Gun control: a work of fiction

Well, since the shootings at a grammar school in Newtown, Connecticut, last week, the issue of gun control is back on the Comrade's mind. Never let a crisis go to waste? Apparently the Fast & Furious thing didn't work out right, so here's another opportunity.

At a news conference today, he announced some kind of commission -- I don't know the details, seeing his ugly face on TV sort of trips a scream reflex and I didn't hear what he was saying. However, he put Joe Biden in charge, so I doubt it's going to be a serious effort.

But let's examine this -- seriously -- for a minute.

Blockheads like Pazzo Pelosi hold firmly to the fiction that if you pass a law, you're solving a problem. I once had a magic wand I picked up at a Renaissance Faire. This blind in faith in "there oughta be law," is a magic wand. And it works about the same.

First of all, the challenge seems to be: how do we get guns out of the hands of criminals and lunatics?

Are criminals and lunatics going to worry about not obeying gun control laws? They don't obey any other laws.

What happens in real life is that law-abiding citizens follows the laws. The criminals do not. Net result: armed criminals are free to run rampant over law-abiding citizens. It happens every time.

Second, there are millions of guns in the USA. Hundreds of millions. More guns than population. Think you're going to get rid of those? Think muggers and robbers and hijackers and psychopathic killers are going to give up their guns? If so, I'd like to offer you a parcel of land in Florida....

On the other hand, where "gun control" includes legal "concealed carry," which means anyone might have a gun in their pocket or backpack, violent crime goes down. Criminals aren't usually fools. If you might be armed, they get a little more polite and might consider pursuing other illegal channels rather than stick-em-up games.

Third, a friend just posted some interesting statistics on my Facebook page. Did you know, for example, that gun violence doesn't kill as many people as non-gun violence? Or that non-car accidents (as in, Hey! Watch this!) kill many more people every year than ANY KIND of deliberate violence?

Interesting, no?

In additon, that kid in Connecticut played by the rules -- except on that last day of his life. He was using his mother's guns, which were registerd, and which he was trained to use. The school had a security system -- apparently the killer shot out a window to get in.

His problem wasn't access to guns so much as it was something wrong in his head. He'd lived in a home with guns for several years and doesn't seem to have been compelled to kill anyone. His mother had trained him how to use those guns safely. More or different gun control laws wouldn't have made a bit of difference in his case. Maybe his mother should have thought twice? Maybe the kid just snapped for some reason we'll never know.

But let's do SOMETHING, right? Let's see if we can't violate the Constitution and take away more freedom as some kind of memorial to the 26 dead people in Connecticut. Gun control is just another fascist-liberal hobby horse, like taxing the rich.

Hmmm.... taxing the rich. A much more serious issue than gun control right now. Don't get me started.

But I especially don't want tighter gun ownership restrictionw with the Comrade in the White House. How about a cooling off period before taking this up? How about a period of about four more years?

That's it.

Why the violence?

It's a couple days after some loonytoons broke into a grammar school in Newtown, Connecticut, and shot 26 people. He killed his mother before he left home, too. And killed himself.

No one so far has been able to proivde any kind of plausible reason, except the kid was nuts somehow. Apparently he played a lot of video games, but he was20 years old, too. Not exactly "a kid."

He had been diagnosed with Asperger's -- a high-functioning autism. But I've never of autism generating violent behavior. Maybe just the opposite.

There's the usual talk about "adjusting the 2nd Amendment to suit today's realities." No. What happens -- and it's been proven statistically -- when and where guns are banned, then only criminals own guns. I mean, criminals are not people who are apt to abide by the law, are they? John Lott has some interesting statistics on that. And if that kid in Connecticut didn't have access to guns, he could have made bomb with a Coke bottle and a spritzer of gasoline. Would have done the trick, I'm guessing.

The school had some security. The guns the kid used were registered and licensed. His mother was a gun collector, and had taken care to show him how to use the guns.

I can't imagine walking into a first grade classroom and gunning down the kids and their teacher, and their principal, and the school psychologist, etc. Of 26 victims, 20 of them were six and seven years old. Horrible.

Then tonight, sick of the non-stop reporting on every detail of every victim's life -- each was a hero in his or her own way, of course, and certainly not one of them had done anything to justify their murder -- I'm not being cynical, I mean that. Anyway, I got sick of listening to it, so turned on a movie, "Taken," With Liam Niessen.

So Liam Niessen is a dedicated father to a 17-year-old who lives with her mother and her mother's second husband. Niessen is a former CIA operative who retired to be near his daughter. Long story short, the daughter goes to Paris, get kidnapped by a white slave ring, and Niessen goes rogue to find her.

And he kills about 30 people along the way. All very bad guys, mind you, including a corrupt cop, a bunch of thuggish Albanians, and the sheik who eventually bought the daughter.

Niessen kills all of them. To save his daughter.

And did you ever see the movie "Ronan," with Robert De Niro? Another version of "Let's see how many people we can kill in Paris." For a good cause.

I can't imagine why a kid with some kind of personality defect would resort to violence.

I mean, wherever did he get the idea that violence is a solution?

That's all.

Win the election, lose the country

No doubt, the Comrade won the last election. But, ironically, he seems to be losing the nation on every other count.

For example, under dictates of Obamacare, the states have the option of setting up their own "healthcare exchange," whatever that is, and working with the feds to run it, or just letting the feds come in and do the whole thing. The states have to the end of this week to decide which way to go. About 10 states still haven't decided.

But yesterday Tenneessee joined the states that have refused to set up the exchange themselves. Tennessee says it's too expensive for one thing. The other, and more important thing, is that, to paraphrase, "The feds haven't defined the partnership. We're not committing to a partnership without understanding it."

Just the other day another governor explained: "The states don't exercise any control over the exchanges, anyway. So basically we'd have to pay for it and run it, but we'd just be following orders from the feds."

Can't find an exact count, but I believe it's 23 or 24 states as of this moment who have refused to participate in Obamacare.

(A brief pause for na-na-na-na-na. Told you so.)

Also, currently there are a couple more cases questioning the legality of Obamacare heading for the Supreme Court. So maybe John Roberts will have a chance to redeem himself as someone who is both literte and capable of rational thought -- very unusual to find both these characteristics in one person in Washington.

And as wonderful as that news is, it gets evrn better.

Yesterday the Comrade went to Detroit to waive his arms around and shout about the wonderfulness of unions. And then MICHIGAN PASSED A RIGHT-TO-WORK LAW.

OK, until yesterday, Michigan was a "closed shop" state, like Illinois. That is, if you worked at a company that had a union, you had to join the union or not work there at all. (I have been in the SEIU and the Teamsters due to this law in Illinois.) By contrast, "Right-to-work" means you don't have to join the union.

I repeat, MICHIGAN, HOME OF THE UAW, AMONG OTHER UNIONS, HAS PASSED A RIGHT-TO-WORK LAW. OVER THE COMRADE'S SWEATY RANTS AND ARROGANT DEMAGOGUERY.

Now the unions are all over Lansing, the state capitol. Just this morning, they tore town and trampled a big tent that belonged to Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group. Well, no surprise the unions would oppose a group with a name like that. They also went after a couple news reporters, telling them not to film their actions.

So, unions will be unions, right? Violent, brutal, brainless. No intelligent argument, so bully and intimidate. Assholes. Standard behavior for rogue states and terrorists of all kinds.

Liberals claim that that's just what happens with passionate protest. Bullshit. Hundreds of thousands ot Tea Party occupied the Mall in DC with no violence, and they even picked up all their trash before they left.

Anyway, I find it very interesting to watch this large chasm opening up between Washington and The Rest of The Country. See, that is the way to get rid of this bullshit. Let people see how their lives are going to be ruined by all thiese socialist power grabs and thuggery and then decide -- and you voted for this asshole?

Did he win? How did he win? Better still -- What did he win?

You cannot fool all the people all the time.

What's the president up to?

We've been blessed in the United States. We've all loved our liberty so much, and taken it for granted, that we have no first hand familiarity at all with demogogues and dictators.

We'll we've got one now.

No one seems to be able to figure out, what the hell is the Comrade up to? He makes ridiculous budget demands, pushing a plan that not one democrat has supported in two or three years, and doesn't talk to anyone about it. He relies on people like Chris Matthews and the rest of the folks at NBC, ABC, and CBS to pretend like this is all very normal and just a "boys will be boys" dispute inside the Beltway. "Isn't that cute? Nothing to worry about, folks."

Meanwhile, the Comrade seems to want to extend his election campaign -- just a few more times, let him go out and raise some rabble, talking to the ignorant, selling his pie-in-the-sky wish list.

And I'm afraid Americans are so goddamn stupid, distracted by iPhones, Christmas shopping (sorry, hoiliday shoppiing), and video games, that they turn around momentarily, cheeer, then sink back into apathy.

What the Comrade is trying to do is consolidate his power base. He's trying to usurp the powers given to congress, and apparently he already has the Supreme Court in his hip pocket, if John Roberts' idiotic blather about trivial bullshit over socialized medicine is any indication.

The Comrade, like any mafia chief, is trying to kill off and otherwise "neutralize" any opposition to his stupid power grabs. Constitution's getting in his way, but as useless bitch Pazzo Pelosi noted, "The Constitution? Are you kidding?"

I'm fairly certain the election was rigged somehow -- probably the voting machines. Not that the democrats didn't work really hard on turnout, too. My polling place was packed with people, most of whom looked like they were scraped out of doorways.

So there we have it. The Republic is lost. Our freedom is lost. And nobody gives much of a shit.

And Morsi is called a dictator?

The Comrade sent Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner over to congress yesterday to negotiate a solution for the looming fiscal crisis.

On behalf of the White House, Geithner suggested tax increases to raise about $600 billion, a second stimulus package, and -- get this -- that congress should relinquish its authority to set a limit on federal borrowing.

In other words, the Comrade wants to raise taxes, throw billions more down some rat hole (probably one affiliated with political thugs from Chicago), and wants to borrow and spend as much money as he wants with no control, no accountability.

For one thing, congress can't relinquish its control of budgeting and spending without a Constitutional amendment.

AND THE VERY FACT THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION WOULD SUGGEST SUCH A THING PROBABLY MAKES IT LIABLE FOR IMPEACHMENT.

Anyway, I'm struck by a peculiar contrast. In Egypt, they elected a wannabe dictator in Morsi. So when Morsi came right out and issued diktats right and left seizing totalitarian powers, hundreds of thousands of Eggyptian poured into the public squares again in protest.

In the USA, we elected a wannabe dictator in the Comrade. So when the Comrade tries to seize totalilitarian control, we get a bunch of disgraceful assholes (Jamie Fox among them) painting him as a saint and a hero.

What's wrong with this picture?

I'm afraid America is doomed.

Debt crisis not a game

At the end of summer I found a little kitten. Actually, he was outside crying, and I thought the noise was kids playing. I finally looked outside to check, and found him stuck on top of a low wooden frame around a pipe that comes out from my neighbor's house. Like the kitten was trying to climb over it, but got stuck on top. His eyes weren't even open yet. Though it was a warm day, he was in the shade and was shivering uncontrollably. I picked him up and laid him in a sunny spot to warm up. Kept petting him a little to assure him he wasn't alone.

His mom came back a couple days later. She might have been out hunting for food, or maybe at the local bar trying to hook up. Who knows? Anyway, the kitten would have been dead by then, and he's my kitty now.

We'll gloss over the fun we had trying to feed him. Couldn't find a baby bottle small enough, so for a couple weeks, the kitty looked like he'd been dipped in formula and left to dry, which was pretty much the case. But he didn't starve. He's developed a real passion for cheese popcorn. Go figure.

Now he's about three months old and thriving. He loves to play, One of his favorite things is leaping up, hooking his claws into my knees, and climbing up. You tickle him, and he grabs your hand with his claws and starts gnawing on your fingers. He's playing, of course. But reflex action in response to a couple dozen kitty teeth sinking in your arm, you shove him away. And he charges back, even more determined to draw blood. He's a kitty. He's playing. He thinks it's a game.

The Comrade has precisely the same attitude toward the USA's $16 TRILLION debt and $1.2 TRILLION (or more) yearly deficit spending.

He sinks his tax-biting teeth into your income. You shove him away. He comes back, even more determined to draw blood.

No, really, Comrade. I'm serious. I'm not playing. You're killing me. You're destroying the country.

Really. This isn't a game.

But, of course, the blockhead in the White House is essentially too steeped in marxist cliches and platitudes to see reality.

He charges back, determined to draw even more blood. Lay waste to private enterprise. If some people have more money than others, "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!" Taxing the rich doesn't help the economy at all; in fact, it damages the economy. But the Comrade doesn't care. He's playing a game.

Just like a relatively brainless infant animal. I can forgive the animal. Human beings have the capacity to know better. 

So what next? When my kitty gets too rambunctious -- and believe me, I've got bites and scratches up to the elbows to illustrate my tolerance -- finally I have to lock him in the spare bathroom. If he doesn't mellow out soon, I'll probably have to take him to animal control, and they'll probably put him to sleep if no one adopts him.

I have no idea what might happen to the shit-for-brains in the White House. But more and more every day, I'm convinced -- give the idiot what he wants. Watch it all collapse. And then see if even the unions still love him.

The end of enlightenment

What can I say?

Israel is being attacked, has been under rocket fire from the Gaza Strip all year. The number I heard was that almost 1,200 rockets have been fired into southern Israel this year.And thanks to technology donated to Hamas (muslim terrorist organizaton) by Iran, the rockets launched in Gaza can now reach Tel Aviv and even Jerusalem.

Israel is fighting back, firing its own rockets into Gaza. With a truly amazing, pinpoint accuracy, they killed the head of Hamas's attack group with an air-launched missile while that sorry dude was driving along the smelly, shitty streets of an overcrowded, destitute Gaza, that lives on foreign aid, makes a living by whining like a bunch of spoiled babies.

Israal also has tanks and infantry lined up on the border with Gaza, ready to march in for a land war.

The Comrade condemns the muslim terrorists, then goes to Myanmar for a quick holiday. Apparently he has to go that far anymore to find people who still think he's some kind of deity.

God, how I despise that person. Or whatever you want to call it.

Anyway, the muslim terrorists have put out dozens of news releases about how this situation in the Middle East is all Israel's fault... for not lying down and inviting more rocket assaults?

What a bunch of f**ing murderers and thugs.

And where is the US press? Wringing their hands and whining about the poor, suffering terrorist.

I don't know... what the hell, exactly, are they suffering from? Except their own damn stupidity and refusal to grow up? Their religion binds them to irrelevant and even self-destructive traditions. And then they whine about it, and expect the rest of the world to support them. They are truly twisted and useless, and a genuine danger to human civilization.

I'm glad I'm nearly dead.

Hard to write in here anymore,.

I don't have any hope for much anymore.

The History Channel ran shows on Caligula all day yesterday.... Yeah, I know. The similarites are not good. Corruption. No sense of honor or decency. Lies. Deception. Intrigue. Cowardice. Self-aggrandizement. Empty shell with not much inside.

Exactly who voted for this son of a bitch, and why?

Mourn the Republic.

Kerry to head defense?

One miore thing and this is all for today.

"Swift -Boat" John Kerry as Secretary of Defense?

I can't even think about that.

I really believe in his second term, among the several items on his agenda, the Comrade will go full-bore as discrediting and destroying the US military. It's already started.

Are they trying to make a bloody revolution?

Or just put the USA in a position where it can't fight back, any enemy, foreign or domestic.

Usual "Sgt. Schultz Defense" from Washington

From White House Secretary Jay Carneybarker, who's still spewing b.s.

"The President new nothing about this at the time... " in reference to the circus at the CIA.

"He's focusing right now on working with congress in providing jobs... " I'm laughing so hard I have coffee shooting out my nose.

Susan Rice is being considered as a replacement for Hillary at the State Dept. Apparently it's Rice's  reward for lying through her teeth about Benghazi and remaining cheerful through all the public insults and abuse she took for it. And it's just as obvious that she's not vrey bright, for all her blind adoration of the Comrade and belief in his Utopia.

THIS ADMINISTRATION IS NOTHING BUT LIES, DECEPTION, INCOMPETENCE.

Additonally, as people look more closely at the returns from the Nov. 6 election, it becomes quite obvious that the Comrade won only through massive vote fraud.

I'm quite sure those machines were fixed.

Sgt. Schultz in TV show "Hogan's Heroes" was famous for the line, "I know notink! I see notink!" Maybe the Comrade should nominate him to replace Hillary.

But believe what you want to believe.

That's all.

White House, AKA Animal House

As the so-called "Petraeus Affair" unfolds, the White House and all of its adherents, sycophants, and general hangers-on is beginning to look like a sloppy version of Animal House.

Little boys having affairs, lying about it, helping each other lie about significant national defense issues, possibly extorting each other to lie -- and so on. The key thing seemed to be, "Don't let the Republicans know."

That also meant, apparently, "Don't let Congress know." Senator Diane Feinstein, California, and head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she didn't know anything about it until Petraeus resigned, and somehow she's the only person remotely involved in this whole matter who seems even remotely credible. And the fact that Feinstein didn't know anything about this may be a felonious omission on the part of the FBI.

OMG, Eric Holder again... FBI is under his lackadaisical misdirection. Think he'll let anything leak? He's probably already shredded the documents. And Hillary Clinton, who heads up the State Department, apparently intends to remain overseas until the Comrade is impeached, though she won't help with the effort.

OK. So Petraus had an affair with an ambitious -- or "am-bitch-ous?" -- grad student, Paula Broadwell. She managed to get hold of his email password and apparently had access to highly sensitive documents. That she mentioned casually in a talk to students in Denver.

Couldn't find a better informed or more interested audience? And the real question, what else does she know? Perhaps she misplaced Ambassador Chris Stephens' pleas for help while engaged in a mischievous game of keep-away with the CIA director. Or someone.

Apparently Mrs. Broadwell (yeah, she's also married, I understand) became aware that Petraeus exchanged conversaton with another woman -- "a friend of the family," Jill Kelley, who is herelf happily married and also a friend to Petraeus' wife. Broadwell became enraged, or went ballistic for some reason -- like something out of Fatal Attraction -- and started sending threats to Mrs. Kelley. Mrs. Broadwell appears to be a bit neurotic.

Mrs. Kelley called the FBI about it. And the FBI investigated.

We can only wonder about the nature of the threats if Mrs. Kelley felt compelled to contact the FBI. Did Mrs. Broadwell promise to blow up the Statue of Liberty or something? We can only guess.

And the most recent revelation is that the FBI agent Mrs. Kelley spoke to had been sending her photos of himself -- bare-chested. Never got over the Anthony's Weiner incident? Late-breaking news, he's been taken off the case.

What the hell is going on in Washington?

These people don't seem to have matured beyond the mental age of 14 or so. When are they going to start squirting Jello out of their cheeks at each other? Probably at the congressional hearings next week. Ha ha. What a hoot. I feel so much safer knowing these people are so close to nuclear weapons.

And the fact remains that Ambassador Chris Stevens, Glenn Doughtery, Sean Smith, and Ty Woods are still dead due to some kind of incompetence. Well, make that OBVIOUS incompetence at the top levels of American government.

Everyone preoccupied with "If you show me yours, I'll show you mine"? So much more fun than protecting the nation from attack.

I want my tax money back. I wouldn't pay any of these people to rake my lawn. God only knows what kind of a mess they'd make of that.

In 8th grade I was introduced to the French Revolution, the result of really over-the-top corruption and misconduct of all kinds by the powers-that-be in France at the time. My teacher said one sign of a government ripe for collapse is "intrigues at court." Kinda scary, huh? Nothing from this regime but intrigue, scandal, lies, back-door dealing, corruption, lies, scandal...

By the way, a whole bunch of people in about a dozen states are petitioning for secession.

At least they may provide us with some place to go.

The democrats' new math

If you wantched the democrat convention, you saw "Can't Keep It Zipped" Bill Clinton wagging his long, bony fingers and talking about math.

Apparently the rest of the dems found that so appealing, now they're all talking about math. So helfp me figure out how this works.

You run up $1.2 TRILLION dollar deficits every year, then raise taxes on what they call the "rich." That is, mostly small business owners who aren'tmaking all that much, once you consider expenses. The rate increase raises about 3% of the deficit.

The dems say this will fix the economy.

Or try this one: You spend $1.2 TRILLION dollars a year more than you take in. So that's a negative number.

Then you spend another trillion or so. And that's supposed to equalize the debt.

Huh?

And why Bill Clinton? I never understood his appeal. When he in the White House, he used to run -- or pretend to. Saw a picture of him once in short-shorts, and he looked not unlike a beached whale. I could never fathom what Monica Lewinski saw in him. He's just a lump, and with uncontrolled appetites. No wonder Hillary doesn't pay enough attention to him. How'd you like to wake up to that every morning?

And he can't do math.

Enough for now.

I'd do the usual "Save the Republic." But the Republic is lost.

And, hey kids, you voted for this jerk. You live with it now.

post-election

The worst thought about this election -- people voted for this slimy slug.

In Amerika?

The Republic is lost.

RIP USA

“In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.”
― Edward Gibbon

Nov. 6 - I voted!

Well, I did what I could.

On the way out of the parking lot, music got involved. See below. To the tune of "Maria" from West Side Story.

I voted.
I went to the polls and I voted.
I exercised my right
To pick a president
I like.

I voted.

I went to the polls and I voted.
The choice was clear to me
I voted for Paul Ryan
And Mitt Romney.

Elections –

Though often rigged, they’re still an expression
Of the rights we can claim as free citizens.

I voted. I’ll never stop voting.

I voted!

 

Sorry to be so silly, but I suspect the Comrade is on his way out. Fingers crossed.

Save the Republic.

Election Day 2012

Finally. I've been waiting four years for this day!

I think the Comrade understands he's doomed. He can't expect to ruin 300 million lives and people will continue to love him. Not unless they suffer from some kind of Stockholm Syndrome or harbor some kind masochism.

So, with all due respect... Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Save the Republic.

The last best hope of earth

150 years ago, the United States faced a different, but no less serious crisis than it's facing right now. At the time, exactly like now, the primary question was: What direction will the US take in the future?

1860s, the issue was slavery vs. freedom for all. And it is again. Working for the state is a form of slavery -- involuntary servitude. So three days before the 2012 Presidential Election, I offer this from history -- an excerpt from a State of the Union Address from Abe Lincoln. Read it carefully. It still applies directly.

Is it doubted, then, that the plan I propose, if adopted, would shorten the war, and thus lessen its expenditure of money and of blood? Is it doubted that it would restore the national authority and national prosperity, and perpetuate both indefinitely? Is it doubted that we here--Congress and Executive--can secure its adoption? Will not the good people respond to a united, and earnest appeal from us? Can we, can they, by any other means, so certainly, or so speedily, assure these vital objects? We can succeed only by concert. It is not "can any of us imagine better?" but, "can we all do better?" The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. 

Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.

Think about this, and then go vote.

Save the Repbulic.

President exploiting Hurricane Sandy?

Truly, my heart goes out to those literally millios of people affected by Hurricane Sandy. Very bizarre storm.

Al Gore's been out claiming it's related to Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever they're calling it now. But look at it this way -- we've had the EPA for decades now. The US and much of Europe has been working to hinder Climate Change (or wharever.) And all that's resulted so far is the storms seem to be getting worse and more catastrophic -- maybe.

There have been plenty of horrendous storms in the past. And people just figured, "Oh well, that's the way it goes," not having a political agenda attached to it. Since the political agenda has been attached, somehow people like Gore believe we can "fix" the weather with legislation.

I'm not convinced. And if yuou care about empirical results, without looking too hard, the EPA, et. al., apparently is driving these massive storms. Cause and effect, no? Using the same sloppy and simple-minded reasoning of the tree-huggers. I mean, no Katrina or Sandy before the EPA, but now, every year. No?

Speaking about weather-relted political agendas, as mentioned before, the Comrade has been out and about in New Jersey with Governor Chris Christie, a Republican, letting storm victims cry on their shoulders and promising rainbows to come. Mayor Bloomberg, New York City, refused a presidential visit -- traffic is impossible as it is.

At any rate, so the Comrade has been all over the Jersey Shore, making political hay. And this may be the first time he actually showed up anywhere near where the action is.

He's almost making much of his "cooperating" with a Republican.

Never mind that New Jersey is about at democrat as it gets. Christie was only elected there because the dems screwed up the sate big time and they needed to bring a Republican in to ensure survival.

Anyway, so the Comrade is demonstrating -- and his campaign is touting -- how well he plays with others -- that is, Republicans.

At the butt-end of his administration he figures out the value of "cooperation." Whatever happened to his high-handed "my way or the highway"attitude that he's so damn famouis for blaming on Republicans? Does Harry Reid know about the shift in policy? May be time to loose the strings on that big bundle of bipartisan legislation that's piled up from the House over the last two years.

The Comrade is just doing what any president would do -- and that's a real shocker there. But perhaps it's getting too cold to play golf?

You can fool some of the people some of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time; but you can't fool all the people all the time. That's from Abe Lincoln, and the Comrade might do well to ponder on that during the flight home from the White House in January. Not that that would stop him, though.

Save the Republic.

In the wake of Sandy

Thoughts go out to the millioins -- literally -- of people affected by Hurricane Sandy, or post-tropical sub-hurricane Sandy, or whatever the government's decided to call it now. Can you picture them? "Hmmm, we've changed the names of everything else to confuse people. What can we call this thing?" Ordinary citizens are much smarter. They call it a hurricane.

Even when it reaches Chicago.

Really high waves here. I'd go over to the beach to check it out, but where I live, the beach is on the other side of a large sort of wilderness park, and I'm sure the entrance is blocked off. It was blocked off for a whole season last year when we had our deroche -- straight winds -- thing that knocked out our electricity for a week or more.

So the residents of Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Connecticut, etc -- they have my sympathy. And West Virginia, too, with two feet of snow. Life does not go on with no electricity.

Something to think about when pondering the shut-down of coal as a fuel by the EPA. As if the EPA can do a damn thing to change the climate. If the EPA wants to take credit for the apparenly huge and extremely destructive storms we've had over the past decade or so, while the EPA has been mandating and "fixing" things -- they can go right ahead. Otherwise, why not just shut your ugly regulatory face and find a real job?

Our best local weather guy, Tom Skilling, is on TV right now, giving the predictions. It's cold here -- probably in the 40s, if you live in Florida and consider that cold. Also windy here, and that could be a problem.

Very interesting, too, that Hurricane Sandy gave the Comrade the opportunity to "look presidential" during this last week before the election. Hey folks, don't you find it interesting that he's only "looked presidential" this last week -- out of four years.

You know what to do.

Save the Republic

March to the sound of the... winds?

In a rather peculiar statement the other day, Leon Panetta said that the miliatry was not deployed to help defend the Benghazi consulate because he didn't have much information about the situation on the ground, and he didn't want to send US troops into harm's way.

I'm sorry, even with the gravity of the situation in mind, this is kinda funny. First of all, the sole purpose of the military is to go into harm's way. That's their job. They're equipped to handle it. They train for it every day.

Second, General Scales was on Fox commenting on this, and he noted that a long-standing military principle is that if you don't exactly know where the battle is, you "march to the sound of the guns." That is to say, you head directly into harm's way.

Third, if you have two drones over Benghazi collecting information, including night visual and infrared images -- and at least one of them might well be armed -- as well as two experienced people on the ground who can target enemy weapons with laser systems, what more information do you need, exactly? Advice from the White House as to the political correctness of the whole thing? And really, would that come under the heading of "intelligence" after all?

Leon, were you ever in the army? Have you ever even read anything about military tactics? Intelligence on troop and weapons deployment is more a less a "nice-to-have" in a combat situation, but it's only been available for the last 100 years or so on a reliable basis -- only since aircraft has been able to do fly-overs, really. You can't even really trust spies all the time, spies being notoriously motivated by money rather than by any national allegiance.

Or, more to the point, does Panetta know nothing about military honor? About guys like Ty Woods and Glen Dougherty, who will rush to provide assistance even when ordered to "stand downn"? You don't even leave your own dead on the ground in enemy territory. What about that, Mr. Panetta, Comrade, Mdm. Hillary, and the whole pack of idiots. Didn't take that into account, did you? Possibly because it's a notion so far from your own thought processes.

But the Comrade is right on his toes in combatting Hurricane Sandy. As the storm works its way up the coast, the Big Zero is touring FEMA headquarters and making sure aid and assistance is standing by.

It's OK to write off an ambassador, his aide, and two former Navy SEALS, but God forbid the lights go out on the Jersey shore. Is that it?

Yup. Right on his toes.

Save the Republic.

Obama, you are no Abraham Lincoln

During the Civil War, the telegraph was a relatively new and high-tech means of communication. Matter of fact, in the vicinity of any battle, it was nearly impossible, even for reporters, to use the telegraph because it was held exclusively for military communication. The Army carried cable with them and strung telegraph lines through the trees or whatever they could find, linking to whatever trunk line was available. And you always knew the enemy was about when the lines were cut.

So Lincon was known to spend considerable time hanging around the telegraph office in Washington, DC, when a battle was on or in the making. He wanted the latest news -- and oftentimes it just wasn't forthcoming. General Grant became somewhat notorious for not keeping in close touch -- at one point Lincoln sent a former New York Tribune reporter out to find out what the heck Grant was doing along the Mississippi River.

And keep in mind, too, that the big battles of the Civil War produced casualties -- dead and wounded -- often in the range of 10,000 to 15,000. Three days at Gettysburg racked up more than 40,000 casualties. Of course, that's counting both sides -- both were Americans.

At any rate, after one such horrendous battle, when Lincoln got the telegram regarding the outcome and the number of casualties... he was standing inside the telegraph office and turned to an aide and asked with grave sorrow, "What will we tell the people?"

In just about every case, Lincoln told the people the truth.

In one sense, Lincoln was compelled to tell the truth. Newspsper correspondents traveled with the armies at the time -- though they were despised by most generals and given little comfort -- Sherman even tried to have one hanged at one time -- and it was the correspondents who initially collected the names and numbers of the casualties. Long lists of casualties would be posted outside newspaper offices so people could see if their sons, brothers, husbands, were among them.

And the press, though it rooted noisily for its own side in the war, was often just as loudly critical of Lincoln. While he was in office, Lincoln was probably one of the most unpopular and reviled presidents the US has ever had. After Lincoln showed up at Gettysburg -- 10 months after the battle -- to open the military cemetary there, the brief speech he delivered was dismissed in one newspaper as "the stupid remarks of the president."

But Lincoln told the truth. And he looked at those casualty numbers every damn day, the burden of that no doubt the heaviest responsibility he had to carry.

1864 was an election year -- the campaign running as the war ground on. Grant was stalled outside Richmond, and Sherman was on the march toward Atlanta, very slowly and meeting resistance all along the way.

The Republicans didn't believe Lincoln had even a remote chance to be re-elected, and his democrat challenger, George McClellan, had been a very poipular, if notably ineffectual, war general.

Lincoln let his party know that he'd step down and let them nominate another candidate. Even he didn't think he could win.

Because Lincoln not only told told the truth, but he looked at it closely and accepted it for what it was. And if he didn't tell the truth, the press of the day would happily rat him out.

OK, so right now, all kinds of reports coming out -- by the hour almost -- about the fiasco in Benghazi. Apparently the two SEALS who were the last Americans standing, had repeatedly requested support. There was military in Tripoli, Libya's capitol city, and also an USAF base in Sigorella, Italy, about two hours away.

The fight went on for seven hours. The two former SEALS, among others, requested aid. Ambassador Chris Stevens had, for weeks, requested greater security measures. The consulate in Benghazi had been attacked twice already.

The State Department and the Department of Defense -- and God knows who else -- denied any help or assistance. Leon Panetta, from DoD, says they didn't know what things were like on the ground (despite having access to real-time video of the attack via a hovering drone), and refused to send any assistance. Senator John McCain told Fox News that though there were troops in Tripoli and elsewhere, they had no plan for deployment. They wouldn't know how to assemble themselves to take quick action and were never given any order to do so.

At the White House, the president apparently was sharpening up his blackjack skills in anticipation of his trip to Las Vegas for a fundraiser, the sickening images from the drone playing in the background, emails coming in right and left about the attack.

Stevens and an aide died of asphixiatioin in the "safe haven" of the consulate, which the terrorists had set on fire. The two former SEALS died fighting from rooftops at another "safe house" about a mile from the consulate. All alone. No back-up. No support.

And wht did the Comrade tell the people?

This makes me truly sick and depressed.

And by the way, General W.T. Sherman finally occupied Atlanta in September, 1864, and news of the victory was one key factor in Lincoln's re-nomination and re-election.

Thankfully, it kinda looks like the Comrade is going to get exactly the kind of support and concern he's given to others. He's dropping in the polls and doesn't look like he's going to recover.

Huzzah!

Save the Republic.

President fiddles while Benghazi burns

CBS News released copies of emails tonight that reveal that the president and all the other dopes in the White House knew that the Benghazi consulate had been attacked as it was happening, and probably watched the assault from the Oval Office.

No doubt as the Comrade was getting ready to fly to Vegas for his fundraiser.

I'm sorry. I'm so disgusted I can't even think straight.

Who on earth would vote for this pathetic blockhead in the White House? I can't even believe that he managed to sneak his sorry ass past the American public to be elected in the first place.

I mean really -- wouldn't you hope if your house was on fire and you were locked inside that someone would at least call the Fire Department?

The attack went on for seven hours. Seven  hours.

And the the Comrade got on a plane and flew to Vegas, leaving his staff to formulate some stupid lie to tell the public to cover up his pathetic incompetence.

Has he not one tiny little particle of human decency?

To paraphrase Mrs. Comrade: This is the first time in my life I'm truly ashamed of my country.

Save the Republic.

Before the last presidential showdown

I wasn't going to write anything until the debate tonight was over, but I just can't resist. Just a few comments.

First, about Senator George McGovern passing away. Kind of an interesting person. When he ran against Nixon in 1972, I was in my first full-time job and was a member of the SEIU labor union -- had to join or you didn't work. At the time, it was part of the AFL-CIO. One of McGovern's campaign promises was to provide every American with a "guaranteed minimum income," no matter what. No matter if they worked, didn't work, etc., we'd al be on the government payroll. That's cradle-to-grave socialism writ large -- and no one since has even approached that.

As a union member, I was informed along with everyone else that SEIU was donating our dues to the McGovern campaign. Where I worked, all of us union members were fuirous over the guarateed minimum income -- I mean why should we work to support others who won't? Because of the anger from the membership, do believe the AFL-CIO didn't donate to either campaign that year. Shortly afterward, SEIU broke away from the AFL to become the loony communist organization it is today.

Back to McGovern, though. After he left politics, he tried to open a restaurant, and publicly complained about all the barriers the government had thrown up against launching a small business. He said he didn't realize while he was in the Senate how destructive those policies were.

Yeah, kinda depends on if you're a master or a slave, doesn't it?

David Axelrod and other of the Comrade's minions were swarming all over TV this weekend with their usual message. Apparently Rep. Darryl Issa released a number of unclassified emails and other communications Ambassador Chris Stevens and others had sent out regarding the security situation in Libya. Axelrod and the merry marxists claim it's very "unfair" using this tragedy as a political tool. So hiding the information from the public and lying about isn't using it as a political tool? Well, we know who the "tools" really are here.

More tools.... The New York Times came out with a story on Saturday claiming that Iran has agreed to sit down one-on-one with the US to negotiate about its nuclear program. However, the Times noted, the story was completely unconfirmed by anyone in the government, and even if there was such an agreement, the meetings wouldn't take place until after the electon. And... they might not ever take place at all.

Had to laugh. Apparently the Times reporter overheard some talk at a cocktail party or something and decided to pass it along. Or maybe the Times just made it all up to promote the Comrade. Based on the paper's recent record, whaddayathink?

Meanwhile, Gallup released its weekly poll results, showing Romney 51%, Comrade, 45%.

Gallup. The organization also says the numbers can fluctuate before the election.

But the "progressives" all have their panties in a twist. Another attack on their fantasies. Oh God! When will it end??

November 6 we can put them all to rest.

Save the Republic.

President admits lies about Libya attack

Did you see the Presidential debate last night? Interesting. The Comrade was teed off that anyone should question his judgment or activites -- or lack of them. To paraphrase from Reap the Wild Wind, "God tells Obama and Obama tells the world." Is this whole campaign thing damaging his delusions? Nowhere to hide?

In one interesting moment, when one of the audience members asked about Libya, the Comrade said he had mentioned "acts of terror" in a speech he made in the White House Rose Garden on Sept. 12, the day after the attack at the Benghazi consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdred along with three other people.

Romney asked again, to clarify, did the Comrade just say he knew the attack was an "act of terror" on Sept. 12?

The Comrade noted the words were in his speech.

Modertor Candy Crawly then intervened, claiming that yes, indeed, the Comrade had used those very words, "act of terror" on Sept. 12. She failed to add, however, that he was referencing the World Trade Center attacks, not the ones in Libya.

And all the donkeys cheered. "Haha, Mitt, don't you look good with egg on your face!"

OK... so Romney then began to ask, "Why, then, Mr. President, did you send people out to five different news shows to claim the attack --"

Ms. Crawly decided to change the subject at thus point. And Romney's been criticized for not asking the question -- though God knows, he tried.

So I'll ask the question:

Mr. President, if you knew on Sept. 12 the attack on Libya on Sept. 11 was a terrorist attack, why did you lie about it for the next two weeks?

I'd love to hear his answer, but so far, just crickets.

We ony have to deal with a few more weeks of this crap anyway. Election looming.

Save the Republic.

Pre-debate incidentals

Just sayin'....

I'm so sick of journalists and pundits and the Comrade's campaign staff whining about Romney and Ryan not revealing exactly what they want to cut from the federal budget.

For journalists and pundits, I suppose it gives them an issue, some point of possible conflict, something to ask about and to use as a form of criticism.

For the Comrade's campaign, it's like they're complaining about, "It's not fair. He's not giving us any material to use against him."

Because you know that's what they'd do. Like Romney's offhand mention of cutting funding to PBS, that Big Bird will have have to go. That was a central campaign issue for two or three days. Pretty pathetic. Although it was pointed out that Big Bird is a multi-million dollar enterprise and really doesn't need federal support via PBS.

During the -- I can't call it a "debate." During the Biden talkathon last week, Paul Ryan said he doesn't want to propose specific cuts during the campaign and get "locked into them." That does make sense to me. But what makes greater sense is that no matter what they mention, it'll be turned against them, may become a huge populist-type "movement," and advocates will come out with picket signs and flaming effigies in defense of it.

Like suppose Romney/Ryan suggests cutting subsitdies to golf courses. Sounds like it would hit the rich, right?

No, next day, you'd have hundreds of Tiger Woods wannabes chaining themselves to the flags on the green, screaming about denying the poor and middle class access to golf courses. The lawnkeepers will have to deploy the sprinklers to keep the place operational.

If you know anything about sales -- not marketing, advertising or public relations, but one-on-one sales -- you know that one of the first principles is to not ever give anyone a reason to say "no."

It's easier to say no than it is to say yes. "No" means doing nothing, sustaining the status quo, even if it's unsustainable. "Yes" means change. Work. Effort. In the case of federal subsidies and other supports, it means somebody is going to lose something,. What? No more shrimp on treadmills? Horrors! They're attacking the academic establishment. Pretty soon not one single American will be able to do algebra.

See what I mean? So yeah, just keep your own counsel until you can get some dems to buy into it and help you secure support.

That's all. Eagerly awaiting the town hall style debates tomorrow. The format is supposed to be better for the Comrade, but I don't know. I think the only thing he's really good at is reading a teleprompter.

Save the Republic.

Joe Biden, blowhard

Just imagine...

You had to go to this business conference in a small town. You don't know anyone in town or, really, anyone at the convention. You spent all day listeing to boring chatter from the podium. At lunch, a group of folks sharing a single employer invited you to sit at their table-for-eight. They're nice people, but the conversation descended into office gossip, and while you tried to look attentive, who really gives a damn?

So now 5:30, you get back to the hotel. Just want to order a room service dinner, take a shower, watch TV, call the family, go to bed and get up early for the flight home.

But, crossing the lobby, there's the bar off to one side. Dim, bluish lighting. Sounds of ice and glass tinkling. Maybe some kind of music.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a nice, quiet glass of wine to unwind for a moment?

So you go in. Sit at the sparsely populated end of the bar, order a white Zinfandel or somethuing. Watching the local news and the pathetic, locally-produced TV commercials.

Then some guy walks in, surrounded by what seems like a cloud of dust. Or something. He's loud. He's nicely dressed. You can smell his expensive cologne from across the room. He's stopping at all the tables on his way to the bar, greeting people, joking. However, it becomes apparent that those people don't know him, and while they're friendly -- a few toss a few quips back at him -- they don't really know him.

You assume he's an out of town traveler like yourself. And he must do this all the time, because he's got his act down pat.

The guy goes to the bar, slaps down a $100.00 and orders "Drinks for all my friends." You kinda think in the back of your mind, "Cool. So I get another $6.00 glass of wine for free."

Unfortunately, as the guys glances up and down the bar with mischievous eyes, his gaze falls on you.

Oh, jeez. Here he comes.

He stands next to you, at first. Bangs on the bar to make sure the bartender serves you that second glass of wine chop-chop (his own words.)

"Where ya from?" he asks loudly.

You say, "Chicago, but --"

"Chicago!" he booms with delight. Then begins a 15-minute harangue about all of his adventures in Chicago.

Meanwhile, the bartender brings your second glass of wine.

"So, you have a family?" he asks.

You mention a couple kids.

He launches into a string of anecdotes about his kides and grandkids, his glittering eyes fixed on you and demanding cheerful nods of acknowledgement to ensure that you're following his rather commonplace stories and not very insightful observations. After about 20 mnutes, your face begins to hurt, paralyzed into a compliant smile. You're exhausted emotionally, drained. You gulp down that second wine, looking for an escape.

"Let me buy you dinner!" the guy demands. Not asks. "Don't worry. It's all covered by the expense account." That's his idea of a joke.

"Well, I'm expecting a phone call," you try.

"Go on, take your call, I'll meet you in the dining room."

"Well...."

He's not getting it. But worse -- he is getting it. He knows you find him a rude bore, but he keeps on pushing, knowing you're too polite to suggest he go outside and play in the traffic.

Now he's leaning over you, being confidential, speaking quietly, very serious, his alcoholic sweet-sour breath enough to turn your stomach.

He's got his arm around your shoulder now. On and on about his life experiences, his family, his career. Made up tales freighted with a sloppy sentimentalilty. Absolutely convinced within his own mind that this is just as important to you as it is to him. Oh my God, is he going to cry now?

This is more or less my impression of Joe Biden. He acted like he was drunk or something during the debate with Paul Ryan last night. That is to say, Biden seems to recognize no boundaries of civil society. Or he's drunk or something, his inhibitions vanished. He apparently has no moral compass, except for maybe whatever he remembers from what the nuns taught him 40 or 50 years ago.

He heaves himself at you, his cup running over with a cartoonish sentimentality -- not genuine passion, but sentimentality, like something from a cheap sympathy card.

God, what an ass.

How can we get rid of this guy?

I think you know how.

Save the Republic.

Libyan hearings

I'm currently watching snippets of the congressional hearing about the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11.

So far, several witnesses, a couple of whom served in Libya this year in the security organization, noted that the consulate compound was fortified to some degree, but also that additional boots-on-the-ground security was requested, but denied.

This broadcast is interlaced with discussion and commentary on other topics. Like they had Kirsten Powers commenting on the White House calling Romney a liar, following the debate where the Comrade came off kinda looking like the walking dead. Kirsten noted that the Comrade's campaign staff has to promote the "Liar, liar, pants on fire" campaign because that's their operational strategy right now.

Pathetic? Desperate? Unworthy of anyone running for any office in the USA?

Kirsten Powers also made the sometimes valid -- but not often anymore -- point that what either side might call "a lie" may be nothing more than a difference in the way something is interpreted.

However, I don't know how you can interpret this Benghazi fiasco as anything but a lie. The State department -- and probably the White House -- knew that the consulate was in a very dangerous position and in vulnerable circumstances, since the security there failed to meet the security standards set for outposts in unstable, even hostile areas.

They knew the place was understaffed in terms of security. Additionally, the State department -- and no doubt the White House -- understood that the Benghazi consulate was enduring a terrorist attack even while it was happening.

The State department -- and the White House - then promptly fabricated this stupid story about a video shaking up the loonies in the Middle East. State and the White House just made that up.

That's a LIE. That's not a valid alternative interpretation of the facts. That's a deliberate LIE.

Jay Carneybarker right now is concocting excuses about why the White House LIED about this event. He's a joke. And an insult to human intelligence. And all of them disgrace the nation.

And Chris Stevens (yeah, I'm spelling his name right this time), and three other Americans are dead because of the incompetence of Hillary Clinton and the State department, and the White House, all of whom refused to recognize any FACTS that conflict with their utopian view of reality. I mean, how do they formulate policy under the Comrade? Sit around a big table and say, "Let's pretend muslim crazies see us as champions and allies, how do we behave?" Not considering that that assumption -- about how the crazies see us -- is a totally made up scenario.

Are these people nuts? Dangerously nuts? To paraphrase a cliche from the UFO world: Do they have to land on the White House lawn before we accept what they are?

Can we afford another four more years or this fantasyland policymaking? And then the insulting LIES when the policy fails?

Charles Krauthammer said he believes Hillary Clinton should resign due to the Libya failure. Yeah, I agree. If she had any honor, she would. But when have any of the Clintons ever had any honor? And she's not the only one who should resign.

That's all.

Save the Republic. Vote for Romney and Ryan. I'd say "vote for anybody but Obama" but we need to get a majority to dislodge Comrade Butthead from the White House. And the donkeys he rode in on.

Straw men, demogogues, and psychopaths, or the Obama campaign

Well, the dems have come out, guns blazing, repeating over and over again how Mitt Romney is a liar. They say he has promised a $500 billion tax cut for the rich, and now he denies it. Or maybe it's $500 trillion -- it's over about a 10-year period, I believe. Why not $800 gazillion? Yeah, that's the ticket.

You know, I've been listening very closely and I don't recall Mitt Romney ever promising any kind of a tax cut that would affect the rich in particular. He's proposing a 20% cut in tax RATES across the board and closing loopholes in the tax code. Paul Ryan -- Romney's running mate, by the way -- has pointed out that most of the really lucrative tax loopholes were established by legislators and target particular wealthy organizations headquarteded in their districts. Like GE, which paid no federal taxes in 2010 (or was it 2011?)

Closing the loopholes will impact some specific taxpayers -- largely very wealthy ones, and perhaps some whole industries with very effective lobbyists.

Far as I know, Romney has NEVER proposed a tax cut for the wealthy. I even read his 59-point program, and don't recall a tax break for the rich. I think I would have remembered that. Additonally, the dems claim that a Princeton economist named Rosen "proved" with arithmetic that Romney's plan to cut taxes for the rich would blow a hole in the federal budget and compel a big tax hike on the middle class to make up for it. However, Rosen has come out and said he thinks Romney's tax plan would be "revenue neutral" -- this is, pay for itself -- and stimulate economic growth. The growth would cover the cut in tax rates. And he never considered it a tax cut for the rich alone.

The tax-cut-for-the-wealthy accusation was a myth, as Marco Rubio might say, that the dems made up to try to paint Romney as some kind of greed-driven, demonic reincarnation of Satan. It also makes the Comrade's neurotic obsession about taxing the rich look like some kind of real issue instead of just his personal marxist hobbyhorse.

Straw men
It's always a good idea to familiarize yourself with the "official" rules of logic. Certain fallacies exist, or errors in logic, meaning you aren't thinking clearly. Aristotle invented logic. The Comrade can't blame Republicans for that.

Logic defines what's called a "straw man argument" as one possible fallacy, or a device often used to confuse logic. So what is a straw man?

A straw man is a fabricated enemy or issue that doesn't exist in reality, but serves as a threat of some kind, or a point to argue against.

It's like if I said, "Those cheeseheads in Wisconsin are killing all the cattle in Illinois because they want the dairy market all to themselves." Not true, but gives my "followers" among the lunatic frings a rallying point to arm themselves and stand guard at the Wisconsin border.

It's like saying the rich are the ones who have wrecked the US economy and they must be taxed into povety, or regulated so heavily they can't make any money and will be forced out of Wall street, or possibly, they should all be rounded up and imprisoned in the Thompson Correctional Center.

It's a tactic of demagogues -- who, thoughout history, have been loud-mouthed rabble-rousers, usually very personable and likable, but generally holding destructive or power-mad intentions. They often whip up the population against vulnerable groups or "enemies on the border." Hitler did this to the Jews. Iran's Abracadabrajab does it to Israelis and Americans.

But the fact is, with straw man tactics, there is no issue. It's all a Big Lie. It's done just to scare people, whip them up, unify them into a crazed mob, get them running through the streets with torches, looking for the monster. You get the idea. Think Boris Karlof in Transylvania.

So the dems spent -- what was it? -- approximately $150 million in campaign funds producing ads that created an evil demon straw man that they named "Mitt Romney."

The only problem is, Romney is alive and well and very well capable of defeating this stupid argument simply by showing his rather well-intentioned, affable face on TV during a presidential debate, and making 67 million viewers scratch their heads and ask, "So where are his horns? Seems like a very decent, well-informed, and capable man to me."

Demagogues and psychopaths
The Comrade, on the other hand, is a very different story. He's almost a classic example of "demagogue." You can look that up. Those guys often are genuinely evil, and many clearly have been certifiable psychopaths. Not all, but many. Psychopaths have no empathy or compassiom for other human beings or anything else, for that matter. They feel no guilt, ever. They can kill and destroy without hesitation, and they often do if it brings them some advantage. Many serial killers also are psychopaths.

Curiously enough, like demagogues, many psychopaths are notably charming and attractive as individuals, though very often, others complain that it's impossible to share any real intimacy with them. Like Ted Bundy. And although psychopaths can have various goals, it seems as a general rule of thumb that what they want is control -- over their friends, families, victims. They usually want to run things.

In one rather gruesome but illustrative example, the Green River murderer, a serial killer, told the cops he disposed of the bodies of his victims in clusters of four or five because he could control them batter that way. These are corpses we're talking about. Perhaps a precursor to the current popular rage about zombies?

And this whole thing about Romney lying -- exactly what is Romney supposed to have lied about? The policies he's proposing? What? If he wanted to change them, he could simply change them. Why would he lie about it? He'd probably call a press conference and frame the shift as his way of offering an olive branch to democrats, proving he's willing to "work across the aisle."

So, I leave it up to the reader. Who's the liar here? Who, in fact, has a lifelong history of lies and deceptions, and is, to summarize, not much more than a big, gassy fraud? Sailing along by preying on white liberal guilt and black paranoia -- selling Harvard on his birth in Kenya -- oh yes, that's what Harvard thought. And that's documented. As presedent of the Harvard Review, he was described as "born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia." Probably to present himself as some sort of exotic and beg for a scholarship. That's probably why he hides his Harvard records.

By contrast, who has lived in somewhat of the political limelight all his life, his father being a governor? Who served as a bishop in his church, has a long record of extending aid and support to others -- and doesn't like to talk about it. Turned around a near-bankrupt Olympic games as well as the State of Massachusetts, and accomplished all this in his spare time while he was building a company and accumulating millions of dollars?

So who's more credible? You decide.

Save the Republic.

Debate aftershocks

Just watched Romney debate the Comrade in a rerun. The Comrade still sucks.

What's really funny, though, is watching the democrats fall apart. They are shocked! Shocked! that their sainted candidate, the guy portrayed with a halo around his head, has feet of clay after all. Or possibly a head of clay. And a bunch of failed policies.

I think I mentioned Chris Matthews sputtering and spitting performance only moments after the debate. Go watch his remarks on YouTube -- the longer version. Matthews goes on and on and on about how how MSNBC has worked to get the Comrade re-elected. Matthews suggested the Comrade watch his show to pick up tips on his campaign and effective talking points. Just bizarre.

Bill Maher, as noted, suggested that the Comrade may really NEED a teleprompter at all times. Since then, he's commented that perhaps that $1 million he donated to the Comrade's campaign went for something to smoke. The rats are among the first to abandon a sinking ship.

Al Gore noted that Denver's altituted is 5,000 feet, and the Comrade hadn't been there long enough to acclimatize himself. Apparently the Comrade was dim for lack of oxygen?

Have no idea what the blockheads on The View" might be saying. I've never seeen that show all the way through,. Joy Behar's voice is like nails on a blackboard for one thing. And I don't share their concept of what women are interested in.

Anything from Pazzo Pelosi or Brain-dead Harry Reid? I should Google this and see. They've probably both been hospitalized.

And the "official" dem campaign response? "Romney lied." Liked about what? About the unemployment stats? The number of people on food stamps?

Actually my favorite part of the debate was when the Comrade repeated several times that Romney isn't divulging his specific plans for tax cuts and so on. He said something like, "Is it too good for people to hear it?" Stuff like that.

Romney came back with a remark that he didn't believe in the approach where you present congress with a plan and say, "My way or the highway." Romney said he prefers to work "across the aisle," inviting the opposite party to participate. That would be refreshing, and incidentally, would end the gridlock in congress.

Anyway, all for now.... Oh, apparently the unemployment total went down, from 8.2% to 7.8% almost over night. Only 114,000 new jobs created, yet about a million people found work. It's a friggin' miracle.

But with Saint Comrade in office, we should be used to that, no?

Save the Republic.

Romney 1, Obama 0

Well, I don't know what to say after all the usual pundits have had it.

Checked in on MSNBC to see Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, and that fat, insulting slob with the radio show whose name I can't recall looking all shocked and indignant. Al Sharpton insisting that Romney was lying.

I think Marco Rubio had it right. He told Sean Hannity that the democrat narrative has been nothing but a collection of lies based on mythical assumptions and misconceptions. Romney disproved all that crap just by his sharpness, obvious concern for other people and the nation, and his very facile knowledge of the issues.

Obama looked, in turns, either really pissed off or like he was about to cry. He couldn't explain anything. He bumbled. For pity sake, no less an asshole than Bill Maher Tweeted that maybe it's true, Obama is lost without a teleprompter.

Seems like Obama believed all he had to do was show up, beam a smile at the camera, and he'd sweep it all.

Didn't work. At one point in the discussion on taxes, Obama asked moderator Jim Lehrer to change the subject. Good grief.

Sarah Palin told Hannity that it's the first time Obama has been questioned abiout anything but his favorite kind of pizza since he's been in office. When confronted, as Romney respectfully but assertively confronted him, Obama just kind of stammered and groped for the cliches and platitudes his campaign workers have dreamed up for him. He looked entirely inept and ignorant. Could it be the emperor has no clothes?

Romney was very, very good. The Comrade sucked.

Save the Republic.

Those crazy democrats

Interesting week for the democrat party.

Last week, Madonna, dressed in some kind of 1930s-style satin bombshell outfit, complete with a fetching beret,  exuberantly announced that she supported the "black muslim" in the White House. I guess someone informed her that the Comrade says he's not muslim. So today, she issued a clarifying statement to explain that no one should care what religion he is. In a way, she kinda reinforced her first claim.

Also today, that lovable V.P. Joe Biden gave a speech somewhere, telling everyone that "the middle class has been buried for the last four years!" What was he, drunk or something? Or a Freudian slip? He's such an asset to the Romney campaign. Paul Ryan jumped on it right away, agreeing with Biden whole-hearrtedly.

Viral on the Internet is a brief video of some welfare case in Ohio flashing her cell phone and saying she would keep on voting for the Comrade, since he's given "everybody" a cell phone -- everyone on welfare, disability, etc. etc. Very reminiscent of that yahoo in 2008 who proclaimed, "Obama gonna pay my rent! Obama gonna buy my gas!" Wonder how that's working out for her.

The conservative online news site, Daily Caller, released the unedited video of a speech the Comrade gave in June, 2007, to a group of black preachers, apparently in or around New Orleans. Doing his best "Buckwheat" impression, no doubt trying to convince the audience that he really is black (a racist posture to say the least), the Comrade carefully explains how New Orleans got screwed on federal aid after Hurricane Katrina.

He said New York City and 9/11 survivors got a lot more assistance, because the Stafford Act, which asks states to kick in 10% of federal disaster aid, was waived. The Comrade says New York got the whole bundle of aid without the state paying anything. Likewise, he continued, Florida after Hurricane Andrew got the whole enchilada with no state contribution. But New Orleans, he said, wasn't getting anything.

Well, they got like $7 billion, and Louisiana was not required to kick anything in.

So he's a liar. But we already knew that. And using some Saul Alinsky tactic -- creating a straw man enemy to inspire his audience to stand strong against him, "Him" in this case being white people, I guess. Yeah, he works so hard at unifying people.

In the same speech, he slobbered all over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was in the audience.

There's more, I'm sure, but I'm very tired and have a lot of work to do. And tomorrow is the first Presidential debate, so I've got to get up early tomorrow, get it all done so I can watch.

This should be interesting.

Save the Republic.

White House lies? I'm shocked... shocked...

This current situation over the murder of Chris Stephens and three other Americans in Benghazi is yet another demonstration of the riddle: How can you tell if Obama is lying? Answer: Are his lips moving?

Apparently everybody knew the attack on the Benghazi consulate was a terorist act within 24 hours of its execution. Ambassador Stephens mentioned in a journal days before that he felt his life was in danger. Some news reports stated that the Libyan and US governments had received threats of some kind from terrorists warning of the attack shortly before it happened.

But now, according the current US regime, it was all because of that little -- and stupid -- movie trailer. Sometimes they still say that -- the Comrade told the UN Assembly that the other day. Although surely by now they know better, and have claimed that they know it was the act of terrorists.

So what's with the White House? Bare-faced lies or their heads are so far up their butts they can't see past their tonsils?

What do you think?

See, according to the Comrade, and other anti-Americans, including a lot of Libertarians, curiously enough, everything that goes wrong for America overseas is "Our chickens coming home to roost," in the words of the eminent Rev. Jeremiah Wright. See, it's all our fault.

Like the 9/11/01 attack on the World Trade Center was this evil plot that George Bush dreamed up. For some reason.

I've mentioned before that I'm a US Civil War buff. I mean, I've studied it very closely, and not the battles so much (although pretty extensively), but also opinion and activities on the home fronts.

Very interesting. Lincoln was elected Nov. 7, 1860. He wasn't sworn into office until March, 1861 -- I mean, communications and everything pretty much sucked at the time. So President Buchanan, who preceded Lincoln, remained in office as most of the slave states seceded from the Union in the months between November, 1860, and March, 1861. Buchanan protested secession and questioned its legality, but he didn't do much. Buchanan didn't want to take any major actions about secession, taking the approach that Lincoln would have to handle it. Buchanan didn't want to start something, then dump it on Lincoln.

So in the South -- the newly-formed Confederate States of America -- rebels began seizing and sacking federal forts, post offices, customs houses, armories, etc. etc. And this before Lincoln was iunaugurated in March. Buchanan didn't do much of anything.

So the Confederates ranted on, full of hellfire and bluster about their own glory and how much they were obliged to sustain slavery and the planters' gentry status as some kind of wise and benevolent ruling class. They had every right, they claimed -- oddly, since they claimed that right under the US Constitution, which they'd just thrown off. And they were all full of beans about how wonderful things would be for them, since, of course, wasn't it obvious? "The Yankees won't fight."

Yeah, the Yankees were just a-shaking in their boots in the face of Confederate might and manliness.

Well, we all know how that turned out. The Yankees did fight. The Yankees beat the living tar out of the CSA, stripped the southern states of any status whatsoever under the US Consitution as well as much of their wealth, and kept them under martial law for years after the war, or the combat, ended. The Yankees did fight, eventually, and only about a month after Lincoln was inaugurted.

And an all out war might possibly have been deferred or somehow negotiated if the Yankees had presented some kind of forthright and stubborn resolve from the start of secession, rather than allowing the rebels to cling to the consolation of "The Yankees won't fight."

Right now, former Ambassador John Bolton, along with many, many others in government who are largely political conservatives, are emphasizing that America is best presented to the rest of the world as an unmoving rock, strong, resolved, and backed up by an unimaginable military might.

The Comrade and his cohorts, on the other hand, opt for a "kinder, gentler" USA, that wouldn't harm a flea, and when under assault, apologizes for provoking the attack. Leading the muslim terrorists and others around the world to believe that "The Yankees won't fight."

Well, good going, Comrade. Your humble and apologetic posture only invites attack. And you know how it goes... If you keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect to get different results.... That's one definition of insanity, no?

So the White House becomes an asylum, and not the kind Thomas Paine was talking about.

Save the Republic.

Lotsa "noise" and "bumps in the road"

Well, the Comrade gave us his perspective on current events in a 60 Minutes interview yesterday. .

Israeli President Netanyahu's concern for the survival of his nation is just so much "noise," as is the prospect of Iran developing nuclear weapons.

The deaths of Christopher Stephens and his staff of three are "bumps in the road" as muslim terrorists find their way to... wherever the hell they're going. Or to hell. Period.

Iran's Abracadabrajab is addressing the UN on Wednesday -- Yom Kippur, unfortunately -- and no doubt he will hurl every insult imaginable at the US and Israel.

Doesn't Abracadabrajab see how hard the Comrade is trying to throw Israel under the bus? "Why attack me?" the Comrade asks."I hate Jews as much as you do."

In addition, with so many world leaders at the UN, the Comrade apparently has refused to meet face-to-face with any of them. Apparently he's got a several fund raisers and a couple golf games scheduled instead.

Actually, I think he's just hiding. I believe it's just that the abject and shameful failure of the Comrade's "foreign policy" or lack of it is so clearly inescapable, he's paralyzed by it. He has no options, no other ideas. And just can't confront the disaster he's created. He can't admit mistakes and errors, ignorance, naivete, stupidity. He can't admit it.

He sees his beloved muslim terrorists burning him in effigy and his ego is crushed. "They don't love me? They don't regard me as the promised messiah?" His whole world view is turned upside down.

And since the Comrade can't admit error and failure, he can't correct it. He can only move "forward," like a lemming over a cliff. But he insists upon taking all the rest of us with him.

I, personally, do not like the burden the USA carries as "leader of the free world." It's terrible. It makes you a target. It's very costly in a lot of ways.

But if we don't do it, who will? Abracadabrajab? Putin? That crazy French socialist? Do you trust them with your freedom?

Or are we all as blind and naive as the Comrade and believe if we simply turn away and pretend everything's rosy, it will all go fine.

Yeah... well, I recall too well 9/11 -- both 9/11s now. You can't run away from bullies. They come after you. At some point, you have to stand up and defend yourself. And that must be nearly impossible for someone like the Comrade, who never liked the USA to begin with.

Save the Republic.

Dinesh D'Souza's "2016"

Saw the movie "2016" tonight. That's the film produced by Molen, who made "Schindler's List," and based on a book by Dinesh D'Souza, who also narrates the film. It's a documentary.

I wish every American (or should I just say "voter" and leave it at that?) could see that movie before they vote for president in November.

I've read a few things by D'Souza. He's not a right wing crackpot. He's a very serious scholar, and also an immigrant to the USA. He was born and mostly raised in India, came to the USA to attend Dartmouth, and stayed.

"2016" is not a smear. It doesn't call The Comrade names, like I do. It just takes a serious look at the Comrade's background. And assumes he was born in Hawaii -- not a birther thing.

What D'Souza does, though, is look at the influences in the Comrade's life, and finds a cause-and-effect relationship between the way he was raised and his actions as US President.

It's very enlightening. You can also get it from YouTube in pieces currently, download it from dozens of sites, free as an offer to get you to subscribe to a certain service, etc. What I'm saying is, it's widely and cheaply available.

Nobody vetted the Comrade when he was running for office. D'Souza -- who has studied racism and race relations in America pretty closelty in the past -- suggests that it was race that got the Comrade elected. White liberal guilt, you know. Americans wanted to elect a black guy, even if he was only half black. It's supposed to redeem the USA for 60 years of black slavery -- 150 years ago..

I never felt guilty for slavery. I've never enslaved anyone. I'm fairly certain I would have been a Yankee in the US Civil War -- and I've studied that very closely. 620,000 people died in that conflict, trying to make good on the USA's promise of freedom. And, by the way, 180,000 blacks, many but not all of them one-time slaves, also fought in that war, and all for the Union. 

Therefore, I always regarded the Comrade as a marxist -- not due to his color, but to his promises. While everyone else was getting a thrill up their legs, I was smelling socialism -- at least. I didn't look at his color. I listend to what he was saying. When he started talking about "redistribution" -- that's a red flag. (Literally a "red" flag.) "Redistribution" is what happens when you conquer the ruling class and steal their stuff. "Redistrubiton" is what happened in France in 1789, for example, when the sans culottes over-ran a corrupt and rigid monarchy-oligarchy situation. The French Revolution.

We don't have a ruling class in America, despite all of Washington DC's efforts. We have historically, "thrown the bums out" before they could do too much damage. But it's pretty late in the game now. The November election may be our last chance to "breathe free."

Anyway, watch "2016." If you plan to affect the election by voting, you should do what you can to get some real, factual information about the Comrade and about Romney and Ryan. Otherwise, please don't inflict your vote on the rest of us who do try to keep up.

Save the Republic.

Good for Libya

Well, it seems a few Libyans have woken up and are fighting back against the radical terrorist muslims that are disrupting that nation.

More violence, of course, but apparently that's what it takes to rid yourself of the scourge.

Seems to me if they worked so hard to depose (and beat to death) Qadaffi, they'd be reluctant to hand over the victory to a bunch of loony terrorists.

Have to commend those Libyans who oppose the crazies. Maybe there's hope for Libya yet.

Save YOUR republic.

Love, Pakistani style

Apparently Pakistan declared this the "Weekend of Love" for its muslim population.

19 dead so far, and it's barely Saturday morning.

'Nuff said.

Save the Republic.

So where is the White House on muslim protests?

Very interesting. We've heard several stories now from Jay Carneybarker at the White House, and whoever that woman with the bad hair is at the State Department regarding the uprising of muslim terrorisrs all around the world.

First it was because of that stupid film clip that suggested Mohammed was less than saintly. "It's all his fault. Go arrest him."

So they got the guy in detention, but aparently there wren't really any grounds for his arrest. He sucks as a film-maker, but if that was a crimial offense, surely Michael Moore would be in San Quentin.

And Susan "Don't have a clue" Rice, US Ambassador to the UN and a long-time cohort of our illustrious Comrade, went on severl big talk shows and announced that the whole mess in the Egypt and all was just a "spontaneous" outbreak of hatred for America and American free speech -- due to that stupid film clip.

Interesting how John McCain was the first to ponder, "How many people show up at a protest with rocket-propelled grenades and other heavy weapons?" Good question. Glad someone in Washington noticed that. Maybe because McCain has a military background.

In addition, polls that were taken very qucikly determined that about 75% of US citizens would rather go to war with the muslim world than surrender their right to free speech.

So the idea of censorship went nowhere.

And then it became clear -- from the mouth of the Presdient of Libya, no less -- that those psychos who killed the US Ambassador in Benghazi were terrorists. The incident was a terrorist attack, not a protest, that president said.

So then, and still, the rest of the muslim world is going up in flames. People in gunny sacks jumping up and down in front of US, German, Swiss, and French embassies like bunch of monkeys, screaming, throwing things. Looks like an asylum for the crimially insane. I guess it is.

And so then yesterday, Jay Carneybarker announced that the attack on the Libyan consulate, where Chris Stevens and three others were killed is "self-evidently" a terrorist attack.

Maybe self-evident to most Americans for a week or more, but apparently that just dawned on the White House.

And I suppose somehow, it'll end up that it's all George Bush's fault. Or Mitt Romney's.

And where the hell is the US President? I think the Comrade made a casual mention in some radio address that the Middle East is in flames and a million crazed muslims are coming to get us. But he deson't seem very concerned about it,. No, it's much more important to him to go out and slander Romney and Ryan.

Somebody's values and priorities are totally screwed up, do ya think?

On a positive note, Donald Reaqgan, Ronald Reagan's son, was on Megyn Kelly's show today and suggested that since the Comrade is apparently AWOL -- lost his way on the campaign trail and may be wandering through Death Valley, looking for the tracks of his bus in the sand -- that perhaps someone like Mitt Romney should stand up and simply take over the role of Leader of the Free World. At least to comfort and reassure American citizens that we'll survive.

I'd like that. I'd llike to have someone in the White House who gives a shit. We haven't enjoyed that for quite some time now.

Save the Republic.

Make my day... release the blind sheikh

Laughing so hard right now I have coffee shooting out my nose. I just saw the latest ad from the DNC, claiming Mitt Romney is conducting class warfare.

The dems are such major league liars and hypocrites it just boggles the mind.

On that note, the State Department -- who are in charge of foreign affairs -- just announced that they have no plans to release the blind sheikh. I'm not sure what his name is, I'm guessing something like Al-qill-all.

At any rate, the blind sheikh was the "brains" behind the first, failed bombing of the World Trade Center. Remember the truck bomb that went off in the basement, doing almost nothing to the rest of the building? Anyway, he's serving a life sentence in the USA for that,.

If you've been looking at the signs the loonie muslim terrorists are waving in front of the cameras in front the US Embassy in Egypt, you may have noticed that a number of them are in English and are demanding the release of the blind sheikh.

Apparently notices were posted around Sept. 9 on the Internet that all mad-dog loonie muslim terrorists strap on their skates and protest the US Embassy in Egypt on 9/11. Reportedly, the posts suggest these mad-dog muslims burn down the Embassy if necessary. Necessary for what, I don't know.

Also, blind sheikh supporters wear Santa Claus hats. You can identify them that way. Although I really don't know what's up with that.

The State Department says they aren't considering releasing the sheikh, and that they've received nothing from any "senior" Egyptians making such demands.

But we know they lie. They've done nothing but lie since the first hysterical muslim, foaming at the mouth and shouting bloodthirsty curses, appeared in front of the US Embassy.

You know what, though? I hope this stupid White House does order the sheikh's release.

Then for sure the butt-kissing incompetent who sucks up the perks belonging to the Office of the US President will most deinitely lose the election. And henceforth, he may find it more convenient to live in Uganda or Sudan or some muslim armpit nation instead of trying to return to anyplace in the USA. Seems he'd be more comfortable in the 3rd or 4th world anyway, among other crazies and marxists. Maybe he could organize them.

And ol' Hillary, Secretary of State and another follower of the infamous Saul Alinsky (of Rules for Radicals fame) won't dare show her face as a candidate in 2016. We could get rid of the whole lot of them.

Save the Republic.

Hey, Mitt, don't apologize for the truth

Late last night I heard the audio of a Mitt Romney fundraiser -- or it seemed to be -- that was leaked by Mother Jones. It was on Huffington Post, without the video, only the sound.

Of course, Huffington Post made a big deal out of it. "Ooooh, kids, what will the government dependents say?"

Who cares? They're probably voting for the Comrade anyway. Just like those union members who march in lockstep with their leaders. They're "jobs" or shall we say "incomes" depend on supporting -- by votes, mind you, because they depend on the governtment for everything else -- a massive nanny state. These are people who gave up the First Freedom -- freedom to make your own decisions -- a long time ago. They'd rather ponder their victimhood rather than act to free themselves from it.

What ticks me off is that so many people who call themselves "conservative" accept the lamestream media's interpretation of Romney's words. They go, like the socialists, "Ooooooh kids, the underclass won't like it." Saw Bill O'Reilly doing this tonight his show, and certainly he should know better.

Who gives a damn? The underclass gets a solid percentage of all of our incomes. Isn't that enough? Do we have to be polite to them, too? If the truth hurts their hopeless little hearts, so be it.

But admittedly, in many cases, and especially because we are all burdened with Obamonomics and a disappearing economy, the poor aren't solely responsible for their poverty. Looking at the non-improving unemployment statistics, I would guess many people who live on government checks today were doing pretty well for themselves four or five years ago. They can't find jobs. They can't find jobs largely because of the Comrade's stupid policies.

If they're smart and truly want get off the government dole, they'll vote for Romney.

The rest? Who gives a damn? If they summon enough energy to vote at all, they'll vote for the socialist.

And funny, too, I've read many comments from those who note their responses at the end of news articles. Many of them want -- very much -- to see Romney take off the gloves. They like it when he's not so nice.

I do too.

Save the Republic.

Muslims gone wild

I'm getting a little sick of these psychopaths in the Middle East.

Their countries are shit-holes. Egypt hasn't been "glorious" for 4,000 years. The rest of them live on the money they make selling crude to Europe and America and begged aid for their useless selves. Westerners don't want to see them starve -- though at this point, that looks like an appealing alternative.

Useless and destructive as they are, like adolescents unable to control their immediate impulses, they think they deserver some kind of special privileged treatment.

Don't any of them work? I mean, where to they get the time to tantrum so relentlessly?

Today is apparently something of a sabbath for them. So they go out and burn things, throw stones and anything else they can carry, and kill as many people as they can. So this must be the muslim definition of "worship."

Any question about why these countries don't even qualify for "third world" status? Try "shit-hole world."

Could it be because they have no human values, and not the respect for life that dogs have?

What a bunch of psychopaths. Only one way to deal with those who deliberately suppress their human capacity to reason, preferring to run like crazed lemings through the streets. You can't live with them. They won't let you. Like a crazy dog at the end of the street whose owner won't pen him up.

All they have are excuses. All they do is blame everyone else for their continuous failure at just about evertyhing. Whine, cry, feel sorry for their sorry useless selves and pointless, hopeless lives.

No wonder the Comrade has a soft spot in his head for them. Birds of a feather.

Save the Republic.

Forget Bush, it's all Romney's fault

Give me a break.

After being attacked by barking-mad mulsim terrorists a couple days ago, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued a statement that went something like, "Gee, I'm sorry. Can I destroy the U.S. Consitution to assuage your silly sensitivities?" Or like that.

Mitt Romney then issued a statement calling the event -- and especially the Embassy's response -- a disgrace.

The Comrade was at a fundraiser or something. He probably didn't know anything about the Egypt and Libya situation until he heard about it from a pizza maker in St. Louis while ordering a pie.

Anyway, hours after Romney's statement, the Comrade apparently turned on the TV and realized that the Mideast was blowing up, with foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics trying to murder our State Dept. representatives. Very disquieting, huh?

He was apparently more pissed off that Romney spoke up about it first.

So after a quick check of the polls and maybe a glance at international laws and traditions regarding diplomatic protocols -- and after the Libyans murdered Chistopher Stephens and his staff -- the Comrade decided to scold the Egyptian Embassy for kissing butt, and "strongly condemned" the murder of U.S. officials doing state business overseas.

Yeah, it is sort of bothersome, isn't it? When you're trying to get re-elected as a The Man Who Shot Osama Bn Laden.

And the Comrade noted that Mitt Romney "shot from the hip," issuing his statement before the Comrade had the spare time to break away from rabble-rousing to attend to U.S. foreign policy.

Interesting, isn't it, that the Comrade AGREED with Romney? And yet Romney was in the wrong?

Looks very, very much like the Comrade was totally at a loss for any response, saw Romney's statement, and then went, "Yeah. Me, too." Of course, the Comrade has to take credit for it -- so he demonizes Romney.

Leading from behind again, eh, Comrade? Hillary Clinton showed more backbone than the Comrade.

Well, we've witnessed this kind of B.S. for the last four years now. We know the Comrade now as the incompetent narcissist that he truly is. Even though the lamestream media is all atwitter about Romney upstaging the Comrade. I'm sure that, like the White House, NBC is much more upset about how this disaster -- a remake of the Carter administration -- will impact the elections than they are about the deaths of US consuls and even the perils of this current international turmoil.

Thank God for Romney. Has it ever been clearer that we need someone with a functioning brain and a true reverence for the USA in the White House?

Save the Republic.