Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Okay, I'm Missing Something Here

Early on Tuesday morning, a Houston shop owner was awakened to a noise and went to investigate. However, he wasn't alone. He took his .12 gauge friend with him that was loaded with .00 buckshot. The shop owner found a man burglarizing his store, shot him...and killed him.
Houston Police found a fatally stabbed woman on Monday morning. Her boyfriend has been arrested for the crime.
A man near Houston was arrested yesterday for calling women over to his car, on the pretense of needing directions, and then exposing himself.
Another Houston man over the past weekend got in an argument with his girlfriend and pulled the van over to continue the discussion. He struck the woman and then picked up a rock and shattered the glass on one of the windows. The glass struck the woman's two year old girl, requiring her to be treated for non-life threatening injuries.
Okay, I thought our government had banned burglary, knife murders, sex crimes, and assaults on women and children. If these things are banned, why are they continuing to happen? I guess the burglar found out the hard way why burglary is banned. Folks in Texas have guns and laws in place that allow them to use 'em. Burglary in Texas can get you killed...not just put in jail.

Yet, the libs and socialists in this country would disarm us for our own good so burglars can be more effective in carrying out their trade.
Food for thought.

Monday, July 30, 2012

Where Is The Furor?

So, King Bloomberg of New York has locked up the formula and is telling New York mothers who have delivered newborns to pull those milk bags out and go to feedin' with what God gave ya. If mothers insist on using formula, they will be lectured on why they should not do so before acquiescing to their demands. In other words, they will be pressured by hospital staff to do otherwise.

Now, all I hear is crickets from the National Organization for Women. I see it's perfectly all right to kill babies, and when someone wants to interfere with a woman's right to choose how she deals with her body and try to counsel her on why she shouldn't suck a human being from their uterus, the NOW women turn into shrieking night hags with long nails and poisonous fangs. However, when it comes to a woman that WANTS to have her baby delivered alive and wishes to care for it, it's perfectly all right for some man who would be king to attempt to take the right to choose away from them.

I don't know about you, but this seems to me to be a glaring double standard. On the one hand, the feminists don't want men to tell them whether or not they can kill their babies prior to birth. But, on the other hand it's all right for men to tell them whether or not they can use their boobs to feed their live born babies. Hmmmmm.

And you thought it would all stop with cigarettes, didn't you? Bloomberg has outlawed the big gulp in New York City already. You can't buy a soft drink in volumes greater than 16 oz. It was Bloomberg's efforts that resulted in Heinz Ketchup, Starbucks and Subway to reduce the amount of salt they serve...NATIONWIDE. Under Bloomberg's royal edicts, all restaurants in NYC must cut down on the amount of sodium they put in their dishes. In New York, thanks to Bloomberg, you can't smoke in public parks or at the beach. I'm sure that soon, it will be illegal in New York to smoke in your own home. Billionaire Bloomberg has also forced all 25000 NYC restaurants to post a letter grade of A,B, or C as to where it ranks by the health officials of the city. It isn't just about cleanliness, as they might have to put up a B or C for such minor infractions as having the 'Choke' sign improperly placed. He has called the new grading system a success. However, several Star Bucks' branches in New York that were graded with an 'A' were crawling with infestations ranging from vaginal yeast to fecal strep. He also put in bicycle lanes at a cost of $25 million dollars, choking traffic in an already congested situation. He proudly announced that bicycle injuries were down since instituting his lordly policy. What he failed to mention is that pedestrian injuries are UP due to reckless bicyclists.

I think maybe the health officials in New York should go to each hospital and check every new mother's boobs for cleanliness. After all, isn't that where the infants will be feeding from now on? Are they no better than Bloomberg and the other citizens of New York? Then, based on their findings, a sticky A, B or C should be plastered on the accepted boob or the offending boob. One boobie might have an A, and the other boobie might have a C. That way, the nurses can direct the mother to feed the baby from the cleaner boob just in case she's too stupid to know the difference. After all, Bloomberg is the smartest human being in the world and we are but slugs before him.

I could go on and on about his majesty and what other great ideas he's hatching at the interminable cost to the New York City taxpayer, but I won't. I'll just let you, the big governmentniks who like to see taxes raised and Big Brother come in and rule your lives and our lives decide when enough is enough. I decided on my own a long time ago. The question you have to ask yourself is this. How far are you willing to let government go on dictating to us, instead of representing us? That's the question. To be or not to be...ruled.

Idiotic Fanaticism Has to Stop

Let me go on record as saying that I think Obama has been a terrible president. I can say that, because this is America and I can say what I think as long as it doesn't threaten anyone or interfere with another's liberties and freedoms and safety. I don't like his politics, his ideology, his political philosophy nor his liberalist socialistic (and that's what he is O'Reilly, you demagogue) mind set.

Now, having said that, I think that he is still the President of the United States and the office deserves our respect...which means the person in it deserves respect. We can disagree with him, but a little decorum should be the order of every day. The subject of this post is what I have put on this blog below:

This billboard is a travesty to all things decent. There is no way you can compare Obama to the creep in Aurora, CO. Did Obama deserve the Nobel Prize? Not no, but hell no. Does he deserve to be compared to the spoiled rotten little brat who decided to go off and kill, maim and wound seventy innocent people? Not no, but hell no.

The statement being made is about our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan not being brought home by Obama. When he became president, these military personnel were already over there. Our soldiers are making sure that if those that hate us want to kill Americans, then there we are. But, instead of killing innocent and unarmed civilians on our own territory, they have to try and kill fully armed and trained warriors on their territory. Kind of levels the playing field, doncha think?

Obama has allowed our country's killing machine (the military) to be a killing machine. Drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and wherever else they find these idiots, haven taken out dozens of those in leadership positions. He ordered a complete violation of another country's sovereignty and sent our troops in to take out Osama bin Laden. No matter how you cut it, that was pretty gutsy, politically. He ordered a surge in troops to take the battle even further into Afghanistan and now has most of these cretins (that are left) hiding in caves and, like the vampires they are, only coming out at night to plant their IED's. If there's one thing you can't really complain about when it comes to Barak Obama, is that he believes in killing the enemy wherever we find them. And have no doubt, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are our enemies.

So, theses bozos who put this billboard up are angry because our troops are still over there. What? Are we to turn tail and run, leaving our allies to forge ahead on their own without getting the job done? Was Obama to immediately pull the troops and let the Russians and the Chinese and others chide how the United States can't be trusted as an ally or friend; further diminishing our status as a world power? People that put billboards up like this have no idea what a real war is. Since March 19, 2003, the United States has lost 4488 soldiers, 3532 killed in combat in Iraq. Since October 7, 2001, the US has lost 1939 military personnel in Afghanistan. On Iwo Jima we had 26,000 casualties with 6800 dead in 36 days. Okinawa lasted 82 days where the US recorded 62000 casualties with 12000 dead. During the Battle of the Bulge, which lasted 40 days, the US had 90000 casualties with 19000 dead. Yet, we have two wars lasting a decade or more, and the total dead is 6427. I repeat, today's generation doesn't know what a war is. If you want to see a little more of how the billboard above is fanaticism run amok, since Obama's inauguration on January 20, 2009, America has suffered 257 deaths in Iraq with only 128 combat related. How is he the murderer of thousands and thousands of our men and women in the military? The lack of reasonable rationale amazes me.

Understand, I am not minimizing the deaths or wounds of those that have served us in these two theatres of operations. One death, one life ruined by severe wounds, is too many. We must never lose our sense of the true worth and value of a life. But, it is those who wish to fly airplanes into buildings and set off underwear and shoe bombs, and who cut off people's heads while filming the gruesome act that have no value on human life. Our young soldiers are over there killing them to keep them from killing us over here. Are they also over there protecting the economic interests of the fat cats who really run the world? Yes they are. But that shouldn't minimize the other job they are doing that keeps us safe in our own country. And to be so blatantly hostile to the office of the presidency as that billboard shows some to be is a blight on us all.

Fanaticism like this must stop. There is no problem with debating the issues and pointing out weaknesses and strengths of candidates. There is no problem with having an opinion about Obama, whether it be positive or negative. But those opinions must bear some element of decency, factual evidence, and moral relevance. Obama didn't start the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I believe he has done all within his power to bring them to as quick an end as possible and still help to maintain the United State's integrity on the world stage. At least in this one respect.

I still think he should not be re-elected, and will voice that opinion in the voting booth. But you will never see me trash him in so crass a way. It is okay to make fun of him, chide his policies, and mock his 'You didn't build that' comment. It is not okay to compare him to a mass murderer of innocent people. That, my friends, is going way beyond the pale. The ones who put that billboard up should be ashamed of themselves. The pity is...they won't be.

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Not white? Go Somewhere Else.....

The First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs, Mississippi, has told a black couple they can't get married in their church because...they're black.

Let me explain a couple of things. I was raised in the Baptist church and I can tell you from years of experience that Baptists are some of the meanest people alive. I'm not talking about true believer's in the Christian faith, I'm talking about those who take on the name 'Baptist' but leave the rest of it by the roadside. When I was in the ministry pastoring Southern Baptist Churches, I was thrown out on the street over this same issue, but it didn't have anything to do with marrying blacks. No, it was far worse than that. I was pastoring an inner city church in Houston where the white population was in the vast minority. I would have had to bus white people in to build up the all white congregation. Instead, I was looking to minister to those within the immediate sphere of our effectiveness. When the blacks and hispanics started to show up for services, I was shown the door. I was thrown out on the street by a Baptist church in Dayton, Texas because I refused to fire our music director over the types of songs he was choosing to sing. Since they were not satanic in nature, did not involve lyrics pertaining to rampant, unbridled sex, and weren't trying to instigate mass murder...I didn't see the problem. When pastoring a church in Moss Hill, Texas; after we recorded one of the greatest revivals in Southern Baptist recent memory, we discovered my wife was pregnant with our second child. The parsonage we lived in had no cabinet doors in the kitchen. I asked the church to have cabinet doors installed for soon we would have a baby crawling around and might get inside and ingest something dangerous or get hurt in other ways. It would have cost a whopping $800. At the time, giving had increased 700% and we had more than a $10,000 surplus in the bank. They refused and advised that we just make sure and watch the kid so she didn't get into trouble. Baptists are mean people.

Secondly, we live in a time where pastors are more oriented toward their ministerial careers than they are their calling from God. I guess that's why I'm not in the ministry anymore. I was not willing to side with man when it was clear he was diametrically opposed to God per the scripture. I had an old mossback deacon tell me one day, and I quote..."You ain't gonna last long in this business until you learn to please people." I told him that in the first place I wasn't involved in a business, but a calling. In the second place, I had been called to please God, and not man. Yeah, Jesus was very interested in pleasing people. He pleased them so much they killed him. Ten of the original twelve disciples were so good at winning friends and influencing people, they were killed as well. The eleventh was a little better at it, as they only put him on an island of criminals in exile. Not all, but a lot of pastors in the Baptist community live in fear and do not stand like a lion. The reason is because, first and foremost, they are cowards. But, Baptist churches are autonomous, in that there is no church heirarchy the membership has to answer to. They are self governing. If a pastor gets 'out of line', they can fire him on the spot with a vote according to the dictates of their policies. The average tenure of a Southern Baptist pastor is 18 months. The vast majority that are terminated from their pulpits are dismissed due to congregational conflict and not from some moral failing, scriptural discrepancy or some other Godless action. It's a travesty what is happening because there is a shortage of ministers but no shortage of mean Baptists.

Pastor Stan Weatherford is a coward. Some members of his congregation were vehemently against the marriage of this black couple in their church, even though they had been good enough to attend services there. It seems no black couple had been married in that church since its inception in 1883. Well, who wouldn't want to hold that sacred record intact? So, instead of standing up as a man of God, trusting God to take care of him if the church so chose to dismiss him, he fell on his knees and bowed to those who he felt held his career in their hands. In essence, he handed to them the spiritual authority that God himself had given him and gave it to the bigoted few of that assembly. He should resign and go sell used cars somewhere.

This church had a wonderful opportunity to turn another page in the long history of Mississippi racism and take another step in stamping it out. Instead, they took the path of evil and their gutless pastor allowed them to do so.

In my book, Why Pastors Die Young, which you can find on my website, www.robertcoward.com, this is just one of the reasons men in the ministry are falling away to other careers. Being a pastor is a tough calling. One of the worst if it happens to be in the Baptist church. There are many good Christian Baptists. However, the bad ones seem to be the ones with the most say and the most power within each autonomous body that is out there. More is the pity. May God have mercy on these at the First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs. They have lost their way....IF, they had ever found it to begin with.

Friday, July 27, 2012

The Gun

Well, I'm taking a big step today. I'm handing my most prized firearm over to a gunsmith. I would be more willing to turn my wife over to a witchdoctor, but I digress.

Back in 1972, my dad's old Datsun pick-up was near death. He had put more than 200,000 miles on it and decided it was time to be sold so he could get another one. It was still somewhat red, but over the years it had faded a bit. He sold it to an old boy for $100 and an M1, .30 caliber semi-automatic Carbine. The U.S. military had bought more than 6 million of them in the '40's, and for a time my dad had carried one in the Pacific Theatre during World War II as a United States Marine. It came with a five shot clip and two ten shot clips. He gave it to me and told me how it was just like the one he had when he was in the war, minus the sling and the oiler.

I killed my first (and only) deer with that gun. An eight point buck that dressed out 103 lbs. I shot him right between the eyes at 71 yards with a peep sight, at dusk and without my glasses on. Lucky shot? No doubt.

At the time, we lived way out in the country, more than half an hour's drive from near-civilization. Our dog was a huge german shepherd we named Zeus. He was a great dog. I loved him like a human being. Back then, there was no effective prevention for heartworms and he got infected. For the longest time he showed no ill effects, but eventually began to lose his equilibrium. Once a dog got heartworms back in those days, it was a death sentence. I came home from school one day while mom and dad were still at work. I found Zeus on the front porch. His lungs had ruptured from the damage of the worms. When he would inhale, all you could hear were gurgling sounds. When he exhaled, blood poured from his mouth. He was suffering terribly. This was before cell phones, and it would take either one of my parents more than an hour to get home. I had no money of my own to take him to the vet for the purpose of putting him down. Being such a big dog, I was afraid to use a smaller weapon to put him out of his misery, so I chose the Carbine. I cried for hours afterward.

When I worked for the Sheriff's department in a rural county, my partner and I conducted a felony stop of two men who were considered armed and dangerous. It was after midnight and we were on a lonely, country road. They pulled over and jumped out of the car, yelling..."What the f*** is your problem?" Once they saw me crouched behind the passenger door of the cruiser with the Carbine laid over it and trained on them, they suddenly got real respectful for what our problem was.

I've never checked to see how old the gun is. From what I see on the internet, it can sell for anything between $850 to $1350. You see, it's considered a collector's item, now. Being a gift from my dad, who died back in 1999, and with it having so much personal history behind it, I am reluctant to let it out of my gun safe and into someone else's hands. However, my being in Europe and Africa over the last four years has meant its neglect. The action is very sluggish and the casing ejection mechanism is failing. I need to have it repaired, cleaned and oiled, and brought back to its old glory. I guess I would sell it if someone paid me enough to retire and make sure my next three generations were taken care of. Anything less wouldn't be considered.

So, I guess I'll keep the gun. It reminds me of a dad's generosity, the thrill of the hunt, sometimes doing what a man has to do, and how at certain times it can protect me and those with me from harm. It's a piece of history that can remind me of what it took to make sure our country remained free from tyranny. It's the epitome of life lessons and historical perspectives. How can you put a price on that? I sure hope this guy takes good care of it. I won't relax until I get it back. As a sidenote, I've ordered a sling and an oiler to mount on it so it will look just like one of them did back in the war. After that, it will go back in the gun safe, under lock and key.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Since When is Disagreement Discrimination?

Rahm Emanuel, the illustrious and dishonourable mayor of Chicago, has come out and said that he will try to thwart another Chick-fil-a franchise from being built in Chicago until the company comes out with an anti-discrimination statement about gay marriages. WHAT?

All the founders of the restaurant have said is that they do not believe in gay marriage. Has it gotten to the point that simple disagreement with another person, group, race, creed, religion, or lifestyle is lawlessness or hate? I am incredulous at the Left who supposedly preach openness and acceptance and freedom for all, yet denounce anyone with enough gall to disagree with what they think others should agree with.

I am a Christian. Does that mean that I am against non-Christians?
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Does that mean I don't think homosexuals should exist?
I love roses. Does that mean I hate petunias?
I find other women attractive. Does that mean I don't love my wife?

We could go on and on about this and twist it any way you want to. Americans should be able to express their beliefs without backlash from those who are diametrically opposed to those beliefs. It is a well known fact that Emanuel is for same sex marriage. Okay. That's his right. In fact, he can run for any office he wants to and say whatever he likes. I don't mind. Just as long as I get the same privilege. You're for it, Rahm. Cool. I'm not. What are you going to do? Have my blog taken down? It wouldn't surprise me if you tried.

He's also for increased gun control. But not when it pertains to his personal security detail. Funny how all the left wing, diehard, socialistic morons who are running portions of this country have armed guards but don't want us to have the same ability to protect ourselves. What does that tell you about how well the rest of us are regarded by the Left?

Get a grip on reality, people. Not everyone is going to agree with you, even when it makes sense that they should...at least to you. We are a diverse nation of peoples. It isn't hate speech for me to say that I'm against same sex marriage. I am. That will never change about me. Am I going to go protest when a couple of gays get married if and when it becomes law? No. Am I going to write scathing blog posts about the insanity of it all? No. I just think it's creepy and the biological equipment isn't there to support it. The history and customary viewpoint just isn't there. I don't want to wake up to someone that has just as much hair on their body as I do. And, it's strange to me that anyone else would. However....HOWEVER....I have never treated the homosexuals I've encountered any differently than I would someone else. And if it becomes the law of the land, I will abide by it just like I have the Roe vs. Wade case. I have never picketed an abortion clinic or shot at an abortionist. I pray for the women who think they have to do that and I also pray for the abortionist because he has no place in my theology. But, that alone doesn't make me a hater. It doesn't make me a discriminator. It makes me a disagree-er. And, quite frankly, I can disagree with whatever damn thing I want to. This is still America...for now.

Ordinary is Underrated

What's wrong with being ordinary? It's a question I ask myself quite a lot whenever I see the tabloids hanging on every movement of those that have been dubiously crowned as 'elite'. If there wasn't a market for exposing every blemish, every pregnancy, every affair for the vast anonymous public out there to consume, the tabloids and the paparazzi wouldn't exist.

At one time I thought we had reached the apex of technological goofiness, and then Twitter came along. Tweeters and the tweets they send out are received by 'followers'. Why should any of us care when Jennifer Aniston tweets she has a zit? What difference does it make that Jason Alexander tweets he is for more gun control? Who would pay attention to Jason Alexander about anything? But there are those who aspire to be as close to fame as they can, any way they can.

Blogs like this, for example, can have 'followers'. I don't want any followers (not that I would get any). This is a way for me to pound out my thoughts. I have no problem with people reading this, and I have no desire to attract 'followers'. If anything, I would like to motivate people into being leaders. There are enough 'followers' in this world. In fact, there are too many.

Our latest psycho / killer / soon to be death row initiate in Colorado wanted to be famous. Instead, he's infamous. But, people exist in this world that don't care what kind of Number One they become. Some want to be the Number One loved person in the world, and then there are those who realize they can't aspire to that level and choose to be the Number One hated person in the world. HEY! At least they're number one. Right?

American Idol, America's Got Talent, Who Wants to be a Millionaire?, are engines that drive people to reach for the stars of fame or the quick buck and maybe have a few minutes of being on TV. All the reality shows are full of people who just want to be on TV. And, millions of Americans tune in to see what the latest idiot is doing in the swamp or in Jersey or on some deserted Island trying to survive being voted off by the other twerps. Remember, if there wasn't a market for it, there wouldn't be a show or article or photograph about it.

So, is it a disadvantage to be ordinary? Is it a crime to be a faceless member of a crowd? What's so bad about people's lives that they show such an interest in someone else's life that wouldn't spit on them if they were on fire? I just don't get it. With fame you lose your anonymity. No longer can you go into a restaurant and not be noticed. You know, there's value in being anonymous. With fame comes money, and then come the hanger's on that once were like you....wanting to be with someone famous....that drain you of your soul, spirit, self-worth, and eventually your bank account. When you're famous, there are thousands of people who want a piece of you and attack like piranha.

When a movie came out that Elvis Presley wanted to see, he had to rent the entire cinema and go late at night for a private screening. Only his closest associates and friends were with him, and it had to be kept quiet that he was coming to the theatre. After what happened in Colorado, this isn't such a bad idea, but back in those days it was safe to go see a movie (still is, in my opinion). Can you imagine the crowd outside the cinema if the news had gotten out that Elvis was going to be there? He was a prisoner inside his vault of money and fame. He had no life like ordinary people have. You lose a goodly amount of personal freedom when you become famous.

Me? I write books and hope to be wealthy one day. It is possible to be rich and not famous. I can do without the fame. Just throw money. I have no desire to have my face plastered on the television or to have papparazzi following me around everywhere or to have my 'followers' panting with anticipation to receive my next tweet. I don't tweet, by the way. Never will. What I want to do is write a book that about a million people want to read. Not because of me, but because they like the story. That will result in me getting to my goal. The American Dream. Will it happen? Probably not. All my life money has seemed to run from me like a scalded dog. I am doing well right now, financially; but I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination. Rich is where you can throw away your alarm clocks and wake up naturally every morning if God so wills you get another day. That's my definition of rich. I haven't gotten there yet, but I'm working on it.

In the meantime, relax in being ordinary. Ordinary is a good thing. In fact, it's something to not only be proud of, but to be thankful for. Ordinary people is what makes this nation great. Not those hacks in Hollywood who live lives that are just as make believe as their movies. It is the ordinary where we usually find extraordinary things and actions. Three men in Aurora, Colorado threw themselves in front of their girlfriends to save their lives. Up until that moment, these were ordinary men. They ended up sacrificing their lives to save others. I call that outstanding behavior. These men didn't want to be famous. They just wanted to watch a movie. In the end, they have captured the imagination of an entire country. I will say this. Kudos and a big HATS OFF to Christian Bale for visiting the victims in the hospital. Maybe there is some 'ordinary' goodness in some of those Hollywood guys after all. So, remember...ordinary is a good thing. Fame is not. From what I've seen in the history of famous lives, it sucks the life right out of them. Goodnight Marilyn, Janis, Jimi, Elvis, Michael, Jim Morrison, et al. See what I mean?

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Back in the Day, Part 2

Please take a look at the last paragraph of my previous post, Back in the Day. Then, read the headlines today about the Colorado shooter's parents. Did I call it, or did I call it?

The parents have come out and said they are going to support their son. They said they are going to stand by him. Their lawyer, when pressed, said, "Of course...he's their son."

(Loud Game Show Buzzer indicating WRONG ANSWER!!!!)

What??!!!  This is what I was talking about in the first Back in the Day post. Right or wrong, demon or angel, killer or non-killer, we're going to stand behind our son and support him??? No matter what??

My parents loved me, nurtured me, protected me and provided for me. I was allowed to get away with a lot of stuff. But it was annoying stuff. It was being a smart mouth, a slob, a poor student at times, getting drunk, etc. But Dad told me one time that if I ever got thrown in jail, I better not waste my first phone call by phoning home. Their philosophy was, if I was grown enough to get myself thrown in jail, I was grown enough to get myself out.

Little Jerkwad from San Diego doesn't have to worry about that. Mommy and Daddy are packed and on their way to Aurora to stand behind their Little Jerkwad from San Diego. AND, they're doing it because....he's their son.

Let me tell you who they should be standing with and supporting. The twelve families who lost loved ones because their spoiled rotten little brat, the Jerkwad from San Diego, decided he wanted to go kill a lot of innocent people. They should be standing with and supporting the 58 families and victims that their spoiled rotten little brat, the Jerkwad from San Diego, decided to go off and shoot indiscriminately and with no good reason. THAT'S who they should be standing with. If these were MY parents, they would be disowning me at this moment, declaring me as evil as Satan himself, and helping the police and those families as much as possible. And you know what else?? They would be right in doing so.

You don't support someone just because there is a biological, familial connection. You don't support mass murderers. EVER! For any reason. ANY.

"Oh...poor little Johnny. He was always so misunderstood."
"We never spanked little Johnny. Dr. Spock said it would ruin his ability to cope."
"Time out! Time out! TIME OUT!"

You know what my 'Time Out' was? The belt. That was my time out. After two or three of those, I got the message. I didn't want anymore Time Outs, so I followed the rules. The rules were, Dad ruled, then Mom ruled and me and my brother had no say about who ruled. Pretty simple set-up if you ask me; and one didn't have to be overly intelligent to figure out the pecking order or how one lined up on the Totem Pole of rulership. Since I was the baby of the family, I was at the bottom. I got the used furniture. I got my brother's old clothes. I got his old stereo. Hell, I didn't get anything new except for Christmas and my birthday. Maybe I should go out and kill a bunch of people because I never got any new stuff. Sheesh.

Plus, these parents of the Jerkwad from San Diego won't say they're sorry about what happened. Now, I don't blame them. They didn't actually pull the trigger. I'm pretty sure they subsidized him, because even with the money I make I can't afford weapons like that, much less 6000 rounds of ammo. In fact, when I read that, I took an inventory of my ammo. I don't even have a thousand rounds, and would need to open my wallet to even get to that figure. Here's what they should say:

"We are deeply outraged over the senseless brutality that occurred in your town. Our hearts, thoughts and prayers are with all the victims. There is nothing we can say to ease the grief you are experiencing. However, know this, we stand by you and we support you, and you alone."

Then, the daddy of the Jerkwad from San Diego needs to go to the jail and say this:

"Son, you will start cooperating with the police. There is no doubt you did what they say you did and you need to be a MAN and take account of it. If that means you spend the rest of your life on death row, then that's what it means. You forfeited your future when the first person in that theatre died at your hand."

That's what a real father and a real man would do. But NOOOOOOO. We stand by him because he's our son. No, once he became a murderer of innocent people on that scale...that's all he would have become to me. A murderer. Shame on them. Shame on them from here to eternity for the stance they have taken. If I were the city of Aurora, I would tell them to re-pack their bags and go back where they came from. I would say, "We got this handled. GET OUT."

Monday, July 23, 2012

Judgement Day for Penn State

The NCAA came down hard on Penn State today. Four years with no chance of bowl appearances, all wins from 1998 onward stricken from the record (Removing Joe Paterno from the Winningest Coach List), and a sixty million dollar fine. One of the things I'm glad they did was to allow their football players the opportunity to move to another program without having to sit out for a year. After all, they weren't the problem.

Jerry Sandusky, the new poster child for 'Perverts in Jail', was the main problem. Then you have the likes of Joe Paterno and the others at Penn State who were in positions of authority and decided the prestige of the university and the lucrative football program were more important than doing the decent thing. They were the rest of the problem. Now, neither the prestige or their money has been saved.

I have to give the university some kudos, though. They didn't take very long to remove Paterno's statue and put it in mothballs. The only other thing they should have done was to melt it down, sell the bronze, and give the proceeds to organizations that help abused kids. I hope their coffers that hold the horde of gold Paterno made for them are full and deep. It's estimated another thirty million dollars may be scooped up from all the civil suits coming their way.

However, there really isn't any redeeming thing here. The athletic director of Penn State was NOT Paterno's boss. Paterno didn't have a boss at Happy Valley; period. He was an icon who more than likely could have told the whole board of directors at Penn State to eat their own feces and they would have blindly obeyed. Paterno was a money maker of legendary proportions at that level of collegiate sports. They even gave him a lucrative retirement contract prior to him being fired. Even now, as his statue was being taken down, some idiots were shouting, "We love you, JoePa!". What cretins.

The fact is, Joe Paterno could have stopped this in its tracks with just a word. But, Sandusky was his friend, Penn State was his life, and football was his god. He didn't know those children, and he had no real proof they were being abused. Yet, the accusation was there, and according to reports from the trial, he did nothing beyond submitting what he had been told to the athletic director, and then washed his hands of it. However, he didn't wash them very well. From now to the end of Penn State's history they will be stained with more than just shame. They will be stained with lives destroyed, memories too horrible to imagine, a university's students embarrassed at their connection, and a once proud collegiate program brought to its knees.

The worst part of it is, he won't be around to endure the vilification of his non-action or to answer for his omission of trying to do the right thing, regardless of the personal cost. The type of character you possess is determined by what you do when nobody knows you're doing it. In this case, Joe Paterno's character is brought into serious question regarding what he didn't do when nobody knew he wasn't doing it.

There is a truism among us in the work-a-day world. One screw-up erases a thousand atta-boys. We all should keep that in the forefront of our mind when we are met with a dilemma of choice between good and evil. If we choose good, it may be looked upon by the majority as an evil thing and then bring upon you unwanted consequences. If, however, we decide the path of least resistance is to side with the evil thing, so the image of reputation and the influx of money can continue to be held above all else; do not wonder where the glory went when the truth comes out and the good thing takes precedence.

I submit to you another truism. Be sure, your sin will find you out.

Back in the Day

I remember one Christmas when I was in Elementary School, my mom and dad bought me a complete Man from U.N.C.L.E. spy kit. It came with a toy pistol, a sniper rifle, a combat knife and other stuff that in my mind was 'cool'. In fact, I had a lot of toy guns. My friends and I would play 'army' and shoot each other all day long. We tried to make the gun sounds as realistic as possible. There was this tom boy that brought her gun to play and she would only say 'pow'. We used to give her so much grief over that. Our combat was played out all over the block, in between neighbors' houses, in the back yards and sometimes we even got on top of the houses to have the perfect sniper spot. There was a willow tree in back of our house that had a limb growing so close to the roof that our 'monkey' ability made it possible to scamper up there in a hurry. Some of us had outstanding acting ability, trying to see who could compose the best death scenes once we were shot.

I still have links with these boys, that are now men approaching sixty (like me), and I find something strange. None of us have ever actually shot someone. We all watched Yosemite Sam on TV as he would walk into a saloon, pull his six shooters and start firing 'em off into the floor proclaiming, "I'm the rootinest tootinest shootinest outlaw in the west!" None of us have ever actually done that. We used to watch the Three Stooges beat hell out of each other with hammers, pots, fingers to the eyes, fists to the head, and blows to the stomach. None of us have ever actually done that. We all watched Elmer Fudd shoot countless rounds of ammo at that pesky wabbit or Daffy Duck. I think all of us have shot at a rabbit or duck at one time or another. Funny how we were able to tell the difference between human beings and animals.

To my knowledge, none of us have ever been arrested or put in jail. I know I haven't. The only time I ever shot at a human being was when two bozos tried to break into my house in broad daylight. My daughter was alive and confined to a wheelchair so I had no opportunity to run. Nobody got hurt because I didn't want to kill someone, just scare them. When my wife came home to see the ravaged front door, my daughter wheeled up to her and said, "Momma, the bad men came but daddy chased them away." One of my proudest moments.

One of the recurring thoughts I've had after that incident was, what if they KNEW I wasn't armed? What would have deterred them? There were two of them and only one of me. I know there is a saying that liberals get tired of hearing, but it bears repeating. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Don't believe it? Why not? The government tried to outlaw liquor during Prohibition. How did that work out? The government has been conducting a 'losing' war on drugs for years now. How has that worked out and how well is working out today? The cold, hard indisputable fact is that when there is a demand by the lawless to possess liquor, drugs or guns, it will be met. Regardless of all the good intentions that people have to protect the citizenry of this country. But, I digress from the intent of this post.

When I was sixteen, my parents gave me my first, real gun. It was a .22 caliber, bolt action with a seven shot clip. However, I was only given this weapon after having been trained on how to use and respect firearms, from the age of five, by my father, grandfather, older brother, uncles, cousins, etc. I used to live in the forest on weekends and during the summer months, never venturing into the woods without a firearm. My first pistol was a .38 snubnose revolver, which I had in hand when the burglars came. I was glad I had it.

So, I grew up playing with toy guns, being trained in the use of real weapons, given my first weapon at 16, and have been around them all my life. I also grew up watching violent cartoons, violent shows, violent movies, and then went out with my friends and pretended to inflict violence on them. Yet, never...not once...ever...has the thought occurred to me to actually and with evil intent go out from my house to kill as many human beings as I could before being stopped. Not only that, I have never thought about killing even one human being. The same holds true for all those boys I grew up with and us 'shooting' each other with glee.

I firmly believe the pyscho-analysts, psychiatrists, psychologists and other psycho-whatevers have it wrong. It isn't the games, the movies, the pretending, the toys, the vision impacting things that turn people to violence against other people. It can't be. There has to be something inherently wrong with someone who goes on a spree killing. It also can't be that the world or society has mistreated them to some greater degree than the rest of us. Can anyone really stand up and say that they have never been mistreated, maligned, abused in some shape or form? Can anyone really say that their entire life has been one of wine and roses and song with nary a problem or care? Of course not. My first girlfriend was caught by me in a three way. She still lives as do the three I found her with. My first wife was having an affair with her boss less than ten months after we were married. She and he still live. Plus, I didn't go off on some bizarre notion that all women were evil and therefore must die...even if I didn't know them and they hadn't done anything to me. Such thinking by people that do those things is twisted in the least and outright evil to the core at the most. For some reason, the killers I speak of have some kind of disconnect that sane, rational, and lawful people can't understand. Nobody can. I don't care how many PhD's, Masters' or Bachelor degrees you have. I don't care what kind of 'expert' you are. These types of people cannot be understood any more than their diabolical actions can be understood. I doubt they even understand it.

One thing, and one thing only, helps to explain it a little bit. Back when I was growing up, we didn't live in a 'victim' society like we have had for the last twenty-five years. When I was a kid, if I messed up, guess whose fault it was? It wasn't the teacher, the neighbor, or some imaginary mental condition. My parents looked straight at me. And, when I messed up bad enough, my butt hit that belt numerous times. However, I will say unequivocally that I was never mistreated. But I was directed to believe in a certain rule. Behavior results in consequences. Good for good; bad for bad. Far be it for these little darlings of the last twenty-five years to EVER be disciplined or corrected or to be told something they're doing is bad. Heaven forbid they ever get a butt whuppin', for that only begets more violence...so the 'experts' say. All those boys I mentioned earlier...every one of us had a mom and dad that would break out the leather when it was necessary. And look how badly we turned out. Never been to jail. Never killed anybody. And never thought about doing either. Something to think about.

Friday, July 20, 2012

And for all you Libs that are screaming for gun control...

The United States has 2.8 million active and reserve military personnel. This includes all branches. The United States has approximately 800,000 city, county, state and federal law enforcement officers.

The citizenry of the United States has 52 million households with at least one firearm. An estimated total number of firearms stands at around 250 million among the private sector.

That's 3.6 million vs. 52 million. And that's ONLY if all the military and law enforcement officers side with the gubment, which isn't likely. I'm afraid you Libs and Obama ain't got enough ASS.

Snark all you want to.

Face It...We Live in a Gun Culture; And That Comes with Risks

Per the Center for Disease Control, latest figures (2005) show 30,694 firearm deaths (all races, all ages, both sexes) in the United States.
NOTE: Since a firearm is an inanimate object, it can not be the sole creator/ root cause of a death as it must be handled by a person in order to be fired. So, let's break it down.
A more accurate description is approximately 16,000 suicides using a firearm
Approximately 12,252 murders by firearms 80% of which are caused by felons/career criminals/gang member activities. (USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment annual report 2009)
In other words, only 2450 murders by firearms were committed by people in 2009 that were like this jerk in Aurora, Colorado. Government stats reveal that approximately 52 million American households have at least one firearm. Sounds to me like the vast vast majority of gun owners are responsible with them.
Approximately 600 justifiable defensive shootings by both police and citizens.
The remainder in accidental firearms discharges.

Now, let's compare:

Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.

In 2003 there were 6,328,000 car accidents in the US. There were 2.9 million injuries and
42,643 people were killed in auto accidents.

In 2002, there were an estimated 6,316,000 car accidents in the USA. There were about 2.9 million injuries and 42,815 people were killed in auto accidents in 2002.

There were an estimated 6,356,000 car accidents in the US in 2000. There were about 3.2 million injuries and 41,821 people were killed in auto accidents in 2000 based on data collected by the Federal Highway Administration.

2009 Latest Stats on other related causes of death in the US:
Drug Induced Deaths: (Legal and Illicit) 37,485
Accidental Poisoning: 30,504
Alcohol Induced: 23,199

Actual homicides by use of a firearm in 2009 were, I repeat from above, 12,252.

Give or take a few hundred, we have 30,384 more car related deaths than firearm homicides every year.
Give or take, we have 25,233 more deaths by drugs than by guns every year.
Give or take, we have 18, 252 more poisonings than by guns every year.
Give or take, we have 10,947 more alcohol related deaths than by guns every year.

So, we need to outlaw cars, all drugs, poisonous materials, and alcohol at the same time we outlaw guns.

People, life is a dangerous business. When we step into our bathtub, we take a risk. In 2000, 341 people died by slipping and falling in the bathtub.567 died in their swimming pools. 3,187 people died by choking on food.

In 1992 two burglars started breaking into my house in broad daylight. I was not able to run, because my daughter was there and she was confined to a wheelchair. Just the threat of me having a firearm was enough to send them on their way. I don't want to shoot anybody, and gave them a warning that allowed them to choose life over certain death. I have been handling guns since I was eight years old. I respect them and was trained on how to use them. I, along with millions of other Americans, am a responsible gun owner. I'm glad I have the right to own guns...with bullets. I am sorry for people who become victims of idiots and evil people. In the culture in which we live, it is a risk we take...but less than the one we take when we get in our car. What we all should do is keep things in perspective. Life is dangerous. Always has been; always will be. According to the Bible, only two people haven't died. That's a pretty exclusive club, and I think our chances of getting in are slim to none. Let us pray for all the victims out there, from whatever reason they have become one. And remember, there is no solution to these ills. It's just life.

Blind Following is a Disgrace

There have been times in the history of the world where an entire population of a country or race has been caught up in the rhetoric of its leader or leaders and failed to do the right thing that they knew to do. The result was usually the crowd being taken down a path of evil that resulted in their destruction. If not evil, then at the very least a path that led to an ideological change apart from the people's core beliefs.

Now, exactly what are 'core' beliefs. They are what you believe is the crucial aspect that determines your physical experience of life. Core beliefs are those things you just know and trust to be true. If you have no core beliefs, then you are morally bankrupt and nothing can be done for you. Stop reading now so you won't be wasting my time or yours.

On the way to work yesterday morning I was listening to 950AM during one of their morning conservative talk shows. A Black American called in and stated that he was against abortion on demand. He stated he was against gay marriage. He stated that he didn't want big government and he didn't want taxes raised. He wanted our borders secure and wanted to see more jobs and greater opportunity for all in America. The man was asked if he had voted for Obama in 2008 and he said that he had. When he was asked if was going to vote for Obama in this election, he said that it would be hard not to. The host pressed him as to why, and he responded that it would be based on Obama being a black man. He went on to intimate, without coming right out and saying it, that since 'we' had finally gotten a black man in the White House, 'they' were going to do all 'they' could to keep him there.

This type of mentality is beyond any method of understanding that I can bring forth in my mind. Here is a man who possesses many of the core beliefs I do. Our President shares none of them. He believes in basic family values and working for a living and not getting on the dole just because it's possible. He admits that Obama has failed in many areas as President, and went on to admit that Romney was more in line with his core beliefs than Obama was. Yet...YET...he is more than likely going to base his vote on color of skin, irregardless of what and who the man is or may be.
This is what is fundamentally wrong with the American voter. A vast majority cast their vote based on whimsical reasons. Even my own mother admitted that she always voted for the 'best looking' candidate. Many was the time I chastised her and pleaded with her not to vote, even if the candidate that was more in line with my core beliefs was the best looking, in her mind. One should NEVER vote uninformed. One should NEVER vote without performing their due diligence to see where a candidate stands, on any level of government. And, most especially, one should NEVER cast their vote based on race, religion, or creed alone.

I have no problem with a liberal supporting a liberal or a conservative supporting a conservative. If you are of one ideology or the other, and your research indicates to which way he or she bends, then cast your vote proudly. However, if a candidate is far left or far right, diametrically opposed to where you stand on your CORE beliefs; and you vote contrary to those and choose the candidate based solely on race, that is a travesty to the American system, the American way, and could one day lead to the destruction of the American dream. I don't care if a candidate is purple with pink polka-dots and speaks Etruscan. If they stand more solidly with what I believe to be true and just, they get my vote. That's the way it should be with everyone. Shame on all who do otherwise.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

PART TWO: Know Your History to Know Your Enemy

President Obama said in his speech last Friday...“The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”
We saw in Part I how the origin of 'rapid long distance communication', which is what the internet is, was first developed in the 19th Century by Samuel Morse. We also discovered how the United States Government stole it from him. Not a very good start to how the government helps us little folks along with our dreams.

The only government research that was done, having anything to do with the internet, can be traced only to the MIT Lincoln Laboratory which is government funded. The main thrust of this place was to enhance our air defense systems and was created in 1951. The Lincoln lab developed the magnetic core memory which revolutionized computing.

The actual 'father' of the modern internet concept was a man by the name of Joseph Carl Robnett Licklider, known affectionately as 'Lick'. I kid you not. He was the first to look beyond the present capabilities of computers and see the potential for interactive computing. Licklider didn't invent the internet, but his ideas of the possibility were the seeds that others picked up and ran with to get to the point where we are today.

Companies such as BBN (Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.), where Licklider was the Vice President in 1957 and purchased the first PDP-1 computer from DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation) in 1960 where he conducted the first presentation of time-sharing on computers, were the forerunners of the internet, NOT the government. The PDP-1was an upgrade from the TX-0 that the MIT Lincoln Laboratory had developed as they worked on America's air defense system. However, it was from there that private corporations took the lead with the intelligence of men like Licklider.

It must be noted that Government research was not focused on its citizens where computer technology was concerned, at least not in the way that President Obama explained. the MIT Lincoln Laboratory had been instructed by the U.S. Department of Defense that its computers could ONLY be used for government business and that it would be considered illegal for any personal or profitable use to occur on those systems. After all, the government was looking at this technology on air defense, missile technology, military communication upgrades, etc. Allowing us to make money off of it wasn't even in the same stratosphere as what Obama said. Allowing us to even have ACCESS to it wasn't part of the government's plan.

Steve Jobs, Stephen Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne created Apple Computer in a garage, with the financial help of a private investor named Mike Markkula.

The fact is, that regardless of how the President spun his quote (by talking about teachers and others who helped people along the way), he was obviously espousing his belief that without the government, you can't lay claim to what you have accomplished in life. All that you have accomplished, each crown of accomplishment on your head, must be thrown at the feet of government. No matter that you took the risk, you put in the sacrifice, you put in the blood, sweat and tears...without the government...you could have done nothing. When he said, "You didn't build that!", it should have sent shivers down your spine just as it did mine.

IBM, Xerox, MITS, BBN, and DEC (among other private companies) are who really put in the research to bring the modern computer to the people of the world. Did they do it for mankind's good? Probably not. More than likely a capitalist company does those things to make money, and boy have they. But, on the flip side of the coin there are millions of people like me and you that make money on the internet every day, thanks to THEM. Not thanks to the government, but to THEM.

In fact, the government quickly held committee meetings on how they could charge taxes on e-commerce and internet usage, even on e-mails. A big thanks to Republicans and to President Bush who signed into law the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendment Act of 2007, that effectively forbids taxation of Internet service based on amount (bit tax), type (bandwidth) or use (email) in order to make the medium affordable and accessible for commercial and personal use. However, this ends in 2014, and you can bet your bottom dollar the 'spread-the wealth' types in Washington under Obama (if he wins) will be licking their chops over how much they can make once that Act expires. Right now, I'll wager, the government is looking at ways to tap into the resource rich market place which is the internet, already laying claim to doing and paying for the research that made it possible which is absolutely a BOGUS claim. And, thanks to the Supreme Court, the government can now tax us at will.

The power mongers in Washington D.C. do NOT have our best interests in the forefront. They are only seeking ways to maintain their power and prestige and money by remaining elite and keeping us all dependent on them. Listen to them when they turn away from their teleprompters and speech writers and really speak their mind. It's chilling to hear them and to see them unashamedly carry it out. What President Obama said last Friday should be a wake-up call to all of us. He cannot be allowed to win another term. If he does, we are a country undone.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

PART ONE: Know Your History to Know Your Enemy

President Obama said in his speech last Friday...“The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

Really? I mean...really??? First, let me be fair and say that our illustrious President is correct, in a way. The internet didn't get invented on its own.  AND, government research did bring it to the fore, but not so companies could make money off of it. That was a side benefit.

This is the reason why the American voter should study history and research what people in power have to say. As the old American Indian adage goes...Man speak with forked tongue.

If you want to get technical about it, we owe the internet to a Samuel Finley Breese Morse. He was the first one to come up with the idea of 'rapid long distance communication'. Isn't that what the internet is? Mr. Morse was a painter. Not only that, he was a very good one. In 1825 he was in Washington, painting a portrait for a commission of $1000. That's how good he was. While there, he received word that his wife was very ill. He immediately traveled to his home in New Haven, Connecticut, only to find that not only had she died, but she had already been buried. Distraught over the fact that his wife had been deathly ill for days and died without him at her bedside, he decided to lay his painting aside and do something about it.

My, my. The death of a loved one brought inspiration without the help of the gubment. In 1832, after witnessing expirements with the electromagnet..on his own...without gubment hep...he developed the concept of a single wire telegraph. He teamed up with Leonard Gale, a chemistry professor at New York University (who wasn't affiliated with the gubment) who helped Morse introduce relays that would allow the signal to travel great distances. Then, a man named Alfred Vail came into the team with his own private money to subsidize the invention (not gubment money). In 1838, they went to the United States Government but were REBUFFED for requesting federal sponsorship. Imagine that. However, they went back to Washington in 1842 and in 1843 were appropriated $30,000 to build an expiremental line. This was the FIRST involvement of the gubment with the invention and perfection of the first rapid long distance communication device.

He, along with his team, developed the Morse Code, which is still the standard for rhythmic transmission to this very day.

Now, as Paul Harvey would say, here's the rest of the story. Even though Morse had a U.S. patent from 1847 for his device, and the Supreme Court admitted and ruled that he had been the first to design a workable and practical telegraph, the United States Gubment refused to officially recognize it. In 1853, the Supreme Court did not uphold Morse's patent eligibility for the telegraph. In Europe, the governments of France, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Russia, Tuscany, Piedmont and Turkey, each of which contributed a share according to the number of Morse instruments in use in each country, awarded Morse the equivalent of $80,000. No such thing occurred with the United States Gubment. His contribution was finally recognized by his own country in 1871, when a bronze statue of Morse was erected in New York's Central Park.

So, Mr. President...please keep on telling us how the government is so helpful when it comes to entrepreneurship in this country. Please keep telling us how, "You didn't build that!" Please keep on extolling the great virtues of government assistance. Hell, if we work hard enough, we might get a statue out of it.

The fact is, without Samuel Morse, Leonard Gale and Alfred Vail...all private citizens using their own time and money...the internet would have had to wait, since the United States Government wasn't interested in such preposterous technology and then after they got it, pretty much stole it from him.

But, it all started because a man couldn't get to his dying wife's bedside in time to tell her goodbye. Love, Mr. President, is where the origin of the internet lies. Not money. And especially not with the government.

Sick, Sick, Sick of Kim Kardashian !!!!

Okay, I can't help it. The celebrity media has gone too far this time.  I just saw an article about Kim Kardashian sharing a photo they described as 'racy' that reveals her 'flawless' and un-photoshopped body. Kim Kardashian's body is ANYTHING but flawless. She's got stumpy little short legs and a BIG ASS!!!

This isn't the photo they were talking about, but seeing that thing without covering is too ghastly. Would someone please inform those who care about what this parasite on humanity does with her life that her fifteen minutes of fame are over AND...she's got a BIG ASS!!!!

The Fundamental Difference

I wish all politicians....ALL of them...would go off the teleprompter reservation. It's the only time we the people get to hear what they really think and have a glimpse of who they really are. Such was the case with President Obama last Friday. His speech in front of a partisan crowd produced his first major gaffe in the campaign, and it has cost him. The now infamous 'You didn't build that' statement has resulted in him having to go on the defensive for the first time. But, it's too late to backtrack. This one remark revealed more about him than anything else he has said. It revealed what's really in his mind instead of the smoke and mirrors and effusive rhetoric that usually comes out of a politician's piehole. It also revealed how unqualified he has always been to lead this country. And, more than that, it revealed how Washington D.C. thinks of itself and how it views the American people.

As Romney pointed out, along with all the conservative pundits on radio and TV, the government builds infrastructure on the backs of taxpayers. The government runs the necessary departments that assist small businesses on the backs of taxpayers. The government has built the mightiest military in the world on the back of taxpayers. The toilet paper our government uses in the Capitol washrooms was bought by the sweat, labour, hard work, sacrifice and dedication of the American taxpayer. Air Force One and the Presiden'ts Marine Helicopter are maintained, fueled, and bought and paid for by the American taxpayer. All Congressmen, Senators and the President are in their place of privilege and power due to the voting of the working and overpaying American taxpayer. Policemen, firemen, and teachers are paid by the American taxpayer. Every soldier, sailor and pilot in our military is handed their paycheck with a salute and a thank you by the American taxpayer.

And this President has the unmitigated gall to stand up, ON CAMERA, and verbally express that if it weren't for the government we the people couldn't do anything? If my memory of history serves, I believe certain men got together; who by the way were chosen by their constituency, and formed the United States Government with the approval of the citizens of this great country who were here before the United States Government existed. If it weren't for the citizens, this country would not exist as it does today.

Abraham Lincoln did not win the Civil War. It was the men on the field of battle who gave up life, liberty, freedom and the American dream and shed their blood to win that war. It was the citizens of the Union who answered the call to arms and marched away from their wives, mothers, children, jobs, businesses and everything they had worked to achieve in life, to die for the United States and what they believed in. It wasn't the Congressmen or the Senators or the Supreme Court judges who won that war, it was Joe Citizen who won that war. If it weren't for the citizens of this great country, not only would the United States Government never have existed, but it would have been destroyed somewhere between 1861 and 1865.

1939 saw the most horrific threat to world peace and individual freedoms history had ever seen. Yet, the greatest generation rose to the occasion in the form of young men and young women who joined the Armed Forces by the millions in one capacity or another, and died on battlefields too numerous to count It wasn't the President, or the Congress or the Senators or the Supreme Court Justices that won that war. It was Joe Citizen that answered the call of freedom and liberty and justice for all that fired the guns, sailed the ships, and conquered tyrants with their own blood and sacrifice so the United States of America could remain free from a despotic and evil rule. If the Nazis had acquired the Atom Bomb first, where do you think we would be today? The pressure of our precious young boys who were fighting and dying in Europe kept Hitler from developing more diabolical weapons of destruction and gave us time to develop them first to use against our enemies. And use them we did and I'm glad we did. So, again, in 1945, the U.S. Government owes its very existence to the American worker, businessman, and taxpayer. It owes its existence to Rosie the Riveter who kept the war machine churning while her man was out fighting and dying for this country.

And this President has the unmitigated gall to stand up and say without the government 'You didn't build that' ???  Mr. President, without the hardworking, taxpaying, patriotic citizens of this great country, you couldn't do a damn thing with this government. What has been built has been built by us, improved by us, made more powerful than any other nation by us, and by God Almighty will see you thrown out of OUR White House and out of OUR government and onto OUR streets that WE built without YOUR help or assistance; by US.

This is the fundamental difference between a liberal socialist with communist mentors of his past propping him up and him listening to an America hating preacher for twenty years;  and a God loving, freedom living, liberty enjoying, patriotic American conservative who still believes this is the home of the brave and the land of the free and the greatest country this world has ever seen or will ever see. Mr. President, I'm an American who firmly believes that you don't even know what being an American is about. The government of this country wasn't here first. The people were here first. And the people should be represented, and not ruled by anybody.

So, take a note. You have my permission to ignore your speech writers and your teleprompter any time you want to. When you do, you make a helluva campaign operative for Mitt Romney.

Monday, July 16, 2012

Must the President Have Business Experience?

This Presidential race gets curiouser and curiouser with each passing day. Obama and his people keep harping on Romney's Bain Capital tenure as a reason not to vote for him. Romney and his peeps keep harping on Obama not having a business tenure, except for working at a law firm. When one looks at history, some of the worst Presidents had a barn full of business experience and flat lined as the Commander in Chief. So, what is it we should be looking at, where these two gentlemen are concerned, as to help in deciding whom to vote for?

First, I believe we all should look at Obama's record as President. Forget everything else prior to his election. Those things doen't matter at this point. What has he actually done FOR the country? Well, he gave the order to kill Osama Bin Laden and was successful. Put a positive check there. He went ahead with the surge of troops in Afghanistan, when most of his party was against it, and now our troops will be coming home ahead of schedule since the Taliban has been reduced to a few sociopaths living in spider holes and quaking in their boots. Put a positive check there. Iraq has reached a stage where they can either hold things together on their own or fall down on their own, and the troops assigned to that God forsaken country can start to come home. Put a positive check there. I don't believe that anyone on either side of the aisle can argue with those points.

The liberals are ecstatic over the Health Care Law that the Supreme Court upheld, even though the majority of Americans were against it. I believe that is a polarizing accomplishment for Obama. He gets no credit for this signature legislation when it comes to the vote. Many will vote for him because of it, and many will vote against him because of it. The same holds true for his stance on gay marriage, 'amnesty' for illegal aliens in this country, and his lawsuits against Arizona, Texas and Florida over immigration control and voter ID laws. The Fast and Furious scandal will work in the same way, with votes going along partisan lines.

Secondly, we should look at what Obama has done that NEGATIVELY affects the common citizen. It is a foregone and factual conclusion that he has done nothing for the black voter in this country where jobs are concerned. Currently, the black community of our country has a jobless rate of 14.4%. Put a negative mark there. It is a foregone and factual conclusion that the new Health Care Law will raise taxes...as the Supreme Court has advised, along with many doctors and other experts in the health care industry. Put a negative mark there. Tens of millions of dollars have been thrown to green energy projects through his stimulus program that has resulted in disaster. Plus, the only companies that received such funds were owned and operated by those who contributed largely to Obama's election. This is factual. Such monies could have been used in a myriad of other ways instead of going to useless 'green' expirements and ending up in the pockets of his cronies as a reimbursement for their political support. Put a negative mark there. The Keystone Pipeline project, which would have created more than 100,000 jobs directly related to it, plus tens of thousands more indirect jobs (hotel, travel, food, etc) has been refused by his administration.  Put a negative mark there. Obama is fighting the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts, which will raise taxes again. Put a negative mark there. Plus, we can't discount the affect of foreign policy on the common U.S. citizen. His foreign policy has been a dismal failure on all fronts. He backed away from Hosni Mubarak who was one of the most stabilizing forces in the Middle East and a staunch ally of the United States who had helped keep the peace between Israel and the other Arab Nations surrounding her. Granted, he was a despot and a dictator over whom the people of Egypt needed to overthrow, but the U.S. has a very poor record of not throwing our allies under the bus and Obama only kept that record intact. Put a negative mark there. His handling of the Iranian nuclear situation and resultant talks with the Russians have ended miserably. Put a negative mark there. He continues to anger the Chinese who hold a three trillion dollar economic nuclear bomb over our heads instead of taking the Kissinger route to keep us working together. Put a negative mark there. Our military is being cut to a size so small that even the army during the Revoluationary War will look big compared to it. Put a HUGE negative mark there. Then, there are the personal quirks that need to be looked at with intense scrutiny. His refusal to place a hand over his heart during the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance. His 'bowing' before the King of Saudi Arabia. His tour around the world to apologize for the past actions of the U.S. His propensity to hob nob with the rich elite of Hollywood, and then attack Wall Street. His take on the 'stupidity' of police when they arrested a good friend of his before he had all the facts in the case. His assassinations of American Citizens without due process. His orders to have drones flying over U.S. soil to spy on its own citizens. His order to remove access and support from the Border Patrol in Arizona when the Supreme Court decided against supporting him and his administration in their suit against the State. Put many negative marks there. He is very much pro-gun control. A nasty negative mark there.

Then, we have Mitt Romney. Former Governor of Massachusetts. He set up a State-run health care system there that included an individual mandate to purchase insurance. Put a negative mark for that one. The combined State and local tax burden in Massachussetts increased under Romney, but stayed below the national average throughout his tenure. Put a postive mark there. The State's income tax fell from 5.3% to 5.0% under his leadership. Put a positive mark there. He increased fees and adopted new fees, with reduced spending that helped to eliminate a 1.5 billion dollar deficit. Put a positive mark there. When he took office, the State's unemployment rate was 5.6%. When he left office, it was 4.6%. Put a postive mark there. He made great strides in State education and was a champion for teachers, implementing bonuses of as much as 15,000 dollars for the top performers. Put a positive mark there. He is for stricter gun control. Put a nasty negative mark there. He is somewhat pro-death penalty, so put a positive mark there. He was tough on repeat drunk driving offenders. Put a positive mark there. There was an increase in crime rates during his tenure. So, put a negative mark there. He is proven to be tough on criminals, having never; as Governor of Massachussetts, granted a pardon or commutation of sentence out of 272 requests for same. A positive mark goes there. He is extremely pro-military as evidenced by seeing to it that any Massachussetts National Guard member killed in the line of duty; their family would receive a death benefit increase from five-thousand dollars to one-hundred thousand dollars. Put a big positive mark there. Romney is very much anti-illegal immigration. Put a positive mark there.

 For Romney, the score is 10 positives and 3 negatives, by my scoring rules, as concerns his record as a leader in political office.

For Obama, we have 3 positives and 10+ negatives as concerns his record as President.

I dont' think the President, or someone running for President has to have ANY business experience to be a leader. But I do believe that if either candidate has a record, it should be evaluated by every voter with an open mind. I don't believe that a man should be voted for or against simply based on his race or his religion. Unfortunately, there will be many blacks and many Evangelical Christians that will do just that. And that is one of the major things that is wrong with this country. It's citizens vote for many stupid reasons that have no reflection on what the candidate can truly bring to the table. God help us all.

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Questioning the 'Protected' Status of Great Whites?

First, let me say that I am deeply saddened by the death of the 24 year old man in Western Australia who was bitten in half by a 16 foot long Great White shark on Saturday. The incident is ghastly, terrible, tragic and whatever other adjective you want to put on it. A young man's life was cut short, and no matter how that may occur, it is always tragic.

However, (you knew this was coming) now the news is that some people are questioning whether the Great White should still have 'protected' status. This latest attack was the fifth fatal shark assault since last September in Western Australia. I have an idea. Stay out of the freakin' water. Or, stay out of water so deep that a 16 foot predator can have easy access to you for lunch.

Why is it that an animal who lives in the ocean and eats living things in said ocean for its survival has to be hunted down so people can surf and swim in the ocean? Since when is surfing or swimming in the ocean a 'need'? The ocean is full of creepy crawly swimmy things that will bite you, sting you, eat you, poison you and generally ruin your whole blessed day if you happen to be unlucky enough to come into contact with it.

I love the way the articles describe this incident. They call it a 'savage' attack. Of course it was. Great White sharks have a brain mass that is 238 times less than we humans. In other words, it's a freakin' dinosaur that only does certain things. It swims, it eats, and it makes baby sharks. The Great White has no soul, no morals, no reasoning capacity, and obviously no mercy when it comes to feeding time.

The articles go on to quote that local marine scientists say Western Australia's coast is the most deadly shark attack zone in the world. Now, since we humans have the capacity to think and reason and discern, who's fault do you think it truly is when someone gets bitten in half by a Great White shark? The only time I've ever heard of anyone being eaten by a shark while on land was on one of Saturday Night Live's skits where a fictional land shark would knock on an apartment door and eat the person that answered it. It was funny, but not realistic. Just as nobody has ever had enough bottles of whiskey attack them and have their contents forcibly poured down their throats to cause them to be an alcoholic, neither has anyone ever been attacked by a shark while not near or on an ocean beach. When you go to the beach and get in the water, you are on the sea creatures' home turf and you are subject to their rules and their way of life. And, if you weren't aware, their way of life is pretty violent and brutal. They have no conscience, no pity, no remorse and do not have the ability to say, "I'm sorry for taking off your leg." Plus, since they are only doing what comes naturally, they shouldn't HAVE to apologize for ripping  you in two. Not only that, they especially shouldn't have to die because of it.

The girlfriend of the young man is understandably distraught. She put a tribute to him on Facebook that I would like to share with you. It says, "Let's remember that he was doing something that meant the world to him. Surfing was his soul, his life, his culture and his passion." I think that's nice. Therefore, he should have been aware...and probably was...that his soul, his life, his culture and his passion came with risks. Just as we take risks by simply getting in our car and driving down the road. Thousands upon thousands of people die every year in traffic accidents, but do you see our governments killing all the cars? Of course not. But, when it comes to a creature that is only doing what it does in its own home by its own rules of engagement, then it's okay to think about removing 'protected' status from it so we can feel better about ourselves by exacting some kind of perverted revenge for people who knew the risks of the activity before they entertained them.

Now, I have no fondness for sharks, or jellyfish, or barracuda or anything else that might want to hurt me for some inexplicable reason I can't understand. Therefore, I stay away from the beach. I work offshore and develop equipment that goes to the bottom of the ocean. I like the ocean. But, I like the ocean while I'm on a boat or a platform. I don't go in the water. There are things in there that might think I taste good. So, keep that in mind the next time you go swimming at the beach. You don't own it. The sea creatures do. Most of the time they leave you alone. But, when they don't, refrain from crying out for justice. In the sea, there is none.

Monday, July 9, 2012

Why is Chris Rock Angry?

I had to wait and ruminate on the July 4th tweet by legendary comedian Chris Rock. It went like this:

"Happy white peoples independence day the slaves weren't free but I'm sure they enjoyed fireworks."
Let's see...slavery was abolished after nearly six-hundred thousand white folks killed each other in some little spat called the Civil War that ended in 1865. Now, I'm not that great in math, but that was almost 150 years ago. However, it took almost another century before the black man in America began to be treated as a true citizen of this country. And, I say it 'began', I didn't say it automatically got better. But here we are in 2012 and we have a man of black heritage in the White House. We have many black Congressmen and Senators. Thurgood Marshall was the first black Supreme Court Justice and assumed the role in 1967. At present, Clarence Thomas is a black man and a Supreme Court Justice.
I'm really at a loss as to why Mr. Rock is so angry with the white race in our society. Maybe it's because he got beat up by snooty, upper class white kids in school when he was attending James Madison in New York. I got beat up by a bunch of white kids while I was going to school, and I'm white. Chris Rock's grandfather was a preacher. His father was a truck driver and his mother was a teacher of handicapped children. He comes from people who knew the value of family and set their sights on being decent, productive members of society. It seems to me...apart from the bullying at school...that America has been very kind to Mr. Rock. It is reported that his net worth is around $70 million dollars. Many 'white' people attend his comedy routines and have paid to see his movies. He lives a lavish lifestyle, wearing the best clothes, driving fine cars, eating expensive food, and enjoys all the perks of being a celebrity. So, what does he have to be angry about? My net worth is about $100,000.00. But I don't diss the black population of this country because of it. I don't hate the white boys who punched me out in school. In fact, I'm not angry at anybody on this planet about anything. If there was any way to bring those folks back to life that were slave owners around the time of the Revolutionary War, then I would have no problem with Mr. Rock giving them a piece of his mind. But I know of nobody in this country that has legal ownership of another human being. What Mr. Rock needs to understand is that he has a great figure to look up to and emulate...but he won't. He would rather be an angry man and spout off his racist rhetoric because it seems to make him look like a big man when he sees himself in the mirror. Chris Rock should read the "I Have A Dream" speech, and probably memorize it. Martin Luther King said some strange things in that speech that I think Chris Rock has no clue about. One of them is as follows:
"The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone." (And this was 1963)
We cannot walk alone. MLK espousing racial tolerance and even racial bonding to keep secure every man's freedom. What Mr. Rock needs to understand, as MLK did, is not every white household is against the black man. The 'N' word was never ever mentioned in my house while I was growing up. My brother and I were taught to look at people's hearts, not their skin. My parents didn't have a racist bone in their body. And there are many many more where we came from. So, when someone who has a national stage, like Chris Rock, makes  a blanket statement such as that; it hurts those of us who would stand with all black Americans to see to it their rights were protected. The other thing that Mr. Rock needs to understand is that the black man wouldn't be anywhere near where he is today without the help of the white man. MLK also said this in that famous, 1963 speech:
"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
By my estimation, that portion of his dream is yet to be realized, but nobody can deny that it is ever closer today than anyone could have imagined in 1963. His dream of the black man being able to stay in a hotel of his choosing and eat in a restaurant without being told it was for white's only has been realized in totality. The opportunities for the black man are far better today than ever before in our history. It's okay to be angry, for anger keeps the wheels of justice and equality turning. But that anger must be focused like a laser and not shot out into the atmosphere like a shotgun spraying in all directions and hitting the innocent as well as the guilty.
Martin Luther King was the man of the hour during the civil rights movement. He knew how to work the system, even when the system was equipped and designed to drown him out. His legacy is a shining example to all black Americans how to effect change and do it in such a way that even your antagonists respect you for it. This Chris Rock is totally ignorant of. As far as I'm concerned he should merely say 'Thank you, America; for the opportunity afforded me. I'm grateful for having been born in the greatest country the world has ever known. Even with all her warts, she is still my home, and I will celebrate her birth with my fellow citizens, for it matters not if you are black, white, asian, or hispanic....because on this day we are all Americans. And we are proud to be a part of this great expirement. We still have work to do, but we can do it together as one." What would be wrong with that? Not a damn thing.

Friday, July 6, 2012

Romney's Getting Creamed

I wonder, as I watch the campaign for President unfold, if Mitt Romney realizes he's in the biggest fight of his life. This campaign reminds me of 1974's Rumble in the Jungle between Ali and George Foreman. The only problem with the Rope A Dope strategy here is I don't know if Obama is going to 'punch himself out' like Foreman did. As in the famous fight, Romney is up against the ropes while Obama attacks and attacks and attacks. All Romney seems to be doing is reacting to the punches.

Bain Capital, offshore accounts, outsourcing jobs to other countries, being filthy rich at the expense of others, flip flopping here and flip flopping there are the main thrusts of Obama's punches. In the meantime, Romney jabs every now and then just so the referee (us, the voters) doesn't call the fight on a Technical Knockout. So far, Obama has been all offense and Romney has been all defense. If this continues for much longer, and I mean only a few more weeks, Romney may as well concede this election.

In my estimation, the man appears too soft. I also believe he has made a critical error to believe he can take his core campaign team from a State level election to a Nationwide level election. I'm no expert in this field, but it seems to me a Statewide election is minor league compared to a Nationwide one. There are too many traps, pitfalls, and misinformation flying around and being set up to believe one doesn't need national election type experience on your team. And, I mean a lot of it.

Romney's biggest failure so far was to not seize on the Supreme Court's decision on the health care bill. He came out flat and his team seemed to be discombobulated and not on the same page about what to do. That should have been figured out months ago. He was given a perfect opportunity to come off the ropes swinging like a madman but actually looked more like a creampuff. I still don't know where the man truly stands on it. Now, for the last week, he's been on vacation. Vacation? Romney acts as if he's a shoe in and he is anything but that.

The Bain Capital attacks seem to be hurting him, and yet he merely whimpers in response. Obama on the other hand has come out for gay marriage and most probably has garnered the majority of their votes. Then, he basically gives amnesty to illegal aliens while his justice department does all it can to make sure the non-citizens have every opportunity to vote, thus garnering most of those. The female voters aren't cozying up to Romney either. He needs to understand that the white male vote in this country isn't going to get him a job in the White House.

The offshore accounts being held up in a negative way by the Obama camp is hypocritical, but that's politics. Obama has no problem with his celebrity hangers-on being stinking rich, who most likely have their own offshore accounts. He only has a problem with me, you and Romney being rich. Yet, it is a tactic that works among those who believe in the redistribution of wealth and are jealous of the 'haves'.

While I'm watching this fight I don't understand what Romney is doing. It's round five and he's still up against the ropes, covering his face, protecting his midsection, letting Obama wail away at him with furious abandon while he absorbs the beating. The only problem for Romney is that this is not really a physical fight. Obama isn't going to grow tired from all the punches he's thrown. This is a mental toughness fight. This is a fight of intelligence and substance. This is a fight where you have to swing and swing and swing.

There is more than enough material to fight back with. Solyndra is one. The Keystone Pipeline is another. The almost near death penalty on energy production in the Gulf of Mexico. The latest jobs report. Hell, slam him on not taking any responsibility for anything except the health care law over the last three and a half years. Ronald Reagan would be having a field day with this amateur by now. I can just hear him. "Well, (with a nod of the head), I wonder if Obama's children were someone else's fault." The man doesn't take ownership of anything. In a fight, you have to find your opponent's weaknesses and vulnerabilities. What Romney and his team are not doing is fighting back with a well scripted game plan on how to attack those weaknesses.

Right now, Barak Obama looks like the stronger man, the stronger candidate with the stronger will to win. Romney seems to think the American voter is smart enough to tell who the best man is. He is dead wrong. The American voter wants to be TOLD who the best man is. The American voter wants to be SHOWN who the best man is. The American voter wants to be CONVINCED who the best man is. Right now, Obama is the one doing all the punching; and Romney is doing all the absorbing. If this keeps up, this race will have been over long before November.