Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Out of Town - Blogging May Be Limited All Week

I am working in Millbrae, a pretty little town near San Francisco, and spending the nights in a cheap motel in San Bruno.  The motel has internet access but the signal is weak.

The pay isn't great, but it's a lot better than the tax agency.  I have moved up from being paid peanuts to being paid walnuts.  Still, I am helping a good friend and we are enjoying each other's company and the work.  It's really nice to be productive.

I miss my wife, my dog and my cat.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Barack Obama's Brazen Dishonesty on What Caused the Recession

In Barack Obama's recent "State of the Union" speech, he ruminated on what caused the mortgage crisis and the resulting recession.  He knows what caused it:  the Democratic Party and its support for subprime mortgages for poor people, mainly blacks.  The federal government forced banks and mortgage companies to make very risky loans to people who had no income or low income and no way to repay the loans.  This was the Democrats' cure for mortgage loan "red lining," the alleged practice in which blacks and other minorities were denied real estate loans based simply on their race.

However, "red-lining" was a myth.  The people who were being denied loans were those with no credit and no way to repay.  Nonetheless, what a wonderful opportunity for the Democrat Party to press its creds as the party who protects minorities from alleged "racism"!

Christopher Booker of the U.K. Telegraph summarizes Obama's conceit on the matter, quoting from his State of the Union speech:
“The house of cards collapsed,” he recalled. “We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them.” He excoriated the banks which had “made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money”, while “regulators looked the other way and didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behaviour”. This, said Obama, “was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work.”
Obama is the personification of Democrat dishonesty.  They create a major recession through governmental malfeasance, then blame it on the victims of their own bad behavior, i.e. the banks and mortgage companies.  Hence we have Obama promising to create a governmental "mortgage fraud" unit to investigate such matters.  They ought to start with Obama himself.  As Booker writes:
I recalled a piece I wrote in this column on January 29, 2009, just after Obama took office. It was headlined: “This is the sub-prime house that Barack Obama built”. As a rising young Chicago politician in 1995, no one campaigned more actively than Mr Obama for an amendment to the US Community Reinvestment Act, legally requiring banks to lend huge sums to millions of poor, mainly black Americans, guaranteed by the two giant mortgage associations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It was this Act, above all, which let the US housing bubble blow up, far beyond the point where it was obvious that hundreds of thousands of homeowners would be likely to default. Yet, in 2005, no one more actively opposed moves to halt these reckless guarantees than Senator Obama, who received more donations from Fannie Mae than any other US politician (although Senator Hillary Clinton ran him close).
 The recent outrage against Bank of America underscores the cynicism of the Democrats.  Bank of America was forced to pay $335 million to settle the government's charges that its Countrywide lending unit engaged in "predatory lending" practices, i.e. convincing black borrowers to enter into real estate loans that they couldn't afford to repay.  So Countrywide was forced to make bad loans to blacks by the federal government, and now is excoriated by that same federal government for doing what they were told.  The Democrats create a mess, then require their victims to pay for it and take the blame.  Disgusting.

Read Christopher Booker's article today, "How I Woke Up to the Untruths of Barack Obama."

Friday, January 27, 2012

My Favor Shifts to Gingrich Over Romney

Neither Mitt Romney nor Newt Gingrich is the perfect candidate.  The fight between the two has become vicious, self-destructive, personal and bitter.  I have criticized Gingrich for attacking capitalism and distorting Romney's role at Bain Capital, and for making the campaign too personal.

However, Romney himself has a history of personal attacks and distortions against other Republican candidates.  Lately, his attacks on Gingrich have become hysterical.  This is a turn-off for sure, however, it was something one of Romney's aids said that really bothered me.  The aid said that if Romney is elected, not all of Obamacare will be repealed.  Put this together with past Romney public utterances (attacking conservatives, supporting liberals, proclaiming himself "progressive," supporting leftist policies, etc), and the inescapable conclusion is that Romney is far too liberal for me.  Between him and Gingrich, my favor now returns to Gingrich.

Rick Santorum, my favorite of the three, did well in yesterday's Florida debates, and some say he was the winner of the debate.  I hope Santorum is the nominee when all the primaries are finished.  If not, then I will choose Gingrich over Romney.

Work Cures My Depression

I have been working for a well-known, nationwide tax company (yes, that one).  This is my second tax season with them.  The pay is terrible -- minimum wage -- but I am not working there for the money.  I am working there to increase my knowledge of individual income taxes and for the pleasure of doing something productive.

I like working with the clients, meeting the people, helping them to solve tax problems and to minimize their taxes and take advantage of deductions and credits that may be available to them.  However, this week I was hired for the busy season by another CPA, a good friend with whom I worked as a corporate consultant for several years (making a bundle in the process).  I will be working out of town on weekdays, but working at the tax agency on weekends.  I will be quite busy through April of this year, and making some decent (though not great) money for a change.  My friend, the other CPA, without an income for many months due to the recession, bought an audit practice near San Francisco so he would have an income again.  He asked me to work for him through the busy season, and I agreed.  The pay is a lot better than at the tax agency.

I have been largely without work for three years, all the years of the Obama Administration.  Now Obama didn't cause this horrible recession, but his party did -- and Obama has done everything possible to prolong and deepen the recession, whether intentional or not.  For three years my only activities have been blogging and band practice.  The band practice came to an end in August when I told the band leader that his singing was simply awful.  (This, only after months of subtle hints and tactful suggestions on singing lessons.) He did not appreciate my honesty at finally saying what everyone else knew.

In any case, I have been depressed since Obama came to power.  Now I know what old people in old folks' homes feel like, unproductive, unneeded, unchallenged, with no purpose in life and nothing but death to look forward to.  I spent a lot of the day feeling sleepy and took marathon naps throughout the week.  No energy, no ambition.  For some time, I have wished that the dark angel would tap me on the shoulder and get me out of a useless existence.  This isn't surprising.  I read that the suicide rate in places like Greece is soaring since the economy there crashed.

This past week, though, my friend asked me to work for him and I have been very popular with clients at the tax agency.  Suddenly I am busy, needed, productive, and challenged.  My sleepiness has disappeared and my depression is 90% gone.  I have energy and, holy mackerel, my libido isn't as dead as I thought.  It too is showing signs of life.  I wouldn't have thought this turn-around in my mental attitude was possible.  Work does this for a man.  Work is life, purpose and meaning.  It is, for me anyway, the greatest cure for depression.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Slaps Obama on Tarmac! (Photoshop)

There's a recent photo of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer confronting President Obama on an airport tarmac in Phoenix. The photo shows Brewer pointing a finger at Obama's face. Her mouth is open, suggesting she is really giving him a piece of her mind. I did a Photoshop, using the new Puppet Warp tool in Photoshop CS5, to make Brewer slap Obama right in the chops.

It's only a Photoshop, but I'd love to see her actually do it.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Nancy Pelosi Threatens to Unveil New Scandal for Newt Gingrich (Photoshop)

Nancy Pelosi has stated that "Newt Gingrich will never be President -- there is something I know."  What hidden scandal does Pelosi refer to?  What horrible skeleton still hides in Newt's closet?  The mind can't help but conjure up nightmares (like the one pictured below) as to what this new revelation will be.  Was Newt in bed with the Democrats again?  Say it ain't so, Newt, say it ain't so!

Hat tip:  American Power

Ethics Charges Against Gingrich Were a Democrat Sham

Back in 1994, the Democrats were very angry at Newt Gingrich for engineering the Republican take-down that year, resulting in large Republican majorities for the first time in many years.  The Dems do what Dems do best, namely, dirty politics.  A phone ethics charge was lodged against Gingrich, for which Gingrich was ultimately exonerated...but not before the Democrat media machine has broadcast the phony charges far and wide.   The facts of Newt's exoneration were not so enthusiastically reported, often buried in the back pages of major newspapers.

Verum Serum has the story in detail here.

Monday, January 23, 2012

William L Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" Reissued

William L. Shirer was an American journalist in Berlin from 1933 to 1941.  He witnessed first hand the arise of Nazism in Germany and reported on it.  The website Traces describes him this way:
One of the most recognized U.S. Americans to visit Nazi Germany, William Shirer perhaps shed more light on the events that led to Hitler’s ascendancy and German involvement in World War II than anyone else from the United States. Although closely watched in Germany, Shirer managed to convey much in his reporting by using subtle phrasing, suggestive tones of voice or U.S. slang unfamiliar to German censors trained only in formal British English. Having lived in Paris and familiar with Central Europe from his days with the Chicago Tribune, Shirer became one of the most respected U.S. journalists in wartime Europe.
Shirer later wrote a book, "Berlin Diary" in which he described prewar events in Germany and his visceral reactions to them.  Attending the Nuremberg rally (see above photo), Shirer described it this way:
Hitler shouted at them through the microphone, his words echoing across the hushed field from the loud-speakers. And there, in the flood-lit night, jammed together like sardines, in one mass formation, the little men of Germany who have made Nazism possible achieved the highest state of being the Germanic man knows: the shedding of their individual souls and minds—with the personal responsibilities and doubts and problems—until under the mystic lights and at the sound of the magic words of the Austrian they were merged completely in the Germanic herd.
Later, in 1960, he wrote his life's work, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich."  This latter book is considered one of the most important histories of Nazi Germany, of what happened there and why.   Smithsonian Magazine sets the stage:
Why had Germany, long one of the most ostensibly civilized, highly educated societies on earth, transformed itself into an instrument that turned a continent into a charnel house? Why had Germany delivered itself over to the raving exterminationist dictates of one man, the man Shirer refers to disdainfully as a “vagabond”? Why did the world allow a “tramp,” a Chaplinesque figure whose 1923 beer hall putsch was a comic fiasco, to become a genocidal Führer whose rule spanned a continent and threatened to last a thousand years?

Why? William Shirer offered a 1,250-page answer.
When I was a freshman in college in the early 1960's, "Rise and Fall" was highly touted by scholars and college professors, and was recommended reading.  I took a look at it, decided it was way too thick to hold my attention, and quickly returned it to its shelf in the bookstore of San Jose City College.

Now, years later, I get to rectify my mistake.  The book has been reissued, and I have purchased the Kindle edition of both "Rise and Fall" and "Berlin  Diary" from Amazon.com, and plan to read both books, beginning with the latter.  Why these books are important in the 21st century is explained in Smithsonian Magazine:
In Shirer one can see an evolution: If in Berlin Diary his emphasis on the Germanic character is visceral, in The Rise and Fall his critique is ideological. Other authors have sought to chronicle the war or to explain Hitler, but Shirer made it his mission to take on the entire might and scope of the Reich, the fusion of people and state that Hitler forged. In The Rise and Fall he searches for a deeper “why”: Was the Third Reich a unique, one-time phenomenon, or do humans possess some ever-present receptivity to the appeal of primal, herd-like hatred?
The herd-like instinct was clearly not a one-time phenomenon.  We have seen it before Hitler (the Jacobins of the French Revolution) and we have seen it afterwards (in Mao's Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution, and even the current "Occupy Wall Street" goons who seem incapable of rational thought).

Group-think almost always leads to disaster, particularly in politics.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Barack Obama's New Job at Disneyworld (Photoshop)

January 2013:  Barack Obama finally gets a job he can handle.

Whatever Happened to "Little Green Footballs"? (Photoshop)

Some say it has gone to the dogs.

Newt Scores Big In South Carolina

Wow.  Newt Gingrich, no matter what you might think of him otherwise, is a fighter.  He was determined to stick it to Mitt Romney and did so in the South Carolina primary today.

Per Doug Ross Journal:
Yes, Mitt Romney lost by 31 points.
40% Gingrich
27% Romney
18% Santorum

The anti-establishment candidates -- Gingrich and Santorum -- literally crushed Mitt Romney 58 percent to 27 percent.
Don Surber has more details here.

What does this mean?  It's hard to say at this point, but I suppose it means that Newt isn't through yet, and Mitt Romney may not be the inevitable nominee after all.

The race just got a lot more interesting.

The Essence of Islam Revealed (by Lawrence Auster)

Lawrence Auster dissects leftist self-delusion by analyzing the many liberal excuses for Islamic violence. Here's one of his many essays on the subject that refute leftist apologia:


In a letter to the Lansing State Journal published on July 5, 2006, a Muslim living in East Lansing, Michigan states in clear, matter-of-fact language what he and other Muslims believe,—that the penalty for converting from Islam to another religion is death—and why they believe it. It is not because they personally choose to believe it. It is not because they are personally “extreme” or “fanatical.” It not because they are “alienated” by the experience of living as Muslims in the West. It is not because they have been goaded into anger by anti-Muslim bigotry. It is not because they have been seduced into extremism by extremist imams or Wahhabi mosques. It is not because they are crushed by Arab despots. It is not because they lack democracy and freedom. It is not because they have an inferiority complex about Muslims’ having being “left behind” by Western progress since the seventeenth century. It is not because of Israel’s “oppression” of the Palestinians or American support for Israel. It not because of American involvement in the Mideast or the American occupation of Iraq. And it not because of inadequate Western aid efforts to poor Muslim countries. They believe what they believe because it is what Islam requires them to believe. Once we realize this simple fact, any question of “extreme” versus “moderate” Islam comes to an end. All Muslims by virtue of being Muslims are members of an extremist, totalitarian religion. From this it follows that no believing Muslims (outside small numbers for diplomacy, trade, etc.) should be allowed to live in non-Muslim countries, let alone in a country founded on religious freedom.

Some may call my conclusion extreme. I call it a no-brainer.

Here is the letter:

Islam or death

I read Le Roy Barnett’s letter (“Muslims, speak up,” June 26) about Muslims’ opinion on Abdul Rahman’s [the Afghani man who had to leave Afghanistan in fear for his life] conversion to Christianity.

Islam is not only a religion, it is a complete way of life. Islam guides Muslims from birth to grave. The Quran and prophet Muhammad’s words and practical application of Quran in life cannot be changed.

Islam is a guide for humanity, for all times, until the day of judgment. It is forbidden in Islam to convert to any other religion. The penalty is death. There is no disagreement about it.

Islam is being embraced by people of other faiths all the time. They should know they can embrace Islam, but cannot get out. This rule is not made by Muslims; it is the supreme law of God.

Please do not ask us Muslims to pick some rules and disregard other rules. Muslims are supposed to embrace Islam in its totality.

Nazra Quraishi
East Lansing

Note, Auster has listed the various (and false) theories that explain away Islamic violence as caused by anything but Islam here:

Non-Islam Theories of Islamic Extremism

These are worth reading and consulting from time to time.

Friday, January 20, 2012

A River in Egypt: Denial Among the Apologists for Islam

I have been having a debate with a dogmatic apologist for Islam, one D. Charles, who insists that Islam is no more violent than any other religion, and that Islamic terrorism is not supported by Islamic holy texts like the Koran or the Haddith.  Charles has more excuses for Islam than Islam has severed heads...and that's a lot.

If you want to follow the arguments, see the comments section for this blog post.

Meanwhile, Lawrence Auster of View From the Right supports my position in his blog post here.  Larry points out an even more extreme case of denial in one Karen Armstrong.  He writes:
Inspired by the reflexive anti-American fallacies of Ron Paul and his intellectual mentor Robert Pape, the blogger Stogie has coined a term that I will need to add to my catalogue of non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism: the Blowback Theory of Islamic Extremism.

I see that some of Stogie's commenters [i.e. D. Charles] are still in Standard Denial Mode. Thus one argues that the Barbary pirates had nothing to do with Islam--they were merely pirates who happened to be Moslem, along with lots of non-Moslems in their ranks. Evidently the statement by Tripoli's ambassador in Britain to Adams and Jefferson in 1786, in which he justified the piracy on purely Islamic grounds of divinely mandated aggressive jihad against all non-Moslems, made no impression on this commenter.

Karen Armstrong has of course similarly argued that the vast Moslem conquests of the seventh century had nothing to do with Islam; the armies that swept across Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, and northern Africa and subjected them to Islamic rule were merely conquerors who happened to be Moslem. And then consider the fact that probably the majority of America's "intellectual" class follow Armstrong's ideas.

Such is the continuing power (I'm almost tempted to call it a supernatural power, though of the dark kind) of the modern West's suicidal denial of the truth about Islam.
 But why the denial in the face of overwhelming evidence that Islam is a violent, aggressive form of tyranny, that it is so by its very nature?  We have 14 centuries of Islamic history and aggression to draw from, the statements and bloody example of the "prophet" himself, the ongoing wars and terrorism in the world today, the statements of the terrorists, Imams and Islamic leaders, and of course, the Islamic holy texts themselves.  Amidst the mounting death toll, it would seem sheer folly to disbelieve that Islam is inherently violent, intolerant, hateful and evil.  In spite of this, D. Charles and other apologists continue to insist that Islam is benign.  Who are we to believe, D. Charles and Karen Armstrong, or our own lying eyes?

I think there are some, mostly those on the left, who are unable to face the unpleasant reality of "the clash of civilizations," that our future is likely to be one of war for survival against a determined foe, or one of dhimmitude and darkness.  So they go into denial.  The worst of these deniers is the 9/11 "Truthers," who insist that the 9/11 attack on America was "an inside job," and not perpetrated by Muslims at all.

However, denial and wishful thinking will not alter basic reality, no matter how fervently the Islamic apologists wish it would.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Roosevelt University's Experiment in Stalinism: the Ordeal of Professor Robert Klein Engler

From Kathy Shaidle today, there is news of a Stalinist Resurgence in both America and Canada.

The American resurgence features lefty Roosevelt University in Chicago.  Perhaps Roosevelt is not a Marxist think-tank, but if it isn't, you could have fooled me.  Roosevelt recently fired one of its professors, Robert Klein Engler, for telling a joke in class. The joke was relevant to the class discussion and was told to make a point.  Here's the joke that ended Engler's employment (and possibly his entire career):
A group of sociologists did a poll in Arizona regarding the state’s new immigration law. Sixty percent said they were in favor, and 40 percent said, ‘No hablo Ingles.’
One student complained to the Roosevelt administrators, and Engler was formally accused of "harassment."  The administrators of Karl Marx Roosevelt University informed Engler that he was being investigated for harassment, but never told him why or provided any facts to allow him to defend himself.  He was then fired for refusing to cooperate with the investigation.  Engler writes of his frustration with the unexplained charges and reason for his firing:
For months I practically begged Roosevelt University officials to provide me with at least some clue as to the nature of the “harassment complaint” lodged against me. I couldn’t imagine what it might be, but thought I at least had a right to know what someone was alleging.

But for months the University ignored my pleas.

On August 6, 2010, Mr. Maly notified me by e-mail that I was fired from the University. He claimed I wasn’t cooperating with an investigation. This was beyond absurd. For months the University stonewalled my attempts to learn even the most basic details of the allegation against me.
Engler then hired a lawyer and has filed suit against Roosevelt University.  It was only then, two months later, that he learned the reason for the University's action against him.  Professor Robert Engler has a blog here, giving the details of his experience.

Engler should discover the name of the student who filed the complaint and sue him too.  Ruin the little stooge's life, as only a lawsuit can do.  Accuse him of libel and a violation of Engler's "human rights."  Make an example of him for the rest of the Marxist marinated puppets who pose as college students in America today.  UPDATE:  The student has identified herself.  She is quoted in the Roosevelt Torch:
Cristina Solis, a student in the class, filed a written complaint with department chair Michael Maly after Engler told a joke in class that she found to be highly offensive. The joke pertained to non-English speakers in Arizona. Solis thinks that the professor's termination was fair, and says if she had known that the professor would be fired as a result of her complaint, it would not have affected her decision.
No doubt Solis treasures her power to end careers, tarnish reputations and ruin lives.  Power can be so addictive and satisfying.  She has leftism to thank for this, and the left's firm control of the university.  Heady stuff, hey Cristina?    I wonder how Solis would feel about becoming a defendant in a lawsuit for defamation?  Let's hope she finds out.

Mark Steyn writes more about this Stalinist travesty here.  He also discusses a similar travesty in Canada regarding a stand up comic, Guy Earle.  Canada has taken a sharp turn towards totalitarianism in making free speech illegal in Canada -- illegal, that is, if it hurts the feelings or offends any member of a leftist-anointed, specially protected group -- like Muslims, gays, feminists, "transgendered" kooks and other assorted leftists.  Canada's Stalinist law is onerous in that one's life can be ruined by an innocent remark, dragged through a special Canadian court, and heavily fined.

Guy Earle came under the authority of this kangaroo court when he was harrassed by a couple of drunken lesbians during a stand up comic routine at a club.  Earle answered the drunks and, in the process, offended them.  They filed charges, alleging "homophobic remarks" and now Earle's career has come to a halt.  No one will hire him, fearing trouble by the Stalinist "Human  Rights" Court of Canada.  Earle feels that his life has been irreparably damaged and he awaits his trial in a state of deep depression.  Steyn gives more details of this travesty at his website here.

The Left's control of the university in America, and of free speech in Canada, is a preview of what's to come in our federal government of the future.  And it isn't pretty.

Hat tip:  Five Feet of Fury

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Muslim "Blowback"....in 1786? Muslim Violence Against the US is Not New

Fighting the Barbary Pirates
A few posts back I wrote about the "blowback" theory of Muslim violence.  Adherents to the theory believe that Muslim violence is not related to Islam, or its teachings, tenets or beliefs.  They believe that Muslim violence against the west is merely a reaction to past American aggression, or "blowback."  Both Ron Paul and one of his former advisors, Robert Pape, believe this theory.  Pape wrote a book on how we can stop Islamic violence by not having any military presence or supporting any other country's presence in Islamic lands.  The book is called "Cutting the Fuse."

I believe the "blowback" theory is bunk.  While the presence of infidel soldiers in Islamic countries and the support of Western countries for the supposed "occupation" of Islamic lands (e.g., the very existence of Israel) may provide a further motive for jihad attacks, the fact is that the Koran commands aggressive war against infidels even in the complete absence of any infidel "aggression" against Muslims. Muslims attack us because of Islam, because they are commanded to do so by their prophet and holy book, the Koran. Our sin is merely that we are not Muslims, that we do not accept Muhammad as a valid prophet.

Muslim violence and aggression against the United States is not new.  In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Muslim pirates were attacking our shipping, stealing cargoes and ships and enslaving our sailors.  These were the infamous "Barbary Pirates," operating out of Tripoli (now Libya) and neighboring Islamic states.

Lawrence Auster of View From the Right wrote to me and supplied these facts:  In 1786, John Adams and Jefferson, then our ambassadors to Britain and France, met the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, and asked him why his government was so hostile to the United States even though it had done nothing to provoke any such animosity.  Adja answered them (as they reported to the Continental Congress):  "that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."  

Doesn't sound much like "blowback" does it?  There was then, as there is now, a religious reason for Muslim aggression.  President Jefferson sent the navy and the marines to fight the (Muslim) Barbary Pirates in Tripoli in 1804, to stop them from attacking and pirating our commercial shipping.  Our military response to Islamic states, then as now, results from Muslim aggression, terror and murder.  The "blowback" theory is false.

President John Quincy Adams, who was President from 1825 to 1829 didn't believe in "blowback" either.  He wrote this about Islam:
“…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”
President Adams also wrote this about Islamic violence and aggression:
"….Between these two religions [Islam and Christianity], thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet [Muhammad] shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Stogie Bans Leftist Troll, Newt Crushes Juan Williams

My internet connection was down all day and just now came back up.  So I didn't get to share by deep and sagacious opinions with the world.

Yesterday, I received a rather insulting comment from a leftist troll, who calls herself Ema Nymton (so cute, her blog name is "Not My Name" spelled backwards, which is sort of how she thinks...backwards).  Ema never has a conversation or seriously considers facts that refute her leftwing views, or addresses counter arguments or engages anything resembling independent, rational thought.  She is merely a string puppet for communism, and an endless source of leftwing bumper-sticker slogans, relying on the same tired (and previously refuted) sound bites, over and over again.  I warned her not to use the term "Tea Bagger," yet she did so again, but that wasn't the worst of it.  She insinuated I was a Nazi for opposing Islamic violence and extremism.  So I banned her from further commenting on this blog.

If "Ema" shows up on your blog, don't bother trying to have a conversation with her.  Her only purpose is to mouth memorized slogans and insult conservatives.  Just delete her comments -- don't feed this obnoxious troll.

I was sorry to have missed Newt's home run at the South Carolina debate, wherein he crushed Juan Williams' asinine attempt to play the race card, obtaining a standing ovation in the process.  Newt is smart, there is no doubt, and in this exchange he revealed what might have been had he more control over his passionate emotions.  Rush was very pleased with Newt's performance.  Read "Newt's Grand Slam" to get the details.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Meryl Streep Film of "The Iron Lady" Just Another Leftist Rewrite of History

The new Meryl Streep film "The Iron Lady" is about the life and career of Margaret Thatcher, a popular conservative Prime Minister of Great Britain, a friend and colleague of President Ronald Reagan.  The film, according to Norman Tebbit of the UK Telegraph, is another study in leftist propaganda and character assassination.  Once again, Hollywood rewrites the past to achieve political goals in the present.

A few posts back, I wrote about "He Who Controls the Past, Controls the Future."  It's a quote from George Orwell's famous novel "1984," in which a totalitarian state controls every thought and deed of its oppressed citizens.  In that novel, the state is continually rewriting history to justify its policies in the here and now.  Our state, the Federal government, doesn't do that, but they do have a propaganda agency that does it for them:  Hollywood.   One of the propaganda agency's chief pursuits is to create false but highly insulting impressions of conservatives and patriots who served their countries well, portraying them as ignorant, bigoted, paranoid, hysterical, small-minded and slightly mad.  Certainly, the younger generation who never knew these people can take Hollywood's word for it and vote "progressive," thus avoiding such leaders in the future.  And that, of course, is the goal.

Tebbit says this that the film is not of the lady he served as a cabinet minister, but a false film of an old lady suffering dementia.  The film's theme of "the housewife who would have been in a tizzy if the potatoes had boiled dry, suddenly put in charge of the country, was pursued through a series of false flashback accounts of her time as Prime Minister."  The film has a "slapdash indifference to historical accuracy" and also portrays Thatcher's husband in a false and insulting manner.

Thatcher is shown as "hysterical" in a segment where terrorists murder Airey Neave:
Then there is the blatant untruth of showing Margaret Thatcher dashing to the wreckage of Airey's car when he was murdered by Irish republican terrorists. She was not at Westminster at that time, but it suited the filmmakers to build a picture of a somewhat hysterical woman.
Tebbit sums it all up quite well:
Of those I have to say that had she behaved in real life as the film suggests I would not have supported her as I did in her election as leader of the Conservative Party, Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister over a span of 15 years. Indeed, she would not have lasted 10 months as Prime Minister, let alone 10 years. Nor indeed would she have carried more votes at her third election victory after eight year as Prime Minister than at her first. By comparison Blair carried four million fewer.
And then there's this:
It would be wearisome to pick over the bones of this film at length. It will influence the way in which many who never knew her will see Margaret Thatcher [and that's the goal]. Perhaps, however, not in the way the makers intended. Many young people who do not remember her time as Prime Minister tell me that they were profoundly impressed by the power and vigour of the Thatcher of the film. What is more, it is not good news for the feminists that the first woman to lead a Western democracy should have been depicted as precisely the sort of nagging hectoring emotional creature that misogynists declare that women in charge are bound to be.
Read the whole thing here.

Saturday, January 14, 2012

In Spite of US Air Support, Tebow Loses Battle (Photo)

Lots of us were rooting for you Tim...see you next year!

Tim Tebow Runs Out of Miracles; Broncos Lose in 45 - 10 Blow Out

The New England Patriots made the Denver Broncos look ridiculous in a 45 - 10 blowout, ending the season for the Broncos tonight.  The Broncos' offensive line looked like wet tissue paper in front of a charging herd of buffaloes as the Patriots ran through them like they weren't even there.

Now I know why Tebow prays between plays.  With such a porous line for protection, I'd be praying too.

Tom Brady is one hot quarterback, throwing six touchdowns in a post-season game to tie an NFL record.  The Patriots looked so strong that I would bet on them to win the Super Bowl, if I were a betting man.

Good luck to Tim Tebow, who had a great first year in professional football.  If he can persuade the Broncos owners to hire a front line, that team should do well in future games.

New England Patriots vs Denver Broncos: Rough Sledding for Tebow at the Half

I'm watching the Patriots - Broncos NFL playoff game.  At the half, the Patriots lead 35 to 7.  Tom Brady, the Patriots' quarterback, seems to throw touchdown strikes at will.  Clearly, the Patriots are the superior team.  It would be a miracle for the Broncos to come back, and I fear Tim Tebow has exhausted his store of miracles for this season.  Still, Tebow has had a great first year as a rookie quarterback in the National Football League.

On a more positive note, my favorite team, the San Francisco Forty-Niners beat the New Orleans Saints in a vigorous and rigorous close fight in San Francisco.  The Saints were down 17 points early in the game, but took the lead twice and were ahead by three points with seconds left to play in the final quarter.  The Niners, however, scored a 14 yard, passing play touchdown with seconds left to take the lead, winning the game by 36 to 32.

Italian Luxury Liner Founders Off Italy; Giuliano Mignini Blames Satanic Cult

The Work of a Satanic Cult?
Satanic Cult Expert
Giuliano Mignini
The Italian cruise ship Costa Concordia scraped against rocks off the Italian coast and capsized after taking on water.  There were 4,000 passengers on board.  Several people are feared dead.

Famed Italian Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini immediately took a bus to the beach, where he declared the sinking to be the work of a Satanic Cult led by Mario Spezi and Amanda Knox.  He then began indicting everyone within reach for the crime, including tourists, the homeless, dogs and cats.  The offending rocks were too heavy to arrest, but were given a stern warning not to leave town.

Just kidding about that last paragraph.  So far anyway.

Read about the tragedy here.  No, the real story doesn't involve Mignini, thank goodness.

The Republicans' Circular Firing Squad

Fred Barnes at the Weekly Standard believes that Gingrich and Perry have handed a pile of ammunition to Obama and the Democrats with their self-destructive Bain Capital propaganda. Barnes writes:
Republicans have reason to worry. Thanks to Gingrich and company, Democrats have been handed a gift that’s likely to keep on giving all year. Their attacks on Romney as a ruthless, uncaring businessman play into Obama’s reelection theme that the rich are the source of America’s economic trouble. Perry calls Romney a “vulture capitalist,” a tag certain to stick in the minds of voters.
Newt Gingrich had a bad reputation as a hot-head going into this campaign, and he has forever cemented himself to that reputation.  One of the key tactics in Saul Alinksy's "Rule for Radicals" is to goad your enemy into irrational anger wherein he becomes self-destructive, thereby losing credibility and support.  Apparently, Romney did that (probably unintentionally) in his negative ads about Newt.  Newt couldn't contain his anger and reacted in a very public, very self-destructive manner.  In the process, he has revealed himself as a pariah to the conservative movement and, in my opinion, should never again be considered a serious candidate for public office.

Anti-Romney Film "King of Bain" Cited as False and Vicious

Newt Gingrich's nasty half-hour ad "The King of Bain" panning Romney is false, vicious and over the top. The Washington Post Fact-Checker agrees:
The 29-minute video “King of Bain” is such an over-the-top assault on former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney that it is hard to know where to begin. It uses evocative footage from distraught middle-class Americans who allege that Romney’s deal-making is responsible for their woes. It mixes images of closed factories and shuttered shops with video clips of Romney making him look foolish, vain or greedy. And it has a sneering voice-over that seeks to push every anti-Wall Street button possible.
The Fact-Checker then explains key facts in the video and why they are false, awarding this propaganda film "Four Pinocchios."

Read it all here.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

North Korea Punishes Mourners Who Did a Poor Job of Faking Grief for Dead Leader

Painted on Tears Won't Work
When Kim Jung Mentally Ill croaked a few weeks back, mourners lined a major thoroughfare in North Korea to witness Dear Leader's funeral procession.  The mourners wailed, bawled and screeched, flailing their arms and moonwalking to showcase their deep grief for Kim Jung Mentally Ill.  Okay, I was just kidding about the moonwalking; the rest is true though.

Many pundits, including me, noted the dry eyes of the mourners.  In spite of their wild paroxysms of alleged grief, there were no tears.  Now those insincere mourners may be in trouble.  The North Korean government said it will arrest insincere mourners and send them to prison camps for at least six months.  Now you know why those mourners went to such lengths to display their non-existent grief for Dear (Worthless) Leader.  Some of them may be required to return their special Hollywood Oscars for bad acting.

ABC reports:
“authorities are handing down at least six months in a labor-training camp to anybody who didn’t participate in the organized gatherings during the mourning period, or who did participate but didn’t cry and didn’t seem genuine,” according to the Daily NK.

“The party conducted surveys to see who displayed the most grief, and made this an important criterion in assessing party members’ loyalty,” Yop wrote. “Patients who remained in hospitals and people who drank and made merry even after hearing news of their leader’s death were all singled out for punishment.”
 Note to North Koreans:  the next time a party official croaks, suppressing smiles and laughter is not enough.  You must shed tears -- not tears of laughter, mind you, as this will not work.  Painted tears, using body paints, will not work either.  Take a tip from Glenn Beck and rub Vicks Vaporub in your eyes before the cameras focus on you.  It will hurt a lot, but your eyes will stream tears, saving you from a labor camp.   As for the wailing, crying and flailing, it is advisable to practice in front of a full-length mirror in order to perfect your performance.

And whatever you do, do not drink champagne in public, throw confetti, moonwalk or sing "Happy Days Are Here Again."  The North Korean government considers these acts as evidence that your mourning is not sincere.

Newt Gingrich is Toast: Uses Far-Left Propaganda to Attack Romney

Newt Gingrich is despicable, an unprincipled, failed politician whose latest desperation measures prove that he is no Republican and has lost all credibility as such.  Gingrich has released a Michael Moore type video attacking Romney over Bain Capital -- a company hired by corporations to turn around or liquidate unprofitable operations.  Yes, when you liquidate unprofitable companies, you have to lay people off.  It is this "creative destruction" that frees capital and labor from unproductive pursuits and makes them available for better uses.

Rick Perry has joined Gingrich's anti-capitalist attacks on Romney, and Perry is all through too.  The Other McCain has a post explaining Gingrich's errors, and also has embedded Gingrich's propaganda film against Romney.  See it here.  Stacy McCain wrote:
Newt Gingrich’s “super PAC” has unleashed its 27-minute documentary about Bain Capital, When Mitt Romney Came to Town, which a Daily Kos blogger calls a ”hit job” that ”you’d expect from a lefty operation.” It’s as if Newt hired Michael Moore. Avowed lefty Steve Benen calls it “devastating.”

Desperate to gain some traction in South Carolina, Rick Perry has joined in on this weird left-wing beatdown of Romney. The fact that the latest South Carolina poll shows him in sixth place — behind Jon Huntsman, in what was supposed to be Perry’s “firewall” state – perhaps explains Perry’s willingness to engage in an “Occupy”-style attack on free-market capitalism.
The only Republican candidate with any principles in this fight is Rick Santorum, who has distanced himself from Gingrich's destructive propaganda.   I would gladly vote for Rick Santorum, but if Mitt Romney is the candidate selected, I will support him.  I will never again support Newt Gingrich, and I originally preferred him to Romney (and said so).

Michelle Obama Corrects an Unfortunate Misimpression of "An Angry Black Woman" (Photoshop)

Related Post with more images of angry black Michelle here.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Newt Gingrich's Nasty Temper Disqualifies Him as a Presidential Candidate

Newt Gingrich is mightily pissed off.  His star was rising in Iowa and he was the front runnner.  Then Mitt Romney ran negative ads about Newt and the latter's poll numbers plunged.  Now Newt wants revenge and has adopted the language of the left in pursuit of a scorched-earth policy against Romney.  Howie Carr of the Boston Herald (hat tip VFR) has called Gingrich a "suicide bomber" and a "kamikaze."  The description is apt:  Gingrich wants to destroy his enemies even if he must destroy himself in the process.  Carr writes:
When Newt got into the fight last year, many suspected he wasn’t really a serious candidate, that he was just trying to freshen up the aging Newt “brand,” to jack up his speaking fees. I guess not. The Club for Growth called his comments about Mitt “disgusting.”   The only group that might want him as a speaker now is the Occupy Wall Street Alumni Association.
It is becoming clear that Gingrich cannot win the Republican nomination for president.  But if he can't have it, nobody can.  Rush believes that Gingrich is solely focused on revenge, and like an angry bull he doesn't care what damage he inflicts on capitalism or the Republican party.  With Gingrich, it is now personal, and Romney must pay.

Read "Gingrich Goes Perot on Romney."

Newt has shown that it's all about him -- and that he doesn't have the thick skin or temperament it takes to be President of the United States.  

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Poll: Greatest Fear of Two-Thirds of Americans in 2012 is Obama's Re-Election

From U.S. News, a poll that Obama won't like:
In our New Year's poll, when asked what news event they fear most about 2012, Americans by a margin of two-to-one said Obama's reelection. Only 16 percent said they fear the Democrat won't win a second term, while 33 percent said they fear four more years.
I hope the 2 to 1 figure is true, but the article refutes itself.  First it says 2 of 3 Americans fear Obama's reelection, but only 33% (1 in 3) fear four more years.  That doesn't make sense.

See the report here.

The next biggest worry is that we will have higher taxes.  It would appear that almost any Republican can beat Barack Obama, but that is illusory.  First, Obama has the backing of the mainstream press, who will propagandize in his favor.  Second, the Republican candidates are wonderful at screwing up golden opportunities.  As Rush pointed out today, Newt Gingrich's current attacks on Mitt Romney over Bain Capital sound like arguments from the left.

Paul and Pape's Fraudulent Argument: Islamic Violence Not Caused by Islam

Ron Paul's belief is that murderous and genocidal actions by Muslims worldwide are the result of western actions, not the tenets of the Islamic faith.  Ron Paul wrote:
Though it is hard for many to believe, honest studies show that the real motivation behind the Sept. 11 attacks and the vast majority of other instances of suicide terrorism is not that our enemies are bothered by our way of life. Neither is it our religion, or our wealth. Rather, it is primarily occupation. …
On this point, Ron Paul is full of it up to his ears.  Joel Richardson of WND opines:
...despite the allure of Paul’s constitutional convictions, his perspectives on United States foreign policy, radical Islam and the nation of Israel are an absolute deal breaker. Paul’s emphatic trademark claim that the present rise of Islamic terrorism globally is the result of “blowback” from American actions abroad is nothing less than ridiculous and an absolute insult to my intelligence.

According to Paul, radical Muslims are not radical because they have drunk deeply from the trough of an expansionist, racist and murderous ideology, but rather because American actions abroad have brought about the natural response of resistance.
 Richardson blames a Paul advisor, Robert Pape for this fraudulent argument.  Pape claims in his book "Cutting the Fuse" that 95% of terrorist attacks worldwide were a response to foreign occupation.   Richardson counters with his argument that Robert Pape is a pseudo-scholar whose claims have been refuted by other, real scholars.  Further, Pape has been found conspiring with CAIR to promote his book and his arguments.

I think the best refutation of Paul and Pape's argument comes from Lawrence Auster of View From the Right.  Auster writes:
I have written about Pape's fraudulent argument in the past. In December 2005, in a long discussion with a reader who was promoting Pape's ideas. I said:

Obviously, a Western presence in a Muslim country is going to exacerbate jihadist manifestations including suicide terrorism. That's why I'm against any involvement by us in the Muslim world and any efforts to reform it from within.

But when analysts detach from Islam phenomena that are obviously deeply tied to Islam, such as terrorism, we have a problem. This is what all the mainstream intellectuals do today. They say terrorism is due to some cultural or economic or political factor that is extrinsic to Islam, so if we just remove that extrinsic factor, the terrorism will stop. So if we assimilate the Muslims in Europe better, or if we stop "discriminating" against Muslims, or if we create a global Provider State to give Muslim countries food and schools and highways, or if we betray Israel to its mortal enemies, then terrorism will go away.

My point is that while we should not do unnecessary things that exacerbate jihadism, ultimately jihadism is an expression of Islam itself. As long as Islam exists, jihadism, along with the terrorism that Allah specifically orders in the Koran, will exist as well. Thus any writer who says that terrorism committed by Muslims is not connected with Islam is promoting a dangerous delusion. [Emphasis added].
My reading of Islamic literature and books on Islam revealed that, according to Muhammad, the only sure way for a Muslim to go to heaven is to die in jihad fighting against the infidel.  Without this, a devout Muslim's chances of making it to heaven are only one in one thousand.  Therefore, I believe that jihad against non-Muslims in Muslim countries is merely Muslims taking advantage of a religious opportunity:  they can secure their place in heaven attacking "infidels," even when the infidels were sent to their country to protect it, as we did in Saudi Arabia after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

Islamic jihad is all about Islam and Muslim salvation; it is not Arabic nationalism.  The problem, reduced to its essence, is Islam itself.  Our best method of protecting ourselves from Islam is separation, i.e. stopping Islamic immigration into the west, developing energy independence, and ceasing the stupidity of "nation building" within the Islamic states.

Monday, January 09, 2012

Democrats Rooting for Romney as Easiest to Beat?

Donna Brazile, a Democrat strategist, is rooting for Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination.  Why?  Because she thinks he will easiest for Obama to beat.  Per Michael Walsh of the New York Post:
Lost in the weekend’s back-to-back debates in New Hampshire was this illuminating remark by Democratic strategist Donna Brazile after Saturday night’s soporific contest in Manchester: “Mitt Romney won tonight because no one touched him. And for Democrats, you know what? It was good news for us . . . because we believe that the weakest candidate is the candidate that the Republicans are not attacking. And that’s Mitt Romney.”

The remark drew guffaws from some of the other assembled party faithful and media commentators, but Brazile spoke the truth. Democrats do believe that Romney is eminently beatable, the perfect foil for President Obama, in fact.
George Stephanopolous  responded, "Donna, you don't believe that!"  Rush pointed out on his show today that Stephanopolous was essentially telling Brazile to shut up, lest she let the cat out of the bag.

The Dems think Mitt will be the easiest Republican to beat.  I tend to agree.

Read Walsh's article here.

Tim Tebow Shines as Broncos Defeat Heavily Favored Steelers in Overtime

Well that explains the huge hits on my blog yesterday.

Quarterback Tim Tebow led the Denver Broncos to a 29-23 overtime win against the Pittsburgh Steelers yesterday, throwing an 80 yard touchdown pass [video here] that won the game on the first play in overtime.  The Denver Post reports:
The sellout crowd of 75,970 at Sports Authority Field at Mile High erupted in celebration. Witnesses said that in Denver neighborhoods, delirious people were screaming from their balconies. Patrons at Denver-area bars were heard chanting, "Te-bow! Te-bow!"

Tebowmania is once again inflated. It was the Broncos' first playoff victory in six years.
 Well now, to all the suave liberal cool people who disdain Tebow's endzone prayer, I say "How do you like them apples?"

Read more about the victory here.

Sunday, January 08, 2012

Face of the Sphinx - A Better Photoshop Reconstruction

A few months back I attempted a Photoshop reconstruction of the Sphinx.  It was mediocre.  Too much painting and not terribly realistic.  I now have Photoshop CS5, and it is a more powerful tool.  So I tried it again and the results are much better.  Here it is.  (Note to all school students, feel free to use for homework assignments.)

The Sphinx is around 4,500 years old, and may be in danger of extinction due to the Islamic fanatics now ruling Egypt.  It was Muslims who defaced the monument centuries ago, and there is talk now of blowing it up -- it is "pagan" and "idolatory" don't cha know.

I have often wondered what the Sphinx looked like 45 centuries back.  Maybe it looked something like this.

Friday, January 06, 2012

Los Angeles Times Deems Photoshop of Michelle Obama "Racist" (Yawn)

Big Journalism calls a biased, leftwing newspaper "the Incrediby Shrinking L.A. Times."  One of their knee-jerk lefty columnists, Christopher Knight, disliked a satirical Photoshop of Michelle Obama as Marie Antoinette and called it....(wait for it)..."RACIST."  Knight said that "the caricature of Obama as a profligate queen relies on the racist stereotype of an 'uppity Negro.' "

What a chicken-sh*t, cowardly argument.  With such an interpretation, no criticism of any black person, no matter how legitimate, is allowed, because they will always be "racist," even though race is not an element, either express or implied, in that criticism.

The dishonesty of Knight's self-serving slander is obvious:  to silence critics of Barack Obama and his wife by attaching a false stigma of bigotry to any criticism.  It is insulting to blacks, as it clearly demonstrates Knight's belief that blacks are inferior, social invalids who cannot be held responsible for their deeds.

"Racism" is the left's lazy, adolescent name-calling when they have no legitimate arguments to present (which is often).  The false charge has lost most of its stigma through over-use.  The only revulsion this epithet should engender in the reading public is disgust...for the one making the charge.

A Student Who Obtained 0% On An Exam (Satire)

Found on FaceBook:


I would have given him 100%

Q1. In which battle did Napoleon die?
* his last battle
Q2. Where was the Declaration of Independence signed?
* at the bottom of the page
Q3. River Ravi flows in which state?
* liquid
Q4. What is the main reason for divorce?
* marriage
Q5. What is the main reason for failure?
* exams
Q6. What can you never eat for breakfast?
* Lunch & dinner
Q7. What looks like half an apple?
* The other half
Q8. If you throw a red stone into the blue sea what it will become?
* It will simply become wet
Q9. How can a man go eight days without sleeping ?
* No problem, he sleeps at night.
Q10. How can you lift an elephant with one hand?
* You will never find an elephant that has only one hand..
Q11. If you had three apples and four oranges in one hand and four apples and three oranges in other hand, what would you have ?
* Very large hands
Q12. If it took eight men ten hours to build a wall, how long would it take four men to build it?
* No time at all, the wall is already built.
Q13. How can u drop a raw egg onto a concrete floor without cracking it?
* Any way you want, concrete floors are very hard to crack.

Thursday, January 05, 2012

The Republican Field of Candidates: My Evaluation

Almost no one I know is ecstatic about any of the Republican candidates for president.  Here's what I think about them:
1.  Mitt Romney:  I see him as dangerous for conservatives because he has not governed as a conservative.  My intuition tells me that Romney lacks the core beliefs of conservatives:  smaller government, less regulations, lower taxes, cheap energy.  I greatly fear that he would turn left once elected, "compromise" on key issues and provide a weak, watered-down approach to Obamacare, the national debt, federal spending and taxes.  Still, he would be better than Obama.  A fire hydrant would be better than Obama.

2.  Newt Gingrich:  I have the same concerns for Newt that I have for Romney.  Like Romney, I fear that Newt lacks core beliefs, will accommodate any stupid idea or political fad that comes down the pike (like global warming, cap and trade) in order to augment his popular appeal.  His campaign ads portraying him as Reagan's right-hand man and a strict conservative are ludicrous.  Further, Newt is showing himself to be a hothead prone to emotional outbursts, i.e. thin-skinned and shooting himself in the foot.  I doubt that he has the temperament to run a successful campaign if nominated.  The leftwing mainstream press would play him like a fiddle.  I could care less how many times he has been married, but ethics charges against him, fair or unfair, would be used against him to great advantage by the Democrats.

3.  Rick Perry:  Perry is ideologically acceptable and might make a good president.  I think his stance on allowing the children of illegal aliens (in Texas) to pay in-state college tuition has been misunderstood and misconstrued by many conservatives.  He thought that kids who were brought here by their parents through no fault of their own, and went to grade school and high school and essentially grew up here, should be allowed to pursue their college education.  I would have voted the same way that Perry did.  I think it is less likely than for Romney and Gingrich that he would turn left once elected.  My major concerns about Perry have to do with his ability to debate and his way of presenting himself to the public.  Could he win the election if nominated?   I think so, though he will be portrayed as a tongue-tied fool by the mainstream media.

4.  Rick Santorum:   I believe that Rick Santorum has core beliefs and knows what he stands for, and in that regard, is less dangerous than Romney or Gingrich -- I doubt that he would surprise us, once elected, by turning left.  He has caused some concerns with some of his statements about birth control, saying that states have the constitutional right to outlaw it, and voicing the Catholic Church's position on the matter as if it were a moral certainty applicable to everyone.  Those statements will be used against him, even though they have little bearing, if any, on his performance as president.  All candidates have vulnerabilities to Democrat attack, so that is not a deal-breaker with me.  I like Santorum better than Romney or Gingrich, and about the same as Perry.  However, Santorum has momentum whereas Perry seems to have lost his, and therefore Santorum may have a better chance at being nominated.

Conclusions:  I am supporting Rick Santorum for the reasons stated above.  For now.  I reserve the right to change my mind.

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Rick Perry Says "On to South Carolina!"

Rick Perry may be imitating a toad going head to head with a Mack truck, but he is staying in the race.  Perry came in fourth in Iowa with 10% of the vote, but vowed to continue, saying "Here we come South Carolina!!"  He tweeted the photo herein, slightly Photoshopped by the Stogiemeister to make it more fake but accurate.

No crocodiles were harmed in the making of this graphic.

Romney Wins Iowa by Eight Votes Over Santorum

Mitt Romney finally took the lead as the last votes were counted in Iowa.  Romney beat Santorum by 30,015 to 30,007 -- winning by only eight votes!

Santorum has emerged as an ascending candidate and Romney is shown to be vulnerable.

Will this great showing for Santorum become a trend?  In less than a week we'll find out.   The New Hampshire primary is January 10.  The even more important South Carolina primary is January 21.

I'm in for Rick Santorum.  Michele Bachmann officially dropped out of the race today, and Rick Perry may do the same.  Let's hope they throw their support to Santorum.

Update:  Rick Perry has decided to stay in the race for the time being.

See Rick Santorum's After-Vote Speech here.

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Santorum With Very Slim Lead Over Romney in Iowa

Right now, Rick Santorum is leading Mitt Romney with 99% of the votes counted in Iowa, 29,944 to 29,926.  Ron Paul is third with just over 26,000 votes.  Newt Gingrich was fourth at 13%, Rick Perry fifth at 10% and Michele Bachmann sixth at 5%, and Jon Huntsman at 0.6%  See statistics here.

Hmm, the boring Republican race just got interesting.  Santorum's showing gives him additional credibility, more donations and momentum going into New Hampshire's primary on January 10.

Hope lives.

Rick Santorum and Russian Mountain Ranges

Rick Santorum has risen in the polls lately and is giving hope that we may avoid the RINO establishment candidate, Mitt Romney.  God, I hope so.

Romney excites me about as much as cold oatmeal.  With lumps.

As far as this Iowa Caucuses thing goes, I'll be glad when it's over.  What the heck are caucuses anyway?  I thought they were a mountain range in Russia somewhere.  I keep visualizing Iowans in big fur hats, downing shots of vodka, squat dancing on one leg, then the other, jumping up and shouting HEY every few seconds.

 Didn't they ever hear about PRIMARIES in Iowa?   This is all too confusing.  Wake me when somebody wins.

Monday, January 02, 2012

Thoughts for the New Year 2012

This new year opens my mind to new possibilities, in a way that 2009, 2010 and 2011 did not.  The past three new years were all about Obama, socialism, economic depression and no hope for anything better.  The Obama economy is akin to surviving a tornado:  all you can do is hold on and wait for it to end.

Now there is the hope that 2012 will be the last year in office of a terrible president, and at long last we can begin to rebuild the economy.

Some personal resolutions for 2012:
1.  To improve my health, attitude and energy level, though diet and exercise.  Specifically, to drop 30 pounds.
2.  To increase my earnings.  In 2006, I earned $140,000 in W2 salary.  I earned less than $3,000 in 2011.    Realistically, I won't earn at my 2006 level anymore.  I would, however, like to earn $35,000 in 2012, just to pay personal expenses, buy new high tech toys and items to support my music endeavors.
3.  To continue learning Spanish.  I want to be fluent in this language within two years.  Specifically, to complete Spanish 1B and 2A in 2012 with an A grade in both.
4.  To greatly increase my skill in playing double bass (also called upright or string bass), specifically, in jazz swing, jazz standards and mellow jazz.  I want to learn/create bass lines for 50 standards from the Great American Songbook.
5.  To become good enough at singing to contribute vocally in band performances.  I am studying and practicing singing and have improved substantially since I began back in August.
6.  To finally reach one million hits on this blog.  I am now nearing 850,000 and expect to realize this goal by summer or before.