The Same Old Song and Dance



HRH JoanWalsh

 Thank you, Salon, for yet another fine example of the total cluelessness on the left. Not to pick on you exclusively, but I am sick of hearing the same line of BS by progressive twits. Their ignorance of fact is truly astounding, and their obsession with party politics is truly nauseating.  No matter how much of a burden is placed on the taxpayer, every ignorant decision out of Washington is broken down and analyzed as a political victory or defeat.

I feel I can speak for a vast majority of us when I say am sick and tired of the progressive spin on this. Their constant claim that Bush Tax Cuts had no positive effects are absolutely ridiculous.

For starters, the unemployment rate between 2001 and 2006 was between 4% and 6 %.  Even when the government-created and inflated housing bubble burst, and the disastrous government-assisted sub-prime mortgage scam brought down the economy, the unemployment rate never rose about 7.2%.  More people working means more taxes paid.

As far as tax rates and federal revenue, simply examine the historical data.  It clearly shows that more taxes were collected under Bush (2001 to 2008) than under Clinton (1993 to 2000).  Feel free to draw whatever conclusion you wish concerning tax rates and revenue.

Please try to understand this simple fact, Ms Walsh, before uttering another asinine syllable: The failure to raise tax rates does not create debt.  Only spending more than you have can accomplish that feat.

All who manage household budgets know this. Only in Washington can you find people who ignore this concept. These people are called Progressive, or Liberal, Democrats, and they all seem to share the bizarre belief that people have no right to keep what they earn.

Washington is very, very good at spending more than they have.  They have created a procedure that allows them to ignore the limits on the federal credit card.  It's called raising the debt ceiling, and they give themselves a credit line increase each and every year they exceed the previous limit.



These Democrats have redefined the "American Dream" and it now states that, although America is the land of opportunity and that anyone in this country can be successful, the Democrats reserve the right to determine exactly how successful you are allowed to be.

Today they have determined that $249,999.99 is the limit of one's success.  I wonder what that limit will be in the future.

Dickless Golfer to Tee it Up

There is a history of men trying to compete against women.  Admit it - we've all wondered about some of those Russian or East German Olympians over the years.  As far back as 1936, the Olympic Committee has put in place a procedure for determining the gender of women athletes. Any controversies have been resolved through chromosome testing and medical examination.

Now Linda Lawless has been given the right to compete against the ladies of the LPGA.  No longer will gender be based on chromosome makeup, but on the gender a person believes themselves to be.  The only response I can muster is....WTF?

The AP article refers to "...a lawsuit filed by a California woman who had her sex changed...." which is complete and total horseshit. This is not a woman. What we have here is a confused individual who has voluntarily mutilated himself.  He is genetically and physiologically a male who has surgically altered his external genitalia in order to convince his disturbed psyche that he is a female.

Looking back, all was good until Linda won a Women's Long Drive Competition in 2008.  Being a surgically-altered male, Linda was barred from competing next year, at which point he sued on the grounds that the event organizers were discriminating against him from entering the women's competition on the basis of his sex.  Did I mention that Linda is a man?  Dickless, yes, but technically a man.

Genetically speaking, human gender is determined at conception by the chromosome makeup, Y-Y being female, and X-Y being male. Just because you've cut off your junk doesn't "make" you a woman. It just means that now you're a surgically deformed and psychologically disturbed man.

There are some who claim to be women "trapped" in a man's body, and visa versa, but that's just so much horseshit.  What should be recognized as a psychological disorder now occupies a good deal of the social progressive's fight for Utopia.

Should a man, who lost his shmeckel in an unfortunate industrial accident (?) be forced to call himself a woman?  And there are those who naturally possess both sets of genitalia.  Is this not an entirely separate catagory?  No, the condition of being dickless is more a state of mind than anything else, especially a legal classification.

That being said, this may possibly be the goofiest looking sonofabitch to ever tee it up on either tour.  His face looks like my farts smell.  Matter of fact, he looks like he just smelled a fart - probably one of his own, and probably from his hand crafted man-vagina.  Being surgically crafted from his unwanted penis, what would you call the thing now?  A Vagenis?  A Peniga?  I would rather not know.

This could only happen in California.  What a totally messed up state - how do people live there?  The legal citizens, I mean...

The TSA: A Warm and Fuzzy Feeling

TSA-Approved
Airline Attire

So it's taken this, another, more aggressive stance by the Transportation Security Administration to raise the ire of airline passengers.  And all under the false pretense of providing an increased measure of safety.  When you consider that the fantastic experience that flying actually is, I'm surprised people have ever stopped complaining about the joke that is airport security.

All the gropes and scans do not make flying one bit "safer", only more aggravating and expensive. I am amazed how so many people accept this massive deception, and how easily they are willing to subject themselves to this further invasion of privacy.

These stringent new procedures, the body scans and feeling up Grandma, may possibly weed the novice Jihadist who is just ignorant enough to fashion a third testicle out of C-4 and duct tape it to his scrotum.

The TSA agents are not the "trained security professionals" they are painted to be.  The majority are half-witted buffoons who gladly accept the lifetime security of a government job after being fired or laid off as mall cops, security guards, night watchmen, or just a Barney Fife who has obviously failed every other non-government career attempt.

After leaving the ticket counter, the first trial of the security gauntlet is the Ticket Checker.  Usually found at the end of the first maze of velvet ropes, this guy's job is to catch the potential terrorist slipping up by presenting a photo ID with a different name than found on his ticket. Didn't the lady at the ticket counter just do that?

Passing this initial check leads you to the second velvet rope maze, designed to line everyone up for the X-ray Bucket Shuffle.  You know the drill:  place your shoes in a plastic bucket, in the hopes of finding that second pair of explosive footwear.  I know it's been 9 years since the last one showed up, but you would be crazy to think those Al-Qaeda boys haven't at least slapped together a few extra pairs by now.

Also remove your belt, your watch, your glasses, your coins, your jewelry, and place that in another bucket.  Remove your laptop from its case and place it in another bucket.  If you're lucky enough to fly during the cold months, put your coat, gloves and hat in yet another bucket.

After pushing all your buckets into the x-ray viewer, so that another member of the TSA elite secutiry squad can attempt to identify the contents of your carry-on items via the x-ray scan, you now try to pass through the metal detector.  Beep.  Oops, I forgot my wedding ring.  Sorry, I'll try again.  Beep.  Oops, two pennies in my other pocket.  Sorry, I'll try again. Beep. Oops, did I forget to mention the metal plate in my head?

As far as the x-ray scan of my shoes, jacket, I assume the guy can recognize what he is looking at, unless your bag is anything like my wife's purse.  But I'm fairly certain that, if they can make out the words "Light Here" on anything, you are a shoe-in for the "additional screening" area.

Perhaps they will one day find the cartoon bomb they're looking for (the black sphere with fuse on top and the word "BOMB" stenciled in big white letters on the side).  Just a guess on my part, but don't you think explosive devices have developed beyond these bulky, light-and-hurl devices?  Especially considering the quasi-sophistication of last Christmas and the Panty Bomber's smoldering underwear.

The list of forbidden liquids, gels, and creams is long, and are only allowed on board if carried in several small bottles.  Size indeed matters, even if the contents do not.  TSA agents must indeed receive very special training to visually ascertain the volatility of a compound. If that doesn't make you feel safer, I don't know what would.

I recall from my school years that five small bottles of explosive chemicals added together still equals one large bottle of explosive chemicals. The terrorist will have to mix all his small bottles together if he wants to blow up something as large as an airplane.  How inconvenient for them.  I'm sure some liberal rights group will file a discrimination suit over this.

Neither cigarette lighters (unless they don't work) nor more than three books of matches are allowed. And just forget about trying to slip the two-inch fingernail clipper/nail file combo past TSA's vigilant watch, but scissors are welcomed if 4-inches or shorter.  A Phillips head screwdriver is perfectly fine, provided it's not longer than 7 inches and not in your pocket.

I feel safer already, because the tip of the screwdriver can be sterilized with the matches before being plunged into the temple of the co-pilot, and we all know of the infectious nature of puncture wounds.

For the final test of one's airplane worthiness, it's time to choose - would you prefer the exposure to small doses of radiation, or the "handful of crotch" technique? These are the most recent additions to the TSA's impenetrable safety net.

The zeal with which these "highly trained" (they know how to turn on the machine) "security professionals" (they get paid) display can only come with the excitement and expectation of preventing the next in-flight disaster.

Either that, or getting their name in the company newsletter by being the first TSA agent in history to actually prevent an in-flight disaster.  Since 2001, the boys in the TSA are still batting 0.000, and with the new pat-down regulations, you can tell the competition is becoming more intense.

After the grueling security sweep, you are now in the "secured area" from which you cannot exit without facing the entire ordeal again.  Finding your gate of departure (always the one furthest away), it is here where you are allowed the experience of an hour-long wait in crowded, noisy, uncomfortable surroundings.

Checking the schedule, you discover your flight is facing a "slight delay" (perhaps due to the weather or the "enhanced security" at the other end).  While you seek solstice in the wonderful airport bar and their $5 lukewarm beer, you remind yourself how glad you are that you rushed to arrive an hour early

Finally your plane arrives, or at least you assume it to be here, since everyone leaps to their feet in order to be first in line to board.  Seeing the haggard faces of the departing passengers should remind you of the ordeal you will soon face, but you board the crowded flight anyway.

As you move towards your seat, you once again hope there might actually be empty space in the overhead to stow your carefully screened carry-on luggage.  But, alas, the "experienced" travelers have taken up all available overhead space with their two-wheeled steamer trunks.

This means that your laptop must now be checked, which the flight attendant hurriedly reminds you of.  In the back of your mind, you ponder the important data stored on your laptop, the last time it was backed up, and its impending destruction at the hands of these oh-so-careful suitcase jugglers.

After a slight delay while everyone waits on that one guy who is always late (enhanced security, no doubt) you get the obligatory seat belt, aisle lighting, and monkey-hat oxygen mask instructional presentation, as well as the stern warning about lighting one up in the toilet.

Of course, if you wanted to disable the smoke alarm, you could carry enough tools on the plane to get the job done - provided none exceed 7 inches in length.  And some find it comforting to know that, even though your flight path will not cross any known body of water, your seat cushion can be used as a flotation device.

You are finally ready to take off, wanting only to recline your seat, check out that new Sky Mall catalog, and get comfortable.  But comfort is a relative term, and the next hour and a quarter of your life is spent being coughed and sneezed upon by the large sweaty gentleman seated next to you, obviously suffering from some terminal and contagious respiratory ailment.

Besides sharing his germs with you, this guy should have be sharing half of your ticket, since his corpulent frame occupies half of your seat as well as his own. And who knew the person in the window seat has some type of bladder problem or bowel syndrome, causing the need for seven trips to the toilet on an hour flight? Again, there's always that $5 lukewarm beer (exact change only, please) to make that hour and a quarter flight to seem less like an eternity.  Somehow, scotch seems more appropriate.

And before you know it, the pilot's garbled voice comes over the  begin your final decent, knowing it will soon be time to fight your way off the plane behind the multitude of rude "its all about me" passengers, who can't even wait for the plane to stop before they bolt up and dive into the overhead storage to retrieve their precious cargo.

After retrieving your laptop, you arrive at the baggage claim area, where it is only when the carousel stops do you discover your suitcase didn't make the flight. Well, at least when they do find it, it is delivered to your hotel at no additional charge, other than the fee you already paid for your checked baggage. And there is usually a drug store nearby that will sell you everything you need that evening, which is why you so carefully packed it for your trip that morning.

Finding the car rental counter, you accept the bright green sub-compact, since they messed up your reservation and you don't feel like fighting anymore.  You finally arrive at your hotel, magically whisked to your destination a mere 5 grueling hours from when you left your house.

And all of this for the "convenience" of not having to drive the 4 hours from Houston to Dallas.  Am I missing something here?

Global Warming and the Scourge of CO2

In honor of shriveled prick Harry Reid's reelection, and his commitment to address a Climate Bill during the lame duck session, I think I'll touch on the subject of Cap and Trade:

There are pollution laws in effect that are silly and unenforceable, or that can be 'bypassed' with a check to the right person. Fines for corporate violators are incredibly insignificant, and it is cheaper to pay the fine than to fix the problem. Put the teeth back into our regulations. But taxing anything carbon (Obama's Cap'n Trade, for example) is an insult to our intelligence.

In case you don't understand the whole Cap'n Trade scam, here's a simplified explanation: Every company in America must purchase "credits", except for certain ones that have the government's favor, who get their "credits" for free. Under government license, and a share of the cost (not a tax), a market is set up so that companies can buy, sell, and trade these "credits", depending on the level of toxic crap they wish to spew into the environment. The exchange collects a nominal fee for each transaction. But don't worry - this cost won't hurt the companies, because the cost for these expensive little "credits" is passed along to the consumer, buried in the cost of their product. Whew! Didn't want to drive another company overseas, eh, Mr O?

First, the "Cap": The market is only allowed to sell enough "credits" to equal the established pollution levels, designed to stop any increase in pollution. In the year 2035, the amount of "credits" will be reduced, which means less filth being spewed before they must pay fines, and the immediate threat from global warming will begin to be addressed in 25 years. I'm sure those polar bears can sit out another 25 years on that sad little iceberg, even though it looked pretty small in those pictures.

However, companies may wish to use "offsets" as an additional way to reduce CO2 and address global warming. The government has a range of "offsets" to choose from. A company can plant a tree in front of its building, for example. You see, CO2 is bad, and since trees eat CO2, global warming is reduced. The more trees, the more "offsets" they can earn, and they can either sell their unused "credits" for profit, or simply spew more filth than before without getting fined.

Now, the "Trade": One day, Company A pollutes at a rate greater than its share of "credits". Company B, who polluted a bit less that day, has some unused "credits" for sale. They call the Exchange, and the transaction is complete. Company A is happy, for it didn't have to stop spewing its filth, Company B is happy, because it recovered the cost of the credits (remember, these are paid for by the increase in product prices), and the Exchange profits from the buying and selling of "credits" is happy because, rain or shine, it makes money on every transaction. Only the poor consumer (taxpayer) is unhappy, because he ultimately shoulders the cost.

And Mother Nature smiles, because somehow, between all the trading of "credits," global warming magically went away. Obama taxed - excuse me - "credited" it away. Would it not be the greatest of coincidences (the most inconvenient of truths) in history if our very own Albert Gore, Nobel Prize winning, Global Warming fright-monger-in-chief, had already positioned himself to operate this Carbon Exchange? Amazing, isn't it? America is truly the land of opportunity.

So It's Come To This?

I do not call myself a Republican, or at least not what the Republican party has warped into over the last decade (certainly not a "Bush Republican"), but I'm not ready to identify myself as a member of the Tea Party. I'm in conservative limbo, somewhere in between.  I am all for big business and small government, firearms and freedom of speech, but I cannot understand leaving people to starve and freeze under a bridge somewhere. However, if someone were to call me a liberal, I would feel obligated to punch them in the throat.

 I'll be the first to admit that there is a lot more than "just a bit of hypocrisy" in politics. But I can only laugh at the naivete of anyone who claims one political party is "the good one" while the other is "all bad." And to claim the right has the majority of "moral derelicts" only accentuates the level of denial on the left. There are only two types of career politicians: bad and worse.

There are, in my opinion, those who truly wish to make a difference and change the way things are. At least until they are corrupted by their more experienced peers. Oh, and don't think I'm talking about Mr. Hope'n'Change himself - I believed he was a liar from day one, and he has proved me right for the last two years.

It is rather funny how you defend the "moral values" of the liberals, while I see absolutely none, and you claim their "guilt" makes all their crimes acceptable. On the other hand, I defend the moral values of conservatives, while you claim they are totally void of any guilt or remorse. Apparently, no matter how "above all that" you and I consider ourselves, we both seem a bit blinded by our personal beliefs. I suppose this is just how things are.

Why is it any different to attack people of a different race than to attack people of a different ideology? I obviously cannot say "Obama sure is one stupid nigger" without being rightfully branded as a racist. But, strangely enough, I cannot say "Obama sure is one stupid liberal" without being branded as a racist, either.

On the other hand, if a devout liberal were to say "Rush Limbaugh is an ignorant fat fuck Republican piece of shit, and he and all who listen to him should crawl off somewhere and die," he would be cheered by liberals everywhere. The justification for the personal attack is simply because he dares disagree with the so-called moral superiority of liberal views. Doesn't this bother you at all? What does the magnificent sense of liberal morality say to you about all this? Seems a bit judgemental to me, but only a person of falsely assumed moral superiority (ie: a liberal) would be comfortable taking that position.

What is amazing is this: watch an offensive television program, you change the channel. If you hear an offensive radio broadcast, you change the station. Unless you're a liberal, in which case all that found to be offensive is attacked, while demands are made for both the immediate removal of the offensive material and for apologies by the responsible parties. Of course, since liberals are only concerned with (their own concept of) the well-being of society, these are not seen for the extreme acts of censorship that they are.  It appears that, in the Bizzaro world of liberal tolerance, the one thing that will not be tolerated is intolerance.  Conform and submit - there are simply no other choices allowed in Obama Land.

For the record, Rush is not "chairman of the Republican Party", nor is Newt the official GOP morality spokesman. But whose business is it, anyway, as to who Rush decides to marry, or how old she is?  At least he is married to a woman. And Newt is a knucklehead, and a career politician. I do not subscribe to many of this man's beliefs, but he has his moments. There's dirt to be uncovered with anyone's career. And, although the GOP has it's fair share of "do as I say, not as I do" arsewipes, there are as many if not more on the other side of the aisle.

I suppose the first rule of politics is Don't Get Caught. Let's just say that anyone who believes what any politician promises, especially near election time, then I have some mortgage-backed securities I would love to show them. It is hard to determine what either party actually stands for anymore, for everything we know comes from character attacks against each other. We are left to assume that our guy is the "good guy", and could never be guilty of whatever evil they attribute to that other guy.

For the most part, most are too ignorant to find out for ourselves, or too lazy to put out the effort required, so they will just have to accept what the media gives them, while pretending that the MSM is not horribly slanted to the left.  We are our own worst enemy, and although this certainly needs to change, I can understand how we let it happen. But what really get my drawers in a wad is the blatant double standard shown to the right by the media and the left, which is nothing but political gamesmenship.  There is no neutrality shown, yet for all their hard-left slant, the hypocrisy shown attacking FoxNews as "biased" is astounding.

When a Republican gets caught in some "impropriety", he is put through the media wringer. His character and his family are viciously attacked. Every news outlet carries the tale of his transgression, that it is indisputable evidence that he is indeed in league with Satan himself, and such a despicable act is yet another sad reflection of the inherent evil that runs rampant through the Republican party. All the public apologies in the world will not save him from the liberal media's rage, with the eventual result being his resignation. Not that anyone should feel badly, since he more than likely has a handsome pension at our expense, and will retire to a life of luxury anyway.

But when we discover a Democrat guilty of a similar act, the left wing media immediately gives him a free pass, if they even bother to touch on the story at all, claiming it was an honest mistake since, after all, he was only working to better the lives of poor widows and orphans. Sure, the mouthpieces on the right will blast away, as usual, but there are so few conservative media outlets that they become easy targest for attacks from the liberal left. Much easier to discredit the source than to disprove the allegation.

Be honest and ask yourself: what happens when a Democrat gets caught? In today's Democratic party, getting caught and saying "I'm sorry" seems to be the best way to advance one's career. Committing and surviving a scandal is sort of like a merit badge to these guys.

From where I sit, I feel your comments on congressional scandal seem to concentrate on sex. I could care less who is screwing who, as none of that affects me in any way whatsoever. What I cannot stand are the financial improprieties, which seem to be far more prevalent than all the sexual escapades. These are what affect me and the other taxpayers of this country. Bribes, kickbacks, contributions, fraud, and outright theft are the foundation of the existing Democratic AND Republican parties - they know it, and they are beginning to know that we know it, you know?