Thursday, January 13, 2011
Mr. Birgeneau said: “It is not a coincidence that this calamity has occurred in a state which has legislated discrimination against undocumented persons.” Since Mr. Birgeneau claims insight into the causes of calamities, I’m sure he knows why these spree killings occurred in other states: Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 in Virginia (2007); Jiverly Wong, 14 in New York (2009); Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, 12 in Colorado (1999); John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, 10 in Maryland and Virginia (2002); Michael McClendon, 10 in Alabama (2009); Jeff Weise, 10 in Minnesota (2005); and Christopher Speight, 8 in Virginia (2010).
At least Mr. Birgeneau displayed originality by not joining the army of Liberals blaming Sarah Palin and talk radio with no resort to facts or reason.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
For some reason - stupidity, ignorance, bizarre belief system, or something equally odd - Lewis Diuguid (I bet his last name is pronounced "Do good") wrote that when McCain and Palin say Obama is a Socialist, they are really saying that he's Black.
I read his article and added the following comment:
When I was young there was an all-white group we called socialists, and they went even further and called themselves National Socialists. Now there are over a billion Chinese who aren't offended when you call them socialists (or state capitalists), about a quarter of a billion of mostly white folk who were formerly in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and another billion Indians who also are slowly emerging from their long, dark night of socialism. But now we have an idiot, Lewis Diuguid, who gazes at his navel and finds an inane piece of lint to wave as a sign of Republican racism and shame. Mr. Diuguid, anyone who votes for or against someone because of skin color is racist, and by that standard, over 95% of American Blacks are well into that category.Then I included a link to one of my recent posts about Black racism as evidenced by their almost total support of Obama. [this is the link I included]
Soon my hit counter indicated that I was getting more visitors in an hour than I usually get in a day. Linking to an article that Drudge links to is a good way to increase blog traffic.
This inspired me to add more comments, and with each comment to add a link to another one of my posts. The hits kept pouring in, and I had the satisfaction of knowing that about eight of my most recent posts about Obama and the Democrats being at fault for the financial crisis were getting good readership.
Then I got greedy, and started commenting and including links to older posts where I condemned socialism generally, and socialized medicine in particular. The hits kept coming.
This afternoon, two days after it began, Drudge dropped the link to the article from his featured items, and the hits quickly diminished.
But now that I have the taste for higher readership, I'm watching Drudge much more closely, looking for his next link to an outrageous main stream media article that I can piggy back on.
It's fun to be read.
At Plank's Constant there is agreement that Lewis Diuguid is an idiot, and his post includes a photo of Mr. Diuguid. The calm demeanor reflected in the photo gives no hint to the stupidity Mr. Diuguid exhibits in his writings. Once again the old adage proven, "you can't tell a book by looking at the cover."
Please click on the link above and sneak a peek. You know you want to.
(To go to the posts I linked to in my comments, click on the "Lewis Diuguid" Articles label below)
Friday, October 10, 2008
Still proving why he is the worst president of all time, Jimmy Carter.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Rangel then went on to explain that the reason he classified her as disabled is that, in his opinion, the basis of her foreign policy is that she can see Russia from where she lives. If Charles Rangel thinks he can assign a disability classification to Sarah Palin on the basis of his assessment of her views, then he gives us all license to put a "disabled" label on anyone we think has erroneous beliefs. Using Rangel's criterion, I hereby declare all Liberals disabled because all they can see from where they live is an economic fantasy world.
Among Liberal fantasies are that you can tax your way to prosperity, that Social Security and Medicare are not doomed Ponzi schemes, that globalization is bad, that governments are wiser than free markets, that mankind is causing climate change even though natural climate changes have occurred thousands of times over millions of years, and that "change" and "hope" are substantive statements of policy.
It will be interesting to see how Democrat leadership handles this latest installment in the ongoing saga of Rangel's serial stupidity. They will probably go easy on him, because: "You got to be kind to the disabled."
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Next he will be all over President Bush for not believing in the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny.
It’s too bad that Arnold didn’t have time between injections to study World History and learn of recent periods of greater natural warming: the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago, and the Holocene Optimum of 5,000 years ago. Or he could have learned of the end of the last Ice Age, only 18,000 years ago, or the terrible famines, epidemics, and storms of the recent Little Ice Ages.
Had he but known of these recent natural climate extremes, he wouldn’t have exposed his Mr. World ignorance - unless, of course, it’s just more pandering to the immensely ignorant masses of California Democrats, who have made him what he now is: just another fumbling, bumbling California politician, succeeding only in making things worse with every misguided attempt at improvements.
It’s Grey Davis on steroids with a charisma transplant.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
In his article, Mr. Krugman acknowledged that Medicare is broke:
This year, the automatic cuts (Medicare expenses far exceed income) would have reduced doctors’ payments by more than 10 percent, a pay reduction so deep that many physicians would probably have stopped taking Medicare patients.
In previous years, payments to doctors were maintained through bipartisan fudging: politicians from both parties got together to waive the rules. In effect, Congress kept Medicare functioning by expanding the federal budget deficit.
In other words, Medicare is broke.
Mr. Krugman applauds the Democrats for solving the Medicare insolvency problem by ignoring it. According to Mr. Krugman, this is a positive step towards universal rather than privatized health services.
Let’s see if we can sum this up. The government run health system, Medicare, is insolvent and cannot pay its obligations without violating the rules that established its payment methodologies.
The Democrat answer is not to do anything to rescue Medicare from insolvency, like privatization, but instead to increase payment rates beyond legally established levels, and expand the federal budget deficit.
Why do we criticize the woman who wrote checks beyond the funds in her account, when we elect leaders to do the same with our tax money?
For being such a vocal advocate for irresponsible Medicare management, Paul Krugman is today’s honored recipient of the Unglued Idiot of the Day Award. From the evidence of his past articles, Mr. Krugman will consider criticism of his advocacy of irresponsible government spending to be an honor.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
This is his pattern: criticize when President Bush does one thing, and criticize again when he does the other.
H's saintly grandmother must have at sometime told him, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.” (To Democrats President Bush is "W", and to me, Senator Obama is "H." Fair's fair.)
Unless you’re an unglued Democrat idiot.
Congratulation, Mr. B. Hussein Obama.
You’re our first repeat “winner.”
An able Australian columnist, Andrew Bolt, notes that the draconian measures Australia could inflict on its economy to reduce CO2 emissions would be equal to 28 days of world emissions in the next decade. In other words, following Al Gore’s admonishments would destroy Australia’s economy with no measurable effect on world weather.
Bolt also reports that India has been tracking climate changes in India for many decades, and does not detect any of significance.
It is obvious that fighting global warming is a “solution in search of a problem.”
Friday, July 04, 2008
Obama said that under his plan, there would still be combat troops in Iraq in 2010, seven years after the war began. And he questioned the premise that the recent gains could complicate the withdrawal.
"Those are the same folks who said that we can't pull troops out because things are too violent," he said. "Now that the violence has subsided, you can't pull troops out because things have improved. It's a Catch-22."
So, Mr. Obama, what is confusing you?
Things were too violent, so we didn’t pull the troops out, and now the violence is greatly reduced. So it was a good idea to leave the troops there, wasn’t it? And you were wrong to oppose leaving the troops there to quell the violence, weren’t you?
Now that the violence has subsided, you want to pull the troops out and let the violence increase again? Then what should we do?
I bet your grandmother once told you, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Mr. Obama, you have what appears to me a thoroughly undeserved reputation for intelligence. What sense is it to succeed in reducing the violence, and then set the stage for a recurrence of violence?
Mr. Obama, the United States had and still has bases in countries that haven’t attacked us for over half a century, or more (the UK hasn’t attacked us for almost 200 years, and we still have bases there). While in the Air Force I was stationed in Turkey and England, and had duty at bases in Japan, Korea, Germany, Thailand, and The Philippines. My oldest son was stationed with the Army in Germany for a total of ten years.
Why wouldn’t we maintain troops in Iraq indefinitely, as long as it serves our national purposes, the same as we have in so many other countries?
That Democrat donkey kicked you in the head, right?
That explains why you're "Stuck on Stupid."
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) has written a bill to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” - which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.
Nancy Pelosi supports the resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine, primarily because conservatives have done such a good job of gaining and holding the interest of radio talk show audiences, and liberals have not. According to Ms. Pelosi, New York Democratic Rep. “Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now.”
I have a theory about why Democrats want to revive the moribund “Fairness Doctrine.” It’s a desperate attempt to save Air America. Air America, with its ultra-liberal lineup of hosts, steadily tanked from its opening, which is terminal and is maintained on life support only by the Liberal practice of throwing good money after bad. Theoretically, if stations broadcasting Air America had to also include conservative shows – Rush, Hannity, etc. – then maybe people would listen, and sponsors would sponsor.
Air America is like the host of failed Liberal schemes of the last century. If a dumb Liberal idea isn’t working, then the problem must be that it was underfunded, and instead of mercifully pulling the plug and allowing “death with dignity,” Liberals throw more money (usually other people’s) at it.
Off the top of my head, examples include: busing to integrate schools (which succeeded in increasing school segregation while wasting scarce education resources); refusing over ten years ago to allow oil drilling offshore and in ANWAR “because we won’t get more oil for ten years” (now it’s ten years later, and we would have more oil, except… and now Democrats are again saying we shouldn’t drill because “because we won’t get more oil for ten years”); unilaterally saving the planet from “global warming” by proposing destruction to the United States economy, while China and India feed their burgeoning economies a steady diet of oil and coal; and proposing to lower gas prices by increasing taxes on oil companies (I know Liberals who think this will work, the same ones that believe you can raise taxes to grow the economy).
Actually, I don’t believe reviving the “Fairness Doctrine” is a Liberal attempt to save Air America; it just gave me another way to kick failed Liberal programs around some more.
I actually believe that all Liberals want to do is kill the popular outlet for conservative thought, talk radio, because they tried to compete with Air America and failed miserably. In accordance with the Liberal doctrine of “if you can’t compete with it, kill it!”, Democrat legislators know that if they require radio stations to carry expensive but unpopular Liberal programs, the radio stations will have to drop the popular conservative shows and go back to brain-dead formats like “all news,” of course provided by the Liberal dominated Main Stream Media.
Now there’s a good idea! Why don’t Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats require all news and entertainment media to provide equal time? What makes radio different from television, magazines, and newspapers? Throwing aside irrelevant technicalities, they are all in the entertainment business.
Why are news readers (the appropriate British title for news anchors) Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer paid huge salaries? Why is Rush Limbaugh paid more than four prestigious anchors – according to the New York Times, his new contract calls for $400 million through 2016 – combined!?
While the Liberals in my half-vast audience are fuming about Rush’s high valuation, I’ll answer my own question: Rush is paid exorbitant sums because that is his entertainment value. Anyone can read a news article, but only Rush can comment on that article in such a way that he has a huge daily audience eager to hear his take on daily news items. If a radio station carrying his program was forced to run programming every day that in essence said, “we don’t agree with Rush,” that station would lose audience in droves as soon as Rush signed off each day.
Instead of engaging in such programming stupidity, Rush’s stations follow his show with Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and other popular conservative talk show hosts, building on Rush’s popularity instead of fighting to diminish his effect.
Tiger Woods has a similar effect in golf. There are thousands of professional golfers, and I’m sure that Liberals feels each should be given a chance to appear in a tournament. Therefore, if golf was run the way Democrats want to do radio, each tournament would have to have an equal mix of winners and losers.
Until the Democrats spread their influence wider, golf and most other activities will select participants by ability, not some politicians’ idea of “fairness.”
However, that won’t stop the Democrats from trying to “hush Rush.”
Monday, June 23, 2008
According to The Guardian, June 23, 2008:
James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.
Having just awarded Lou Dobbs an Unglued Idiot of the Day award for June 19, I now find James Hansen using similar language calling for placing oil company executives on trial as Mr. Dobbs did in calling for President Bush to be impeached for allowing the tomato salmonella outbreak.
As was the case with Mr. Dobbs, Mr. Hansen has not identified a law that was violated by the executives, since in fact none exist, but simply declares that they have committed “high crimes against humanity and nature.”
Mr. Dobbs alleged that President Bush had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the only grounds available to support impeachment (unless a salmonella outbreak falls under treason or bribery).
Once again, liberals show either monumental ignorance or disdain for the rule of law. Mr. Hansen, you cannot make up laws to punish legal acts after the fact.
In fact, Article One, Section 9, of our Constitution specifically prohibits our government to establish ex post facto laws.
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "After The Fact") or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted.
Mr. Hansen, not only are there no laws on the books that would provide for prosecution of oil company executives, there are no injuries to serve as a basis for prosecutions. Of course, the only way such laws could exist is if the First Amendment were suspended enabling laws to be passed making disagreement about man-caused global warming a punishable crime.
Mr. Hansen, why single out oil company executives for punishment when there are over 31,000 scientists who also are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming? Isn’t that selective prosecution?
Of course, if it’s being influential that counts, why not prosecute longtime global warming skeptic Sen. James Inhofe, R-Ok.? He stated, "Hansen, (former Vice President) Gore and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it." Then Senator Inhofe cited a recent poll proving his point. (The British don't believe it either.)
Or how about Michael Crichton, whose novel “State of Fear” exposed the fallacies of blaming climate change on mankind’s activities?
Or the Weather Channel founder, John Coleman? He's "highly critical of global warming alarmism."
Or how about prosecuting me? Unlike many of the other skeptics, I and my blog would welcome the publicity.
Quick, before someone shows you a copy of the Constitution, swear out charges against me!
Friday, June 20, 2008
The Unglued Idiot of the Day Award for June 19, 2008 is given to Lou Dobbs for his statement on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that President Bush should be impeached for the tomato salmonella outbreak.
Thanks to the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky episode, almost all Americans, with the apparent exception of Lou Dobbs, are familiar with our Constitutional grounds for impeachment.
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
According to Mr. Dobbs, the Food and Drug Administration leadership is in a 'sorry condition' and its inability to 'protect the American consumer' is 'sufficient reason to impeach the president.'
Since it does not seem Mr. Dobbs considers the salmonella outbreak to be a result of treason or bribery, that leaves him using the commission of a high crime or misdemeanor as the grounds for impeachment. With Bill Clinton it was very easy to see that laws – perjury and obstruction of justice – were violated, and that crimes were committed. Although Clinton confessed his perjury and obstruction of justice, he was not convicted. However, his violations of law resulted in Clinton ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to Arkansas state's bar officials and his Arkansas law license suspended for five years. In addition, Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court in October 2001, and, facing disbarment from that court, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar in November.
Mr. Dobbs, what laws did President Bush violate that resulted in the tomato salmonella outbreak?
Mr. Dobbs, if salmonella outbreaks were grounds for impeachment, there would not be one president spared. A bit of Googling shows that salmonella outbreaks have occurred in many forms for many years during all presidential administrations, and many were far more serious than this recent one.
The worst occurred in 1986 and involved low-fat milk in Chicago. I suppose this would inspire you to call for the impeachment of President Reagan, since 16,284 persons were known victims, and five died, compared to the 383 sickened by tomato-carried salmonella, and the cancer patient who died. However, the problem was the responsibility of the State of Illinois, not the Federal Government.
Contamination of chickens by salmonella was 20 percent during the latter years of the Clinton presidency, and has been reduced steadily since. Of course you know, Mr. Dobbs, that salmonella outbreaks have usually been blamed on chickens and eggs, and that a virulent strain of drug-resistant salmonella developed during the Clinton administration.
Apparently, Mr. Dobbs, the Food and Drug Administration leadership was in a 'sorry condition' then, too, and its inability to 'protect the American consumer' was 'sufficient reason to impeach the president.'
You must agree that this should have been added to Clinton’s impeachment charges. Consistency would require it, don’t you think?