Locked And Loaded In Missoula Montana

I want to make something clear to everybody right up front. I don't give a shit if liberal Democrats are sincere in their calls for more civil political speech. I still wouldn't like the direction in which they're trying to take the country, so I would still give them hell even if they did in all sincerity adopt a tone that was all sweetness and light. Let's just say they are still in my cross-hairs. I mean that figuratively, of course, as anybody who isn't intellectually brain-dead or emotionally retarded could figure out without me telling them. But hey, leftards, if you want to take it literally, knock yourselves out, preferably by walking into the middle of on-coming traffic.

Let's face it, its not exactly like progressives are sincere in their demands for more civil political dialogue. If you think they might be, this report from the Wall Street Journal might induce you to think twice about it. During a performance by the Missoula Children's Theater of The Mikado, one of the children in the cast called for the beheading of Sarah Palin. This met with the approval of most members of the liberal Missoula theater audience, but to their credit, The Missoulan published a letter to the editor from an outraged attendee, as follows-

Open letter to MCT director Curt Olds:

First I would like to compliment you and the entire staff of "The Mikado" on the beautiful sets, costuming and professional performance we experienced on Sunday, Jan. 23. However, I must call you on something that was inserted into the play which I am almost positive was not in the original book.

The comments made in such a cavalier and oh-so-humorous way were uncalled for. Now, I realize you play to a mostly liberal audience in Missoula and so, I am sure, felt comfortable in your calling for the beheading of Sarah Palin. I am painfully aware that most in the audience tittered with laughter and clapped because "no one would miss her" but there were some in your audience who took great offense to this "uncivil tone" about another human being.

We are in the midst of a crisis that took place in Tucson where many started pointing fingers at that horrible right wing with all their hatred and targeting and standing for the second amendment and on and on and on. So, here we are in a lovely play with beautiful voices serenading us and we have to hear that it is okay to call for the killing of Sarah Palin because we don't like her and no one would miss her. Unbelievable.

As a professional you should be ashamed of yourself, the audience should be ashamed of themselves and I am ashamed of myself for not standing up and leaving at that very moment. I would like to see an apology from you not because I want to hinder free-speech but for the hypocrisy this so clearly shows.

Rory Page, Clinton

I'll tell you someone else who should be especially ashamed of themselves, but are probably not-the parents of the child who uttered such a heinous line. I find it more likely than not that the parents were informed by one of the adults in charge of the production of this hateful insertion, and gave their approval. If so, the child should be snatched up by Social Services, and the parents subjected to some intense therapy at their own expense before they are ever allowed to see it again. As for the adults responsible, they should be prosecuted for child abuse. If this isn't an example of intellectual and emotional child rape, nothing is.

Unfortunately, this isn't really anything new. It wasn't but a few years ago someone produced a movie that dealt with the assassination of then President George W. Bush. That was different, though, in that as far as I know the film was not encouraging or calling for such an event to happen, at least not overtly. But this, however they might now try to paint it in terms of an unfortunate example of inappropriate humor, is really beyond the pale.

Just another example of liberal hypocrisy, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood civil and progressive citizens of the world, courtesy of the sweet little horrors they indoctrinate on a daily basis. As if that weren't enough, they are even funded in part by the National Endowment For The Arts.

Isn't that grand? Your tax dollars at work, funding humorous little quips calling for the beheading of conservative politicians. Out of the mouths of babes.

H/T Weasel Zippers

Colonel West Reacts To Olbermann's Departure

H/T Moonbattery

Oh, Domino!

Courtney has an interesting post on GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD that goes a long way towards explaining the confusion that underscores US Mid-East policy as expounded by Professor Stephen M. Walt. I would personally describe Walt's assessment as a kind of intellectual brain fart. Unfortunately, it seems the professor is not so much a brilliant observer of history as he is just another one of many suffering from the mass delusion of their own intellectual superiority.

True enough, his credentials would seem to be impeccable.

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, where he served as academic dean from 2002-2006. He previously taught at Princeton University and the University of Chicago, where he served as master of the social science collegiate division and deputy dean of social sciences.

He has been a resident associate of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, and he has also been a consultant for the Institute of Defense Analyses, the Center for Naval Analyses, and Singapore's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.

But what else am I to make of a Professor at one of our most prestigious universities who decries America's relationships in the Middle East as based on The Domino Theory.

As many of you are aware (or maybe you're not) the Domino Theory was devised during the Eisenhower Administration as a means of supporting America's anti-communist Cold War policies. It advanced the belief that if any significant nation fell to communism, then all others in the region would quickly succumb, like a line of falling dominoes. As you might suspect, the Professor asserts that our Middle East policy of present is a continuation of the same theme. His proof that it is a "bad idea"?

Various scholars examined the domino theory in detail and found little historical or contemporary evidence to support it.

Uh, okay then, two points-

One, regardless of the validity of the Domino Theory as applied in the past to the communist threat of the Cold War era, recent developments in Tunisia have borne out the theory in regards to the proliferation of the effect in Egypt, as well as Yemen. Who knows where it will go from there? The Middle East is more of a tenderbox than ever and Hosni Mubarak, the President of Egypt, is clutching tenuously onto what is left of his power by his bare knuckles. His son and wife have already fled the country. The former President of Tunisia has similarly fled his nation after abdicating his position in the face of growing unrest and violent disruptions. If they fall completely, and Yemen, what happens then to Jordan? What about Saudi Arabia? Even Syria could conceivably face disruptions. Turkey has already lurched towards Islamist control. And make no mistake about it, Islamist factions are chiefly responsible for the current upheaval, and stand as of now potentially to profit from it the most. The Dominoes might not be falling yet, but they are certainly teetering dangerously close to doing so.

But even if that were not the case, by far the greater proof of the viability of the Domino Theory is to be found in the far distant past, when that ship first set sail-in the seventh century AD. Once Mecca fell to the forces of Mohamed it wasn't long before the entirety of the Arabian Peninsula submitted to the coercion of the Islamic hordes. And from there, it was on to Asia, and Africa. And Europe, where the advance was finally stopped. At least for the time being.

All things being equal, it seems to me like the history of the spread and expansion of Islam is a textbook case in proof of the Domino Theory. The history of Islam IS the Domino Theory, dammit.

But what do I know, its not like I have a Master's Degree or something.

British Baby Doll Commercial

I wish they'd market this doll over here with this commercial, just for the lulz.

Sarah Palin Responds To Obama's State Of The Union

Sarah Palin's response to Obama's SOTU speech is on Facebook, and she damn well knocks it out of the ballpark. "Winning The Future", the title of the speech, is more accurately assessed by its acronym-WTF!-than by the speech's content, according to Palin.

From that point on, she proceeds to rip the President to shreds. Following is a few of her points. For example, with the following she nails the Democratic Party philosophy, from at least the days of Roosevelt, down as concisely as anyone ever has.

He couched his proposals to grow government and increase spending in the language of “national greatness.” This seems to be the Obama administration’s version of American exceptionalism – an “exceptionally big government,” in which a centralized government declares that we shall be great and innovative and competitive, not by individual initiative, but by government decree.

In other words, as far as Obama's concerned-nothing's changed, nor is there any reason to change any of his previous policies, nor will the Democratic members of Congress change any of their policies. They will just allegedly be warmer and fuzzier about the way they present them and the manner in which they debate them. What choice do they have, really?

Palin further elucidates on some of Obama's spending proposals.

And the Obama administration has a lot of half-baked ideas on where to spend our hard-earned money in pursuit of “national greatness.” These “investments,” as the President calls them, include everything from solar shingles to high speed trains. As we struggle to service our unsustainable debt, the only thing these “investments” will get us is a bullet train to bankruptcy.

She might have also added that these investments probably won't even break even, let alone pay any real dividends. They might provide a service for a small sector of society, and even in the best case scenario spur some job creation, but for ever job they create, they'll probably cost two. Or three. And like I said, they won't pay off in the long run, particularly if Obama insists on socking it to the oil and coal industries on which we now depend, something Palin also pointed out-

When it comes to energy issues, we heard more vague promises last night as the President’s rhetoric suggested an all-of-the-above solution to meeting our country’s energy needs. But again, his actions point in a different direction. He offers a vision of a future powered by what he refers to as “clean energy,” but how we will get there from here remains a mystery. In the meantime, he continues to stymie the responsible development of our own abundant conventional energy resources – the stuff we actually use right now to fuel our economy. His continued hostility towards domestic drilling means hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs will not be created and millions of Americans will end up paying more at the pump. It also means we’ll continue to transfer hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars to foreign regimes that don’t have America’s interests at heart.

And she also touched on education.

Take education for example. It’s easy to declare the need for better education, but will throwing even more money at the issue really help? As the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner notes, “the federal government has increased education spending by 188 percent in real terms since 1970 without seeing any substantial improvement in test scores.” If you want “innovation” and “competition,” then support school choice initiatives and less federal control over our state and local districts.

She was actually being more kind than she needed to be. Not seeing any "substantial improvement" is the least of it. The federal governments initiatives since 1970 has ruined the American education system in far too many states and neighborhood schools, where those students who do get a good education do so from their own initiative and due to parental involvement. What official help they get is derived from oversight from various state and local governments and school boards. Aside from federal dollars, which comes with myriads of strings, the federal government is a hindrance, not a help to public education.

But here might be the most important point of all-

On the crucial issue of entitlement reform, the President offered nothing. This is shocking, because as he himself explained back in April 2009, “if we want to get serious about fiscal discipline…we will have to get serious about entitlement reform.” Even though the Medicare Trust Fund will run out of funds a mere six years from now, and the Social Security Trust Fund is filled mainly with IOUs, the President opted to kick the can down the road yet again. And once again, he was disingenuous when he suggested that meaningful reform would automatically expose people’s Social Security savings to a possible stock market crash. As Rep. Paul Ryan showed in his proposed Roadmap, and others have explained, it’s possible to come up with meaningful reform proposals that tackle projected shortfalls and offer workers more options to invest our own savings while still guaranteeing invested funds so they won’t fall victim to sudden swings in the stock market.

What she didn't go into is the real reason Obama and the Democrats are dead set against entitlement reform, why they are so aghast at the idea of "privatizing" Social Security. Simply put, by keeping Social Security as is, it insures continued dependency, but that's not even the major reason. The real reason is, once those funds are transferred to private accounts, the government from that point on loses control of them. Never mind that there are no funds worth controlling at this stage, they are insistent that Social Security can be made solvent. They are determined to make it so, because it provides a steady stream of funds to borrow from to finance other projects. That's precisely why they don't want to reform the system.

They could in reality care less if the elderly lost their savings in the stock market. In fact, that would be the one bonus to the Democrats way of thinking. If that happened, they could come up with a government program to "save" them and make them more dependent on them than ever. And I have no doubt that if such a privatization program ever is implemented, Democrats will work tirelessly to insure that seniors are able to have free reign over how their money is invested, hoping for a resultant crash, and will do so on the grounds of protecting the rights of seniors to invest their money in the best way they see fit.

Let's face it, whether we are talking about foreign policy, energy policy, education, job creation, or entitlements, the Democratic Party agenda can be summed up as government power and control, and Palin sums it up succinctly.

Consider what his “big government greatness” really amounts to. It’s basically a corporatist agenda – it’s the collaboration between big government and the big businesses that have powerful friends in D.C. and can afford to hire big lobbyists. This collaboration works in a manner that distorts and corrupts true free market capitalism. This isn’t just old-fashioned big government liberalism; this is crony capitalism on steroids. In the interests of big business, we’re “investing” in technologies and industries that venture capitalists tell us are non-starters, but which will provide lucrative returns for some corporate interests who have major investments in these areas. In the interests of big government, we’re not reducing the size of our bloated government or cutting spending, we’re told the President will freeze it – at unsustainable, historic levels! In practice, this means that public sector employees (big government’s staunchest defenders) may not lose jobs, but millions of Americans in the private sector face lay offs because the ever-expanding government has squeezed out and crippled our economy under the weight of unsustainable debt.

That pretty much sums it up. I can't add anything at all to that, and that is precisely what made Sarah Palin, during her all too brief two year tenure, the greatest governor in Alaska history. Its also why she is so despised, not only by the Left, but by the corporatist, establishment Republicans that are really out for their own interests at the expense of all of us. They and the Left are not really ideological opposites so much as they are two sides of the same coin, forged from an alloy or corruption, special interest, and elitism.

And Obama is just more of the same, the same as always.

But mark my words, the most talked about part of Sarah Palin's Facebook response to the SOTU won't be any of her major points. It won't be her ideas, or her assessments of Obama and his big government agenda. No, the media jackals who support the Democrats, and promote the establishment Republicans as the voice of the GOP, will devote most of their response to Palin's use of the phrase WTF!

You can make book on it.

SOTU

Let me see if I got this straight.

Obama claims we have to cut spending. Also, we have to stop giving breaks to oil companies and instead we need to subsidize alternative energy sources. Then, we have to approach education like its this generation's "Sputnik Moment".

So clarify something for me, somebody. Does that mean we have to spend more money on education? And alternative energy? And while we're doing this are we supposed to expect to pay that much more for gasoline and on our electric bills?

If Americans are going to have to make these hard choices, can we assume Obama and the Congress are going to have it as tough as the rest of us?

Jesse "The Full Body" Ventura Has A Groping Hang-Up

Ever since Jesse Ventura, former Navy Seal, professional wrestler and wrestling commentator, and the former Governor of the state of Minnesota, had a titanium hip replacement, he can't go through airport security without setting off alarms. He has been subject to extra scrutiny on numerous occasions. At times, he has had wand scans, at other times subjected to a full body scanner, and at other times-notably one day in November-he has been subjected to intense physical pat downs that involved TSA agents groping his genitals. When he was informed that due to the reaction his titanium implants had on airport security alarms he would always be subjected to either pat-downs or full body scanners, he filed a lawsuit against the TSA, naming Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and TSA Administrator John Pistole as defendants.

His grounds for the lawsuit are that the pat-downs constitute what amounts to-

"unwarranted and unreasonable intrusions on Governor Ventura's personal privacy and dignity . and are a justifiable cause for him to be concerned for his personal health and well-being."

So says the man who rose to fame and fortune by spending years, in the public eye, on video and the televised media, and before audiences of thousands, doing shit like this for a living-

H/T Ace of Spades HQ

You Just Don't Know What To Believe Anymore

Abraham Lincoln was assassinated on April 14th, 1865. On that same date, he issued a pardon to a young boy who had been a Union soldier, charged with desertion.

Only, despite the claims of historian Thomas P. Lowry, it was not April 14th of 1865, but on the previous year. Come to find out, Lowry had gone into the National Archives, and changed the date on the paper that recorded the pardon.

Why did he do it? So he could announce a discovery of historical significance. Earlier on the date Lincoln was assassinated, he had engaged in an act of mercy that saved another life. That was it. Everyone would talk about the discovery of Thomas Lowry, for a brief period, and I guess he could work it into a book or something, and people would be eager to read it. Unfortunately for him, somebody caught on. Now his reputation is in the shitter, but that's not the worse part of it, other than for him. The worse part is, the study of history has now taken a body blow from which it might well never recover.

But you know something? That might be a good thing. How many historians are actually objective and totally non-biased? When I say non-biased, I mean on every subject of historical importance, or even of marginal importance? I don't believe there are any, and I think their work is colored by their bias, even if it is mostly a subconscious projection.

This should encourage people to question more, to demand more concrete proof, to require more evidence to support contentions and theories. Historians should from this point on consider themselves on notice.

The study of history is one of the sacred rites that separate mankind from the other animals, who don't know what families their ancestors stayed with, the adventures and battles they had, how they died, what their favorite foods were, what they liked to do in their spare time. They don't know, don't care that they don't, and wouldn't think to learn, or even wonder in passing about it. Maybe they're lucky that way, because history, while a blessing, is also a curse. It's constantly abused for self-serving reasons, for political reasons, even for religious reasons.

If a noted historian would risk destruction of his reputation and his career for something this trivial, how often has the truth concerning important historical events been compromised, and even trampled, to suit an agenda?

It really makes me sick to my fucking stomach, to think that something that should put us on a higher level than the animals is used so cavalierly ti turn us into just another fucking herd of sheep.

Even A Douch Like Olbermann Deserves Better Than This

I've withheld comment about the recent firing of Keith Olbermann by MSNBC for no other reason than I quite literally didn't know what the hell to make of it. A lot of people are assuming that it had something to do with the recently approved sell of NBC to cable giant Comcast. I myself said as much to several different people, and it does seem to make sense at first glance, but something here doesn't pass the smell test. For that matter, it fails the test of any of the known senses.



There is usually, I don't know, I guess you might call it a grace period, you know? You give a person notice, usually two weeks, or at least one. You don't just call somebody in to the office and unceremoniously fire him outright. But in this case, that seems to be exactly what happened. Assuming this is an accurate account, its wrong to do anybody that way, even an insufferable douchebag like Olbermann. Unless of course there's some compelling reason that we don't know about. If someone is guilty of sexual harassment, or some other kind, or he has been deemed a hazard to those around him. Or maybe if something has turned up in his private and/or his professional life that is so profoundly disturbing you come to realize this person could turn out to be a distinct liability to your company's reputation.

Love him or hate him, Olbermann almost single-handedly revived the fortunes of MSNBC. While they never came close to approaching the ratings of Fox News, they did pull ahead of CNN, and Olbie deserves the lion's share of the credit for that. Nor do I begrudge the need for a news network with a decidedly liberal slant. Come on, let's face it, MSNBC does deserve credit for being openly progressive, just as Fox News makes no bones that as a matter of editorial policy, they slant to the right. They at least aren't hypocrites about it, and neither is MSNBC, unlike big brother NBC which tries to portray itself as objective and fair, but, like most other members of the mainstream media, is clearly anything but.

Those of us who have more or less followed the train wreck that was the MSNBC career of Keith Olbermann are aware of his problems. We know of the controversies, the open feud with Fox's O'Reilly, the insane off-the-wall rants, and finally his recent suspension for contributing to three political campaigns of Democratic candidates without permission from his network bosses.

This was in my opinion nothing more than an artifice intended to allow Olbermann a cooling off period following the recent election. The man obviously bore watching during this period. Who knew what he was liable to say or do?

By the way, one of the three candidates Olbermann contributed to was Gabrielle Giffords. When Olbermann made a recent comment about the need to tone down the rhetoric, and included himself in the list of those who needed to be more circumspect in their remarks, I think he was honestly blaming himself for what happened to Giffords, and to the other victims. He may have honestly thought that there was at least a slight chance that he might have inspired Loughner to carry out his monstrous act, maybe to spite Olbermann, the well-known Giffords supporter.

Olbermann seems to have such an exaggerated sense of his own importance not only to his own self, but to those within the sound of his voice, it doesn't take much to ascertain that he would entertain such notions. But more to the point, there has been a great deal of circumspection in the offices of MSNBC, like the other news networks, some of whom have seemingly gone to ridiculous extents to avoid giving the impression of encouraging hateful rhetoric by engaging in it themselves.

So did Olbermann say something, or do something, on the air or in the studios, that drew attention to him as someone who might be in danger of going completely off the rails and saying or doing something that might be explosive, let's say in a figurative sense? I don't know, and we likely never will know. But did his recent lambasting of Joe Liebermann, just a night or two before Olbermann's final broadcast, provide what amounted to the final straw in the face of some new MSNBC policy regarding hateful rhetoric aimed at public officials in the wake of the Tucson tragedy? Again, we may never know for sure. What we do know is that Olbermann, for all his talk about toning down the rhetoric, seemed to be showing signs of already coming slightly unglued.

But the longer we go without a clear definitive reason, the more speculation will run rampant, at least for a while. For example, you have to wonder if it might actually be due to some internal matter or conflict at MSNBC. Or maybe something in Olbermann's personal life that might have come to light, and might yet explode into the public sphere.

Whatever is wrong, Olbermann isn't talking about it, not even on his usually busy Twitter page. I tweeted him and asked him if it was a live boy or a dead girl, and I wasn't completely kidding. But as of now, the last tweet precedes his firing by maybe a couple of hours, and there is nothing there that provides any clues as to what happened or why. At the top of the page is a notation that a baseball oriented page will debut there on February 14th. Other than that, nothing but a deafening silence.

Owing to the recent mob bust in New York and elsewhere, is it possible that some information about Olbermann has come to light, or is about to? No, I'm not kidding, at all. Olbermann always fancied himself a modern day Edward R. Murrow, and he was willing to look into the most bizarre source on the planet in any attempt to bolster his credentials as a worthy heir to the Murrow legacy. In some cases, he made himself look foolish doing so. In fact, some of his "credible sources" were so laughable it would have been enough to have him fired from any other network. But as long as they seemed to bolster his preconceived notions and supported his own apparent agenda, he would accept such sources as would be laughable even taken at face value. Here's one example of a report that became Countdown's number one story of the day.

On September 7th, Olbermann reported on an Indiana University study that found parents lose 12 to 20 IQ points after having children and quoted a Dr. Hosung Lee saying the report "explains why every parent thinks their child is the smartest kid in the class or the best athlete... even if that child is as dumb as a box of rocks or needs a calendar to time their 40-yard dash."

The source Olbermann used in citing a supposed study from Indiana University was The Hoosier Gazette, a satirical website that is similar in content to the Weekly World News.

The point here, in so many words, is that owing to Olbermann's history of using sources that are not legitimate, he might have become a target of unscrupulous persons. There could even be a chance Olbermann was on the verge of walking blindly into a potential lawsuit and maybe dragging MSNBC along with him.

Now he's gone, and I want to make it clear, I am not happy about it. I enjoyed watching the bizarre Countdown with Keith Olbermann what times I did on rare occasions. It had its share of entertainment value, and also sheer outrage. But perhaps most importantly, Olbermann served a vital function to the right, more than he ever did for the left. He made it all too clear just what the liberal American progressive left was all about, stripped of its thin veneer of cordiality and what they seem to consider reason. He made it all too clear that there was precious little difference between mainstream Democrats like Harry Reid, and their more nutcase fringe allies of convenience, running the gamut from the SEIU to ACORN, all the way from the NAACP to the New Black Panther Party, from NOW to Code Pink. These are people who are willing to tear the country apart in order to rebuild it according to their vision, all the while laughably proclaiming their patriotic devotion to their Mr. Magoo version of the Constitution that contains elements and precedents no one but them could ever conceive at the closest examination, or would want to.

Olbermann served as a poster boy for what the liberal progressive American left was all about, and he was available five nights a week from eight o'clock until nine, in all his nutty, bizarre, liberal progressive glory. Who knows, really, how many votes he gained for Republicans in the last election? It's almost like he was a plant, a kind of Manchurian Journalist, if you will. Remember this screed against then Massachusetts Senate candidate Scott Brown?



Maybe we'll get real lucky and, sometime before the 2012 election, Obama will go batshit insane enough to name Olbermann his White House Press Secretary.

Could we really be that lucky?

Renegade Eye-Coming Soon To A Theatre Near You

Few people know that my communist buddy Marvin, better known to my readers and on his own blog as Renegade Eye, is actually a long time professional wrestling promoter. Most of those who do know it probably learned it from his FBI dossier. In the picture above, Marvin, the bald headed guy with glasses, looks like he might have had a body slam coming his way.

Marvin has led a long, eventful life and has now recently announced on his Facebook page that he is in the process of writing a movie script based on his life story, but is wondering who might play him on film.

What do you all think? Let's help Marvin out here. Submit your votes for the actor you think might make the best Renegade Eye, aka Marvin Joel Rubin.

I'll get the ball rolling by suggesting Patrick Stewart.

Steampunk Palin

Nope, your eyes are not deceiving you. Sarah Palin is now a comic book superhero known as Steampunk Palin. In this comic book, someone tries to blow her up during a speaking engagement in which she is advocating moving from dependence on oil and nuclear energy to steam power. When she revives, she finds that she is now a cyborg, outfitted with a steam-powered cybernetic costume. Obama was also present at the attack, and is now also a cyborg named Robama.

Here, Obama and Palin become allies, as Palin decides she has to stop the evil oil and nuclear energy cartel, as well as the Russians who stand poised to invade Alaska.

And the villain who is behind this evil plot (whatever the fucking hell it is), who goes by the moniker Professor Greenhouse? Al Gore.

The book also contains fifteen pages of Palin pinups. It's sure to be a collectors item, though I'm not really sure why. This is actually an offering in the new Steampunk literary genre of comics, which is based on a futuristic world that has moved beyond electric and fossil fuels.

H/T Belchspeak

Home

H/T E D Kain and The League Of Ordinary Gentlemen

Have You Pursued Your Happiness Today?

This is a good one, right here. Representative John Lewis declares that since the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution has not yet been repealed, it gives the government the right to force you to purchase health insurance. It is not unconstitutional at all. But that's not the end of it. Guess what? You as an American citizen have the right to engage in the pursuit of happiness, according to the Preamble to the Constitution. But, if you fail to do so, the government has the right to force you to pursue said happiness by law. Therefore, by forcing you to purchase health insurance the government is merely making sure you pursue your dreams of happiness. Yeah, chew on that one for awhile.



I want you fucking Democrats to do me a big favor. The next time you get it in your heads you want to send an alleged hero to Washington, you might want to find one that hasn't at some point in his past HAD HIS FUCKING HEAD BUSTED OPEN!!!

H/T-The Colossus Of Rhodey

The Hamburglar Was Not Availiable For Comment

If you live in Philadelphia, be on the lookout for a silver Mercedes much like the one below. The owner of a car like this one is involved in a heinous crime near the intersection of second and Callowhill Streets.

Two men got out of said vehicle and according to witnesses began to fight. At some point one man shot the other, who is now in critical condition at Hahnemann University Hospital. The shooter quickly sped away in the Mercedes and is being sought by police. No description is given of either the perpetrator or the victim, so I guess we're supposed to assume they are black.

The reason for the violence? They were fighting over-French fries.

I don't know what fast food restaurant those fries were purchased at, but their advertising department should jump all over this one.

A fucking Mercedes?

H/T-Wyatt Earp

WTF Moments In Black History

Yesterday, at the annual Martin Luther King Day observance held by the NAACP at the statehouse of Columbia, South Carolina, George Washington was clearly not welcome. Therefore, in order not to offend any of the attendees, the big bronze statue of The Father Of Our Country was hidden behind a box, so no one would see him.

But I'm supposed to be worried about the Tea Party having too much influence over American policies.

In. Fucking. Credible.

Oh well, at least I know now not to send any donations to the NAACP.

Oh, but wait a minute, I wasn't going to do that anyway, so-never mind.

Proof Jim Morrison Is Still ALive

Rod Blagojevich offers proof positive that MORRISON IS STILL ALIVE!

Happy Benjamin Franklin Day

He was arguably the greatest American of all time. Throughout his long and eventful life, he engaged in a variety of endeavors. Statesman, diplomat, journalist, publisher, businessman, entrepreneur, scientist, and inventor. He might have been the penultimate American, warts and all. If Washington was the father of our country, Franklin might well be considered the attending physician at its birth, the priest who sanctified it, friend and counselor, devoted old uncle, and godfather-all rolled into one.

He dedicated his life to the concept of the new nation he helped found, but after all, it was in his own best self-interest to do so, as he would be the first to heartily admit. That shared self-interest, he realized, insured the greatest likelihood of long term success. But also he recognized the potential for failure. It was he who when questioned as to what kind of nation he and the founders had forged, answered the old woman with the refrain "a republic, madame, if you can keep it."

His was probably the greatest influence behind the concept of respect for private enterprise, and of the need for as little government intrusion in the market as possible. He also devoted himself to the establishment of the volunteer fire department. His concern for fire safety likely inspired him to invent the Franklin Stove. He discovered, or rather proved, the fluid nature of electricity with his groundbreaking experiments

He was a Deist rumored to be a member of the Hellfire Club, and a Rosicrucian, and probably had as much of an influence on the concept of freedom of religion as he did freedom of the press.

In these and in so many other ways, the DNA of Benjamin Franklin is the DNA of the nation, and its core, long term, most cherished values are reflected in him.

And today, January 17th, is his birthday. Bet you didn't know that did you? Strangely, I myself just learned it today.

Now This Is My Kind Of Political Discourse

Newly elected Governor of Maine Paul LePage had a bit of a spat with the local chapter of the NAACP when he refused to appear at a prison event for black inmates. LePage said he wouldn't appear unless the event was open to all inmates of all races. They refused to meet his conditions, and so he simply declined their invitation. That should have been all of it, but of course the NAACP moaned and bitched. LePage was questioned about it on a local radio station. Following is how he explained it.

"They are a special interest. End of story...and I'm not going to be held hostage by special interests.

He also told them to kiss his butt. Now that's the way all Republican politicians should act, and talk.

Well, I would have preferred that he tell them to kiss his ASS, but you know what they say-baby steps.

The Municipal Bond Market-Possibly The Next Great Financial Casualty

My word, I hope I don't come across as negative or ever not so civil, but if you buy Municipal Bonds, you might first want to look at this chart that shows that market crashing straight down the crapper.

Then you need to realize that, if you still decide to invest any money at all in Municipal Bonds, you are probably a fucking idiot. But if you are so cock-sure Obama and the Democrats will heal our nation, you will probably buy them anyway, and prove my point. After all, if you do lose your shirt, that would obviously be the fault of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

Just do me a big favor, if you would be so kind. If you do lose all your money and assets and eventually see through the haze that it is in fact Democratic malfeasance, corruption, and incompetence that has caused our largest cities to fail-like our states, and our country-and that by extension they are the reason you have lost everything, kindly don't seek revenge by shooting one of them.

I do so hate to have to put on airs.

The Green Hornet

You can't just please some people. I know, I'm one of them. But I know it, which is why I very seldom go to the movies. For me, this amounts to a better than fifty-mile round trip, for one thing. Then there's the price. Next comes the depression, annoyance, and sometimes outright anger when a film isn't as good as the trailers imply.

For this reason, I didn't go to see Iron Man I or II. I finally got a chance to see Iron Man I on cable a few nights ago, and I was underwhelmed, to put it kindly. Sure, there were a few good moments, but still-pretty much a forgettable exercise.

I'll have to admit though, I would give serious thought to seeing The Green Hornet.



Here you have Seth Rogan playing the Hornet/Brit Reid, and going to the trouble of losing thirty pounds to play the role. Also, he co-wrote the movie. In other words, Seth Rogan is living a comic-book nerd's dream, writing the script for a superhero movie, and playing the lead role. Unfortunately, many comics fans are not happy about Rogan playing the role, and are adamant in their protests, as you will ascertain in this and other reviews, and in the myriads of negative comments.

Rogan, an overweight comedian, is just not right for the role, they say. And, despite the fact that he is serious enough about the role to lose thirty pounds, he also does not take the part seriously enough, which I see as a positive, frankly. Its not that the film isn't serious enough. It's just not somber or too serious. It's just not that kind of movie. In fact, the film is billed as an action-comedy.

The Green Hornet's main enemy is not the film's villain, then, so much as it is the legion of comics fans who have launched the most diabolical plot of all. They are staying away from the movie, in droves. It opened with a disappointing take of eleven million dollars gross.

That's really too bad. Also-well, I started to say childish, but after all, these are comic book fans we're talking about, so that would be about like calling Islamic terrorists ill-tempered, wouldn't it?

I think the problem here is, Seth Rogan is having good-natured fun at comic fans expense, and they aren't happy about it. They're pissed without even being aware of why they're pissed.

Here's the story. Brit Reid is a slacker playboy type who, when his millionaire publisher father dies, inherits the family business. He wants to make something of himself, live up to the responsibility his father left him, even though he clearly hated the old man. At the same time, he doesn't really want to grow up, and doesn't see anything wrong with that. In fact, like most comic book geeks, he really doesn't see it, period.

Yes, Brit Reid in this film is the penultimate comic book nerd. Brit Reid's father was so disgusted with him that, as a child, he snapped the head off his Superman action figure. So now, he and Kato, the old man's mechanic, chauffeur, and all-around gopher, who also hated the elder Mr Reid, decide in a drunken stupor to remove the head off his memorial statue. They inadvertently foil a mugging, for which they are then blamed, and at this point, Reid is inspired to finally make something out of his life-he would become a masked crime fighter with a secret identity. So he has it both ways. He has a position of responsibility, but also lives an exciting, glamorous life as a crime fighter in a way to indulge his sense of adventure and excitement-his inner comic book nerd.

But it goes deeper than that. See, Brit Reid would probably be as good a crime fighter as your ordinary, everyday comic book geek-

Look, there on the sofa! Fatter than a breakfast buffet. Strong enough to resist motivation. Able to leap through two hundred cable channels without getting off the couch for a solid month. It's BOY-MAN! and his trusty sidekick JACKDICK!

But luckily for Brit, he has a lot more going for him than some weird little kid with tight, flaming red short shorts and girlishly sexy legs. He has Kato, who can kick your fucking ass. The unique thing about Kato was always that, on a bad day for him and a good day for the Hornet, he kicked twice as much ass as the Hornet. On a good day, the Hornet was superfluous. Plus, Kato is the one who built and maintains the Black Beauty, which is one bad motherfucking ride.

So why does the Hornet get the billing? Well, because its his show, literally and figuratively. It's his idea, but even more importantly, its his money. He pays the bills. He does something in this film that was never done in any of the other incarnations. He gets jealous of Kato because he gets it in his head that his lady-love, played by Cameron Diaz, is smitten with Kato. But this comic geek insecurity on Brit's part passes in time, and we are left with the distinct impression that Brit Reid and Kato make one hell of a team. They are, you might say, one hell of a dynamic duo, if you know what I mean. But of course, being a comic book geek at heart, Brit doesn't. But let's just say, the fact that Diaz's character isn't all that well drawn out could very well be part of the plot. The comic book geek hero should always get the girl. First he has to know what to do with her if he does get her. But since he doesn't, he won't, and she will just stay a distant ideal. You know, something that is good for his-er, self-image?

This movie is supposed to be funny. It is obviously a Bromantic Comedy as much as a kick-ass, superhero action flick. Comic geek fans should take it for what it is and stop being so self-conscious. The Black Beauty if anything is probably worth the price of admission, though admittedly, the relative restraint used with the car might be the one serious flaw of the film. But then again, what comic geek superhero would take too many unnecessary chances with that kind of ride?

The movie also contains, toward the end, a salute to the old sixties television series. I won't describe it here in detail, but its a recycled plot device which will be immediately recognizable to connoisseurs of the old sixties series with Van Williams and Bruce Lee.

So fuck it, comic geeks, go see the movie, relax, laugh at yourselves, and-well, you know, grow up? Let's face it, the concept of a guy that dresses in a costume, hides his true identity, and becomes a superhero, is the concept of a guy that can't be wrapped too tight. I mean, some of them are wrapped so tight you can see their bulging, throbbing comic book cocks, but hey, that's just proving my point, isn't it? And that point is, its all right for a comic book superhero movie to laugh at the concept every now and then.

That Little Faggot With The Earring And The Make-Up

Do you believe this shit? The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, an agency which regulates private broadcasters in Canada, has banned the song Money For Nothing by the rock group Dire Straits. What is more, even though membership in the Council is strictly voluntary, this decision is final and may not be appealed, even though it does not apply to state-owned Canadian broadcast networks or the internet. If you are a private owner, you are bound to the rules, unless you resign from the Council. You can do this, but the problem with that is, your license will probably not be renewed once it expires.

These are exactly the same kind of people who control the Democratic Party here in the US. The very same kind of people who want to ram through every big government program and agenda possible and who want to shut up everybody who opposes them, by way of lies, manipulation, political correctness, and now, mass murder.

But I'm supposed to worry about Sarah Palin and the Tea Party because some fruit loop kills a few people? And I'm supposed to believe the progressive left when they open their mouths about-hell, not just about this, but about anything? Too fucking incredible for words.

H/T-The Other McCain

Hey, Democraps-How's That Civility And Respect Working For Ya?

Former House Representative from Pennsylvania Paul Kanjorski, who got kicked out on his ass in the last election, has something to say in a New York Times editorial about the need for "civility and respect" when it comes to political discourse. Here's a taste-

We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.

Well, isn't that sweet? The former Congressman, who got tossed out on his ass in the last election (God DAMN I love the feeling I get when I type that), is no stranger to polite, civil, and respectful political discourse. He has always been all for it. And, even when he was fighting his own re-election battle-that would be the one he lost-he still took the time to spread the love around. Notice what he said about the Republican candidate for Florida Governor, Rick Scott, who went on to win his race. Maybe he won due to the nice, positive, respectful things Kanjorski said about Scott, such as the following-

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

Now how much more civil could a Democrat possibly be? Kanjorski was, of course, respectfully engaging in a little bit of respectful hyperbole. Thankfully, there are no loony people in Florida who would shoot a gun at Governor Scott over such insignificant, meaningless banter.

In fact, so impressed am I by Kanjorski's and other Democrats style of rhetoric, I strongly urge Republicans to try to see if they can be just as "civil" and "respectful" as they are. In fact, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, I strongly recommend that anytime Democraps show this version of "respect" and "civility" towards Republicans, or the Tea Party, that all of us go out of our way to give it back to them in spades.

H/T Moonbattery

Sarah Palin Addresses The Tucson Massacre

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Jarod Loughner-Did He Act Alone?

I think the question needs serious consideration. I'll put this bluntly. If there is anything at all to Obama's Justice Department, they are going to be looking seriously into the possibility that Jarod Loughner was manipulated into committing his monstrous crime. The first place they should look very closely is at the office of the Pima County Sheriff Dupnik.

Sheriff Dupnik was well aware of Loughner's mental and emotional problems, and now there is some credible circumstantial evidence that the sheriff's department had fielded complaints about Loughner from numerous sources, including radio personalities and bloggers in the Tucson area whom Loughner had called and threatened.

The sheriff's response, if true, is incredible. According to The Cholla Jumps, Dupnik informed at least one complainant that Loughner's mother worked for the city (Parks and Recreation), and as such any attempt to prosecute Loughner would only make matters worse.

If that is true, that almost sounds like a threat to me. But of course, if this really happened, we are talking about conservative bloggers and radio pesonalities, and a clearly liberal sheriff who in an effort to divert attention from his own malfeasance in office involving this case, has accused anyone he can think of for responsibility for the crime.

Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, and most recently Rush Limbaugh. Anyone but himself, as long as its someone on the right.

Yet, despite the fact that the sheriff's office had fielded all these complaints, and despite the fact that Loughner was kicked out of his own town's community college, he was allowed to purchase a firearm, just in lieu of the fact that he had no criminal record, thanks largely to the incompetence of this sheriff in following up on complaints on Loughner that might have been used to prevent his purchase of a firearm.

And this brings me back to my main point. This sheriff is a progressive, and I have to wonder if he or someone in his department, or elsewhere in the county, or the state, wanted Gabrielle Giffords gone, albeit for some as yet unknown reason beyond mere political disagreement. A person like Loughner would be easily manipulated by a person of authority, someone who might be a friend of the family, someone who looked out for him and befriended him. I will explain how in a future post Loughner's condition might make it relatively easy, even simple, to manipulate him to do almost anything.

Such a person might have possibly even given him private firearms lessons. Loughner committed his deed with stunningly ruthless efficiency, yet there is no indication he had any experience with firearms prior to early last year. It seems to have been something he had only recently shown an interest in. For someone to learn to shoot that quickly, with such deadly efficiency, would require some level of skill set he would be unlikely to have acquired on his own or with just moderate level assistance in such a short span of time.

I'm almost sure this is what happened. I think, however, it wasn't supposed to end quite this way. I think he was supposed to shoot Giffords and leave, quickly. He would have been told to meet someone somewhere, where of course he would have been apprehended, and more than likely shot dead.

Instead, he went totally off the rails and started shooting everybody in sight, until he was apprehended by private citizens acting out of self-preservation. Now he is in custody, where the normally talkative, insanely expressive Loughner is reportedly mum, and saying nothing.

If I'm right, it might not be too long before we hear that Jarod Loughner has been found dead in his cell-a victim of "suicide".

In the meantime, not only should the Justice Department look into this possibility, but Obama himself should be very cautious when he travels to Tucson. After all, Giffords has drawn ire from leftists in the past for not being sufficiently progressive on a variety of issues. Many of these leftists have similar animosity towards Obama, especially in the wake of certain moves that look as though he might be moving toward a more politically centrist position. In fact, to a great many of them, he was never progressive enough to begin with. Now they are beside themselves over some of the recent signals he has sent. His compromise on the tax bill, his recent appointments of centrist Democrats to highly placed advisory positions of influence.

And they know full well that if Obama is assassinated, they can always blame the Right-the same Sarah Palins, Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs, and Tea party patriots they have been screaming non-stop are responsible for the assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords.

This is who they are. This is what they do.

Great! Now They're Saying Loughner Is A Pagan

Well, more precisely, that he was a Satanist, or into "the occult". It doesn't matter, as in the minds of most people, all those terms, along with Pagan, Wiccan, Witch, etc., are interchangeable. They found some kind of altar in a camouflage tent outside his house, with a skull over a pot of shriveled oranges. Don't ask me. I used to burn lemon juice in Everclear as an aspect of a purification ritual. He might have been using the oranges for a similar purpose, but really, who knows? The point is, this is just one aspect of an obviously troubled mind, one that seems to have a satanist, possibly pagan connection. And on it goes.

I guess nobody is immune. For all we know, someone might soon assert that Jarod Loughner was actually targeting John Roll, the federal judge who was one of the six killed in the rampage shooting, over his judicial philosophy. Or maybe he was after the little girl, Danielle Green, because her grandfather former Yankees and Phillies manager Darrell Greene, was involved in a diabolical plot to use baseball as a form of mind-control.

Whatever the case, I'm not intimidated. Nor would I be seriously alarmed were this to turn out to have an actual pagan connection. The main point is deserving of reiteration.

1. Leftist loons have been engaging in vile, hateful rhetoric almost non-stop since the sixties, at least.

2. Jarod Loughner was clearly a leftist.

3. Yet, through some tortured twisting of logic that only a leftist could hope to comprehend, leftists claim Loughner's shooting spree is the fault of hateful rhetoric on the right and blame Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party.

For the record, if Jarod Loughner does turn out to be, not a Satanist but a Pagan, all that proves is that he was, like the vast majority of pagans, a leftist pagan. If he was a Satanist, again, he was not a typical Satanist either, but a clearly deranged type of self-identifying individual who might well have picked out such secondary targets as the little girl as an aspect of ritual sacrifice. On the other hand, others have tagged him as an atheist, so go figure.

And for all those people who conveniently like to avoid discussing the possibility that this killing was politically motivated, I would like to point out that his mother, with whom he lived (and who must have had some familiarity with the ritual altar at the home), was a member of the city's Board of Supervisors. That would suggest that his very upbringing and day to day surroundings reeked of politics.

That and the fact that there is strong, compelling evidence that this was not a random, spur of the moment mass killing of convenience. He didn't just happen upon this crowd of people and decide to cut loose. He had purposely targeted the Congresswoman as his primary victim.

Like it or not, crazy and deranged people have political leanings too, you know.

Jarod Loughner Baffles With His Bullshit On Above Top Secret

Here's a thread on the website Above Top Secret that seems to have been started by Jarod Loughner, who was once a member of the site, before he was kicked off. As you will be able to tell if you read the thread, this guy was clearly a loon. He had all the posters who responded to his thread scratching their heads. It's something to do with his belief that years-individual years-are infinite. He wonders how the BCE or BC years could have ended for the CE or AD years to begin. It's just crazy shit that doesn't even make no sense. In fact, its so confused I'm hard pressed to describe it.

YouTube-Leftist Enemies Of Gabrielle Giffords

Boy oh boy here we see some real whack-a-doodles, 911 Truthers protesting Gabrielle Giffords support of the Iraq War. What really pisses these people off is Gifford's stated refusal at the time to support impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney as filed in the House by fellow whack-a-loon Dennis Kucinich. You can almost feel the spit rushing to their heads when a spokeswoman says she isn't sure how Giffords would vote on impeachment if such a motion came out of the House Judiciary Committee.

This goes back to 2008, when these loony tunes were protesting outside Gifford's office. At one point later in the video, there is one woman who makes an appearance going in a building, who looks like ultra-loon queen Cindy Sheehan, though she makes no remarks on this video. It's a blink and you'll miss her moment.

My point here is, why the hell isn't Keith Olbermann and Marcos Moulitsos talking about this video. It's been out there for a while. These people are so demonstrably crazy, two women in a car, women who are clearly Democrats and Giffords supporters, stop to harass them.

Why isn't this being hailed as an example of hateful rhetoric that is poisoning the political discourse? Why couldn't Jarod Loughner have been influenced by these whack-a-doodles?

Shockerarama! Leftist Who Might Be Responsible For Leftist Shooting Democrat, Blames Conservatives!

Cos of course, that's what they do, habitually. So when Marcos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos tries to point the finger of blame at Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck, or the Tea Party, maybe we are supposed to overlook the time he himself targeted Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

So why would he do that? Short answer is, Giffords, though a Democrat, is a member of the Blue Dog coalition, and as such, was targeted by Moulitsos as a target to be primaried if she didn't tow the line. Never mind that she voted for TARP, the Stimulus Bill, and the Affordable Care Act. Never mind that she favored rescinding incentives for oil companies in favor of a plan to incentivize solar energy development, which would benefit her state of Arizona.

She just plainly wasn't liberal enough for Marcos. After all, this was a woman who supported gun rights. She even filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case against the DC ban on private gun ownership, a case that was ultimately a victory for the Second Amendment.

Possibly even worse, even though she had spoken out against Arizona's illegal immigration law, she was herself a strong advocate of border security, and complained consistently that the federal government wasn't performing adequately in that regard. She was even responsible for the decision of Barak Obama to increase the numbers of border patrol agents along the Arizona-Mexico Border.

Because of these, and other things, Moulitsos wants her gone. But hey, you don't have to just take my word for it, you can read it from a post on Daily Kos just two months before the 2010 primary.

But because Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party targeted Gifford's district in a campaign that, as a result of their efforts, almost caused Gifford to lose her seat to Tea-Party supported Republican Jess Kelly, Moulitsos blames them for the assassination attempt on Gifford's life that left her in critical condition and resulted the deaths of at least five others. One of the victims was a federal judge, appointed by President George H W Bush. Others include a nine year old girl, one of Gifford's assistants who had recently become engaged, and two elderly people. Several others were wounded, some of whom might yet die. Giffords herself might yet well relapse and ultimately succumb for all we know. She was shot point blank range in the head, after all.

Yeah, if I was Marcos, I guess I would encourage blaming somebody else, anybody else. If I found out the guy was a fan of the Dead Kennedy's I would point that out. Come on, that might mean something, right?

Unfortunately for him, such diversionary tactics will be difficult to pull off with anybody that isn't a liberal loon Democrat (in other words, any living, breathing person with a functioning brain), for the simple fact that Jared Lee Loughner, the gunman involved in the crime, is clearly insane and, according to somebody who knew him well, he was a leftist. Here's what she had to say about him-

This is a circus. Good Morning America just called me. it's loughner just checked my year book. I haven't seen him since '07. Then, he was left wing. more left. I haven't seen him since '07 though. He became very reclusive. he had a lot of friends until he got alcohol poisoning in '06, & dropped out of school. Mainly loner very philosophical. As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy. he was a pot head & into rock like Hendrix,The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven't seen him in person since '07 in a sign language class He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in '07, asked her a question & he told me she was "stupid & unintelligent"


He also seems to have a penchant for such leftist literature as Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, as well as-wait for it-

Das Kapital by Karl Marx.

Yeah, not exactly the kind of reading you see passed around and discussed at your local Tea Party gathering, at least not in a positive way. Yet, these are what he described as his favorite books on the profile of his YouTube page.

Yet, in addition to Moulitsos, you have none other than Hanoi Jane Fonda chiming in and blaming conservatives.

I take great exception to certain people advising us to avoid attacks on the left, and to see this guy as an insane nut more than acting out of any political orientation. For one, he was clearly acting out of a political agenda, albeit a paranoid, possibly schizophrenic and delusional one. For another, I take great pride in the fact that one leftist recently referred to this blog as "the reliably vicious Pagan Temple".

Yeah, I'll take that. I'm so fucking vicious I want this scumbag tried, convicted, and executed, though more for the death of the nine year old girl than for the others. But I want him executed for them as well. I guess that in itself makes me more vicious than Moulitsos and Fucktard Fonda, who will probably want to keep the bastard alive and granted free blowjobs during conjugal visits at taxpayer expense. After all, to execute a person would be vicious, but to keep him alive and deprive him of sexual gratification would just be cruel and inhuman.

While we're at it, I still want Hanoi Jane tried for treason. I want her to have a fair trial, but If she is convicted, I want her skank ass hung by the neck until dead. Justice has been too long delayed on that front, and seeing it happen would be more fun than watching Barbarella.

So I guess if Jane Fonda is killed here in the next few days that's possibly my fault as well, right?

Wrong! The left is doing what the left always does. They are creating discord and casting blame and aspersions, and as is more often the case than not, it is over an event for which they are at least partially responsible.

Sorry, folks, but for all my sympathies for the victims here, including the Congresswoman and her family, I'm not in the mood to play nice. I don't dance to any tune the left whistles, now or ever. If they don't like it, fuck 'em.

Christine O'Donnell vs The Forces Of Evil (II)

When Christine O'Donnell lost the Delaware Senate race, I was greatly disappointed, not so much in her loss-she was always at best a long-shot candidate-but in the way her defeat came about. Not too long after the election was over, there was an analysis at the blog Protein Wisdom that pretty much summed up my feelings over the matter. Here is a portion of it-

Why would we want a Senator Castle?

Seriously. Why? I mean, clearly the Republican primary voters of Delaware didn’t want him, and this was their election. So why do so many GOP cheerleaders wish Republican primary voters of Delaware would have been smart and savvy enough to vote for a guy those voters didn’t want representing them, casting their vote instead for a woman they believed would?

There is nothing “extreme” about the Tea Party message, and there’s nothing in that message that should put off “moderates.” O’Donnell did well with independents, despite having no support from her own party machinery. And yet because GOP establishment types were so quick to scoff and sniff and run away from O’Donnell or Angle (and, initially, Rubio), they lent credence to the idea that the Tea Party is “extreme,” and so obviously racist, fascist, nativist, populist, and anti-intellectual. Not to mention, longing to squeeze into tight black goth garb and couple with the Beast.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if sold on its merits, classical liberalism — and the Tea Party’s message is essentially a classical liberal message — crosses party lines and appeals to anyone who believes in individual liberty, smaller government, equality of opportunity, and the rule of law. It is constitutionalism — legal conservatism / libertarianism — substantively alienated from the rudderless country club Republicanism of Lindsey Graham, or the vote-counting gamesmanship of Karl Rove, for whom winning temporary majorities and chairmanships is more important than governing from a coherent philosophical base.

We don’t need slicker candidates. We need committed candidates.

I myself am not an ideological purist, so there are some issues where me and the Tea Party part company. But by and large, i agree with them far more often than I disagree, and this post in question pretty much sums up my feelings.

But it goes deeper than that. Mike Castle is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics in general. What we have bred is a political class that feels its entitled, both to rule over the unwashed masses, and to protect their own perceived turf by any means imaginable. Castle's membership in the good old boys club of Washington politics made it almost a sure thing that other establishment Republicans would in large measure turn on O'Donnell, or at the very least, turn away from her. She was plainly not one of them, and represented a greater threat to their hegemony within the Republican Party than the Democratic candidate, Chris Coons, or, for that matter, Beau Biden, who had earlier declined to seek the Democratic Party nomination.

There is also something about Delaware that can't be stressed nearly enough. It takes pride in the motto "First In Freedom" because it was the first state to ratify the constitution. It is technically speaking our first state. But it is now, and has been for some time, a wholly owned subsidiary of the banking and finance sectors of the country. It has developed and maintained a corporate friendly environment, this mainly for the benefit of those banking and financial interests.

Those same interests have also propped up the political establishment of the state, and this includes both parties, and their most important leaders. This would include the Bidens, both the current Vice-President, and his son, formerly the state's Attorney General, who declined to run for the seat formerly held by his father when Joe Biden became Vice President.

And, it would also include the man who is now the state's senior Senator, Tom Carper.

One of the people who has been a strong supporter of Joe Biden, in addition to being a former staffer of the Vice-President, is Melanie Sloan, who head of an organization called CREW-Citizens For Responsibility For Ethics In Washington. CREW us funded in part by George Soros think-tank Think Progress.

And it is Crew that has filed an ethics complaint against Christine O'Donnell, which you can read in its entirety here.

Crew filed the complaint on behalf of one Leonard S. Togman, a Delaware citizen and voter who also just happens to be Melanie Sloan's father. Not only is Togman also a supporter of Joe Biden, he has also contributed to not only his past campaigns but also to those of Carper, whom most people think O'Donnell will challenge in 2012.

Is it any wonder Christine O'Donnell, who vociferously denies the charges in the complaint, thinks Joe Biden is pulling strings in an effort to put an end to any of her potential future political aspirations?

It's been established that CREW, despite its claims of being non-partisan, is actually a schill for the Democratic Party and other progressive groups and causes. The report at Weekly Standard is chilling, if true.

Several news stories have pointed out that much of CREW's [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington] funding comes from liberal groups and big donors to Democratic candidates and causes. And all but a handful of its complaints against Members of Congress have targeted Republicans.

But in some cases, there appear to be deeper links between the agenda of the donor and CREW's attacks. In February 2006, CREW asked the Senate Finance Committee to investigate the Center for Union Facts, an anti-union group, and its sister organization, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which CREW claimed are "front organizations for for-profit industry entities."

The complaint noted that the Center for Union Facts Web site had "negative information about unions," including the Service Employees International Union. Later that year, CREW launched a Freedom of Information Act request, followed by a lawsuit, to get the Department of Labor to hand over documents regarding the department's contacts with the founder of the two centers.

On Sept. 1, 2006, CREW received $75,000 from the SEIU, according to documents that the union filed with the Department of Labor.

CREW has also received hundreds of thousands from ARCA, an organization which favors reopening trade with Cuba, and has filed ethics complaints against individuals and companies which favor the current policy. The Executive Director of ARCA has served on the board of CREW, and is now running for Congress as a Democrat. (CREW has attacked her opponent.)

If you need further proof that Sloan is far from non-partisan, all you have to do is visit the website of CREW, where she has posted her bio. It states plainly that she was minority counsel for the House of Representatives, where she worked for both John Conyers, and then New York Representative Charles Schumer.

I think al the above lays to rest any notion that Sloan, or her activist group CREW, are impartial or non-partisan. The question then becomes, why are they after O'Donnell. And why was the FBI brought into it to the extent that they released the news of the investigation of O'Donnell to the press, before O'Donnell herself was even informed about it, in what American Spectator describes as a smear operation?

However, I think Stacy McCain might be actually closer to the truth than anyone else thus far, in pointing out that there's not a whole lot of daylight in Delaware between the Republican and Democratic parties. In doing so, McCain points the finger at Delaware GOP Chairman Tom Ross and the "state GOP insiders".

And it is a fact that there is little difference between the two. Mike Castle, the former Republican House member who Christine O'Donnell trounced in the Delaware Senate primary, probably voted with the US House Democrats AT LEAST AS OFTEN as he voted with Republicans. The majority of the Delaware Republican electorate had understandably had enough, and turned down his bid to run against Chris Coons. When he lost, national Republicans threw a hissy fit. People like Karl Rove were clearly upset that Christine O'Donnell might blow the one clear chance the party might have had to win the Senate seat formerly held by Joe Biden. They became so agitated at the prospect, so infuriated, and frustrated, that they not only refused to support O'Donnell-in many cases they outright spoke out against her.

Had they supported her, stood by her, perhaps she still would have lost, but possibly not. She might have pulled it out, or at the very least she would not have, through no fault of her own, been a drag on the down-ticket Republicans in the race, almost all of who lost handily due to the depressed GOP turnout in Delaware.

Is there any doubt that Castle would like to run for the Senate against Carper in 2012l, and would much prefer not to have to face yet another primary challenge from O'Donnell. But if he had to, he would much prefer a damaged O'Donnell than the conservative darling of the right-wing Republican base, most of who would gladly vote for her again. That is a problem the club will have to deal with.

There is more at stake in elections than merely winning or losing, you see. There is more involved than bragging rights. All of the Delaware political insiders are well-connected, from both parties, and stand to lose little in the way of legitimate political influence in the event of the victory of an outsider like Christine O'Donnell.

Ah, but the operative word here is, after all, legitimate. And when it comes to the shadowy corridors of political power, it's not whether you win or lose, or even how you play the game. All that matters is the unwritten rule-don't make waves.

Allen West Tells It Like It Is

Lieutenant Colonel Allen West, recently elected to the House of Representatives from Florida's 22nd district, makes no bones about describing the true nature of the Islamist threat against America and the West. This was in response to a question from a reporter from Red State who prefaced his question with an account of a recent remark by leftist reporter Helen Thomas, who had stated that the Islamic radicals had "perverted Islam" in order to carry out their war on the West, with the goal in mind (according to Thomas) of securing their independence from Western domination.

Colonel West made it clear that, far from being a perversion of Islam, the Islamic radicals were following the exact road map laid out centuries ago in the Koran itself.



I agree with West wholeheartedly, although I would add the caveat that, in my opinion, the Islamic radicals, though they do follow the Koran in the way it was intended, are nevertheless a minority. At least I hope that's the case, but whether I'm right or wrong, its irrelevant. The so-called "moderates", whether they are in the majority or the minority, are themselves irrelevant. They just do what they're told, and otherwise shut up. Not all the outreach and interfaith dialogue in the world is going to change that fact one iota, not now, not in the near future, and not decades or centuries from now.

Keep your eye on West. He's one of the few willing to call it as he sees it, and at least in this case, he happens to be one hundred percent correct. Hopefully, we're going to hear a lot more from him in the years to come.

Hopefully, we will have the wisdom, and the courage, to listen.

John P. Wheeler III-How Did He Really Die?

Is it possible he died from natural causes. I know it sounds unlikely, given the circumstances by which his body was allegedly discovered, by sanitation workers in a landfill (when it was supposedly seen falling from a garbage truck), but this whole story is riddled with contradictions.

For one thing, Wheeler was seen over a period of some two days or more wandering aimlessly in the street of Newark Delaware (about ten miles north of Wilmington, where he had supposedly been traveling to). He seemed greatly disheveled and disoriented, and claimed at one point to have been robbed of his briefcase. He was holding a shoe in one hand and wore no coat. He was seen by various people, who asked if he needed help, which he refused. At one point he blamed his circumstances on his mother and brother.

This sounds like the ravings of a man caught in the throes of dementia, but this doesn't seem to be the case. My guess is more than likely he suffered a stroke, or series of mini-strokes, possible the result of the stress of his being robbed. If he had imbibed even a slight amount of alcohol previous to this, that might well have intensified the effects of the strokes.

What happened next is anyone's guess. He could have climbed up inside one of the dumpsters, to sleep or get out of the cold, or he might have had an idea his briefcase might have been in one of them and sought to retrieve it. At this point, under this scenario, he would have died of natural causes. If there is any merit to this theory, an autopsy should provide sufficient evidence.

Of course, there is also the possibility that he could have fallen victim to a second assault that might have lead to his possibly accidental death, whereupon his assailants, probably two or more, deposited his body in the dumpster in a desperate attempt to hide their unintended crime of manslaughter.

I also have to wonder, concerning the first robbery, whether he was lured someplace by a prostitute, possibly one with whom he had some familiarity. Or possibly another person he trusted, someone he had previously thought to help.

It's certainly a strange story, and the conspiracy theories are already flying full force.

But I will delve more deeply into them later, and in so doing offer my own version of what might have happened in the event Mr. Wheeler's death actually was the result of murder and conspiracy. I know there is a temptation to jump the gun here. After all, this was no ordinary guy, but a man of great accomplishment and influence in a variety of areas of public life and service. Here is a detailed account of his life, career, and accomplishments, including his more recent endeavors.

For now, I leave this open for consideration with no further comment, for now. After all, those more mundane explanation that people tend to overlook oftentimes afford the most likely answers.

MYOB

Special Note-Join the Support Captain Owen Honors Facebook Page

Now that Captain Owen Honors has been relieved of his command of the USS Enterprise, its only a matter of time before his entire career is brought to an inglorious end, despite the fact that he has dedicated his life to honorable service to the US Navy and to his country. He now languishes at an obscure desk job, but no one has any doubt as to what the ultimate outcome will be. Nor do many question the reason. Honors is being persecuted for the crime of producing a humorous video, meant for the entertainment and morale of his crew, parts of which could be interpreted as insulting and denigrating towards homosexuals.

Honor's superiors in the Navy knew about the videos years ago, and there have been intimations that he was disciplined. Some even today say that what he did, while over the line and inappropriate, should not be a firing offense. And evidently, it wasn't, until the videos, which have long been available on the ship's computers, surfaced in the way of complaints made by various service personnel up the higher chain of command. But the difference between now and then is, of course, the repeal of DADT.

Since the repeal, I guess its only to be expected that there would be some kind of ritual sacrifice that would serve to usher in the new age with its new policy of tolerance and inclusion, and to be sure, Honors made himself all too easy to use as a bad example, even going to the extent of convincing actress Glenn Close to make a cameo appearance in the video. Close claims she was wholly unaware of the true nature of the video, and now she has also come out against Honors, calling the incident "insulting".

Whatever the merits of the case against the now former Enterprise Commander, we can only hope this does not also herald the onset of a new era of repression against those who do not tow the pc line, because if it goes too far, it will not bode well for the long-term health of the US military. In fact, some estimates of the numbers of those who will not re-enlist because of the change in policy run as high as forty percent.

Seeing as how that's the case, it seems unwise to me to remove from service a man who has served honorably and well, having at one point proved instrumental as a commander of another ship during the Georgian-Russian conflict. He commanded a ship that delivered humanitarian supplies to the Georgians, in a mission Honors was quoted as calling a "show of solidarity". It was his work in this capacity that earned him his promotion and eventual command of the USS Enterprise.

Many see what's coming down the road and what has happened to Honors might be just the first shot across the bow. You can expect, probably sooner than you think, a flurry of lawsuits alleging abuse of gay service members, in all branches of the service. There will be such lawsuits based both on alleged past indiscretions, as well as accusations pertaining to such conduct in the future.

And you can almost make book on how long it will be before several gay service members file complaints alleging they were passed up for career promotions to higher rank due to, supposedly, their homosexuality. That one is so obvious you could almost shrug, yawn, and go on back to ignoring it were it not for the obvious implications that you also have to figure what will also be coming down the road-demands from the political hacks in Washington to promote x number of homosexuals to the higher chains of command. This will mostly be the work of Democrats (of course) but a few RINOs as well are likely to get in on that action.

And of course, you can most definitely expect demands from the homosexual activist community wing of the far left fringe to make demands as to future cabinet appointments. Do not be in the least bit surprised, especially if Obama wins re-election in 2012, if he does not appoint an openly gay former military official to the post of Secretary of Defense, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or National Security Adviser, etc. There will be such open and insistent demands for such appointments, in addition to other posts, such as Secretary of State and Attorney General, a Supreme Court Justice, etc, that it is bound to happen sooner or later. This in itself would not matter to great extent were it not for the fact that such appointments will be mainly political, with the merit of the individuals involved being of secondary consideration at best.

But even this, in addition to everything else, will be of minor concern in comparison to the overall atmosphere, which will be poisonous. Now it starts to come into focus, just exactly what many military officials and experts were warning us about for so long related to military cohesion and combat readiness. The effect on morale is going to be so all-pervasive and thick you can cut it with a knife. There should also be concerns about the potential for the abuse of heterosexual soldiers at the hands of homosexual superiors, something that was punished severely by none other than George Washington in 1778. in the case of a homosexual Lieutenant he drummed out of the army after he was convicted of attempting to commit sodomy with an enlisted private.

But that was then and this is now. Will there be such abuses in the future? Or if there are, will they be the exception? Is the whole thing a matter of gross exaggeration, just the other side of the same political game piece?

The good news is after so long there should be at least the semblance of a return towards normalcy. Before long, the majority of gay soldiers, that majority who are patriots and who just want to serve their country, or at the very least just want the career opportunities the military provides, will see the radical left in as negative a light as the typical heterosexual soldier tends to see them. They will avoid the gay service members clubs and off-base gay activist organizations like the plaque. They will keep their personal lives private, and devote their on-duty time to nothing more or less than simply doing their jobs.

Most of them will come to see the wisdom behind DADT, which might be best described by another old axiom-MYOB.

But for the time being, and very likely for a long time to come, the US military will be suffering unduly from what will turn out to be a serious wound. I don't think it will die from the conflict, but it might eventually suffer greatly from a serious case of PTSD.

That would be POLITICAL Traumatic Stress Disorder.