Thursday, March 29, 2012

White House Contacted. Why? Read On...

What follows is the exact email that I sent to the White House. Nice, wasn't I?
" First; the link:

The story comments that you Mr Obama didn't interject yourself into the brutal murder of TWO BRITISH men at the hands of an emotionless African-American because "...Mr Obama sees no political value..."

For my blog located at and for the parents of those murdered young men, would you now like to comment?"

Now, let's all snort together over what I read on the White House's site:

"President Obama is committed to creating the most open and accessible Administration in history. That begins with taking comments and questions from you, the American people, through our website." (emphasis added)

Apparently, not when it came to passing his ObamaCare package. You just have to read this and other Conservative blogs to read about the purchases and "back-room deals" used to pass it.

And Mr Obama, I'm now going to pull a page from your book. You've called on me to be Civil during discussions. I have been, and will be.

But I now demand the same from you.

If you reply, you will do so without using

* the race card.

* the name-calling card.

* the gender card.

* the idiot, stupid, or uniformed card.

* the belittling card.

You are forbidden to pick up any of those cards.

Rolling Stone Contacted for Comment

I am eagerly awaiting what I expect to be a deafening silence. I asked them for comment or rebuttal and then informed them that a reply (or lack thereof) would be posted here.

So how about it, libs?

Listening to "(Not) Everybody Loves Raymond"

“Listening to “(Not) Everybody Loves Raymond”

I’ve no idea what the episode name is, nor do I care to to be brutally honest. But I was listening to it as I was cooking dinner. Yes, I know it’s late to be cooking dinner.

But in the episode, Raymond’s brother (sorry, I don’t remember his name) says he wants to break up with Stephania(sp?) because she pokes him too much, among other reasons.

One of the female characters said it was about morality and another said it was about something else. I don’t remember what, but when I heard a liberal show talk about morality, my head nearly exploded. At this point, I had to ask my mother, who actually watches the show what the other character said it was about. And now; time for that full disclosure thing: This is my mother we’re talking about. Myself and my sister, and many people that speak with her frequently have to “translate” what she says into “normal” English. Sometimes, even I can’t make heads or tails. And this is one of those times that I think my Babel Fish(*) picked a very inconvenient time to puke. She said it was about his having three other girlfriends … at the same time.

After all, aren’t these the same people that see no problem with killing an unborn infant? Aren’t these the same people that, for the most part, refuse to even listen to a viewpoint that is different than theirs?

Aren’t these the same people who shout down Conservative speakers and then congratulate themselves for their “diversity?(**)”

Aren’t these the same people who complain bitterly when Rush Limbaugh WRONGLY calls a young woman a “sl*t” and a “prostitute,” but have no problems whatsoever when a liberal talker is openly elated when he learned that Andrew Breitbart had died? Aren’t these the same people that have no problem with a liberal talker calls a Conservative woman a “sl*t,” a “c*nt,” and various other things? And NO, LIBS, these were NOT said during his “comedy” routine.

As for having three different girlfriends at the same time, I thought liberals had no problem with “playing the field?” Or am I wrong on this one?

And let’s go one further about their “morality” : there are those that to this day insist that Rep. Lloyd Doggett had seen a picture of his own tombstone at a Tea Party protest. I submit to you that given the highly unfavorable MSM coverage of the Tea Party events that had such a photo been there, the MSM would have absolutely splashed it all over the airwaves and the papers. And yet to this day, a Google search returns zero pictures. Rep. John Lewis, a Civil Rights Protestor during the ‘60’s supposedly heard the “n-word” shouted at him during another Tea Party protest.

Yet, despite $100,000 offered by Andrew Breitbart himself, nobody has been able to show proof that either event actually happened. NOBODY. Again, given the highly unfavorable coverage by the MSM, I submit to you that had either of these events happened, MSNBC and others would still be (RIGHTLY) all over it.

But let’s go further. A link:

I won’t comment on that, because you can read it for yourself.

Where is your selective outrage now, liberals? We can’t call a liberal a name, but there’s no problem whatsoever when you call one of us a name? Yet another double standard(*4)?

Morality(***). For liberals, it appears it’s “morality for those who I agree with, not at all for others.”

(*) Babel Fish -

(**) Diversity - –and-

(***) Morality - -and-

(*4) Double standard - -and-

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Credit Where it's due: Obama was right.

What a difference 3+ years makes!

Does anybody remember this moment in Fargo, ND, when then-Senator Obama said this: ?

“ The problem is, is that the way that Bush has done it over the last eight years, is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China (*) in the name of our children, driving up our National Debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 Presidents, number 43 added $4 trillion all by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that, that we are going to have to pay back. $30 thousand for every man, woman, and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s un-patriotic.”

I believe in giving credit where it’s due, and Mr Obama was right. Adding $4 trillion over eight years was absolutely irresponsible and reckless. And those who were screaming about it had every right to do so. It was reckless, and it remains reckless.

But now we fast-forward to today, 20-MAR-2012. From CBS News no less, we learn this:

“(CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.

The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.” (**)

However, with only a very few exceptions, those who were screaming the loudest about Mr Bush’s folly have remained strangely mute now.

Mr Bush added, according to CBS, $4.899 trillion to our debt over eight years.
Mr Obama added, according to CBS, $4.939 trillion over just over THREE years.


If what Mr Bush did was un-patriotic, which I agree it was, isn’t what Mr Obama’s done also un-patriotic?

Just asking.

(*) – This isn’t actually what it’s called. But at least Mr Obama correctly labeled China as a country. The citizens of Eau Claire, WI, however were quite surprised when Mr Obama referred to being in the State of Eau Claire. ( ) (This must be one of the 57 he said he’d been in: )

(**) -

This next link doesn’t actually have anything to do with this article, but I really enjoy it!

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Another Sunday, another Doonesbury Strip

Another Sunday, another Doonesbury strip. And yet more problems.

In Sunday 18-MAR-2012’s strip, we “learn” that there is data showing that Fox News views are the most ill-informed. Excuse me, the strip actually says “…poorly informed.” Yet the result is the same: the strip claims that most Fox News viewers really don’t know about what’s going on out there.

Comics typically write their strips several weeks in advance, so I’m going to assume that the “data” he’s referring to came from the November, 2011 Fairleigh Dickinson poll. The poll was conducted in the state of New Jersey and polled 612 people. New Jersey, in case you didn’t know, tends to vote heavily Democratic.

But it turns out that the results of this poll have been called into serious question. When you break down the poll into the sub-groups (White, African-American, etcetera,) the margin of error becomes so high as to be truly laughable. Plus or minus three percentage points on a poll is around the norm. But when you get above 9, you know you’re in trouble. When you go into DOUBLE digits, something is seriously wrong. (Yes, libs, double digits is any number between 10 and 99. Lower than 10 is single digits, and higher than 99 (USING ONLY WHOLE NUMBERS) is THREE digits. (I added the whole number thing because I know somebody is going to say “well what about 6.27%? That’s three digits! Or what about 1.3%? There’s a double-digit!” (So that’s why I added the only whole numbers.))

So the “poll” Mr Trudeau was referring to, I believe, is the one that I just discussed. You know, the one with the absurdly high margin of error. Add to that the fact that the state of New Jersey tends to vote heavily democratic, and … there you go. But before we discuss the next panel in that strip, I do need to add this. According to that same poll, viewers of MSNBC tended to believe that the “Occupy” “protests” were heavily Republican. ::sigh:: Of course, we expect that from the network that bills itself as “Lean Forward,” and whose President said they’d become the place for progressives.

Then we come to the very next strip. This one I’m going to quote: “This recent study from Canada links low intelligence and conservatism to prejudice and racism.”

For this study, I’m going to assume he’s referring to the January, 2012 study from Brock University in Ontario (not Ohio, Canada.)

This study also suffers from troubles. And for this, you need to look at the types of questions that were asked and the way in which they were phrased.

I’m not about to deny that there is some racism … on both sides of the divide … out there. I will note, however, that this study does note the exceptions that there are Conservatives with higher IQs and Liberals with lower IQs. (Mine, as I’ve stated before, is at 127, which is three points shy of “gifted.”)

And I’ll also be quick to point out that there are a plethora of other studies that suggest the exact opposite. I think it’s safe to say that the data is nowhere near consensus on this issue.

For closing, I’m now going to quote from the Wikipedia article about Doonesbury:

“ Frequently political in nature, Doonesbury features characters representing a range of affiliations, but the cartoon is noted for a liberal viewpoint. The name "Doonesbury" is a combination of the word doone (prep school slang for "someone who is out to lunch") and the surname of Charles Pillsbury, Trudeau's roommate at Yale University.[1]
Doonesbury is written and pencilled by Garry Trudeau, then inked and lettered by his assistant Don Carlton.[2] (*) “ (Links are Wikipedia’s and are left intact.)

(*) -

Monday, March 12, 2012

So Who IS to Blame?

Good question. First, please tune in tonight for Hannity. They're going to do the job the lamestream media won't do, and properly vet the Usurper. Now for those Libs who (again) say it's RAAAAAAAAACIST, exactly how is it racist to properly vet him? EXACTLY HOW? Dan Rather, it's generally agreed, presented FRAUDULENT documents to attempt to throw the 2004 election, and the libs silence on the matter was deafening. But they sure went after Mr Bush, didn't they?

So who IS to blame?

Well, there's plenty of it to go around:

First is the liberal media. They couldn't be bothered to vet Mr Obama in 2008. But according to various journalists, they actively tried to bring down Ms Palin. There's also MSNBC which says that Fox News isn't really a news organization. Well, since by their own statements they're the place for progs, doesn't that make them part of the Obama administration?

Second is the American people who sat around and let it happen. I know that many people are pissed off at the politics. And they're right. But they're also part of the problem. Remember that video about how Obama got elected? And then faced with the sheer HYPOCRISY of the administration, they do nothing. You can shout at your TV and your radio all you want, but what good have you actually done?

Hasn't Mr Obama said he was going to lead by example? Unless the American people actually get involved, they won't change.

Like I've written earlier, the hypocrisy REEKS. When was the last time a liberal called out a liberal for calling a woman the "C" word? The "T" word? I haven't seen it. But boy, the reaction on the left..... ??? Well, I need to restate that. Kristen Powers, a leftist, did.

Remember; all that's necessary for evil for flourish is for good people to stand back and do nothing.

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Sunday's "Doonesbury" Strip

I hadn't intended to post about it, but the last panel of that strip just made me want to puke.

As I've already stated before, the Liberals can see nothing besides Barack's colour. Yes, to them, if we don't like Mr Obama it simply must be because we're RAAAAAAAAAACISTS, or our hearts are filled with hate, or some other bullshit.

Yes, according to the strip, a new definition of "socialist" (as in a person) is "A black guy in power."

Aren't you sick and tired of these sad sons of bitches?

Talk about delusional. (See my other posting about that ... strike that. I'll quote from it.)

" So, according to her, I don’t know my history, and the reason I dislike Mr Obama is because he’s black. Well, it’s so very nice to know that Ms Garofalo knows what’s in my mind and my heart. She can conceive of no other possible answer. It’s not because I dislike Mr Obama’s policies, again according to her. It’s not because he’s surrounded himself with socialists and Marxists (a la Van Jones, a self-confessed Communist) it simply must be, again according to her, because he’s black.

There is a word for that. But first, the definition from “a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion”

Yes, the word is delusional. Note that I’m not calling her a name, I’m describing her reasoning. Yes, the first part certainly fits, doesn’t it? The race card has been debunked how many times now? Yet they still reach for it. Believe it or not, but they’re part of the problem too. "

So the next time some sad son of a bitch liberal tells you that you're a RAAAACIST you can call them delusional.

And then tell them to shut their fucking mouths. Yes, I'm seriously pissed off right now.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Weather Forecast ... FROM THE FUTURE!!


NOTE: I have edited this picture (in white so you can see where the edits were made) to remove my location information.)

Updated at 10:00am it says ... and the screenshot was made at 8:25 am. As I leave this post, it's 8:31am.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Republican National Committee Membership Card

(Edited to remove the member number and member since fields.)

Arpaio's Posse: Obama's Birth Certificate a FORGERY

The link:

And a link to the YouTube video to the news story which ran on a TV station (I'll also post it here since it's quite likely that YouTube will remove it for a "violation" of some sort.)

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Carbonite, Rush Limbaugh, and Ed Shultz

Is this yet another example of the double-standard that exists?

Example: Mr Rush Limbaugh calls a young woman, Sandra Fluke a "...slut..." and a "...prostitute..."

Clearly, there's no excuse for that type of language. I don't agree with Ms Fluke's arguments, I don't agree with her reasoning, and I don't agree with how she's been treated ... by either side.

Mr Limbaugh was wrong to call her a slut. He has since apologized for it. Carbonite, through Mr Friend, stated that Mr Limbaugh had "...overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency." I'll agree with that.

But now, let us contrast this with what Ed Shultz called Laura Ingraham. He referred to her as a "...right-wing slut..." He then apologized for his remarks.

And yet, Carbonite continues to sponsor Mr Shultz's show.

Double-standard? After all, in using the same word and the same inflamatory remarks, didn't Mr Shultz also overstep any reasonable bounds of decency?

Just asking.

Perhaps Carbonite would like to explain the double-standard?

I'm listening.

And now, so are many many others. I've also contacted Mr Steve Gibson and Mr Leo LaPorte to see if they'll drop sponsoring Carbonite because of the double-standard.

HERE'S YOUR CHANCE, Carbonite: (make it good)

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Arpaio's Posse - "Probable Cause" Obama Certificate a Fraud

Reaction from the MSM to Sheriff Arpaio’s finding of “Probable Cause” that Obama’s birth certificate a forgery.

The link: (Yes, this is to World Net Daily)

First: MSNBC (if they covered it) “This is RACISM straight up.” “These are idiotic people who have nothing better to do, who hate Barack Obama. It’s racism and hatred straight up.”

Next: ABC (If they covered it) Pretty much the same.

Next: CNN (if they covered it) Ditto. With an explanation that it’s the Tea Partier’s fault and that that’s not “Family viewing.”

With most of the main stream media (lamestream media) it’s “racism,” “hatred,” “ignorance,” and a whole host of other names. Nothing surprising here.