Selective prosecution in order to manipulate the narrative?

The "knockout game" -- sucker-punching random pedestrians in the head to see if you can knock them out -- has been all over the news in recent months. Often the "game" is more than a single punch, and has resulted in numerous serious beatings and even death.

From news outlets around the country, instances of such assaults seemed to be being committed primarily by blacks, with the victim pool being mostly white/Hispanic, and, in New York, mostly Jewish.

Because of the seeming racial pattern, some called for hate crime charges to be added to such assault cases. After all, that's what hate crime legislation is for, isn't it? To deter any one group from singling out any other group to victimize, no?

So, it was a relief to read that the federal government has decided to pursue hate crime charges against a suspect in a "knockout game" case.

It also was a surprise that the suspect being charged was a white guy who punched an elderly black man. Usually, in pretty much ever case I've read about, it's been a black suspect and non-black victim.

My first reaction was, "Good. A hate crime is one in which a victim is chosen based on their race, so this fits the bill."

My next thought, though, was why it took this long for someone to face charges, and why the feds chose the seemingly lone white-on-black case when there were numerous existing cases already that were met with only silence.

Then I remembered what a joke this administration is when it comes to being square with anything racial.

The Daily Kos was overjoyed that a white suspect had been arrested, because this single arrest "blows" the racial narrative that "the Right" has been pushing concerning the pattern of assaults:

"The irony of this incident is that in the last few months many on the Right have been attempting to make this supposed knockout game a black on white crime. They have been using overblown incidents of this type by the media to show some false racial divided."

Such flawed thinking.

Kos says the national media has publicized only the black-on-white assaults. I contend that there is no way in hell the national media would let white-on-black assaults slide. There are countless activists and organizers and civil rights leaders whose entire being is devoted to publicizing every perceived racial slight they can find; you're going to tell me there's a national conspiracy to cover up blatant assaults?

Sorry, that doesn't fly.

But, even if there was a massive cover up of such assaults, you expect me to believe the rich and powerful leaders of the left wing would let that stand?

Any pattern can have deviations; that doesn't negate the pattern. It's the difference between "all" and "most" .... I wouldn't think that all assaults such as these are being perpetrated by blacks. But, as with anything, if there is a noticeable "most," that is simply that; fifty is more than five, that's just the way it is.

And most normal people get that, at least subconsciously, and use it in their daily lives. We learn what to expect, based on what we've experienced either directly or secondhand.

Bottom line is that the white guy should face charges if he chose a victim based on race. But so should every other perpetrator that did the same, regardless of the color of either. To use this arrest as a way to try and nullify every other assault is ridiculous -- to say that one incident "shows" something, while 100 other like incidents don't show anything? How is that even remotely logical?

I'm waiting to see what happens, whether other suspects are charged with hate crimes as well, but I have a feeling that's not going to happen. After all, we learn what to expect, based on what we've experienced, and this type of racial imbalance/exploitation/manipulation is just par for the course from this administration and the left.

Some more ACA blues

According to the Weekly Standard, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a crowd in Miami that some folks certainly will see an increase in their health insurance costs.

She said, "There are some individuals who may be looking at increases. I think you cannot make a statement based on cost unless you compare what they had to what they're going into."

It's not so much the simple increase in premiums that bugs me, it's the flawed logic behind Sebelius' and other Dems' reasoning -- What people had was a plan they chose voluntarily based on benefit and cost; what they're going into is a plan the government forced them into.

Watch a video here.

Apply that logic to other things, and it's that much more ridiculous:

• I bought a $300 computer that works fine for my needs, but the government says I should have a faster one with more accessories that can do more things (which I'll never do with it), so they made me buy a $600 model
  
• You live in Florida so you don't have snow tires for your car, but the government says other people live where it snows and *they* need snow tires, so you have to buy them, too.

Generally speaking, the government doesn't care about increased costs. 

For one, if they want something and the cost goes up, they just spend more of taxpayers' money. It doesn't even matter if they *have* the money, they either just take more, or write more rubber checks. They just don't care.

If it's something they personally *do* have to pay for, it doesn't hurt them because they make more money than average folks, and if their budget becomes tight, they'll just vote themselves raises. They have no concept of budgets. For some people, if one bill goes up, something else has to go down. The first things to go are savings and discretionary spending, which takes a toll on the economy. Next comes "luxury" bills, such as cable TV. For others, those avenues have long been closed, and they have to start whittling away at the essentials. 

So, for some of those people, it might make more financial sense to skip insurance and pay the fine, so those folks go from having insurance to not having it. Thanks, government!

And of all this, the main beneficiary is insurance companies. So, how hard is it to think that there's some sort of kickback going on here? Just wondering.

MSNBC rewards Badwin's bad behavior with primetime gig

Flailing "news" network MSNBC reportedly is giving actor Alec Baldwin his own prime-time show.

Baldwin, known for "30 Rock," SNL gigs and other on-screen work, also is known for vicious, angry tirades on social media, including threats of physical violence, anti-gay slurs and bigotry.

In one of the more recent instances of Baldwin putting his anger management issues out for public display, he sent a series of tweets voicing his displeasure with Mail Online reporter George Stark, who had reported that Baldwin's wife, Hilaria, was tweeting during funeral services for actor James Gandolfini. It would be reported later that a Twitter glitch showed incorrect timestamps on Hilaria's tweets, so she wasn't actually tweeting during the funeral.

The bigger story, though, was that before the glitch was known, Baldwin rebutted the accusations by unleashing his own string of vulgar tweets threatening Stark and making anti-gay remarks.He also calls on his Twitter followers to attack Stark.

 

 

I wasn't really offended by Baldwin's Twitter rant, because (a) I just don't care that much about what any celebrity has to say about anything and (b) I'm rather coarse myself, so I can understand why Baldwin would be angry if a reporter mistakenly attacked his wife. I get that. What bothered me when this story broke was the lack of backlash by the mainstream media -- I couldn't help but think that if a conservative celebrity had done the same thing, he/she would be all over the news. 

 

For example, Paula Deen's career was completely ruined when it was revealed that, at some point in the past, she may have used the word "nigger" in a joke.

The admission came out during testimony in a discrimination case -- filed by a white employee -- which eventually was tossed by a judge. But still, she lost it all -- book deals, three TV shows, and her reputation.

I wasn't alone in wondering why Baldwin would get a pass. CNN's Anderson Cooper also took to Twitter to express his dismay at the difference in media attention.

 

This isn't the first time Baldwin has been shown to have a serious problem acting like an adult in the public eye. 

 

When his daughter, Ireland, was 11, during a custody dispute, Baldwin was caught on tape admonishing her, "“You are a rude, thoughtless pig. You don’t have the brains or the decency as a human being.” To his own daughter. I know I did some awful stuff as a kid, probably drove my folks batty, and yet they managed to never say something so hurtful, so awful -- and they didn't have millions of dollars and the luxury of zero real responsibility.  

 

But Baldwin also has been accused of having some racial epithets up his sleeve, too. 

 

While Deen lost her livelihood  because she used a word -- not against someone, just used the word -- Baldwin was accused of angrily calling a black photographer a "coon." 

 

In the same incident, he is said to have a told a reporter, "I want you to choke to death."

Baldwin denied the claims.

There's also the incident in which Baldwin was tossed from a flight after an altercation with a flight attendant.

Look, none of this matters, I get that. It's just more bizarre behavior from a somewhat unhinged Hollywooder. The issue is that a person who seems to consistently exhibit this type of behavior shouldn't be rewarded with more fame and fortune. If Deen's career can be ruined because she admitted to having uttered the "n-word," then why is Baldwin's behavior not only accepted, but rewarded?

Another Victim of Political Correctness; Soros Media Puppets On Rampage

Juan Williams, longtime NPR news analyst, was fired after a discussion he had on FNC's "The O'Reilly Factor" with host Bill O'Reilly.

Williams said he feels "nervous" if he gets on an airplane and sees people in Muslim garb, who "are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims."

This is because Muslims all over the world have repeatedly used their religion as a basis for attacks -- both verbal and physical -- against innocent people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Williams qualified the statement with the contention that people should not blame all Muslims for "extremists."

So NPR fired Williams for offering his opinion, on an opinion show. He didn't say anything hateful, he didn't advocate intolerance or violence, but he got fired anyway.

If you are not familiar with Williams, let me just say this: He often appears on FNC and offers a more liberal opinion than many of the analysts on the network. The difference between Williams and other liberal commentators is that Williams uses logic, not name-calling or misstated "facts" to support his arguments.

He is a good, even-handed commentator.

Also, it should be noted that the firing comes right after NPR received a HUGE "donation" from George Soros, mastermind and financier of liberal media outlets. Soros, who funds groups like MoveOn and Media Matters, both blatant left-wing propaganda outlets, is going on a rampage against Fox News because FNC is the only place on TV that actually tells the American people who is funding the propaganda machine.

Roaches don't like the light, and if they could cut the power, they would.

I want you to read these materials for yourself, not take my word for it. Here are some reading links, and you should Google them to get other versions of the story and other tidbits:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/national-politically-correct-radio_511450.html
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/george-soros-fox-glenn/2010/10/20/id/374340
http://www.dronetek.net/dronetek/george-soros-gives-npr-money-and-buys-reporters
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130712737&ps=cprs

Consumers Have Power

These days, more and more people are complaining about capitalism. They argue against price increases, executive compensation and corporate greed. But what they fail to realize is the true power consumers have to get things to go their way.

True, some businesses make it nearly impossible to negotiate, leaving the consumer with a choice of "take it or leave it." An good example is Comcast Cable. In my neck of the woods, the only choice I have for cable TV and Internet service is digital cable through Comcast or satellite TV with DSL Internet access. Cable beats DSL, so if I want that service, I pretty much have to pay whatever price Comcast sets. If I feel the price is too high, I can call and argue for a decrease, which I have done, but ultimately my choice is either pay or not get the service.

But when it comes to retail, consumers seem to ignore how much power they have, how much they can manipulate corporate greed to their advantage. A greedy business knows that any profit they can get from you is better than nothing, and often will negotiate with you if the entire sale -- and possibly future sales -- is on the line.

I have two stories about this in two days:

(1) Amazon.com

In July, I ordered an electric guitar from Amazon.com. The item was not even in stock, and had an estimated shipping date between September and December. The $500 guitar was on sale for $150 with free shipping, as long as I was willing to wait months to get it.

Of course I was, for that kind of deal. (Such a sweet guitar, too!) I've scoped them out used and, being somewhat hard to find, the same guitar sells used for $250-$300. So to get a brand new one for $150 shipped was worth the wait.

But in early September, I got an e-mail from Amazon telling me that since they were unsure of when the item would be in stock, they were canceling the order, even though I was willing to wait almost indefinitely in order to get that ridiculously low price.

At that point, Amazon took the product off their site, and showed it as only available from a third party for $439 plus shipping.

I called Amazon, and after some wrangling, the customer service rep told me he would add a note to the account and to check the site periodically, and that if Amazon did put the item back up for sale themselves, I would be allowed to order one for $150, regardless of the current price.

Then today, I checked Amazon, and they again were offering the guitar for sale from Amazon for $200 plus shipping, albeit still with a "you'll get it when we have it" shipping date. But, again, for that price, I can wait. I put it in my cart and called Amazon to get the price reduced to the original $150 total cost.
This time, the CSR told me that they were unaware of any note on my account, and that the $200 plus shipping was the best they could do, seeing as it was so far reduced already.

BS, right? I actually asked the CSR, "So, when the other rep told me they would note the account that I could get this item for $150, they were lying?" The CSR apologized and repeated that I could get it for $200 plus S&H. I asked to speak to a manager/supervisor, because I couldn't believe that the CSR would just feed me a line of crap, knowing that at some point, I would be back expecting the deal he promised.

I spoke to an alleged manager, Mark, and within less than a minute, he had adjusted the price of the item in my cart to $149.99 shipped.

I didn't yell, I wasn't rude. All I did was politely tell him what I had been told by the first CSR, and that if it was not honored, I would no longer patronize Amazon.com, because they are not exclusive sellers of anything, so I would gladly pay more elsewhere out of principle. Looking at my account, he could see that I give Amazon a fair amount of business, and realized immediately that any cut in profit he would have to take in order to appease me this one time was far outweighed by the amount of profit he would make from me in the long run.

(2) Citizens Bank

I had an RBS Mastercard. They changed over a month ago to Citizens Bank, and sent me a new card and fee schedule. But things were different.

For some reason, my interest rate went from 13% to 18.5%.

I had no issues with the account, wasn't ever late or anything like that. The bank just assumed they could raise the rate and I would accept it.

Nope.

So I called the 800 number and had a very short conversation with the CSR. I explained my concerns, that with excellent credit and a perfect track record with RBS, I couldn't understand why my interest rate would jump after 5 or 6 years of 13%. He told me that the bank simply was "going by new federal regulations" and that my options were to accept the new rate or cancel the account.

I told him to cancel the account.

I was transferred to the department to close the account, and they asked why I was closing it, so I told them the same thing I told the first CSR. They informed me that if the interest rate was an issue, they certainly could negotiate that. I told them the choice the first CSR gave me, and this CSR was not impressed by that and said the first CSR

Within a minute or two, my new card was activated at 13%.

Again, no yelling, no cursing. Just a reminder that the bank had made money off me the past few years, and could either continue to make that amount or nothing at all, seeing as there are plenty of banks looking for profits.

---------------------------------------------

I realize that you may have read all this and are really angry that it was so long, and so dull. But it's important for people to realize that, if you're willing to sacrifice convenience or savings, you can make a stand as a consumer. A business cannot survive without customers (unless it's in bed with the government, then it can make money for doing nothing, but that's another post!). Switch the choice onto them: Do they want the business you offer them, or none at all?

You have to be willing to do without, though, so be prepared. Comcast again is a great example.

They offer a bundle (phone, Internet and TV) for $100 a month, but only for a year. After the year, the price goes to a little more than $140. For several years, I have been able to keep paying only $100, because when they raise the price, I call and tell them I simply will do without cable and will go to satellite/DSL; I know the service is not as good, but it's a matter of principle -- $100 a month to get e-mail, watch regular cable TV (no pay stations here) and make a couple of phone calls is simply the max I am willing to pay.

What usually happens is that they tell you to take it or leave it. Tell them you'll leave it. When they transfer you over to the "retention department," suddenly it IS possible for them to extend the $100 promo price -- "but just for one more year."

That was about 4 years ago. At some point, they may be willing to lose a customer, and that's when it's on you, the consumer, to stand on principle, and show them that $100 a month is better than nothing.

So that's it, as long-winded as it was. Do it, and tell your friends to do it, too. You can't bitch about corporate greed if you willingly let them get away with it. Just make sure you're ready to carry out your threats. You may lose some convenience, like I would hate to not shop at Amazon, but if you let yourself be victimized by bad business, then it's more your fault than it is the businesses'.

Howard Dean is a Liar

Here is a story about Howard Dean's appearance on "Fox News Sunday," in which he flat-out lies.

The crime is that the only way you can know he is lying is if you actually WATCH Fox News. So everyone that doesn't watch Fox would likely just take what Dean says at face value because he is a party big-shot, and would then be walking around misinformed -- intentionally lied to.

Dean is following the typical lib playbook: If someone is right and you're wrong, you can still beat them by slinging mud; and no mud is as tasty to a liberal as a charge of racism.

I watch Glenn Beck's show. He's irritating sometimes, and a little too emotional at other times. But I will tell you this with certainty: I have never heard him call for violence, I have never heard him say or endorse anything racist. I've asked people, after they tell me Beck is a racist, to find me the clips. But they haven't, because there are none.

POLITICO: Dean: Fox News “racist” - POLITICO Live - Dean: Fox News “racist”

Who Decided Paul McCartney Knows Anything?

Paul McCartney has a lot to say about American issues lately.

He started by mocking a former U.S. president during a visit to the White House to accept an award, something I find offensive as an American.

Now, he's popping up in the news with strident support for President Obama, complete with the standard American liberal rhetoric.

(Standard liberal rhetoric: Talk about unrealistic, impossible liberal goals, then blame conservatives for reality not being that way.)

That he's ultra-liberal isn't really the problem.

What I don't understand is why his political and social opinions merit worldwide broadcast.

To me, he's a singer, so if it's not a song coming out of his mouth than I have no interest in it.

Why should I? Aside from really good songs and music, who is Paul McCartney? He's just a super-rich, old, white liberal. He's got really socially progressive views, and wants to influence American politics in that direction.

And he's not a U.S. citizen.

So to come to America, to the White House, and insult not only a former president, but the half of America that voted for that president -- twice -- is just poor behavior.Classless.

And Obama is classless for not chastising McCartney. It's called pride in your country.

Obama Administration Needs Dictionary

Simply put: "Illegal" means "not legal."

How can anyone say, with a straight face, that people in this country illegally are entitled to anything? It would seem to me that if someone's very presence in this country is a violation of law, then the only thing they are entitled to in America is a ride back to their homeland.

The left wing loves illegals, because most illegals are Hispanic, so then the party can say it's protecting Hispanics, and then the Hispanics are supposed to be obligated to vote Democrat. It's really disgusting.

Illegal immigration is bad for the country, bad for legal Americans and bad for the illegal immigrants themselves. An unsecured border is terrible for a country, Americans have to foot extra bills, and illegals have to live substandard lives because their being here is a criminal act.

But Democrats exploit this, they keep it going for the votes, for the power and control, and in doing so keep a huge number of people -- the illegals -- as modern-day slaves.

Obama Labor Chief: Illegals Have a Right to Fair Wages | The FOX Nation

Obama Analysis from Washington Examiner

This isn't a partisan hit piece, but rather a reasoned explanation of some of the Obama administration's mistakes.

Finding links between politicians and people who give those politicians money is always intriguing to me, especially when those links seem to influence policy to go against the interest of the nation in favor of those links, because it shows the need for (a) removal of such politicians from office and (b) the need for campaign finance reform.

If we want the government to act in the interests of the common man, then we need common men in charge. It really is that simple. There are so many smart, honest, trustworthy people out there in our great country that will never have a chance to lead simply because of their circumstances.

And the onus is on us. We technically are still in control; it's just a matter how how and if we act on it.

Obama's thuggery is useless in fighting spill | Washington Examiner

The Intolerance of the Left, Part XXI

This is a well written story about a man who does not agree with liberal policy, so he put up a sign.

Unlike so many similar stories, this one does not try to paint the man as a rabid Republican or white supremacist, just a hardworking man with a valid opinion.

However, people who disagree with him lit his sign on fire, twice, as well as his farmhouse. The story does not say how the police came to the conclusion that it was political beliefs that brought the arson incidents, versus a general firebug, but such reaction from the left is all too common. From book signings to college auditoriums to street corners, conservatives are repeatedly shut down by the left.

Ask Karl Rove, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh how polite liberals are when faced with speech they disagree with.

It seems that the people preaching tolerance the loudest are the most intolerant; the ones who cry the most about civil liberties are the first ones to take them away from others.


Missouri man's incendiary sign on U.S. 71 draws fire - KansasCity.com

Obama Wants You -- Unless You're a White Male

Facing growing opposition from surveyed Americans, President Obama and the Democratic machine are gearing up for the 2010 elections, with Obama calling for the votes of the "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008," even as new polls reveal growing displeasure for the administration's "accomplishments."

The Democratic National Committee Monday released a video clip of Obama touting the administration's achievements in health care reform and economic recovery, urging the first-time voters recruited in the 2008 election to return to the polls to fight those who, Obama says, are looking to "put their allies back in power" -- "insurance companies, Wall Street banks and special interests."

With immigration, health care and government spending to be among the top issues in upcoming elections, new poll results seem to show disconnect between the administration and the American public, however.

According to national survey results released Monday by Rasmussen Reports, 58 percent of those surveyed favor repealing the hastily-passed health care reform bill, with only 38 percent against repeal. While Obama's video told viewers of the progress being made to improve conditions in the country, the poll found that, overall, 52 percent of respondents feel the current health care reform bill will be bad for the country, with only 39 percent feeling it will be good.

It comes as no surprise that the Obama administration is looking for the so-called "surge" voters from 2008 to reappear in 2010: Rasmussen's Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Monday showed only 29 percent of voters strongly approve of the way the administration is performing, versus 41 percent who strongly disapprove. Generally, according to the poll, 47 percent somewhat approve of the job the president is doing, while 52 percent disapprove.

The largest demonstration of disapproval seems to be coming from tea party activists, a movement growing in power throughout the country. While mass protests have sprung up in major cities across the nation, drawing thousands of supporters, the movement has been vilified by congressional Democrats, liberal talk show hosts and mainstream news outlets for its supposed lack of black and Latino participants, which, when coupled with Obama's specific call to those groups for support, suggests that dividing the country through race and ethnicity may be the administration's only viable strategy when policy alone cannot garner enough support to keep Democrats in power.

He Who Shall Not Be Named (Quiet Terrorism)

So, the Comedy Central show "South Park," an animated show that mocks celebrities, religion, politics and pop culture, has been censored by the network after receiving death threats from an Islamic group.

The show's creators are no longer allowed to say "Muhammad" or to depict him in any form, including the simple insinuation that he might be in a disguise -- so they can't show a cardboard box if they say that he might be in the box.

So you know, one of the show's recurring characters is Jesus Christ; Saddam Hussein is Satan's gay lover; Barbra Streisand is a 200-foot-tall robotic Godzilla-like creature; and the school's black chef has a cookie recipe for "chocolate salty balls."

One of the main characters is constantly harangued for being Jewish, while the schoolteacher has a gay bondage-slave lover, fittingly named "Mr. Slave," who actually is a very nice guy.

Paris Hilton was featured in a "whore-off" contest, Sally Struthers is a Jabba the Hutt character who steals food from starving African children, one of which is named "Starvin' Marvin."

And yet the show, which not only aired an episode based entirely on how many times the characters could utter the word "shit" but also brought the insult "douche" into the mainstream, is not allowed to do anything that could offend fanatical, violent Islamic terrorists.

There are episodes mocking gingers, the mentally retarded, alcoholics and addicts, Scientologists, illegal aliens, gays, priests, cops ... but Muslims are now off-limits.

Why?

The answer is frighteningly simple: Because followers of the so-called "religion of peace" answer anything they dislike with the threat of violence and murder, and they have proven the threats credible, as in the case of Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by Muslim extremists after depicting Muhammad.

Every freedom we enjoy in America, and in other countries, seems not to apply if Muslims say it does not. Parker and Stone have the freedom to say what they want on their show -- unless the Muslims object. Van Gogh was free to make any film he wanted, until the Muslims decided against that. Newspapers were free to print editorial cartoons about any topic they wished, until violent Muslims threatened editors with death.

We think of terrorism as an event -- a bombing or a 9/11-style suicide mission. But this Muslim censorship is the epitome of terrorism, when one lives in a state of fear, modifying freedoms so as to avoid becoming a target of the fanatics.

Our government is far too silent on the subject, out of fear as well. Presidents and politicians will warn of American extremists from the far left or far right, from anarchistic groups to supremacy groups, but they refuse to confront the extremists that actually act upon their threats.

The the war on terrorism is no longer in Afghanistan or Iraq or Israel, it is here on our soil. When free people lose freedoms because of the threat of violence from one group, we are no longer free; we are only as free as the radical Muslims allow us to be.

How long will it be before a non-Muslim country sees neighborhoods under Muslim control? When "free" citizens of an American or British city are given the choice to follow Muslim law or be killed, what will happen?

Muslims long ago declared jihad, holy war, against America and non-Muslims; unfortunately we seemingly refuse to believe them. Our greatest asset, our compassion and understanding for every type of human, may prove to be our biggest weakness.

A Must-Read for Blumenthal Fans -- and Foes

Here's a great Times story about Conn. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's Senate quest:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/nyregion/15blumenthal.html

Buying Booze for the Bums

Taxpayers foot State Department's stiff liquor bill - Washington Times

This is not a new problem, as the article states. My question is, why do we keep giving the thieves in Washington more of our money?

On this Tax Day, ask yourself what would happen if no one paid.

Would the government -- could it -- find and prosecute everyone?

We need representatives that know how a person lives when there is a money shortage.

More to Come

I haven't posted anything on this blog in a while.

I got tired of people at work reading it and then harassing me about it, from my social views to my religious beliefs.

It seems that, no matter how loudly liberals call for tolerance of every deviation under the sun, the only things they find deplorable are conservatives and Christians.

Yes, I'm a straight, white, conservative Christian male. I believe in honesty, hard work and responsibility. The posts that are to come will reflect such beliefs.

I do not believe in political correctness, and I cherish my right as an American to have my own opinion. I welcome comments and dialogue. But be warned --I like to argue.

Sen. Dodd, D-Conn., slashed aviation security funding for pet constituency | Washington Examiner

Sen. Dodd, D-Conn., slashed aviation security funding for pet constituency | Washington Examiner

My ADHD: Started on Rush, Ended on Something Else

I had posted a link on Facebook about Rush Limbaugh getting ousted from a group that was planning to buy a sports team.

His involvement in the business deal drew fire from people that disagree with him ideologically, such as the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and they raised enough noise that the business group decided to drop him from the deal so as not to endanger the deal.

So, a friend replied, and as I replied to that reply, I went off on a thought, and figured I'd post it here:

I totally agree with the business decision on the part of the other buyers. ... My beef is that none of us would even have known Rush was a part owner if he wasn't who he is. Without looking back at the story, can you tell me any of the other guys' names?

Off the top of your head, other than Steinbrenner, can you name any other teams' owners?

And, I find it amazing that a guy who *says* offensive things is treated worse by the left than people who *do* offensive things.

But check this: The whole concept of "owning" a sports team is garbage anyway, long before you bring Limbaugh into the picture.

Teams -- and players -- are bought and sold as investment properties by wealthy people. Sure, good players are paid tons of cash so they can buy shiny things to enjoy when their bodies finally give out and they're of no use to the owners anymore. And, if they get treated badly by the rich owner, well they can go be owned by someone else instead, and get shiny things from them until their bodies finally give out and they're of no use to the owners anymore.

And, no team *needs* to be owned. Imagine if people that lived in a state played a sport, and competed against other states? And non-players from those states would all get together and watch the games, and pitch in money for uniforms and equipment so they could enjoy the game?


And anyway, being a boss and having a stake in a team are two different things. Rush would have just been another one of the guys getting rich off the investment.

As an aside: Our culture treats athletes and entertainers better than teachers, soldiers, veterans and senior citizens. If all the athletes gave 25% of their huge salaries they get for playing a frigging game, and Hollywood actors did movies for $4 million instead of $6 million, there'd be no homeless problem, no hunger problem. Seeing as their wealth came directly from our adulation, shouldn't they "give back" a "fair share" ... ?

Maybe You Don't Like Glenn Beck, But I Don't Like Dylan Voltaire

Glenn Beck has a new book, "Arguing With Idiots," ranked #3 on Barnes & Noble.

I wanted to see some of the reviews, and I found this:

Who's the idiot?by DylanVoltaire

Reader Rating:
See Detailed Ratings

"September 22, 2009: After listening to the preview and reading the excerpt I can see that Beck is a master at arguing with straw men he constructs. I love the idea of a domino effect mindset of people who argue that the Second Amendment is out dated; as though these people want to nefariously end free speech and jury trials. I would like him to produce one serious critic of the NRA who has this in mind. The better argument against the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment is that the founders always believed in a state's power to regulate guns. The arguments that surrounded the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights were centered on the power of states to maintain and train virtuous male citizens for their militia to provide for the "common defense" of a young untested republic against the manifold threats extant. One of those perceived threats was the standing army of the National Government. In those days (and I suppose Beck would consider me an idiot for understanding this) "the people" feared a regular army in the hands of the national government; they wanted a small force if any. Today I would suggest that Americans want a well trained regular army to defend our nation. Therefore, in a very real sense, the idea of the Second Amendment is outdated. Now, that doesn't necessarily call for massive gun control, but it does lend to the understanding that states should, and always did, retain the power to regulate gun ownership according to their unique circumstances. In other words, a guy living in Wyoming has very different needs and concerns surrounding gun ownership than a family living in an apartment building in Philadelphia. The family in Philadelphia would like to go to bed at night knowing that the persons living on either side of them isn't going to accidently discharge their AK-47 and kill their child sleeping in its crib.

Here's an idiotic use of evidence: In 1831 the state of Missouri limited the right of citizens to carry concealed weapons. This was a factor in the case State v Mitchell. The statute, a state regulation of gun ownership, was found to be constitutional. That shows that states had the power to regulate gun ownership. Wow, what an idiot I am.

Hey, but Beck is dressed up as a soldier for Halloween this year. I'm convinced. At least he didn't try to dress up as a scholar."

Wow, Dylan, all that and you didn't even have to read the book.

The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy | Washington Examiner

If you don't know what this story is about, that's exactly the point. Google Van Jones and see for yourself.

The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy | Washington Examiner

Shared via AddThis

The Times Conveniently Leaves Out Details

Here's a story about U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel -- seems he has a problem with paying his "fair share" as the Dems keep saying "the rich" should do.

Best part is, the article never mentions that Rangel, under two House ethics investigations, is a Democrat.

In fact, the word "Democrat" never appears in the story.

Odd, how this rich guy keeps refusing to admit what he owns or pay taxes on it, and the fact that his party is the one complaining about the rich not paying enough to cover the poor, and the Times leaves out his affiliation.

I truly believe that if Rangel were a Republican, it would say so somewhere in the story.

Just another example of (a) shoddy writing, (b) left-wing bias or (C) both.

Here's the story:

Rangel Failed to Disclose $500,000 in Assets for ’07

By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI

United States Representative Charles B. Rangel, whose personal finances and fund-raising are the subject of two House ethics investigations, failed to report at least $500,000 in assets on his 2007 Congressional disclosure form, according to an amended report he filed this month.

Among the dozen newly disclosed holdings revealed in the amended forms are a checking account at a federal credit union with a balance between $250,0000 and $500,000; three vacant lots in Glassboro, N.J., valued at a total of $1,000 to $15,000; and stock in PepsiCo worth between $15,000 and $50,000.

The updated forms report that Mr. Rangel’s total net worth is between $1,028,024 and $2,495,000 — about twice the amount listed in the original disclosure statement, filed in May 2008, which declared assets totaling between $516,015 and $1,316,000.

Mr. Rangel declined to discuss the matter, saying he did not want to comment publicly while the investigations continue. In the past, he has explained omissions on financial statements, including his failure to declare $75,000 in rental income on a villa in the Dominican Republic or pay $10,000 in taxes on it, as unintentional bookkeeping errors. A spokesman for the congressman issued a statement saying the amended disclosure forms were Mr. Rangel’s attempt to rectify recently discovered omissions in his financial reporting.

“Congressman Rangel is confident that his records have been subjected to an exhaustive and complete review, and that the amendments accurately reflect his financial interests,” said the aide, Elbert Garcia.

Republicans said that Mr. Rangel’s inaccuracies in disclosing his assets and income, along with other ethics questions, were so egregious that he should be removed from his powerful position as chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which oversees the tax code.

“This, again, raises serious questions about whether he should continue as chairman, given the multiple ethics investigations,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for Representative John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio and the House minority leader.

Two House subcommittees are investigating Mr. Rangel’s financial dealings. One is examining his failure to report, or pay taxes on, the income from the Dominican beach house; whether Mr. Rangel may have violated the ban on taking gifts worth more than $50 by accepting four rent- stabilized apartments from a Manhattan developer at a price thousands of dollars per month under market value; and whether he improperly used his Congressional office to raise money for a charity — the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service — from donors with business interests before his committee.

The other subcommittee is investigating a complaint from an ethics advocacy group that has accused Mr. Rangel and four other members of Congress of violating the restrictions on accepting travel from donors who employ lobbyists by attending a conference last November in St. Maarten. It was sponsored by Citigroup, which received billions in federal bailout money.

In his amended disclosure form, however, Mr. Rangel reported that his trip was paid for by The Carib News Foundation, which had underwritten the congressman’s travels in the past.

Ethics experts say that although members of Congress are required to fully disclose their assets, omissions do not usually result in sanctions unless they are part of an effort to deceive. But Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan government watchdog group, said Mr. Rangel’s haphazard approach to his finances had undermined his credibility in Congress.

“Sloppy bookkeeping is not a valid excuse for a sophisticated member of Congress who is chairman of the committee that handles complex financial issues like the tax code,” she said.