No Apology Necessary : Van Jones

Well. What can be said about an administration that would put a man like "Van" Jones in charge of anything? You may not have heard about Van Jones if you are getting your news from ABC, CBS, NBC or the NY Times or the Washington Post.

Hello. Dying Old Media? Yeah, BTW..... it's news when the guy who is supposed to be spearheading the creation of jobs in our "new" economy does any of the following:

• Admits to being a communist


• Declares that "white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color communities"


• Demands an investigation into what the Bush Administration may have done that “deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”


• Broadcasts that "only suburban white kids’ shoot up schools"


• Demonstrates in the street for a cop-killer


• Compares a sitting president to a "crackhead licking a crack pipe"

Van Jones has apologized twice so far for making these comments. Why is he apologizing? The Obama administration has yet to unload this character (who hasn't created a single green job yet) and took to weakly defending him this week.

I don't need an apology from this man. The person doing the vetting at The White House should be apologizing (unless this is exactly the sort of person that Barack Obama wants in his administration). My impression is that this is exactly the sort of man Barack Obama wants in his administration.

Barack has had many documented connections to communism and communists, dating back to at least 1996. In eight months he has nationalized the banking and automotive industries less than six months after taking office. Who can deny what is happening in our country?

Currently, the federal government is in the process of trying to nationalize one sixth of what remains of our economy, the health care industry.Why should it surprise anyone that an avowed radical communist should be put in charge of "green job creation"? Van Jones's book, "The Green Collar Economy" suggests that poverty and the economic crisis can be solved by investment in a green economy.

The creation of "family-supporting, career-track job that directly contributes to preserving or enhancing environmental quality,” will be the basis for this "green collar" workforce. This sounds impressive if you don't think about it too hard.

The fundamental problem that I have with this vision is twofold. One, the technology does not yet exist to profitably transform our economy into a "green" workforce. For those of you who don't get it yet, consider that our banking system is bankrupt, unstable at best and not loaning any money. The banking system is currently propped up by our Federal government.

Therefore (Two), the money to create all of these "green" jobs will be leeched from those who haven't lost their jobs yet in the form of massive taxation and spending by the Federal (and perhaps state and local) governments. We are already in debt to the tune of ten trillion dollars (and this is before we extend health care to everybody in the country). Incidentally, this is the administration that recently got its figures wrong by a full twenty percent (two trillion dollars) without so much as an "oops, my bad" last week.

It should be clear that what is going on here is a massive redistribution of wealth via taxation. The IRS will be empowered and expanded to make sure your income is redistributed. For you lefties out there this is the definition of communism.

I hope nobody gets too bent out of shape by Van Jones. Of course he is a communist, racist America-hater. Of course. We elected a shady sleazy-ass Chicago politician with friends like Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko. Who is honestly surprised that he would bring a man like Van Jones into the White House? I don't need an apology from any of these people.

An apology for those of you who dumbasses who voted for Obama will be entertained.

A final note for those of you who want to do some more research on the matter can find a particularly interesting take on "Obama's Friends".

Pop Goes The "King of Pop"

Hero worship in our culture knows no bounds. What a tragic figure was one Michael Jackson, an American star from a very young age who went through several increasingly bizarre and very public changes. Why does the conduct of a mega-star person in their private life not affect how they are publicly perceived?

Michael Jackson was, by all accounts, a pedophile. For those of you in denial about it, please explain (to yourself) why he had a warning system installed so that he could be made aware of people approaching his bedroom. He acknowledged in an 2003 interview that he liked to share his bed with children. No "normal" (read:not a pedophile) adult male would think it was OK to share their bed with children who were not their own. period. This behavior suggests that this was a compulsion he could not control because anyone other than a pedophile would stop this type of "innocent" behavior after paying $15-23M dollars to settle a lawsuit about child molestation.

Let's recap about Michael:

• Pedophile
• Surgical self-disfigurement
• Self-loathing
• Bizarre narcissism
• Drug addict

Now with all of these qualities, why should the fact that he was an original and gifted musician make these OK?

Michael was so addicted to drugs, he was taking anaesthesia to sleep. What "normal" (read: not a drug-addict) person takes sedatives to sleep? I am sure there are legions of people to make excuses for Michael. In 2007 a pharmacy filed a lawsuit against him for not paying his bill totalling $101,926.66. Jackson was eating one meal a day, his hips, thighs and shoulders were riddled with needle wounds that were likely the result of narcotic painkillers. The only thing in his stomach were partially digested pills.

Michael Jackson was an adult. His handlers don't have any responsibility for keeping him alive. We are responsible for the choices we make, yet Michael won't be in the ground long before his family files a rainbow of lawsuits against a legion of targets. Where was his family when he was swirling the drain? Have they no shame? If he was anything other than a meal ticket to them, perhaps they might feel some responsibility for how Michael ended up.

Nevertheless, Michael Jackson is a perfect example of a tragic life, not a tragic death. He spent his money frivolously, engaged in cosmetic surgery frivolously. His death was not a "tragedy". It was completely predictable. This man had so little regard for his children that he dangled poor "blanket" off a balcony railing for the paparazzi.

This freak of humanity pursued material belongings and earthly pleasures as a way of life. Remember the hyperbaric sleeping chamber and the chimp? The only people surprised by how Michael Jackson ended were the ones deluding themselves about what kind of person he was.

This said, what is wrong with our culture that this kind of person should be celebrated, even worshipped? Soon Michael Jackson will be in the ground, and I can't wait to move on. I am sure that bizarre drug addicted pedophiles die every day somewhere on Earth, but I cannot understand why a bizarre drug-addicted talented pedophile should warrant a parade of mourning. Our culture is sick. I hope that we can heal ourselves, but it starts with being honest with ourselves.

Michael Jackson was dead long ago. He can now only offer humanity a reminder that fame and money mean nothing. Loving our loved ones and giving of ourselves in the form of time or treasure are the only pursuits worth pursuing.

Leave it to Beaver

There is a horrible dichotomy to being a man and trying to protect your children from the sexualization of everything in our society. I can remember when the most overt sexual exposure I had in my face at nine years old was the Playboy magazines that were stacked neatly in my local barber shop. I did not muster up the courage to open one up until I was a cocky thirteen year old (Sorry).

These days, our children are exposed to every sexual act imaginable before they are of age.

I'm a guy. I have checked out MILFs and (of age) teens in my time, I will admit. I don't do these things around my wife or daughters. I don't turn my head even if she's stacked. I don't ogle women. In my era (I'm only 35) women didn't run around with their underwear (skimpy ass underwear) hanging out, either. How is a man supposed to raise his children (yes boys too) to be chaste in the USA today? We live in a highly sexualized society. Children are sexualized too. Milkshakes are bringing boys to the yard all over these United States.

A report by the American Psychological Association reports that:

"The proliferation of sexualized images of girls and young women in advertising, merchandising and media is harming girls' self-image and healthy development."

Duh!

Perhaps more revealing and certainly sadder yet is the press release related to this same report indicating that: "sexualization of girls is linked to common mental health problems in girls, eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression"

The details of this report are stark, bleak and very real for those of us who feel compelled to take the challenge of raising mentally healthy boys and girls. Too often is the focus solely upon girls and societal attempts to sexually objectify them. Almost nonexistent are the affects of psychological damage upon young growing men whose perceptions are manipulated until their sisters, mothers and female classmates become whores.

We have been endlessly told of the importance of teaching children to put condoms on bananas in the name of educating about sex (and the younger the better), but as Michelle Malkin points out... Why isn't this same argument used to support gun safety? We should be teaching children the same basic information about how guns work to "promote safety" just like we desire to give "age appropriate" sexual education for Kindergartners. A reasonable person might even assume from this that the sexualization of our young children is a priority to some in this country.

Children are the victims here. A increasingly common high school graduation gift for girls from their parents is breast augmentation even though breast implant patients are twice as likely to die of brain cancer, three times more likely to die of lung cancer and four to five times more likely to die of suicide than other plastic surgery patients of the same age.

Who would give their children such a "gift"? ABC News reports on a story under their "Beauty and Fashion Secrets" section of their website entitled, "Teen Trend : Breast Enhancement No Big Deal" and subtitled, "Cosmetic Surgery Offers A Quick Fix For Teenage Self Esteem Issues". This ABC "article" from only one month ago reports that girls can "not only boost their cup size, but their confidence".

I have personally been telling my children to raise their confidence through physical activity, competition in the classroom as well as in sports and by engaging in appropriate public speaking. How does one tell a girl to be smart and then sexy will come at the appropriate time in her life when she is currently judged by to what degree men and boys want to have sex with her (at fourteen)?

Sexualization has entered into every segment and layer of our society. Burger commercials have been sexual in nature when starlets known best for the night-vision recordings of sex romps were released on the Internet are seen stuffing messy burgers into their mouths. A new low (Death Valley low) for you Californians! has been achieved in advertising. Introducing the "BK Super Seven Incher (It'll Blow Your Mind Away)"!

The Burger King corporation is truly disgusting and if any of you are capable of shame you should be steeped in it. I have rarely eaten their revolting products in the past, so letting them know that I will now never set foot in one of their establishments has little potential for effect. I would hope that they can perceive the depth of my loathing by letting them know I would rather eat at Arby's than support pornographic marketing of this nature.

Additionally I would like to add:

HAVE IT YOUR WAY® you nauseating, repellent, sleazy, reprehensible scumbags at Burger King!

The media in the United States dove right into the cesspool of sexualized culture. On NBC this week, (during a morning show from a Starbucks in South Beach Florida, no less) the male anchors are chuckling all about the "pearl necklace" they wore during high school. MSNBC takes the proverbial cake regarding disgusting sexual references disguised as news. While putting down American's right to assemble to protest what they perceive as "unfair taxation", David Schuster uses the terms "teabagging", "toothless", "going nuts", "full-throated", tongue-lashing", "licking" and such.

As if to achieve new lows, just this week an ad campaign that featured "Hot Threeway Action" in order to sell jeans was pulled, but not until it had achieved its desired effect. Everyone was talking about Calvin Klein's risque ad. Congratulations you old whore, Calvin!

I would never subject anyone to advertising of this nature, much less their children. Television has followed a decades-long path into degradation. Desperate Housewives has to compete with Sex and the City so they leak footage of a sex scene onto YouTube. Janet Jackson shows her tit to the largest TV audience of the year. Paris Hilton achieves insta-celebrity for homemade porn. We have gone beyond the boundaries of indecency. Sexual content and objectification are the norm now as little girls want to be sluts and sluts want to be little girls.

A television program about a innocent young boy trying to grow up in a small town could never interest America now unless his mom was having lesbian sex with a neighbor, boffing one of his school chums or secretly going to stripper classes after dropping the kids off at school.

Sadly, today you could still name the show Leave It To Beaver. (I feel like I know you well enough to share this little joke with you.) Some say the true measure of a society is the quality and nature of its art. I personally believe that the measure of society is the level of protection afforded its children. The truly inappropriate joke is the seriously advanced state of decay of our morality.

Let me 'splain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

Sometimes you just have to give it up to those who can sum it all up in a few words. Well done. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Subsidizing Failure : Die GM!

Under the system formerly known as Capitalism, companies were allowed to go under when they failed to meet the needs of the marketplace. When GM and the other American automakers embarked upon the road of producing inferior products while allowing the powerful and politically connected unions to break their backs these companies should have been shed like so many dead cells.

An example of Capitalism I use to explain to my children is the humble granola bar factory. If a granola bar factory can produce a better tasting product for cheaper than their rival then why would anyone have use for an overpriced granola bar tasting of sawdust? Such a factory would surely shut down in a free market. Decades of mismanagement has lead GM and the other automakers down this road. The axiom of capitalism is "let the market decide". By propping up the American car makers who have squandered their market share, we encourage irresponsible corporate behavior. American car manufacturers have lost to their (largely Japanese and Korean) counterparts. The market has spoken. Instead of investing in quality products that the market wants, American automakers continued to crank out inferior inventory that is not moving.

The Obama administration has propped up General Motors and is glad to do so. Who else could pull off ousting the president of GM all the while blustering that the US government has "no interest in running GM"? Obama and his thugs could not wait to get their hands on GM and has graciously announced that the federal government is backing the warranties of GM products. This is fantastic. We are going to use tax dollars to guarantee the pieces of shit that the failed American automakers have produced in their dying years. Anyone else feel as if this is perhaps not the smartest investment? Ostensibly this is to give consumers confidence in GM product warranties so consumers will buy GM products. Hello? Consumers are confident about the Hondas and Toyotas they purchase. Government backing of a crappy American product with tax dollars will inspire no one.

I had some personal experience with this when my family was shopping for our first new automobile purchase four years ago. We very much wanted to buy American, and spent quite a bit of time researching the best minivan for our family. It became quickly apparent that there were no minivan products with a five-star safety rating in both front and side impact manufactured in America. Allow me to extend a personal thank you to GM for making me choose between my family's safety and our patriotism.

In the case of Chrysler, the US government has decided that a merger with Fiat is just the thing to bring around this failed automaker and has made this merger (or an alternate plan for viability) the condition for further government aid. This is the pattern of the Obama administration. The government gets more power and the taxpayer gets less of their paycheck to make it happen. In an interview with "Face the Nation", Obama expressed his administration's belief that the U.S. can have a successful auto industry. One that is going to emerge "much more lean, mean and competitive than it currently is" Does anyone else see a contrast between what is being said and what is happening? On what planet does the government who is nationalizing whole industries (i.e. banking and auto) increase competition?

In less than three months, the Obama administration has bloated the United States government's role almost beyond recognition. And the U.S. government is going to assist the automakers to become "lean and mean"? Really? Really? Bloated government agencies intervening in the manufacturing sector of our economy is going to result in a leaner and more competitive industry? How?

Already, the Obama administration has made it clear that they will use this opportunity to ensure that the automakers produce the cars that the government (not the market) wants them to produce while eliminating profitable automotive products that are not in line with the leftist agenda. Eleven of the twenty most profitable products GM sells are the "pickups and SUVs" which GM has publicly apologized for producing. The two best selling vehicles in the U.S. are the Ford F-Series and the Chevy Silverado.

Our federal lawmakers want to subsidize the Chevy Volt (ten years too late to market) with a $7500 tax rebate. To be fair, the government was handing out tax breaks for SUVs not too long ago, but the government has no business regulating the free market. Government has proven itself competent at waste, fraud and mismanagement of funds.

A significant portion of the blame for the mortgage meltdown was a direct result of the U.S. government telling the banks to loan money to unqualified applicants and then "guaranteeing" these crappy loans with tax dollars. As a final straw, the bankrupt automakers are now promising to make the auto payments of those individuals who lose their jobs "through no fault of their own". How are these bankrupt organizations going to make these auto payments? Ahh yes, by paying for people's new cars with tax dollars.

I am driving a 1998 compact with over one hundred thousand miles on it, but I am going to subsidize new car purchases for Americans that would otherwise be unable to purchase a new car. When their employers take advantage of the economic downturn to shed the "dead cells" from their workforce, these incompetent consumers will reach into my pocket to pay for their new cars that they never should have purchased. By preventing the free market from functioning the way it should, I can proudly subsidize their family's meals, transportation and housing all on the federal teat.

American automakers should go the way of American television manufacturers, American buggy whip manufacturers and the newspaper. But thanks for the apology.

rage against the (communist) machine

Rage over the AIG bonuses is all the rage. AIG employees are receiving death threats, but it seems to me that this anger is misplaced. Who specifically included a provision in that allowed huge executive bonuses for companies which were bailed out on the taxpayer dime? Who should be held accountable for the AIG mess? Who keeps tinkering with capitalism and the free market? You know the answer: our Federal government.

Why was AIG deemed "too big to fail"? AIG should have been allowed to fail. I know that if my business were to go under due to management failures, no one would be rescuing me. Where is the outrage against our government paying out our hard-earned money giving billions of our tax dollars to the very people who caused the meltdown? The AIG bonuses have been receiving a lot of attention. A little bonus money is not the issue here. It has been pointed out (ad nauseum) that the $173 million dollars in bonus money paid to AIG executives is only .09 percent of the cash AIG received in the four (yes, four) bailouts the government has poured into the firm.

Washington has demonstrated plenty of phony outrage over the "excessive" bonuses the AIG executives have received. Why? The government explicitly allowed these bonuses. Why don the mask of mock surprise now? What happened to the other 99.9% of the money the taxpayers forked out to AIG? We propped up foreign banks to the tune of 52 billion dollars. Ouch. For those of you that would offer that this was necessary for the global economy, stuff it. Stuff it hard. Stuff it deep. On what planet would British, French or German firms reach into their pockets to bail out America?

Remember the $700 billion dollars we forked out over the last six months? We were told that we had to "act now" to unfreeze the credit markets by buying up troubled assets. What did the government do with our money? They didn't buy up troubled assets and the credit markets are still frozen. Congress acted (after a brief delay Republicans fell right in line) and we forked out the better part of a Trillion dollars so we would avoid a depression. TARP failed. What did we get for our investment? What about the trillion dollars we spent on the "stimulus bill"? What did we get for that investment?

Geithner (the tax avoider running our treasury) now wants "sweeping powers" to run non-banks the way the government has the power to run troubled banks. Geithner wants "speedy action" on these new sweeping powers. If I recall correctly, this was the guy that was billed as the only one who understands TARP.

Let us not forget that Geithner was the one who pulled the original AIG bailout together last year as the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Let us not forget Geithner's tax problems weren't "honest mistakes". He knowingly avoided paying his taxes for four years after receiving extra money from his employer to pay them, then signed a legal document stating that he would use this money to pay these taxes and pocketed the money instead. He paid the $34,000 after his appointment by President Obama and then, without blushing, blamed this fiasco on Turbo Tax!

The US government has no business deciding which of our nation's private firms need to be seized. This is underscored by the decision-making abilities of the administration who put a tax cheat in charge of our nation's financial system. All the government needs now is the ability to seize private businesses. We are being told again that we have to "act now" to avoid further financial meltdown. Are we paying attention? This is the third time we have been fed this line in six months to push legislation through congress.

This is communism. For those of you Che lovers who may be confounded by this concept, please look up the term. When republican Donald Manzullo of Illinois complained, "You're talking about seizing private property." and proceeded to inform Geithner that the concept (at least in the United States) was "radical", Geithner responded, "It's not radical...".

No branch of government or government entity needs additional sweeping powers to "correct the market". Let free enterprise work. If allowed to correct itself, the market will correct itself.

the (real) fairness doctrine : capitalism

Rest In Peace, old media. The Los Angeles Times reported this weekend that Conservative Talk Radio is failing in California as evidenced by the demise of some local talk show radio programs. More responsible reporting from the Times.... not.

All the while rubbing their ink-stained hands with glee, the Times does mention that lack of advertising budget is causing some of these programs to fail... This is not a rejection of conservatism fellas... its the free market working.

Inasmuch as the Times has to accept when it is time to take handouts from foreign nationals to stay afloat, or sell their corporate jet in order to get by, the radio market in California for Conservative talk show hosts has tightened. The weaker programs die off to make way for stronger of the herd.

The Times has declared this as a rejection of Conservatism. Ha. I think not.

To the Times corporation: look to your own. When you have to sell your corporate headquarters and get it leased back to yourself, perhaps it is time to look to your own. People do not go to your publication anymore to get the news about our world. For some real reporting, hear this: your circulation is down (and it can't get up). The LA Times has lost 8% of its circulation in the last six months.

How sad that even in its death throes, the Times cannot stop flailing about. Perhaps if they just reported the news, there wouldn't be a wholesale rejection of your product. I know that's a hard pill to swallow for die hard liberals who were used to making stuff up or reading stuff that was made up. I know. I know. There, there now.

The demise of your paper wasn't orchestrated by anyone but yourselves. For all of you socialists at the Times, this is how it works; you have a shitty product and the free market has rejected your shitty product. The same could be said of the conservative talk shows in California. That is OK. That, (once again) is called capitalism. Let's not pretend that this is a trend of wholesale rejection of conservatism any more than your paper wasting away is a wholesale rejection of your shopworn liberalism.

Rest in peace, old media. Have some dignity and die reporting the news. I guess there is something to be said for dying in a manner in which you lived. I guess there is something to be said for not going quietly into the night.

Dylan Thomas:

Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the
light.

era of entitlement : handouts for all

What does fiscal responsibility mean anyhow? To the common man, I believe this often uttered phrase means, "to live within one's means". To live within one's means, one spends less than one earns. This is the most simple of definitions, but often the simplest definitions are best.

President Obama is convening a "Fiscal Responsibility Summit" in Washington, D.C. immediately after passing the most pork-laden and largest spending legislation known in the history of mankind.

Never let it be said that our nation's leader lacks chutzpah. (Remember that the classic definition of chutzpah is the person who murders their parents and then pleads for mercy from the judge because he is an orphan.) Fiscal responsibility, to some, is a phrase which gets trotted out at a whim to point out what others should be doing to ensure economic responsibility in others and never mind what I am doing, mind your own business.

The antithesis of fiscal responsibility is the handout. handouts hurt everyone.

Obama has become a great handout champion. At his town hall meeting in an attempt to drum up support for his "porkulus" bill, Obama promised to do everything he could for Henrietta Hughes. Henrietta was homeless and needed a house and a small car. Google Henrietta Hughes for the latest as I cannot keep up with this woman's stories.

Part of the Obama administration's $75 billion dollar tax relief plan includes paying off some people's mortgages. Amazingly, read the unbiased story from MSNBC who explains why this is a good deal. People who did not read their loan agreement, bought new cars, bought more house than they could afford, people who should not have bought homes in the first place are going to get their mortgage assistance from the government. My personal favorite story is the guy who was prequalified to buy a $1.5 Million dollar condo on $20,000 per year income.

Bailing out the bankers last year was a huge mistake. If you don't think so yet, please read the story of Northwestern Bank (recipient of $1.6 Billion dollars of federal bailout money) who flew hundreds of employees and guests to LA to attend a golf tournament sponsored by the bank. The bank hired Chicago, Earth Wind and Fire and Sheryl Crowe. Not bad.

We live in the era of the handout. Who doesn't have their hand out nowadays, anyway? I work three jobs to support my family and saved for years to purchase a home, so not me. Think this entitlement concept has gotten out of hand?

• The porn industry is petitioning for a federal handout
  
• North Korea is jockeying for a handout from the Obama administration
  
• The city of Houston, Texas has proposed a program to pay off the credit card debt for those seeking to borrow a home. (This caused national outrage to the point that they replaced the original story with the backpedal story)

To be fair, President George W. Bush was a decent enough man, but lacked conservative values. Unlike his predecessor, W. was capable of keeping sluts out of the oval office and avoided getting handjo... wait... we are talking about handouts. Who in their right-leaning conservative mind would have signed into law the Family Leave Act or that boondoggle prescription drug bill?

President Obama, however, has ushered in a new era of the fully-entitled handout. Where does this all end?

I can tell you for certain who's pocket it is going to come out of.

fiddling and diddling as America burns

There are so many problems with the so-called stimulus bill it is pathetic. In addition to being laden with more pork than a McDonald's Mc-Rib sandwich the size of Kentucky, the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" has (among other pet projects) provisions for the following that are sure to get America and Americans back on their feet:

2.8 billion dollars for global warming alarmists

650 million dollars for digital TV converter box coupons

300 million dollars for electric cars for government officials (including golf carts)

150 million dollars to pretty up the Smithsonian buildings

400 million dollars for anti-smoking programs and sexually transmitted disease prevention

30 million dollars to protect the habitat of a salt marsh field mouse (in San Francisco)

How befitting that congress should jam this down our collective throats on Friday the 13th? The house passed Obama's stinker even after promising to make it available in an "electronically searchable format" 48 hours before voting on it. Someone in congress had to appreciate the irony of not being able to even read this stinking mass before they voted on it, and on the most unluckiest of all days. Not one republican supported the measure in the house of representatives. Not one republican supported the bill in my house, either, but it is destined to become law.

There is a often-repeated historical tale of Nero the Roman emperor playing the fiddle as Rome burned. This is not held to be historically accurate as the fiddle, supposedly, was created many hundreds of years after the fire. That said, the image of an emperor "playing the fiddle as Rome burns" is a powerful description of those in power having little regard for the real suffering of their constituents.

In order to swallow this analogy, one has to picture Obama as an emperor. OK.

Nero was truly an early liberal opportunist, as he built a 100-300 acre palace on the ground peppered in the ash of his people and their homes. Taking advantage of a tragedy is the true earmark (wink wink) of the modern liberal opportunist too. In the end, arson or accident does not matter to the fire's victims. They're gone. The arsonists who created this particular fiscal fire that rages in the American homeland were hardcore leftists in the Carter administration who forced banks to give home loans to unworthy Americans.

That's right, unworthy. Unworthy means, (liberals: this is for you!) not deserving. That's right. Liberals: think about this. Some Americans don't deserve to buy a home. Even though owning a home is the American dream, not everyone deserves to own one. Here's the kicker, liberals: the criteria for owning a home has nothing to do with what color your skin is or where your pappy is from. The Americans who don't deserve a home loan are those who cannot afford to pay back the loans! If this means that a bank in a predominately hispanic or black neighborhood can't give out loans to most of the hispanics or blacks who apply for a loan at their bank, this is not racist, it is common sense, and fiscally responsible behavior.

Even though we know who set this particular modern fire, let's put that aside and focus on the rape of the taxpayer after the fire. At least one-tenth of Rome was burned, by historical accounts. Nero did open his palaces to those who were homeless (free housing) and provided food to those who would starve (welfare) while he built a new palace on the burned areas (pork project) while blaming the Christians for the "arson" (misdirection and scapegoating of the enemies of the state). There was a "report" of Nero having set the fire himself. As a result, Nero burned Christians, crucified them, or sent them to be thrown to the dogs, according to Tacitus,

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted
the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called
Christians by the populace"

Nero wanted a new palace built in the center of Rome and took advantage of the fire to fulfill his pet project at the expense of the Roman people. He raised taxes to fund his pork project. Our modern eco-friendly liberals would applaud his enterprising and green solution for renewable energy. Rather than harnessing messy fossil fuels or economically unfeasible and unproven wind or solar power, Tacitus again describes Nero's treatment of the Christians,

"Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

Well done. No, literally. those Christians were well-done!

Nothing provides soft white reading light like a Christian!

Hey diddle diddle! If only Obama was just playing the fiddle while America burned. Perhaps my liberal colleagues with a brain would offer here a comment about those who go shoe shopping during natural disasters or those who read books to children during terrorist attacks on our country.

Not to be outdone by inappropriate behavior during disasters (conservatives, I kid!), liberals use this "historic opportunity" (they love this phrase) to fund and enrich every liberal legislative pork and bbq-sauce wet-dream project ever known to Nancy Pelosi and her gang of partisan thugs. A $30 million dollar earmark for salt marsh mouse habitat restoration and golf carts for government officials is reprehensible. Promising people a chance to see and read the bill before it goes to vote and then immediately forcing the vote is un-American. Labelling this legislation the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" is downright disgusting. (Note: I didn't say "surprising").

Nero is perhaps best known for being his disgusting and depraved sexual proclivities, and I am not above making this kind of comparison to the modern emperors in our government (even since Bill Clinton left office.) However, I find it important to note:

The legend that Nero "fiddled" while Rome burned began many centuries after Nero's time and is referring to how Nero fiddled away his time on frivololity. As a noun, "fiddle" came to refer to a violin (not invented for many centuries after the great fire of Rome), but as a verb, "fiddle" originally meant to avoid one's responsibilities, or to commit fraud. Befitting?

The Romans were free of Nero when he committed suicide at age 31. When will we be free of our oppressive emperors? After the great fire of Rome, the plight of the Christians did not matter to those who were now ash buried under Nero's shining new temple. Perhaps we will be so to those who inherit America after it is ravaged by the great fiscal fire of 2009 AD.

God have mercy on us all. And the salt marsh harvest mouse, too.

state-sponsored child rape

Ah. Nothing like enlightenment. The grand mufti of Saudi Arabia (pictured at left) has publicly promoted government-sanctioned child rape and enslavement? What a guy. This, my internet audience, is spiritual leadership.

Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh (Saudi Arabia's top cleric and grand muff) says... "A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her."

Really Sheik? Really? Unfair to her? Really? Some might say somewhat snarkily that every ten-year old girl dreams of the day she will be wedded to and bedded by an old goat like you, Sheik. Have no fear, child protectors! When "marriage" (I mean come on) happens to an eight year old girl, an enlightened society will insist that a forty-seven year old "husband" sign an agreement not to rape her before she is physically able to be raped.

...Virginia may be for lovers, but Saudi Arabia is apparently for pedophiles.......

Some might say these guys are living in the stone age, but I hesitate to judge their society for this type of thing. Isn't it ethnocentric of me to call this type of edict barbaric? I guess we would hear from moderate muslims of the world speak out against this if it were wrong or offended them. I'll make sure to post links to the justifiable outrage of the moderate muslim world leadership as soon as word is in about their reactions to this (and after they announce to the rest of the world who they are and why they have kept quiet for so long). I am also waiting to report for the outcry and outrage from our ever-vigilent child protectors, the liberal. Let's hear from the Polanskyites in Hollywood about this. When is the we americans lack tolerance and understanding drama coming about this one? I can see it now. We can call the picture, "Not Without My Child-Whore"

(I'm back... I threw up in my mouth a little bit and had to swallow... no literally... I am playing at being cavalier about this subject but it actually just made me physically ill)

On the positive side, I guess this will help out with recruiting. My understanding is that many virgins (I believe the exact count is specified) are available in heaven for the successful extremist, but why should one have to wait?

Some might throw their show at this, but this just seems kind of "wrong". Is it still OK to believe in "wrong"? I am interested in some feedback on this. I guess I will have to become more "tolerant" and adjust my world view to accomodate our stalwart compadres the Saudis.

All right, government sponsored child rape and pedophilia is in, but cracking open children's skulls to get access to their brains for dining is still out! (prohibition includes raw and cooked children's brains). I mean it. I am drawing a firm line in the swirling sand dune on this one. We have to have some standards. Don't we?

Mean What You Say, Even if You Must Be Mean

The language we use helps us cope with the harsh realities we have trouble facing. Euphamisms obfuscate and misdirect. What happened to pain old stark speech?

George Carlin did a routine about how the relatively simple and straightforward term, "shellshock" became watered down over time to the inscrutable "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder". He argued that when it was called "shellshock" everybody know that the soldier had, over time, gone into shock by the explosions raining down around them.

Some have referred to this process as the "pussification" of our language. For those of you still paying attention, our official spoken and written language is still English.

So important are the words we choose and yet, who decides what the words mean? If I hurl the wrong expletive during the commission of a routine beating I am administering to some lout, the act has now been transformed from an old fashioned ass-wuppin' into a HATE CRIME.

George Orwell's works were rife with this theme. In his works, thought was controlled by controlling language. If there were no words to express a crime, the existence of crime would be controlled. 1984 and Animal Farm should be required reading for all.

Mean what you say, even if you have to be mean.

when is it time to push our precious snowflakes out of the nest?

Answer:

After they are adults. When it doesn't happen, it can be understandable in certain circumstances..... to a point.

Parenting and child health has some interesting things to say about these relationships. Another article that introduced me to two new terms; "kiddults" and "adultescents" both specifically refer to this phenomenon. An Australian documentary series, The Nest refers to a guy who lives at home to maintain a certain lifestyle. His dad was interviewed for the show ironing his son's shirts.

What would you say to the father of the son who purchased (or leased) a luxury car while living at home? Let's assume the car was all about the status. What would you say to a live at home son who asked his dad to pay for an expensive wedding ring for his fiancee? What would you say to a dad who paid for the ring?

How is this kind of behavior going to help the child in the long run? In the long run, if your children aren't self-sufficient long before you are gone from the planet, then you have failed as a parent. ouch.

our first affirmative action president

I am genuinely looking forward to finding out about just what kind of change we have ushered in to these United States at this critical juncture. I recently had the chance to sit down with my cousin, a very dear relative of mine who could not wait to pull the lever for now president-elect Obama. The question I posed to her after this revelation to me was this: "What were Obama's professional accomplishments?"

The only restrictions I put on the question were to disclude writing a book or getting elected to office.

She could not identify one. I chose not to kick her in the teeth by pointing out that his one legislation was a global handout in the form of hundreds of billions of dollars and packaged as "global poverty reduction" that did not pass.

I did point out that he voted "present" so many times instead of voting up or down.

She slightly sheepishly admitted that she had heard about that and made it be known to me that while she voted for Obama, she did not have the fervor and fury that some of her cohorts and compadres had for rushing the polling locations with their black panther friends.

To be clear, my cousin is a cognitive individual, and rare amongst the liberals I have known. To be fair, you could not paint her entirely with the "Liberal" brush although she leans that way.

I categorized her as a "intelligent somewhat liberal" at three in the morning after a spirited debate. I made sure she knew I did not mean "somewhat intelligent liberal" which is how most conversations with people I engage from the non-conservative viewpoint.

We went back and forth throughout the night on many issues, but mostly affirmative action. At the end of it all I think I was genuinely able to say that both my cousin and her husband heard my viewpoint and acknowledged that you cannot uphold equality by enforcing inequality. While there was a maintained position of affirmative action as a "necessary evil", I feel as if my point got across to them.

In the process, however, I frustrated her husband by repeatedly cutting him of when he was trying to make his point. Don't get me wrong here, his point was not as informed or well thought out as mine, but I was forced to admit that I have some growth areas to focus on in 2009.

I need to let the liberals make their point entirely and without cutting them off, even when I am excited and passionate and they could not be more wrong. Only after having been given the opportunity to fully and completely speak their peace with perfect freedom to be as wrong as possible should I speak up.

Thank you, cousin for the great time together. Thank you, my cousin's husband for the lesson on manners.

This blog is a dedication to my uncle. His fine conservative mind was a beacon of light for those who knew him. On his behalf I declare this digital creation a watchdog group and beacon for conservative principals and values.

Rest In Peace, uncle.

What is cognitive prattle?

To define what cognitive prattle is; it is important to define what it is not.

First, I made it up. This is my original work and concepts. No prattle will be someone else's cognitions without due reference. cognitive prattle is not capitalized. It just isn't. It's prattle. Go look it up. Prattle doesn't get capitialized. Nevertheless, I retain all rights and will vigorously defend said rights, bitch.

cognitive prattle is not organized. are your cognitions organized? of course not.

this is not about making myself feel better about me or the world. the world, (and myself for that matter) are going to hell in a handbasket, but hellinahandbasket.blogspot.com is too long of a URL.

this will not be censored by anyone but me. if you find yourself censoring someone on this blog, and you are not me then you are not welcome to censor them. censor yourself, bitch.

this is censored. Rest assured, I will filter out all the stupid and random and meaningless crap you thoughtbarf into my cyberworld. rules of said censorship vary with time of day, mood, blood alcohol level and of course, my thetan level at any given time. If you think you might be thoughtbarfing, hold it in. Like the definition of pornography, a thoughtbarf is something that you know when you see it. keep your mental flotsam and jetsam out of my cognitive prattle.

Helpful hints for contributing include:
- Try not to sound crazy
- Stay on topic
- Don't be a whiner (liberals I cannot stress this enough)
- Do your research - assume I have thought about the topic more than you and have done my own research. (cause I probably have)

All that said, if you think you might have a thought to share, prattle your cognitions here!