He should get the prize for hypocrisy, too

Watched much of the Comrade's speech in Norway. Even the commentators on Fox seemed to like it. They didn't notice, but I did, that that was the first speech the Magic Marxist has made where he mentioned the USA and pride in the same sentence.

Maybe he's coming along.

On the other hand, what really bowled me over was the monumental hypocrisy in that speech:

• He talks about peace being built on a foundation of individual rights, while he's destroying individual rights in the USA.
• He mentioned "people marching in the streets of Iran" as heroic; but blew off the two million who marched in the streets of Washington DC on Sept. 12.
• He talks about democracy while wielding the EPA like a club to bully congress into adopting a useless and destructive crap-and-tax scheme to enrich his socialist tree-hugger pals.
• He would not know "justice" if it sneaked up and bit him in the ass.

And the Comrade now is apparently off to Copenhagen, to sell the USA down the river in the name of a fraudulent conspiracy.

Hey guys, if the earth is getting warmer -- prove it!!

Where's your documentation?

EPA the new Hitler

Look, comparing the EPA to the Nazi Third Reich is no exaggeration. The EPA can do whatever it wants. They don't need no stinkin' congress. And with a half-wit Democrat majority in both houses, the congress can't even rein in the EPA. The stupid shits in congress probably applaud the EPA's ability to completely and entirely ignore the American public. I'm sure congress envies them for that.

The EPA is a collection of stupid sons of bitches who want US business and jobs to move to the 3td World. They are actively working toward that end.

The EPA says it's going to take a "command and control" approach to crippling the US economy through regulation and by pricing energy out of the market if congress won't act. It's a ploy from the Comrade and his collection of thugs to beat America back to the Stone age. If congress doesn't shit on the American public, the Comrade will just get the EPA to do it.

Where are the islamic terrorist bombers when you need them?

The EPA has yet to address the question -- much like the Comrade -- of who is going to pay for their perks after they finish laying to waste US industry. They don't care. Got that? They don't care if you starve and die, as long as they can preserve the snail darter -- which, by the way, is not now and never has been an endangered species.

Just another bunch of stupid blockheads. Add them to the list.

I'm beginning to suspect that one of the prerequisites to getting a job in government is that you be of subhuman intelligence and display a sociopathic personality disorder. Like Bill Clinton and the Comrade.

But go ahead. Grab all you can with both hands. Line us all up against the wall and shoot us down -- after we dig our own communal grave, that is. Isn't that how it's done usually? Dig a ditch, dump the bodies, sprinkle them with lime so they won't stink so bad while they rot. The government finally found a useful purpose for American citizens -- landfill.

That's what's left for the EPA to wield absolute power over.

Happy now?

Foreign pigs bullying their way to the US trough?

Interesting news day and I didn't even get to hear reports about all of it because it was snowing, the satellite dish was out -- as usual -- and only came back on after midnight. I asked the CSR at DirecTV, "How come it works in a hurricane, like your TV commercial, but not in snow?" And, by the way, just rain south of me, sleet here, snow north. The CSR gave me some half-assed mumbo-jumbo technological explanation that I doubt she understands. Like something from "The Prisoner" or a Harry Potter movie.

Anyway.... got to see Stenie Hoyer (D-Maryland) lying through his teeth to Greta Van Susteren. Or, quite possibly, he's not lying, only senile and confused and can't keep track of the monstrous spending bills the Dummycrats have bulldozed through this year. Hoyer suggested that last year, after the election, but before The Comrade took office, that the Stimulus Bill was written and approved by the Republicans, Hoyer lies, because George Bush approved it, and the Republicans, of course, wanted to support their president.

I think Hoyer doesn't know the difference between the TARP legislation and the Stimulus Bill, and/or the $410 billion Omnibus Pork Bill that followed closely. He doesn't know the difference between them and he's a position of authority.

What a damn fool.

Many years ago I had to write an article about some non-political department (staff) in the Maryland State House. Annapolis is a cool city, I must say, if you don't mind driving in circles... At any rate, the department head I interviewed was a very pleasant person, and we sat around for a while, joking, competing about whose state was the most corrupt -- Maryland or my home state of Illinois. I think Louisiana is probably neck-and-neck there, too.

So it's no surprise that Pelosi and Hoyer are both congenital liars and apparently even believe the lies they tell themselves. It's inherent in the political process of Maryland. And little wonder that the both of them get along so well with the political thugs and bullies from Chicago. As they all view it, that's just the way things are supposed to be.

And for some reason, the Dummycrats seemed to have declared Open Season on the Republicans, when the Republicans haven't had much to do this session, except stand by and wait to get run over by the majority. The Dummycrats blame the Republicans for that? The Dummycrats keep insisting that the Republicans haven't proposed any alternatives.

No, blockheads, the Republicans have proposed any number of alternatives, you buttheads are just too damn busy talking to listen. You're a bunch of useless horses' asses.

Wanted to get more information about Copenhagen. I couldn't hear the details, but it seems the world stupido congress over there has decided that the world needs to pillage the USA.

Good luck, blockheados -- THERE AIN'T NOTHING LEFT TO STEAL.

GONE -- SHITHEADS -- IT'S ALL GONE!

Dumb, dumber, and just plain ignorant

Didn't I say yesterday the government would give me some new lows to report on? Well, the week got off to a bang.

Harry Reid (D-Nevada), Senate Majority Leader, today said Republicans have always been "on the wrong side of history," and accused them of being in favor of slavery, just as they oppose socialized medicine. In this comment, he not only displays a rather vicious desperation, but he's factually completely wrong.

The Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery people. They weren't all abolitionists -- that is, in favor of abolishing slavery all together -- but they opposed the expansion of slavery. Abe Lincoln believed if slavery could not be expanded into the western territories, it would wither and die.

Abraham Lincoln was the Republican candidate in only the second presidential election that party had participated in. Lincoln was a moderate, too. Seward, an early Republican front-runner for the presidential nomination, made a speech where he claimed the slave and non-slave states were so divided on the issue that it was an "irrepressible conflict" that would end in civil war.

No one wanted a civil war.

Lincoln was nominated because he was milder, not so fiery. In addition, the Republican platform promised to leave slavery alone where it was in the southern states; they just refused to support its expansion into the new states being carved out of the Louisiana Purchase territories.

Lincoln was elected Nov. 7, 1860. He was not on the ballot at all in any of the southern states. In the slave South, you could vote for a Southern Democrat -- this vehemently pro-slavery faction having separated itself from the party as a whole -- or the Whig, though that party was on the skids and calling itself another name.

So the Southern Democrat state of South Carolina seceded from the union on Dec. 10, 1860, claiming the election of a Republican -- and not necessarily Abe Lincoln, but any anti-slavery Republican -- meant the death of slavery. That couldn't and wouldn't be tolerated. The Confederate States of America was founded in February, 1861. Lincoln was inaugurated in March, 1861. The civil war began in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, with the bombardment of Fort Sumter on April 14, 1861.

And for 100+ years afterward, the former slave states of the south were a solid Democrat voting bloc. They never forgave the Republicans for freeing the slaves. They passed and brutally enforced Jim Crow laws, denied blacks the vote and even a decent education.

Those are your Democrats, Harry. Heroic, no?

With the Civil Rights Act of 1964 proposed, debate in the Senate was fillibustered -- the fillibuster supported 80% by DEMOCRATS, 20% by Republicans.

So, Harry, you're not only stupid, but also monumentally ignorant. Sounds like you flunked your 8th grade American history class. Busy campaigning for class president?

What's that line from Republican Mark Twain? "Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."

In another but related incident, Bill O'Reilly showed a clip of he being interviewed by Robin Roberts on Good Morning America. I like Robin Roberts. But the conversation turned to socialized medicine, and O'Reilly said he was, more or less, agin' it. Robin Roberts said:

"But don't you think passing this bill would be a historic moment?"

Yeah. A historic moment like Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Or the still-dark and rather stormy morning that the CSA opened up on Fort Sumter. All historic moments.

Just because it's historic, Robin, doesn't mean it's good for the nation. But apparently ol' Robin's a Democrat, so, as my dad would say, "She don't know what's good."

So Robin Roberts and Harry Reid get to share today's "Damn! I'm Stupid" award for this week. So far. Have a feeling that with the tree-huggers assembled pompously and in a non-environmentally friendly way in Copenhagen this week, and the Comrade getting his silly Norwegian award and slated to speak at Copenhagen, we'll be seeing whopping stupid comments tossed around like confetti in the days to come.

Stay tuned.

Dumb and Dumber

What's that old joke about Democrats being stupid enough to waste the nation's treasure, and the Republicans even more stupid for helping them find ways to pay for it? I'm not stating it correctly, or in a humorous way. Anyway, it really isn't funny anymore.

Oh... The Democrats are dedicated to pie-in-the-sky tax-and-spend legislation to ruin the nation, and the Republicans are dedicated to helping them make it work.

Somehow it's still not funny.

Been listening to the news intermittently, when there's nothing else on. And if there's anything more barren and depressing than the American government right now, it's TV programming. At any rate, apparently Bill O'Reilly wants a national sales tax to pay for the $12 TRILLION national debt, and Glenn Beck is stumping for a V.A.T. to do the same. Proving that these guys really don't know much about politics or economics. (And I'm almost done with Glenn Beck. His show is becoming nothing but paid promotional programming for his various books and live shows.)

Given the minus-level IQ's of those in congress, do you really think any additional revenues that come to the goverment will be spent to pay down the debt? No, Pazzo Pelosi and the Comrade's Merry Marxists would be jumping up and down with glee and clapping their hands, saliva dripping from their lolling tongues, as they busily contrived some new way to spend it.

We'll all need a complete inventory of Barbie Dolls or gold-plated alien-radio-signal-blocking helmets. They'll argue it's all necessary for the health and well-being of the nation, and that it will save money in the long run.

These people are terminally stupid. Just accept it. Don't give them any more money.

A friend of mine once dated a guy who came into an $80,000.00 inheritance from his father's death. He himself was dead in six months from alcoholic poisoning. The money only enabled his alcoholism and self-destructiveness.

Don't give these jerks any more money. In fact, I'd be happy to make a case for a tax revolt. Unless you have money coming back, don't file and don't pay. They can't arrest all of us. They wouldn't have the money to build the jails to hold us all.

That may be the only thing these idiots understand. But then, probably not. They've proven themselves so incredibly dense, I don't think there's any hope for them at all. So don't file, don't pay, because you'll need the money you earned to keep yourself and your kids alive -- and survival of the non-government-employed population is not an issue congress cares much about. We're all on our own on that one.

In other news: Tiger Woods caught cheating on his wife. Does anyone really care?

Gate crashers at a White House dinner. Well, the White House invited Iranians over for a 4th of July barbecue. If they don't give a damn about their own security, why should I? Matter of fact.... Oh well, I won't go there.

They had a "Job Fair" or something like that in DC this week. A photo op of the Comrade looking concerned. They didn't invite any business people. The current administration really is in so far over their heads. How stupid can they really be? Wait until next week and I'll report on the new low.

I tried very hard to watch all the episodes of "The Prisoner," the miniseries that was sort of a remake of the old British show with Patrick McGoohan. In the old show, the Prisoner was trapped forever at something like a silly Brighton Holiday Resort. In the remake, looked like everyone was stranded in Saudi Arabia.

The show seemed like it might be interesting. I mean, here's a bunch of people all denying their history, out in the middle of nowhere, all acting happy as unflappable little clams all the time. Only there's this undercurrent of discontent. Some people have "memories" of someplace else and another time away from The Village.

Sounded to me like fertile fodder for a parody on the current administration. Or at least a cautionary tale about believing in Utopia. Like, have you ever really thought about the dead tedium of someplace like what John Lennon describes in "Imagine"? No one with any reason for living, no need to earn money, no conflict of any kind. So what do you do? Stay stoned and have exotic sex. That seemed to be Lennon's recommendation. Sounds kinda boring to me.

Anyway, "The Prisoner" appeared to have some potential. But no, it all sort of degenerated into unintelligible drivel about how the whole Village was all just an idea in some woman's mind. And her husband kept her stoned into unconciousness all the time. Somehow, The Village needed her -- or someone -- to be stoned into unconciousness all the time. Maybe John Lennon wrote it.

And all the trouble started when the main character resigned from a giant corporation of some kind. Sort of weird. I mean, sort of mixed signals. Big corporations have been stock Hollywood Bad Guys since the collapse of the USSR. But in "The Prisoner," it was always The Village that was the antagonist. At least in the original, which I thought was a true parody on the Labour Party's socialist England. The original only had 16 episodes, if that. I mean, there's only so many ways you can try to escape from a resort and fail. Then it gets very predictable.

So, "The Prisoner" remake ended up being a really bizarre mishmash of stuff. Sort of a badly-written sci-fi version of "The Firm." Always seemed about 12 different story lines unfolding at the same time, but not necessarily in any kind of logical sequence. And as far as I know, they never did explain the sink holes. You'd think someone, especially someone who wanted to escape, would at least explore one of those sink holes, don't you? Might have livened things up a bit.

I kept falling asleep through it. Yeah -- the mood was so thick, the plot had barely enough energy to move at all. If there was a plot. Still not sure about that.

Anyway, I've had some work lately, and there hasn't been anything on TV but the Washington Stooges, as usual.

Thank heavens for music. Listened for four hours last night to a radio station from Milwaukee that played all Christmas Carols, all the time! Bing Crosby, lots of Dean Martin and Johnny Mathis. Andy Williams. Even Ella Fitzgerald. It was nice, reminiscent of living in a civilized country. We get so little of that anymore.

"Climate-Gate": Caught in the act?

Since I believe man-caused climate change is largely a crock, I've been thrilled to glean whatever little bits and pieces of information are available about the so-called scientists at East Anglia University, one guy from Penn State that I've heard about, et. al., being busted for essentially fabricating the evidence that's supposed to support their views, manipulating the peer-review process, suppressing contrary opinions, etc. etc. etc.

Does anyone remember Michael Bellesiles? He was a professor at Emory University, and in 2000, published a book called Arming America: the Origins of a National Gun Culture. He even won a Bancroft Award for the book, quite a prize for a historian.

The book argued that guns were not nearly as prevalent in the colonies and in early America as our national mythology believes. Bellesiles said he went through probate court records, among other local county-level records, trying to actually count how many guns might have been available in an early American community. Probate courts recorded legacies, inventories of household goods for wills, and stuff like that.

Based on this evidence -- and perhaps information from other sources as well -- Bellesiles concluded that guns weren't nearly as available on the frontier as American mythology would lead us to believe. Basically he was undermining the traditional view of guns as an acceptable feature of everday life throughout American history. The liberals loved him. His research helped them, they thought, to build a case against the Second Amendment.

The thing is, on the frontier especially, early Americans had weapons of all kinds. They didn't use them for sport, but for hunting, for chasing off predators, for defending their own property against whatever came down the pike. Guns were an indispensable feature of life on the frontier, perhaps less so on the eastern seaboard as on the frontier that moved steadily west through the first 150 years of American history. If you couldn't hunt or defend yourself, you probably couldn't survive very well for too long.

For example, I read one pioneer's account of regularly loading his shotgun with salt as a means of chasing off wolves, bears and such without wasting ammunition, which apparently could cost a lot of money so far from the cities. (You bought the lead and powder and made shot yourself.) Shotguns were recommended for the farmer's household, while rifles, like the Hawken or Browning initially, were the weapons of choice for hunters, trappers, and others who actually made a living havesting beaver and buffalo. They were all terrified of Indians, too, who were pretty well armed themselves via the trading posts established first by the British and French, even before the Louisiana Purchase.

Anyway, for all these reasons, other historians questioned Bellesiles' data and a few of them actually began checking his footnotes and sources. In some cases, his sources didn't exist -- like, he said he drew information from sets of documents in communities around what's now San Francisco. However, all of those documents were destroyed in the catastrophic earthquake of 1906. No way Bellesiles could have had access to that data.

When others asked to review his notes, Bellesiles claimed that there had been a fire in his office building, which apparently was true, and that his notes had been destroyed when the sprinklers went off. He had a lot of excuses. Basically, his dog ate his notes.

The result was that his Bancroft Award was taken back, he was suspended and eventually resigned from Emory, and he's been thoroughly discredited as a historian.

So now we hear a similar story from the Climate Change researchers. They claim they had something like 150 years of weather and climate data, and that their computer models and projections about climate change were built on that hard data.

Only, guess what? They don't have that data anymore. It was all destroyed way back in the 1980s, so all that's left of it, they say, is the conclusions they drew from it -- which have proven to be inaccurate at best. That is to say, the models failed to predict the global cooling of the last 10 or 11 years, so why should anyone believe their projection for the next 30 years would be anymore accurate?

At the time of Bellesiles scandal, he was accused of letting his zeal for gun control get in the way of his better judgment as a historian.

Think the same kind of thing could be at work currently among the Climate Change "scientists?" The triuimph of ideology over the scientific method?

So before the US congress, or any other congress for that matter, goes about instituting guidelines and treaties that will dismantle the industry of the First World and demand hefty economic aid, or the "redistribution of wealth" to the Third World -- before destroying the world as we know it, can we get some REAL data on this?

Or are the tree-huggers such lunatics that they don't require facts, just ill-considered and destructive action? But I guess we all know the answer to that one.

About West Point

I listened to the Comrade's speech tonight about sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Surprised he mention 9/11 as a real event. I thought the liberals were regarding it as an action-disaster movie that was only so-so and entirely forgetable. I'm glad he's reinforcing our military in Afghanistan. We'll see how it goes. It's not the number McChrystal wanted, and the danger of too few is a possibility.

Anyway, what I found more interesting was media reaction to the speech. I listened to it on WLS radio in Chicago. This time slot usually belongs to Hannity, but local guy, Bruce Dumont, who has a regular show called "Inside the Beltway" on WLS, took reaction calls when the speech concluded.

Must say, I don't listen to "Inside the Beltway" very often. It's on when I'm not usually tuned into the radio. Anyway, I don't know which way Bruce Dumont leans on the issues, but tonight, he sounded very much like he was apologizing to liberals and defending the Comrade's decision to send more troops. I thought that was strange.

Most of his callers did seem to have a negative reaction to the Comrade's decision for one reason or another. One caller was deadset against it, and that's about the only intelligible thing the caller said. But Dumont seemed to be working from the liberal perspective, trying to assuage callers that the Comrade hadn't betrayed them. Since I'm not against the war in Afghanistan, I found that very weird.

I missed a large part of Greta Van Susteren's interview with Henry Kissinger, which I assume was about the speech. She started talking about something else, so I changed the channel to MSNBC, and watched a few minutes of Chris Matthews. He's really strange.

FYI Mr. Matthews -- West Point is located in upper New York State, well within the bounds of the USA. The cadets there are training to join the US Army. West Point is not an "enemy camp"; they're on our side.

Went back to radio and Mark Levin, who thought the Comrade's speech was really terrible -- self-serving for the Comrade, too stingy with military support, etc.

One point where I strongly agree with Mark Levin: How come every time the Comrade talks about anything at all, he has to refer to his actions as "cleaning up" or "mopping up" after the Bush Administration? The Comrade always, always, always has to attack someone. That's just nasty.

FYI Mr. Comrade -- George W. Bush has been out of office for almost a year now. And beside that, we didn't ask you "How did this happen?" We asked you, "What are you going to do about it?"

Comrade, please try to stay focused on the real issue rather than whining about it and feeling sorry for yourself. I, for one, would much rather have someone else in the position you occupy, someone who appreciates and loves the USA. I promise, you won't have to deal with it for any longer than the Constitution allows. And whoever follows you will assuredly have much more to "mop up" than you have. Let's just hope he or she has more grace about it than you do.

I'm glad McChrystal is getting some of the troops he needs. I hope the military can do the job with that.

The Comrade talked about money to fund the war, too. I was half expecting him to try to promote Dopey-Obey's surtax to pay for the war, so Dopey et. al. can continue to dispense what he considers "social justice." Suspected the Comrade was going to do something similar.

He still might. I don't really trust him. He lies too often, and he's dreadfully spiteful, his spite mostly directed at the US. You'd think he'd have more respect for the nation he presides over, wouldn't you?