Monthly Archives: October 2011

Another "high-tech" lynching

Posted on by
The liberals attempted to lynch Clarence Thomas when he was nominated to the US Supreme Court.  It didn’t work.  Now they’re trying to do it again. This time to Herman Cain.

The Politico published this column using anonymous sources from two unnamed women on something that supposedly occurred in the 1990s. I guess the old journalistic practice of validating your sources doesn’t apply to conservatives.  When Clinton was accused of rape, it was poo-pooed by the press.  Now they can’t wait to smear Cain.

Cain expected something like this since at least May, 2011.

But wouldn’t liberals and Democrats still find a racially-based way to attack Cain?  They certainly found a way to attack Clarence Thomas, the black, conservative Supreme Court justice.
“They’re going to come after me more viciously than they would a white candidate,” Cain responded.  “You’re right.  Clarence Thomas.  And so, to use Clarence Thomas as an example, I’m ready for the same high-tech lynching that he went through — for the good of this country.”  Cain smiled broadly.  “I’m ready for the same high-tech lynching.”
Well, Herman, it’s arrived. I hope you’re prepared to answer from the conservatives.  As for the rest, I wouldn’t bother.  They’re going to lie anyway. Expect it.

Friday Follies for October 28, 2011.

Posted on by

I see that Chicago is considering legalizing marijuana.  I guess Hiz Honor da Mayor is trying to divert the Occupy Chicago idjits who are protesting at city hall.

All across the country, liberal mayors were supporting the “Occupy” mobs. Not anymore. The mayors’ support has disappeared and they’re moving the mobs out.  Even with the support of the unions and MoveOn.org, it isn’t enough to keep the mayors subservient. 

Isn’t it great with the liberals’ plans back-fire on them?

***

In an interview, Obama Chief of Staff, Bill Daley, was asked about Obama’s record as president. Included in Daley’s response was this tidbit.

  Daley says. “He doesn’t know why he’s as high as 44 percent.”
I’m not surprised at that response.  The real question is why he’s that high!
***
***

Here is an interesting column from The City Journal, a blog post by Myron Magnet.  It’s too long to print in its entirety. I urge you to follow the link for the complete article.  It’s informative and a good read.

On Tyranny and Liberty
Would the Founders approve of the nation we’ve made?
Myron Magnet
A U.S. Supreme Court justice recounted over cocktails a while ago his travails with his hometown zoning board. He wanted to build an addition onto his house, containing what the plans described as a home office, but he met truculent and lengthy resistance. This is a residential area, a zoning official blustered—no businesses allowed. The judge mildly explained that he would not be running a business from the new room; he would be using it as a study. Well, challenged the suspicious official, what business are you in? I work for the government, the justice replied. Okay, the official finally conceded—grudgingly, as if conferring an immense and special discretionary favor; we’ll let it go by this time. But, he snapped in conclusion, don’t ever expletive-deleted with us again.

Isn’t that sort of petty tyranny? I asked. 

Yes, the justice replied; there’s a lot of it going around. 

Tyranny isn’t a word you hear often, certainly not in conversations about the First World. But as American voters mull over the election campaign now under way, they’re more than usually inclined to ponder first principles and ask what kind of country the Founding Fathers envisioned. As voters’ frequent invocations of the Boston Tea Party recall, the Founding began with a negation, a statement of what the colonists didn’t want. They didn’t want tyranny: by which they meant, not a blood-dripping, rack-and-gridiron Inquisition, but merely taxation without representation—and they went to war against it. “The Parliament of Great Britain,” George Washington wrote a friend as he moved toward taking up arms several months after the Tea Party, “hath no more Right to put their hands into my Pocket without my consent, than I have to put my hands into your’s, for money.”

***

My wife has a breakfast bet with a friend on who will win the Series.  My wife, who grew up just outside St. Louis on the Illinois side, is for the Cards.  Her friend is for the Rangers.  They’ve been watching the games, texting each other with jibs and jabs.  

Last night, she watched the entire game.  I went off to the bedroom to read.  When I finally turned off the lights around 11PM I could still hear the beep, beep-beep, beep of her phone keyboard.

Now I don’t mind going to the park to watch a game. To me, watching the other people is as much fun as watching the antics on the field.  On TV?  Yaaawn.

This morning I awake to discover…there’s yet another game!!!

It’s gonna be a long weekend.

Promises vs. Commitments

Posted on by

This may be a bit different from my usual run of posts.  The world abounds with examples of people, families, businesses, and governmental entities making promises and then failing to keep those promises.  When this happens the recipients of those promises are up in arms.  And, in some cases, rightly so.  But a promise is NOT a commitment.  There’s a difference, albeit in the view of some, a minor one.

If you look up the words in a dictionary, both are viewed as legally binding, but are they?  In real world usage, both are verbal.  If they are written, they become something beyond a promise or a commitment. If written, they become contracts and covenants.

A promise, in my opinion, is to make a best effort to accomplish a goal.  “I promise to cut the grass tomorrow.”  If conditions grant that the task can be done, it will be done. But, if tomorrow brings a constant rain, no one expects me to be mowing my grass in the rain.  To make a promise then, is to make a “best effort, barring unforeseen occurrences” to accomplish that which has been promised.

A commitment, however, is different as I was taught by my old boss.  If you make a promise and fail to meet it, you’ll likely get another chance to complete that promise although not as original conceived.  A commitment means if you don’t deliver as specified, you’re fired!

Consequently, you’ll not be surprised that I make few commitments. I do make promises and do my best, when I do, to meet those promises. But a commitment…ahhh, that’s different.

When I married my wife, I made a commitment to her.  My vows were standard, love, cherish, be faithful.  I did not make a promise. I made a commitment and I’ve kept that commitment for…uh, lemme see now, 43 years.  A commitment means keeping that vow regardless of personal issues, regardless of unforeseen circumstances, regardless of the unexpected, regardless of “acts of God.”

It’s not surprising that people confuse the two.  A local example occurred this year with my county government.  There is a county road that passes a couple of schools and has heavy traffic.  It is narrow and needs to be widened.  A promise was made to the local residents to widen the road.  Funding for the project came from a number of sources, some from the state, some from a bond issue, and more from the county’s general budget.

Then reality hit.  The county government made some bad estimates in revenue.  They thought the revenue stream, all from a county sales tax, would grow at a small rate.  It didn’t. With the recession/depression, people started conserving. They bought less, only those items that were necessary.  The county income failed to meet the amount required to fulfill the promises made by the prior political incumbents.

Promise meet commitment.  The road project was a promise…until conditions changed that made meeting the promise untenable.  The county has/is/will cut expenses.  People have been laid off. Routine maintenance has been slowed.  State revenues are also down and money from the state for road projects have been cut as well.

Promise meet commitment.  When the choice is paying for lights at the County Jail and Sheriff’s office or using that money to widen a road, which has priority?  The county has a commitment to keep the Sheriff’s office running. The road project is a promise. See the difference?

Consider all the examples of these two.  Some consider Social Security and Medicare commitments. Others, myself included, consider them promises. Until the 1930s, Social Security did not exist. Until the late 1960s, Medicare did not exist.  When my mother was diagnosed with cancer in 1960 there was no Medicare. She had private insurance from two sources. One as a benefit of being an elementary school teacher and the other as being the spouse of a UMWA member.  From whom was the promise of healthcare?  Certainly it was not from the federal government.

Therefore, what is the commitment of the federal government? There is only one: to uphold and defend the Constitution.

All else are nothing more than promises. As we move towards the future, let’s not be confused with governmental promises and commitments.

They are not the same.                           

More Foreign Incompetency.

Posted on by

Our amateur president has been busy this week selling out our country.  First, he attempted to take credit for throwing Gadaffi (or however his name is spelled) out of Libya.  Then when the Islamists magically appeared to take over, he praised them and their “democratic” reforms.

In order to hide the amount of US activity in the Libyan civil war, Obama claimed it was a NATO effort.  Well, just which NATO member had the capability to perform all that air and ground support?  It wasn’t the Euros.  The UK had to borrow some Maritime surveillance aircraft from the US Navy to provide radar coverage to the RN’s flotilla in the Med. The Brits had scrapped their Maritime aircraft years earlier.  After all, the US Navy had plenty.

So it was all a NATO affair.  Until it was time to claim credit.

Then we come to the second great act of incompetency this week.  The negotiations with Iraq have been stalled because of an impasse in the SOFA agreement (Status of Forces Agreement).  The US wanted immunity for their troops for performing their usual duty and for any acts committed while doing those duties.  It didn’t give them immunity for criminal acts, but was to define what those acts would be.

Iraq knew that Obama was weak.  All they had to do was to remain stubborn and Obama would fold…which he did.

Now Iraq will be defenseless against Iran and will have no support from the US unless they come, hat-in-hand, and beg for it.  Does anyone think that will happen until it’s too late?  

No.  This is the situation that Iran has been dreaming about.

So, for nine, nearly ten years we’ve spilled our blood, spent our treasure only to throw it all away because of the gross ineptitude in the White House.

It doesn’t take a military genius to be able to predict that we’ll be back, either in Iraq, Iran, or perhaps both, within ten years.

And again, like after Gulf War I and II, Gulf War III is coming and we’ll have to do it all over again to retrieve what the democrats gave away.

A beam of light in a world of gloom and doom

Posted on by

Here’s a bit of news that I expect you didn’t know.  The US domestic production of oil has been increasing over the last several years despite reports from government and the state media.

The American phoenix is slowly rising again. Within five years or so, the US will be well on its way to self-sufficiency in fuel and energy. Manufacturing will have closed the labour gap with China in a clutch of key industries. The current account might even be in surplus.
Didn’t expect that now, did ya? Well, I’ve done a bit of research and found that it appears to be true. If—it isn’t killed by the dems, libs and eco-wackos.

The UK and Norway have the North Sea fields. The production in those fields have been severely limited due to eco-wackos in the UK and Europe. Where once oil platforms dotted that shallow sea, there are less now and will be fewer tomorrow. North Sea oil production peaked in 2000. It has declined every year since.

But why does the UK Telegraph think the US will be in the ascendancy?

Telegraph readers already know about the “shale gas revolution” that has turned America into the world’s number one producer of natural gas, ahead of Russia.

Less known is that the technology of hydraulic fracturing – breaking rocks with jets of water – will also bring a quantum leap in shale oil supply, mostly from the Bakken fields in North Dakota, Eagle Ford in Texas, and other reserves across the Mid-West.

“The US was the single largest contributor to global oil supply growth last year, with a net 395,000 barrels per day (b/d),” said Francisco Blanch from Bank of America, comparing the Dakota fields to a new North Sea.
Total US shale output is “set to expand dramatically” as fresh sources come on stream, possibly reaching 5.5m b/d by mid-decade. This is a tenfold rise since 2009.

Surprising, isn’t it.  Yet we’ve heard little of this here at home. Why? Federal regulations and environmental NIMBYs.  The Rand Corporation did a study last year and,  if you read between the lines, the issues that face shale oil production are not technical, but are regulatory with the major opposition being the EPA and environmental groups.

Critical Policy Issues

Resolving environmental, socioeconomic, and key governance issues will determine whether there will be an oil shale industry in the western United States and how fast and how large that industry will grow.
  • All known technical approaches will have land-use and ecological impacts, with impacts being especially severe for mining and surface retorting versus in-situ retorting using electric heating.
  • Oil shale production will result in airborne emissions that could affect regional air quality, leading to a potentially stringent limitation on oil production levels. It may also lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil operations.
  • Because all resources lie in the Colorado River drainage basin, water quality is an important issue. At present, not enough is known about how to prevent water contamination from surface and in-situ operations.
  • Large-scale oil shale development will have socioeconomic impacts, stimulating significant regional population growth and likely stretching the financial abilities of local communities to provide needed public services.
  • The richest, most abundant deposits are concentrated on federal lands, requiring that leasing be conducted using a strategic approach that balances environmental and land-use impacts against the benefits of strategically significant oil production levels.

There are more bullets to this list but I trimmed them to conserve space here.

As usual, the US has the resources to work our way out of the democrat created mess we are in.  The main obstacle for our progress is the federal government. If we can remove those road-blocks, the US can and will be the leader in the world, not only in energy production but also in manufacturing and technology.  If you review governmental actions over the last fifty years or more, every impediment to progress had come from government—specifically from the agencies created by democrats.

It’s time for those agencies, like the EPA, to go and take with them all the regulations created purposely to limit our growth and productivity.                            

Did ya hear about this?

Posted on by
Contrary to what you didn’t hear from the State Media, there have been news items of import last week and over the weekend.  So much is ignored or suppressed by the state media that books could be written about those omissions—and some have.

This instance is about the continuing conservative movement through the country. A move that affirms conservatism is alive and well and continues to grow.  Case in point.  Did you hear about the recent election in Louisiana?  I didn’t from any of the Missouri state media organs.  I didn’t hear about it on any of the national media outlets nor, surprisingly, from FOX.  It could have been mentioned by FOX but there wasn’t much made over the election.

What is so important about the Louisiana election?  Bobby Jindal was re-elected to governor by a 2 to 1 margin.

byMichael Barone
Follow on Twitter:
In an election scarcely noticed by national political reporters, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was reelected yesterday with 66% of the vote—far more than the absolute majority needed for victory in this multicandidate election. In second place with 18% of the vote was Democrat Tara Hollis; three other Democrats got 10% of the vote. Jindal carried every one of Louisiana’s 64 parishes (the equivalent of counties in other states) and got less than 50% in only five of them, including Orleans who is coextensive with the city of New Orleans, and four small rural parishes with large black percentages. Jindal was elected in 2007 with 54% of the vote; he improved his percentage in all but one parish (East Baton Rouge, which includes the state capital of Baton Rouge) and made especially big gains in the Cajun country along the Gulf coast.

Jindal was reelected from what was formerly a solid democrat state.  But after Katrina exposed the extent of democrat corruption, misfeasance (malfeasance perhaps?) and pure incompetency, the state shifted to elect officials who could get the job done.  Bobby Jindal was their choice and he continues to be so.  He’s a strong conservative and he uses those principles to rebuild a state long known for democrat corruption.

Jindal’s actions have shifted political demographics in Louisiana.  Another article expands on that movement.

byDavid Freddoso Online Opinion Editor
Follow on Twitter:

There are few certain things in politics, but Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal’s re-election was one of them. Yesterday, he took nearly 66 percent of the vote in Louisiana, besting his nearest competitor by almost 50 points. Democrats had failed to field a serious candidate.

In the meantime, the state’s local politics are looking redder and redder. With runoffs pending, Republicans have already guaranteed expanded control of both houses of the state legislature, which they originally took through party-switches and a special election earlier this year.

They will have at least 55 seats in the state House, with the possibility of gaining eight more next month (53 are needed for a majority). They will have 24 seats in the state Senate, to 15 Democrats. Jindal’s reform agenda now has both an electoral mandate and a stronger hand in terms of legislative power.

I have, and continue to have, concerns that the left will not quietly fade into the night.  Rush and others have noted that the majority of the people now in the United States express some form of conservatism, mostly fiscal conservatism, but also a growing increase in social conservatism.

The blatant leftists response has been the Occupy Wall Street mob.  A mob formulated by a Canadian advocacy group owned by George Soros.  The participants are supported by unions, most apparent public sector unions like SEIU and various teacher’s unions.  I’m not sure what was the goal of those protests but instead of any achievement, they have become a joke—a foul-smelling, dirty and vile mannered mob.  Instead of gaining support, their actions have lost support from those, the democrat moderates and “independents” who where the targets of the mob—to get those moderates and independents on their side.  Instead, they repelled the moderates and independents and sent more of them towards the right.
The left aren’t concerned by legalities. Like their “dear leader Obama” who today brags about going around Congress to enact more debt and spending…a means to allow those suckered into massive home  and educational debt to keep themselves in debt.  Instead of helping these people to get out of debt, Obama and his minions scheme to have them continue in and increase that debt.

So we all trek on towards an unknown future. A future that could be back on a track towards prosperity or a track to become another third-world nation beggared by debt and kleptocracy.

I can’t speak for you, but I know which path I’ll work for and it’s not for more debt and tyranny.

Friday’s Follies for October 21, 2011

Posted on by

There’s so much material today that I could write a book just about the TSA’s invasion of Tennessee. I expect we’ll need internal passports soon just to travel on the Interstate Highway system like the restrictions imposed by the communists on the Russian folks of the last century. (You folks in Tennessee need  to work on a good housecleaning and remove whomever thought inviting a federal occupation force into your state was a good idea.) Instead, I’ll limit myself to two topics, OWS and Obama’s continuing stupidity in world affairs.

On the first topic, Dave Ramsey wrote an open letter to the Occupy Wall Street mob.  In it, he had some cogent thoughts to all, not just the unwashed idiots in that New York park and elsewhere.

Dear Occupy Wall Street …

A Message From Dave Ramsey

from daveramsey.com on 19 Oct 2011

By Dave Ramsey
“I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!” Yeah, that’s great. But what do you want? What are your goals? What are your demands? What result are you looking for?

The beauty of being vague is that anyone who has any emotion can get caught up in the excitement and join your crusade. They’ll just get mad at something and assume that you’re both mad about the same thing. Put a few hundred of these people together, and boom. You’ve got a crowd, a headline and a lot of attention … but no message.



A lot of people on Twitter are saying I totally agree with the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) demands and goals. The only problem is that I have no idea what their demands and goals are. And neither does anyone else. If all you ever do is stomp around, yell and hold up signs protesting a million different things, sure you’ll get some attention, but over time, you’ll just look foolish. You end up coming across like a three-year-old having a temper tantrum. 

This is what’s happening to the OWS movement. They’re being discredited because no one has stepped forward and really stated what it is they’re after. The whole group is just coming across like a bunch of jacked-up, jobless, wannabe hippies. That’s not going to change anything in this country. You’ve got to state your goals clearly if you want to accomplish something.

So in the absence of any clear goals, let me comment and offer some helpful advice in some areas that seem to be getting a lot of disorganized OWS attention.

“No Government Bailouts!”

Banks and big companies should not receive taxpayer money for a bailout while their CEOs are making hundreds of millions of dollars. If that’s your gripe, then you’re protesting in the wrong location. Pack up and head to Washington, D.C., to deliver your message to the current administration. Don’t get me wrong—I totally support a company’s freedom to pay their leaders well. I just don’t believe that I, as a taxpayer, should subsidize those huge salaries in the form of taxpayer bailouts. I pay my own team members; I don’t need to pay everyone else’s too.

By the way, you may be shocked to learn that the Tea Party agrees with you on this one—and so do I.

“Down With Corporate Greed!”

Gordon Gekko was wrong. Greed is not good. Greed is bad—very bad. It’s a spiritual disease, and it is a disease that sadly affects a lot of companies across the country. If you believe a specific company is acting purely out of greed, then don’t just get mad—do something. Point out where and how they’re greedy and let the world know. Stop doing business with them. If enough people listen to you, the company will get the message because you’ll hit them where it hurts: the bottom line. If they don’t get their act together, then they’ll go out of business and another business will take their place.

But if you’re saying that all businesses are greedy and that capitalism itself is evil and ineffective, then I’m sorry—you’re just being stupid. You’re being misled and misinformed by some of the louder voices around you. Are you wearing clothes? Have you eaten any food lately? Do you have an iPhone in your pocket to check in with Twitter and Facebook while you’re out marching around? Good. All of those products and services are brought to you by quality companies dedicated to serving you well in a capitalistic system that works just fine.

“Wall Street Is Evil!”

If you have this painted on a sign, well, now you just look ignorant. Wall Street is a street that people drive on. The New York Stock Exchange is a building where people exchange stocks in New York. This is the flea market of the financial world. Don’t turn Wall Street into some terrible monster attacking American citizens. It’s just a road with some buildings on it.

But here’s what happens. Sometimes when people don’t understand something, they start to fear it. And as the fear grows, it turns into anger. But just because you don’t understand something, you shouldn’t see it as bad or frightening or a conspiracy. You should just think of it as an opportunity to learn something new—something that could actually be a blessing to you.

For example, imagine a group of natives out in the jungle in the farthest part of the world. I mean, picture a group of people who have never seen anyone outside of their tribe and have certainly never seen any kind of machine. What would they think if they saw a Red Cross helicopter land near them? And what would they think of the strange-looking men and women who jump out of the chopper and start walking toward them? They’d be freaked out! They wouldn’t know or care if the Red Cross was there to help them with food or medicine. They’d think it was the end of the world or something because their minds would be totally blown!
 
I hate to say it, but a lot of OWS protestors are just about as uninformed as those jungle natives when it comes to how the American financial system works. A road and an office building. That’s Wall Street.

“Wealth Redistribution Is the Answer!”

I’ve heard a lot about wealth redistribution over the past few years, and I’m sure you’ve heard it too. Call it whatever you want, but this is how it usually sounds to most Americans: “We are the 99% of Americans who don’t have as much as the 1%, so we’re mad and think the government should take their wealth and property away so that I can have a piece of it. Wealth inequality is a moral breakdown! We should all spread the money around so everyone gets a fair share!”

I have my toughest critique for those who believe this: You are a thief. When someone takes my money and gives me no say in the matter, that’s called theft—whether they’re using a gun or the government. At the core of this demand is envy. And that’s not the same as jealousy. Jealousy just says, “I want what you have.” Envy is a different beast. Envy says, “I don’t think I can ever have what you have, so you shouldn’t have it either.” Decades of horrible economic teaching and the politics of envy have kept this monster alive and growing and moving forward.

This way of thinking makes you assume that all rich people are evil and have scammed their way into wealth. That may be true in the tale of Robin Hood, but I choose to live in the real world. Sure, there are some scoundrels, but the vast majority of successful men and women got that way by working hard and serving people—lots of people. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates changed the world in ways we’re just now starting to realize. Their positive impact on the world has helped all of us live better lives, and they made fortunes for themselves by doing so. Why is it that you’re holy if you help one person but evil if you help a million? That’s just stupid.
…

When you scream, “I’m in the 99%!” you just look like a whiner. Those of us willing to pay the price to win look at you and shrug. Heck, when it comes to the music business, I’m in the 99% myself! But that doesn’t mean I have to tear Toby Keith, Brad Paisley or even Kanye down. Oh, and a special note just for Kanye: Capitalism has been pretty good to you. I celebrate your success, but you look a little hypocritical protesting capitalism while wearing a $50,000 watch.

Celebrate the Land of Opportunity

This is the greatest country on the planet, but even here, you’re not guaranteed wealth, talent, fame, a full head of hair or six-pack abs. Those things are not in the Constitution. You are, however, guaranteed the freedom to make your life what you want it to be. And when you do that, when you build your life around your dreams and passions and hard work, you’re guaranteed the right to keep it. No one has the right to take it away from you.

So to summarize, I’m not very impressed at the moment. I’m not impressed by your temper fit. I’m not impressed at your lack of goals and focus. I’m not impressed by the fact that the only thing I see about your movement is ignorance, immaturity and envy. Grow up—and get a job.

Yes, there are jobs out there. There are jobs out there that haven’t even been invented yet. Go create the next Facebook or Weed Eater. Go pick up so much dog poop that you can start your own fertilizer company. And stop complaining that companies are TOO RICH while also complaining that they aren’t RICH ENOUGH to hire you! I’ve seen a lot of you guys. I wouldn’t hire you, either. But if you take all of that energy and excitement and pour it into something new and creative, you’ll get the chance to serve a whole lot of people really well, and over a decade or two, you’ll get to become the very thing you’re now protesting: rich people who actually earned their money.

I’ve trimmed the above a bit for space.  I urge you to go to the site and read it in its entirety.

***

As I said above, I’m continually amazed at the stupidity of Obama and his White House aids in the area of foreign policy.  In Obama’s latest excursion into this area, he threatens other dictatorial leaders in the mid-east.

Three down, two to go: Obama warns other Middle Eastern dictators as Libyan fighters set their sights on the the ‘germ of Syria’

Last updated at 12:26 PM on 21st October 2011
President Barack Obama hailed Muammar Gaddafi’s death as a warning to dictators across the Middle East that iron-fisted rule ‘inevitably comes to an end.
Obama said the fall of Tunisia, Egypt and now Libya in revolutions dubbed the Arab Spring proved that the leaders of Syria and Yemen should be fearful of similar endings.
Protests that broke out in Syria in March have so far seen more than 3,000 people killed after the leadership’s violent military response.
Washington has demanded that Bashar al-Assad, the country’s leader, halt his crackdown on democracy protests and step down. The White House is also pressing Yemen’s longtime president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, to leave office in the face of political upheaval.
In the wake of the death of Gaddafi, Obama threatened the leaders of Syria and Yemen. Bashar al-Assad of Syria has murdered thousands of his countrymen who have and continue to protest Bashar’s regime.  I don’t think anyone actually knows the total number of deaths, but we do know that the dictators of Syria have practiced the Lidice Solution in the past—the Hama Massacre.
 
If these dictators really believe they are in danger, why should they not attack the source of the force that is threatening them—Obama?
 
God forbid that Obama gets assassinated.  We’d end up with Biden as President and the dems and libs would have a field day blaming the ‘Pubs and conservatives here at home for the act rather than the real perpetrators.  Then they’d work like hell for the sympathy vote to remain in power.
 
No, I want nothing to happen to Obama. I want him to remain healthy until we kick him out of office in January 2013.  But, if he continues being stuck on stupid, I fear some foreign leader, who perceives that he has nothing to lose, strikes out. What a mess that would be.
 
Stay healthy, Obama, you worthless…well enough said.  I wait in anticipation of seeing your sorry butt booted out of MY White House.
 
***
Enough rant for today. Y’all have a great weekend end.