Saturday, January 30, 2010

Do the right thing

The Comrade met with Republicans at some kind of Republican Retreat yesterday. I think it was yesterday. My days begin and end on a non-traditional schedule, so I'm really never sure what day it is.

At any rate, I find it funny that suddenly even the Comrade is pursuing Republicans. Or at least blaming them for the democrats' failure to pass socialized medicine and cap'n'tax. He'd always more or less blown them off as totally negligible. And they have been. Glenn Beck pointed out that the dems have majorities in both houses, and he pointed it out rather graphically. (Really, Glenn, I think most Americans do thoroughly understand the concept of a "majority.") And it is definitely worth noting -- again and again -- that there's really no way the Republicans can obstruct legislation or stand in the way of any proposals in this congress. The Republicans are almost irrelevant in this congress.

Somehow, however, the White House -- perhaps following up on Max Baucus's drunken harangue of a couple weeks ago -- are laying their failures at the Republicans' doorstep. What? If the Blue Dogs don't like the proposed legislation and refuse to be bought off, Republicans are are supposed to take up the slack and vote for something they don't believe in?

What kind of reasoning is that? The usual kind from this White House.

The dems claim that the Republicans are only playing games, withholding their support to make the Comrade look bad.

So a Republican is supposed to vote for socialized medicine? For massive and crushing taxes on all forms of energy? It doesn't occur to the Comrade that maybe the Republicans really don't like the policies?

On the other hand, why don't the dems drop all this junk about a "public option" and just vote to limit frivolous medical law suits? Why don't they vote to allow sales of private health insurance across state lines? Why don't they refuse to let the EPA run the country? I suppose they're just playing games to make the Republicans -- and apparently 60% or more of the population -- look bad.

Fundamental differences exist between the wild-eyed marxist radicals in the White House and the Republicans along wtih most of the rest of the country. The dems may recognize that somehow, but then they apparently assume that there's something wrong with the rest of the country.

Meanwhile, Pazzo Pelosi is strapping on a parachute for the sake of socialized medicine. I think she needs some kind of medicine. Or better yet, forget the parachute but by all means, do the dive.

And all this because Massachusetts elected a conservative Republican to replace Teddy Kennedy in the Senate. The dems don't like the idea that the public still has a choice. Either that or they're simply incredibly blind and stupid. It's the Comade and his merry marxists who refuse to accept any options. They apparenty believe that their way is the only way. How very Maoist.

I've never really been a Republican. I'm pretty indifferent on most social issues -- like, I don't think it's any of my business if someone has an abortion. And I don't think it's any of the government's business, either. The Civil Rights Movement was rolling along full-tilt when I was growing up, and between the ages of 15 and 22 or so, you'd probably call me a hippy. But that's all because my first, most closely-held political commitment is to individual liberty. Government can play a role in that; it can help keep people free and protect their rights. Anarchy has never worked anywhere. It always degenerates into some version of "might makes right."

I can't square socialism with individual liberty. With socialism, at the minimum you need an overweening and massive government just to gather up and redistribute the goodies. History hath shown that in most cases, you need an overweening and massive government to enforce the injustice of socialism as well.

None of this makes me free or protects my rights.

My dad was a very staunch and active Roosevelt democrat. We lived in an extremely Republican suburb of Chicago, and my dad ran for local office several times, just so  the Republican wouldn't be "unopposed." My mom was mostly non-political, and my dad used to make her serve as a democrat judge at the polling place every election day, just to keep the count honest.

The main thing I learned about politics as a kid is that freedom is worth everything. Never give it up. Cherish it. Fight for it if you must. Without freedom, there's nothing. The very first thing I did on my 21st birthday was register to vote.

My dad died when I was 11 years old; my mom died just a few years ago. Among my mother's things was a tiny, hand-carved ivory donkey. No doubt a memento of my dad. But I think if my dad were still alive, he'd be a Republican, as repugnant as that label would be to him. And he'd also be feeling very betrayed by the democrats.

None of what's going on today in the USA can be solved by hype or spin. The divisions are deep and based on fundamental principles. I'll stand behind the Republicans right now because they have the organization to defeat the democrats.

And if there's any one thing I've learned through this last year, it's that the Founding Fathers were absolutely correct -- that you can trust the American people to do the right thing.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Change you can't believe in... and don't want to

Heard the Comrade's State of the Union speech tonight. Let's see, demonizing bankers, once again pointing out that the economy was messed up before he was elected (it's all George Bush's fault), offering to "forgive" student loans if the student gets a government job after graduation (including a commission in the armed forces, Comrade?) He's brought transparency to DC (that was good for a laugh, though even he didn't dare use the actual word "transparency"), and the Republicans are messing up the whole concept of bipartisanship in congress... hmmmm... what else?

Nothing new or very important.

Oh. He's telling us he cut taxes. He's freezing spending -- in one small budget area, and after raising federal spending 20% across the board last year. Apparently the net effect of the "freeze" will be that funding can't be cut for three years. 'Course, us'n taxpayers are too stupid to figure that out on our own. Just another ruse to protect that pork. I mean, the Stimulus package and other wild spending sprees from congress.

You know, the Comrade launched his whole administration by buying off congress with the stimulus thing. Maybe that's why the dems are so leming-like.

He's still got his fingers crossed for seizing control of the nation via crap'n'tax -- undeterred by recent revelations and indications that climate change is an over-hyped doomsday myth. He sees the USA exporting windmills and solar panels to China. Rather like the conventional "coals to Newcastle" thing, isn't it?

And he's still trying to shove socialized medicine down our throats. He says he "didn't explain it well enough." Oh, I don't know. I think he explained it pretty well. It's just that we all understand now that everything the Comrade says is pretty much a crock.

If you want to see what socialized medicine is all about, look at the nations that have it. Nobody here wants it, Comrade. We understand it. We believe you don't understand it. 'Cause it sucks.

You'd think that with all those people at the Comrade's beck and call, he could at least get someone to write him a new speech. This sounded an awful lot like stuff from the campaign trail.

Chris Matthews says he "forgot he [the Comrade] was black for an hour tonight." By contrast, I almost never think about the Comrade being black. To me, the important thing about the Comrade is that he's a marxist-communist. Matthews' obsession with skin color must be a liberal thing.

Matthews was just amazed that "a black guy" could "stand up in front of a bunch of white people" and deliver a speech. I suspect Matthews has a peaked white hood with eye-holes cut out somewhere. Imagine that, Chris, a black guy giving a speech to white folks. Yeah, and he doesn't even have a "Negro accent." Ever hear of Marting Luther King? Frederick Douglass? Even Reverend Ike, for Pete's sake?

Chris Matthews is a bigger idiot than even I imagined him to be. Like Give-'em-pork-Harry Reid. Or Barbara Boxer, explaining to the head of the US Black Chamber of Commerce that the NAACP likes crap'n'tax, so possibly he should, too. I mean, all blacks pretty much look and think alike, right Barb?

Yeah, I guess the USA still does have a ways to go about racism. Funny how it comes from the left, though, isn't it? "The leftists doth protest too much" and all that jazz.

So, anyway, back to the actual speech. Just look at my last blog. One-trick pony. Nothing new here. No new ideas. Either the Comrade is a truly committed and uncompromising marxist, or he's incapable of innovative thought and can't come up with any ideas apart from those old worn-out, pie-in-the-sky, tried-and-failed policies that Bill Ayers was promoting 50 years ago. Actually, the speech sounded to me like he was talking about some other country.

And FYI, Comrade, I as one member of an apparent majority, am thrilled to pieces that the Republicans have been the "Party of Know." We'd all be even further down the crapper without their objections to unchecked socialism and their refusal to be steamrollered over socialized medicine and crap'n'tax.

I'm going to write a book about all this just as soon as I get some time. Not about the Comrade, but about why America is such a great place. Such an EXCEPTIONAL place.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Comrade Spin, one-trick pony

It's becoming unbearable to hear the Comrade speak. I just can't stand the sight or sound of him anymore. I went through something similar with a few other dem prezes, most notably Jimmy Carter. The nation was going to hell in a handbasket, and Carter just wanted to hold everyone's hand and thought if he smiled big enough, we'd all get over our "malaise."

Oh well, that's over now.

Now we've got Comrade Spin. He's actually insulting. Snippets of his interview with Stephanopolous appear on TV. The Comrade says he didn't run for office to fix the economy. So exactly why did he run for office?

Think he's tipping his hand? Clearly, he has a marxist agenda. Many people claim he ran as a centrist in the campaign. Funny, though, I always believed he was at least a socialist. That's what the rhetoric sounded like to me. But then a lot of people talk socialism and don't realize it's socialism. It's just something they picked up in an Ivy League poli-sci class and they think it sounds appropriately socially concerned and informed. It isn't, but they don't know that; they haven't been exposed to any other, more enlightened views.  

But I digress. What I mean to say is... If the Comrade didn't run for office to be a president and to govern, then why the hell did he run for office?

Apparently to promote his communist ideas.

I believe he's a totally committed ideological marxist. Not even the pragmatic variety, but a real purist marxist.

He doesn't seem to care anything about the USA. He just wants to push his marxist agenda. He doesn't care if the debt is $14 TRILLION.  In fact, all the better for him -- it will hasten the demise of capitalism in the USA.

He doesn't care if people are working or not, whether or not they can pay their mortgages, and on and on and on.

His sole purpose is to establish communist policies.

Of course, marxists -- real, true marxists (that is to say, "blind-to-reality" marxists) -- don't understand that marxism is inherently and necessarily totalitarian. They believe that it can be "democratic." But their definition of "democratic" may vary from the popular interpretation.

In the Athenian democracy of ancient times, when the citizens elected a leader, that leader had absolute power. One of the Athenian leaders was Tyro. That's where the word "tyrant" comes from. This seems to be the Comrade's view of democracy. However, because of the US Constitution, no elected official in the USA can be granted that much power. Citizens and congress and even the Supreme Court can try to give him that much power -- likely to be challenged successfully because such a concentration of power violates the Constitution. The Constitution simply does not allow it.

The USA is "democratic" in the sense that majority rules for some things, but it's not a democracy. Never has been. It's built on the concept of individual rights, not mob rule.

With Scott Brown elected in Taxachusetts, the dems in congress now seem to be waking up a bit and getting reluctant to continue to hand over their own power by marching in lock-step to support the Comrade's  agenda. Seems they're just discovering, "Hey, we don't have to go along with this...."

They never had to go along with the Comrade. I can't imagine why they do. Is Pazzo going to refuse to donate to their campaign funds or what? The Legislative Branch has just as much power at the Executive Branch. Congress can tell the Comrade to blow it out his ear. And they appear to be mvoing in that direction, however slowly.

So now Comrade Spin is going around telling people, like in Ohio the other day, that all their problems are somehow related to Wall Street financiers getting bonsuses.

Trying to stir up class warfare. It's pure marxist. It's also pure bullshit in the USA. That's not going anywhere. In their heart of hearts, most Americans would love to make millions of dollars every year. They may be envious of others who do, but not so envious that they would give up their own opportunity to make millions. They understand that if the execs at AIG have to give up their bonuses, the government can make the guy working the loading dock at WalMart give up his bonuses, too -- or any chance of any bonus.

And guess what? This crap isn't playing well. The audience tends to push the class warfare jazz to one side and ask, "But what are you doing to do to restart the economy?"

Comrade Spin doesn't want to do anything about the economy. He wants to see it collapse so that he can replace it with a totalitarian structure.... no doubt as an "emergency measure." Like the goddamn stimulus bill. That piece of crap may have already wrecked any hope of economic recovery. But it can still be repealed.

Comrade Spin tells citizens they're angry because the "special interests" are defeating socialized medicine. No, Comrade, we all know that the "special interests" -- including the unions -- are all lined up on your side. You've bought them all off. And that is something we did get to watch on TV, such as senate whore Landrieu crowing about getting $300 million, not a measly $100 million. We all know this. He isn't fooling anyone.

Does he really think that we don't know why we're angry? Does he really think that we're going to accept his interpretation of our own feelings and attitudes above our own judgment?

Comrade Spin has got to be one of the most arrogant individuals on the planet. He's telling us that he knows better than we do what's in our own hearts and minds? He really does believe he's omnipotent, doesn't he? That's dangerously sociopathic.

Comrade Spin is an idiot, and worse than that -- he's a one-trick pony. He can't fix the economy, he can't govern this nation. He doesn't have the experience, he doesn't have the information, and he refuses to do anything to improve himself. Improve himself? My God, he's already close to perfect, isn't he? He won't even look at reality. He doesn't care about reality. He didn't run for office to govern the USA. He ran for office to establish socialism here. He's not even going to try to do anything else.

We'll see how that works for you, Comrade.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Dolts in DC, but you knew that

Picture this....

Scott Brown does his too-long victory speech in Massachusetts late Tuesday night. At the White House, the Comrade, Robert Gibbs, Ram Emanual, David Axelrod, and maybe a couple bodyguards are sitting around, watching it all on TV.

"Good God, how do we make this go away?" one of them says.

They order some imported beer and huddle for an hour or so. Too late to buy a truck. It would be too obvious a desperate copy-cat-looking thing. So they come up with this idiotic spin:

"Scott Brown was elected on the same anger that got me elected," the Comrade says, rehearsing. "It's not anger over events of the last year; it's anger over events of the last eight years."

So it's still all George Bush's fault. I mean, that's actually funny. And predictable. And rather disappointing that these guys are making so much money and have so little imagination. It doesn't even make for real entertainment anymore.

Robert Gibbs, secretly appalled at having to stand up in front of a bunch of hard-eyed news reporters and repeat this drivel, goes, "Yeah. We can make it work." After all, he's made other, equally ridiculous statements, he tells himself, to assuage his internal assinine-alarm. After all, it's his job to look like a damnfool. He represents the White House.

Well, Gibbs can repeat it. But he can't make it work. I mean, the line is pretty pathetic. Is that really the best they can come up with? And how much are these guys making?

Massachusetts, easily the most liberal state in the union -- its left-wing lunacy surpassed only by small wine & cheese tasting clubs in Pacific Heights or possibly parts of Marin County -- Massachusetts votes for a guy who wants to cut taxes, treat terrorists like POWs, and scrap the socialized medicine bills and start over.

It's not like Scott Brown could be mistaken for a liberal. Perhaps the Comrade with his total kind of blindness could make that mistake, but no reasonable American voter would. And the Comrade's interview with George Stephanolopolous, who has definitely drunk the Kool-Aid, didn't provide a better explanation. The Comrade seems to think we all just need a lesson in "core values."

I think the Comrade is the one who needs the lesson in core values. Or at least needs to recognize that the USA is not essentially marxist -- ON PURPOSE AND AFTER JUDICIOUS DELIBERATION. Quite possibly the Comrade has never been exposed to anything but elitist political bull-hockey. Maybe he should get a real job in a commercial enterprise sometime to experience a "teachable moment."

Pazzo Pelosi managed to keep her teeth mostly inside her mouth today. Nice change. Now how about reducing the Botox dosage so your face actually moves? Of course, she'd risk losing that blow-up rubber doll look. Her hair was all messed up yesterday, too. I suspect uncontrollable tears play havoc with mousse.

By the way, did she and Harry Reid buy twin cashmere coats, or what? I mean, when you're speaker of whatever, do they give you a cashmere coat? Does Newt have one, then? Just wondering.... Maybe they come free with Gulf Stream jets, like the way you get to keep the bathrobes at luxury hotels.

Anyway, Pazzo and Reid seem to think socialized medicine still has a chance. At least that's how they're talking. They might find it a bit more difficult to convince their co-congresscritters of that, or the ones who actually want to be re-elected in November. Do I sense is hike in the bribe rate in the offing?

What amazes me is: What does it take? Do you actually have to smack these people between the eyes with a hammer or what? The citizens don't want this bull-crap. Those living in the shadow of Haevaed don't even want this crap and they apparently believe anything. The Comrade and the merry marxists absolutely refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with them. They are either really, really intellectually deficient, idealogues dipped in bronze -- frozen in position, that is -- or suicidal. Judging by their principles in general, I'd have to go with suicidal.

So they want to die, they just don't want to go alone. They insist on taking the whole nation with them.

Remember Robert Ringer? He wrote a book called Looking Out for #1 about 30 years ago. Worth a read, by the way. Anyway, Robert Ringer said everyone's afraid to die alone; yet the one thing you can be completely certain of is that when you die, you will die alone.

But I don't expect the lunatic fringe in DC to really absorb that message, either.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Dancin' in the streets... of Boston

Anyone who's studied the American Revolution must know that it was Boston that gave the British such a damn hard time. Boston, and Massachusetts Colony, had the Tea Party, they had the Sons of Liberty, Sam and John Adams, the Boston Massacre, and eventually the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired on Lexington Green.

When Patrick Henry delivered the "Give me liberty or give me death!" speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses -- at St. John's Presbyterian, because the British governor had dismissed that legislature -- Henry was doing his damnedest to get Virginia to stand behind Massachusetts. "Already we hear the clash of arms from the north.... " The North was Boston.

I've been rather embarrassed about Boston and Massachusetts as an American. Such sell-outs to the slimy socialist promises from people like the Kennedys and so on. A democrat machine that was surpassed only by the nasty and devious machinations of Chicago.

And Scott Brown won tonight in Masschusetts, against the machine candidate and someone who would have helped enslave us all under socialist medicine. And Brown won "the Kennedy seat."

I really do love America. And apparently so does a lot of other people.

Let's keep it going until we really and truly take this country back and stand it up on its true ideals.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Massachusetts Republican - contradiction in terms?

Wanted to write about this for the last several days, but haven't had time.

I cannot believe that a Republican is actually a very potential candidate to take over the senate seat that had belonged to Teddy Kennedy in "Taxachusetts."

What is the country coming to?

That Senator Nelson from Nebraska, who got his state excused from the coming crushing Medicaid expenses under socialized medicine, is now trying to broker the same deal for all the states -- since his own constituency is embarrassed about him.  Apparently he's trying to make good by spreading the swill around. I don't know. Would you agree to share in his corruption if it gets you off the hook for paying for health insurance?

And also, under one recent version of the socialized medicine bill, the unions don't have to pay the 40% tax on "Cadillac" health insurance until 2018 or something like that -- when the USA will be over and done with, apparently.

So who is going to pay for this piece of crap? Apparently only those who refuse to vote for it.

What the hell kind of legislative representation is this?

No one wants socialized medicine except the Comrade and his minions. So why are the democrats in congress pushing it so hard? It very obviously will mean the end of their political careers.

This is insane. No one wants this legislation. I think the dems support it only to display what they perceive to be their "power." We'll see how much power they have next November. And we don't even have to wait that long -- the Massachusetts special election is Tuesday.

The dems are telling themselves and others that "once this passes" everyone will like it.

Think again. "Once this passes," if it does, it means four to five years of new and/or increasing taxes before anyone sees any benefits at all -- and I seriously doubt anyone will see any benefits, EVER, based on the results of socialized medicine in other countries. This pretty much guarantees Republican majorities in congress in perpetuity.

So, sure, go ahead, vote for "Maetha" what's-her-face. Then when the Reps win big in November, they can repeal it all, and the dem party will be dead in the water.

Sounds good to me. I've been predicting the demise of the dems since Bill Clinton. So go ahead, make my day.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Washington DC's "Daybreakers"

I've only seen ads for the movie "Daybreakers." Or maybe it's a TV show. Not sure. At any rate, it's about when vampires have taken over the world and outnumber the non-vampires. The problem with this?

No blood. No one producing blood, everyone sucking it out of the few producers who are left.

Is this a parody on the Obama administration, or what?

That's all for now. Have work to do.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

The magic tax

First, I must say: poor Haiti! Haiti already is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, probably the least able to recover from a major disaster like the earthquake of a couple days ago. Here's hoping the relief ships and planes find a way in to provide some help. What a catastrophe.

Second, the Comrade made a brief announcement today. He wants to get a tax on those "too big to fail" financial institutions that accepted help from the TARP fund. He said that although the TARP money has mostly been paid back, those institutions continue to "do business as usual," "take too many risks," and "hand out huge bonuses." Taxing them, according to the Comrade, will fix all this. I don't know how or why it would.

As I was listening, I kept thinking, "Does this man know nothing about business?" A tax on financial businesses that are actually earning money would only guarantee that a general economic recovery will NEVER happen. What an idiot. That's what happens when you elect a community organizer to the presidency. He just doesn't get it:  there is no Santa Claus.

And, hey, Mr. Comrade, any loan to a business is a risky venture. That's why the winners make so damn much money. You've got to have a pretty accurate crystal ball to win at this. You feds were dorking around with mortgage interest rates and such, and you see what happened? Major financial collapse. Maybe you-all should just butt out. You don't know what you're doing. Leave it the hell alone.

I think these financial guys work for what they get. The Comrade came off actually sounding like he envied those big bonuses, or else just tired of repeating the tired-out drum-call to class warfare. Most of the millions that go to bonuses get re-invested in the economy one way or another. You can bet those high-earners take that money and form venture capital funds and things like that. Even if they just leave it in the bank, it gets re-invested in the economy. That's where the jobs and new ideas come from, Mr. Comrade -- NOT from the federal government. The money is much better and wisely spent privately.

And... How are the banks supposed to do business, except "as usual"? I'd just like to know, that's all. The Comrade noted that most of the TARP money has been paid back. By doing business as usual, no doubt. Has the Comrade got a better idea? One that's more productive? Perhaps the Comrade is a bit dismayed that the money the banks earn is NOT going to SEIU and GM. Well, screw him and the unions. I'd much rather see it privately invested and used to build, not to buy votes and voters and develop a dependent and therefore captive membership for the socialist-democrats.

By the way, if the TARP money has been mostly paid back, where the hell is it? I suppose the Comrade and his merry marxists want to donate it to socialized medicine now. I don't think so. I think they should just give it back to the Treasury (though I don't really trust Geithner, after all, he's the one who can't seem to find the TARP money) to help underwrite the USA's monumental, crushing debt -- developed by the socialist-democrats over last year.

Christine Romer also said recently that only about 30% of the Stimulus Bill has been spent. Why not cancel the rest of that while you're at it? It hasn't done much good anyway. Return that to the Treasury and maybe the USA can avoid going into default and becoming another Zimbabwe. Of course, we're all becoming aware of the fact that that's exactly the direction this administration wants to go -- toward poverty and dependency.

Just a few thoughts.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Cowboys and indians

Nothing much in the news. Obama apparently did once refer to "the war on al-qaeda," which generated considerable chatter but apparently has done not much else. What's more interesting to me is that the CIA or someone picked up five US citizens -- young male muslims -- who were trying to enlist in al-qaeda or some-such. One kid was asked if he thought it was wrong to do things like blow up high-rise office buildngs and murder 3,000 people who have nothing to do with your problems. The kid said something like, "It's not terrorism. It's jihad."

So apparently Osama bin Ladin now has attained a cult status similar to Batman or Spiderman. And he's inspiring ignorant and purposeless children to kill themselves and believe they're doing something fine and noble. Well, let's take a look at that.

Have you ever really lost your temper at some time and done something really stupid? Like, you're sitting in traffic, way back from the jam or the accident or whatever's holding everyone up. Out of frustration, you ram your car into the rear end of the guy in front of you, throw it into reverse, and charge full-bore into the car behind you. You keep ramming forward and reverse, forward and reverse, until one of the other drivers comes over and drags you out of your car and pounds the crap out of you. And your car is so messed up it's probably not worth repairing. Your insurance won't pay for it.

Now exactly what have you accomplished? You made a gigantic ass out of yourself, wrecked your own and other peoples' property, and will be paying the damages for a long time to come. And on the plus side? [Anyone? Anyone?]

Now exactly what has al-qaeda accomplished? I certainly wouldn't want the US Army coming after me with drones and night-flying helicopters equipped with heat-seeking missiles. And on the plus side?

The venerable Helen Thomas, White House reporter, asked Robert Gibbs, WH press secretary, why the islamo-terrorists are targeting the USA. Apparently Gibbs didn't have an answer. Much later, a commentator on Fox wondered where Helen has been for the last eight years.

But this whole thing kinda reminds me of cowboys and indians. There are few things sadder in the world than cultural wars. For example:  a small caravan of pioneers are moving across the plains in the 1840s to resettle somewhere in the West. They're passing through land that is, at this moment, controlled by the Sioux -- although the Sioux only took it over by running out the Black Feet, and the Sioux's control is constantly being challenged by the Cheyenne and the Pawnee. But the hapless pioneers don't know anything about this tribal business at all.

So, the pioneers left Missouri with about four head of cattle. One of their cows takes sick, and rather than hold up the whole caravan for however long it will take for the cow to recover, they leave the cow behind. They do their 10 or 12 miles for the day and set up camp on the Platte, near water, etc., where they can rest for a couple days. They send a 12-year-old kid back for the cow.

The kid goes back and can't find the cow. However, he does run into a Sioux indian, who says, "Oh, was that your cow? We thought you didn't want it, so we took it and slaughtered it and ate it for dinner last night. Maybe we could give you a pony or something to make up for it?"

Well... no. The kid's family wouldn't accept any apologies or retribution. As far as the pioneer was concerned, the Sioux were vicious and trying to kill all white people. The pioneer got up some kind of posse and tried to burn down the indian village, and the indians, of course, retaliated to the best of their ability -- which was considerable.

And this actually happened. And it set off a bloody slaughter and hostilities that continued for decades.

Then poor Black Kettle, who was a Cheyenne chieftain, I believe. He actually went to Washington with one delegation or another and was quite impressed by the permanent-looking civilization on the eastern side of the Mississippi. Heretofore, most indians regarded the pioneers as something like scouts for another tribe. I suppose in a way they were.

At any rate, Black Kettle just decided that indians could not win against the whites. He counseled his tribe to simply give up and go along. His tribe was attacked and massacred at Sand Creek, east of Denver, in the early days of the Civil War. Again, due to some kind of cattle disappearance or something like that, combined with the frustrated bravado of a butthead self-appointed militia colonel who wanted to be defending the Union somehow.

Black Kettle moved, at the behest and with the approval of the federal government, to a sort of tribal reserve on the Washita in what's Oklahoma now, I believe, or possibly Kansas. After the Civil War, Custer attacked and massacred Black Kettle's tribe there. This was because certain young men in the tribe refused to give up their tribal ways in the same way Black Kettle did, and they'd ride out periodically and burn down homesteads and murder settlers.

I'm not particularly taking the side of the indians. They gave back as good as they got. But don't you see, nobody wins? The story is just sad all the way around.

Destruction is not a very positive goal for anyone. Volunteering for martyrdom is not really a good or a very productive ideal.

Ever see "Bridge on the River Kwai"? Probably one of the best movies ever made. Toward the end, after William Holden has lead Jack Hawkins and a team of commandos into the jungle to blow up the bridge, Holden loses all patience with Hawkins' "death before dishonor" thing. Holden says something like: "All you talk about is how to die like a man, how to die with honor, how to die like a soldier. When the only thing that's really important is how to live like a human being."

So, anyway, you crazy islamo-terrorists, just keep on attacking. The more of you we kill, the fewer will be running at us tomorrow. This is not a war anyone wants, and believe me, we will wear you down. Because you see, we believe that we do have something to lose -- a positive reason for fighting -- even if you don't. That's a reason to live, not a reason to die. 

Or, as Patton said, "The objective is not to die for your country, but to get the enemy to die for his."

In a perfect world, I'd be a pacifist. But a perfect world does not exist.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Suicide ain't painless

Anyone else find it interesting that, although the democrat party (no longer capitalized, please note), with majorities in both houses and a democrat president, is folding its little tent and quietly stealing away?

Interesting news today -- Chris Dodd, Dorgan, and Ritter, three big dem cheeses, all are retiring after this term. That just about guarantees that the dems lose the senate majority, unless voters do something stupid, like elect another dem to take one of their places.

What amazes me, however, is that these guys are members of probably the most powerful political cabal in the most powerful nation in the world, and they're quitting. One of two things:

1.) They're men of honor and can't stand to see the dem leadership destroy the nation;
2.) They understand there's no way they'll be re-elected, so retirement looks better and is much less humiliating than what they'll surely face at the polls in November.

Dodd, I'm quite sure, is a total corrupt jerk, so #2 undoubtedly applies. The other two I don't know very well at all, so they could be honorable. I mean, it could happen.....

Anyway, just wanted to crow a little bit about this. I didn't think the democrats could survive the Clinton administration, but I guess it takes a complete and total disaster -- like a communist president and dem majorities in both houses, and they threatening the existence of the USA as the USA -- to stamp out 324 years of tradition. Oh well, the dems are pretty much done for now; better late than never. And to think this was Jefferson's party. Maybe he's coming to all of these guys in their dreams and reminding them of their oath to "protect and defend."

This is a great day for the nation!

Notes on the congressional hog wallow

Haven't been writing a lot because it's just the same old thing -- incompetence and corruption.

Just want to note that Pazzo Pelosi and Give-'em-pork Harry Reid apparently are agreeing to keep secret the "conference" (ha-ha) that will combine the house and senate socialized medicine bills. Normally, a "conference" to reconcile the two bills is publicized. So Pelosi and Reid seem to be concluding to take another tactic -- a house committee meeting in secret will make a change and "ping-pong" that to a secret senate committee to do whatever it wants to do with that.

The idea behind all the secrecy is, of course, that the American public has gagged on "the process" as it has revealed itself thus far, so the democrats are apprehensive about feeding us any more rotten pork. Not that they'll stop; rather, they'll do it behind closed doors. In either case, they're poisoning the system.

See, Pazzo still doesn't understand that the way things look is not half as important as the way things really are -- and that most Americans really do understand the difference between illusion and reality -- even if she herself is not capable of such subtle discernment. Like all of the people who have voted for and with her, she's probably a borderline sociopath who should be institutionalized to protect the public.

This is really making me sick. I think about Jefferson and Madison and those guys, and the structure they created, the ideals they believed in. Then look at what these horses' asses are doing to it. It's more than disgusting. It's a crime against humanity. These idiots need to be charged with bribery, among other things, and prosecuted publicly.

Of course, the big question that really is no question at all is: Will the Comrade sign this piece of crap legislation? What do you think?

Isn't the Comrade, then, as foul and corrupt as those who put it together?

Do I need to ask?

We need to get rid of every reeking democrat who will be running for office in November. That still won't give the senate a non-democrat majority, but it will help.

This piece of crap socialized medicine abomination needs to be repealed. The least citizens can do -- even before and without an election -- is to ignore it.

If you're asked on your IRS form whether or not you have health insurance, I suggest jotting down "N/A" or "none of your Goddamn business" and moving on. If you choose to file your taxes this year. If you want to continue to support and participate in this nauseating and worthless exercise of illegitimate dominion.

All of this crap will continue only for as long as we, the public, allow it to. We do have the final say. For one thing, we w-a-a-a-a-y outnumber the jerks in congress. There are only 535 of them. There are 300 million of us. This government exists only for as long as we support it.

And these jerks don't like to be called "nazis"? Well, if it walks like a nazi, and talks like a nazi, and conducts government business like a nazi.... what else shall we call them?

They exist only to serve us. Not the other way around. Don't ever forget that.

Sunday, January 3, 2010

"Enemy combatants" or "vandals"?

Don't know about anyone else in the USA, but I'd welcome a little global warming just about now. When those buttheads in Copenhagen said 2009 was the hottest year on record, were they just ignoring stats from the northern hemisphere or what? Apparently they did "forget" about the numbers from Russia.

Saw only part of a speech from the Comrade today. Maybe it was today. Coulda been yesterday. Time is just a blur....

Anyway, did the Comrade himself refer to the Nigerian Bomber as a "terrorist," or was that someone from Homeland Security or the State Department or someplace else? Don't tell me even the Comrade is coming to view these "man-made disasters" as something more than low-level criminal activity. 'Course, that would undo all he's done regarding the prisoners at Guantanamo.

Here's an interesting situation. During the US Civil War, the US couldn't recognize the "rebels" as the Confederate States of America, a separate nation, without acknowledging that the CSA actually was a separate nation. See the problem? Like, after the South bombed Fort Sumter -- the first official violence in the war -- Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the "insurrection." If Lincoln or anyone else officially referred to the CSA as the CSA, that would be diplomatic recognition that the CSA was in fact another country apart from the USA, and that, in fact, the CSA had successfully separated itself from the USA. That separaton was never conceded during the war. To this day, the USA regards the Civil War as "The War of Rebellion."

Anyway, it was a bizarre issue.

So the USA had to fight these "insurrectionists" as an internal problem rather than as a foreign enemy, and for crimes that were a little more serious than vandalism. This got rather sticky, because if the rebs were US citizens, then they truly and really did have a claim to all the rights and protections of the US Constitution. And "rules of warfare" did exist at the time. Not written in stone and agreed to, like the Geneva Convention, but a book of rules did exist -- primarily for fighting a foreign enemy.

So how do you lock people up who try to blow up a critical railroad bridge? You can't claim they're foreign invaders, not in a civil war. Yet they're more than teenagers trashing a high school. What do you do about spies, when US citizens ordinarly have the right to visit friends and relatives in jail, and can even carry weapons and such in their hoop skirts? I mean, the Civil War was a real, bloody war, not just an exercise in semantics. How do you get the law to support you?

Look up what's called "The Prize Cases" in the US Supreme Court. This decision involved the USA's confiscation of certain ships and cargo that were actually owned by the British, primarily. They were shipping weapons and other materiel to the CSA. The USA had blockades put up around virtually every major southern port and seized these ships. Can the USA just arbitrarily seize a foreign ship going into a domestic port (from the perspective of the USA, Charleston, Mobile, and New Orleans were still "domestic" ports.)

Anyway, so it was the Prize Cases that provided an official legal go-around, or framework maybe, for prosecuting "enemy combatants" whether or not they were citizens of the USA. They were people who were regarded as trying to destroy the USA, no matter where they came from or how they got here.

The Comrade might want to look at those cases. Eric Holder and the ACLU might also check it out. The Prize Cases set a precedent. We've been through all this before, you see.

Interesting, too, that -- and this gets complicated -- is the POW question during the Civil War. After trying to follow the rules of a complicated cartel to exchange and return POWs, Lincoln finally ordered the exchanges be stopped when the North began recruiting black soldiers. Many were runaway slaves and "contrabands" from the South and after the Emancipation Proclamation, were allowed to join the US military. (See the movie, "Glory." It's really pretty good.)

Jeff Davis, CSA president, threatened to sell into slavery any black US soldiers who were captured, and initially said he'd hang their white commanders for "inciting domestic insurrection." He backed down on the white commanders thing for fear of retaliation from the North, but black soldiers fighting for the Union remained targets for special abuse and cruelty at the hands of the CSA.

Despite Lincoln's directive, he did leave the final decision about POWs up to the field commanders... At Gettysburg, and at Lincoln's bidding, General Meade refused an exchange of prisoners suggested by General Robert E. Lee once the cannons had quieted down. But on the same day on the Mississippi River, General U.S. Grant released some 30,000 Confederate POWs when Vicksburg finally fell. Grant didn't want to feed them and guard them. The Vicksburg POWs were supposed to lay down their arms and go home and not fight again (until the CSA released 30,000 US POWs to even things out -- gets complicated.)

But then a few months later, Grant saw these same units on the front lines at the Battle of Chattanooga, and from thence onward, though a few exchanges were made -- mostly of officers, spies, and other civilian partisans -- the USA refused to return soldiers to the South because these guys would pick up arms and head for the front lines. The South was running out of men; Grant saw that as yet another way to bring an end to the war.

The POWs held by both the North and the South were imprisoned through the conclusion of the war. That's why the prison camps got so crowded. If the North wasn't going to return any POWs, the CSA surely wasn't going to either.

Interesting, too, that the people who assassinated Lincoln -- after the war, mind you -- were tried by a military tribunal, not by a civilian court. Henry Wirtz, CSA commander of the POW camp at Andersonville, Georgia, also was tried by a military tribunal -- after the war had come to an end.

Rose Greenhow, a society belle in Washington, DC, when the war broke out, was a southern sympathizer and apparently passed information she collected from Yankee officers to friends of hers in the Confederate Army. She was kept under house arrest, imprisoned for a time, and finally left the USA.

Spies and other similar were tried by military tribunals -- and these spies were, for the most part, still US citizens in the eyes of the North. And they were tried as "enemy combatants" by military tribunals. The CSA had its own military tribunals, too, but in one way it was an easier process for the South, because they regarded the Yankees as "foreign invaders."

So tell me about the legal status of the jerks who blew up the World Trade Center? Why do they rate being mirandized and a civilian trial? Perhaps Attorney General Holder and the Comrade will apply the RICO statutes and treat them like organized crime? Who knows? The prisoners at Guantanamo regard themselves as "enemy combatants" and POWs. Perhaps we all should just drop the very precious political correctness and treat them that way, instead of exhibiting to the world a Kangaroo Court, US-style -- and that's what that civilian trial will be.

I suspect it will be conducted something like Tim McVeigh's trial, which was an absolute travesty of justice -- and I have no doubt at all that McVeigh was guilty of blowing up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. The idea of using a prosecutor in a wheel chair -- obvious and even insulting appeal for sympathy -- and calling as "witnesses" the family members of people killed at the Murrah Building -- what a disgrace! The family members properly might have been part of a sentencing trial, but what on earth did they know beforehand about the incident that would help convict Tim McVeigh?

Anyway, I'm cold and tired. And I'm just sick of this administration's complete ignorance of and disregard for US history and traditions. But even the Comrade seems to understand that these islamo-terrorists are dangerous animals. Maybe that's finally beginning to sink in.