Sources of Irritation

Take a look at this jackwagon.

A Michigan man who won $2 million in a state lottery game continues to collect food stamps 11 months after striking it rich.

And there's nothing the state can do about it, at least for now.

Leroy Fick, 59, of Auburn won $2 million in the state lottery TV show "Make Me Rich!" last June. But the state's Department of Human Services determined he was still eligible for food stamps, Fick's attorney, John Wilson of Midland, said Tuesday.

Character must be at an all-time low in this country. The attitude that everyone owes a person is at an all-time high. "I am going to get what's mine, whether I earned it or not" is a value that has been proliferated by government.

Meet MSNBC's Minor Leaguer Lawrence O'Donnell

First let me say that once again, I shamelessly pilfered this from IHTM, once of the fastest growing blogs on the internet. If you aren't reading them, seek professional help somewhere before it's too late.

This is a great interview that demonstrates just what happens when idiots are allowed an audience. Take a few minutes and watch Condoleeza Rice thoroughly dismantle a clearly outclassed and under-qualified Lawrence O'Donnell. If you want to see what obtuseness coupled with sheer idiocy looks like when it is contrasted with class and intellectual brilliance, it is worth the time.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rarely do I do this here, but this is very important to understand. So I will make an exception and post my comment I left on IHTM:

The golden statement of that entire exchange was made by Dr. Rice:

“You have to act on the intelligence you have.”

Lawrence has no intelligence, so he has been relegated to the mere recitals of leftist propaganda that is fed to him by those who are as equally ignorant as he is.

I looked online at Mr. O’Donnell’s bio(s) to see his educational resume, and I have to tell you that most sites I checked say he only”attended” Harvard, if they mentioned it at all. Only Wikipedia states that he graduated, but it gives no area of study and we all know how unreliable Wiki can be sometimes. If he were truly a grad of Harvard, I would think somewhere in one of these bios it would say Bachelors Degree in _______. But this is not the case with Larry.

But let’s just say for argument’s sake, he did.

By contrast, Dr. Rice was Phi Beta Kappa and earned a B.A. (cum laude) from the University of Denver. She earned a Masters Degree in political science at Notre Dame, and a PhD from the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the U. of Denver.

We all know of her government service. She is also an accomplished pianist who has played with Yo Yo Ma. She is now a professor at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Larry is a Dem hack at MSNBC and a former shitty actor.

So, yes. You have to act on the intelligence you have. Condi did just that in this interview and Larry O acted on the intelligence he didn’t/doesn’t have.

And it showed…..greatly.

I think this pretty much sums up this block of instruction, quite well. Lawrence O'Donnell, irrelevance personified. Dr. Rice, rational thought and reasoning in human form.

Two Geniuses And An Idiot

There may have been more of both, but that's all who got to speak:



Short and simple, but you can see that the Frances Fox Pivens ideology is in control right now. And we can also see the results of their flawed thinking.

The Ignorance Factory

When the Progressives lose the argument, they will resort to the most despicable human behaviors. Herman Cain has come up with an appropriate acronym for this phenomenon, SIN.

S=Shift

First they try to shift the subject to something completely unrelated so that their ignorance is not on open display. Like when we talk about how bad Obama's Administration is failing the American people, somehow they try to switch the topic to George Bush.

I=Ignore

If shifting the subject away from the original subject doesn't work them, they will flat out ignore facts. They will discredit them with robotic pat answers given to them by the people who produce the daily talking points.

N=Name call

Once the first two strategies fail, they must resort to the overt demonization of anyone who disagrees with them, to include you or whoever is trying to civilly discuss an issue of great importance.

This only applies the debate process and is light duty compared to the tactics they use, when they lose the argument in a legislative forum. When they lose a floor vote and see that they have failed to persuade enough legislators to vote their way on an issue, they then will resort to even lower tactics like threats and intimidation.

Here is a snippet from the actual letter found at that link and is pretty much the crux of this matter:

In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining,
please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the
goods and services provided by your company.

Another E-Mail communication on display can be found here. The guy that is posting this for public consumption made the astute observation that Milwaukee Area Technical College's (MATC) website and e-mail addresses were being used in an official capacity to punish those who are in in line with the pro-union dogma.

When we take a moment to analyze this, it isn't surprising. MATC has a long history of training skilled laborers who are usually well-equipped to take jobs in the workplace that are traditionally union jobs. The indoctrination starts here at the training center and usually lasts an entire lifetime.

Now, let me make something clear here. It is not my intention to denigrate those who study and graduate from technical schools. In today's high tech world, we need skilled workers to do jobs that require more than just a high school diploma, where shop classes were offered and taken.

Not everyone can grasp the nature of a university level education that offers and requires courses outside a person's chosen major, for the specific purpose of making a person a more well-rounded individual. There is no dishonor in graduating with a two year degree that will lead a person to a job or career that will feed a person's family and put their children through school, so they can attain whatever goals and dreams they may have.

But just as I have problems with a state-funded university indoctrinating students to support Leftist ideology (based on flawed doctrines that have historically failed everywhere they have previously been implemented), I also have problems with tech schools promoting public sector unions and encouraging their students to use union-like tactics to do so. But evidently, MATC has no problem teaching their students to believe wrongly or make utter fools of themselves, in their later lives.

One of the more prominent graduates of this "fine" institution has made her way to government. Remember this women? If not, take a moment and listen to a prominent graduate of MATC in action just a short while back, when the Arizona immigration law debate was in full bore:



My suggestion to the administrators of MATC is that they worry less about political activism and offer some basic courses for people to at least have a functional understanding of what they are trying to talk about, when they open their mouths to speak. It's not that people do not have the right to their own opinions and beliefs. It's not that they do not have the right to use their pocketbooks and wallets as a means of communicating their displeasure with a business and company, for any reason they deem important.

The point is, it is important to know that others have the same right to express their beliefs and to support candidates that reflect those beliefs, without the fear of having threats leveled against them.

But more importantly, how long will the people whose tax dollars go to support institutions like MATC, allow the money to be wasted on political activism, while they fail to educate the students properly? Ignorance needs no factory. It's already there. And it damn sure doesn't need instructors to dumb the students down any further, all they need to do is watch MSNBC or the MSM newscasts.

On The Tax Burdened Trail

It's a well known fact that there isn't a spending program that Democrats can really say they hate. They want to spread your dollars out everywhere so they can buy themselves votes. You work hard, you come home tired, you still have to do things around the house, you go to bed, and get up just to do the same thing all over again....just so you can pay for programs like the one Harry Reid is describing in this short clip:



I hope that Nevadans who voted for this moron are pleased with themselves. This bozo has never held a real job in his entire life, yet he wields power in the Senate to spread your money around, so some poor down and out cowboy poets (who don't have real jobs either) can sit around and have a place to recite poetry. I bet NPR even covers it.

Yippee the @#$%!! ti yi yay.

She Lives On Dream Street

 Obama hack, Candy Crowley with Donald Rumsfeld:



No burning of Obama in effigy? Candy doesn't do her homework before she makes a fool of herself:



The streets look different? This was in 2009.

Islamists who want Qadaffi out of power blame America. Qadaffi blames America because of the uprising. I'd say it really not that much different than when Bush was in power. But Candy can have her delusions, if she wants.

The Market For Unions Is Crashing

Unions and their Left-Wing supporters are demonizing the efforts of governors and legislators, whose only offense is they want to make paying union dues voluntary.

The Teamsters are fed up and not going to take it any more. At least that is what they are saying in essence as they oppose what they call Wisconsin Governor Scot Walker’s “job-killing budget.”

"Wisconsin needs three things right now: jobs, jobs and more jobs," said Gegare. "We do not need a budget that destroys jobs and lowers the standard of living for everyone in the state.

"Walker's budget plan is a partisan, job-killing proposal aimed at punishing his political enemies and rewarding his political backers. Walker claims to be the original Tea Party in Wisconsin."

The argument being used here is, without unions having the ability to forcibly extract union dues from workers, the result will be a loss of jobs. The argument for implementing this is, it will keep the government solvent and save jobs.

To analyze and evaluate these opposing view points, I think we must look at the law of supply and demand. To properly do this, we must examine the most basic principle of microeconomics. When supply is high and demand is low, we know that prices go down. The opposite is true when demand is high and supply is low.

Labor is something we can use in the equation.

When there are a number of workers in a given area that outnumber the number of jobs available, wages go down. Companies figure that because unemployment is high, workers will work for less. And they will, if the government isn't handing out limitless unemployment benefits.

When there are more jobs available than there are workers available to work, wages go up. Workers have more choices based on this scenario. The reason for this is because, if they do not like their jobs they can usually find others fairly quickly. That's why we see a lot of job-hoppers in a booming economy.

So if we look closely at the union position in these cases, we are being told that by compelling workers to pay union dues, this will magically create more jobs and raise the standard of living in these areas. They make these weak and faulty claims in face of looming layoffs that will most certainly be necessary to accommodate union jobs. These are jobs that the employers are forced to pay for, under the duress.

When there is only so much money in a labor budget, it's all a company or government can use and still remain solvent. You only have X amount of dollars to use and if the unions are demanding more, this means a certain amount of people will need to be let go to accommodate the union workers' and their demands.

When people are let go, the union will often blame the company or government when it is in fact the union that caused it. Pointing fingers is little consolation for the one who lost his/her job. The result is more workers looking for work while there are less jobs for them, thus bringing down wages on the whole.

If states have "right to work" laws on the books, it can be used as a tool to attract more businesses to the state. The more businesses in the state mean more opportunities for workers who are looking for work. When this gets to the point where there are more jobs, very often there will be a bidding war between companies for labor and wages will rise. Companies will also do more to retain good workers who show up every day and give it their all.

The only losers in this scenario are the union leaders who have made themselves rich by using agitation and coercion, as a middleman in all of this. Worker sell their time to companies, so companies can make money. If the company makes money, the workers' jobs are secure--unless a worker misbehaves and is terminated for it.

This serves as incentive to do the job, a worker has been hired to do. But under union domination, we have created an environment where tenure and seniority rules. The man or woman who has the most seniority can and often does get away with things, because they are safe from layoffs and the union makes it much harder for the company to shed the dead weight.

Maybe it's time someone makes a stand against this fraud that unions have created in many workplaces, in America. I certainly believe it's time for union leadership to be on the job market, and experience the frustration that comes with losing a job. My guess is the only thing they will qualify for is a position as a petty street thug, who is hired by a mob boss to shake down store owners for protection money.

Advocacy

From Dictionary.Com, here is the definition of the verb, advocate:

-to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly: He advocated higher salaries for teachers.

The word, by its very definition, suggests there are opposing stances that must be reconciled in some way. This also suggests that there are two interested parties with two different viewpoints, on how to find a solution to a problem.

Many times the relationship of the two parties is not an equal one, meaning one side has power and control while the other side must adhere to the one in authority. The one that must submit will sometimes, seek a more egalitarian approach to the relationship. If the side that has power relents and cedes some of it to the other, it often leads to the desire of the weaker one to obtain more. If this is done enough times, they may eventually seek to completely subvert the one in authority and assert themselves into complete control.

This principle can be applied to many different situations and issues.

Let's look at one issue, which is one being followed closely right now....the standoff at the state capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin. But first let's look at a little history.

The 2010 Wisconsin Gubernatorial Race was won by the Republican Scott Walker with 52% of the vote, over the Democratic candidate Tom Barrett with 46%. Walker was the Milwaukee County Executive and Barrett is the Mayor of the city of Milwaukee.

I am not well informed on the fine details of this race, because I do not live in Wisconsin. But I do know that the state has historically been a hotbed of progressive ideology due to strong union activity and the influence of University of Wisconsin-Madison. I also know that it is also the home state of an early 20th century progressive leader, Robert LaFollette Sr, who was originally a Republican but later helped form the 1924 version of the Progressive Party.

So it's easy to see why progressivism is deeply embedded into the psyches of many people in this state. In fact, I think it can be safely said that it is a cultural tradition, passed on from generation to generation. For this reason alone, the location is quite symbolic.

Now here comes Scott Walker--campaigning on fiscal responsibility, spending cuts, and mathematical realities. Like many others doing the same thing in other states, he wins the election. Then, he looks at the books he has inherited from an unpopular Democratic governor (Jim Doyle) who was once a teacher and later a trial lawyer. Both professions have a very strong symbiotic affinity for unions. So as you may guess, for the eight years he was in office he let the union write its own ticket.

At one time many years ago, some unions had purpose. They were advocates for people who badly needed them. They were once a necessary entity back when child labor laws were sorely needed, when corporate interests were served by heavy exploitation of workers. Ten year old boys were working in coal mines under dangerous conditions, because the parents couldn't make a living wage otherwise. Families were dependent on their children's incomes so much so that they were compelled to risk their safety, while the corporate fat cats were living well and educating their children.

But now, the unions have become parasites. They only exist to make their leadership rich. They do it by making workers believe that they are not getting their fair share of the pie, and deserve more. They do this in a time when, we have labor laws and minimum wages.

Auto workers and steel workers are but two examples of unions laborers who have secured great wages and benefits over the years. They make living wages better than or equal to some educated professionals. Historically, the UAW and USW are two powerful unions that have used coercion and strong-armed tactics over the years to secure those perks. And they have used the same tactics to usurp much of the authority from management and ownership.

But while these unions are as rough as any Gambino mobster, they do not wreak nearly as much havoc and cause nearly as much damage to our society as the public service unions do. One example is the teachers union. It is directly responsible for the dumbing down of America, it is directly responsible for educating the masses to believe that unions are there for the workers. They have taught multiple generations that without the unions, workers were without advocacy.

The other unions I mentioned are those who fight their battles within the realm of the private sector. The result of their greed and thuggery is pricing American products right out of the market. Why else would the bulk of textiles now come from overseas? Who wants to pay $200 for a pair of jeans and $60 for a tee-shirt to wear with them?

But public service unions like the NEA and the AFT suck their blood directly off of the taxpayers. And when politicians are in bed with these leeches, those unions use classical conditioning to make their members believe that they need union representation to protect them from the greedy taxpayers, many of whom are barely making it in this poor economy. This only serves to create a sense of entitlement among the teachers, they feel as if they are owed this because the union tells them this.

Keep in mind that these are educated professionals, many of them with Masters Degrees. They are not GED forklift operators we are talking about, they are people we have entrusted to educate our children and grandchildren. And they act like we owe them the world.

The bottom line here is simple.

Unions are dying off and the leaderships of these organizations know it. They know that if they make the kind of concessions Gov. Walker and the GOP-led legislature are proposing, they will be weaker than they have already become.

They want the public to believe that it will be grievous for teachers and other public service employees to contribute to their own healthcare and retirement, like we all must do. They want us all to believe that they are the only advocates capable of defending the jobs and reputations, of these civil servants.

But I say they aren't advocating for them at all. Because if they were, they'd be trying to save the jobs of those will most certainly be laid off, if these concessions are not agreed to in this proposal.

The state is broke and headed for a California and Illinois kind of fiscal meltdown, if something doesn't give. The Governor is not trying to bust the union, he is trying to save jobs of people who will not have them next month, or next school year.

If it were me, I would bust them up. Because I do not think union bosses (who produce nothing of any real marketable value) should be getting taxpayer money, for any reason at all. But out of the kindness of Gov. Walker's heart, he is only asking that the benefits be exempt from collective bargaining. They will still be allowed to (ahem) "advocate" for the workers on salaries and wages.

So be ye not deceived here. They are going to lie endlessly to persuade the dumb masses, into believing that they are there for those who cannot (ahem) "advocate" for themselves. But I say, the best advocate for a worker is the worker. If he/she shows up everyday and commits himself/herself to doing a good job for those who sign the paychecks, he/she becomes an asset to the company or whatever entity they work for.

Management has a responsibility too. If they have workers who they see are valuable assets to the organization, it would be wise to work hard to retain those people by keeping them happy. Too many times in a down economy, we hear employers tell workers they should be thankful they have jobs, so get to work and shut up.

Management and labor need each other, so it is wise to have the ability to work towards the best interests of the organization as a whole. When that happens, everyone wins. In tough times, however, all sides must be willing to sacrifice something to maintain stability and solvency.

In the case of the Wisconsin public service unions, they are not advocating anything of the sort. They would rather see jobs lost, they would rather have taxes raised on the private sector citizens, than give one little inch for the greater good of the citizenry.

Desperate Measures In A Surreal Existence

Since late last year, there was a concerted effort to cast Obama as channeling Reagan as part of his miraculous recovery, from liberal tax and spend policies to just plain spend. Someone who says he's Howard Fineman is thus quoted:

"The irony here is that the president is sort of channeling Ronald Reagan in an effort not to become Jimmy Carter ... but the point is, the president is validating the idea of tax cuts as the centerpiece of economic policy."

That was HuffyPo.

In Time magazine, it's still being discussed.

...it became clear to several in the room that Obama seemed less interested in talking about Lincoln's team of rivals or Kennedy's Camelot than the accomplishments of an amiable conservative named Ronald Reagan, who had sparked a revolution three decades earlier when he arrived in the Oval Office.

Okay, let's really channel Reagan right now and see what he would say. Wait....it's coming....hold on......

Thus saith Ronald Wilson Reagan to Barack Obama:

Cut taxes, cut spending, and get government off of the backs of the people. Let the market decide.

Reagan was far from perfect, as even the staunchest of conservatives may not want to admit. He was forced to compromise with a Democratic Congress too often, which always ends up bad. But he picked and chose his battles wisely. And if avoiding being painted like Carter is Obama's goal, it's way too late for that.

As we watch the events in the Middle East unfold and learn more details about the sad economic numbers, it only stands to reason that what we are doing isn't working. If Obama really wants to surrender his heart and soul to what is right and true, this is what he needs to be able to say this publicly... and often.

But somehow we all know this isn't going to happen.

He isn't giving up his core beliefs that includes government being the answer to all problems. He is trying to cozy up for the moment, to see what he can do in order to get the priority things on his agenda through. So far, he's agreed to let people keep the tax cut they already had. Nothing changed.

I really think he and his handlers are trying to BS the people into thinking that he cut taxes, when he really didn't. Simply put, Obama and his wayward Congress didn't allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. Nothing went up or down. He'll have to do way better than that to claim some inner channeling of the Gipper.

Reagan made the country stronger in mind and spirit, and generally uplifted people by restoring their pride in their country. Obama has embarrassed this nation, time and time again by bowing to despots and kissing a monarch's ring. Reagan went to Iceland and walked away from a crappy deal offered to him by Gorbachev, who thought the U.S. President was as weak as the one who preceded him. Obama gave the Russians everything they asked for with no bargaining, whatsoever.

In the desperate moments of what will likely become a failed presidency, it will be hard to note which act or inaction caused the most damage. Equally, it will be difficult to determine how long the damage caused will last. If nothing else, this bunch is setting the thing up for further failure in the next administration, should they not win re-election.

So, we must hope and pray that someone along the way can get some detailed plans together and put them to the test. Getting something solidly together in the the way of spending cuts all around the board, makes a good first gesture. If Mr. Obama is serious, he'll have no problem giving up a goodwill gesture and offer to cut spending in every government department. No exceptions.

Despite these things I noted in this story, I still have to shake my head in disbelief at what we have now seen ourselves become in the last four years, with the last two being the clincher.

We are watching the Middle east explode, we have not seen any real gainful improvement in the jobs numbers, food and oil prices are going up, and we have a press that wants to assist the White House by creating a myth for an image. We are watching nation after nation lose confidence in both, our integrity, resolve, and our financial solvency.

And despite these massive red flags, very few people are the least bit concerned. The biggest dilemma in this life for them is, they cannot decide whether or not they like the new American Idol without Simon.

If this is a dream, please wake me now. If not, pour me a stiff drink.

Rooms For Rent

Trailer for sale or rent. Rooms to let, 50 cents. It's just a song, right?

From the things that "irritate the hell out of you" department comes this little tidbit. It is an op-ed from Britain's Guardian newspaper and it starts off like this:

There are two housing crises in Britain. One of them is obvious and familiar: the walloping shortfall in supply. Households are forming at roughly twice the rate at which new homes are being built. In England alone, 650,000 homes are classed as overcrowded. Many other people are desperate to move into their own places, but find themselves stuck. Yet the new homes the government says we need – 5.8m by 2033 – threaten to mash our landscapes and overload the environment.

The other crisis is scarcely mentioned. I stumbled across it while researching last week's column, buried on page 33 of a government document about another issue. It's growing even faster than the first crisis – at a rate that's hard to comprehend. Yet you'll seldom hear a squeak about it in the press, in parliament, in government departments or even in the voluntary sector. Given its political sensitivity, perhaps that's not surprising.

The issue is surplus housing – the remarkable growth of space that people don't need. Between 2003 and 2008 (the latest available figures), there was a 45% increase in the number of under-occupied homes in England. The definition of under-occupied varies, but it usually means that households have at least two bedrooms more than they require. This category now accounts for over half the homes in which single people live, and almost a quarter of those used by larger households. Nearly 8m homes – 37% of the total housing stock – are officially under-occupied.

At this point, we have to know where this one is leading.

And it does.

Here, we have a leftist op-ed journalist who is well-known for his radical stances on Global Warming, making a suggestion that is not unlike others who view the rich as evil, greedy, and worthy of having their wealth redistributed. George Monbiot has written some pretty hard left stuff in the past, but this teeters on the edge of insanity for many reasons.

Monbiot (maybe this is where the term moonbat came from) is suggesting that owners of houses with spare bedrooms not being used, be forced to rent out those rooms to people they may or may not know, because Britain is having a housing crisis. One reason this is so ridiculous is because it does not take into account why there is a crisis to begin with.

Muslims are procreating ten times greater than non-Muslims, which is doing much to create a higher demand for housing. One question we must ask in this scenario, who decides who gets to rent?

Let's say a law is passed and an empty nested owner of a house with two extra bedrooms is forced to rent them out. Will he be subject to anti-discrimination laws that will prevent him from renting to someone who does not share his overall belief system? What if a radical Muslim and his hijab wearing wife wants to rent one of his rooms to live in? If the owner balks, will he be subject to a lawsuit?

If he does decide to rent to them, will he be subjected to respecting the Muslims' belief systems so that they are not offended? Can he cook pork in his own house, or must he refrain? What if the call to prayer is during his favorite TV show? Must he refrain from watching so as not to offend the Muslims?

What about his religious symbols in his own house? Will he be forced to hide Bibles, crosses, or anything else associated with his own beliefs?

I am sure this sounds good to a select few people, who basically have no concept of what it means to think things out before they offer up stupid solutions like this. But when you start to play it out with some critical thinking, it becomes a whole new ballpark. More than anything else, it becomes an issue of whether or not government has a right to dictate to its citizenry how they must manage their own property.

Irony And Contempt

I have forgone the usual Friday Funnies format for this week, due to the nature of the tragedy that the Progressives have used for their own political advantage.

The only funny thing bout this is that this strategy is backfiring, just as playing the race card did in the days leading up to the 2010 election. Irony often breeds irony, and contempt breeds more contempt. Please note that they are doing it to themselves. In all of this, they had a golden opportunity to show some element of unity and serious compassion....and they didn't.

One such incident that can be seen as a trace bit amusing in the aftermath was an interview by one of the Left's most rabid dog of all, Ed Schultz. Knowing his tendency to fly off the handle at his staff, one can only imagine how he must have handled this interview afterward....when, he was using this very show as a platform for gun control and found out that one of the heroes of this tragedy was a person who firmly believes in packing a pistol:



(HT: ITHM)

Ouch. That had to hurt.

It couldn't have been the least bit easy to back out of that one, especially after calling the guy a hero.

Another humorous scene was this one, where Neal Boortz who was on talk radio long before this arrogant CNN hack was born:



(HT: FORE LEFT)

Imagine, here is a man who thinks he is a well-rounded TV news journalist, who is up to speed on the world around him.... and he doesn't even know the past words used by a man he was 95% likely to have voted for in 2008.

No, folks, there has been nothing humorous about this senseless act at all. It's not something I feel should be joked about, in any way. And certainly, we all bear some responsibility in keeping the debate centered on policy and out of the directions of the persons we disagree with.

But you have to hand it to the Left, they are not the brightest bulbs in the socket. If they really wanted to marginalize figures like Sarah Palin, they could just ignore her.

But they don't. This is why it their seething hatred is so overt and out of control.

And by tying her to this shooting in some warped way, they have only made her part of the story....when they could have been singing Kumbaya with those they disagree with for valuable photo ops, to be used at a future date and time (Nov 2012). But they chose the same old divisive path, which leads to lower approval ratings and less people in their camp.

This is just another example of the textbook definition of idiocy.

What Did Sheriff Clarence Dupnik Know? And When Did He Know It?

After listening to the MSM most every day since Saturday, it would come to no surprise that the NBC Nightly News would still be devoting half of their evening newscast to the fallout from the Tucson shooting. If I were naive, it might give me cause to wonder. But I am not and it doesn't.

Likewise, in the same amount of time, we are still hearing CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Left Wing Blogs, and other bullhorns for liberal bias, toot the same tired old rhetoric, even in the face of contradictory evidence. Despite the fact we now know the shooter is a very mentally disturbed man, they are keeping this story in the cycle for the specific purpose of demonizing a movement. They are working overtime to discredit those whose only sin is they do not agree with the Progressive agenda.

We have seen a Sheriff who very likely came out on a full frontal assault against those who disagree with that very agenda for purposes that we do not yet understand, but may be beginning to interpret. First news conference was hectic and we cut him some slack. But now he has maintained his offensive, so we must look a little deeper.

Before he had the facts, he was pointing the finger away from himself. Which now makes me wonder why, his department is refusing to give the media information about the shooter -- information that could be used to discredit his theory.

We do know that Loughner's mom works for the county.

Amy Loughner got a job with the county just before Jared was born, and since at least 2002 has been the supervisor for Roy P. Drachman Agua Caliente Park on the outskirts of the city. She earns $25.70 an hour, according to Gwyn Hatcher, Pima County's human resources director.

We know that county government is an entity where favors are often procured for future favors. It could very well be that Sheriff Dupnik owed a few to Amy Loughner, so he cut the kid some breaks along the way with his brushes against the law.

We also know that Dupnik hasn't always been the liberal hero, some would have us all believe.

In 1981, Dupnik sent a message to all residents: Arm yourselves. Police couldn't adequately protect the populace, he said, because they didn't have sufficient manpower: "Not only are things not good, they are going to get worse. For those who are so inclined, it's time to start protecting yourselves."

We are also learning that the "noble" lawman's daughter was busted on drug charges. The article poses the important question, did he get her the help SHE needed, or did he just cover it up under the rug?

Now that we are learning more about this situation, we may now be seeing why the Sheriff drove the first tank over the line in what is now a blitzkrieg. We may be just beginning to understand that he has something to hide and wanted to throw up a smoke screen to protect his own ass, form his severe lack of efficiency in this matter

So after all of this new information is now coming to light, it still comes as no surprise that not one minute of  half an NBC newscast was focused on the Sheriff, and much of it was devoted to vitriolic rhetoric, gun control, and the President's visit. This is just one more reason why the network news is becoming less and less relevant, as days go by.

And maybe, just maybe, it's one more reason why the pathetic progressives will lose even more power, in the next election. People are tired of it. Yes, the discourse does need to become more civil and strictly confined to policy debates. But it cannot be to one side or another, or that simply becomes silencing the opposition.

Progressive Conversations

Ever converse with a progressive?

Many people have tried. But as you can see from this video, it is almost entirely useless because their belief system so warped and flawed. It is full of hypocrisy



Give the lady here some credit, she made it through the conversation without any outward signs of nausea.

In The Aftermath Of The Giffords Shootings: An Entreaty And Explanation

Part I: The Entreaty

After an entire Sunday news cycle has been driving (and dictating the pace of) this post-shooting discussion, we have a little more information to work with and have had some time to sort through what we do have and analyze it, more judiciously.

It comes as no surprise that the Left Wing establishment has made every effort to demonize those who do NOT stand for their positions on important issues, or their worldview in general. Almost immediately, we heard about Sarah Palin's target map of Blue Dog Democrats who conservatives wanted to unseat in the November election, and we heard almost incessant rhetoric about the TEA Party movement in general. Naturally, the fingers were pointed at them.

If commentators were not directly pointing fingers, they were subtlety leading in that direction through the way they phrased their questions in general. Their goal seemed to be creating sound bites to be used over and over, in order to plant suspicion that the killer was probably a Right Wing nut job, affiliated with the TEA Party organizations.

And why not?

Over the course of the last two years we have seen the desperate attempts to discredit the movement with hateful rhetoric, accusations of racism, going so far as to plant union thugs at rallies who claim to be white supremacists. We have even witnessed members of the CBC (while putting up a brazen display of arrogance and power drunkenness) claiming that they heard someone use the "N" word and accused another of spitting, on one of them. None of that has ever been proven even with a $100,000 reward at stake, but that has not stopped their desperate accusations.

Still, none of that worked, as was made evident by the last election.

Bluntly put, that kind of fiery inflammatory rhetoric made no difference in the outcome. And it has driven the Left crazy to no end.

So what do they do now?

They, being the crass and desperate opportunists they are, use a tragic and senseless situation/event to take the opportunity to stoke the fire even more. The goal is the same, the methods are just a little different.

No one of any political influence has failed to be in utter shock and disbelief, anymore than the officials who have benefited from this last election. They are hurt every bit as much as those who did not.

This is not who we are as a nation or a movement. Decent people do not seek this kind of thing, nor do we revel in it. But, this is exactly what the despicable extremes of both sides want and they will surely get it, if cooler heads do not prevail on BOTH sides.

It is not enough for the conservatives in power to condemn this kind of thing, we must have help from the people who we merely disagree with us on policy issues. And where are these people? Where is Harry Reid? Where is Nancy Pelsoi? Nowhere.

I personally do not want anyone who I vehemently disagree with on politics, to suffer anything like this.... in any way, shape, or form. I want them VOTED out of power, into the private sector. But I do NOT wish them to become dead at the hands of anyone else, because of their politics. NONE, not one. I respect life way too much.

Believe it, for it is true. And in the meantime, know without a doubt I personally know of no one else who believes in this kind of thing either. And I kniow many who are far more conservative than me.

So if the reader of this post is still with me, please understand something clearly. There are some things that are not being made known by the Media hacks who are advancing this inflammatory discussion Many of them are directing this story toward decent citizens. who merely want to slow the government down from spending our children's and grandchildren's future away. NOTHING MORE.

What we know is still relatively limited. More may be known than has been released, but for some reason the information hasn't been made public. Bits and pieces about the event itself and the possible motives behind it, are slowly coming out. But some things have been refuted along the way, as well.

The 24-hour news cycle has been a double-edged sword at times, since its development. Thus, it is always important for intelligent people to realize that what we think we may know at a given moment, may or may not be true. The 24/7 news networks do this for ratings.

"This just in, but we cannot verify it yet"...."we have word from some source"....all of that kind of thing has to be dealt with much patience and prudence. It is utterly imperative to be circumspect in the formation of our conclusions.


Part II: The Explanation

From what we have been able to establish so far, we can say with much certainty that this gunman was a bit deranged. Derangement comes from a variety of sources, one of those is mental illness.

In the case with physical illness, the sources are different in nature and must be looked at differently. But we also know that some organ systems can affect others, causing other complications along the way. Such is the case with mental illness. And I have worked with mentally ill patients some years ago and can say from a professional perspective that not all disorders are exactly the same.

My intention in this portion of the post is not to teach a class on mental illness per se, but to help lay people to understand a little something about what we term, thought disorders. One of those disorders is Schizophrenia.

There are several types. But for the purposes this discussion is not important to know much about them or their differences. It takes years of experience to have the ability to diagnose more specifically.

What is important is that you know that a huge component of a thought disorder is based on the kinds of delusional material they think about. They may be have grandiose thoughts, thoughts of persecution, or may exhibit paranoia. Whatever the nature of those thoughts, most of the time, they are not right thoughts.... but just know the person affected establishes them as fact, in their own mind.

There are primarily three topics that these people can ruminate and fixate on: Sex, religion, and politics. They can have one, all, or any combination of the three. It makes no difference the number or which ones.

As we we believe we now know, this gunman put up some videos along with a My Space page, and possibly a Facebook page. (I have seen the videos and I will not link to them. If you wish to see them, others have done so and you can see them if you wish.) The important thing to note here is he was fixated on both religion and politics.

We know that he has a history of erratic and disruptive behaviors. How many times have we seen this before now? How many times have we heard the people say, there were red flags everywhere, yet nobody did anything at all?

A guy gets fired for erratic behaviors or just being creepy in some way and later he shoots the place up. Many times we find the man was paranoid and could have been helped, if someone would have made an effort to intervene properly.

But let's refocus here.

Remember, the thoughts of the person with a thought disorder are not accurate.

It is the person's perception that is deluded. Many times there are impulsive acts, sometimes they are more deliberate after long periods of fixation. We still do not know for a surety what angle this guy came from, in the political component of his delusions.

We do know that he wanted some kind of new currency, but what that was and why was not made particularly clear. We have evidence that has been spiraling into this inaccurate world of his, for awhile now.

The argument now becomes the motive.

Was it political in a real sense... or was it as a result of a series of delusional thoughts?

From the evidence we have, it strongly points to the delusions.

Was it driven by Left Wing or Right Wing politics?

From what we have gathered so far, we cannot tell right now. The real issue here is whether the guy was able to make a true conscious decision based on some real cause, or something he merely believed to be a cause.

I do not believe that Timothy McVeigh was mentally ill. He had a cause and a belief system and was fully capable of planning and implementing a heinous act that will forever be in our minds, whenever these kinds of things occur. The mentally ill person with a thought disorder is typically not capable, because they are disorganized and erratic as his videos have shown.

So Hillary Clinton can travel the world and tell others that an extremist shot Rep. Giffords if she wants. But she clearly does not have her facts correct to make such a statement. Neither do the MSM hacks or the Left Wing web sites like the Daily Kos.

So in forming your own judgments, be careful that you do not buy into just one aspect or component of this event, without considering all things together. And more than anything, let your conscience me your guide and leave the hacks to make utter and complete fools of themselves.

The fact remains that there are six people dead and others wounded, and a Congresswoman fighting for her life. Let's pray for them and their loved ones that they can find the strength to endure a very difficult situation, they did not ask to be put in.

Who Or What Can Be Blamed In The Giffords Shooting?

The nation's decent citizens mourn the senseless shooting in Tucson, where Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was injured and 6 others were killed (to include a federal judge and a young child). And PYY will go on the record to condemn such heinous un-American and morally depraved acts to the nth degree, here and in any forum.

I say this because it really was despicable. This kind of thing has no place in any repository of solutions, nor does it go any distance to salvage anything of any value, at all. Nothing was gained from this, and much was lost.

With that said, we all had to know that once this tragic story broke this afternoon is, there would be moronic idiots on the Left who could not wait to classify it politically. In their minds, every gun tragedy must be manipulated into a right wing plot, at the hands of a disaffected, right wing, gun-toting nut job. And as we can see from ITHM, there are many who are laying this directly at the feet of conservative figures like Sarah Palin and the TEA Party Movement in general.

I actually found out about this on Facebook through a posting by Michele Bachmann, who immediately condemned this act and asked her followers for prayers to be offered up for her colleague, and the others who were shot. Other members of Congress and the prominent conservative organizations that I follow on FB did the very same thing.

Immediately after I heard the name of the shooter released, I did a search on Facebook. Before it was taken down, there was a page with the name Jared Laughner (not a typo, it was an "a" instead of an "o") and he just happened to be from Tucson.

It's always possible that it may not have been the same guy, and he may have taken it down because he did not want to be confused with the shooter. I don’t know for a surety and I don't think any of us do. But it was odd.

He had a lot of privacy applications, but did have a few things visible to the public. In his profile pic was a picture of the President. On his "Info" page, he had listed (with pics) a heading that said People who inspired me and he listed the following: Obama, Alinsky, Chomsky, Chavez, Che, Castro, Mao, Stalin, and Arafat.

Again, it has now been taken down and it could be coincidence. But I would be curious to know how many Jared Laughners (or Loughners) there are in Tucson. I did a search on the White Pages and found none. A bit strange maybe, but a cell phone account and/or living in a parent’s basement is all one needs to avoid a listing there.

But since the page is no longer available and it could be said by Left-Wing hate mongers that I am lying, let's look at this more in depth from what we know to be true, what we can prove, and as a result form a logical theory based on reasonable and rational thought.

Giffords was a Blue Dog Democrat who supported gun rights and controlling the border more efficiently. Although she voted for some unpopular bills along the way, she doesn't exactly fit the mold of someone that a true Right-Wing nut job would target for an assassination. And when we put this information with the info I found on the Facebook page, it seems far more likely this was a hit job by a Left-Wing nut job who is hell-bent on sparking a wave of anti-conservative dissent.

The videos he posted on his You Tube account (some of which can be seen in the ITHM post as I will not post them here) were indicative of someone very disturbed and psychotic. The books he listed as his favorites (on the YT site) were also a bit telling, in that he was not specifically interested in literature of a Right-Wing nature.

The books were as follows: Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Pulp, Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver’s Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

Analyzing this list from a psychological standpoint shows a very disheveled thought process and a typical trait of someone with a very serious thought disorder, as classified by the DSM. But to the Democratic progressive hacks who have nothing better to do than act as if they have the first damned clue about this kind of thing, there is no shame.

The facts are not all out and it may turn out that we may never know them all with crystal clear clarity, especially if the guy is truly a psychotic and delusional mental case. But with the little evidence we have now, we must maintain some level of prudence in our judgments until we know more. Until then, I will reserve my more reasoned judgments for later on when we know more about the case.

STAY TUNED....More to come and I will post more on it later, as I have the time to gather information.

First, some other voices and their thoughts can be found at these excellent blogs:

Fore Left
Always On Watch
AF Ticker
Right Truth
GM's Place
ITHM has more
More links to follow as I can add them.

Friday Flashback

Not taking a side on the issue either way, but the goal here is to highlight one of the most arrogant pieces of equine excrement's past statements. Here is a short video of FORMER Representative Alan "Disgracin" Grayson, grilling NASA Administrator Charles Bolden Jr. early last year:



I am not Bolden's biggest fan by any stretch. But after Grayson's pompous behavior had been made manifest to all involved here, he had the audacity to say this about the prospect of commercial space flights for humans:

"I think that what you are doing is taking a shot in the dark. You have no way of knowing if any commercial entity will ever be able to put a man in orbit, no matter how much money you throw at them."

Now...fast forward to this story.

PRIVATE companies have been promising for years that they can slash the cost of space travel, breaking the government monopoly on space flight and opening up the final frontier to the rest of us. At long last these efforts may be bearing fruit.

On 8 December, the California-based firm SpaceX launched its Dragon capsule into orbit and safely parachuted it into the ocean - the first time a private company has achieved the feat.

Again..... this not a debate on the the issue itself. But it does demonstrate that Alan Grayson is certainly no visionary and probably one of the biggest assholes on the planet.

Thankfully, most of the good people of Florida's 8th Congressional District woke up and voted this clown out. It only goes to show that any jerk in Congress can be voted out, no matter how much money you throw at them.

Rockefeller Wants Fox News And MSNBC Closed

I don't know why there are so many people who still cannot discern what is playing out right before their own faces. It is so obvious. It is so irrefutable. They even tell you straight up, what they are wanting to do.

Take a moment and listen to the statement recently made by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).

We have said it many times and we believe it. Progressives are not the most open minded people we will ever meet. They are not tolerant of opinions different than their own....and they do not want them communicated. They are not respectful of our right to disagree with them and their ideas. They are only proponents of free speech, when they are in the minority.

Additionally, we know and understand very clearly that progressive want control of everything they can get in our lives. They think it is good, but we think it is bad. So Rockefeller does only thing that he can do in this situation. He chooses to make known his preference to limit the choices of what a free market has to offer, because one of those choices presents opinions that differ with his own.

But to get rid of FOX, the plan appears to be sacrificing MSNBC under the illusion that they just want to eliminate two polarizing forces. I think any idiot can see that still leaves them NBC, ABC, NBC, CNN, NPR, and PBS to control the distribution of information.

Now let me state emphatically, I may not like what MSNBC has to say. But I don't want it eliminated.

I think the market is proving to be an effective tool in assessing the most accurate sources in news and commentary. And in the final analysis, FOX has been able to attract more viewers than CNN, CNNHL, and MSNBC, combined. Facts are facts and there must be a reason for this.

Of course, we have learned some things over the years. We know from our vast experiences with illogical elitists that the masses are stupid.......and only "enlightened" intellectuals are capable of knowing what's best for people. Only they can know what is fair to all.

This is not unlike things we have witnessed in history. Communists (like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro) have historically shut down media outlets to suppress dissent and free speech. It may not be taught like this anymore, but this does not negate the fact that this is the objective and rationale behind it.

This is precisely why the 2012 election process must begin right now. We must keep this dynamic force moving. We must get this bunch of big government liberals back into the private sector... where the damage they do, can be absorbed by anyone foolish enough to hire them. And, we must start the onerous process of reversing the massive amount of damage already done by them.

To do this effectively, we must isolate the progressives. They are helping us, by picking Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to stay on as the faces of this movement. While it is true this will make our jobs easier, we cannot become complacent. We must push ahead and expose their ideas for what they are.

Unless we want to witness our nation crumbling into rubble, we have no other choice.

Marc, Brian, And The Fat Man

Everyone knows Marc Lamont Hill. He's a Columbia University professor and biased Fox news contributor, who recently said New Jersey Governor Chris Christie could never be President because he is fat.

I say biased and I say Fox, because the liberal mainstream media says so. I know it's sarcasm.... I also contend that if they were so biased, why are they giving a voice to this guy?

But I digress.

I guess the real question we should ask is much more appropriate. And that is, why do leftists (like Hill) hate Christie so much that they would stoop to such low levels in their critiques?

I think one only need to listen to this short piece, to know why:



We all know and understand that Williams is an elitist snob of the nth degree..... if there ever was one. But as smart as he thinks he is, it is clear in this exchange that he is certainly no match for the Governor. In fact, Gov. Christie pretty much chewed and spit Anchorman Williams out.... right in front of his own friends.

It's really hard to understand why NBC chose to air that part of the interview, because he was made to look like the fool we all know him to be. And while it may be clearly true that Christie might never be President, it will most certainly not be because of his weight.

It will be because liberals fear a no-nonsense conservative who sticks to his/her principles, and does not care what others think of him (for doing so).

Misguided + Misinformation = Mistake

I like to read commentaries of those I disagree with, just to see which fallacies they use to arrive at their conclusions. There are so many up and coming wannabe progressive pundits trying to break through the inner veil that leads to notoriety, and their writings are saturated with mischaracterizations and misinformation.

They are training for the next generation of progressive hackery and actively seeking approval from the established hacks who are in many cases already in charge of the mainstream media. It is these kinds of op-eds that go far to show there really is a professional left, like the one described recently by Robert Gibbs.

Take this misguided piece of writing by someone who calls herself Holly Bailey, for instance. The title says much of it all:

Big primary night highlights limits of tea party insurgency

The goal here is two-fold.

One objective is to draw in Tea Party haters, who will immediately buy into the title because they seek some shred of evidence that the movement is waning. They desperately want to believe that their statist vision is not in danger of succumbing to the same demise, as other statist systems which have failed.

These are pundits who wish a similar but more modern and more effective, Soviet-style system governing the United States. They want a planned economy and government intervention in every aspect of Americans' lives. To them, it is clear that the Tea Party is the biggest obstacle to realizing that dream.

The second objective is to demoralize the Tea Party membership. This is desperation playing out in textbook political fashion. When the establishment and its defenders cannot win the argument of ideas, they use their platforms to minimize and shrink the influence of those that stand against it by demonizing the movement as racists, hilljacks, and fascists.

Not all are as blunt about it, but from the opening paragraph of Bailey's commentary the subtle negativity is openly apparent to this reader:

Insider versus outsider: That's been the major theme of the 2010 campaign so far, and it was no different as voters in five key states, including Florida and Arizona, headed to the polls in nominating contests 10 weeks before the November midterms. But in the GOP contests that dominated the night, the influence of the tea party movement, which for the past year has fueled so much voter anger — and media coverage — showed some important signs of flagging, particular as nominees on the right ponder the best way to frame a campaign message to appeal to independent voters in the general election campaign.

Her use of the term "flagging" is a weak and feeble attempt to signal that the Tea Party is stopping or slowing its advancement of the highly esteemed principles just to win an election. Her implication is that now they will most certainly need to recenter themselves for the general election, to have any chance of winning whatever seat they are seeking. In other words, those who were endeared to the Tea Party stand a good chance of compromising their core principles.

I cannot help but think she is not able to grasp what the Tea party is trying to do in this election. She certainly is not able to see what it is NOT trying to do. It is not trying to be a party unto itself.... or within a party. It does not openly endorse candidates. But when limited government is the primary focus, the candidates they support  are easy to spot.

I am sure there will be Republicans who will use the Tea Party anger to propel them into office, and will forget how they got there during the time they serve. I have no doubt about that, at all.

But this is not a one-time shot.

This is the beginning of what could turn out to be a restoration of that which has been lost. At some point, those same users will face re-election and will face the same voters who supported them earlier. If they have not measured up and the voters remain engaged, they will be fired in the next election.

I also have no doubt that some efforts have fallen and will fall short. Not all establishment candidates will fall in one election and it's unrealistic to believe it will. Hayworth's campaign against McCain is one example. The establishment poured a lot of money into McCain's war chest, and he spent it to fight back the challenger. But this is not an indicator of the Tea Party's lack of success.

Baseball seasons are 162 games long. There is never a team that wins them all. The same holds true for politics.

Right now, the goal of all constitutionalists should be to get the Democrats out of power. If this means supporting the establishment GOP candidate, so be it. Right now, the worst GOP is better than any Obama lap dog Democrat that will blindly support his failed ideological positions.

There's always another opportunity down the road, so do not cave into the progressive liberal delusion that the Tea Party is just a fad. It's not. And that will become clearer in November.

True Vision, True Hope

The proverb states it quite emphatically: Where there is no vision, the people perish.

Although he was not perfect and certainly had his share of flaws, Ronald Reagan had a vision. He knew there were forces that wanted government to grow, at the expense of freedom and liberty. He fought those forces back then and I believe that he knew they would not surrender easily, after he left.

Here is a prime example of today's forces that seek to plant government deeper in our lives at the expense of our personal liberties, and those who will follow us:

We hear many voices, today. We hear them clamor, we hear them insult, we hear them intimidate. Many of us know and understand what their motives are, we knew it back in 2008. But enough people on the fence were willing to ignore the pleas of those of us who knew. And this is what we got for it.

Folks, it's going to be tough. We have a huge mess to clean up and there is no guarantee it will be easy. It may take some time and we may have to make some sacrifices along the way.

But we can do it. If I didn't think we could, I wouldn't be wasting my time typing this out.

It is said that the WWII generation was the world's greatest generation. After all, it was them, who sacrificed so much to save the world from a maniacal madman and his distorted vision for the world. His vision was being implemented by force. They did not fear those who advanced their beliefs by violence and the threat thereof. They were steadfast, brave, and determined to not allow him to succeed.

Today, we have many people in power who have distorted visions of their own. They are not using the barrel of a gun to implement them. But they haven't acquired enough power or leverage from the citizenry to do this just yet.

Nevertheless, they are intent on ramming it down our throats against our will in a different way. They listen not to the people, but to their own selfish and aggrandizing spirits. They issue executive orders and pass unpopular legislation under the guise of humanitarianism, but under it all it is still a huge power grab to set things up for more abuses in the future.

They may not be rolling tanks into our yards right now, but it is still by force.

Today, that great generation is dying off and we who were raised by them are all that is left to carry on that torch. But if within this nation there are a few men and woman who have clear and concise visions of the way things ought to be, then there is an opportunity to restore that which is slipping away from us, and into the hands of an increasingly more corrupt government.

This is our chance, this is our moment. This is my sincere hope.

If we rise to the occasion as it has been done in generations past, we can become an even greater generation than those who preceded us. If not, then their sacrifice will have been in vain, our nation will crumble before our very eyes, and there will be no more hope.