Political Dogs

How To Catch A Wild Pig

2008-05-12T09:31:00.000-07:00

I received the following in an e-mail and I thought I'd share it with you:

There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?"

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke.

"You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd."

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to eating the free corn that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism / Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, welfare, medicine, drugs, free medical, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms - just a little at a time.

Before you vote for the next President of the United States, ask the candidates how they feel about Socialism. Then ask yourself (yes, do the research) to uncover what they have said about Communism / Socialism over the course of their lifetimes, in school including college, in public meetings of all varieties, etc. Then find out what the people who are closest to them think about these topics. Spouses count. So do mentors and close associates. So do ministers and other spiritual and personal advisers and proponents of one's candidacy (ies). The way one interacts with the world with friends, advisers, and family says more about one's beliefs than all the practiced political rhetoric can possibly tell us.

Obama has associated with men who advocate communism, men who have attempted to overthrow the government of the United States, violently, for the express purpose of replacing it with a Communist regimen friendly to the Soviet Union. Obama's spouse has openly advocated Communism while she was in college and afterwards. Obama's spiritual advisers are men who advocate violence against whitey and, again, advocate Communism. Obama does not like to hear from those who triffle with such terms as liberal or Socialist, but almost everything which comes out of his mouth stinks of Socialism. Consider that before you vote.

Face Of A Moron

2008-05-12T08:12:00.000-07:00

Do you want to see what an imbecile looks like? Sorry, I mean from the inside. There's no photograph here, just an example of how idiots think:

How to Be a Climate Hero - Something truly horrible is happening to the planet's climate

The author offers us insights to her mangled thinking by offering up her understanding of "the Bystander Effect" which she "had studied in school" and telling us a tale of "heroic" act in which she "stepped forward" and took charge of the situation by exclaiming "someone call 911."

Wow, what an impressively cool head she possesses! She's been innoculated again "the Bystander Effect!" She can exclaim "quick somebody call for help" without being trained! And that's not her only heroic act! She's single-handedly setting an example for the rest of us in the war against carbon emissions by "composting kitchen waste, shopping at farmers' markets, recycling, buying only secondhand."

We really need more self-righteous, stupid people like this. We can establish a fund and outfit them with proper clothing as well as fish which they can hand feed to the starving polar bears in the wild.

Dishonest Barack

2008-05-02T09:23:00.000-07:00

Clinton puffed on a marijuana joint but didn't inhale it! That was foreshadowing of the confused "truth" as Bill would tell it over and over again in differing forums. I did not have sexual relations with THAT woman, Ms. Lewinsky. So on and so forth. You had to analyze everything Clinton said because until you knew the assumptions he kept secret from us (what I did with Lewinsky does not fit my own definition of sex, how do you define "inhale"), you really didn't know if he was being honest with you or not. Most times he was being dishonest and had a trump card in his vest with which he could avoid punishment - just like a little darling 5 year old boy always does.

So now we presumably want another 5 year old boy whose twisted words can never be called lies!?! Now we want to deal with a little boy who denies having eaten the chocolates though he has the evidence clearly on his face and is standing next to the garbage receptacle with the heart shaped box sticking out of it? His response to our inquiries is "I wanted fruit and we had none and those things smelled like they had fruit in them. Are those what you mean by chocolates?"

Don't see how what I am describing is none other than Barack Obama? Well consider that his first reaction to Rev. Wright's incendiary comments were called by the great man a "seemingly endless loop of sound bites" of just three comments he once made, taken out of context, which spewed forth after a difficult, segregated life of being the butt of racial prejudice. Obama could not throw his pastor under the bus anymore than he could throw his white, racist grandmother there. We need to get past this racial divide thing. And the man is merely the head of the church where I found Jesus Christ, got married, and baptized my children. Y'all know how that tune plays, doncha?

It turns out that Wright lived neither a difficult life nor one of segregation. Turns out the man had a pretty solid education in a racially mixed setting. Turns out Barack was better friends with Wright than he led us to believe. Turns out Wright and his cohort of racists are the reason Barack stands before us as a US Senator running for the office of President. He's not Barack's mere acquaintance. He represents the world in which the great man was raised and educated. He is the mere personification of the things Barack and his wife say to each other and their friends at the dinner table about "White America."

Then Obama heard his twenty years mentor exclaim for all to hear, those comments were not taken out of context. I believe them. They are the core of my beliefs. Whites are devils on Earth and should be wiped out. AIDS was invented by the lilly white US to punish blacks. Louis Farrakhan is perhaps the greatest human being to ever grace the planet with his presence. Jews suck!

So Obama says I didn't realize he was quite that luny. Now I can throw him under the bus. I want you to know that I categorically disagree with my spiritual mentor's heartfelt belief system. I never inhaled what Rev. Wright spewed - I guess I wasn't listening when he said those things every Sunday for 20 years. I did not have intimate intellectual relations with Wright's racist rant.

Military Deaths Shaky On Facts

2008-05-02T05:54:00.000-07:00

There is an e-mail making the rounds which claims military deaths during Bush's presidency are less than they were under Bill Clinton. The irony of our military experiencing more deaths during a period with no open conflicts than it has during the evil Bush years (with two somewhat major conflicts going on) is obvious. The e-mail cites a report on the web site of the Federation of American Scientists. That supposed report has evaporated and the page now forwards interested visitors to a page on Army Times which in turn debunks the mythical "factual report." I took a look at the Army Times "correction" and found what was there to be at least as interesting as the original e-mail.

The Army Times article says, "There's just one problem: The figures listed in the email are wrong. They vary markedly from the figures published in the cited CRS source document." It then goes on to analyze the actual figures saying:

In reality, according to the CRS report, 7,500 service members died on active duty in the eight years from 1993 through 2000, compared to 8,792 in the six years from 2001 through 2006.

The Pentagon has not yet released data on total active-duty deaths for 2007, but 1,014 service members died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that year, and more than 100 have died in the wars so far in 2008, pushing the known total under Bush to more than 9,900.

The report does not address the ratio of active-duty deaths to force size; the active-duty force shrank significantly during the drawdown of the 1990s, from more than 1.7 million in 1993 to about 1.3 million by the early years of this decade.

The first issue which strikes me from the foregoing is even with two conflicts ongoing and hundreds of thousands of fighting men and women in harms' way, the mortality ratio is very similar during the terms of the two presidents. Yes, more were killed under Bush and each one is a tragedy. But the difference during the "peace dividend" years and the period since we were attacked is not very large.

Any man's (or woman's) death diminishes me and you. But let's be rational here. The media, the peaceniks, and even the very liberals who voted to engage in the two actions in the Middle East have been screaming about how evil George Bush has been killing our sons and daughters en masse through his shameful invasion of a country run by a secularist dictator (not a religiously driven Islamic fundamentalist one). Let's get a grip. The mortality figures are not even close to any conflict this country has ever engaged in, let alone Vietnam or Korea.

These conflicts, together, are comparable only to ... The War of 1812!

The second observation is finally a recognition that our military was badly bruised under Clinton. The "drawdown of the 1990s" occurred not after a major conflict but in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. And it was a reduction of forces of almost 25% at a time during which we were in fact being attacked, such attacks becoming more and more frequent as the Clinton presidency wore on.

That was just the reduction in raw numbers of people. It says nothing about the reduction in talent which was extremely significant. Many career military people dropped out of the armed forces because they could see the writing on the wall. We lost more than 25% of our braintrust during the Clinton years.

The reduction in raw numbers of people and talent isn't nearly comparable to the size of reduction in equipment, technology development, etc. we experienced under Clinton. That was the bigger travesty. The Clinton years left our military in shambles and totally reliant upon reserve forces, many of whom signed up just to get money for college since during those years college costs got really out of sight.

Do I need to remind anyone that the purpose of our military has never been to provide college scholarships for those whose parents are less wealthy and who otherwise do not qualify for aid given to underprivileged people? The Clinton presidency gave us much, much more than don't ask, don't tell. It gave us a smaller, largely demoralized, under-equipped military lacking in mid-level leadership.

I had an argument with a liberal from Minnesota a couple years back. He was praising the brilliance of Clinton because he had "balanced the budget." I said, "yes, he balanced the budget in terms of what gets reported out to the people but he very much did so ON THE BACKS OF THE MILITARY." This guy disputed that. He was wrong. He used the old liberal standby debate winner by saying, "I've read a lot on the subject, have you." I laughed in his face and said, "yes, you read a lot on the subject, a lot of BULLSHIT. If you don't know or deny that Bill Clinton balanced the budget on the backs of our military, you REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE DID."

You can't win this debate by using the talking points issued in the liberakl code of conduct field manual. The facts are Clinton decimated the military in order to present cleaner books to Congress and the public. He even called it "The Peace Dividend" and the Clinton-adoring, leftist mainstream media published it as fact. Then things got complicated.

Turns out this "drawdown" wasn't such a great idea after all since it we were certainly NOT at peace. Oh, Clinton only had to fire a few million dollar missiles here and there to remain in office and keep his Democrat party doing OK. But the enemy was shooting real bullets back at us and planting bombs of every type in our bases, in boats aimed at our ships, etc., etc., and so forth. We were at war but we didn't know we were at war. We let our soldiers go out on furlow and retired our officer corps while the enemy was putting our CIVILIANS in its sights. Some freakin' peace dividend!

So, that's my take on the bogus spam e-mail making the rounds and the correction. We hacve a serious disagreement in this country between those who do not see the invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent one of Iraq as the worst travesty foisted upon the American people and those who believe it is demonstrative of the "worst presidency in the history of the country."

I say history will be clear in its interpretations and judgments of the past and following 20 or 30 years. Nobody alive today will view those interpretations and judgments. They'll be published in the history books of students 100-150 years from now. The whole period of 1960 - 2020 will be a relatively minor one in the history books of American school children, if there is still a United States of America in 2150. They'll find this period somewhat boring. They'll laugh at the primitive technology we lived with. They'll study the slanted journalism of our times - no liberals not O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, but rather all the slanted media including 60 Minutes, NBC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.

School kids in 2150 will have a sentence or two in their testbooks (something which will be on the test!) describing how the media openly attacked Bush and propped up Democrats by distorting the facts, to the detriment of the country. They'll read how Clinton drew down the military while we were under attack. They'll read that the Bush presidency was not nearly as bad as the media made it out to be. They'll read how the Clinton presidency was not nearly as good as the media made it out to be. They'll read how the candidacy iof inexperienced Obama was not nearly what the media made it out to be. They'll be encouraged to critically question media reports about the current President, a Republican woman, part black, part white, part hispanic who was born into relative poverty and pulled herself up to prominence without any governmental assistance.

What the kids of 2150 won't learn about is how bad of an idea it was to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, or about how many people GW Bush killed, because 100-150 years from now, it won't look that way.

I'm not even a little drowsy

2008-05-01T08:26:00.000-07:00

Mrs. Obama said, in an interview on the liberal TV show "Today" on liberal TV station NBC, "We hear time and time again voters are tired of this ... they don't want to hear about this division, they want to know what are we going to do to move beyond these issues ... and what made me feel proud of Barack in this situation is that he is trying to move us as a nation beyond these conversations that divide." That was in reference to racist, anti-American remarks her pastor made recently (no not just snippets fr4om decades ago) (no, not just her husband's pastor, her pastor as well).

Barack chimed in as well, "When the first snippets came out, I thought it was important to give him the benefit of the doubt because if I had wanted to be politically expedient I would have distanced myself and denounced him right away, right?"

Right Obama, you could have easily distanced yourself from Wright's comments but you chose not to. That's because you didn't immediately recognize the furor they would have created. And that's because you are used to hearing these things - you have heard them your entire life. You have heard the old folks say these ridiculous things. You have heard your mentors say these things. You have heard your friends say these things. You have heard your spouse say these things. You believe at least a piece of them because you are a racist who was raised within the fabric of a racist society, black American society.

Now just who exactkly is getting tired? I'm not tired of hearing these things. Perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Obama are tired of hearing them. They better get untired because they have not yet begun to hear them. This is just getting started. Mr. Obama, do you really believe you can just make this go away? Your opposition isn't tired. We've been resting. We're not even slightly drowsy. This is the dawn of what will come, not the late evening. Let the party begin!

Go Barack, Go!

2008-05-01T08:09:00.000-07:00

Joe Andrew, Democratic National Committee chairman under President Bill Clinton has come out in favor of Barack Obama. he's telling Indiana voters to support Barack in the primary election, Tuesday. Andrew noted that he was "impressed with Obama's handling of the controversy surrounding his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright." I couldn't agree more. This impressed the heck out of me. I'm looking forward to more of this. Go Obama, go. The nomination belongs to you. You've earned it. There is nothing I'd rather see after the convention than the name, Obama, running for President.

Say No To Obama

2008-04-30T15:52:00.000-07:00

Say no to taxation without representation.

Say no to the Global Poverty Act.

Say no to Obama.

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has sponsored a bill in the Senate which has been reported out of committee to be considered by the US Senate. This bill is known as the "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) and its purpose on the surface seems nice and well intentioned. the idea is the US would act to help alleviate global poverty. That's nice and well intentioned but I thought the US already did regularly act to alleviate global poverty through the billions in aid already offered out of the American taxpayer's purse. This act would have us do more. The jist of the act requires the US to "commit to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product" for more handouts. The current effect would have us sp[end billions more than we currently do. We cannot afford this sort of legislation and we cannot tolerate anyone who would be President who would sponsor such a bill. we already do plenty. This is an absurdity.

This'll Make You Sick

2008-04-30T10:38:00.000-07:00

Want to get sick? Consider the following reported by USA Today:

Governments added 76,800 jobs in the first three months of 2008.

Private companies collectively shed 286,000 workers over the same period.

Is it not obvious that there is something seriously wrong with our system? Is it not obvious that politicians are controlling our economy specifically for the purpose of creating partronage jobs so they can solidify their strangehold on government? The Soviet Union was not defeated by the United States. We have merely become them.

Undamaged?

2008-04-30T10:30:00.001-07:00

Did I hear that correctly? All the leftist media types claim that Obama has escaped the Rev. Wright thing unscathed? They believe this will blow over?

Baahaahaahaahaahaahaahaahaa

By By, 'bama

2008-04-30T05:01:00.000-07:00

It's over. Let's face it. Perhaps the fat lady has not yet sung. Perhaps Obama will hang on for several more weeks, even months. But let's face it, he should drop out of the race right now. He can't survive this. Nobody can.

America just cannot elect a President who is associated with the sort of blatant racial hatred Obama's closest mentors, advisors, friends continue to exhibit. Not even liberals have arrived at the degree of self-loathing that will permit them to elect a man who sat there in the pew quietly listening while the minister spoke of such absurdities as AIDS is a conspiracy committed by whites against blacks. No white voter who isn't looking to enter purgatory can possibly vote for a man whose mentor gleefully exclaims "NO, NO, NO, God DAMN America."

Don't believe it is over? Well, consider that this hasn't even gotten going yet. Conservatives have not yet begun to dig hard for clips of other things Rev. Wright has said in the past. You have to know this stuff is out there and hasn't yet surfaced. Most likely the clips have already been found but they are being held in somebody's lock box just waiting for the Democrats to nominate Obama. And even if there are no more clips of the good Rev. screaming about supposed injustice, that Pearl Harbor was payback for white slave traders or maybe the Hiroshima bomb was dropped to kill a black radical, there will be other "issues" with other Obama friends and supporters. These people weren't too lazy to scrub over their footprints, they really believe this stuff. Or if they don't, they say these things to steam up the masses. But there's more stuff waiting in the wings. And this hasn't even gotten started yet. It isn't going to get any better.

By By, 'bama. Hillary is running for President.

KAOS

2008-04-29T10:42:00.000-07:00

I admit to being a double secret agent of Operation Chaos ("OC"). My status is so secret that nobody within the operation knows of me. I have no "handler." My name appears on no official, classified or otherwise, OC documents.

I thought OC would be a pleasant diversion as compared to actually paying attention to the media during this election season. It makes me puke when I listen to the MSM's doting upon and reverance for some guy whose only credentials are a Harvard degree, an in with the Illinois Democrat machine, and the right color skin to continue this ridiculous charade of political correctness the liberals have foisted upon us.

OC has already accomplished its mission though clandestine operations will continue until the overall goal has been accomplished. But I have to admit that the media's coverage of Chaos is surprising me. There are 1,618 hits for "Operation Chaos" on Google News and several hundred thousand of them on the web generally. Liberal journalists are up in arms over the very idea of OC. This is good stuff. The more they freak out about this, the further the word will spread and the greater amount of chaos which will be generated.

I am signing on only to congratulate all fellow members of OC and to remind them that they must continue and redouble their efforts. We have already accomplished much but there is more we can accomplish. Keep the two Democrat fighters in there, throwing punches at each other. Recruit others to help in the fight. Don't get tired. We are wearing out the enemy. We are making them spend their money on an internal struggle. Keep up the pressure. There's no way this can backfire.

They Turned Me Into A Newt

2008-04-29T07:13:00.000-07:00

I don't know how you feel but I can no longer listen to anything Newt Gingrich has to say. I was asleep at the switch when he converted over to the church of the anthropogenically induced warming globe. A few months ago, I read of his conversion. The other day I saw him and Pelosi on a commercial about it. I used to think the man intelligent and now I know he is nothing but a politician, though not apparently running for anything for quite some time. His one decision has made everything he has to say automatically invalid.

Just had to get that off my chest.

THE Black Church?

2008-04-28T08:31:00.000-07:00

Obama's minister, the Rev. Jeremiah, says "criticism surrounding his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church." Black Church? Which black church is that? I'm sorry but I'm looking right here at the bible and I am having difficulty finding references to races and / or any mention of separate but equal churches for those whose skin color is darker or lighter. In fact, I cannot find any reference to a "black church" anywhere in the bible or any other religious writings for that matter. I was actually unaware of a specifically black church, one which is 100% black and excludes whites. What is the denomination? Are all black christians members of that church? Are they prhibited from attending services at all the other "non-black churches?" If there is only one black church, that explains why Obama stayed there. He had no choice. If you're black, presumably you go to the black church or none at all. I believe there are well over 100,000 Christian denominations. Yet I cannot find a single one which is overtly exclusively black. Maybe someone could help me out on this? Barack, could you please explain it to me.

Polar Ice

2008-04-28T05:55:00.000-07:00

This really gets under my skin. Whenever someone sticks (should I say clings) to his guns (and presumably religion), the media labels him or her a "polarizing figure." When a liberal holds tight to his or her liberal political philosophy, they are called visionary, free thinkers, etc. This phenomenon is very similar to the media's tendency to label conservatives as incapable of compromise while claiming that liberals are peacemakers, coalition builders, etc. The truth is liberals invoke a strategy of constantly seeking give from conservatives while never actually engaging in the practice themselves. The media paints almost every conservative as a "polarizing figure." For example, 60 Minutes' Lesley Stahl interviewed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and brought up the subject of Scalia's originalism. CBS News describes the exchange and labels Scalia "a polarizing figure who invites protesters and picketers." Stahl says, "I'm surprised at how many people really, really hate you. These are some things we've been told: 'He's evil.' 'He's a Neanderthal.' 'He's going to drag us back to 1789.' They're threatened by what you represent and what you believe in."

Liberals are fond of calling any strong conservative a whole host of silly names. They think "polarizing figure" will make anyone who pretends to be intelligent dislike the guy right out of the box. Conservatives are always accused of not being forward thinkers while liberals are embraced as dragging us reluctantly into the future. When is this garbage going to stop? When are they going to listen to the sound of us changing the channel? When are we going to see some reasonable balance in the media? We got rid of story fabricator, Dan Rather. Now we need the rest of the liberals, like Stahl, to pass on into retirement.

Prepare To Be Insulted

2008-04-28T05:43:00.000-07:00

Prepare yourself for the insults to come. Snobby liberal elites everywhere are going to analyze this and say the cause is that we stupid clingers to guns and religion have suffered a dip in our intelligence. The ever so intelligent New York Times is in big trouble. Fewer and fewer people are reading it. According to one online news source, the Times' circulation dropped steeply over the past year. "The New York Times lost more than 150,000 copies on Sunday. Circulation on that day fell a whopping 9.2% to 1,476,400. The paper's daily circulation declined 3.8% to 1,077,256." The Times is not the only liberal rag to drop precipitously. "At the Washington Post, daily circulation decreased 3.5% to 673,180 and Sunday dropped 4.3% to 890,163." The high brow crowd will undoubtedly blame it on a dumbing down of the general population. It's OK for them to think and say that. We know the truth. You can't rely on the slanted pages of the Times or Post to give you news unless that news is very favorable to Democrats and liberals. We're tired of it. We won't pay for it anymore.

Should I Stockpile Food?

2008-04-26T06:36:00.000-07:00

The Wall Street Journal says "yes"...

"Load up the pantry," says Manu Daftary, one of Wall Street's top investors and the manager of the Quaker Strategic Growth mutual fund. "I think prices are going higher. People are too complacent. They think it isn't going to happen here. But I don't know how the food companies can absorb higher costs." (Full disclosure: I am an investor in Quaker Strategic)

Nice.

Stockpiling food is going to create the gas lines and shortages we had in the 1970s. It's just going to make prices go up, and make folks punch each other in the face over that box of Lucky Charms.

Meanwhile, it'll make investors like Manu Daftary more wealthy.

Who Said What?

2008-04-25T07:45:00.000-07:00

At the risk of boring you again, I'll play who said this one more time and call it quits for the week. Who said the following:

"there is no proof global warming is caused by humans"

"There isn't enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources"

"the only alternative to nuclear power for producing continuous energy at the levels needed is natural gas"

The answer is Dr. Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace.

Green Power, Baby!

2008-04-25T07:07:00.001-07:00

Liberals love to throw gasoline (um biofuel) on fires and then duck and run for cover. Later, when real people have died or been injured, they call on government to create laws to protect folks from the scourge of artificial accelerated fire. Others point the finger of blame at them and they reply "it wasn't my fault. The situation is far more complicated and nuanced than that!"

Here's the party line refuting claims that biofuels are to blame for the current world food crisis:

"The people who seek to solely blame ethanol for the food crisis and the rising price of food that we see across the globe are taking a terribly simplistic look at this very complex issue."

College professors are busy calculating the precise impact of biofuels on food prices. Now they need to get to exact figures so they can gauge precisely how much impact using corn to run cars has. I need no economic model for my calculations.

According to Wikipedia, the "U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires American fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. This is nearly a fivefold increase over current levels." According to one news report I read, it takes enough food to keep a person alive for one year to manufacture 25 gallons of biofuel. If the US currently produces and uses 7 billion gallons of biofuel per year, that's enough to feed 280 million people. That's all the math I need. Sorry if you see the situation as more complicated than I do. Sorry if my thinking is not nuanced enough for you.

Got (Had) Cancer?

2008-04-25T06:27:00.000-07:00

Some analysts did a study of cancer survivors in Canda and were alarmed to find that an "unhealthy" percentage were obese and lived sedentary lifestyles. Of course the conclusions reached were we've just got to get those cancer survivors to eat a more healthy diet and start exercising so they can lose weight. Then again, nobody stopped to ask why fat, sedentary people survived cancer in the first place?!? I suppose it didn't dawn on anyone that as one watches another human being die from cancer, the most obvious symptom is the "wasting away" of the person. Cancer patients often die many tens of pounds lighter than they were when they first got sick. Many current sufferers of the disease would like medical marijuana made available at least in part because this gives them the munchies and they can stomach more food than they would otherwise have been able to. Never before in human discourse has someone said, sure, you're dying from cancer but you look great, you must have lost 20 pounds.

Global Food Crisis

2008-04-25T06:16:00.000-07:00

One World dot net, the idiotic goody two-shoes organization which is striving for a more just, global society, through the distribution of, gasp, information, wants you to know that there is a global food crisis. The e-mail they sent out informa the public of what they can do to alleviate this very serious problem. They have lots of materials you can use to "stay informed, find groups you can support working on food security worldwide, get all the background on food security issues around the world." The one thing they and most of the media seem to forget is we didn't have a food crisis before the global warming alarmists started touting "renewable energy sources" such as biofuels. The biggest issue was obesity just a few short months ago. Today we are short on food because the greenies got their way.

Cure the disease and stop treati8ng the symptoms. Global warming is bull. Stop using biofuels and everything will be fine.

Bi-partisanship Now!

2008-04-24T09:56:00.000-07:00

Republicans have reached out to Speaker Nancy Pelosi in an effort to further bi-partisanship quarterbacked by Democrats. The Republicans have issued a call to Nancy to reveal her commonsense master plan for reducing gas prices. Some Republicans acknowledge publicly their ineffectual leadership on the issue. They admit that Republicans just can't do it. They are willing to admit Democrats are smarter. They are willing to come to the table with their tails between their legs. All they want in return is for Nancy to reveal her plan and then the two parties can get to work to pass a bill.

They remind Nancy of what she said 2 years ago: "Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels."

OK, now, let's get to work.

Lithe And Athletic?

2008-04-24T08:37:00.000-07:00

According to a story written by Liz Sidoti with help from Beth Fouhy, Obama and Hillary are tired. Tired? This thing hasn't gotten going yet. This has been the easy part. Give it time. One of these two is going to be very tired indeed within another 6 months or so.

I can certainly understand why the two candidates are tired. I couldn't handle a grind like that when I was in my prime. But I do take exception to the author's characterization of Obama as "lithe and athletic." The comment is clearly intended to subtly convince everyone that we're better off with the young guy. That's not just true as we decide who the Democrat candidate will be. It will also be presumably true when Obama's opponent is no longer an old woman. But "lithe and athletic?" Come on! We aren't that gullible!

Obama is a smoker, possibly a chain smoker from the accounts I've read, possibly now an ex-chain-smoker based on claims he made just two months ago that he has kicked the butts habit for Nicorette gum. It'll be years before his lungs and veins ppartially recover from the habit, assuming he has actually kicked it.

Nicorette may not require one to enhale smoke and thereby attack one's lungs but it still packs a nicotine whallop. He may not smoke cigarettes but the effects of his years as a smoker have not yet dissipated and he is still very much a nicotine addict. Nicotine causes the rapid release of adrenaline causing blood pressure to spike, heartbeat to race, breathing to be more shallow, and your body to rapidly convert sugars into energy. Nicotine supresses appetite and possibly blocks the release of insulin. It can also raise your metabolism some. The impact on arteries is pretty well documented, I should think.

Obama is not lithe and athletic. He is a skinny nicotine addict. He's no healthier than any other nicotine addict - smoker of cigarettes or cigars, tobacco chewer, etc. This grind is potentially dangerous for a man in his condition. I have my doubts about whether he has completely given up smokes but I have nothing to offer you on that score. Just please don't tell me he is a young, lithe, athletic man. He's no healthier than a man 30 or 40 years his elder who has never indulged in the weed.

A Debt Acknowledged With Humility And Gratitude

2008-04-24T07:36:00.000-07:00

Someone chose to send me a link to a letter which recently appeared in the Washington Post, entitled Iraq's Real Gains. The letter is written by Barham Salih, Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq and expresses the fact that the more than 4,000 American who gave their lives for this cause, did not die in vain. Their lives were not wasted.

Listen To What The Flower People Say

2008-04-24T05:12:00.000-07:00

Listen to what the flower people say.
Listen it's getting louder every day.

One of the central points of the green element within the Democrat party in the United States is more power must be shifted to the UN. Isn't the entire Democrat party part of the green element? Probably, or at least it sounds like that more and more. Come to think of it, many within the Republican party are pretty green themselves. Bush can hardly be referred to as a neocon when he talks about or deals with environmental issues. The same is true of McCain and, for that matter Newt Gingrich. Sometimes you have to wonder if these very powerful people haven't been bought off by some larger conspiracy which is using environmentalism for a more notorious scheme. They have.

Leftists like to contrast the evil US with all its influence, excessive consumption and wealth, and overwhelming military might, against the benevolent, weak, passive, non-militaristic United Nations, funded, incidentally, mostly by the US. Kofi Annan was so soft-spoken. The UN employs "peace-keepers" not soldiers. UN people are interested in seeing the planet "preserved for future generations." Any effort against international terrorism, any miltary solutio to a problem, must be controlled by the benevolent UN who listens objectively to both sides of any "disagreement."

Democrats are in your face about it. They claim the United States is out of step with the rest of the world. They tell us the UN is the only way to create a peaceful world with a healthy, preserved environment. Republicans are more subtle. They criticize Democrats for wanting to turn everything over to the UN. Then they cede small pieces of power to the UN or speak out in favor of some of its policies. It's all headed nicely in the direction the string pullers want it to. We're all headed for the day when a few powerful people will live well and the rest of us will live "sustainably" on "organic foods" in an agrarian society in which our ownly possessions, rights, and luxuries will be those handed to us by big brother in an attempt to pacify us into complacency. We are headed to the day on which everything we get will be government provided opiates.

Doubt this summary of the direction in which we are headed? Take a good look at who funds the expensive political campaigns like the one we are in right now. Take a look at the words spoken by the environmentalists in back allies. Listen to what they say amongst themselves. See who is really at the center of the hundreds of millions worth of political contributions. They are all associated. They are all friends. They share a common vision for the planet and that vision has nothing to do with personal modes of transportation, comfortable homes, plentiful food, wealth in the hands of the masses, or the continuation of our prosperous society. They may speak of restoring the environment, sharing wealth with impoverished people, and creating peace in our time. But they are after something else.

Presented here are the words of one Maurice Strong, Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations. That's Maurice Strong, environmentalist, former wealthy Canadian oil man, a man behind or among the many puppet masters at the UN, a man who contributes copiously, perhaps illegally to many American political campaigns, notably a contributor to both sides of the aisle on a regular basis. Here are just a few of his words:

"Licences to have babies ... might be necessary at some point, at least some restriction on the right to have a child."

"Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

"The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security."

Regarding the Earth Summit, Strong said the meeting will play a key role in "reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance."

Listen closely to what those flower people say.

Why Barack Obama Lost Pennsylvania

2008-04-23T14:50:00.001-07:00

Ron Fournier of the Associated Press writes a commentary today about why Barack Obama has been unable to put Hillary Clinton away.

What's the reason?

Racism, of course.

Surprise, surprise!

He seemingly devoted more than half of his rationale towards racism. I'll just quote some of it, and you can follow the link to the full commentary...

RACE: The jury is still out on whether a black man can overcome America's original sin and be elected president.

About one in five Pennsylvania voters said the race of the candidates was among the top factors in deciding how to vote, according to exit polls, and white voters who cited race supported Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.

An AP-Yahoo News poll found that about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black president. The actual percentage is probably higher because voters are shy about admitting a racial prejudice to pollsters.

http://news.yahoo.com/..../ap_ca/on_deadline_pennsylvania

Based on what I've seen, it was Barack Obama who's been playing the race card, accusing Clinton of taking advantage of his "multicultural ethnicity".

And wasn't it Barack Obama who also played the race card when talked about small town Pennsylvanians clinging to guns and God?

Look, Barack dug himself into this mess. You have to admit, he's still a greenhorn to national politics. He doesn't know how to handle himself on the national stage.

Hillary is counting on conservatives to make this guy buckle under pressure and let all his inexperience explode from his mouth. She may not win the pledged delegate votes, but she's got the super delegates rethinking Obama.

I'm sticking to my guns. If Obama wins the nomination, McCain will win in a landslide.