and management needs the workers to create the product or perform the service.

Public unions are a completely different dynamic. The management are the elected officials whom are supposed to be entrusted with the money of the customers, the taxpayers. The unions and management are often in collusion with each other since they mutually get their power, taxpayer money goes to unions which the dues are contributed back to the officials/management. Heck if you want you can ban that completely, all unions are no longer allowed to donate to any political party or individual candidate.

“But what about companies that donate to Republicans??? See??? You guys just side with Big Business and screw the workers!!” Again it’s two different dynamics. The private sector donates to both parties but the legislator, in theory, are not interfering with the negotiations between the union v management. The donations are pretty much a protection racket at that point and have nothing to do with the union/management dynamic. Public unions have an outright collusion between management and unions. Sever that tie and I will guarantee that there will be a sea-change in the view of how Americans see unions.

The second response:

Unions at one point were necessary and did drive alot of the work safety and benefits that we enjoy today. However like many things the Democrats often find a source of power of it’s been corrupted and twisted.

Republican line of thought – Give a man a fish and he eats for a day but teach a man how to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

Democrat line of thought – Nah we’ll just take the fish from you every day you greedy bastard

Look around you, the problems that we’re facing today, where did they originally stem from. I bet that the initial response was of compassion but it was eventually twisted by Democrats. Food stamps, minimum wage, pensions, unions, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, even more I can’t think of had at its core an attempt to address a real problem with compassion. Yet over time they were corrupted into the evil old hag sister at the end of the movie that needs to get killed. “But we can’t kill it, you uncaring prick!” So what do we do to solve the problems then? “oh…..I don’t know…..got any fish?”

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?







June 18, 2012 Posted by | Politics | , | Leave a comment

If I were King For A Day – Pitchmen

The next thing I would do is go after the U.S. Congress. For too long both parties have shown they cannot be trusted with the People’s money. As Jackie Mason once said “we should put them on commission”. So we’re taking that away from them.

First thing we do is they can no longer vote themselves pay raises. They no longer get paid from the U.S. Treasury. Instead the State that they represent will pay for them, and that amount will be voted for by the people in the State. If Representative John Johnson wants a raise, he should put it on the next ballot and list all his accomplishments. Then the People can decide if he’s worth it.

Now the way that a bill passes into law is: an idea is given either by a Constituent or by the Representative. It goes to a Committee where they vote to put it to the floor. Debate and amendments later it goes to a full vote, where it then goes to the other side to vote, any differences and there’s a Committee that works on that. Eventually after passage it goes to the President to sign or veto, then there’s the whole dance there. And of course 100 years later the Supreme Court eventually says blahblahblah.

I’m going to add another layer to that: the People’s voice. Yeah, you guys forgot us, only when you want our vote to keep your sorry behinds in office do you talk to us. But once you get into that shiny office you never think about us. So here’s what we’re going to do. That whole part that you do where you put a bill through Committee and to the floor, that’s fine. But before it goes to the President, it comes to us next.

Every Election Day there will be special ballot initiatives where you can list all the wonderful things that you want forwarded, what it does, that way we can decide whether we want it or not. Send us a 2600 page bill? Better fit it all on one page in readable type for us to understand it, cause we’re voting on that as though it’s a binding contract, only what’s in the four corners of that paper is valid, NOTHING else. And not “referencing to bill of on page 2,643,232”, nope. The top of the bill will show which part of the Constitution allows for that, otherwise it is invalid. After its majority-voted passage in each of the States and then the majority of the States, it then goes to the President. After all, Congress is supposed to be the saucer where the coffee is to cool. Yet you’ve been doing bad things with that coffee, passing bills that we “have to pass it before we can see what’s in it” and being astonished that we would dare expect you to read the bill. Fine, don’t, but we will.

Annual budgets will be the same thing. You’ll also have to make that streamlined ‘cause that’s eventually going to be Redlined as well. No budget, like you’re doing now? We can have it five ways, your choice. First, make the budget due-date right before Election Day. Second, a total and complete tax holiday for everyone until you get the budget, after all how are we to know how much to send to you if you don’t know. Third, say the budget is due on March 1st, so if there is no budget in 90 days then there is an immediate recall election, at your complete personal expense. Fourth, you don’t pass a budget you don’t get paid. Fifth, you don’t pass a budget then we’ll treat it like you get a ticket where your license (to run for office the next Election) is suspended until it’s paid.

So the Congressmen will change their roles into Pitchmen, explaining to us why we should pass their phony-baloney bill. That way they will no longer take us for granted again, they will remember that we are their employers, not the other way around.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

June 17, 2012 Posted by | Politics | 2 Comments

If I were King For A Day – Redlining

So the other day some guy came up to me and said “You!” Me? “Yes you. You have to fix all this, we’ll do anything you say but it has to be done by today.” Really, you must be digging the bottom of the barrel then. “Come on we’re serious, say you’ll take the case, please.” ……Fine, ok but we’re doing it my way right? “Yeah whatever you need.” ooookay.

First thing we do on the local level is something I call “Redlining”. Often times I get really annoyed at politicians who use Police and Firefighters as hostage in budget negotiations. “We can’t spend one penny less otherwise you’re firing Police and causing more houses to burn!!!” Um, I think we can look at the budget and pare back a bit of fat. “Hey everyone he’s firing teachers now!” The solution to this is to Redline the budget.

Every dollar that is spent in the budget will be listed and put under the office or budget or whatever. Some aspects of that budget that is under the Redline will be LAST for review for budget cuts. Police and Firefighters will automatically be Redlined. So supposing there are say 500 budget items before Police and Firefighters, are you telling me that each one of those offices has zero fat to trim before we get to the blue and red? Do you think we can maybe do with a few less limousines in the government?

So how do I get my office on the Redline? It will be put on the ballot, the people of the State will decide if the local zoo really needs to have gold-plated toilet seats or not. This isn’t to say that they’re voting to cut that budget item, just whether or not they will be first or last on the budget cutting block should that need to arise. Redlining is affording them a bit of protection, basically put behind a firewall as the last ones to fall instead of the first. The voters will then decide that.

Now when you’re Redlined that doesn’t mean you’re free and clear. Your budgets will undergo even greater scrutiny, everything is reviewed either annually or semi-annually, whatever the voters decide when this first becomes enacted it will be passed as a ballot initiative for them to decide. If you’re a Redlined budget office and you do something screwy, like buy $200 hammers or such nonsense, then you’ll be taken off Redline status and won’t be allowed on for two full years, and then the next election day you can petition to be put on the ballot for Redlining, but you’ll be listed as someone that was taken off for XYZ.

Notice that I did not put schools as an automatic “put on the Redline list” like I did Police and Firefighters. That I believe the local voters will decide that, they know the local schools best, not the people over in the next county. So for the purposes of their property taxes and whatever other local means of payment are used, the local ballot initiative will list the schools and ask whether such-a-such school is to be Redlined. In the ballot literature they’ll list the cost per student, test scores, whether they have problems with drop-out rates or if they have spectacular school bands, whatever is needed to show why they should be last on the list instead of the first. The schools of course will be reviewed every, say, four years on whether to retain on the Redline list.

Of course any office can be taken off Redline voluntarily if they don’t like to be scrutinized. After all their everything will be plastered on websites and in mailing literatures. If they feel their budget is so necessary they can go with the odds that they won’t be cut back or chopped, that’s their option. However, other people will be way behind you on the list. It will be a firing squad where you all will line up in single file, the Redlined people will be on the tail end.

This way when you eventually do have to cut things and the “they’re firing Police again” we can say “no, they’re Redlined, they’re safe. “Oh, well they’re firing Firefighters too”. “Nope, they’re Redlined too”. “The schools? They’re coming after the teachers!”. “Sorry no, 90% of them are Redlined. How about we cut those gold-plated toilet seats?” “……………..” “Oh wait, aren’t they your contributors?” “Why, I never been so uh insulted uh….I yield back my time.”

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

June 17, 2012 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

And now, the Socialism post.

Yeah, someone had to write it, might as well be me. I want to preface that this is my opinion, so anyone reading into this as though I am singling anyone out, I’m not. I am speaking in generalities based solely on my observations, which admittedly may be flawed. Void where prohibited.

So, Socialism sucks, Socialism is evil, Socialism fails every time it’s tried. Bad bad bad.

Now that either has people skipping to the next blog post or not, might as well just keep going.

Let’s start with a caveat to the Left about Socialism: Socialism works. And now I’ve lost the other half reading this. Please allow me to explain.

A few years ago I visited my father who at the time lived on Hawaii, Kona island I think. We did the tourist thing, driving around here, seeing this beach there, the usual. One thing he pointed out was that there was this area of the island that had a Commune. Really? I thought they all faded away. He described how they had no electricity, no running water, so it’s like one big camp ground. I see, they’ve turned Amish. Or Gilligan’s Island.

That was when it hit me. Socialism works. Small scale. A group of people with like-minded goals come together and follow the same philosophy, sort of like those that follow the philosophy set forth by the Constitution, but I digress. It would seem it worked for them, with maybe a degree or two of difference among them. (Not sure if it did or if it’s a great experience, I like my AC in the summer. Oh and penicillin and showers too, those are nice. Chocolate, nuff said.) So if you want to live that lifestyle then enjoy, it’s your life.

This of course led me to further flesh out my thoughts on Socialism, hence this post. It does work small scale, but like many experiments that go from small scale to full scale it tends to fall apart. We see the prime examples around the world in China, North Korea, Cuba, even in Europe where their attempt at Socialism-lite is crumbling. Cities here in the US that follow Socialistic policy are often the areas with the most poverty and crime, so we see that even going to city-size it fails. The one leading reason falls under one word: Utopia.

Often times those that seek out Socialism have in mind an ultimate goal of what they see as the end point of their dream, how the world would look like after all their hard work. (At least I hope they do.) Much like an architect has drawings and to-scale mock-ups of a building, the Socialists see the entire big pictures with all the levers in place and how it runs. They can actually tell you how the trains will run on time because …. So they see it, it’s right there, don’t you see it too? Turn around it’s right right there. Oh it’s so beautiful. It’s Utopia.

That unfortunately is why it begins to fail. What exactly is Utopia? Or more to the point, what is Utopia, to YOU? Nope, that’s not it. And you over there? Nope not even close. The problem is that your vision of Utopia is different than mine. So then who wins? Heck we can’t decide on what baseball or football team to rally behind. Do we have a single national beer or soda drink? How about a single definition of art? There is no natural way that as a human species we can all agree on one single concept, and that’s actually a good thing. When we look at totalitarian nations like North Korea we see them all monotone and uniform, without an ounce of individuality or imagination allowed to show. (I remember watching Star Trek and seeing how everyone on a specific planet would all dress exactly the same….eh.)

So then who’s vision of Utopia comes true? The Environmentalists? The Vegans? How about the complete removal of all technology and go back to an Agricultural society, like the Amish? Or in Afghanistan? What about my vision of Utopia, can we try that too? No? Well that’s not fair. So who’s vision wins out?

That ultimately shows the beginning failure of Socialism. In the end Socialism is a gun. It is power. And only one person can hold on to it. There are those that think they might get a turn, doesn’t work that way. I’ve got it, no one else, and what I say goes. So the others think at least they’ll be in the immediate circle to have power-lite, these are what Stalin referred to as “Useful Idiots”. When it finally hits the fan, and it always does, they’re the first ones to get it. All these college students that believe they’re part of working towards this glorious Utopia are really the ones that go under the tank treads first. “To die for the Socialistic Utopia!” But hey, they could be the lucky one that gets that gun first. Notice it’s never the guy that has the gun that gets it in the shorts?

What happens to the rest of us? Let’s take as a hypothetical that I actually believed that everyone had to wear boxing gloves. After all, it’s safe for everyone. And no excuse, every person in the country. Ridiculous right? People would come up and explain the impracticality of that, how it’s not effective for the purposes I originally stated, and gosh darn it we’re not gonna take it.

Well. I have the gun. Too bad. Bang. At first I try to show reason and explain why I want this, but there are still people that refuse. Don’t they see the good this will create? I’m going to have to silence them, after all if you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem. Oh they think they have a right to protest? We’ll see about that, put them in jail, and don’t worry about being nice about it after all they’re not working with me so I don’t have to work with them. I’ll take over the media so the only information about it is what I want people to know. They’re still resisting? That’s because they know otherwise, so they’re a lost cause. I’ll get to the schools and teach the kids who don’t know otherwise that it’s always been my way. Yeah, that’ll work.

We see in every totalitarian regime where they silence the opposition with intimidation and violence, where are there “political prisoners”? Not in Maui. The press is harshly controlled, the schools are rigidly controlled, and the elderly are either starved out or killed off outright. (Tea Parties vs. OWS, Leftist Media, indoctrination in schools “Barack Hussein Obama mm mm mmmm”, and “Death Panels”. Never happen here, pft.)

What ends up happening, what always happens, is that the system turns to sadism to strip away the rights of people, making it harder for them to speak against Utopia (Oh it’s so beautiful…). We see this happening now, people being shouted down for daring to disagree with ridiculous concepts like Global Warming or “99%”.

Throughout history in one form or another there are a group of people that feel they have lofty goals, they truly feel that they’re out to help the people. Yet each time they fall into the same trap, they end up burning the house down with the people in it to save them. The system then devolves to a tyranny, with only a select few that eat at the table on Filet Mignon while the rest, even the ones that helped the cause, end up in poverty eating only rice.

This eventually leads to the Cult of Socialism, where it in effect becomes a religion. There’s the Promised Land, the Utopia, where they can just see it, it’s right there. The writers of “The Word” become elevated to “Prophets” status, where whatever Lenin, Stalin, Marx, Che, every utterance is totally gospel without question. (“we kind of agree with Mao that ‘political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.'” Ron Bloom, “Manufacturing Czar”, “Workers of the World Unite” Andy Stern, former head SEIU) This also leads to a Good versus Evil paradigm, after all Utopia is always good, those people keeping us from Utopia (oh it’s so beautiful), must therefore be evil. Anything that is used to fight evil, no matter what the means are, is justified to get to that Utopia (oh it’s so beautiful!) There starts a tunnel-vision aspect, where facts, reason, logic and historical data is not seen or registered. Therefore they are unable to see the pain and death that their philosophy, their religion, creates. The sole focus is getting to Utopia (oh it’s so beautiful!), where all sins are forgiven despite the sins they engage in to get there, after all, they’re pure. The Ends justify the Means. And after all, it is Utopia (oh it’s so beautiful!)

That’s why whenever you tell them how Socialism has failed every time it’s tried, that it creates a total dystopia where human civil rights are non-existent, that every regime ever has had the blood of millions of people, they don’t see it. They can’t. All they see is it’s up ahead, next exit and down the road and we’re there (oh it’s so beautiful!) They’re so close. All the sadism they invoke, the deaths of the past, it never makes them bad people, after all their intentions are so pure that surely this time it’ll be different. “All those other people, they were monsters. But we know what we’re doing, and we’re much more pure at heart to go that way, because we say it won’t. So shut your bleeping pie hole! We’ve been wandering the desert for 100 years, Utopia (oh it’s so beautiful!) is right there, and well you’re in the way.” Who’s going to win on that scale?

There’s also an air of condescension and arrogance with those who study and believe in Socialism, as though they understand some inner truth that no one else can see. If you refuse to see it, well it’s your fault. You’re either willfully blind because you’re too stupid to get the point, it’s right there in black and white, or you must hate everyone, you stubborn jerk you. You’re just denying the birthright of Socialism from becoming fulfilled, so you’re the one causing all the problems (that occur because of the Socialism policies) so you’re at fault. (Ignore the man behind the curtain.)

In the end Socialism is not an intellectual exercise where they’ve figured out “the truth”, a mathematical proof is not true if you disregard portions of the formula because it’s inconvenient. It becomes completely emotional with a mask of “I’m smarter then you so there” where all the rules are emotion based. “It’s about fairness!” How is it fair that you make the winner lose so that the loser can win? “Well gosh darn it, it’s all about fairness!” So then you’re purposefully taking sides? “No that’s being closed-minded, you’re not being fair!” Well you cannot mandate fairness in the result, all you can do is try to be fair in the circumstances. “Well we didn’t win so it’s not fair, so someone cheated!” So the outcome did not fall to your favor therefore it’s not fair? No, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. This is the philosophy of the child, of pure emotion.

And yet they act smug and superior, twoo intewwectuwalls. “Well, I’ve read Nietzsche and Scchhhhhnabel, what have you read, Spider-Man? Hohohoo..” If a man standing before you puts a dollar in a machine and he loses it, would you then walk up and put your dollar in? No, that’s a sign of intelligence, where you gain a piece of knowledge through observations of another person’s attempts. To have a whole line of people that continuously keep trying that dollar machine is not intelligence at all, just because you “feel” it’ll be different “this time”. It is not smart, wise, “Avant-Garde” or “Nouveau Riche”, it’s a pull-the-string-and-the-cow-goes-moooooooooo.

The funny thing I often see is that those who believe in Socialism often claim it’s the cure for Capitalism because of all the flaws that Capitalism has. Yet these same people gloss over the inherent flaws that Socialism brings to the table. They talk about the greed of the corporations, like there isn’t any greed in a big government that they’re running? Really. There’s subjugation of the populace with the 1% of 1% of the people benefiting for “the glory of the Socialist paradise”. At least with Capitalism you work hard, you get a bit of luck, and a whole lot of determination you can make it. None of that is possible in Cuba et al. You look at China and all the innovations that they’re having is because they’re stealing the technology from us.

The problem I have in general is that I understand those that believe fervently in the goals and precepts of Socialism. I disagree with them, and I don’t hold those who do believe in them any malice (yet they hold us in contempt), however there is a difference in idea talk in the faculty lounge and implementation in the real world. Just as this and other posts are my opinions, those on that side of the philosophical divide forget one key point: the views and philosophies of Marx, Stalin, et al, were all their own opinions. If they had a theoretical formula in Physics or Math that can be proven with logic and experimentation that would be one thing. However their “expertise” was based on the human experience, which is fundamentally flawed to begin with. Therefore their positions in philosophy, sociology, politics, or any other human-based precepts could potentially be flawed as well. And as we’ve seem countless times in history the formula they proposed, when brought out of theory and into practice, fails miserably. Every. Time.

But the Cult of Socialism has to have its own Bible, its own preachers, martyrs and saints, and of course angels and devils. Any attempt to disagree with “The Word” gets the same reaction as discrediting the pious. And they call us “Bible-thumpers”. Pft. How about we try some Separation of Socialism and State?

In reality “Utopia” is a circle around you that is whatever you make of it. Period. It has nothing to do with anyone else unless you invite them into that circle. You have no right to increase the circle to circumspect my circle. As the saying goes, “Your right to swing your arm ends at my right for my nose to be there”.

Ultimately how do we handle it? That’s very hard, their thinking is binary, you’re either with them and become “saved” (oh it’s so beautiful) or you’re against them and there are no restraints in how they deal with you. I know how your life may be, you work hard, you come home and all you want is to relax. “Five minutes. Hey world, piss off, all I want is five minutes.” Problem is, that’s what they’re hoping for. “Community Organizers” do this 24/7 I’m afraid. So what is the solution? That hopefully is what we’re all here to find out. And rather quickly I’m afraid. I’m hoping I’ve defined the problem, which at least allows a starting point for discussion. So let’s roll up the sleeves and start talking.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

June 16, 2012 Posted by | Politics | | Leave a comment

Since the US Congress last passed a budget.

The last time the US Congress passed a budget was in April of 2009. I wanted to give a short list of all the things about that time in American history.

  • Gas was on average $2.06. A movie ticket: $7.20 popcorn: $4.75. Gal of Milk: $2.49
  • News Events: Sweden Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage, North Korea Launches Rocket, Defies World Leaders
  • Kim Jong-il Takes 3rd Term, Iraq Suicide Bomb Kills Five US Soldiers & Two Iraqis http://www.infoplease.com/world/events/2009/world_apr.html
  • Dow Jones closed at 8,168.12. Gold cost $890.70/ounce, silver $12.305/ounce. US unemployment 8.9% (Spain’s was 24.4%)
  • OMG! The movie “Fast & Furious” with Vin Diesel premiered April 3rd! Oh and Hannah Montana: the movie
  • Oh and of course: It was Barak Obama’s third month in office, Sen 59 Dem 41 GOP, House 255 Dem 179 GOP.
  • According to Wikipedia, the annual births for 2009 were 4,130,665 and 2010 were 4,000,279 (no numbers since then, so let’s just take 2010 times 2.5, also only taking 3/4 of the 2009 numbers) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States) . I get a little over 17 million births in the U.S. since the last budget was passed.
  • Taking the same tact for deaths (2009 1,827,872 / 2010 2,465,936) it comes to 10.5 million for the number of people who died in the U.S. since the last budget.

June 8, 2012 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

And The Conservative Of The Year Award Goes To……


 Al Gore.

Yes, I have to thank Al Gore, former Presidential Candidate, Vice President and Senator. He once said that he was the creator of the internet, a move that was much lampooned throughout Conservative circles. However today there is laughter no more. Those of us on the Right for decades felt we had no voice, no means of sharing our point-of-view. Newspapers, t.v. news, movies, academia, all were leaning Left. We had very few means to get our message out, a couple of magazines here, the start of AM radio as an outlet over there.

But then, Al Gore invented the internet.

Slowly Conservatives came to realize that it was a fast medium to express our opinions. From Blogs and Facebook, to a rapid response with Twitter. Bloggers helped to expose a false claim from the Left media about a sitting President prior to an election, and Twitter allows us an almost instant communications medium that helps to fight against the constant barrage of misinformation and propaganda that the Left continues to spread. With humor and facts, point after point after point, we have found our voice.

No, we are no longer laughing. We are uniting. We are finding community. And we have Al Gore to thank. So please join me in a round of applause for our benefactor, Mr. Albert Gore, Jr.

WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?

May 31, 2012 Posted by | Humorus, Politics, Uncategorized | , , , | Leave a comment

The interview I would like to see some day:

“Mr. Gates! Mr. Buffet! A moment of your time, thank you. John Johnson from the Sunny Times paper. You both advocate an increase in the income tax rate for those making over a million dollars. Do you both agree with the manner on which the money is spent?”

“Well, uh, we feel that it is our patriotic duty to support the country in whatever it needs.”

“I see, so since you’re both strong businessmen if I were to propose that you invent in say Solyndria, knowing what you know now about it, would you invest?”

“Oh no of course not, that’s not good business after all.”

“Certainly, how about investing in countries like Greece or Spain?”

“Um….well right now the market in Europe is considered unstable, so I don’t believe it would be prudent, at this time.”

“And the fact that the current administration is enacting policy on a parallel course to them doesn’t concern you?”

“Well I don’t think…..um….I’m sure that they uh….”

“So what you’re saying is that you wouldn’t invest your money in unwise ventures such as Solyndra or governments that enact policy that borrows more than their GDP such as Greece, but you’re willing to insist that your taxes be taken from you for the exact same thing?”


“Thank you gentlemen, that’s all I have.”

May 25, 2012 Posted by | Politics | , , | 1 Comment

Why not call it what it really is?

All the talk about the increase in the student loan interest rate misses a key point, besides the fact that as students your payments are deferred, so since you’re not paying it what does it matter? It could be increased 100%, who cares? Regardless.

All you students, let me ask you a question. Where do you get the loans from? Increasingly it’s been moved away from the banks and to….the government. Of course that was because the government can run it without prejudice and all that. So you’re now in debt, to who? The government.

Who controls the interest rate that you’re paying? Not the banks, they have to follow what the Fed tells them. It’s Congress that’s currently passing laws that are changing your interest rate. How was this done? Well in 2007 the Congress was led by the Democrats, they passed the law that was set to sunset in, now follow me, 2012. Why? I don’t know, go ask them.

So then let’s call it what it really is: an expiring tax cut, which means that it’s a tax increase. Well congrats kids, you’ve now had your first lesson in how the government taxes you. And how Democrats rig the game to increase taxes when you’re not watching. Welcome to our world.

May 24, 2012 Posted by | Politics | | 1 Comment

Business 101 for Presidents.

I again want to preface that I am not a business-person, I do not have an MBA nor have I even ran a lemonade-stand. This is all bouncing from what I remember from Economics 101 in college cough-cough years ago.

So this tweet from the President really bothered me, and it took a while to finally get my conclusion on this enough to write it. To me it showed a total lack of basic bare-bones understanding of business and economics. He uses this as a weapon against Governor Romney as though this proves a failing in character, therefore the President is morally superior. This to me is trying to drown a fish by pouring a pitcher of water. In the ocean. With the fish in another ocean.

Let’s start with the basic premise and assume everything that is said about Romney is true, that he went into Bain Capital and all these other companies, slashed jobs with a gleeful grin and twirling mustache, and took all the money in two large sacks with a dollar sign on them. So what?

That makes Romney a heartless sonovabitch that will come into a company (or a government), look at all the deadwood employees (and there are a lot of them in government) and fire them. Thus the government size will shrink to a more efficient and less costly size. Yeah, we need that right now, so Mitt be that sonovabitch.

So going back to my Econ 101, here’s my take on what a good business does versus what government does. First someone has an idea, of either selling a product or performing a service. Hopefully it will be something that is currently in demand, so if I wanted to sell spoiled cabbage I’m fairly sure I won’t be able to move that very far. (Well, a good entrepreneur would call it Sauerkraut, but that’s another discussion. Dang I really shouldn’t write this before lunch.)

Anyway I take what I’m selling and, assuming it’s something that people want to buy, I gather up my resources. I’m taking a huge gamble: what if no one wants what I’m selling? What if I’m selling at a bad time, either for the economy at large or it’s a seasonal thing? Is there someone else out there doing it at a cheaper price? So I take my doubts and concerns and yet I still get my start-up cash, either by saving it or taking out a loan, and open up the business. Whether I go for the brick-and-mortar type of storefront or I do it online, doesn’t matter, I’m still going to be expending at first a large amount of start-up costs. It’s all a gamble that ultimately I hope pays off. A thousand things can and often do go wrong, so we want people to have an incentive to take that leap, such as making a profit.

Now we compare that with government. By definition the government doesn’t create anything. It doesn’t create a product that people want to buy, all it does it provide services that they themselves mandate that people need to use, for example the Post Office or the DMV. They do justify the reasons for these government programs, every one of these agencies have someone that says it’s a good idea to have. We want to make certain that people that drive are operating without harming other people, so we’re told we need to be licensed, cars registered, and insurance purchased. Yet we still have accidents, even with people who have all three, let alone those that don’t follow the rules and skip on any or all of those steps.

As an aside, my belief is that those on the Left see that creating the law solves the problem, then become surprised that it doesn’t so they create a new law to solve THAT problem. The sheer act of law creation is what’s all important, the actual results are irrelevant. Those on the Right see the problem and create a law that will essentially punish those that act in the bad behavior, but allow people to still engage in what they’re doing. Live your life but when you go past this line we’ll smack you. Taking my car analogy, the Left would make Rube-Goldberg laws to make sure everyone MUST do all three things, but then get in the way of enforcement. “Drivers license for illegals? Sure, that will never cause a problem.” Another prime example is the number of pages the tax code spans: 72,536 pages (http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/07/2011-number-of-pages-in-us-tax-code.html) The Right would say do what you will, if you cause an accident you will have to pay for all of it. Well at least that’s how I see it.

So government writes its own rules of conduct, passes a law to tax people to pay for their own budget, and yawns at requests to use that money in efficient manners. A business has to have a good conduct, otherwise people won’t walk in the door. (Ever go back to a restaurant where the service was rude or the food tasted like dish soap? I certainly haven’t.) How about the line at the DMV? Or Post Office? Ever go to a government agency and say “I really hope to go there again.” Any time you have anything to do with a governmental agency, even if it’s something you need like food stamps, it’s an arduous and time consuming task.

A business must operate within the constraints of its budget, which means they have to use that dollar as efficiently as possible, or they go out of business. Efficiency = life. Government doesn’t have that constraint, if they run out of money they just tax more or borrow more, which is paid for by taxing more at a later time. If the money actually came out of their own pockets I’m sure they would treat it with more urgency.

Lastly a business has to be accountable, even if it’s a publicly-traded entity. If there’s evidence of malfeasance people go to jail, the business is shut down and the customer-business trust is lost. A government doesn’t act like it’s accountable, yeah there’s the idea that we’ll vote them out, but has there ever been a government agency that’s been closed down either due to duplication or redundancy? The current economic crisis, oddly enough, happens when businesses cozy up to government to get a special advantage that others can’t afford to receive, then when the whole deal blows up the government swoops in to save the day while acting as though they were just spectators. That’s Crony Capitalism, which is bad for everyone, and it goes the exact same way each and every time. (I find it interesting that the Left insist on a separation between Church and State, how about a separation of Business and State?)

This also leads to a vicious cycle. Those businesses that get into governmental business and vice versa start to erode the customer-business trust. The businesses that weren’t part of that initial “sin” either abandon their principles and go along with the cronies, or they have to cut costs to compensate for being undercut. This tends to increase the erosion of the customer-business trust, where the customers begin to see all businesses, even the ones that don’t misbehave, as just part of the cabal. Then there’s talk of more regulation, which oddly enough never touches the businesses that are with the government that’s writing the laws, look at GE. We saw this almost a hundred years ago, in Germany, Italy, even here in America with the NRA.

In the end the President can talk all he wants about the alleged immorality of a candidate. The direction that he advocates, though he cloaks it with talk of “social justice” and sweet platitudes, has been done before. Ultimately each time it’s tried leads to death and totalitarianism. How is that moral Mr. President? I take Mitt Romney’s “immorality” any day, thank you, at least I’ll be able to keep my freedoms.

May 24, 2012 Posted by | Politics | , , , | 1 Comment

Definition of Wisdom

Wisdom is the art of taking “Ow fuck, that was really, really stupid” into useful knowledge.

May 18, 2012 Posted by | Funny, Humor, Humorus | | 2 Comments

Obama’s Pink Whale

“Captain! Captain! We’ve struck an iceberg, what do we do?”

“Well first, we uh need to get health care passed. And then uh solar panels, yes we need solar panels. We’ll get this ship going with Green Jobs.”

“But Captain, the decks are flooding fast, we don’t have the time or the resources.”

“Oh now you’re acting stupidly. Look look, it’s the gay marriage whale!”

May 16, 2012 Posted by | Politics | , | Leave a comment

Racism origins revisted.

OK for the last few weeks another blog has been posting some of my submissions that I’ve had on here, the one specifically for here was the one I had on Racism. There was one guy that challenged me, I responded, and here’s a portion of my response which I think encapsulates the divide. The post is found on Misfit Politics, where it’s found here:


So here’s the relevant portion:

“So apparently there once was this game of musical chairs, where one of the chairs was labeled “Racist”. The Democrats sat in that chair, as you’ve conceded they have historically, and enjoyed all the perks that came from sitting in that chair until those perks dwindled. They then engaged in the game of musical chairs whereupon the Republicans chose the Racist chair? They did so because they’ve always coveted that chair? After all if they were always Racist they wanted that chair all along. Yet, each time they did anything, like Abolition and the Civil Rights Act they would get even more power, so why would they feel they needed to covet the chair of a dwindling constituency?

Now I do believe that game of musical chairs took place, only I see it as the Democrats enjoyed the Racist chair until they saw that the Republicans were winning. Historically blacks voted for Republicans in huge numbers. However that did change, that’s indisputable. Today we see that a minimum of 90% of African-Americans vote Democrat. As TruthX mentioned (thanks for the help) there was the Southern Strategy that was started by LBJ, a Democrat. He of course started the Great Society, which I essentially feel was “buy votes with government (i.e. taxes paid by others) money”.

Republicans were on the winning side of history, behind the Civil War, abolition of slavery, and breaking down barriers for African-Americans to gain footing towards parity in society. All the while Democrats kept putting roadblocks, Jim Crowe laws and back-of-the-bus-you-go, KKK, and denying Civil Rights. The Republicans of today are still that party, of Civil Rights for All, Democrats are the party of denying Civil Rights. Affirmative Action is just Jim Crowe 2 but on a different target. Disagree with their views and their (we-can’t-call-it-the-KKK-but-we’ll-still-use-the-same-tactics) groups move in to intimidate and shout down. I can give a long litany of violence in American history where it’s been done by Democrats.

So ultimately I see the Dem leaders saw they were on the wrong side of history. Instead of learning their lesson and admitting they were wrong, they shoved the Republicans off of their seat and stole it, then told everyone that they have to HAVE to take the Racist seat. They then used the exact same tactics they used while sitting in that chair before and blamed the Republicans for all the bad results, after all they’re sitting in the Racist chair, those damned Racists. “Oh don’t listen to their protests, they’re lying, we’ve always sat in the good chair, how can you listen to a Racist anyway? Those lying Racists!” That’s what’s called a lie.”

May 7, 2012 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

An Open Letter To McDonalds, Coke, and Others Being Bullied

I first want to tell all these business, small to large, that I understand the climate that we’re all currently in. On the economic side we’re in a crunch where every dollar has to count. Consumers are becoming less inclined to go to your business for any number of reasons so you might try to avoid even the appearance of being unreasonable.

This unfortunately gives an opening for some to believe they can take advantage over any business, to force a specific policy agenda that may be against your business’s best interests. “Do as we say or we’ll shop elsewhere”. Usually those individuals are political, with hidden agendas they would never express aloud, so they use a false-flag to present to your company. Currently the “bad guy” is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) membership. Next week it’ll be Chef Boyardee.

The ultimate goal is the same. During the 1920’s and 30’s this was the means for Germany and Italy to move towards Socialism. A small group would intimidate businesses to fall to their side. Neutrality wasn’t an option. Even here in America businesses were forced to be approved by the National Recovery Administration (NRA), where they had to put the Blue Eagle in their window and accept price controls. In the end many businesses had to capitulate or be forced, by threat of mob rule, to close.

So am I writing this letter to say “now do as I say or I won’t go to your business”? No. I like your products, it’s why I keep going. I will still buy your wares even if you do decide to take the path of least resistance. Unfortunately I do understand why you feel you have to. Some may even think my acceptance of this is naive. “The business won’t care what you say, you’re still going no matter what so they’ll just take you for granted”. Yeah, possibly.

The difference is that I believe in the market of ideas as well as the market of products and services. I will not fault you and take it out on you for the poor decisions you make, so long as you do not harm your customers in the process. However I do hope that ultimately these decisions to capitulate will, not possibly, not coulda, will harm everyone in the end, so you might want to re-evaluate the underlining position again in the future.

The main point of this is simple: I will stand by your company, in good weather and bad. At times there will be down-turns, happens to every business. This faux-boycott by professional rabble is a minor tick. If you stand strong against them you will find that businesses by-and-large will follow. They will then move on to their next easy victim and leave you with your core customers. If you turn the wheel over to them instead in the end all business will crumble, so it won’t matter whether I’m staying or not. So the smart move would be to tell these people you’re not buying the acid they’re selling. Know who your true customers are, the ones that want what you’re offering and will stand by you, or the ones telling you to change for their sole benefit.

The decision is yours.

Oh, yes I want that super-sized please.

WWBD? – What Would Breitbart Do?

April 25, 2012 Posted by | Politics | 2 Comments

Jesus Heart Baseball

There was something that’s been rolling around my head, like socks in a drier, ever since the “Reason Rally” the other week. So it’s 2 am, always a good time to get a good blog post out, I highly recommend it. I just got it: baseball.

Now if you’re reading this and you happen to be an atheist, we can have a conversation, on life, the universe, philosophy, all manner of stuff. We may agree on some things, disagree on others, but I would hope that throughout we’re respectful to each other. Some of the images I saw from that rally though tend to be disrespectful to the point of being purposefully offensive, and that I find destroys that side of the argument. If your point is valid why insult the opposing side?

This leads to baseball.

So who’s your favorite team? Any favorite members? Who do you think will win the World Series? oh, pft, you’re way off, mine is….. That’s a conversation I’m sure you’ve had countless times. You may have hosted your own party, maybe gone to a few games, heck maybe even worn that #1 finger. But in the end, say six months, everything that’s said up until that moment won’t matter until the umpire says “play ball!” and the final score is read.

So what’s your favorite religion, Jewish, Protestant, Methodist? Oh, you’re Episcopalian? Well, that’s nothing, mine at least offers wine…. You may have hosted a fund raiser for a disaster relief, gone to church a few times, heck maybe even worn a “Jesus Saves” t-shirt. But in the end, when we all get to that finish line, we’ll finally have that answer. You may be right, or me, or neither, we’ll never really know until that moment, right?

It all boils down to where you put your passion. Yours, mine, who’s is more real? But now my take on the way that the Atheist were doing at that rally:

So, you’re into baseball? Why, it’s just a game. A bunch of prima donnas tossing around a ball for nine boring innings all to pad some fat-cat’s wallet, who needs it? And for what, a ring? And it all starts all over again six months later. pft. I have better things to do with my Sunday afternoon.

Now I’ll be honest, I’m not a sports fan. gasp, I’m a Y-chromosome, I have to it’s the law. I never could get my head around facts and figures, who had the most rushing or TD’s, the MVP of such-a-such league, what the hell is a balk? I can get all rah-rah at say the last Super Bowl, but to be honest I watched the commercials more and fast-forwarded past all the talktalktalk to the actual play. (Jesus heart TiVo). So if I were to equate it in terms of religion-speak I’d say I’m a Baseball Agnostic with the open mind to at least go to a game. Better have the right mustard though, not that watery yellow crap.

But let’s have the discussion. Some of the posters I saw were that they relied on fact and reason, not myth. I draw my faith from the same source but get a different result. If for the moment I concede the fact that there is no God, how about the universe? When we look at galaxies billions of light years away we can see certain events that are common, how some galaxies swirl similar to ours. hmmm…so physics happens. Even for things waaaaaaaaaaaaay over there the same physics apply. One thing I have not heard from any scientist is what physics cop is there that keeps the law of say gravity here also the same as that galaxy over there? Not saying God, or angels, or string cheese….mmmmmm string cheese….hey it’s 2 am.

I am saying though that the universe is a great machine that at its core creates life. Even out of death there’s still the creation of life, I mean consider out planet. We’re basically living on a graveyard, not only on the bones of long lost civilizations, but the planet had to have been created from the explosion from a previous star that spent its fuel to create all the hard and heavy material we’re made from today. We’re star stuff.

A hundred years ago we were just beginning to figure out how to detect and measure X-Rays, radio signals from stars, a wide array of energies that to the naked eye we never knew existed. Didn’t just start right when we became clever, it was always there but we didn’t know. A hundred years from now what new energy will we find? For centuries there were stories of people, mystic, precogs, “the Sixth Sense”, who could possibly detect that specific frequency that others couldn’t. Or they could be bat-bleep nuts.

The point is that I don’t know everything that is out there. The universe is an amazing thing. Maybe there is a God, maybe not. But to deny Him just because He didn’t come up and shake your hand is no different than accusing those of faith of denying Evolution because it was on some dead tree.

But at least that’s a discussion. For when I’m awake.

April 10, 2012 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

An assignment for sci-fi fans.

I admit I’m a sci-fan fan, however I’m mostly a tv and movie fan, not really a book fan. So I never really got into alot of the authors, and to be honest after watching The Prophets of Science Fiction I never knew some of the movies and stuff I liked were by such-a-such author. “Really? He wrote that one?”

I did look to see if there was a Dummies Guide to Science Fiction Authors, no such luck. So I would appreciate it if you could tell me what your favorite sci-fi author is and maybe throw a book title or two my way. Heck maybe even on Kindle would be nice. Thanks.

March 28, 2012 Posted by | Science and science fiction | 2 Comments

I can’t applaud loud enough.

This article explains perfectly the idiology that’s currently aciditic to our nation.



March 28, 2012 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

A couple of medical thoughts

Just wondering, what does the inside of my nose smell like? I mean I can smell my hand, I can smell my hair, I can certainly smell my armpit and breath, ew. But if I wanted to put a label on body part smells what would the inside of my nose be?

Another thought, do we have an inside? Suppose you took your finger and put it onto your cheek. Your finger will now stay firmly on the “outside of the body”, right. You move it to your head, outside, your neck, outside, your whatever it’s outside. Now obviously this part isn’t physically possible, but assume you could. Run your finger into your mouth, never lifting it at anytime. You’re still touching the “outside. Down the gullet it goes, through the stomach, intestine, and, well…. You back to the outside again. So does that mean you don’t have an inside? We’re all essentially torus’ or donuts? If it were possible to stretch the human body so that all that inner stuff is pulled into one straight line you could look at one end and see the other, right?

Yeah, these are the thoughts I get from time-to-time.

How about this one….Could it ever get so cold you’d stop hearing? Since the interior of your ear is liquid, at what point would that freeze and you could no longer hear? Of course the answer to that is you’d be dead by that time, but if you were a Mr. Freeze type of scenario could that be possible?

March 26, 2012 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Camera rejoinders.

For a couple of decades now I’ve had these going on in my head every time I hear on the tv or something. “Oh this photo doesn’t matter, the camera adds ten pounds anyway”. And I keep my mouth shut because I know how much trouble I’d get, but….

“Eh the camera adds ten pounds….”

So how many cameras do you have on?

“Eh the camera adds ten pounds….”

I’m sure the cheeseburgers had nothing to do with it.

“Eh the camera adds ten pounds….”

And what they don’t tell you is that the camera doesn’t take it off too.

“Eh the camera adds ten pounds….”

And that camera would be the one circling you?


March 26, 2012 Posted by | Funny, Humor, Humorus | 1 Comment

Another science hypothetical – Time Travel

Ever since I was a young boy I had this thought that I can never square, which involves Time Travel. You have the movies and tv programs that show someone creating a machine that whiz and you’re in 1922 or 7575. Besides the fact that “how does the machine know it’s 2012 right now????” there’s a fundamental part that I don’t get.

So you’ve built the machine. You rev it up and to test it you go back in time for one hour. Here’s the part I don’t get. You press that button and move back one hour, why don’t you physically move over across state lines to the next time zone? Point being : the planet is rotating, so if you wink out and wink back in again the planet isn’t where it was.

“Well the momentum of matter should keep you in step with the matter of the planet.” True, if I were to move forward in time an hour, I should keep in line with the rotation of the planet and stay in that relative position, but not if I move backward in time. In fact the momentum should be working against me.  Also, the planet itself is moving at phenomenal speeds in orbit around a star, which also is moving at phenomenal speeds in an orbital pattern around the center of our galaxy. Are you going to be able to be in the same relative position to all that? If you’re traveling in a car say a 100 miles an hour while holding a coffee mug on the window, then turn a curve but let the mug go will the mug follow your curving or go in a straight line?

My thought is I take that time machine and move a hundred years in the future, that’s a hundred years in that specific point in space even accounting for the momentum shift of matter, I’ll still wink back in and suck vacuum. The Earth is long gone many hundreds of thousands of miles away from where I started. (oh wait forgot to carry the two…..)

Or am I wrong?

March 16, 2012 Posted by | Science and science fiction | 1 Comment

GE is such a scam (or Check your warranties)

Shortly after last Thanksgiving, as I’m sure many of you as well, we did Christmas decorations. I did the whole outside, nothing too spectacular though. I did buy three sets of the GE LED lights that have those solar panels. Throughout the holiday I didn’t have a single complaint, they worked fine, and I didn’t have to plug them in.

After the New Year, again as many do, I started to put all the decorations away. However I decided to take those lights and put them along the back wall for some added illumination. Two of the three worked fine, looked great, but the third for some reason didn’t work. Hhmm…. So I tried some basic trouble-shooting. I took the solar panel from one of the working ones and tried it on the non-working string, as well as taking the “suspect” panel and put it on the working string, no joy on either set.

Now here’s the WTF? moment. I put the original equipment back where they were, and the working set no longer works. I tried all sorts of things to get it going, even connecting it to a volt-meter to see if there’s any output, nothing. I checked to see if the connector was loose, was there a short on the bad line, I couldn’t find anything.

So almost three weeks ago I called the GE Christmas light hotline, spoke to a woman on the matter. I had already chucked completely the bad line and I’ll probably purchase another to replace it (on back-order, go figure). She said she was going to send a solar panel to help trouble-shoot. “Want me to send in the old one?” No that’s ok, we’ll send that out but it is on back-order.

Since it’s been close to three weeks I called yesterday to get a status on that order. I get a different woman who at first could not find the order, however she was telling me that she ordinarily requests that the old one be shipped back first. Well that seemed reasonable, however before I asked about sending it in she said she realized that I’m intending on using this all-year-‘round on my back wall. So? Well Sir, that voids the warranty. “No, there’s a two year warranty on this, I remember reading that on the box.” No Sir, because it’s “seasonal” it only has a 90 day warranty. “Well first of all I bought it near the end of November and had this problem at the beginning of January, so that alone is about 45 days which is half that warranty. Secondly there is supposed to be a two year warranty”.

Now I just checked, Home Depot website, where I originally purchased the lights, has a listing that it has a Two Year Warranty:


The upshot is that she finally did see that there was an order placed, so she’s not going to cancel that. Since it is on back-order they’re not going to be getting them until the end of this month to the beginning of April. So hopefully I’ll get that going soon. However she said that she’s putting it in the notes that I’m running them all year long so the warranty is voided.

Anyway I’ll still get the third set of lights, and the same brand to keep the same look, which I’ll do all that after I get the replacement solar panel. But that warranty is total BS. “Oh sir, your car may have had a five-year warranty, but only if you keep it in your garage for four years.” What they’re really saying is they don’t stand behind their product if the combined usage in its life is 90 days which is essentially two Christmases-worth. That to me is such a scam, so check your warranties, on anything really, before you buy.

March 15, 2012 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

A really bad bad movie.

Ok a couple of years ago I actually watched….shudder….Transmorphers : The Fall Of Man. I know, I was young and foolish. Work with me here.

Anyway the first ten minutes of the movie starts out with a woman driving down the California highway talking on her cellphone, arguing with her boyfriend. Bruce Boxleitner, local-town sheriff, pulls her over and tells her how dangerous it is to talk on her cellphone but lets her off with a warning. She drives off and immediately gets back on the phone to yell at the boyfriend, where the phone turns into a robot and shoots her in the face.

The movie might as well be a PSA:

“Hi, I’m Bruce Boxletiner. What you saw could have happened. So before you answer that phone while you’re driving, stop and think. You could be distracted and not see that child. Or hit that car. Or even have your face ripped off by a robot and start the robot apocalypse. Is it really worth it?”

The movie doesn’t get any better after that.

March 10, 2012 Posted by | Humorus, Movies | 1 Comment

A town called Paradise.

During my college years, oh mumblemumble years ago, I remember reading a story I wish I could recall the name or the author. So if anyone reading this happens to know of the story I’m referencing here please let me know. I have seen the story-line often portrayed in various iterations in tv and movie programs since then so I believe it’s a well-known tale. Anyway…

There once was a town called Paradise. All the people were happy and healthy, enjoying life as any other town would. However they had a special edge that no other town had, for it was that for one full day one member of the town would be visited by all the sorrows of the town so that the rest of the town would have joy and remain sorrow-free. The choosing was done by simple lottery, and since there were many people in the town the likelihood that the same person received the sorrows was perhaps months in-between.

One day there came upon a man who said “surely those that are young of age, who have not known sorrow in their lives, should not be made to experience such grand sorrow so soon”. The people of the town  talked about it and finally agreed that the children would not be part of the lottery.

Another man spoke up, “surely those that have lived for so long, that have already seen their fair share of sorrow on their own, should not continue such grand sorrow.” Again they talked and agreed that those of ongoing years have earned their rest and not be put into the lottery.

A third man rose to speak, “surely those that are lame, who have suffered disease and pain, should not be made to take on so many others’ grand sorrow”. Some disagreed but they finally relented lest they be called cold of heart.

So as time continued as time does, the number of people in the lottery became fewer and fewer. Those that remained began to receive the sorrow more often than they had before. Over time other people rose and gave reasons to have names removed, and more often those that remained continued the sorrow to the point it was almost daily. When they complained their cries were ignored, after all it was a fair price for everyone else’s joy they were told.

Ultimately these few could no longer sustain the sorrow and decided to leave Paradise. Without them the spell was broken and all in the town were visited by their own sorrows.

We see these lessons today where we demand some people to pay for the leisure of others and yet cry they aren’t paying their “fair share”. We see businesses leave over-taxed states or even to other countries to flee burdensome governments, whether local or federal. It has become a fetish in this country to insist on killing the golden geese instead of recognizing and respecting the good they do, all the while shouting down complaint.

I also find it amazing how, to take a recent-in-the-news example, if Senator Blowhard was to introduce legislation for say require teenagers to require parent’s permission for birth control that’s decried as “the slippery slope!!”, yet an imperious President orders private businesses to pay for birth control, that’s ok. What if, using the same mechanism that President Obama set up, I were to use that same logic to shut down abortion, it’s the same switch and lever.

During the 2000 election, the actual Election day in fact, I had an argument with a friend. I explained that the machine that the left was creating at some point will be manned by someone they don’t agree with, so would she still support creating such a behemoth. Of course George Bush won, and she stopped talking with me, I wonder why.

The lesson of the town of Paradise is that we as a nation can lift a mountain with hardly any effort at all, yet it is this compulsion that some have to exclude essentially themselves from the normal everyday consequences of life. At times those “grand sorrows” are more for some then others, yet we all get them and we all deal with them. The thought of “well we can manage that another way” is what ultimately causes the decline of a town, a state, a country, to the point where a few need to lift that mountain and it becomes impossible. This becomes  no longer “fair” and Paradise ceases to be.

March 5, 2012 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

I’m more patriotic then you are, neener neener

So Timmy “Arnold Horshack” Geitner, who never met a tax he liked to pay, says that the “Rich Need to Pay for ‘Privilege of Being an American’.” Really? Number one: You first. Number two: There is an estimated 47% of the American people that do not pay taxes, and as Joe “there ain’t no shoe big enough for this mouth” Biden also says “it’s the patriotic” thing to do, does that mean that there are millions of unpatriotic people living in this country essentially living rent-free? We should revoke that “privilege” then, right?

 Do I get a sticker like that “I Voted” I get when I vote if I pay more in tax just so I can say I’m more patriotic then you are? Actually no, I get kicked in the teeth and told I need to pay more, even when I’m not in that bracket.

February 27, 2012 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

My home fiscal plan, Obama style.

So I’ve decided I can get ahead by maxing out my credit cards, taking a fourth on my mortgage, and even have a chat with Benny the loan-shark, then take all that money and put it on the lottery, after all it’s at a 100 million now. Surely that will solve all my problems.

February 27, 2012 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

So they’re angry, again, about burned Korans.

Tell ya what, I’ll get on beating those guys myself when you beat on all those guys that burn the American flag, howzabouthat?

February 26, 2012 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

You know you’ve been playing too much Skyrim when…..

Yesterday my boss and I were moving computer equipment around when he found a couple of cases that, though they were unlocked, had a set of padlocks on each. So, he locked them. When he was talking with other people about them he realized he needed to get back in them but no one had the key. My initial reaction was “well I have a 73 rating on Lock Picking in Skyrim, I can take care of that…..nah better not say that….”

February 17, 2012 Posted by | Funny, Humor, Humorus | Leave a comment

Rejoinders to “What’s that Lassie? Timmy’s stuck in the well?”

  • I’m sorry you had to find that. Blam!
  • Pa, Lassie’s been digging by the “play room” again!
  • Two words. Ring 3. When you see  the ring Timmy appears.
  • Good thing Lassie didn’t find the sister yet

February 17, 2012 Posted by | Funny, Humor, Humorus | 1 Comment

Quickie in abortion

So the HHS is going to force Catholic hospitals and schools to provide contraception and abortion despite their objections. “Well, they’re taking federal money”!

So when we complained about ACORN and tried to investigate them, they refused and had Democrats defending them hourly.

But that’s different right?

February 10, 2012 Posted by | Politics | 2 Comments


Vicky has discovered them

February 9, 2012 Posted by | Funny, Humor, Humorus | Leave a comment

Inches and Miles

I might as well be one of the many blog posts talking about the Prop 8 decision this week, so here goes. As I’ve mentioned I believe that the natural societal evolution is that Gay Marriage will become as normal as inter-racial and inter-religious marriages, see my previous posts why I feel that. However I do see that the ruling this week has done what I’ve warned, gained the inch but will lose the mile.

First I want to discuss a bit of history, which upon Googling I found at:


Here it shows that the people of California have attempted to address this issue and have in enough margins to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Prop 8 wasn’t even the first Prop that was overturned by the same court. There were also Legislative actions which were turned down. So this isn’t the first time that the Ninth Circuit has done this.


The Prop also made an amendment to the California Constitution, so then the court couldn’t find it un-Constitutional because it’s now in the Constitution.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is renowned for its activist nature, with an over-turn rate over 90%. This means that they are often out-of-step with Constitutional questions as well as the law, society and reality. If you disagree and enjoy a court deciding societal questions like this then sure we can leave it that way, only how about we take judges from Texas and move them to California, would you like that? Didn’t think so.

This then leads me to believe that this ruling is not done in a Constitutional manner. If you heard of a doctor that 1 time out of 10 the patient lives would you go? So no I do not believe this court is objective, I do not believe in the ruling as Constitutional and believe completely the opinion they gave is made-up.

“…using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause [of the federal Constitution].

First off there is no Right to Marriage granted or taken away by the State. As I’ve said I was very offended that the activists went on bended knee to the State in that manner, but you guys chose that path. If it happens to rain every day along that path complain to the original tour guides. So because you forced it down that way means you must abide by that reality: The State does not grant or remove Rights, ever.

Next point, who did you get that Right from? The court? The court doesn’t have the authority to grant Rights, they only determine Constitutionality of a law. So the fact that you felt that you had a Right that was given to by someone not authorized, like buying a car from some dude on the street, doesn’t mean it’s legitimate.

So what these judges are saying is that “we didn’t have the power to give you a Right, however even though we did which is extra-Constitutional now they cannot take that illegitimate Right away. Sorry, we lied, oops.” Turns my stomach.

Lastly someone in an interview said that the courts, the bastion of the courts, the integrity of the courts, is the last hurdle to protect the civil rights of those people who are infringed by an un-Constitutional law. True, however that isn’t what happened here. Once again, and this is what I said previously, the activists have shown they cannot win a fair fight, they have to have a rigged game.

But that also leaves a very good point. What about the civil rights of those that voted for the Prop? What about the rule of law? I know, in the next election we can solve this whole government crisis. Since California fairly sure is going to go to Obama we’ll discount their Electoral votes completely. After all we’ll need Mitt (assuming he’s the guy) to fix things. And since the people of California are used to having their voices squashed like this daily they won’t mind, they keep voting people in that do this to them regularly, they must like it. Two guys in a robe tells an entire state, “just bend over…and…breathe….”

Now I have no idea how this is going to end, if it gets to the US Supreme court and which way it will go. However what has happened every time there are extra-Constitutional maneuvers like these the States eventually tighten down with passage of amendments to their respective Constitutions. Currently there are 41 States that have some form of ban on same-sex marriages:



So guys, knock that shit off! If you were shooting yourselves in the foot I wouldn’t listen to you complaining but instead you’re shooting your constituency in the foot. That I have a problem with.

February 9, 2012 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

While we’re discussing racism….

I first want to preface this that I am not a psychologist, sociologist, anthropologist or anything like that. These are my opinions and nothing more, nor are they anyone else’s. This is just what I believe, you can take from that or not, your choice.

In today’s society Racism is a big word, often times it’s used in areas where it clearly shouldn’t be. Other times when it’s blatant other people make excuses to dismiss it.

So this is what I take from all this. Should someone, say a Klu Klux Klan member, starts saying something about this or that I just remember a Discovery Channel show I saw a few years ago and smile. Basically there was this massive famine, possibly caused by an ice age, which killed off a great deal of the wildlife including the “people” at that time. So essentially the “human race” at that time ended up living in a small area where it was the most temperate and life-sustaining: Africa. Eventually once things got better they started to migrate to Europe, Asia, etc. So when Mr. KKK stands up and talks about such-a-such nasty-name I smile and say “hey dude, we’re all Africans.”

To me the lesson of that is we’re all the same. Often when I get upset about someone it’s not because of race or gender or religion, it’s what that person is doing or saying. Usually I see those on the Right that follow that same belief.

Let’s continue though with a bit of history. When the human race began it was solely about survival. Man killed for food or to prevent being killed. If another tribe over the hill, who’s instincts and needs were the same, came over usually it was survival vs. survival. The instinct that was developed was “not us? Bad, they’re going to kill us”.

Over time they learned that they can develop food with grains and livestock, so they no longer needed to hunt as much to survive and land became more important. The survival instinct then changed to “not us? Bad, they’re here to take my land”. So you had farmers versus say the Mongols for example.

Eventually they created communities to better their survival, which in turn led to leaders of those communities (War Lords, Kings, Popes, Governors, Presidents) that could provide protection to “my people”. This in turn led to borders, nations, states, and countries. The survival instinct changed to “not us? Bad, they’re going to invade my country”. You then have the French not liking the British, not liking the Saxons, not liking the Turks, as well as Catholics, Protestants, Islamists, Jews, and on and on.

But then you had something develop. As the people of these lands grew they found they could create their own goods and trade with others that before they feared, and then get stuff they wanted. This helped to defray fears and allow for alliances and commerce. Capitalism, who knew. This created incentive to have product that others wanted to trade, everyone could benefit.

To be fair this also led to an ugly side, which is slavery. People were treated as product and used as cheap labor to create other product. Even though slavery has been practiced throughout the world (still does) using people of all races (still does) the one that stands out is the slave trade between Africa and America in which a war was fought to cease. Since the sole recipient of that experience were bourn on those that were from Africa the result of that is said to be of Race. This, among other factors, led the survival instinct to “not my race? Bad”.

Unfortunately this also led to bad political and societal issues, such as the introduction of the Klu Klux Klan (Democrats who used terrorism on freed African slaves), Jim Crowe laws (created and enforced by Democrats on freed African slaves), just to name a couple. Now I mention that in specifically that way for a reason. At a certain point in history politics became a useful tool, and eventually a weapon, if you belong to a specific group which unfortunately went down racial lines. They followed the third instinct I mentioned “Irish need not apply”, ghettos such as Little Italy, Unions forming to keep freed African slaves from working in the area. This eventually led to a war that displayed the end-result of this un-checked political instinct. The problem though wasn’t that they learned that using Race as a means for politics is bad, just “going that far” is. So the survival instinct changed to “not my party? Bad”.

Again the reason why I am specifically mentioning Democrats is because that is their history which they want people to forget. If I started to say how my beliefs were formed by listening to David Duke and that I believe that all African-Americans should be sterilized would you continue to listen to me? I wouldn’t blame you if you didn’t, yet if I told you that I actually lifted that from Margaret Sanger, creator of Planned Parenthood and renowned racist, is that ok? If you’re a Democrat reading this now, and I used to be one too, I would ask why you would allow these tactics to continue then? In your name.

Somewhere along the line Democrats changed their clothes and started saying they were for African-Americans and the other minorities all along, yet they still use the politics of race as those that Bull Conner did. They engage in policies that sound sweet to minorities but end up impoverishing them and keeping them down, Lester Maddox would be proud.

My point is that from the beginning we’ve been taught this reflex, “don’t talk to strangers”, that make us flinch just a little when we meet the unknown. However over time (survival to land to country to party) that “unknown” has changed its name. As we’ve progressed as a species it’s gone from life-and-death-struggle to sticks-and-stones-may-break-my-bones. Currently though one political party is using that in-grained reflex for political power and gain, to silence opposition and push their agenda forward over reasonable objections, all because they cry out “Racism!!” They take a political opponent’s every word and action and say that it must be “Racism!!” (Exactly what is a macaca anyway?) He sneezed. “Racism!!” She has a pulse. “Racism!!”

So lastly let me state, I do not have a problem with Barak Hussein Obama because he’s black. Or, wait, half-black? Quarter? I forget. I have a problem because he’s wrong. I have a problem that he’s arrogant and condescending despite mounting evidence that he’s wrong, so he ignores it. I have a problem that he believes he’s above the will of the people and the rule of law to force a flawed and wrong system on everyone. I have a problem with an entire political party and culture that continuously prop him up based on flawed premises all the while blaming those that are rightfully showing the flaws. The Emperor has no clothes, yet instead of saying to the little boy “you’re right, I’ll get his robe”, they’re billy-clubbing the obviously Racist kid. That is what I have a problem with.

February 7, 2012 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

We’ve been found out

It’s time to come clean. Juan Williams and others have caught us, might as well admit it. Everyone, I am sorry. I’ve been lying to you all, using “code words” to subliminally show my racism without showing it, and I am appalled at myself. So in order to wash away my sins, my crimes, I am going to release the codex of racist words we use, it’s all found here. Whenever you hear anyone use any of these words those on the Left can correctly say that we are racist. Please, I beg you, use this knowledge as what it’s intended, as a way to assuage my own deep regret at what I have done and forgive me and those that unknowingly use these harsh words.


Again, if anyone on the Left calls upon anyone, anyone as racist because they used a word from this book, please understand they are doing it from love and truth, so never question it.

February 7, 2012 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

Bumper Sticker Philosophy

I once saw a bumper sticker that said “Visualize Peace”. At that point I had a “moment of clarity”. I understand what the Left is trying to do and say. I had the natural rejoinder: “Of course we can have peace, it’s real easy and we can do it now. Everyone must agree with me.”

That essentially is what Democrats, whether in power, the media, the activists, whatever, they’re all saying that everyone must agree with them. We have to give up what we want and what we need and what we desire so that we can go along with that vision of THEIRS, of world peace.

We can have world peace today but you need to agree with ME. No? hmmm…. How can I get you to agree with me…. Well I can talk with you, explain the wonders of agreeing with me, anecdotes, facts, statistics, maybe have it in iambic pentameter just to be silly. Still no?

I know, bribery, I’ll pay you to agree with me, but I don’t have a lot of money, do I look like George Soros? I know the Federal Treasury has plenty I can just tax everyone and then give it to you so you can agree with me. Still no?

Maybe I’m telling it in a way that’s off-putting to you, after all it’s a pretty sweet deal in my eye, so maybe I’ll say it in a different way. What do you mean I’m lying, of course not, I don’t need deceit and trickery, although that isn’t a bad idea after all we are trying to get to world peace.

So I’ve tried everything I can think of to get you to agree with me, it must be that you’re at fault then. Couldn’t possibly be my ideas are bad, you’re just a hater. Hey, no one listen to this hater!!! Hater says what? Hater says what? Neener neener hay…ter…

Oh now people are listening to him instead of my wonderful ideas? I already told them that he’s a hater, so they must be haters too. And haters, well, they get what they deserve, after all hate kills. Since we can’t have hate ruin our world peace it’s appropriate to use whatever means we can to get them to go away and be quiet. Look, a black man in a wheel chair…… people peacefully protesting……didn’t you know you never bring a knife to a gun-fight? After all world peace is at stake and you’re in the way.

Yes, funny how that always happens, doesn’t it. Nice car by the way, fits your sticker well.

February 7, 2012 Posted by | Politics | 1 Comment

Ever notice there’s never enough evil laughter?

A long time ago I realized something, and that there’s not enough evil laughter at inappropriate times during every day conversations. It can’t just be a mu ha ha either, it has to be a full-throated and with-effort mwahahahaahaaaaaaaa. Take the following conversation as an example:

“Hey Grandma, would you like to go out to the lake?” Mwahahahaahaaaaaaaa.

“We’ll have a great time, going out far into the deep areas.” Mwahahahaahaaaaaaaa.

“And then you can show us all how good you are at ‘fishing’” Mwahahahaahaaaaaaaa!

So the next time you’re talking to your patient or on the phone with your Aunt, maybe even at a traffic stop for the third time, just belt one out in the middle of the discussion and really liven things up. Trust me, mwahahahaahaaaaaaaa!

February 6, 2012 Posted by | Funny, Humor, Humorus | Leave a comment

What Hollywood doesn’t understand.

Last night I’m watching the Sy-Fi channel’s new series “Lost Girl”, The basic premise is :woman who was abandoned by her parents learns that she’s Fey, has abilities, and thrust into a new world where magic and myths are real. Love interest is a werewolf who can transform at will. That about sum it up?

So then I started thinking. True Blood: woman who was abandoned by her parents learns that she’s Fey, has abilities, and thrust into a new world where magic and myths are real. Love interest is a vampire, but there are also werewolves who can transform at will. Hmmm……

Let’s see if there’s a pattern. Sanctuary: guy finds a woman and thrust into a new world where magic and myths are real. Love interest not so much but there’s flirting, used the blood of vampires to become immortal, and has an employee who is a werewolf who can transform at will.

Of course they use the vehicle that the main character is completely new to the entire “new world” so that they can bring us, the audience, to also learn who’s who and what’s what. Now I grant that you can’t start a series with established storylines/personalities/histories without some means of the audience figuring out things. It’s just the cliché that I’m not impressed at.

Let’s take the upcoming Super-Bowl as an example. I admit I am not a sports fan, I never could get all those figures and people and all that in my head. I can get all rah-rah about a game but I have no idea what a touchback is or any of that. I do admit I am a fan of Women’s Volleyball, ‘cause I’m really impressed by their athleticism. No really, here’s what I mean:


So Sunday I am able to watch the game, without knowing who’s doing what, and figuring out the main players all on my own, I just pick it up as the “story” unfolds. You don’t need to have this cliché so stop treating me like a child.

Hey Hollywood? Don’t you get why you are losing ticket sales and Neilson ratings? You haven’t had an original thought in decades! Here’s a quick list of 2011 movies just to prove my point:

  •  The Green Hornet – remake of the TV series
  • No Strings Attached – how many times do we have to have a Boy Meets Girl stories?
  • The Mechanic – remake of the 1972 film, with Jason Statham so it’s really The Transporter 3
  • Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son – a second helping of the same shtick?
  • The Roommate – Single, White, Female
  • The Eagle – 300
  • Just Go With It – Same as No Strings Attached
  • Ok, there’s Justin Bieber – oh wait, Hard Day’s Night by the Beatles, Madonna’s bio movie Truth or Dare
  • I Am Number Four – a guy with abilities is thrust in a….wait didn’t I talk about that one….I forget.
  • Drive Angry – Death Wish meets Death Race 2000
  • Battle: Los Angeles – basic War Of The Worlds
  • Mars Needs Moms – Invaders From Mars
  • Paul – E.T.
  • Hop – The Chipmunks
  • Insidious – The Exorcist meets Rosemary’s baby
  • Source Code – 7 Days and the Matrix-ish
  • Arthur – remake of the 1981 movie, I’m sure no one notices if we just take a thirty year old movie and redo it.
  • Born To Be Wild – take a rocking song title and just go with it, hey the movie just writes itself. Next movie idea: Helter Skelter
  • Scream 4 – Because the first three movies left me so unfulfilled with plot and storyline I need a fourth one
  • The Hangover Part II – Really? I need to get into this one? You guys didn’t learn your lesson the first time?

Breaking the list here, notice that tv series now have to do that Hangover plot where no one remembers the night before and they have to re-create all the bizarre details? Smallville, Psyche, these writers just can’t come up with anything new. Ok back to the list, and I’m still in April, yeesh.

  •  Bad Teacher – Teachers
  • Horrible Bosses – 9 to 5
  • Friends With Benefits – No Strings Attached
  • Final Destination 5????
  • Conan The Barbarian – The summer’s not complete without steroids
  • Fright Night – remake of the 1985 movie
  • Don’t Be Afraid Of The Dark – It’s so good to see that Gollum has kept going with his career in film after the trilogy, way to go!
  • Apollo 18 – Moontrap

Man, I’m reading the Wikipedia list and I’m starting to get blurry-eyed, but I think I made my point. I don’t mind so much if they make a movie that’s a remake of another movie given that special effects and other technologies can improve it, sort of like hearing a remake of a song. But doing it just to do it, like auto-tuning that song, just sucks. The last movie I went to see was the Deathly Hallows, before that I can’t remember, certainly wasn’t in 2011.

February 2, 2012 Posted by | Television | Leave a comment

My Gay Marriage post.

So as I mentioned I’m going to post what I really think about the issue of Gay Marriage. As I alluded to in the previous post, I think it’s a natural evolution, it’s gonna happen eventually. However it also isn’t what everyone keeps thinking it is.

Let me give an example. A few years ago I was in NYC with my brother, we were doing the tourist thing, went to this museum which had windows instead of walls for the main floor. So we could see the people walking by and all that. There also happened to be a crowd of children there, probably a school outing I guess, when they noticed something on the sidewalk and started to giggle. There were two people kissing.

Now guess what the genders were.

I phrased this example specifically this way not to trap you but to help illustrate a central point. I believe that, just as at one point a black man and a white woman would’ve sparked a certain reaction that now today hardly bats an eyelash, that the “rank-and-file” GBLT ultimately want the same thing. To walk down the street, hand-in-hand with a loved one, and no one sees it as “abnormal”. On some level today I think we have that, but I also feel that for some in that community don’t believe they are, which is what’s causing the friction.

As I’ve said I’m a Conservative. I do not have a problem with the Gay lifestyle. My Uncle is gay and has a long-term partner. (I actually have more of a problem with him trying to say Socialism is good then the fact that he’s gay just so you know.) I call the partner “Uncle” as well, because in my eyes they are married, I don’t need to see a damned piece of paper, I can see it between them that they are.

I have a problem with the activists in the community, not the rank-and-file who just want to live their life and be left alone. I firmly believe that it is these activists that have made it worse. I am on their side, but I was very offended that they went, on bended knee to the altar of the court, to ask “please please let me get married”. It never should have gone that route. Once it entered the political realm the way they did they gained the inch but lost the mile. And pissed off people who are supportive of them.

When this first started I told people that I knew in this community, friends of mine I’ve known for a few years (as I mentioned there was a prior discussion, these posts were a result) that if nothing was done, just live your lives and educate people that gay people are not the boogie-men that Falwell et al (and no he does not speak with me, hey Jerry, shut the fuck up ok?) and in about thirty years (at that time) no one would have a problem with it. That was about fifteen years-ish ago I’d say.

Instead with all these court cases they add ten years every time to that schedule. How many states have Constitutional amendments? How long will it take to have each one reversed?

To be honest I support those amendments. Way back when the activists went court shopping to find the most friendly court so their cause would pass. How do I know? They bragged about it. How would you like it if the Right does that on their cause célèbre? We’ll have all gun control cases in Texas, abortion cases in North Carolina, I can keep going… What that told everyone is that the gay lobby cannot win unless they rig the game. So the states made certain that the game can’t be rigged. Constitutional Amendments.

This is why I have a serious problem with the activists, they are not looking out for anyone. They go up to you and say “You have to accept me” pop in the nose. “No really, you have to accept me” pop in the nose. “It’s ok, I’ll be good, but now you have to accept me” pop in the nose.

Actually, no I don’t.

Let me ask you, the reader, say I advocate everyone wearing a clown nose, morning noon and night. Everyone, no exception. Silly proposition, but suppose I give very good logical reasons for it. Do you accept that position? No? Why not you hater? pop in the nose.

Here’s the way I live my life. “I wear a clown nose every day. You don’t accept that? Who fucking asked you?”

Alright, all you gay people, I don’t accept you so stop being so gay. No really stop it. C’mon, it’s an order. Please? How come no one is listening? Because “who the fuck are you?”

“Yeah, but married people get benefits and stuff!”

Ok, that’s a separate issue, but are you getting married because you love that other person or to get stuff? I see my Uncles as married, period, not because a judge or minister or a guy wearing a pointed hat says so. It’s like that end scene in “Joe versus the Volcano”.


As I just alluded to here, I also have a problem with the way that it’s portrayed that if you so much dare to have a degree off of an opinion of theirs, well you must hate, that’s the only reason. Can’t be that you have an differnt belief, no you’re a bigot.

When I first started hearing about all this I really didn’t have an opinion on it either way. However if they came up to me “you, me?, yes you, only you can decide this for us, aw shit we’re really digging the bottom of the barrel but ok…” first thing I would do is sit them all down and tell them for the next ten hours why both sides are right and both sides are full of shit. After all that I would lean towards the gay marriage, reasons being

  • Love is love no matter the package
  • We don’t go to government to seek approval of what we eat, say, fuck or die, we don’t need it for getting married.
  • My life is not so big or small that it’s dependant on what that guy down the street allows me

So lastly let me expand on one point I just said, “first thing I would do is sit them all down and tell them for the next ten hours why both sides are right and both sides are full of shit”. That’s what drives me nuts, that as I said if you disagree you must hate according to the activists. No, the other side has equally valid reasons, to dismiss them out-right leads to non-compromise. That’s what the amendments were. Why should I try to come half-way, you’re bopping me in the nose?

Which leads back to the stuff. If you’re only interested in “the stuff” then why not go with the civil unions? Mainly because it was never about the stuff, or love for that matter, it’s about forcing acceptance which you can’t do, never can do. Hell there are still problems with inter-racial and inter-religious marriages, you’re thinking you’re going to get instant acceptance if you somehow show a bunch of Neanderthals how wrong they are by shoving sweetness and light down their throats? Glitter-bomb them to like you?

Here’s a thought, and I know it’s out-right insane, here let me put on my clown-nose….how about try talking? Find out each point they have? You don’t have to agree with them, just understand them. Then explain your point. Maybe have a dialogue. Their side gives up a little something, your side gives up a little something, then each side goes their separate ways and actually enjoys life.

At the end of the day that’s what everybody wants. You go to the store and you give a little money and they give a little of their product. You work for some time and the boss gives you money for that time. Some guy takes a little space right in front of you rather closely and quickly and you give an indication of his IQ to him.

Live life. Like the Will Smith song goes, “hate in your heart will consume you too”.

January 27, 2012 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

Happy Pretty People Killing Happy Pretty People

Actually the original title of this post was going to be “TV Mystery shows”, fooled ya mwaahahaahaa.

A few months ago I realized something about these TV shows, like Monk, The Mentalist, Bones, etc. and that is you only see the victims and murderers as these svelte, beautiful, Hollywood bimbo-himbo types. Law and Order did occasionally have “real” people, but not by much. However they at least had realistic scenarios.

Scene Opens: Living Room Floor – Beautifully dressed beautiful person lying on her front with a knife on the floor.

Act 2: Opens in police headquarters – Beautifully dressed beautiful person, without a lawyer and didn’t run, is telling police all about why he killed her. Of course the confession is never thrown out, no technicalities or anything, bad guy always goes to jail forever.

Oh and if it happens that the series, which evidentially MUST, has a serial killer, it’s always a white male. (I thought the left constantly complains that the prisons are unjustly holding a larger percentage of African-Americans, not according to these shows, nearly every one is white.)

About Bones. Apparently ALL crime happens in DC. And they all involve a murder, where there’s some completely unbelievable cause of death. (It appears the victim was pushed off the balcony. Never mind nothing to see.) And the FBI can’t solve it on their own because they only have five people in the building. And at no point does the victims, murderers, or witnesses have anything at all to do with Congress, the White House, Lobbyists, or anything at all related in any way to politics even though they are in DC. I’m definitely not going to be visiting DC any time soon, it’s too dangerous, how about Rwanda?

Another thing I noticed is the pattern for Bones.

  • Body is found
  • Dr. Brennan and team come in, give cursory tech-nese
  • Booth talks to victim’s family, usually in the FBI office (oh and they’re never the murderer, suspects maybe but never did it)
  • Once the investigation starts outside of the lab or FBI headquarters the very first person they talk to ends up the murderer.
  • The rest of the show meanders around trying to figure out the who and how, I usually sit back and wait for the end to say “yep, that’s the first guy”. Well, also to see how the “King of the Lab” moment happens. I miss Zack, sigh.


2/7/2012 Addendum

Last week I saw an episode of The Mentalist, where the victim was a high fashion designer, the murder weapon was a pair of scissors with a feather shoved in his mouth. The murderer ended up being a model who did it because the guy said “she was too old” to wear his clothes on the runway. She ended up saying, and this is priceless, while in the police station interview room “can I go now? I have a show to do in two hours.” Happy Pretty People Killing Happy Pretty People.

January 27, 2012 Posted by | Television | Leave a comment

What is a party?

I often find it interesting how those on the left say “the Republicans need to do X in order for voters to accept them”. Hmmm… So this actually begs the question: Do you know what a political party is?

This of course seems like a no-brainer, sure that guy is a Democrat because he says this and that guy is a Republican because he’s against the Democrat. So let’s get into what a party is, not defining where each stands, but the general concept.

A political party is short-hand.

It really is that simple. When you have a “Legalize Marijuana” party you fairly understand what they’re looking to do. How often though does anyone go to them and tell them they should lay off the munchies? “You need to get those voters, dude, so how about backing away from the Doritoes…..”

So how do you like your Crème Brule? With extra wheat grass and roof tar? What are you talking about, that’s what a Crème Brule is right?

A label of something has a specific definition, a political party is no different. When you say you believe in X Y Z you then can compare and contrast with the current labels to see where you just about match. There’s never going to be an exact fit, never can be, otherwise there would be a “you” party of one. So when you say your values, opinions and beliefs are such-a-such you’re going with a standard that’s been set. You don’t change the standard to suit you though, it’s like saying I can’t run the mile so I’ll change the measurement to 30 grunyos. (Made that up.) It’s still a mile. (A Pluto is still a planet pinheads!) The labels are immutable, it’s how you try to fit to those standards is what you need to figure out.

Now how come the Democrats can’t be more like Republicans? Often Democrats often allude that something said is “racist” for example, yet when Democrats actually do things that are racist it’s ignored. What if I were to say then that Democrats should be less racist like the Republicans? That entire paragraph is total bullshit by the way.

Then why is it any less when Democrats say Republicans should be more like them? Because that’s not the objective. What’s really being said is “you don’t agree with me so no one vote for this guy!” Often it’s meant only to go to people’s emotions and not to their intelligence, which in-of-itself is an insult.

“He’s a racist!!!” Doesn’t even have to have any evidence, just the charge, and you get a knee-jerk reaction to stay away from “that guy”.

So when the Democrats keep saying someone needs to do this it’s never in the best interest of that person, it’s a means to silence the opposition. It’s actually an offensive tactic that should leave everyone saying “you first”.

January 25, 2012 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

1000 and counting.

In the news there’s mention that it’s been 1000 days since the Democrat Congress has passed a budget. wow, almost makes you think why continue to vote them in? We obviously don’t need them, they obviously are in no rush to pass a budget. tell you what, take six months off, on me, go to Vega….um no can’t do that….ok go to Martha’s…nah that’s been done to death….how about Maui? Probably a good idea, pack your backs, we’ll call you if we need you.

January 25, 2012 Posted by | Poetry | Leave a comment

How I got here.

I wanted to give a primer on myself, my own personal and political evolution of why I feel I am what I am and all that. Oddly though a lot of the thoughts I have were thoughts from when I was a kid, only I didn’t have the language to explain it properly. There’s also the youthful black and white view of the world I guess.

So, I’m turning 18, and as all boys at that age need to do is register for selective service. They also ask at that time to register to vote, as well as select what party you’re registering to. Democrat, Republican, what the heck are these? Well where do you go for advice on really important thing? “Mom…….?”

Unfortunately I did not get the Civics 101 description how things work. Instead my mother asked if I was for human rights and people getting fair wages. Of course I am. “Then you’re a Democrat”. I’ll get into that line of thought a little later, however at that time I checked the box Democrat and sent in the forms.

H.W. Bush v. Dukakis

The first election I voted in I thought I had to be a good Democrat and vote all along the D next to all the candidates. I had no idea who anyone was, where they stood for, every one of them could have been for human cannibalism for all I knew. It wasn’t until later, when I saw that the guy I voted for lost, that I looked at him. We soooo fucking dodged a bullet there. Everything I’ve seen about Dukakis, from his own mouth mostly in interviews and stuff, told me he would have been totally awful as President. But if I were totally honest some of that reflection didn’t happen until the next election, I pretty much went to sleep politically speaking.

Clinton v. H.W. Bush

I didn’t like H.W. Bush, I admit it. I was beginning to get into the whole figuring out the upcoming election (mid-term? What’s that?), trying to figure out who to vote for President. Actually Congress I didn’t pay any attention at all, the only vetting I gave were for the candidates for President.

H.W. Bush said “read my lips” then turned around and did it anyway, so he can’t be trusted.

Perot? Pft. Seriously? No, really?

Bill Clinton…….

I really didn’t listen to any of the hype, the ads, the talking heads, nothing. For all I knew Clinton arrived off the mother ship that day. What decided it for me was when one of the news channels did a man-on-the-street interview of people in Arkansas asking how he was when he was Governor. Almost all of them said that he was awful, that he was a womanizer, only in it for himself, a total egomaniac.

But that only gave me a reason to lean away from Bill. What sold me totally on “no” was that I started listening to the news on H.W. Bush, which didn’t make any sense. There was all that talk about a recession and how he said the recession was over, that therefore he must be out of touch. At this time I had a couple of years of college under my belt, some of it economic classes. I admit even to this day I’m not an expert of the global economy, especially when I was that young, but at least I was on the level of knowing how to tie my own shoe.

The American economic system is not designed in the way that the news was describing, how they were saying H.W. Bush was causing problems. The way the system is set up whenever anyone throws a switch you don’t feel that for 18 months or so. I forget who said it but it’s like trying to steer a fully-loaded oil super-tanker. That’s how you want the system, if you have someone that at any point can pull a lever and suddenly everything changes? How can businesses plan for that? How can you? Do you really want someone you don’t approve of in control of levers of that significance that can have directly affect you at any moment?

So H.W. Bush was getting lambasted for not fixing the economy “today”, then getting yelled at for saying it’s over when it couldn’t possibly be, oh he must be lying. I knew that he had in front of him, all Presidents do, economic figures that I could never see. So maybe he’s seeing that things are getting better, maybe not. But I definitely was getting suspicious about what the media was saying. Because of the distrust of Bill Clinton and now the distrust of the media I went for H.W. Bush.

Bill Clinton v. Bob Dole

Of course Clinton won, in fact I was beginning to get a complex, that everyone I vote for loses. So if I wanted candidate X to win I should vote for Y. Anyway at this point I was kinda sorta beginning to get into what was going on, still finding inconsistencies in what was said in the media. Even when ol’ Bubba wagged his finger (I hope he washed his hands first) at us on tv and said “But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never.” Dude, seriously. I’ve seen her, I’d do her. My grandma would do her. You didn’t? You’re either lying or you’re lying, which is it?

That’s when it started getting very bizarre. Everyone in the media and around him started defending him as though everything he said was the truth. Even after he admitted it, took what a year? people were still defending the lie. They were making excuses, that it’s actually healthy to lie. Then we start hearing the excuses and total non-logics about how Ken Starr was a pervert for only looking at Bill’s sex life therefore it never happened. Hello? Bill is a sexual predator, that does involve sex, so yeah that means we’re going to have to engage in that arena. Should all rapist be allowed the “oh it’s just sex, your honor, so it’s ok” defense? Technically, abortion starts out with sex, so then the left can’t say squat about that, right?

What I was beginning to get through all this was that Democrats were and still are constantly changing the rules of the game so they are always the winners, no matter the situation. You had Fuck Schumer actually running his campaign from House of Representatives to Senator, outright putting it in ads, that his whole purpose was going to vote against impeachment no matter the evidence. That while he was still in the House he’d vote no, then once in the Senate he’d vote against removal. Would you like someone on your jury that’s already said openly you’re guilty, or for a civil case that he’s going to vote against your rival? Plus the fact that Schumer essentially gets two votes, which is clearly outrageous, and that a total pervert goes into the well of the House to defend another total pervert. So, where exactly are all the “Larry Flynt is our First Amendment hero” people on how Gingrich is being treated with his divorces and “open marriage”? Oh right, rules only apply so the Democrats can win.

This is why I left the Democrat party. I stayed right where I am, but the party went waaay insane to the left. I changed my party affiliation and voted for Dole, who admittedly was milquetoast. Of course he lost, but I really began to pay attention to what was said, how it was said, and why. In a way Bill Clinton and the Democrat party made me a Conservative Republican, not because of what I believe but because I am so not insane.

It’s funny though, when there was that nut that shot up the White House with that AK-47 I actually sent an email to them saying that even though I was on the opposite side of the political fence that I would support whatever steps he felt he needed to close up that street to protect themselves. Interesting the difference in views.

George W. Bush v. Gore

So as I mentioned in a previous post on “Clinton-Haters”, I had to sit through four years of being maligned for daring to have an opinion that questioned the mighty Oz. But I listened, and I learned. I understood exactly who Bill and Hillary were, as well as Al Gore. He’s had as many gaffes as Quale but it’s ok because we’re making the rules so we can win. I was kinda iffy about Bush but I definitely wasn’t going to vote for Gore.

To make my “make the rules up so we can win” statement true I give you Florida.

I continued to watch what was going on, I was disappointed that Bush didn’t make the end of that Chinese runway a crater, and pretty much resigned to another milquetoast President. Of course 9/11.

I was in NY City when that happened, living in Staten Island right across the Hudson. I actually played hooky that day, normally I would’ve started working in Amtrak stations all the way up to Boston. But I figured I could eh I can do that tomorrow. I remember I was going to watch the guy’s answer to the View, don’t remember what it was called. So I turn on the tv…..what the hell is this? At that point only both towers were on fire, the video had to loop a few times for me to finally get it. When the towers began to fall it chilled me, I usually took the subway that ran directly under them and I would have been around that area had I gone to work as usual.

The following Tuesday was the first chance anyone could go into NYC, yet not by car in the lower half of Manhattan. The sound of NYC without cars, just people walking, was very eerie. And there was this weird smell.

Anyway, no more maudlin. Politics. It actually offended me when the Congressional Democrats went and sang God Bless America, the only reason they did that was because they didn’t want to look like they were that petty. Yet two months later they went back to being exactly that. The “Bush didn’t win so we’re not going to say yes on anything” party went to type on Afghanistan, Iraq, Patriot Act, anything at all that could have protected us. It made me sick. Whether Bush was right or wrong on any of that policy, it was an immediate “No!”.

Then there were the protestors, the people that were calling him Hitler and all that. Making books and movies that advocated assassinating him? The things said about Bush could just as easily be said about Obama, he’s keeping the policies going, yet not one peep out of Code Pink or any of the anti-war movement. I saw a documentary a couple of months ago how a Congressional staffer spoke of how every weekend there was this lamp-post or pole or something that had all these anti-war rally posters on it during the Bush years. Today, not one. Again, it never was about the war, it was against Bush. Disgusting.

George W. Bush v. Kerry

I was in NYC when the Republicans had their convention at Madison Square Garden. I saw hate in the streets, and it wasn’t from Republicans. It was the protestors, saying such vile things. I actually saw during their march how this float was set on fire, with fellow protestors among them, unreal. I was a part of the counter-protest, where we actually had to have a police cordon around us. We had a saying, “please police protect us from these peace protestors”.

And of course that hatred didn’t get any better. To this day I can’t see how these people live day-to-day with such anger and rage. Even Obama uses “Bush” as a whipping term for his base. “The economy? It’s all Bush’s fault. Unemployment? Go talk to Bush. Oh you have psoriasis? That’s what you get for having Bush in the office. So you better vote for me or you’ll get Bush again to make it worse.”

The thing is I understand all this, why they’re doing it. It’s all based on a flawed reasoning and then set forth by pure emotion. Really it’s the creation of people in an unguided missile. Going back to what my mother asked me, that the basic thought was if you’re for human rights, if you’re for a fair wage, if you’re for anything then you must be a certain party. If you’re of that other party you must be against all that. No, it only means that the “how” is different, the actual path to it matters. When you see that both the Republicans and Democrats spent money we didn’t have, then you see there isn’t any difference. So where does the “well he must be against blah because he’s a…..”

Then there’s the “Republicans need to….. in order to make people love them” garbage.

In fact I’m going to stop that point and make a separate post on that matter. In conclusion of the original point, I never stopped being a Democrat, not in the Classic definition sense. I’m more of a JFK Democrat, which also says something that Jack wouldn’t be welcome in this current party. I do not believe in Marxism or Socialism, which this current batch does. So by default that makes me out to be a Republican. (No I am not going to join the “Legalize Marijuana” party.)

Anyway I hope this helps.

January 25, 2012 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

A post not given.

I noticed something. I was reviewing my posts when I realized I alluded to adding an essay I wrote, but didn’t add it here. So for that I apologize. Here’s the essay. First a bit of back history. About, oh, a decade or so I was talking online to some friends, so admittedly I can’t reconstruct that background. This essay came as a result of that, so I hope you can glean at least some of the backstory from it. The entirety of this essay, except for some minor nip-tucking, is what I sent in with an addendum at the end when I sent it to another something, don’t remember what. This essay was merely an explanation of what I feel is the evolution, not a definition of my personal preference. That will be for a later post.

Homosexuality, A Recent History – Gay Marriage In Perspective

I wanted to make this up to help give a contextual perspective to the points I was making, especially on how I believe that gay marriage will happen on it’s own. I’m not going to go back to the beginning of time, though there is evidence that there was homosexuality in ancient Greece.

I’m going as far back as about a century, using examples gleaned from our favorite mediums; movies and tv. From the beginning of cinema, much as in society at large, homosexuality was hidden from view, though there were some suggestive references. As the society became less Puritan, such as baring a woman’s ankle, movies reflected the “new sexuality”, but still it was always suggested, nothing blatant.

During the 60’s and 70’s, launched by the Sexual Revolution, the movies focused more on “free love” and the wonderments of drugs then about “alternative lifestyles”, however even when it was suggested it was pretty much lampooned. During the 50’s and 60’s it was a practical crime to be a homosexual, but in Hollywood it was still “allowed” to a certain extent. Rip Taylor and Liberace are two examples. The late 70’s, early 80’s showed more portrayals of homosexuality, but almost always males, and always as silly, flamboyant weirdoes. For all we knew they were just eccentrics, not “that other kind of people”. Remember Lamaar in “Revenge of the Nerds”? Even the favorite sitcom of that era, “Three’s Company” had Jack Tripper pretending to be gay, and not convincingly at that but pretty much all the stereotypes there was.

However two things happened in the 80’s. First there were some groundbreaking movies that dealt with homosexuality. Now I admit I was quite young at the time, but I do remember these two in particular, though there may have been others. The first was called “Partners (1982)”, which was about a cop who went undercover into the gay community to find a serial killer. The plot summary can be found at:


The second, “Making Love (1982)” is about a man and wife that has to reconcile that he finds that he is gay. The summary is at:


Even during this time period they were still lampooning gay men, hardly anything was said about lesbians from what I can find. But I do remember that these were one of the first films that took it seriously and addressed it in a positive note. Yet homosexuality was still not brought out into the mainstream thought.

Then came the “gay cancer”. Suddenly people were dying, and oddly enough it happened to be in a certain area of the community. “Those people”. Of course there were those that said it was retribution from God for their sinful ways, but the blaming factor didn’t really go into the movie or t.v. industry. It did however bring the homosexual lifestyle into the mainstream thought to where people could try to understand it.

This was when it began to appear more on t.v then in movies. For example there were several episode of LA Law that touched on homosexuality and AIDS in a positive fashion. Gay men still had problems with being only seen as the stereotype at times, but at least it wasn’t as disparaging as before.

The 90’s came, with all the PC driven movies and t.v. programming, which began to applaud everything under the sun. However I believe the turning point for the homosexual lifestyle came with a sitcom; “Ellen”. The series lasted for four years, from 1994 to 1998. Midway through the series Ellen DeGeneres announced publicly that she was gay. It was shortly afterwards that inside the series that she announced this as well.

Now I’m sure we all remember that scene, she’s at the airport, standing behind the check-in podium, and announces to her friend that “I’m gay”, which just so happens to have a microphone on. This I believe is a very important scene. She could have asked the friend to stand over here in private, talked in hushed tones, or in the least covered the microphone with her hand. No, she was announcing to the world, and she was fine with that.

The problem though is that from then on the show became too preachy, all she talked about was her gayness, ok we got the point, how about something funny now. Some sponsors pulled because of the gay issue, but the show in my opinion was cancelled because it became nothing but being gay, just too much to swallow at once. You also had a sort of “gay syndrome” where everyone and everyone wanted to cash in on the new phenomena inHollywood. Remember when Rosanne Bar in “Rosanne” went to the lesbian bar and was kissed by Sandra Bernhard, who conveniently before that said she was a lesbian?

Since then we’ve had “Will & Grace”, “Queer Eye For The Straight Guy”, “Queer As Folk”, and now “The L Word”. Movies had “The Talented Mr. Ripley”, “The Bird Cage”, “Viktor/Victoria”, “The Crying Game”, “In & Out”, and “Three To Tango” just to name a few. One of the leading actresses on film today, Hilary Swank, won an Oscar for playing Brandon Teena in “Boys Don’t Cry”, a female with male tendencies, which probably would be classified as a trans-gender.

So my point here is that if we look at the cinema as photographs of a society, though it is what Hollywood thinks it is at that time, we can gauge how issues take before we can consider them being accepted. For example we went from Al Jolson in blackface to “They call me Mr. Tibbs” in about forty years. It’s been twenty for the gay lifestyle on that scale.

The natural evolution is there. I just don’t see that what’s going on now is helping. What the gay activists, not the rank-and-file gay men and women, are showing is that they cannot win on the merits, that they need a rigged game in order to have their way. And because of that there is going to be very strong resistance against it. I do wish i’m wrong, however the reaction of the Amendment only shows me that it’s the beginning.

Of course you can disagree, but those that do not learn from history better have the cheat sheet.

Note: This was shortly after the thirteen states passed Constitutional amendments to declare marriage as to man and woman, which was a direct result of the Massachusetts State Supreme Court basically ordering the state legislature to allow gay marriage, as well as the mayors of New Paltz andSan Franciscodirectly going against the law to marry homosexuals. Then in this past election five out of six states that had it on the ballot passed. So draw the conclusion as you wish.

January 24, 2012 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

We’re all gonna die…..!!!!

I wish I can remember where I read this, but I saw a cartoon about a year-ish ago. It was a two-panel piece, the left side had an archeologist reading some Mayan hieroglyphics and says “according to this the world is going to end in 2012!”. The right-side panel has the Mayan guy writing on the stone tablet….” Tink tink tink… please remember to order next year’s calendar”.

January 23, 2012 Posted by | Humorus | Leave a comment

I can’t believe you’re actually going to make me side with them on this one….

My wife and I have been talking about this SOPA/PIPA thing, even though on some issues we’re on opposite sides we’re both on the same page here: the government should mind their own damn business and stay out of ours. How Libertarian/ Tea Party of her. Anyway she told me an analogy, which bears repeating to everyone and everyone:

Someone steals something and locks it into a storage unit. The police raid the unit and find the stolen property, then goes and arrests the guy. All appropriate and logical. However the current administration now seems hell bent on taking the entire storage unit company over and shutting them down. Forget the legitimate people who use that storage company or the property within. Locked down.

So I realized why isn’t “the cloud” in jeopardy? After all, there could possibly, maybe, be copyrighted material that passes through there, oooh better check out that chunk….. All those companies that use “the cloud” better be careful or it might be shut down by an illegal order that hasn’t anything to do with them.

I also remembered a useful nugget, which shows what hypocrites Hollywood has at its helm. In 1987 there was this movie, Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night. I remember how Disney was suing the pants off these people citing Copyright Infringement. I actually tried to do a Google search about it, Wikipedia, I couldn’t find a thing about it. Disney really knows how to scrub the net. I ended up finding it in an obscure reference:

“Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night received lukewarm reviews. About the Music, Variety wrote, “the songs are saccharine to the extreme.” The film was a failure at the box office: Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night cost $8 million to produce, but grossed only $3.3 million in ticket sales.

Disney sued Filmation Associates for copyright infringement of Pinocchio, a character who had now become closely identified with Disney. (Disney simultaneously sued Filmation for attempting to create animated “sequels” to Alice in Wonderland and The Jungle Book.) Filmation claimed Collodi’s Pinocchio character was in public domain and won the lawsuit.”


So this isn’t the first time that Hollywood has tried to use “the system” to their advantage, only this time their competitors are all of us for daring to not buy their crap any more. (Hey Hollywood, how about actually having an original movie instead of the same recycled garbage!!!) Unfortunately for us they’ve found a friendly ear in the administration that’s eager to act unilaterally and “not take no for an answer”.

Which also reminds me of another nugget. During the Bush v. Gore election I had an argument with a friend where I actually asked the question: If you vote in someone that’s going to create a huge machine are you going to complain when eventually, and it’s axiomatic that there is going to be an eventually, someone you don’t approve of gets in control of that machine? Bush of course won and I never heard from my friend again.

All you leftists, are you happy with the way Obama is running things? The bail-outs, the sweet-heart deals, crony-ism, and now the internet is losing its freedom. That’s all cool right? I’ll make you a deal. I will personally create that huge machine you so love and desire, every nut and bolt exactly to your specifications. The only catch: I run it. Oh….you wanted to be in the driver seat? Never works that way, someone else always gets in that chair before you, but at least I will guarantee that some stranger won’t get it, I’ll run it myself. I don’t want to hear a single complaint from you either way though. After all this is your Frankenstein running through the hillside, not mine.

January 23, 2012 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

So what have you been doing?

Well it’s been four years since I last posted, where does the time go? I’ll admit mostly I stopped posting because I didn’t feel anyone was reading. Still not sure if anyone is now. So why start back up again? eh, why not? Besides, I could be wrong and people actually might learn something.

So, over the last four years what have I been doing? Well I moved from NYC to Arizona, it was getting too weird for me to stomach. I mean re-electing Bloomberg? Are you fucking serious? I admit I still feel I’m a New Yawker, always will. But sheesh, exactly how many times you guys have to shoot yourselves in the foot, and still complain about it? Anyway after I moved here I got further in six months making friends and stuff then I did in six years living in NY. Still miss those bagels though. I also got married, working in a good place, things are really looking up.

Anyway I plan on posting a few more times here, especially one that I realized I forgot, but I’ll get to that eventually. Onward….

January 23, 2012 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Obama’s dilemma.

I had an interesting conversation the other day with my co-worker. He’s an African-American, a true far-leftist, I mean he actually prides himself for getting arrested at sit-ins. “So how was your weekend?” “Great, I was in jail for two days for…”

I asked him about what he thought Barack Obama’s chances were. Of course his “pull-string dolly” answer was that he didn’t have any chance because of a “racist country”. I did remind him that this racist America voted in Charlie Rangal, Maxine Waters, Jackson-Leigh, just to name a few. He had no answer for that.

So I pressed on what he thought about the head-to-head between Obama and Hillary, he didn’t have one. He asked me what I thought and this is my stream-of-thought, right-on-the-spot analysis.

My concern was about Queen Hillary. She has an entitled mentality, she’s “OWED” this because she did her time in the sticks of Arkansas and playing side-kick all those years. It didn’t matter whether she could actually do anything, after all she has yet to do anything for NY and she’s our senator. But her attitude is “why bother with the election, just hand over the crown”. Now admittedly this was prior to the break-up in the Hollywood elite this past week, so that brings an interesting dynamic.

He then asked me directly what I thought of Obama himself. I said he needed seasoning, right now he doesn’t have the experience he needs right now. Perhaps in a decade, but now it wouldn’t be a good idea.

There have been people who have suggested the ideal ticket would be Clinton as President and Obama as Vice-President. I said outright that would be a huge mistake for Obama, that it would end his career. He should go for an all-or-nothing campaign. Should he win the Presidential ticket, fine, but if he were to lose to Hillary and then take the second chair he would be seen as taking the consolation prize. Whether they won or not at that point, Obama would not be able to rise anywhere beyond that point, worse if they lost. If he ran solely as a Presidential contender he could use that as a credential in any race he runs, look at Sharpton. But if he were to go up then settle down for second-rate, he’ll always be seen as just Vice-Presidential material, even twenty years later.

Now if they were to actually win the Presidency, Obama would be a figurehead, roaming the US as Gore did, spouting policy but not actually able to implement. He’ll be seen negatively as ineffectual if Hillary doesn’t enact anything he wants, which she won’t, and seen as powerless when things go wrong and he can’t mitigate it, as things will go wrong when Bill and Hillary create on their own. Just ask Gore.

If the Hillary Presidency only runs the one term and Obama tries to run as President, again he’ll be seen as the scapegoat for all things that Hillary did and didn’t do. Plus the fact that it’s rare the a Vice-President becomes elected as President. Anyone hear from Quale?

February 26, 2007 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

Flipping the Byrd.

It’s interesting seeing some of these confirmation hearings for the incoming Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. I also found very informative, and quite exasperating, the inquisition from Senator Robert Byrd. He kept going on about “who was responsible for 9/11? Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein?” “Osama bin Laden Senator”.

This is the similar refrain from the left, that the war in Iraq is illegitimate because Saddam was not involved. For those that still have not gotten the memo, we did not go into Iraq because of what happened on 9/11. No one, not one person other then those on the left, claimed that Saddam had anything at all with the planning, there is no evidence that he had any knowledge of it, or that he gave any support.

The reason we went into Iraq was because President Bush understands the true threats to our country, and that we cannot afford to sit back and wait for them to attack us. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, who used weapons of mass destruction on his neighbors and his own people, who was actively seeking more weapons of mass destruction, and sought every opportunity to fight against America when he could. His forces would often shoot at American fighter jets patrolling the No-Fly zone in the Northern and Southern sections of Iraq for example. He had training sites, such as Salmon Pac, that trained al Quaeda members on how to create explosive and chemical weapons.

So President Bush had no choice but to take him out. He went to the UN and the US Congress. The UN passed a final resolution, which was ignored just as the previous 16 others were. The US Congress pass authorization, after they had already passed authorization for President Bush to pursue the war on terror, to specifically go into Iraq. Bush gave an ultimatum, a deadline, Hussein ignored it. At that point there was no alternative, Saddam chose the path that we took, not President Bush.

This leads back to the original thought though. We are not going after only, ONLY, al Queda. The Bush Doctrine spoke clearly that we are going after those terrorists, notice “terrorists”, and those nations that harbor them. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, he terrorized his own citizens, had rape and torture rooms, slaughtered millions of people. He also gave monetary support to Palastinian terrorists’ families that blow themselves and Israelis up. And he harbored al Quaeda members, even giving hospital aid to one of its lieutenants.

The reason why the left is continuing with the outright lie is because they are using it as a means to destroy every attempt the President tries to protect their sorry asses. The bizarro upside-down worlders has to say the exact opposite of the President no matter what he says or does, and use every means necessary to cancel out every measure he takes. This is reckless and dangerous. Unfortunately as this past election shows though enough people can be fooled with a lie if told often enough and with amplified vitriol.

December 6, 2006 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

A loony hypothetical

I’ve always wondered how this planet would have been had it not been for the moon. What if the moon wasn’t there? Would there have been tides? When the world was created the moon was much closer to earth then it is now. (Did you know it’s slowly drifting away?) So what’s going to happen in say ten thousand years, how will that affect the earth? What if there were multiple moons like Jupiter, or a set of rings like Saturn? How would life on earth, or just the general color of the sky, have looked like?

Anyone have any thoughts? Anyone out there breathing?

December 5, 2006 Posted by | Science and science fiction | Leave a comment

Thanksgiving lessons.

Last week I’m watching the specials on Thanksgiving on the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, even the Food Network. They had shows about making the best turkeys, how fruit cake is made, they actually had one on the science of Christmas and how a reindeer could fly.

During this I saw a history of Thanksgiving and the first Pilgrims, how they suffered hardships and many lost lives, and that the Indians helped to teach them how to grow and forage their own food. One of the historians actually said, quoting here, “The Native Americans really were extraordinarily generous in supporting these strangers who had arrived on their doorstep. When you look back on it in history you think ‘gee, maybe they’d be better off by not having been quite so generous to the white people who showed up.’ But they were very kind.”

Now I admit I heard things along this line but it’s mostly second-hand from others mentioning it, mostly to demonstrate how the left sees this country and recoils in disgust. Granted I don’t know the politics of this woman, but she’s saying the same things other leftists do say even today.

So let’s take this as-is and assume the Native Americans had decided to leave us out in the cold. The Pilgrims were not the sole people that came to America, there were other explorers that came to these shores, they were just the first to start living here. Eventually groups of settlers would have come, maybe starting in Florida or the Carolinas where it was more temperate. The Pilgrims are remembered because of their plight and how they were saved by these people. History might have been much harsher on the Native Americans had they decided to let the Pilgrims starve, perhaps a justification.

During the Revolutionary War British soldiers were able to enlist the aid of many Native American tribes to act as guides and give other forms of support. When the war was over the harsh feelings between the colonists and the Indian tribes were severely strained. How much more strained would it have been if it was added on that they ignored the Pilgrims?

This also begs the question of this Historian, and other guilt-ridden liberals alike: Why do you hate your freedom so much? True it was borne of blood, others’ not yours, but we as a species have been fighting each other even before we figured out how to put two rocks together.

I’m curious what this woman and the other liberals would be doing today had the British Crown kept the colonies under their rule. Would any of the world nations gone against their own tyrannies had the Americans not given them an example? I wager that France would not have had their own revolution, nor India, South Africa, or any other dozen examples, had not America shown the way. Would Women’s Liberation or the end of slavery in this country or around the world remained a small hope as it is in nations such as the Middle East?

This also bank-shots off another line of thought. The left is so insistent on denying Creationism or Intelligent Design, they only allow Darwin’s theory of evolution. Fine, so let’s use that definition. That means that in a given system the stronger attributed species will prevail over the weaker. Societal changes are also evolutionary, increasing as technological advances give warfare an advantage to one side. Swords went from bronze to steel, gunpowder allowed ranges to increase, armor went from leather to stone to steel-plating. During the Great War the invention of airplanes changed the face of warfare, felt greatly during the Second World War. Today’s soldiers are a Kevlar-shielded, multi-round firing, satellite-tracking and air-strike calling platform.

So if evolution is the greatest thing, then those societies that couldn’t keep up should have fallen and good riddance. The American Indian was not able to keep pace with the introduction of European technology and culture, therefore they became evolutionary casualties, no different then the Cro-Magnon. Of course, this is all predicated on the ridiculous concept that evolution is all. While we’re at it, evolutionarily speaking, the sick should be allowed to wither, the poor should be denied and “nature” allow to take its course, and people should think of themselves as either survivors or victims. After all that’s how the killers at Columbine thought.

Some of that is meant to stretch out the ridiculous to highlight the true fallacy of it. The people who believe this country is bad has a simple solution. Leave. If we’re truly on tainted soil there isn’t anything that can be done to cleanse ourselves. Find yourself a spot of dirt elsewhere and abandon the rest of us in this hellhole. At least we won’t have to hear the whining anymore. This line of thinking, as shown when it’s evolved to its conclusion, is actually more destructive then anything that we’ve done in our history.

While we’re at it why don’t we give back the land to the Romans? If we’re so hot to give back land to the original owners then 75% of the Middle East should be given back to the Christians and Jews, even Palestine.

 Get over it already.

December 5, 2006 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

Words of wisdom from American Chopper.

Ok, I’m watching the hightlights and bloopers from American Chopper. Micky is doing the Masterpiece Theatre, which is awful.

So he’s trying to quote Shakespeare, it’s not even interesting. But he had this great phrase which I don’t know who said it, if it’s real or just paraphrased. It’s so cool though.

“The word is mightier then the sword. But the fist holds the quill that writes the word”.

December 2, 2006 Posted by | Television | Leave a comment

Nuking global warming.

Every decade there’s a new reason why the environment is going to kill us. The 70’s had animal/insect attacks of all sorts, such as “The Swarm”, “Kingdom Of The Spiders”, heck even “Night of the Lupus”. The 80’s had acid rain, now the 90’s is Global Warming. (Of course there was throughout the constant threat of nuclear war and nuclear winter, as well as nuclear power plants going kablooie, such as the China Syndrome, however those are more “we did that to ourselves” kind of stuff.) Oh yeah, the ozone hole too, I’ll get to that as well. And El Nino/la nina.

So now we have this ramped up belief in Global Warming. Next decade it’s going to be moon dust. Every time the left comes up with “we’ve got proof, it’s real, so now we have to do X to stop it”, when you look at the fine print you see “caution, results may vary with actual reality”.

I’m pretty much now a political junkie, but I’ve always been a science junkie. I read Popular Science, Scientific American, all the good ones. Now even in those there’s the left tilt, however the caveat is that they have such huge peer review that they can’t print anything unless it’s able to be verified a hundred ways. So Pop-Sci can’t pronounce the world is flat and get away with it, although they usually take about the thirtieth paragraph to mention it. Wish the NY Times was that way.

Every now and then they have environmental issues such as global warming, as you read the details you learn alot about how the world actually works, and it’s quite fascinating. Once you really get how and why things work you understand that global warming as described by the leftist is completely bogus.

Let’s back up a second and go with the last big scare: Acid Rain. Basically when water vapor floats around the sky it latches onto a piece of dust, which then forms a rain drop and falls to the ground. However if the water vapor latches onto a carbon dioxide molecule it creates a weak acid; carbonic acid. That’s “Acid rain”. Now if it were to fall on your skin it wouldn’t kill you but it would be mildly unpleasant, mostly it’s when it’s concentrated in lakes and streams that it becomes a problem. Notice though since the 80’s we haven’t heard much about Acid rain.

The underlining theory of how global warming is created is that factories, cars, etc., all create pollution, however the active part is an increase in  carbon dioxide gases. These create a thermal layer which keeps the sun’s rays inside, thus rising the general temperature of the earth. We then get warming oceans, melting ice caps, and beach-front property in the Arctic circle.

So have you noticed the flaw with that? If there is an increase in carbon dioxide gas emission how come no increase in acid rain? We should be getting story after story of acid rain everywhere, but we’re not. Of course if more acid rain is occurring then that would clean out alot of those greenhouse gases, which would lead to cooling.

The only way that there can be more global warming but less acid rain is if there is less rain entirely, and there’s no studies that show that. Nor is there large desertification due to said lack of rain.

Ok, the scientists say the oceans are warming. If that’s true then it will increase the rate of evaporation, which also cools the oceans, and there would be more rain formations, which would reduce the level of CO2 gases. The logic just doesn’t work sometimes.

So all that churning and sweating and melting and freezing, and we get “El Nino and la nina”. El Nino was supposed to be this big surge in storm number and intensity, caused by the global warming trends. How come we haven’t heard anything about that in years? And when it didn’t happen that first year they said “ooohhhhh, that means it’s ‘la nina’. Now they’re just making this up as they’re going.

When it comes down to it the Earth knows what it’s doing, even and especially when we don’t. It’s a finely tuned mechanism that has been going on for millions of years, and will go on for millions of years after we’re all dust. Everything, including us, are part of that biosphere, everything that happens will have a natural counter.

The rule in environment 101 is “for every stressor there is an equal and opposite stressor”. Suppose there is a mountain lion by you, and you shoot it. It may seem minuscule, but you created a stressor. Now all the deer in the region will multiply, which may not seem a big thing. Until they become over-populated. The stressor continues. The counter-stressor is then for either an introduction of another predator, or famine and disease begin to reduce the population. The stressor is relieved.

I was walking through the park one day. And I was just watching these squirrels. I got up in the “oh how cute” and all that. And I watched how they were finding the nuts and burying them. That’s when all this became one cohesive thought, about the Earth and all that. Something simple as a squirrel. I mean if you wanted to can you create a bird? Or an earthworm? Why aren’t we up to our armpits in leaves? Nature already figured all this out. A nut falls from a tree and may lay on top of the grass until it rots in the sun and rain. But a squirrel comes by and buries it, mostly to protect it for future eating, but the odds are he’s never going to find all of them. Even if he misses 10% of them that could be say a hundred trees growing around that area made possible by a rodent, one that’s been developed by Nature to do just that.

So I’m not worried about global warming or things like that. Ozone hole? Please, there isn’t one. The enviro-nutbags tried to hit us with that a few years ago, notice again how they got real quiet on that.

Oxygen is O2, two oxygen molecules forming a very stable bond. Ozone is O3, a very unstable molecule. Atoms tend not to like going from stable to unstable, they don’t do it spontaneously, unless they are coaxed in the extreme. Enter in lightning. There are thousands of lightning storms going on around the world, constantly generating ozone. Of course we’re helping in smaller amounts with giant generators, motors on elevators and escaltors, even the spark plugs in our cars.

How come we’re not choking on ozone though? Because Nature figured out a way to keep the ozone level at a reasonable amount. The ozone layer is there to protect us from the harsh radiation of the sun, but how does it work exactly? When the rays of the sun hit the ozone it breaks apart those unstable bonds and makes it form back to O2, which then absorb that radiation in the process. So that harmful stuff doesn’t get through as much.

“But there are holes! And they’re cause by all those aerosol cans!” ok, where are the holes? They’re over the Arctic and the Antarctic. They also tend to fluctuate, sometimes they’re big and other times they’re small.

First why are the holes there in the first place? The Earth is not only protected by the ozone layer but it’s also creating a magneto-sphere by the rotation of the iron core in the center of the Earth. This magneto-sphere deflects the majority of the harmful radiation, but it does concentrate it at the poles. Hence why we see the “Northern Lights”, that’s the sun’s radiation interacting with the magneto-sphere.

But remember, that same radiation also destroys ozone. So concentrate the radiation and of course you also get a hole there, duh. If there wasn’t a hole then I would be worried. There was so much scare tactics about the use of CFCs, if every one had been released in the world it would create such a small, and temporary, impact no one would notice. Now if there was an ozone hole over L.A. or China, then you can get back to me.

As to why it flucutates, because the sun’s radiation isn’t constant. There are flare-ups, down times, and huge sun-spot all the time. So as the radiation rises and falls so does the ozone hole grows and shrinks.

“So how come we have global warming, we have proof that it’s happening?” It may be, I don’t dispute that. I just don’t believe that we’re the cause of it. If it were then some scientist can replicate it in a lab format. Create a hermetically sealed warehouse and show us. They keep saying they can predict it’s going to happen ten years from now, so what’s next Saturday’s weather? How about you do something simple, make it snow in the desert. Purposefully make it rain. Stop a tornado or huricane.

There’s the refrain of how small things lead to the larger, how the butterfly creates a huricane half a world away. For one, let’s find that butterfly and kill it, stop all hurricanes. An easy way to prove this, release that butterfly and time when the next hurricane is. Each and every time that butterfly flies we then see how it impacts the world with all the satellites and sensors. See how ridiculous this is? I never believed this.

When it comes down to it what these people are doing is creating a fear in people so they can sneak in something, and it’s always against people’s best interests. If it wasn’t then they would put it right up front, “this is what I’m proposing”, so we can give a yea or nay. No, if you say no then WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!! And that to me is more reprehensible then anything.

December 2, 2006 Posted by | Environmental, Politics | Leave a comment

Ode to Crabman.

I’m a big fan of the NBC series “My name is Earl”, quite an interesting show. I admit though when the billboards first went up I didn’t care for it, but I gave it a chance and found it’s quite good. The only thing I’m annoyed about is they used the same formula in a sit-com, where you need to have a complete idiot to make fun of. How about Woody in Cheers? 3rd Rock From The Sun had Harry. The Andy Griffith Show had Gomer Pyle. Lessee, there was Nick in Family Ties, Gilligan in Gilligan’s Island, Kelly in Married With Children, Potsie in Happy Day, Lewis in The Drew Carrey Show, heck even the son in Family Guy.

 So Earl has basically two “idiots”, the brother Randy and Darnell, the “Crabman”. However I think Darnell is really a stealth smarty. He’s always acted the fool, but a couple of weeks ago he gave a very articulate answer to Earl’s enviro-binge. Here’s the summary:

In the middle of a heat wave, Earl decides to cross number 26 off his list “Robbed a Stoner Blind”. To accomplish this task Earl and Randy find Woody the stoner and must live an environmentally conscious life in the commune with Woody for a week.

During their time there Woody, played by Christian Slater, shows all about the “environmentally conscious life”, such as making their houses out of straw, mud and dung. What the show actually demonstrated is how ridiculous these environmentalists are and how ludicrous their thinking has become.

Anyway during this time Earl is shown the concept of Global Warming, which I’ll get to shortly. This causes Earl to go all extreme, starting mass recycling, almost picking a fight over someone cutting a small tree, all the way to going meltdown when he hears that China is the biggest maker of greenhouse gases.

So here’s why I think Crabman is really a braniac. When Earl was talking about global warming to everyone, Darnell says the most profound thing, I wish I can find the exact quote. “I think it’s ego-centric of us to think that we’re that powerful Earl.” Something like that, but it sums it up perfectly. We are somehow so destructive and omnipotent, yet we can’t use the same technology to clean it up. Don’t worry, I’m going to nuke global warming in my next post.

 A couple of episodes prior we find that Darnell isn’t Darnell, that’s he’s been in the witness protection program, so he had a life prior to all that. He could’ve been anyone, a lawyer, a doctor, a rocket scientist, anything. So he could just be playing the fool to throw people off the scent. Smart.

December 1, 2006 Posted by | Politics, Television | 1 Comment

oh I like this one.

I saw this on another another group, and I thought it fit perfectly. 

If two people think the same on everything, there’s only one person
– Ancient Kung Foole Proverb

Ok, so what do you call an entire political party? Seriously, you ask anyone on the Democrat party and they say the exact same thing,  just pull the string and you get the talking points. From the environment to Iraq, or war in general, taxes and capitalism are the same. There isn’t any challenge or debate, it’s all one single mind-set. I am so glad I’m no longer a Democrat. A couple of years ago I saw the perfect T-shirt that summed it up perfectly.

I think
I am
Not a Democrat

November 30, 2006 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

A Kramer quickie.

He didn’t do anything wrong, after all he didn’t call the heckler “Macacah”, now that would’ve gone over the line.

November 25, 2006 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

Gettin’ drafty.

Charlie Rangel is up to his tricks again. He’s proposing to restart the draft for military service in the belief that “if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way…that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq.”

He first proposed this before the 04′ election in the hopes that it would derail the re-election campaign of President Bush. Notice he didn’t say anything until AFTER the 06′ election, but once the Democrats won he’s going full-bore on it.

The idea that Congressmen wouldn’t send their sons and daughters is ludicrous, there are already several Congressmen that have sons and daughters in the military, some in Iraq. But the original premise is flawed, no one sent them, they volunteered. A draft policy wouldn’t affect those that volunteered originally.

Myth: Most Vietnam veterans were drafted.
2/3 of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. 2/3 of the men who served in World War II were drafted. (Westmoreland papers) Approximately 70% of those killed were volunteers. (McCaffrey Papers) (From the website http://www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm)

So if we were to start a draft today it won’t affect whether sons and daughters who volunteer will end up going.

However there is validity to Rangel’s plan, so I actually recommend it. First the polls and election results show that the majority of the military are Conservatives, so a draft would help to bring in Democrats to help with the load. Military service also leads to a better appreciation of discipline, patriotism and honor, qualities the current Democratic party lack. Finally I’m sure there will be a whole crop of draft dodgers that will head for Canada, which is a very good thing. After all during the 04′ election there were many Democrats, especially Hollywood actors and actresses, that would say if Bush was elected they were leaving the country. Here’s a great means to fulfill that promise. So we start the draft with the blue states, in heavy Democrat areas such as NYC, LA, Hollywood and San Francisco.

Of course no Democrat in Congress is going to vote for this, it was political suicide when he suggested it three years ago. They’re going to realize this as what it is, a political stunt meant to embarrass the President, but no way in hell will they actually allow it to pass since it’ll affect their wackos….um…constituency more then the Republican base since they’re already volunteering. Besides, they don’t want the chance of Bush vetoing the bill and appearing to be for the people, oh God can’t have that, they’ve worked so damn hard lying to create a false facade of an uncaring President.

November 22, 2006 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

CORRECTION: And karma is still a bitch.

I have to make a correction here, Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. I came home around midnight and received the news from AOL News, which did say that she was defeated and Hoyer was voted in. I accepted that since why should they have gotten it wrong, so for that I apologize.


Unfortunately this amplifies my point since 80% of it is valid. My original position was that the Democrats rejected her as Speaker because of what she represented, how she strutted around like the Prom Queen, how she treated everyone around her, of potentially ruining their chances for 08, and for actively supporting someone out-of-turn.


What happened was that, even though she was voted in unanimously as Speaker, Murtha was dropped and Hoyer was elected as Majority leader. This is where my point becomes even more valid, she’s now become a figure-head.


So it’s going to be interesting to see her trying to keep a cohesive Congress. I doubt she’ll be nothing more then a footnote in the Congressional history, just a screeching voice saying “I’m relevant, please listen to me”. Here’s to obsurity.


November 17, 2006 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

Karma, sure is a bitch.

I came home late from work and I see that the Democrats did their secret ballot for House Speaker, and Pelosi lost! Damn Karma just works sometimes. Any chance it can work on Fuck Schumer?

Now I don’t know who Steny Hoyer is, I don’t know his politics or anything, so I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Pelosi and her staff is already spinning this that they’re going for healing. Translation: We got our asses handed to us, so please let us have the crumbs.

I admit I feel a little happy at the moment, after the outrageous behavior she and the other Democrats engaged in during this elections cycle that’s one small step, hopefully one of many, however it is very useful to note what happened.

Pelosi was the presumptive “Speaker” forever, ever since the polls started to appear that the Democrats could possibly win Congress she became “the Anointed” and began strutting around as if she already was the Queen. So lesson number one, don’t assume the win and piss off your own people.

Second, when it came time to choose her second in command, the majority leader, traditionally the Speaker candidate is supposed to stay out of it, though he or she could recommend or even assist. That’s not what Pelosi did, she outright selected him and snubbed Hoyer. Again, don’t piss off your own people.

Finally the Democrats know what the rest of America knows, that the American public did not vote them in to impose San Franciscan ideology into law. Next year is when the campaign for 08′ begins, and if San Fran Nan goes full guns, oh wait, they hate guns……hhmmm…. gung ho?…no they’re anti-military…..pedal-to-the-metal….no that pollutes…ok kid in the candy store, the voters are going to see what the Democrats stand for and reject them completely for the Presidency and any Congressional races. Less then 50% of the American people knows who Pelosi is, I’m betting maybe 30% tops know Hoyer.

So thankfully the Democrats rolled over, saw what was lying in the bed next to them and decided to get back to reality, at least as a front for the voters. They did the right thing whatever the reason, hope it starts a trend but I’m not going to hold my breath.

November 17, 2006 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

War and Cigarettes.

A few posts ago I mentioned about a thesis I had in my head I made a couple of years ago on cigarettes. My original post had my childhood experience of seeing these posters of really ugly old people with slogans like “emphysema is really cool”, so that soured me to cigarettes. That and I admit being the uncool kid probably saved me from peer pressure. Take that you popular people.

Currently there’s this ad campaign on tv of this bunch called “truth”, which to be honest I find very offensive. They pull all these stunts, such as having people fall “dead” outside of the cigarette company’s building. I don’t mind so much their efforts, if I had a wish it would be all tobacco would disappear. But a) that’s not going to happen, b) it’s totally impractical, and c) i’m not a Socialist fuck who thinks he knows better then the people who use the stuff.

 When it comes down to it people have a right to destroy their bodies if they want to. Anyone who thinks they are smarter then everyone and are just trying to help aren’t on both scores. Going after McBurgers, trying to ban trans-fats, all that nonsense is an erosion of freedoms in a very subtle manner. Of course who would be against “that”, it makes perfect sense to protect people from “that”. Yet if you suggest one law against abortion you get holy hell rained on you.

The “truth” is you’re never going to get people to stop smoking, or drinking, or crossing against the light, or voting democrat, because people are going to do stupid things when they feel it’s not going to hurt them. Kids are going to smoke because they don’t have the ability to see in the future. For them their history began when they stopped playing with that toy, they don’t have the concept of thirty-years-from-now. “Cancer? Emphysema? Those are old people diseases.”

When my nephew was about 12 he was really into skate-boarding. I remember watching this program where they had all sorts of skateboarding kids doing all sorts of tricks, stuff I could never see myself doing. Not for a lack of courage, it’s that I understand physics and know I can’t do that. That’s another reason, kids that age don’t know they can’t do that impossible thing, so they do it.

Anyway I marveled at how some of these kids talked about their injuries. One kid showed his hand, the pinky was broken in three places and set in an awfully weird way, not straight at all. But the most important thing is that they thought it was cool, the better the scars the more cooler the skateboarder.

That was when it occured to me about how kids don’t conceive of a future, that this boy has to live with that injury for the rest of his life, but he couldn’t see that. It’s not a bad thing, everyone is like that at that age. But that’s why kids are going to smoke or drink or take drugs or jump out of a plane or whatever, because at that point in their lives there is no tomorrow.

Unfortunately that’s why wars are so successful, especially this one. The front lines are filled with young men and women who, even though they’re at the age of understanding that future, relatively they don’t have much to lose. Now the generals at the head office, they have mortgages and pensions, two kids, a wife, and a dog. If the war was just a bunch of old guys smacking each other around it would be a pretty short war.

This also shows why we have a serious problem with terrorists. In psycho-babble-speak the ego of these men and women are purposefully non-developed, all they know is what’s in that version of the Koran they are taught. They are given a purpose, of killing all the infidels, but not given any hope, of someday living beyond and even into old age. Do any of the jihadists know of the concepts of say a pension or social security? Retirement home? In the 70’s there was the phrase “never trust anyone over 30”, do they believe someday they’ll ever be 30?

Unfortunately we’re fucked. Right now the problems are the madrasas and mosques that are more interested in weaponcreations, not spiritual growth. The “but we’re not the bad muslims” Imams aren’t interested in breaking those monster makers, yet don’t want to be lumped in with them. We found a few pedophiles in our churches and we went ape-shit over it, practically hunting them down and expelling them. Yet these Imams only say “but but, we’re really a religion of peace, leave us alone”.

Silence is acceptance, not a defense. Either work to help solve the problem or don’t get blamed when we have to defend ourselves. If you’re really concerned about your religion then you shouldn’t let a minority put it in jeopardy.

November 15, 2006 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

Something I just remembered.

I just remembered something in regard to the post on my apology to the Iraqis.

“The people have spoken at the polls. The vast majority want us out of Iraq ASAP.What part of that don’t you grasp?”

Comment by J | November 11, 2006

Wasn’t there a cry-baby website just after the 2004 election of people sending in pictures of themselves with messages apologizing to the country and the world for not winning? They even made a book out of it. And you ask me what part I don’t grasp?

November 13, 2006 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

Why I can’t stand Lawrence O’Donnell.

Let’s first start out with who Lawrence O’Donnell is. Every Sunday I see the McLaughlin Group, it’s sometimes interesting to see the give-take thing. Also interesting seeing Elenanor Clift screeching “excuse me excuse me I’m talking” as she’s interrupting other people. But Lawrence O’Donnell is a guest on occasion, those occasions I figured out the pattern of.

During the 04′ election cycle there was three Presidential debates and one Vice-Presidential debate scheduled. First there was one PD, then the VPD, and the final two PDs. (Hey, why type it out?) I’m sure everyone remembers the VPD though, this is where then candidate Edwards commented on Vice President Cheney’s lesbian daughter.

“Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can’t have anything but respect for the fact that they’re willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It’s a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.” http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html

There was a bit of a held breathe, but it was pretty much dropped. But in the third debate Kerry brought it up again.

“KERRY: We’re all God’s children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as.” http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004d.html

It was at that point that the big angry started. The main point was how could a candidate use another candidate’s family, in this particular case a daughter’s sexual identity, as a weapon? Why not use Mrs. Edward’s history of depression or what Mrs. Kerry keeps in her closet? Yes, we know.

Instead it was recast as “they’re annoyed the truth is told, that the Vice President has a gay daughter.” Even though there were many people saying exactly what they were saying, the pundits, candidates and media kept re-translating that as “they hate gays”. It’s a false stereotype the left insists on hanging around the necks of Conservatives every chance they can get.

So when this came out for the Sunday talk-shows I’m watching the McLaughlin Group, and there’s Lawrence O’Donnell with a big shit-eating grin. He also attempted to continue that stereotype and watched Pat Buchanan and Tony Blankley try to squirm out of it. The man was reprehensible. From that point on I couldn’t watch MG if he was on, I just changed the channel.

However I noticed a pattern though, especially after he was on during the Foley scandal, and now this week after this election. He’s there not to give analysis or commentary, to give some wisdom and insight into the ramifications of that particular topic of the day.

He’s there to gloat. To rub the mud in the faces of every Conservative whatever the leftist talking point happens to be. Today it was on the election, we won, ha ha. Last month it was an overblown leftist gay bashing but it’s ok because he’s a Conservative. Neener neener, you’re the homophobes.

What I don’t understand is why Pat and Tony didn’t short-circuit this putz. He’s an empty suit, all you need to do is not accept the false premise he’s putting forth publicly and he’ll fall apart. “Look John, the belief that Lawrence is trying to push on Conservatives that we’re up in arms just because Dick Cheney’s daughter happens to be gay is ludicrous. What we’re all annoyed at is how John Kerry is shamelessly exploiting what he sees as a chink in the armor of Conservatives, and that just doesn’t wash. When John Edwards said it it was in a respectful manner, but people were right to say that it was dancing on the line. Kerry decided he could score cheap political points by jumping over the line, and now we’re being scorned?”

So let me be clear what the “Conservative agenda” is on homosexuality: We don’t care, just keep it in the bedroom and don’t do it in front of my kids. It is really that simple. If you want to throw in “what God says”, well when he tells me directly I’ll get back to you. Until then I’m going by what I know, that is leave us out of it. Push it in our face and we’ll say “no, that’s not alright, enough”.

I don’t hate Lawrence O’Donnell. He can say whatever he wants. I do believe that he is a reprehensible slime and he gives nothing to the discussion. I don’t wish him harm at all, I want him to die a very old and unremembered man. “Oh here’s an obituary of a Lawrence…..who? It’s only one word. ‘Discredited’. I wonder why…..oh who cares?”

November 12, 2006 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

When illogics collide.

This post is in regard to the iraq war, the lead-up-to and the current status. Often I hear of the reasons why we shouldn’t have gone in, that Saddam’s regime and populace are fairly secular, therefore bin Laden wouldn’t have anything to do with him. Therefore Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, we’re only after people solely and exclusivley for 9/11. So Muslim fantatics who hate and want to kill us are ok to target, but non-Muslim fanatics who hate and want us dead are off-limits. hmmmm….

Now I’m hearing the violence in Iraq is being led by religious Muslims. But Iraq is a secular state, how could there be anything religious? There are two possibilities. Either that label was originally incorrect, that there were the kind of Muslims that do hate and kill, or they came from other nations where that form of hate-America religion is endemic.

Either one of these destroys the credibility of the leftist’s arguements of why we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq, that we should pull out now, so let’s impeach Bush over it. Besides the fact the left wants to impeach him for farting in the wrong key, a true example of being sore losers, every reason that was given by President Bush was ignored.

First off he said we were going after the terrorist threat, not solely the ones that attacked us. If Iraq was sane and didn’t harbor any terrorists, then our liberation wasn’t justified. However Iraq was neither sane and did harbor terrorists, they trained them and healed them from battle wounds. And as I mentioned above, if the current crop of insurgants, which are fanatical Muslims, were in the country beforehand, then we are justified.

If you want to pick B then, that they really came in from other countries, then we’re justified there as well. In that case we’re protecting Iraq from an invading force.

Unfortunately the left wants to take two illogics and combine them into a “truth”, trying to have it both ways.

November 12, 2006 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

Hypocrasy quickie.

The left are so concerned about the homeless and those with low-paying jobs. However I don’t see them giving out good paying jobs to work at say the Democratic National Committee, Congress, or how about George Soros giving out whole cash payments to these people? I’m sure during this past election campaign there were plenty of papers to be stapled, or fliers to be handed out, why didn’t the DNC hire them instead?

November 11, 2006 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment

An apology to the Iraqis.

Undoubtedly this week’s elections have caused great concerns with the Iraqi people. After all we’re trying to foster Democracy among them, a concept they’re trying to fully grasp. How could we elect people of such low caliber, how can we be so fooled into voting for such people? If an election only mattered to “some country” over there, it might not have such wide-ranging impact on us, but the people that were chosen have shown a total disdain for a group’s need to assist in developing and protecting their fledgling Democracy.

So I say to the Iraqis this message. Just because the American people have selected people that have promised to abandon you in your hour of need, be assured that the true majority of Americans will not. This election was based on people dissatisfied with politicians who were not doing enough in our eyes, which unfortunately benefited those who will do nothing.

However that does not mean we will be silent. That does not mean we will leave the hard work for another day. We will continue to fight for your rights as we will fight for ours.

Even though this happens to be the worst case-scenario for our country, this is also a valuable lesson for your people. What this election shows is that over time the populace can become complacent about their government and the people that run it. When people are more interested in their breads and circuses you get uninformed voters who vote against their interests.

So I will be the first to apologize for all the Simon Cowell fans that decided to pay more attention to Kelly Clarkson and abandon you in the process. Use this to teach your people that in order to prevent tyranny from returning to your country they need to be active instead of passive about their politics. Despite this past election there are still enough of us who are active and passionate about politics that will stave off the attempts to turn this country towards tyranny.

Be strong and endure the two years of attempts by Democrats to return you, and place us, into tyranny. Come election day 2008 your patience will bear out the greatness of the Democratic process.

November 11, 2006 Posted by | Politics | 2 Comments

Gay Marriage part 2.

A few years ago I sent to another group a post on gay marriage, I posted it here last month. This campaign season there was eight states that had State Constitutional ammendments that outright banned gay marriages, seven of them passed. Here’s the list.

  • — Arizona. Rejected
    — Colorado. Approved
    — Idaho. Approved
    — South Carolina. Approved
    — South Dakota. Approved
    — Tennessee. Approved
    — Virginia. Approved
    — Wisconsin. Approved

So those that insist on forcing gay marriage down people’s throats, even people that are accepting, perhaps you might want to choose another tactic.

November 8, 2006 Posted by | Politics | Leave a comment