Thursday, March 31, 2011

Going Green. I'm so with it.

Just forgot one thing.  We need a viable economy to give us time and energy to think of innovative new solutions to the world's energy problems.  Destroying the greatest experiment in government ever tried, will relegate us to the level of those who depend on us for their sustenance.  How will adopting the failed attempts at government of  all other nations make us better?

What drives our nation at this time?  Carbon energy sources.  We have yet to find anything to replace these sources and won't as long as government interference and over regulation cripples our nation.  This is truly a government of retribution led by small men with small ideas.  Every new technology we have developed so far is dependent on carbon based energy to exist.  Most of these sources, as they are currently configured, could not exist with out heavy dependence on oil, gas, and other carbon based fuels and by-products.

We must find the moral strength of character and courage to impeach this government of foreign interlopers and racist opportunists, and we must do it soon.  Our government has been co-opted by financially rich despots who are pulling the purse strings to make their minions dance.  We have overcome greater obstacles in the past when we have returned to our Christian roots and values, and we must do so again.  If the judges are unjust get rid of them.  If our representatives are self serving and spineless get rid of them.  This charade must be unveiled and quashed. 

[Abstract art is] a product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered - Al Capp

The same could be said of the "Abstract Theories" being proffered by the untalented politico puppets, and supported by the unprincipled elitists who suppose their educations are better than everyone else.  They attempt to sell this unmitigated crap  to a wide variety of utterly bewildered sycophants with help from the Zombies in the National media.    

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

What Happened to Us?

"I hate rude behavior in a man.  I won't tolerate it."  Capt. Woodrow Call, Lonesome Dove.

I am astounded at how low we've sunk as a society in such a relatively short period of time.  People have lost their perspective.  Instant gratification, no rules, anything goes, ghetto slang, booming speakers, filthy rap, no service, incessant cell phone use, slovenly hygiene, ridiculous wardrobes, and an entire host of other evidence causes me to take exception with the current trend toward the lowest common denominator.

When I was young and was being chided for some breech of approved social interaction, I would offer the excuse that I was not as bad as ___________.  My parents countered with, "Don't compare yourself with the bottom of the barrel."  I think the advice is still sound today.  People seem to think anything and everything is O.K.  Even churches tolerate almost everything in order to keep from offending anyone with rules and regulations that are too restrictive.  Why have church if you are not going to be different from the world?

Go anywhere and ask for anything slightly out of the ordinary and you will be met with sullen stares and confusion.  I went to the cleaners this week and took several sweaters in for my wife.  I also took a linen shirt and asked that it be dry cleaned and placed on a hanger.  I asked that the sweaters be dry cleaned, folded and individually wrapped.  Today I went to pick up my clothes and guess what?  The shirt was folded and placed in plastic and all of my wife's sweaters were on hangers.  I could tell by looking at the clerk, it would do no good at all to try and find out why.

Tonight we went to the movies.  The current television fare is so vile and chocked full of social re-engineering that I can't watch it.  So, I recognized the title of a movie currently showing that matched a book I read, and enjoyed, some time ago and decided it might be one we'd like to see.  Prior to the start of the feature we sat through the list of rules for ensuring that everyone had an equal chance to enjoy the main feature.  One rule was to turn your cell phone off.  This was followed by admonitions to refrain from loud talking and/or texting as the light from the phone might hamper someones viewing enjoyment, or your conversation might override the dialog.  Dumb me.  I turned mine off.  When the lights were turned down almost everyone complied.  Not ten minutes into the movie the guy directly in front of me, who had his feet propped up on the rail, flipped open his phone and started showing his wife some picture on e-bay.  I broke the no talking rule right after I gave the back of his chair a swift kick with my size 13 boot.  I told him to turn the phone off.  He spun around and looked at the red glow coming from my eyes and decided turning the phone off was the best option he had.  When the movie ended, but before the credits, the entire theater lit up when most of the folks decided to power up and text, talk, or twitter.  This continued into the parking lot where few if any patrons didn't have a cell phone hiked up to their ear.

We decided on some fast food after the show and I gave my wife money and asked her to order me a sandwich and a medium drink.  I went to the restroom (typical multiple stall commercial restroom) - the door was locked.  I stepped back out of the hall so as not to impede other patrons wanting to use the facilities.  I waited and wondered why the door was locked.  Men rarely lock the door.  After a considerable wait, one man exited the men's room and sidled into the eating area.  I completed my short visit with the door unlocked and returned to the seating area.  My wife was still at the cash register.  I knew there must be a problem.  She had been there the whole time trying to make the clerk understand that I didn't want a combo, just a sandwich and a drink.  Finally the manager took over and with less than twenty-three key strokes was able to complete the order.  Nothing in life should be this hard.

Exit, pursued by a bear - William Shakespeare

Sunday, March 27, 2011

I knew it wasn't me.

Just when liberal-leftists thought it was finally "their time" to lead center-right America, kicking and screaming, into a stifling socialist "utopia," a veteran psychiatrist is making a powerful case that the "hope-and-change" ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

For more than 40 years, Rossiter has diagnosed and treated over 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases, both state and federal, as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist retained by numerous public offices, courts and private attorneys. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter explains with great clarity why the kind of liberalism being displayed by Barack Obama can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Rossiter. "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over regulates and overtaxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
  • creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
  • satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
  • augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
  • rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

Posted: March 25, 2011
7:00 pm Eastern
© 2011 WorldNetDaily 

I wondered why the baseball kept getting bigger. Then it hit me.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Looking at the Immigration Policy

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the fine line between sanity and madness gotten finer? 
 - George Price

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

A message in cartoons.

  Evening news is where they begin with "Good evening,"
and then proceed to tell you why it isn't.

Monday, March 21, 2011

I must be senile.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  I can't for the life of me figure out how gasoline prices are determined.

I can't understand how a totally incompetent and constitutionally unqualified candidate can become president of the United States.

I can't understand how an administration can ignore the constitution and push forward as though nothing has happened when the federal courts have ruled their health care bill unconstitutional.

I can't understand how a congress can propose cuts in the already earned income of its constituents, who have paid into a system designed and subsequently plundered by congress, and at the same time continue to spend borrowed money on foreign projects, and aid to those who have not contributed anything to the building of this great nation.

I can't understand how an administration can totally abdicate its responsibility to serve and protect its citizenry and then join with foreign governments in suing a sovereign state who passes legislation to take up the slack.

I think my friend David has expressed his thoughts very well in the following missive:

"I was thinking the other day, which always gets me in trouble, about Obama refusing to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.  He has usurped Judicial authority and decided the law is unconstitutional.

The Constitution requires that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, but he demonstrates quite regularly  what he thinks of the Constitution.

His Attorney General refuses to enforce Civil Rights laws against blacks.  The most notable example was the blacks in paramilitary uniforms with clubs who were threatening whites trying to vote in, I believe, Philadelphia.  The Attorney General's reason for his non action was that he did not want to "demean his people", which can only be interpreted as he considers "his people" to be blacks.  To heck with the rest of the people in the U.S.  They are apparently not "his people."

He and Obama are also refusing to enforce federal immigration laws; however, the total abdication of his constitutional authority aside, the most egregious thing he has done of late in that arena to my way of thinking was file the suit against the State of Arizona a few months ago.

Think about this a moment.  The State of Arizona has passed its own immigration law because it has completely lost control of its southern border and the federal government doesn't seem at all interested in doing anything about it.  At least two ranchers have been murdered on their own land, every rancher along the border has lost property and many have been threatened.  Two of the sheriffs in the area have had contracts taken out on them by Mexican drug cartels.  Slightly over one third of the inmates in Arizona penitentiaries are illegal aliens who committed felonies in Arizona.  Thousands of students in Arizona schools are illegals being educated with the tax dollars of Arizona citizens.  Several thousand acres of public land in southern Arizona have signs erected by the federal government around them advising citizens not to go there because it is too dangerous. 

In other words, these acres, a part of the USA, have been effectively ceded to the human traffickers and drug cartels from Mexico.

All of this and much more, I haven't even gotten into health care provided to illegals, and the federal government does basically nothing.

U.S. federal law requires certain aliens to register with the U.S. government, and to have registration documents in their possession at all times. The Arizona Act makes it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents, bars state or local officials or agencies from restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws, and cracks down on those sheltering, hiring and transporting illegal aliens.

Now the federal government becomes interested.  Claiming that only the federal government can pass or enforce immigration laws, this administration has filed suit against the State of Arizona for an injunction prohibiting it from enforcing its own laws, laws which almost precisely mirror the federal laws and were passed out of desperation because the federal government is not doing its job.

Furthermore, this administration is ignoring long established federal law which allows and actually requests local law enforcement to assist in immigration enforcement.  The law on this question is quite clear: arresting aliens who have violated either criminal provisions of the INA or civil provisions that render an alien deportable "is within the inherent authority of the states."

I guess that Obama has decided that law is unconstitutional, also.

Secondarily, Obama criticized the bill and called it "misguided" and said it would "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe."

What kind of gibberish is that?  The bill was passed because of the well documented, daily threat to public safety in Arizona that already exists.  Furthermore, federal law already allows the Border Patrol to set up roadblocks for no reason at all but to check the passengers of each vehicle on roads near the border to determine if they are legal or not.  The state law doesn't go that far and only allows state peace officers to do the same subsequent to an arrest or legal traffic stop.

But it's not fair.

And here is the kicker in my view.  Mexico has joined the suit against Arizona.  So what we have is this administration siding with a foreign country against our own citizens.  I am unaware of this ever happening before in our history.

The amazing thing to me is how little all of this has been publicized.  Where is the outrage?  The media ranted daily about their perception that Bush was centering too much power in the Executive, yet when Obama unilaterally decides certain laws he doesn't like are unconstitutional not a peep is heard.

The irony is that much of what he does every day is unconstitutional and all we get from our elected representatives in Congress is a big "Ho Hum."

If this is allowed to continue we will wake up one morning and find we are living in a dictatorship, just as the Romans did.  Of course, the Roman reaction was, "Oh well, the economy is good.  And what is going on at the Coliseum today?"  If we don't get our noses out of the sports pages and start paying attention to what is happening to our country, we will end up precisely as they did....slaves to our government and ultimately dead at the hands of the barbarians."


If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day.
  - John A. Wheeler