Drones, Revisited

Rand Paul, my junior Senator from Kentucky, was in the news again this week; apparently for advocating drone strikes inside the USA, on American citizens.

Well, that's what the media was saying anyway. All the while managing to squeeze in the word hypocrite as many times as they could. Senator Paul has a slightly different position, as you can imagine. After all; this is the man who filibustered for 13 hours against the Obama Administration on that same topic.

Senator Paul said on a show on Fox that: "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don't care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him".

Here is the detail that makes this a non-news, non-event; detail that the folks wanting you to believe Senator Paul is a hypocrite hope you don't hear about.

Rand Paul used that exact same phrase in his filibuster. He has drawn a very bright line between the use of a drone as a law enforcement tool and its use as an assassination tool. The liquor store scenario shows that a drone, much like the bomb squad robots, can be used as a law enforcement tool to keep cops out of harm's way. A technology that, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't yet exist.

Small wonder- I agree with the Senator.

If someone is leaving a liquor store- or any place- they have just robbed, guns blazing and stolen cash in hand, law enforcement has a duty to protect the rest of us from this menace. Whether the cops protect me with their sidearm, their shotgun or the yet-to-be-developed urban drone, I don't care. This is a 'hot' situation, requiring instant reaction.

Let's say our bad guy gets away somehow, although the police have a description of him. 6 months later this same yet-to-be-developed urban drone spots our unindicted, but known, felon eating lunch at a patio table at your local Rally's.

And pumps 3 slugs into him; making him a former unindicted, but known, felon, now known as the recently deceased.

Do you see the difference in these two scenarios?

I would have no problem with eh Administration flying a few armed drones into a situation- like say the Benghazi Embassy attack- and dropping a few combatants.

But I would have a problem with them dropping those same combatants a few weeks later while they sitting at a cafe enjoying some spring sunshine.

The difference is all about when we can allow the use of lethal force as a substitute for a trial by jury and a legal- and possibly non-lethal- punishment.

Take for example the recent Boston bombing. The cops had a gun fight with the two bombers, and killed one. They searched for and found the second bomber, and now know where he is. Can the Boston PD walk into his prison hospital room and shoot him? Would that have been justified in shooting him instead of arresting him when they found his bullet-riddled carcass hiding in a Watertown backyard?

Of course not. It's the difference between an active situation requiring an equal reaction and a simple arrest.

So why should the use of drone technology be considered differently? Technology makes us more able to control a situation; it doesn't remove our moral or legal restraints from the action.

Rand Paul is once again on the right side of the issue, leaving the Democrats sitting on the wrong side, and being forced to defend their poor position as best they can.

Gold Is HOT; Why?

I just heard on the radio that Facebook stock has dropped again. As far as I know I don't own any stock in Facebook, unless it is in a Mutual Fund somewhere, but here is why I find this interesting.

The Facebook IPO (Initial Public Offering) was the only- or one of a very few IPOs- that the insiders shared with the real public.

And it tanked.

Here is the question: is it cause and effect or effect and cause?

What I mean is, did the stock tank because the general public was allowed access, or was the public allowed access because the insiders KNEW it would tank?

Interesting question, ain't it?

I have the same question about gold. I know you've heard the ads; Gold is set to explode; Gold is set to double in value; Hurry- Buy Now!.

If there is such a fortune to be made in gold, why are the insiders sharing the information?

Or is it, as I suspect, that the bottom is about to drop out of gold and the insiders want out?

That puts a different spin on the issue, doesn't it?

I could be wrong. Maybe gold is ready to explode. But how many other investments that are ready to double have we been let in on?

Or how many other IPOs that skyrocketed from their original price? Doesn't it seem strange that we are only allowed in on the ground floor of those investment products that have then proceeded to the basement, and not the penthouse?

But maybe I'm just cynical.

Nostradamus I Ain't

I was reading this article yesterday. Amazing what the press won't report with a Democrat in the White House, ain't it?

I normally don't like making predictions, because predictions can go so disastrously wrong. So many little things go into an event, and all it takes is one of the steps to turn out B instead of A and you look like a damn fool.

Think "Dewey Defeats Truman".

But in this case I feel secure in my predictions. Because they are based on recent history.

I predict that once Romney is elected- and no, that's not a prediction; that is a fervent hope- we will start again hearing about the cost of the wars. We will start having body counts again on the evening news, and pictures of flag draped caskets in full color on the evening news.

I predict that once Romney gets elected, we will start hearing about the homeless problem in this country. We will see images of homeless children, living in cars, and barely surviving. The numbers of homeless won't go up or down, but the attention to them will increase dramatically.

I predict half of the people in this country will starve to death once Romney is elected, or it will at least seem that way. Every time an elderly person is found dead in their home it will be because of 'recent' changes to Medicare an Social Security.

I predict that after Romney's election half of the bridges in the country will collapse, or it will seem to appear that way. Every time a backwater two lane bridge is closed for repair it will be because of 'recent' cuts in the transportation budget.

I predict Romney's Presidency will result in a dramatic increase in teen pregnancy, teen suicide and teen alcoholism. All because of 'recent' changes to Federal programs. At least, that's what the media will try to convince you of.

 I also predict that there will not be any change in any of these areas. There maybe slight drops in some rates- a change that will not be mentioned anywhere, or you risk a charge of heresy- because despite the trillions of dollars cast at these problems for the last 40 years, there has been no dramatic change on the rates of any of these issues.

But all of the issue we have not heard a peep out of for the last 3.5 years will suddenly become urgent, and drastically increasing in urgency.

Just like they did when Clinton was President; all of these issues disappeared, from the press anyway, for 8 years, only to appear cicada-like moments after George Bush was sworn in.

That's why I can make these predictions so confidently; I have seen the media's playbook.

Free Speech May Become Costly

If you have read much of this blog you know that I have very little use for the ACLU- The American Crazies and Looneys Union.

But I just found out about a new law- passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President- that can be used to restrict free speech.

And the ACLU agrees with me. Or I agree with them; its one or the other. Either way this is not a normal situation. They are a little more fiery over at the Blaze (pun intended).

When the Lion lies down with the Lamb time.

When these tow both agree that his is a bad law, then it must be a bad law.

And the vote in the House wasn't even close. 288 to 3, with 42 not voting.

The Senate was even worse. This travesty passed by UNANIMOUS CONSENT.

And you thought the Republican were going to protect us, and help take this country back.

Yeah; good luck with that.

Did you hear about this in the news? Maybe Limbaugh talked about it? Hannity maybe?

Nope, nope and nope.

It just might be time to oil up the shootin' iron.

Eleven Years Ago Today

Today is the eleventh anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York.

That's not news, is it?

I'm not sure how I feel about today. And the reason I lack a clear feeling about today is because of the media.

Any one over the of 16 remembers the attacks. Most of us watched them live, and watched the reporting go from a tragic and unexplainable plane crash to an attack. When the Pentagon was hit it became even plainer that there was an orchestrated attack under way.

We watched live as the second plane hit the second tower. We continued to watch live as almost 3000 fellow Americans died. Some by their own hand, in preference to dying in the towers themselves.

We were angry then. We should be angry now. But the images have faded. Where is the video that we all saw that day? The images of the planes hitting the towers; the smoke rising and the bodies falling? The video of men and women both running from and running to the towers? The images of a beautiful blue sky marred by the smoke and dust?

But these images are dangerous. They call out for revenge. On September 12th we were ready to go. Point us to an enemy and get the Hell out of the way. We were eventually pointed to Afghanistan, and then Iraq. As President Bush famously said: "Your either with us or against us".

We have fought Al-Qaeda for almost 11 years. We have found and killed Bin-Laden. We have cut  multiple heads off of the terror snake, but still we aren't done.

And it seems we are losing our resolve. The war has gone on too long; too many deaths. Too much treasure.

The problem is if we quit Al-Qaeda wins. They will get stronger. They will attack us again. and the war will go from being fought by the military in the Middle East to being fought with innocent lives in the Midwest.

Communism became the enemy of the West in the 1930's. We started fighting them in the 1950's, and beat Communism in the 1990's. Every President from Truman to Clinton fought Communism.

We didn't quit. We won.

We had constant reminders of the evils of the enemy. Even though most of the victims were their own citizens, and not ours, we fought. We had a resolve to win.

In 2002 we had a resolve to win this war too. Until the press politicized it; made it Bush's War. Constant reminders of the cost of the war were on TV.

But never footage of the reason for it.

There is the reason I am not sure how to feel about today. It is still politicized, and not just the War on Terror, but even the events of that day themselves.

Right down to Obama spiking the Bin-Laden football as often as he possibly can.

We haven't seen the cost of the war in the last few years. But I guarantee you we will as soon as Romney is sworn in. The death tolls will be come front page news again, and the anti-war protesters, recently dwindled down to a few die-hards (no pun intended) will start to gain in numbers again.

Today is not so much about remembering the men and women who died in the opening salvos of the War on Terror, as it is a weapon to be used by the media to gin up support for or opposition to the President, depending on whether he is friend or foe.

I'll take few minutes today, not just to remember the fallen heros of 9-11, but also those brave souls who have given the final sacrifice in the ongoing war.

And do my level best to forget the media even exists.

I Want the British Press

While doing research on another post I ran into this article. Why can't we have reporting like this in the USA?

I would love to see an article like this about Obama.

The Missouri Mess

Sometimes you can see exactly what's going on, and sometimes you can't. You look at a situation and just are forced to scratch your head.

I'm talking about the Missouri Senate Race, and the Republican candidate, Todd Akin. I am very curious what everybody in this mess is smoking.

Background is this, basically. Representative Akin in Pro-Life, to the point that he opposes abortion for rape and incest. Apparently he was on a TV interview recently where he 'misspoke':

The uproar began Sunday, when St. Louis television station KTVI aired an interview in which Akin was asked if he would support abortions for women who have been raped.
"It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin said.

First, in Todd's defense, I seem to recall being told exactly that same information in high school Biology class. I have no idea if the theory is still considered sound, or even if it was considered sound in the late seventies, but I seem to recall that if a woman was raped, her body would endure stresses that would create hormones that would cause a 'spontaneous abortion'. If I remember correctly, this was presented in Biology class as fact. So, he may have had some basis for misspeaking.

But my concern is the reaction from the RIGHT. I was listening to Hannity yesterday when he was brow-beating this guy to quit the Senate race. It raised my eyebrows, especially after all of the Tea Party support that Hannity has proclaimed.

In the Primary, Akin was the Tea Party favorite, handily beating the party's backed nominee. Allegedly some of commercials that supported him in the Primary were paid for by Clare McCaskill, his Democratic opponent in the General Election. Whether it is true, or just sour grapes that McCaskill was picking the candidate easiest to beat in the general election, Akin did win.

Yesterday Hannity was trying to guilt this guy into quitting the race, making it seem that the entire recapturing of the Senate for the Republicans rides on Akin beating McCaskill; a determination that is now in doubt. He was constantly brow beating Akin with how important his win was to the Republican party.

But Akin believes he can still win. and is refusing to quit. So, in response, the National Republican party is threatening to not contribute any funds to his campaign.

It is vitally important to win Missouri, but apparently not important enough to back Akin? What!?!?!?!

I'll tell you what I think. I think the Republican establishment is getting afraid of all of the Tea Party candidates, and has seen a way to get rid of one. That last thing they want is to have a 51 member Senate, with 10 of them being Tea Party. It might mean the end of big government.

The only thing that doesn't fit is Hannity's spiel yesterday. Unless the Tea Party support from him has been a shill, and he is actually an establishment plant?

Otherwise, I don't see how this one misstatement can become that big of an issue.

Something just doesn't pass the smell test with me.

UPDATE: Listening to Limbaugh right now. He started off talking big support for Akin, but them drifted into a call for him to make a "Good" decision, with "what's best for the country in mind". Apparently also, if Akin quits before 5:00pm today, the republican Party gets to pick the replacement.

Something didn't smell right before; now it is reaching the high odor of rotting flesh. I think I'm right; the Republican establishment is scared to death that they will need to take Tea Party concerns in to account while governing in 2013.

And their not liking it.

A Fair and Biased Press

I was talking with some friends the other day, and as usual the conversation turned to the upcoming election.

Will we keep the House? Will we win the Senate? Will we dump Obama?

During the conversation I had an off the wall thought.

I will allow the Dems to keep the White House and the Senate and give them House. I just want one thing in return:

A fair and honest Press. I want every TV station and Channel; every newspaper and magazine to honestly report what is happening in Washington and every state capital. If that happens for the next 4 years, Then I'll happily vote for a Democrat.

I figure the odds of that happening are about the same as me hitting the Powerball and the Mega Millions in the same week. Twice.

You know what bothers me? We have had a Constitutionally had a free press in this country since 1787. And we have had a biased press since 1787.

The thing was, in the old days you knew the Newspaper was biased, and you read it because of its biases. Today it's CNN & MSNBC on the one side, and Fox News on the other. Back in the day, in Cincinnati at least, the Democrats read the Post and Times Star; Republicans read the Enquirer. You knew how the news would be reported, and expected that bias. The newspapers prided themselves on that bias.

I have access to a unique collection of old Cincinnati newspapers. One day in 1915 a carpenter hung a full length mirror on a bathroom door, and stuffed some of yesterday's newspapers behind it to keep it from rattling.

A couple of years ago they were pulled out. What the carpenter had used were almost complete editions of the Cincinnati Enquirer; the Post and the Times Star. The big news the day, at least internationally, was a German victory in a battle in WWI; a war the United States had not yet entered.

In the Enquirer, it was front page news; full page, with pictures. In the Post, it was a small article on the front page, below the fold. In the Times Star it was buried inside; second or third page, or maybe further back. The big news in the Times Star? A Gas and Electric rate hike.

Each paper played to its base, and unabashedly proclaimed its bias.

And then everything changed. It was subtle at first, but lately has become blatant. Like almost everything else in modern journalism, it hit about the same time as Watergate; when two reporters became bigger news that the story they were covering- Woodward and Bernstein.

Now you will not find a news outlet that with tell you they are biased. and adherents of any particular brand will not admit the outlet they follow has a bias; theirs is the one unbiased outlet; its the rest of them that are biased.

I also find it interesting that once outlets started hiding their bias, they started going under. Locally, the Post went under 5 years ago. The Times Star had merged with the Post in 1958. The Enquirer is hanging on solely because it is the last newspaper in the area. TV News is ratings wise in the dumper as well, and dropping. Can we even mention 'Ratings' and CNN in the same breath without running afoul of some liberal morality double standard?

So where are folks getting their news? Why from biased internet sites; sites that clearly proclaim their bias.

Gee; now ain't that interesting?

Cows a Threat to Homeland Security

I knew cows were a threat to our very existence. Well, at least according to the fringe Greens their flatulence is, but I never knew they would require the department of Homeland Security to track some down.

Here is one of those stories that just has to be blogged about; if you are a certain type of blogger.

I'm not sure what type of coverage this has been getting in the media; but my guess is none.

The Basics: An Individual Sovereignest owns 3000 acres near Lakota, North Dakota. some cows wander onto his property, and he refuses to return them, and allegedly runs the cops off at gun point. So they call in the nearest SWAT Team- from Grand Forks, some 60 miles away- who, with a warrant, asks the Department of Homeland Security to spy on the farm with a drone. They locate our hero/villain with the drone and bust in and arrest him. 

There is so much going on here that is not explained in the stories I have read. First; whose cows were they? Why did Rodney Brossart think he should be able to keep the cows? These two points alone would put a whole different spin on the case. Was this the first time or the fortieth that these cows have wandered on to his place? Did these cows possibly damage some crops or fencing that their owner was refusing to pay for? How many times were the cows owners warned to fix their fence and keep their livestock at home?

Or, did the law just show up one day, looking for some missing cows, and invited themselves, without a warrant, to look around Brossart's farm for them, and our hero/villain then had to resort to firearms to run the cops off his land? Do you see how this situation, well within the given fact pattern, makes the outcome look completely different? And we haven't even gotten to the drone use yet.

There is a whole lot more than going on here than is being talked about.

6 missing cows. Worth, what? $1,000-$1,500 each on the hoof? Say all 6 are worth $10,000. So this brings in the law. I can see it; for 10 grand. But again; what is the back story? Assume this is the first time they have wandered, assume the neighbor has asked for them to be returned, politely, and has been rebuffed with undue force. So he calls the law. So far in this scenario, our hero is a villain.

But, does anybody see a need for a SWAT Team and a Homeland Security drone? Let's say there was enough firepower on the farm to outgun the local police department. Back up, reinforcements maybe. But a SWAT Team? From outside the county?

Okay; lets assume the SWAT Team was necessary. Our villain has a history of attacks on police, or of just not playing well with others. Why is Homeland Security involved? Against an American Citizen, on his own land?

I'm sorry, this does not pass the smell test for me. There is more going on than is being reported on.

I also cannot condone the use of a Federal asset for enforcement of, at best, a very local issue. According to the article:

The SWAT team stormed in and arrested Brossart on charges of terrorizing a sheriff, theft, criminal mischief, and other charges, according to documents.

Which of these crimes is even a Federal crime, much less one Homeland Security should be involved in?

Personally, I believe like the expert quoted in the article:


While there's no precedent for the use of unmanned drones by law enforcement, John Villasenor, an expert on information gathering and drone use with the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, says he'd be "floored" if the court throws the case out. Using a drone is no different than using a helicopter, he says.

I agree; the use of a drone is no different that the use of a helicopter. And if they had used a Homeland Security helicopter, instead of one owned by a local police force, I would still be concerned. It's not the equipment that is the problem; it's who owns the equipment that is twisting my knickers.

The drone did not - according to the article- find any evidence or help in the development of the charges against Mr. Brossart. All it did was locate him for a quick arrest, on local charges.

Explain to me how these 6 missing cows were a threat to the existence and safety of the country, and I'll change my mind. But for now, I think we have a NoDak hero, not a villain.

Again- Guns Don't Kill People

I was reading Instapundit this morning and ran across this piece. I have been saying for a long time that movies have gotten too violent. Its nice to see Peter Bogdanovich agree with me.  

Personally, I haven't seen any of the Batman movies. They seemed, from their advertising, dark and violent, and I don't go to movies to see dark and violent. Hell, I still haven't seen Cars 2 for that reason.

So Batman would not be on my viewing list.

But, at any rate, back to the article. Peter talks about how he has been worried about violence in the movies for a long time:

Back in the '70s, I asked Orson Welles what he thought was happening to pictures, and he said, "We're brutalizing the audience. We're going to end up like the Roman circus, live at the Coliseum." The respect for human life seems to be eroding.

'Back in the 70's' he says. 30-40 years ago. And yet the violence has gotten worse. To the point where it has spilled from the screen to the theater itself.

They make a big point in the article about how he lost a girlfriend to murder back in 1980- 30 years ago.

And this was the point where Peter went off the rails.


Dorothy was murdered by a guy who was not even legally in the United States, and he bought a gun here. It's out of control. Anytime there's a massacre, which is almost yearly now, we say, "Well, it's not the guns. Guns don't kill people. People kill people" and all that bullshit from the NRA. Politicians are afraid to touch it because of the right wing. And nothing ever changes. We're living in the Wild West.

So, his only experience was with a gun sale 30 years ago, but believes things have not changed since then.

And, he doesn't realize that the fringe element when it comes to firearms is himself and his little echo chamber. The vast majority of people in this country are gun owners and very pro-gun.

Take for example the current administration. They forced through, by every barely legal trick in the book, the most unpopular and sweeping change in an industry in the history of the country. Because Obama felt it was the right thing to do.

But no one, not even when the Dems had both houses of Congress, did the touch a single gun law.

They read the polls; they know what would happen if they tried.

Stopping Another Aurora

The news for the last two days has been full of the Aurora, Colorado shootings. Every newscast has been full of the shootings, even to the point where it has knocked the mud-slinging between Romney and Obama off of the news.

There are so many facets to this story that it will be years before we know everything, if we ever do.

The worst part is not the shooting, horrific as it was, but the reaction of the left to the shootings.

The first thing they did was look to see if the shooter belonged to the Tea Party. While the EMTs were still treating victims at the theater, and the police were trying to figure out how to enter the shooter's booby-trapped apartment,  the Lame-Stream Media were already trying to make a political win out of the deaths of these innocent victims.

The shooter was insane; that is a given. How anyone can argue otherwise is beyond me. There is no way any sane individual could have walked into that room armed as he was and illegally use those weapons to kill and maim innocent people in cold blood.

This was a scene out of a movie. The difference is that although sane minds will create these scenes for movies, they don't act them out in real life. This shooter did. That is, to me, a hallmark of insanity. Sane people can imagine these events, only the insane carry them out.

That he was able to hide that insanity and legally purchase the firearms he used does not lessen the depth of that insanity.

This is what makes the almost immediate call for more gun control all the more egregious.

These gun control groups were figuratively standing on the broken bodies of the victims to spout their ideology. They would have done it literally, but they couldn't make it to the scene in time.

Maybe that is why the liberals always win the propaganda wars. They have no shame. The victims of this shooter are not fellow human beings to be mourned, and their families comforted; they are a crisis not to be wasted.

Hopefully one day soon people will wake up to the fact that the liberal faction of this country is not concerned about anything but their agenda. If they need to stand on the bodies of the dead and wounded from this tragedy, or any other, to advance their cause, they will. The innocent victims; their families, the shooter- all pawns to be used to advance the cause.

They use the raw emotions of tragedy to move The Cause forward. To gain a new restriction while the memory of the deaths is still fresh.

Because they know that logical thought will turn them down; they require emotion, the roughed up revival fever that requires we DO SOMETHING NOW; STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN!

But gun laws don't stop tragedies like this.

No new law can stop a tragedy like this.

The only defense we have from the lone, insane gunman is the ability of a roomful of people legally able to shoot back.

News You Can Use

I received this story in an email from my Aunt, and was initially going to blog it because it showed the bias in the media.

But always the responsible blogger, I wanted to check the veracity of the story first. Chain emails have been known to get things wrong, and the story seemed to good to be true, as far as confirming the media ban on 'good' stories from the military.

If you followed the link then you know the details, and you know the story is true. You also know that the recent email changed some details.

Which is why I'm doing this post.

The email leaves out the fact that petty Officer Monsoor was a SEAL, probably to make the final tribute seem more poignant.

They also changed the dates of the event and the awarding of the Medal of Honor, probably to make the story a current event.

And that's what has me torqued off at this point.

Somebody thought that they could use this brave SEAL's heroic death to gin up some political controversy, and created LIES about that death and tribute to make it seem like a current event.

And that has me madder than the original story. You don't use heroes for politics.

And the fact that apparently my side of the debate is doing it doesn't make it right; it makes it worse.

We are supposed to know better.

As Usual I was Listening To The BBC This Morning

And when the BBC ended NPR came on; what a crock that outfit is.

They interviewed a climatologist from the UN (he was an American) about the upcoming Copenhagen 'Summit'.

Not a WORD about Climategate. Like it never existed. This idiot kept up the spiel like nobody had ever seen or heard of the leaked emails.

Local radio interviewed a local Dem congressman this week. What an idiot. In the last 10 days he had not seen or heard a word about Climategate, so he couldn't comment; but he hates foreign oil and loves US coal. WTF? If that idiot keeps his job in Congress there is no way in Hell the counting was honest. They'll have to find a semi load of 'uncounted ballots' to make that work.

What does it all add up to?

They know Global Warming is not happening, at least as dramatically as they predict. They also know that this warming has happened before, and they know there is nothing we can do about it, just like if the Earth was cooling we could do nothing about it.

But they also know they need this crisis in order to have trillions of dollars to be able to skim the graft off of.

Also, they know we know what they are up to.

But until they can devised another way of ending up with the same result, but with a different scam, they need to keep acting like this one is working.

Et tu, Brutus?

Seems like the press is no longer a willing accomplice.

Maybe

The Boy and the Balloon

If you have heard of this story, and if you've had an electronic communication device turned on in the last 12 hours, you have been inundated with it, you know the facts.

Well, at least the facts the media determined that you SHOULD know.

First and foremost, these parents are idiots, and their children should be taken away permanently. First the idea of the ‘attractive nuisance’ of a balloon in the backyard that a 6 year old could access (I’ll ignore that the media kept calling it a ‘Hot Air’ balloon when it was really a helium balloon) was STUPID. If they had left their pool unfenced and the boy had fallen into it, would they have had half the sympathy they garnered nationally while this fiasco was going on?

Second; these parents are idiots, and their children should be taken away permanently. I have seen other blogs where the lift and weight of this balloon were calculated, things the father (who built this contraption) would have known. He would have known from the minute he filled it with gas that there wasn’t enough lift for a case of beer in the basket of his balloon, much less enough lift for his 6-year old. So why the crocodile tears on national TV?

Third: these parents etc… Larry King show last night. Need I say more?

Fourth, and probably most important, while the nation was focused on a runaway weather balloon in Colorado, what monstrosity of legislation did they pass in Washington? We’ll probably find out in November of 2010, when Obama cancels the midterm elections.

Well, My Monday is Ruined

I almost hate to link to this, but what a cluster of idiots.

Read the Post, then read the comments.

And remember, each of these dipsticks has the right to vote, and probably did so. For Obama.

TWICE.

WTF!?!?!?!? Seriously; WTF?!?!?!?!

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize!?!?!?

Hell, if all it takes to win s nine months of doin' nuthin' then I have been eligible for years.

Honestly, if this isn't the last nail in the coffin of legitimacy for this idiocy i don't what will be.

First Al Gore for his crap a couple of years ago, and now this.

George Bush wipes out two evil regimes, frees 45 million people and gives women in two countries the first rights they have ever had and gets....

Nothing.

Obama smiles, nods and eloquates his way into a job he is severely under qualified for and....

Wins the Nobel Peace Prize.


Seriously; WTF?!?!?!?

Tonight I will definately need some bourbon.

Oh Crap! How Do We Report THIS?

Well, the good news is that Van Jones has resigned his position with the Obama Administration. The Fun news is that the MSM has no idea how to handle the good news.

Apparently he resigned yesterday, but a Google search this morning only one Media outlet had the story; The BBC.

ADDED: I was mislead by Google for some reason. ABC, CBS and NBC all had small stories on the Jones resignation (all of which mentioned the "smear campaign"), but none came up in a news search on the resignation. I had to search specifically for "NBC Jones", and even then the correct link was 3 or 4 down the page. Weird.

Why is this a problem for, say… CBS? Because they never covered the fact that he was in trouble! Why? Because then they would have need to report WHY he was in trouble, and the very fact that Obama even appointed this clown to a responsible position brings Obama’s sanity into question.

So now we get to see the MSM slowly twist in the wind, reporting a story that they didn’t want to report, because they did not cover the basics, because even the basics made their messiah look like an ass. Some time I think the next 1232 days are going to be fun.

Provide we survive them.

Interesting What Editing Can Do, Ain't It?

I don't know if any of you have heard about the SEIU altercation the other night in St. Louis, but I'll assume you have, and seen the video.

Have you seen this video? The SEIU response?



Just in case you haven't seen the original video, here it is. Listen carefully to the first minute or so.




Now let me ask; how much of this 'Creative Editing' we have been subjected to in the last 40 years?

Do you really want to know?

I am Sorry Somebody Died, but GIVE ME A BREAK

Okay, I have had it.

I am CHEESED!

I am HOSED OFF!

Alright; I’ll say it.

I’m PISSED!

Right now I am so torqued that I can’t unclench my jaw.

The entire f’in’ country is coming apart at the seems; the government is printing money faster than Scott can make asswipe and Obama is signing away our national defense to the damn Russians, and WHAT has been the f’in’ lead story on the news for 10 DAMN DAYS?!?!?!?!

So over-hyped has-been from the ‘80’s dropped f’in’ dead.

Big hairy deal.

He was so ‘popular’ the last few years he couldn’t get arrested… okay maybe that is a stretch… but hellfire, now he leads every newscast? He must of owed every network in the country long green, and now they figured by hyping his demise they may be able to cash in on the estate.

Why else would 3/4s of the country give a rats’s hind quarters? I sure as hell don’t.

MSM sucks. Big Time.

Yeah, I need a bourbon. A big glass full.