You have to give it to the Comrade. The USA was a brilliantly prosperous and resilient nation, and this bastard has all but brought it to complete ruination. Amazing that any one person could be so wretchedly hateful and destructive.
A long time ago down the street from where I lived was a luxury apartment building. In its parking lot a resident had a very elegant midnight blue Cadillac with golden fixtures. Very impressive car, very expensive, and apparently a limited edition. That lasted a couple weeks before some creep, no doubt seething with envy and hatred for the beautiful things he didn't own, took a key or something to the car and scratched the hell out of it. Scrawled curse words into the blue paint, drew obscene pictures. Turning it into an image of his own twisted and self-hating self.
Very much like what the Comrade has done to the USA.
Marco Rubio called the Comrade's preoccupation with taxing the rich an "obsession." The kind of obsession that besets serial killers as they stalk their hapless victims.
Taxing the rich won't solve the nation's economic problems. Surely even the blockhead in the White House can manage the simple arithmetic that proves that. If you take all the money that belongs to the rich, it would fund the US government for maybe a week.
Then what? Then who do you go after? Think the rich will continue to work and make more money, only to be appropriated by a totalitarian dictator? They didn't get rich by being stupid.
So then the not-quite-rich people become the target. And you take away all of their money.
Then after that? And after that?
Then the USA becomes a very big Zimbabwe?
And for what? What does this rotten bastard hope to accomplish?
What exactly?
Who's profiting? What's being accomplished?
No doubt this miserable tyrant in the White House will stand with one foot on Liberty's throat and proclaim a victory.
But a victory of exactly what?
The Comrade is said to be charming and affable. I don't see that in him. I see only a phoney wretch smoldering with hatred and envy. The kind of smarmy snake that smiles in your face, then knifes you in the back. The kind of slug who'd kill his grandmother for his next fix. I don't find that even remotely attractive and not at atll sympathetic.
He's liar and a thief. That usually defines a criminal. He has no respect for himself or others. A Midas in revers, turning gold into shit.
So watch your back.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
The heart of the matter
Dear Kirsten Power:
I watch you on Fox and you seem pretty reasonable for a
liberal, so I was surprised about a month ago when Bill O’Reilly asked you and
another commentator if you believe Big Government diminishes personal liberty.
As I recall, you responded with something like: “No, it actually makes you
freer.”
Not to argue with you, but I’m not sure that even Bill
O’Reilly really gets it. From a political science class, the definition of
government – any government – is: “A decision making process with results that
are binding on the population at large.” This works for dictatorships as well
as for democracies and republics. It’s simply a neutral statement, defines
government by its function, not by any particular feature.
Every decision a government makes results in a law and
represents one decision the “population at large” can no longer make on an
individual basis. Big government is extremely suppressive of individual
judgment and individual freedom – the ability to choose and make your own
decisions. It makes those decisions for you, such as how to make and spend
money. Or, in New York City
Of course, the government believes it’s acting to decide
what’s “good” for all of us. But that becomes extremely problematic. The
Founding Fathers relentlessly championed the concept of “living by your own
lights,” or individual liberty, a view of humanity developed by earlier thinkers mainly
in France and England USA
So explain to me, please, Kirsten, how Big Government frees
citizens. Frees them from what? Individual thought and decision making?
Directing their own actions? Frees them from freedom?
Just something to think about. I was truly surprised that
someone as apparently intelligent as you are fails to recognize this one very
fundamental fact about government – any government.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Addressing violence as a way of life
Look, I'm a writer. I'm not about to suggest limiting or restricting anybody's 1st Amendment rights. No, I'm talking about values as they are reflected in American entertainment, and how that impacts on personal attitudes -- especially among the young, who, by and large have not had enough life experience to make their own judgments based on fact.
In reference to mass shootings like that at the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater especially, where the shooter dressed up like the Joker and wired his apartment like something from a 007 film, it gets pretty hard to argue that popular culture had nothing to do with it.
But then look at gang shootings, too, all across the USA, and I might say particularly in Chicago last year.
Life is cheap. The "hero" is the guy with, not necessarily the biggest gun, but the nastiest attitude and the most resolutely inhumane attitude toward death and destruction. And where on earth do people get the idea that these are concepts to be valued?
Kinda funny how no filmmaker in his right mind would have his heroes talk about "niggers," "kikes," faggots," "beaners," or "sand niggers" and "camel jockeys." The bad guys might, but not the heroes. The heroes aren't even allowed to smoke tobacco anymore. Why -- if if would make no difference, if it has no impact at all upon the audience?
I don't think that watching a violent movie or playing a violent video game will drive a normal person to rush right out and start klling people. But it trivializes human life. It makes it less valuable. And in a lot of cases, it make violence glorious, and a heroic solution to everyone's problems.
For instance, the movie Taken, which I thought was a good movie in terms of plot development, cinematography and all. Hero Liam Nissen has a totally idiot daughter who wants to go to Paris and maybe (thrillingly) get laid by some French guy. Liam warns of dangerous streets, but even her mother -- Liam's x-wife -- wants the daughter to go.
Barely off the plane, she's fingered by, I think it was, an Albanian white slave ring and is kidnapped. So Liam Nissen, a one-time CIA (or something) agent, swings into action to get her back. In the process of his rescue, he kills probably in the neighborhood of two dozen people. All creeps and criminals, granted, but the slaughter is almost mind-boggling. Brings to mind the bloodfests of earlier films like Ronan and/or Scarface.
What supposedly "justifies" this massacre in Taken is that Liam is wasting only bad guys. Or the people he regards as bad guys.
Why doesn't he contact Interpol and have them put in jail? Why doesn't he at least contact the French police (though apparently he has some kind of contact among the Surete or something) and get them to act? No, not good enough. He's got to go commit the murders himself. He's more heroic than they are or could ever be, apparently.
So it's murder, murder, murder. Heads exploding. Blood squirting out of wounds like fountains, huge explosions and car wrecks that no human being could possibly survive.
You know why? I mean, really, you know why movies are made this way? Becauase it's visual. It's something you can show on film. Like calm deliberation is not very exciting to watch. Juries are a bore. And exciting feats told second hand just don't "play" well on film.
It's not a moral decison. It's all about the requirements of that particular medium, It costs a lot less and takes a lot less work on the part of screenwriters and others who craft the so-called "stories." If they had to actually think about dramatizing more positive things, they might not be up to the challenge. But it's usually the films that go beyond simple-minded violence that are best loved and win all the Oscars.
And, of course, there's audience demand. As David Letterman used to say, "Blows up real good." I mean, who doesn't love seeing a decapitated torso with blood and tissue gushing out the truncated neck? If you can add stringy things that sort of bounce, and gooey stuff that sticks to the floor, that's even better.
All of this creates a cultural environment that violence is good, useful, effective, and accessible to anybody with a beef. "You, too, can take revenge on your enemies! Just watch this!" It makes it OK to kill other people.
And it doesn't take a mental giant to figure this out. You don't need psychiatrists sifting through the health records of gun owners. You don't need to ban so-called "assault rifles," which are, really, dressed up plain old semi-automatic rifles. You don't need government interference.YOU ESPECIALLY DON'T NEED GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.
All you need is for Hollywood and video game developers and the like to begin to recognize the value of human life and to back away from glorifying death and destruction.
Think that's going to happen any time soon? I doubt it, but who knows? Maybe we can start a trend that even liberals might embrace: murder as politically incorrect.
In reference to mass shootings like that at the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater especially, where the shooter dressed up like the Joker and wired his apartment like something from a 007 film, it gets pretty hard to argue that popular culture had nothing to do with it.
But then look at gang shootings, too, all across the USA, and I might say particularly in Chicago last year.
Life is cheap. The "hero" is the guy with, not necessarily the biggest gun, but the nastiest attitude and the most resolutely inhumane attitude toward death and destruction. And where on earth do people get the idea that these are concepts to be valued?
Kinda funny how no filmmaker in his right mind would have his heroes talk about "niggers," "kikes," faggots," "beaners," or "sand niggers" and "camel jockeys." The bad guys might, but not the heroes. The heroes aren't even allowed to smoke tobacco anymore. Why -- if if would make no difference, if it has no impact at all upon the audience?
I don't think that watching a violent movie or playing a violent video game will drive a normal person to rush right out and start klling people. But it trivializes human life. It makes it less valuable. And in a lot of cases, it make violence glorious, and a heroic solution to everyone's problems.
For instance, the movie Taken, which I thought was a good movie in terms of plot development, cinematography and all. Hero Liam Nissen has a totally idiot daughter who wants to go to Paris and maybe (thrillingly) get laid by some French guy. Liam warns of dangerous streets, but even her mother -- Liam's x-wife -- wants the daughter to go.
Barely off the plane, she's fingered by, I think it was, an Albanian white slave ring and is kidnapped. So Liam Nissen, a one-time CIA (or something) agent, swings into action to get her back. In the process of his rescue, he kills probably in the neighborhood of two dozen people. All creeps and criminals, granted, but the slaughter is almost mind-boggling. Brings to mind the bloodfests of earlier films like Ronan and/or Scarface.
What supposedly "justifies" this massacre in Taken is that Liam is wasting only bad guys. Or the people he regards as bad guys.
Why doesn't he contact Interpol and have them put in jail? Why doesn't he at least contact the French police (though apparently he has some kind of contact among the Surete or something) and get them to act? No, not good enough. He's got to go commit the murders himself. He's more heroic than they are or could ever be, apparently.
So it's murder, murder, murder. Heads exploding. Blood squirting out of wounds like fountains, huge explosions and car wrecks that no human being could possibly survive.
You know why? I mean, really, you know why movies are made this way? Becauase it's visual. It's something you can show on film. Like calm deliberation is not very exciting to watch. Juries are a bore. And exciting feats told second hand just don't "play" well on film.
It's not a moral decison. It's all about the requirements of that particular medium, It costs a lot less and takes a lot less work on the part of screenwriters and others who craft the so-called "stories." If they had to actually think about dramatizing more positive things, they might not be up to the challenge. But it's usually the films that go beyond simple-minded violence that are best loved and win all the Oscars.
And, of course, there's audience demand. As David Letterman used to say, "Blows up real good." I mean, who doesn't love seeing a decapitated torso with blood and tissue gushing out the truncated neck? If you can add stringy things that sort of bounce, and gooey stuff that sticks to the floor, that's even better.
All of this creates a cultural environment that violence is good, useful, effective, and accessible to anybody with a beef. "You, too, can take revenge on your enemies! Just watch this!" It makes it OK to kill other people.
And it doesn't take a mental giant to figure this out. You don't need psychiatrists sifting through the health records of gun owners. You don't need to ban so-called "assault rifles," which are, really, dressed up plain old semi-automatic rifles. You don't need government interference.YOU ESPECIALLY DON'T NEED GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.
All you need is for Hollywood and video game developers and the like to begin to recognize the value of human life and to back away from glorifying death and destruction.
Think that's going to happen any time soon? I doubt it, but who knows? Maybe we can start a trend that even liberals might embrace: murder as politically incorrect.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
President's license to kill
All over the news yesterday that the Comrade is claiming a "right" to kill American citizens that he suspects of terrorism. Useful, I suppose, for doing away with people like Al-Awlaki -- killed by drone in Yemen. However, the president, or whomever orders the kill, doesn't really need to show any evidence of anything to anyone as a rationale for ordering the kill. I suppose the Comrade will just "feel" it when it's OK to kill someone Maybe he'll ask Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid who they'd like to get rid of.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what a freaking nightmare.
I suspect that six months ago, with such power in his hands, the Comrade would have found some nasty secrets about Mitt Romney's past, and whoosh -- a drone overflies a Republican political rally in Ohio, and that's the end of that.
Not that I don't trust the Comrade, a power-mad psychopath and demagogue, the worst ever to gain any sort of power in the country. With just about the worst judgment I've ever seen in one human being. And a very arrogant, ignorant man who believes he's some kind of mystical gift to the human race. Delusions of grandeur. (There's a medical term for that.)
Anyway... this is not a first in American history. And if the blockheads in the White House did a little homework, they'd probably feel ashamed for what they're doing... but on second thought, probably not. They're so far beyond shame, or any kind of moral sense, it's pathetic. They appear to measure "right and wrong" on a scale of how much power they can gather over other people. Really sick.
Anyway, there was this little problem during the Civil War. Slaves kept running into the Union army lines wherever it approached in the Confederacy. Until the Emancipation Proclamation, these slaves were still "owned" and had to be returned to their "owners." But the Proclamation, coming halfway through the war, even allowed blacks to join the Union army -- and they'd been banned from this honor previously.
In response to this, ol' Jeff Davis, President of the Confederacy, said that if his troops encountered any black Union soldiers -- particularly as POWs -- he'd round them up, sell them back into slavery, and hang their white officers for inciting insurrection.
So Lincoln replied that the Union would hang a Confederate officer for every Union officer the Confederacy hanged.
Mind you, up until this time, the prevailing law was that you couldn't hold a POW longer than 10 days without arranging to exchange him. POWs were routinely exchanged after every battle -- the armies that captured them didn't really want to feed them.
So both sides started building POW camps, like Andersonville in Georgia, and Elmira in New York, and now they all held a whole bunch of POWs, who were very often used like hostages. If the Union POWs were starved in Georgia, then the Union starved the Confederate POWs in Elmira, and like that. Very bad situation. No one can be proud of this at all.
Anyway.... Jeff Davis releneted on his promise to hang the white officers in the black regiments, and both sides were a little worried about retaliatory measures against POWs. The upshot was, the Confederacy didn't know exactly what to do with black Union soldiers who were captured as POWs. The final decision actually was more or less left up to the commanding officer who had captured them, who didn't want to feed them, couldn't spare the men to guard them, and pretty much despised them for their "ingratitude" and "uppityness."
So there's evidence to support the claim that many black POWs were A.) sold back into slavery; B.) used as labor for the Confederate army; C.) killed outright, like at Fort Pillow, Tennessee, which by all accounts was a bloody massacre of US Colored Troops after they had been overpowered and had surrendered.
No clear cut policy, no rules to follow, really, no conditions or tests or laws to guide the treament of black Union POWs captured in the South. I've never heard of any who were actually held in a POW camp in the Confederacy -- and I'm sure the Confederacy would have had a "special" camp just for captured blacks. But it seems they never built one.
So this comes down to "rule by man, not by law." It's all up to the person in charge.
That's about as dangerous a situation as you can imagine. That really is very much what slavery was -- putting one human being totally in charge of the life and death of another. The "master" with some "right" to do whatever he pleased with the slave. Much like totalitarianism, or whatever the hell they have in Venezuela. And to think the Comrade has just bestowed upon himself the power of life and/or death over fellow citizens is terrifying, to say the least.
What's this supposed to be? Payback for slavery? But the Comrade, nor his family, were ever slaves in the USA. Or maybe he's just too damn stupid to understand what he's doing I mean, anyone who believe "taxthe rich" is a useful economic policy can't be too bright. But I think he knows exactly what he's doing -- destroying the country, chipping away piece by piece.
I hope somebody in Washington is monitoring all this and collecting the documentation. We'll need it for the impeachment.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what a freaking nightmare.
I suspect that six months ago, with such power in his hands, the Comrade would have found some nasty secrets about Mitt Romney's past, and whoosh -- a drone overflies a Republican political rally in Ohio, and that's the end of that.
Not that I don't trust the Comrade, a power-mad psychopath and demagogue, the worst ever to gain any sort of power in the country. With just about the worst judgment I've ever seen in one human being. And a very arrogant, ignorant man who believes he's some kind of mystical gift to the human race. Delusions of grandeur. (There's a medical term for that.)
Anyway... this is not a first in American history. And if the blockheads in the White House did a little homework, they'd probably feel ashamed for what they're doing... but on second thought, probably not. They're so far beyond shame, or any kind of moral sense, it's pathetic. They appear to measure "right and wrong" on a scale of how much power they can gather over other people. Really sick.
Anyway, there was this little problem during the Civil War. Slaves kept running into the Union army lines wherever it approached in the Confederacy. Until the Emancipation Proclamation, these slaves were still "owned" and had to be returned to their "owners." But the Proclamation, coming halfway through the war, even allowed blacks to join the Union army -- and they'd been banned from this honor previously.
In response to this, ol' Jeff Davis, President of the Confederacy, said that if his troops encountered any black Union soldiers -- particularly as POWs -- he'd round them up, sell them back into slavery, and hang their white officers for inciting insurrection.
So Lincoln replied that the Union would hang a Confederate officer for every Union officer the Confederacy hanged.
Mind you, up until this time, the prevailing law was that you couldn't hold a POW longer than 10 days without arranging to exchange him. POWs were routinely exchanged after every battle -- the armies that captured them didn't really want to feed them.
So both sides started building POW camps, like Andersonville in Georgia, and Elmira in New York, and now they all held a whole bunch of POWs, who were very often used like hostages. If the Union POWs were starved in Georgia, then the Union starved the Confederate POWs in Elmira, and like that. Very bad situation. No one can be proud of this at all.
Anyway.... Jeff Davis releneted on his promise to hang the white officers in the black regiments, and both sides were a little worried about retaliatory measures against POWs. The upshot was, the Confederacy didn't know exactly what to do with black Union soldiers who were captured as POWs. The final decision actually was more or less left up to the commanding officer who had captured them, who didn't want to feed them, couldn't spare the men to guard them, and pretty much despised them for their "ingratitude" and "uppityness."
So there's evidence to support the claim that many black POWs were A.) sold back into slavery; B.) used as labor for the Confederate army; C.) killed outright, like at Fort Pillow, Tennessee, which by all accounts was a bloody massacre of US Colored Troops after they had been overpowered and had surrendered.
No clear cut policy, no rules to follow, really, no conditions or tests or laws to guide the treament of black Union POWs captured in the South. I've never heard of any who were actually held in a POW camp in the Confederacy -- and I'm sure the Confederacy would have had a "special" camp just for captured blacks. But it seems they never built one.
So this comes down to "rule by man, not by law." It's all up to the person in charge.
That's about as dangerous a situation as you can imagine. That really is very much what slavery was -- putting one human being totally in charge of the life and death of another. The "master" with some "right" to do whatever he pleased with the slave. Much like totalitarianism, or whatever the hell they have in Venezuela. And to think the Comrade has just bestowed upon himself the power of life and/or death over fellow citizens is terrifying, to say the least.
What's this supposed to be? Payback for slavery? But the Comrade, nor his family, were ever slaves in the USA. Or maybe he's just too damn stupid to understand what he's doing I mean, anyone who believe "taxthe rich" is a useful economic policy can't be too bright. But I think he knows exactly what he's doing -- destroying the country, chipping away piece by piece.
I hope somebody in Washington is monitoring all this and collecting the documentation. We'll need it for the impeachment.
Monday, February 4, 2013
President wants more tax increases
Apparently entirely ignorant of econimcs and with the value sense of a six-year-old who wants a "real" fire truck, the Comrade was on TV last night trying to sell more tax increases.
This person belongs in a booby hatch.
One pundit pointed out that the Comrade doesn't know anything about economics and doesn't care, either. Rather his whole concern is "income equality." That is, he can't stand to see anyone get ahead.
Well, here's one suggestion to even out incomes.
Hey, Comrade, send me $100,000 out of your salary. Or half -- that would make things even more equal.
I can send you my checking account number for a quick and easy bank transfer. OK?
I'll be waiting for that alert from my bank.
This person belongs in a booby hatch.
One pundit pointed out that the Comrade doesn't know anything about economics and doesn't care, either. Rather his whole concern is "income equality." That is, he can't stand to see anyone get ahead.
Well, here's one suggestion to even out incomes.
Hey, Comrade, send me $100,000 out of your salary. Or half -- that would make things even more equal.
I can send you my checking account number for a quick and easy bank transfer. OK?
I'll be waiting for that alert from my bank.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Solving the USA's economic problems....
OK, OK. Just saw Dennis Kucinich on Fox, proposing another "infrastructure" project that would, he says, "get people back to work." No, it's a transfer of funds to union workers, who will transfer it back to the democrat party next election year. And Kucinich wants a measly $1 billion for this. Which would be added to the national debt.
Well, I have a much better idea. The US has spent more than $1 TRILLION since the Comrade took office trying to restart the economy. The money's gone to failed "green" startups, unions, buddies of the Comrade, foreign banks, and apparntly to terrorist nations and dictators.
I think the money is going to the wrong people. So here's my plan. It will cost a little over $300 million -- or only 30% of Kucinich's "modest" proposal. Here it is:
Give every US citizen $1 million.
Seriously. People could pay off their debts, which would be a huge boost to retailers and to mortgage-lending banks and financial institutions.
People could start and/or expand their own businesses, and/or invest in their friends' and families' businesses.
People could pay off their back taxes, increasing revenues to the feds and states, no doubt.
People could buy things -- and this being a consumer-centered economy, that's huge.
People could actually afford to pay the skyrocketing premiums of health insurance under Obamacare.
People could invest it in stocks, bonds, annuities, whatever -- and wouldn't necessarily be entirely dependent on social security.
The poor could get themselves off the dole, at least for a while, which would help the states bring their debt down.
On top of that, since everyone gets $1 million, it's "fair" even under the warped definition of that word that the Comrade and his Occupy Wall Street people live by.
So that's it. Very simple.
I know, I'm a hero.
Well, I have a much better idea. The US has spent more than $1 TRILLION since the Comrade took office trying to restart the economy. The money's gone to failed "green" startups, unions, buddies of the Comrade, foreign banks, and apparntly to terrorist nations and dictators.
I think the money is going to the wrong people. So here's my plan. It will cost a little over $300 million -- or only 30% of Kucinich's "modest" proposal. Here it is:
Give every US citizen $1 million.
Seriously. People could pay off their debts, which would be a huge boost to retailers and to mortgage-lending banks and financial institutions.
People could start and/or expand their own businesses, and/or invest in their friends' and families' businesses.
People could pay off their back taxes, increasing revenues to the feds and states, no doubt.
People could buy things -- and this being a consumer-centered economy, that's huge.
People could actually afford to pay the skyrocketing premiums of health insurance under Obamacare.
People could invest it in stocks, bonds, annuities, whatever -- and wouldn't necessarily be entirely dependent on social security.
The poor could get themselves off the dole, at least for a while, which would help the states bring their debt down.
On top of that, since everyone gets $1 million, it's "fair" even under the warped definition of that word that the Comrade and his Occupy Wall Street people live by.
So that's it. Very simple.
I know, I'm a hero.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Imperial presidency -- FAIL!
I guess the Comrade is being inaugurated again. I've actually been trying to avoid any information about this, the same way some people avoid going to the dentist. At any rate, History Channel is running its series on "The Presidents," and I happened to catch the breathless segment on Theodore Roosevelt. Which most of the commentators pronounced like "Theater" Roosevelt, which is quite appropriate.
Anyway, did you know we're still paying for the mess TR created? Especially in terms of foreign policy. TR wanted to make the USA a world force, and I do mean "force." He wanted a "two-ocean Navy," and that was the engine driving the push to build the Panama Canal. Didn't realize that Columbia owned the Isthmus of Panama at the time and wouldn't deal with us to lease or buy the property. So TR engineered a revolution in the area to "liberate" control of the isthmus from Columbia. A lot of countries in central and South America still hate us for that, still see us as imperialists, remain fodder for communists and other power-mad crazies who promise to protect them from us.
Then TR also sent the 7th fleet around the world to ahake our fist at other countries and advertise that we were now prepared to go to war with them.
That's one reason Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Were you aware of that?
Something History Channel didn't mention. The USA went bankrupt in 1907 and ol' TR had to eat his hat and go to J.P. Morgan to beg for money to bail us out. After TR's tireless and hysterical bluster about trusts and the evil Robber Barons. TR explained this shift in his personal attitude by explaining, "But J.P. Morgan is a gentleman." (ROFL) So apparently TR's economic policies were about as successful as his foreign policy. And yeah, J.P. Morgan had more money than the US government. Those were the days....
But let's go back to the Panama Canal. The USA leased the land from Panama for 100 years -- and it went back to Panama a few years ago because we did not renew the lease. The canal is a useful channel for trade barges, etc., and for leisure passengers cruises, but it's no longer really useful for the US Navy. Primary bases now are Norfolk, VA, for the Atlantic fleet, and San Diego and Hawaii for the Pacific.
But the canal... took 12 years to build and billions of dollars. Government funded, required toppling one government, and now is not really useful for its original military purpose. And why?
Because at the same time TR was blustering and charging around on horseback and signing all kinds of executive orders because the US Constititution is so very cumbersome... while TR was doing his kabuki theatre about his amazing greatness, two guys who owned a bicycle shop in Ohio were fooling around with something called "aeroplanes."
The Wright brothers used their own money, their own ingenuity, their own time and labor.
And who left the greater legacy? Like all self-righteous, know-it-all maniacs, TR didn't understand that people don't need him and that, left to their own devices, they'll come up with better, cheaper, more profitable and useful solutions on their own. Nobody needs people like TR or the Comrade, despite their aggressive sales pitches to the contrary and the noisy rabble they rouse.
TR is probably the president I despise the most. Well, he's in second place now, since the Comrade took over. And I do mean "took over." More kabuki theater, more noise and crises of all kinds, more insufferable arrogance and executive orders because the Constitution represents a huge stumbling block for power-mad psychopaths. Thank God. It was designed to serve that purpose and it's still working, though crippled by the Supreme Court and idiots like Pazzo Pelosi.
Just a note -- I recently read a copy of Virginia's first Constitution after the Declaration of Independence -- I mean, Virginia wasn't truly a "state" yet, and no USA yet. And had to laugh... when it came to the section on "executive power," that Constitution has a list a yard long of what the chief executive was NOT allowed to do. Not much about what he could do. So anyone who doubts that the US Constitution was developed primarily to limit government power -- look at the historical context and shut your ignorant face.
By the way, saw a photo of Mrs. Comrade with her new haircut. It's very square-looking with the ragged bangs. She looks just like Boris Karloff as Frankenstein. Suits her.
That's all for now.
Anyway, did you know we're still paying for the mess TR created? Especially in terms of foreign policy. TR wanted to make the USA a world force, and I do mean "force." He wanted a "two-ocean Navy," and that was the engine driving the push to build the Panama Canal. Didn't realize that Columbia owned the Isthmus of Panama at the time and wouldn't deal with us to lease or buy the property. So TR engineered a revolution in the area to "liberate" control of the isthmus from Columbia. A lot of countries in central and South America still hate us for that, still see us as imperialists, remain fodder for communists and other power-mad crazies who promise to protect them from us.
Then TR also sent the 7th fleet around the world to ahake our fist at other countries and advertise that we were now prepared to go to war with them.
That's one reason Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Were you aware of that?
Something History Channel didn't mention. The USA went bankrupt in 1907 and ol' TR had to eat his hat and go to J.P. Morgan to beg for money to bail us out. After TR's tireless and hysterical bluster about trusts and the evil Robber Barons. TR explained this shift in his personal attitude by explaining, "But J.P. Morgan is a gentleman." (ROFL) So apparently TR's economic policies were about as successful as his foreign policy. And yeah, J.P. Morgan had more money than the US government. Those were the days....
But let's go back to the Panama Canal. The USA leased the land from Panama for 100 years -- and it went back to Panama a few years ago because we did not renew the lease. The canal is a useful channel for trade barges, etc., and for leisure passengers cruises, but it's no longer really useful for the US Navy. Primary bases now are Norfolk, VA, for the Atlantic fleet, and San Diego and Hawaii for the Pacific.
But the canal... took 12 years to build and billions of dollars. Government funded, required toppling one government, and now is not really useful for its original military purpose. And why?
Because at the same time TR was blustering and charging around on horseback and signing all kinds of executive orders because the US Constititution is so very cumbersome... while TR was doing his kabuki theatre about his amazing greatness, two guys who owned a bicycle shop in Ohio were fooling around with something called "aeroplanes."
The Wright brothers used their own money, their own ingenuity, their own time and labor.
And who left the greater legacy? Like all self-righteous, know-it-all maniacs, TR didn't understand that people don't need him and that, left to their own devices, they'll come up with better, cheaper, more profitable and useful solutions on their own. Nobody needs people like TR or the Comrade, despite their aggressive sales pitches to the contrary and the noisy rabble they rouse.
TR is probably the president I despise the most. Well, he's in second place now, since the Comrade took over. And I do mean "took over." More kabuki theater, more noise and crises of all kinds, more insufferable arrogance and executive orders because the Constitution represents a huge stumbling block for power-mad psychopaths. Thank God. It was designed to serve that purpose and it's still working, though crippled by the Supreme Court and idiots like Pazzo Pelosi.
Just a note -- I recently read a copy of Virginia's first Constitution after the Declaration of Independence -- I mean, Virginia wasn't truly a "state" yet, and no USA yet. And had to laugh... when it came to the section on "executive power," that Constitution has a list a yard long of what the chief executive was NOT allowed to do. Not much about what he could do. So anyone who doubts that the US Constitution was developed primarily to limit government power -- look at the historical context and shut your ignorant face.
By the way, saw a photo of Mrs. Comrade with her new haircut. It's very square-looking with the ragged bangs. She looks just like Boris Karloff as Frankenstein. Suits her.
That's all for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)