The CSHOD Award goes to...the EPA.
They are expected to declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant, and begin the attempt to regulate it's emission. Despite the fact that the mere act of breathing requires the emission of CO2.
This is so asinine I'm not even going to rant about it.
Story here.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Once Again Proving Hussein is a Dick
I know I'm late on posting today...sue me, I was busy.
A Senate bill was ever so quietly re-introduced yesterday, slightly reworded and still vague as hell. The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 is on the docket again. For those of you unfamiliar with the bill, it's the one that would give Ol' Bammy the power to turn off the internet "in case of emergency". It gives the prez power to declare "a cybersecurity emergency" relating to non-governmental networks and plan accordingly. Which is ACLU language for "the prez will have a killswitch to turn off any computer network he doesn't like, no matter how grossly unconstitutional it may be." One senator suggested that the power would be akin to Bush's grounding of all air traffic in the wake of 9/11; Sen. Jay Rockefeller (Dipshit, W.V.), the author of the original mess, said the bill is "critical to protecting everything from water and electricity to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records."
There are so many places to call "bullshit" here...where to start?
Let's start with this: can you imagine the loud, prolonged, and furious outcry from the Left if this had been a right-wing idea while Bush was in office? We'd still be hearing about abuse of power, fascism, Nazism, secret cabals, world domination...all of that crap. But let one of Hussein's lackeys bring it up; well then, that's a different story. We need to protect the country, right?
Do they know that water and traffic lights are run by governmental agencies? And do they know that electrical companies and especially banks have more sophisticated security measures in place than the government would know what to do with? Are they aware, as the article points out, that the experts in this field, who would be required to make this plan work, are already employed by the private sectors of the economy this plan is intended to protect? That's like asking a mall cop to relieve an Army MP on guard duty. It would increase the chances of a security breach.
And why the concern over electronic health records? Maybe the concern lies with the fact that if, by some satanic intervention, Obamacare passes, the government won't want people investigating all the lies, corruption, and bullshit the Left would need to use to keep the program afloat? I can't imagine someone with the know-how to do so much damage to the country by hacking a network somewhere would be concerned about health records. How much damage could lost health files really do? Not much; it might be a great inconvenience, but hardly a harbinger of socio-economic collapse.
So we're right back where we keep landing so many times with Hussein: it's just one more attempt to eliminate freedom in this country. Take control of the media, the airwaves, the internet...control as much information as you can so no one can figure out what you're up to. Because in Bammy's case, it's always no good.
Story here.
A Senate bill was ever so quietly re-introduced yesterday, slightly reworded and still vague as hell. The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 is on the docket again. For those of you unfamiliar with the bill, it's the one that would give Ol' Bammy the power to turn off the internet "in case of emergency". It gives the prez power to declare "a cybersecurity emergency" relating to non-governmental networks and plan accordingly. Which is ACLU language for "the prez will have a killswitch to turn off any computer network he doesn't like, no matter how grossly unconstitutional it may be." One senator suggested that the power would be akin to Bush's grounding of all air traffic in the wake of 9/11; Sen. Jay Rockefeller (Dipshit, W.V.), the author of the original mess, said the bill is "critical to protecting everything from water and electricity to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records."
There are so many places to call "bullshit" here...where to start?
Let's start with this: can you imagine the loud, prolonged, and furious outcry from the Left if this had been a right-wing idea while Bush was in office? We'd still be hearing about abuse of power, fascism, Nazism, secret cabals, world domination...all of that crap. But let one of Hussein's lackeys bring it up; well then, that's a different story. We need to protect the country, right?
Do they know that water and traffic lights are run by governmental agencies? And do they know that electrical companies and especially banks have more sophisticated security measures in place than the government would know what to do with? Are they aware, as the article points out, that the experts in this field, who would be required to make this plan work, are already employed by the private sectors of the economy this plan is intended to protect? That's like asking a mall cop to relieve an Army MP on guard duty. It would increase the chances of a security breach.
And why the concern over electronic health records? Maybe the concern lies with the fact that if, by some satanic intervention, Obamacare passes, the government won't want people investigating all the lies, corruption, and bullshit the Left would need to use to keep the program afloat? I can't imagine someone with the know-how to do so much damage to the country by hacking a network somewhere would be concerned about health records. How much damage could lost health files really do? Not much; it might be a great inconvenience, but hardly a harbinger of socio-economic collapse.
So we're right back where we keep landing so many times with Hussein: it's just one more attempt to eliminate freedom in this country. Take control of the media, the airwaves, the internet...control as much information as you can so no one can figure out what you're up to. Because in Bammy's case, it's always no good.
Story here.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
A Bit of Foolishness From the United Nations
Hmmmm...I struggled with the title for this post. I really despise the United Nations; I loathe them with a seething hatred I usually reserve for Hussein and the Green Bay Packers. I wanted to find an appropriate tag line to go along with what I'm about to pontificate on, but settled for something a bit more subtle. Plus, "Those Fucking U.N. Jagweed Ass-Hats Should Be Whipped Forth From America With Razor-Studded Lashes and Their Building Demolished and Razed to Make Room For the First Hooters/Gun Range Store in the World" wouldn't fit in the little box.
But, Sir Ghost Knight, (you may ask), why reserve such a fine vintage of vitriol for the U.N.? Aren't they just a collection of ambassadors coming together to try and improve the world?
To which your humble scribbler would reply: "Dolt! Idiot! Damnable fool! NO! Now stop braying like a smack-snorting jackass and pay attention!" Something along those lines.
I'll get to the meat of the story in a minute. Before I do, let's go over what the United Nations really is:
1. The UN is an outdated and completely impotent organization, specializing in raising a hue and cry but rarely doing anything to alleviate a situation, and frequently making it worse.
2. The UN is a front for globalists, socialists, anti-Christians, and anti-Semites who will legitimize any Third World thug or muslim nut-job that throws enough money their way. The UN is a public relations machine for assholes.
3. The UN routinely and habitually mismanages the money that is donated to them, much of it by unsuspecting American tax-payers. Very little of it goes to feed the hungry or clothe the poor or minister the sick. Very much of it goes to glut fat ambassadors, clad mistresses and whores, and minister to dents and scratches in rented Mercedes limos.
4. The UN is an ardent supporter of international gun legislation, registration, and confiscation, which is immensely irritating and hardly surprising. UN "peacekeepers" aren't worth shit, so they'd be a lot safer if they were the only ones with firearms, I suppose. They want my guns, but they'll get fuck-all from me.
5. The UN believes itself to be the final arbiters of ethics and morality in the world, at least as far as American citizens and other free peoples go. If you're a loud and bitchy enough minority, or a death cultist, or wear a Che Guevara t-shirt under your blazer, however, they'll cave to whatever knucklehead idea you bring to the table and try to scold the rest of the world into believing it.
6. In short, the UN is a collection of complete fuck-jackers who have mastered the art of getting rich while working part time at a half-assed charitable institution with hookers and booze on every speed dial. Truth be told, as a staunch capitalist I can admire their enterprise, but as they're doing it with my unwilling dime they can all get bent.
But here's what really makes me ANGRY: "UN Report Advocates Teaching Masturbation to 5-Year-Olds." Really. That's what it says. I'll let that sink in for a minute whilst I draw a picture of the UN flag and then burn it...
...that was fun. So the Grand Poobahs of Ethics and Morality think it's okay to teach masturbation to 5-year-olds. They also feel it is entirely appropriate to teach 9-year-olds about the safety of legal abortion, and to advocate and "promote the right to and access to safe abortion" for everyone over the age of 15. UNESCO (United Nations Economic, Social, and Cultural Organization), the wing of sick twits who are promoting this garbage for the UN, also recommend that this "education" be MANDATORY. As in: "You gotta do this or else."
Some other things UNESCO wants to force down your kids' throats, aside from teaching 5-8 year-olds how to masturbate:
Teaching the 5-8 crowd about gender roles, stereotypes, and gender-based violence.
Teaching 9-year-olds about the "positive and negative effects of aphrodisiacs" (WTF!), and concerns about homophobia, transphobia (???), and abuse of power (the UN holds several World Titles in this).
At 12, children will learn about the "reasons" for abortion, having already been assured of its safety.
The UN is basing this appalling idea on the insistence that children be properly educated in "a world affected by HIV and AIDS... so they can understand and make informed decisions."
The authors of this travesty, Dr. Doug Kirby and Nanette Ecker, are "two leading experts in the field of sexuality education." I bet they throw some pretty twisted parties. They based their review on "rigorous review" of sex-ed literature, and "87 studies from around the world."
Wow. That's really...hmm. Well, as an old college friend of mine was fond of saying when he was perplexed: "Fuck me runnin'!" I have several reactions:
First, the knee-jerk part of my mind would like to meet the authors and pull their gizzards out through their elbows for not only suggesting this crap but having the temerity to insist that it be made mandatory. I feel qualified to say this because I am a leading expert in the field of Creative Ways to Disembowel People. But that gets awfully messy and I'm running low on paper towels so let's go to Plan B, which is just a punch in the teeth.
Really, does anyone need to be taught how to masturbate? Women might, I suppose; but I'm fairly certain dudes can figure it out pretty well on their own, as it's not a complicated process for us.
Gender roles? Please...I've been a stay-home dad for 11 years. I could lecture for days on gender roles. Bottom line: two people have kids and a house full of shit that needs to get done. Flip a coin, start picking chores, and do 'em. I'm over-simplifying here, but you get the idea. And I'll lay this one one you, curious readers, from an expert on the subject, which is me: don't think for one minute that because I stayed home and was the primary care-giver to my children that you can call me Mr. Mom and not get decked for it. I didn't sit around the house wondering what my wife would have done in any given situation: I dealt with it the way I thought best. I wasn't a father trying to be a mother; I was doing what all fathers should do: help raise their kids in the best way I could. For me, that meant staying home, because Lit majors don't make squat, while actuaries are quite adequately compensated for their time. It used to drive me nearly to insanity when some smarmy, middle-aged broad would come up to me in the grocery store and say, "Oh, your wife lets you take the kids out by yourself?" My response to that question ranged somewhere between an arched eyebrow and a scowl and "Shut up before I ram this avocado down your throat, because they're on sale for 10 cents apiece and I've got $2.00 burning a hole in my pocket this very instant," all the while preventing the little old man at the deli counter from jumping my place in line.
That, dear friends, is your lesson on gender roles for today. Moving on...
Even mentioning "9-year-olds" and "aphrodisiacs" in the same sentence sounds dangerous and creepy to me. What kind of twisted fuck-head would want a 9-year-old to learn about aphrodisiacs? I'll tell you what kind: a child-molesting fuck-head. Either that or an 80-year-old muslim-wants-a-10-year-old-wife kind of fuck-head (story here).
My concerns about homophobia and transphobia? I'm concerned about the gay/bi/trans community continually trying to force the rest of us to accept their lifestyles as normal. They aren't. Most people are straight, but like any minority that feels put upon, they use the rising wave of liberalism to act smug and self-righteous and demand to be accepted even as they mock, deride, and ridicule us "breeders". I really don't have a problem with gays; it's none of my business. Until, of course, they rant and rave and carry on in public and make it my business, then I'll speak my mind. My advice is this, Homo Joe and Lezzy Lizzy: stop throwing your sexuality in my face and I'll stop wanting to punch yours. Deal?
And the UN of all organizations talking about the abuse of power in any context? It is to laugh...
How many reasons are there for abortion? There is one: we don't want to accept responsibility for this life we've created, so we're going to get rid of it. Everything else is just a salve for a guilty conscience.
Someone please explain to me how teaching young American children about masturbation and abortion is going to help the HIV/AIDS problem in Africa, or anywhere else, for that matter?
As to the authors' "rigorous review" of sex-ed literature, that phrase just lends itself to juvenile comments, such as "What? They got all hot and sweaty trying to figure out the Kama Sutra?" or "Dr. Kirby was caught rigorously reviewing Miss March." That was a fantastically bad choice of words by Mark Richmond, an UNESCO director.
In all seriousness, I see this as another attempt to indoctrinate and control American youth in an effort to replace The Family with The State. Government doing what parents are supposed to do. And that is not good for our country. If this appalling travesty comes to your town or school, fight it with every waking moment. Let the UN and Soros and Hussein and all the other globalist/socialist ass-hats out there know that Free Americans will raise their own children.
UN story here.
A few last thoughts, with a hat tip to Ranger Steve's buddy Jim for this:
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." Matthew 18:6
I'll end with this one:
"See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father." Matthew 18:10
But, Sir Ghost Knight, (you may ask), why reserve such a fine vintage of vitriol for the U.N.? Aren't they just a collection of ambassadors coming together to try and improve the world?
To which your humble scribbler would reply: "Dolt! Idiot! Damnable fool! NO! Now stop braying like a smack-snorting jackass and pay attention!" Something along those lines.
I'll get to the meat of the story in a minute. Before I do, let's go over what the United Nations really is:
1. The UN is an outdated and completely impotent organization, specializing in raising a hue and cry but rarely doing anything to alleviate a situation, and frequently making it worse.
2. The UN is a front for globalists, socialists, anti-Christians, and anti-Semites who will legitimize any Third World thug or muslim nut-job that throws enough money their way. The UN is a public relations machine for assholes.
3. The UN routinely and habitually mismanages the money that is donated to them, much of it by unsuspecting American tax-payers. Very little of it goes to feed the hungry or clothe the poor or minister the sick. Very much of it goes to glut fat ambassadors, clad mistresses and whores, and minister to dents and scratches in rented Mercedes limos.
4. The UN is an ardent supporter of international gun legislation, registration, and confiscation, which is immensely irritating and hardly surprising. UN "peacekeepers" aren't worth shit, so they'd be a lot safer if they were the only ones with firearms, I suppose. They want my guns, but they'll get fuck-all from me.
5. The UN believes itself to be the final arbiters of ethics and morality in the world, at least as far as American citizens and other free peoples go. If you're a loud and bitchy enough minority, or a death cultist, or wear a Che Guevara t-shirt under your blazer, however, they'll cave to whatever knucklehead idea you bring to the table and try to scold the rest of the world into believing it.
6. In short, the UN is a collection of complete fuck-jackers who have mastered the art of getting rich while working part time at a half-assed charitable institution with hookers and booze on every speed dial. Truth be told, as a staunch capitalist I can admire their enterprise, but as they're doing it with my unwilling dime they can all get bent.
But here's what really makes me ANGRY: "UN Report Advocates Teaching Masturbation to 5-Year-Olds." Really. That's what it says. I'll let that sink in for a minute whilst I draw a picture of the UN flag and then burn it...
...that was fun. So the Grand Poobahs of Ethics and Morality think it's okay to teach masturbation to 5-year-olds. They also feel it is entirely appropriate to teach 9-year-olds about the safety of legal abortion, and to advocate and "promote the right to and access to safe abortion" for everyone over the age of 15. UNESCO (United Nations Economic, Social, and Cultural Organization), the wing of sick twits who are promoting this garbage for the UN, also recommend that this "education" be MANDATORY. As in: "You gotta do this or else."
Some other things UNESCO wants to force down your kids' throats, aside from teaching 5-8 year-olds how to masturbate:
Teaching the 5-8 crowd about gender roles, stereotypes, and gender-based violence.
Teaching 9-year-olds about the "positive and negative effects of aphrodisiacs" (WTF!), and concerns about homophobia, transphobia (???), and abuse of power (the UN holds several World Titles in this).
At 12, children will learn about the "reasons" for abortion, having already been assured of its safety.
The UN is basing this appalling idea on the insistence that children be properly educated in "a world affected by HIV and AIDS... so they can understand and make informed decisions."
The authors of this travesty, Dr. Doug Kirby and Nanette Ecker, are "two leading experts in the field of sexuality education." I bet they throw some pretty twisted parties. They based their review on "rigorous review" of sex-ed literature, and "87 studies from around the world."
Wow. That's really...hmm. Well, as an old college friend of mine was fond of saying when he was perplexed: "Fuck me runnin'!" I have several reactions:
First, the knee-jerk part of my mind would like to meet the authors and pull their gizzards out through their elbows for not only suggesting this crap but having the temerity to insist that it be made mandatory. I feel qualified to say this because I am a leading expert in the field of Creative Ways to Disembowel People. But that gets awfully messy and I'm running low on paper towels so let's go to Plan B, which is just a punch in the teeth.
Really, does anyone need to be taught how to masturbate? Women might, I suppose; but I'm fairly certain dudes can figure it out pretty well on their own, as it's not a complicated process for us.
Gender roles? Please...I've been a stay-home dad for 11 years. I could lecture for days on gender roles. Bottom line: two people have kids and a house full of shit that needs to get done. Flip a coin, start picking chores, and do 'em. I'm over-simplifying here, but you get the idea. And I'll lay this one one you, curious readers, from an expert on the subject, which is me: don't think for one minute that because I stayed home and was the primary care-giver to my children that you can call me Mr. Mom and not get decked for it. I didn't sit around the house wondering what my wife would have done in any given situation: I dealt with it the way I thought best. I wasn't a father trying to be a mother; I was doing what all fathers should do: help raise their kids in the best way I could. For me, that meant staying home, because Lit majors don't make squat, while actuaries are quite adequately compensated for their time. It used to drive me nearly to insanity when some smarmy, middle-aged broad would come up to me in the grocery store and say, "Oh, your wife lets you take the kids out by yourself?" My response to that question ranged somewhere between an arched eyebrow and a scowl and "Shut up before I ram this avocado down your throat, because they're on sale for 10 cents apiece and I've got $2.00 burning a hole in my pocket this very instant," all the while preventing the little old man at the deli counter from jumping my place in line.
That, dear friends, is your lesson on gender roles for today. Moving on...
Even mentioning "9-year-olds" and "aphrodisiacs" in the same sentence sounds dangerous and creepy to me. What kind of twisted fuck-head would want a 9-year-old to learn about aphrodisiacs? I'll tell you what kind: a child-molesting fuck-head. Either that or an 80-year-old muslim-wants-a-10-year-old-wife kind of fuck-head (story here).
My concerns about homophobia and transphobia? I'm concerned about the gay/bi/trans community continually trying to force the rest of us to accept their lifestyles as normal. They aren't. Most people are straight, but like any minority that feels put upon, they use the rising wave of liberalism to act smug and self-righteous and demand to be accepted even as they mock, deride, and ridicule us "breeders". I really don't have a problem with gays; it's none of my business. Until, of course, they rant and rave and carry on in public and make it my business, then I'll speak my mind. My advice is this, Homo Joe and Lezzy Lizzy: stop throwing your sexuality in my face and I'll stop wanting to punch yours. Deal?
And the UN of all organizations talking about the abuse of power in any context? It is to laugh...
How many reasons are there for abortion? There is one: we don't want to accept responsibility for this life we've created, so we're going to get rid of it. Everything else is just a salve for a guilty conscience.
Someone please explain to me how teaching young American children about masturbation and abortion is going to help the HIV/AIDS problem in Africa, or anywhere else, for that matter?
As to the authors' "rigorous review" of sex-ed literature, that phrase just lends itself to juvenile comments, such as "What? They got all hot and sweaty trying to figure out the Kama Sutra?" or "Dr. Kirby was caught rigorously reviewing Miss March." That was a fantastically bad choice of words by Mark Richmond, an UNESCO director.
In all seriousness, I see this as another attempt to indoctrinate and control American youth in an effort to replace The Family with The State. Government doing what parents are supposed to do. And that is not good for our country. If this appalling travesty comes to your town or school, fight it with every waking moment. Let the UN and Soros and Hussein and all the other globalist/socialist ass-hats out there know that Free Americans will raise their own children.
UN story here.
A few last thoughts, with a hat tip to Ranger Steve's buddy Jim for this:
"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." Matthew 18:6
I'll end with this one:
"See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father." Matthew 18:10
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Democrats: Real Class
The body is hardly cold, and already the Dems are using Kennedy's death to try to reinvigorate the rapidly sinking health care debate: "Let's Win One for the Teddy!" The Pelosi-bitch and House Majority Whip James Clyburn (Dipshit, S.C.), are leading the outcry.
Real nice, Dems. Use the smoke from TK's funeral pyre to add to the smokescreen you're trying to roll over the American people. It's not bad enough that the plan is already dead in the water and more full of shit than the Augean stables, so add to the muck by dragging the death of a public figure into the mess.
Now that's Class.
Story here.
Real nice, Dems. Use the smoke from TK's funeral pyre to add to the smokescreen you're trying to roll over the American people. It's not bad enough that the plan is already dead in the water and more full of shit than the Augean stables, so add to the muck by dragging the death of a public figure into the mess.
Now that's Class.
Story here.
CSHOD for 8/26/09
Our CSHOD is none other than Attorney General Eric Holder. His decision to re-open a probe into alleged CIA abuse of scumbag terrorists puts him in the race for runner-up to the Complete Shit-Head of the Year. I say runner-up because Hussein is already a lock to win the title.
Without wading into the mounds of crap that surround this issue, including deliberate obfuscation of facts by the "Justice" Department, and many of the mangy-pelted liberals running their mouths amok, let's look into this objectively, from a real-world standpoint.
First, the interrogations were authorized by Congress. No matter what the Pelosi-bitch says, she and others of her ilk knew what was going on, where, and why.
Second, none of the detainees suffered any more than brief discomfort and mild humiliation. None of them were permanently injured or maimed, or will suffer anything resembling long-term psychological effects, unless it's the revelation that their sterile, brutal, and ignorant faith is no more than a glorified death cult.
Third, the information gained has been proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, to have saved American lives. If we had to rough a few of them up to save soldiers and marines in the line of duty, tough shit. Take your lumps, then you can go back to your three hots and a cot, which is BY FAR better treatment than our boys can expect from the ragheads.
To bring criminal charges against people who by virtue of their actions saved American lives is itself criminal. Monstrously so, in fact.
So congratulations, Holder, you fucking jagweed. You are the CSHOD.
Story and other links here.
Without wading into the mounds of crap that surround this issue, including deliberate obfuscation of facts by the "Justice" Department, and many of the mangy-pelted liberals running their mouths amok, let's look into this objectively, from a real-world standpoint.
First, the interrogations were authorized by Congress. No matter what the Pelosi-bitch says, she and others of her ilk knew what was going on, where, and why.
Second, none of the detainees suffered any more than brief discomfort and mild humiliation. None of them were permanently injured or maimed, or will suffer anything resembling long-term psychological effects, unless it's the revelation that their sterile, brutal, and ignorant faith is no more than a glorified death cult.
Third, the information gained has been proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, to have saved American lives. If we had to rough a few of them up to save soldiers and marines in the line of duty, tough shit. Take your lumps, then you can go back to your three hots and a cot, which is BY FAR better treatment than our boys can expect from the ragheads.
To bring criminal charges against people who by virtue of their actions saved American lives is itself criminal. Monstrously so, in fact.
So congratulations, Holder, you fucking jagweed. You are the CSHOD.
Story and other links here.
Ted Kennedy
I won't speak ill of the dead, but I won't sing his praises, either. Kennedy deserves a tip of the hat and a Rest In Peace, and that's all he will get here. He was no saint, and I refuse to act like he was just because he's dead.
'Nuff said.
'Nuff said.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
CSHOD for 8/25/09
Our CSHOD for today goes to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Finally finding his tongue (still not sure about his balls), Gordie says that he is "angry and repulsed" by the reception al-Megrahi received in Libya after being released last week by the total jagweeds that make up the Scottish parliament, a deal which Brown seems to be complicit in brokering.
What did you expect, Gordo? That a state known to be an enthusiastic sponsor of terror (despite their air-brushed image) would just look the other way when one of their heroes come back to town? That, as the Brits say, is daft.
Nothing like coming out after the fact to say you're upset, Mr. Brown. Maybe you ought to have a chat with the families of the people al-Magrhi killed to see how they feel.
And consider this: if al-Magrhi is innocent, as he claims, why are the Libyans making such a big deal about this? I doubt they'd be this over the top if he was just some schmuck caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Here's a few more letters to add to the end of your name, Mr. Prime Minister: CSHOD.
Story here.
What did you expect, Gordo? That a state known to be an enthusiastic sponsor of terror (despite their air-brushed image) would just look the other way when one of their heroes come back to town? That, as the Brits say, is daft.
Nothing like coming out after the fact to say you're upset, Mr. Brown. Maybe you ought to have a chat with the families of the people al-Magrhi killed to see how they feel.
And consider this: if al-Magrhi is innocent, as he claims, why are the Libyans making such a big deal about this? I doubt they'd be this over the top if he was just some schmuck caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Here's a few more letters to add to the end of your name, Mr. Prime Minister: CSHOD.
Story here.
Quote of the Day!
Today's quote brought to us by my good buddy and part-time contributor Ranger Steve:
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." --Ronald Reagan
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." --Ronald Reagan
Monday, August 24, 2009
What Might Solve This Problem?
From the front page of today's Chicago Tribune:
An article about how muggings "rob communities of their sense of security". So far in 2009, there have been 3,018 muggings in Chicago, which works out to 377.25 attacks per month, which is roughly 12.5 attacks per day.
Twelve innocent people per day in Chicago are robbed and/or beaten, but somehow Mayor Daley and his anti-gun cronies (Hussein, Emanuel, etc.) think law-abiding citizens carrying weapons would make the streets more dangerous. I just don't see the logic in that, but I don't see the logic in most of what Da Mare does, because, like Hussein, he's a complete jackass out for his own benefit and little else. The city of Chicago routinely pursues regular people, many times victims themselves, for ridiculous and unconstitutional petty violations, while giving politically- or Outfit-connected chumps or repeat-offender gang-bangers a slap on the wrist. If you're a guy with a spotless record who gets caught with a handgun in the city limits, you're in deep shit. If you're a city hall flunkie who has stolen so much from the Illinois Toll Road system that your nickname is "Quarters", cruising through life on the city payroll, and you get caught with a handgun...nothing happens. It's in the paper for a few days, then it goes away.
Just plain wrong.
The city of Chicago and the state of Illinois: supreme violators of Constitutional rights.
That will change, come hell or high water.
An article about how muggings "rob communities of their sense of security". So far in 2009, there have been 3,018 muggings in Chicago, which works out to 377.25 attacks per month, which is roughly 12.5 attacks per day.
Twelve innocent people per day in Chicago are robbed and/or beaten, but somehow Mayor Daley and his anti-gun cronies (Hussein, Emanuel, etc.) think law-abiding citizens carrying weapons would make the streets more dangerous. I just don't see the logic in that, but I don't see the logic in most of what Da Mare does, because, like Hussein, he's a complete jackass out for his own benefit and little else. The city of Chicago routinely pursues regular people, many times victims themselves, for ridiculous and unconstitutional petty violations, while giving politically- or Outfit-connected chumps or repeat-offender gang-bangers a slap on the wrist. If you're a guy with a spotless record who gets caught with a handgun in the city limits, you're in deep shit. If you're a city hall flunkie who has stolen so much from the Illinois Toll Road system that your nickname is "Quarters", cruising through life on the city payroll, and you get caught with a handgun...nothing happens. It's in the paper for a few days, then it goes away.
Just plain wrong.
The city of Chicago and the state of Illinois: supreme violators of Constitutional rights.
That will change, come hell or high water.
Irony On A Cosmic Scale
Life is pretty weird in general, I think, and not entirely due to the fact that I am a stay home dad-coach-jock-goth-Lit Major-writer/poet-hunter/shooter-Republican-Catholic-Guinness guzzling-absinthe drinker-type. Although, I suppose, some argument could be made in that direction. But every now and then, life just gets Weird.
Like today: I'm scanning the Chicago Tribune looking for things to pontificate about, and I run across a small article in the Nation & World section from Makeen, Pakistan. The Paki division of the Taliban consider ol' Bammy their "No. 1 enemy".
Tell ya what: if it weren't for the fact that they're a bunch of ragheaded islamic scumbags out to destroy the Western World, they wouldn't be bad guys. At least we'd have one thing in common, and wouldn't have to stand around in awkward silence if we ever met on the street.
Like today: I'm scanning the Chicago Tribune looking for things to pontificate about, and I run across a small article in the Nation & World section from Makeen, Pakistan. The Paki division of the Taliban consider ol' Bammy their "No. 1 enemy".
Tell ya what: if it weren't for the fact that they're a bunch of ragheaded islamic scumbags out to destroy the Western World, they wouldn't be bad guys. At least we'd have one thing in common, and wouldn't have to stand around in awkward silence if we ever met on the street.
A Senior Moment?
You have to think, as amazing as it sounds, that many of the nation's youth-challenged people had a collective "senior moment" at the polls back in November. I can't think of any other way to explain how such a large group of people voted for a guy that is bound and determined to make their lives worse before he pulls the plug on them for the "greater good".
It was announced Sunday that for the first time in a generation, Social Security payments will not receive a cost of living adjustment (COLA). That's not to say that seniors' expenses won't increase: they will. But they won't be getting any extra dough to help them out. Thanks to Bammy's rear-ending of the economy (fallout from the Clin-Ton years, no matter what liberal schmucks say to the contrary), seniors will have to make do with less.
Let me follow an abstract but not-impossible tangent here: Hussein makes seniors do more with less---a lynch-pin of Obamacare is "end-of-life" counseling---seniors are now less able to afford the food and medicine they need to keep them healthy---Hussein hires as his Science Czar a certifiable quack who has advocated forced sterilization and euthanasia---Hussein denies death panels but freely admits there will be "hard choices" in the future---many seniors are bailing out of AARP in response to Obamacare---anyone else see the dark-as-the-grave threads running though that tapestry?
Anyone else think it would be funny to see Hussein jumped by a mob of cane-wielding blue-hairs? I give the little old ladies 3-1 odds.
Story here.
It was announced Sunday that for the first time in a generation, Social Security payments will not receive a cost of living adjustment (COLA). That's not to say that seniors' expenses won't increase: they will. But they won't be getting any extra dough to help them out. Thanks to Bammy's rear-ending of the economy (fallout from the Clin-Ton years, no matter what liberal schmucks say to the contrary), seniors will have to make do with less.
Let me follow an abstract but not-impossible tangent here: Hussein makes seniors do more with less---a lynch-pin of Obamacare is "end-of-life" counseling---seniors are now less able to afford the food and medicine they need to keep them healthy---Hussein hires as his Science Czar a certifiable quack who has advocated forced sterilization and euthanasia---Hussein denies death panels but freely admits there will be "hard choices" in the future---many seniors are bailing out of AARP in response to Obamacare---anyone else see the dark-as-the-grave threads running though that tapestry?
Anyone else think it would be funny to see Hussein jumped by a mob of cane-wielding blue-hairs? I give the little old ladies 3-1 odds.
Story here.
The Sleeping Giant is Rumbling
Seeing as how the leftist knuckleheads are abnormally fond of using polls to prove their theories/disprove conservative theories, here's one they might find interesting:
The latest Rasmussen poll has Hussein's disapproval rating at 51%, and climbing steadily. In the "Strong" opinion category, 28% approve, 40% disapprove. More and more people are waking up to the fact that Hussein is full of shit and has no idea what he's doing.
Let me be the first to say: Welcome to the real world!
Pros and Cons of this:
-Con: Hussein and his ass-hat flunkies won't go away without a fight.
-Pro: there are plenty of us who are more than willing to give him that fight.
-Pro: Hussein throws like a girl, so I bet he fights like one, too. (And trust me, as a softball coach for the last 6 years, I know what girls throw like, which is why I teach my youngsters how to throw like softball players. There's a big difference.)
The latest Rasmussen poll has Hussein's disapproval rating at 51%, and climbing steadily. In the "Strong" opinion category, 28% approve, 40% disapprove. More and more people are waking up to the fact that Hussein is full of shit and has no idea what he's doing.
Let me be the first to say: Welcome to the real world!
Pros and Cons of this:
-Con: Hussein and his ass-hat flunkies won't go away without a fight.
-Pro: there are plenty of us who are more than willing to give him that fight.
-Pro: Hussein throws like a girl, so I bet he fights like one, too. (And trust me, as a softball coach for the last 6 years, I know what girls throw like, which is why I teach my youngsters how to throw like softball players. There's a big difference.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)