While Halloween is tomorrow, Tuesday could have been the more scary. I don’t think there is a conceivable way for the Democrats to spin anything resembling success, though I'm sure you will hear them try. In the least, they will lose a sizable number of seats in both houses. At best, the left skewed polls are hiding a route of epic proportions (West Virginia, Washington, and if she stirs her witch’s brew right…Delaware)...
No matter the outcome, I think the most important thing is what may have started in earnest, last year, in New York’s 23rd District when the true RINO Scozzafava was thrown out. Then Rand Paul’s victory over Trey Grayson, Mike Lee’s victory over Bob Bennett, Marco Rubio scaring Charlie Crist out of even running against him, Joe Miller ousting Lisa Murkowski, and of course Christine O’Donnell with all her baggage, beating out Mike Castle.
RINOs being thrown out! Incumbants and career politicians losing to citizens (for the most part).
...the best news, even with Crist and Murkowski proving what they really are, and staying in the race, they will lose (fingers crossed in Alaska). Even Bennett at first balked at endorsing his successor.
I’m sure there were others that I don’t know about, local races, school boards, etc.
…however...
How confident are you going into Tuesday? Is 53% to 47% big enough for you? Is the 'county divided?' Is this a mandate?
In 1796 John Adams received 71 electoral votes, making him President, and as a ‘Federalist’ he beat out his rival Thomas Jefferson, by three votes. …and OBTW, Thomas Pinkney came in a close third with 59 votes. That means that almost 1/3 of the founding fathers chose a guy most of you never heard of OVER John Adams and Thomas Jefferson to be the 2nd President of the United States. Imagine how our HBO Documentaries would be if Adams wasn't President?!
In the vote of 1824, the first time they documented the popular vote, the people’s choice, Andrew Jackson, received 99 electoral votes (15 more than John Quincy Adams) and over 153,000 votes to Adams’ 108,000. Adams became President.
In 1860, before any state seceded, Abraham Lincoln won in a landslide. Of course. He is one of the most beloved and revered people of American history. In 1864, during the Civil War, with ONLY the people of the North voting…Lincoln won 2,213,665 to 1,805,237. Lincoln won with 55%.
...I'm gonna go ahead and say it, the American people have spoken (uh, as of Tuesday) and they don't want what Obama wants.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
They Just Don't Get It...
Arizona Law Requiring Voters Prove Citizenship Is Struck Down
So you're thinking, I thought SB 1070 was already waiting for a Supreme Court ruling, if it gets one. This ain't SB 1070...this is Prop 200 from 2004!
That's right, back when W won his 2nd term, 'us' Arizonans voted in a law that said a couple of things. One of them, which fixed something that had frustrated me to no end, was that you had to show IDENTIFICATION when you showed up to vote.
You can still vote absentee - which I do, and which I disagree with (more on that later), but you need to show IDENTIFICATION to register, and you wouldn't get a ballot unless you requested one at your listed address under your registered name.
Of course, leftist groups spent MILLIONS fighting Prop 200 back in 2004. Their argument - obvious, was that it is racist to require people to have identification. It's not racist, however, to assume that a person of certain race is so inept they can't weave their way through this confusing society, created solely by the white man, to a state office, which is in every city, and request an IDENTIFICATION.
...so they LOST that court battle. Why? The law was written to include that 'identification' could mean certain mail from the state with your name on it. A utility bill, etc., along with other paperwork with your name on it. So the court ruled that it was more important to protect the franchise of voting, than to protect the voting rights of those who are so lost, they are homeless AND have no identification.
(If you have ever dealt with homeless people - most of them have ID, most of them have paperwork from the courts, from social services, etc., and most of them can find a dozen places to sell alcohol near where they receive their government check, and/or their medical treatment...but I digress).
In my world, the courts should have thrown out the case - the people that brought the suit, are fighting a FAKE battle for people that don't exist! They are fighting the 'idea'. Because who could find a lawyer, come to court and argue that their rights are being trampled...BUT NOT HAVE ANY STINKING IDENTIFICATION! In my world, the lawyer would have driven them to the MVD, charged them a billable hour - and been done with it!
But somehow, the 9TH CIRCUS COURT OF APPEALS ignored the precedent set in the previous ruling, and said this law was unconstitutional, because state law can not supersede federal law.
Without getting into too much legal speak - the concept of precedent was ignored, and I find NO explanation as to why? The 9th Circuit is the most overturned circuit in the country - at the same time, you get alot of precedent coming out of their goofy rulings. That folks, is the shotgun effect. The ACLU and their ilk pour so much money into AZ and CA, they are bound to get one through.
But don't forget this:
The 9th Circuit's chief judge, Alex Kozinski, wrote a sharp dissent, saying the ruling ignored precedent and was flat wrong on its legal analysis.
"Few panels are able to upset quite so many apple carts all at once," Kozinski concluded. "Count me out."
So you're thinking, I thought SB 1070 was already waiting for a Supreme Court ruling, if it gets one. This ain't SB 1070...this is Prop 200 from 2004!
That's right, back when W won his 2nd term, 'us' Arizonans voted in a law that said a couple of things. One of them, which fixed something that had frustrated me to no end, was that you had to show IDENTIFICATION when you showed up to vote.
You can still vote absentee - which I do, and which I disagree with (more on that later), but you need to show IDENTIFICATION to register, and you wouldn't get a ballot unless you requested one at your listed address under your registered name.
Of course, leftist groups spent MILLIONS fighting Prop 200 back in 2004. Their argument - obvious, was that it is racist to require people to have identification. It's not racist, however, to assume that a person of certain race is so inept they can't weave their way through this confusing society, created solely by the white man, to a state office, which is in every city, and request an IDENTIFICATION.
...so they LOST that court battle. Why? The law was written to include that 'identification' could mean certain mail from the state with your name on it. A utility bill, etc., along with other paperwork with your name on it. So the court ruled that it was more important to protect the franchise of voting, than to protect the voting rights of those who are so lost, they are homeless AND have no identification.
(If you have ever dealt with homeless people - most of them have ID, most of them have paperwork from the courts, from social services, etc., and most of them can find a dozen places to sell alcohol near where they receive their government check, and/or their medical treatment...but I digress).
In my world, the courts should have thrown out the case - the people that brought the suit, are fighting a FAKE battle for people that don't exist! They are fighting the 'idea'. Because who could find a lawyer, come to court and argue that their rights are being trampled...BUT NOT HAVE ANY STINKING IDENTIFICATION! In my world, the lawyer would have driven them to the MVD, charged them a billable hour - and been done with it!
But somehow, the 9TH CIRCUS COURT OF APPEALS ignored the precedent set in the previous ruling, and said this law was unconstitutional, because state law can not supersede federal law.
Without getting into too much legal speak - the concept of precedent was ignored, and I find NO explanation as to why? The 9th Circuit is the most overturned circuit in the country - at the same time, you get alot of precedent coming out of their goofy rulings. That folks, is the shotgun effect. The ACLU and their ilk pour so much money into AZ and CA, they are bound to get one through.
But don't forget this:
The 9th Circuit's chief judge, Alex Kozinski, wrote a sharp dissent, saying the ruling ignored precedent and was flat wrong on its legal analysis.
"Few panels are able to upset quite so many apple carts all at once," Kozinski concluded. "Count me out."
That means the fight ain't over yet, and I would anticipate this ruling getting overturned (no thanks to Sandra Day O'Connor!).
But the idea, that the circuit's chief judge believes - that you can overturn a previous ruling - ON THE SAME ARGUMENT! That principle what keeps the courts from being like the Executive Branch, constantly changing what the previous administration did.
This sets dangerous precedent, and is another indication that we are fighting to save our country - from enemies within.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
NPR...
...the Juan Williams debacle has exploded on the google machine. Awesome. The left should be proud of what they are, and what they stand for. They should not fear this.
...Article after article after article mentions that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives $400 million a year from taxpayers, and NPR only gets a few million of that directly. These same articles mention that it is only a small portion of their budgets, and Michelle Malkin points out - why not get rid of it then?
...If you, like the Federal Government, were in debt so much that your projections had you never getting out, and only digging deeper - would you still say, "well, Starbucks is only a small portion of my spending, so I'll keep going...", would you?
...no seriously, would you?
It's fun to read old papers...adds extolling the virtues of cigarettes and cocaine:
...Article after article after article mentions that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting receives $400 million a year from taxpayers, and NPR only gets a few million of that directly. These same articles mention that it is only a small portion of their budgets, and Michelle Malkin points out - why not get rid of it then?
...If you, like the Federal Government, were in debt so much that your projections had you never getting out, and only digging deeper - would you still say, "well, Starbucks is only a small portion of my spending, so I'll keep going...", would you?
...no seriously, would you?
It's fun to read old papers...adds extolling the virtues of cigarettes and cocaine:
(believe me, I've had that toothache where I would'a freebased heroin if I had it, just to make the pain go away)
...I wonder if years from now, people will read our articles and laugh at us, saying to themselves - "That's what happened - nobody thought $400 million was a big deal...and that's what caused the crash."
Friday, October 22, 2010
Couldn't have...
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Blown Away...
...when I think that I can't be surprised. This happens:
The Shamefull Firing of Juan Williams
Juan Williams frustrates me most of the time. Just like Zel Miller, just like Joe Lieberman, they are liberals that you can talk with, debate with, understand why they say what they say - even if you disagree.
...you wonder, after what happened to Zel Miller (prior to supporting George Bush) and Joe Lieberman, and now Juan Williams - do they see a little more of 'our' side? Do they see that its not just that the left wants government to solve problems it isn't equipped to, its not just that the left wants to move toward socialism, its not just that the left doesn't understand focusing on results rather than feelings...its that they go after people personally, they distort the facts, they hide what they really are, and almost above all else, they are all about political correctness:
The Shamefull Firing of Juan Williams
Juan Williams frustrates me most of the time. Just like Zel Miller, just like Joe Lieberman, they are liberals that you can talk with, debate with, understand why they say what they say - even if you disagree.
...you wonder, after what happened to Zel Miller (prior to supporting George Bush) and Joe Lieberman, and now Juan Williams - do they see a little more of 'our' side? Do they see that its not just that the left wants government to solve problems it isn't equipped to, its not just that the left wants to move toward socialism, its not just that the left doesn't understand focusing on results rather than feelings...its that they go after people personally, they distort the facts, they hide what they really are, and almost above all else, they are all about political correctness:
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
I'm Just Sayin...
Justice Thomas' Wife Seeks Anita Hill Apology
"...In a transcript of the message provided by ABC News, which said it listened to the recording, Thomas identified herself and then said, "I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day," Thomas said.
"I certainly thought the call was inappropriate," Hill..."
...I read the article because I am still shocked by what happened to Clarence Thomas. Not at the hearings, but since. Not every time, but a high percentage, of the time you hear his name - you hear her name. He will forever be linked to what they did. Shouldn't be surprised, look what they did to Robert Bork. Don't know him? That's what they did to him.
...not to mention that the left still accuses him of being stupid, not worthy of the court. If its not because of his views, its because he doesn't ask questions during arguments. My question to them, how do judges that hear cases before the appellate level render decisions - they rarely ask questions?
...when I read the article about Thomas's wife calling Hill, I thought why would she call her? Do they have mutual friends? Has there been some indication this was a good idea? I understand the wanting to reach out to mend fences - but don't leave a message, wait to talk to her. Only worse could have been texting her..."Wassup, u say sorry = we good." I'm just sayin...
"...In a transcript of the message provided by ABC News, which said it listened to the recording, Thomas identified herself and then said, "I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day," Thomas said.
"I certainly thought the call was inappropriate," Hill..."
...I read the article because I am still shocked by what happened to Clarence Thomas. Not at the hearings, but since. Not every time, but a high percentage, of the time you hear his name - you hear her name. He will forever be linked to what they did. Shouldn't be surprised, look what they did to Robert Bork. Don't know him? That's what they did to him.
...not to mention that the left still accuses him of being stupid, not worthy of the court. If its not because of his views, its because he doesn't ask questions during arguments. My question to them, how do judges that hear cases before the appellate level render decisions - they rarely ask questions?
...when I read the article about Thomas's wife calling Hill, I thought why would she call her? Do they have mutual friends? Has there been some indication this was a good idea? I understand the wanting to reach out to mend fences - but don't leave a message, wait to talk to her. Only worse could have been texting her..."Wassup, u say sorry = we good." I'm just sayin...
Oh I was right...
"...When Hill heard the voicemail, she contacted Brandeis' public safety office, which in turn informed the FBI..."
Hmmm, somebody called and left that message. She called the police! The FBI was called!
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
If I was a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and I got that call. I would have listened to the message and said, "M'am, this is incredible...I think you should apologize."
...Oh, yah, and the military is hiring gays. Camo is sooo done.
Monday, October 18, 2010
No, you are!
...for during most of President Bush's years in office, he was called (among other things) 'stubborn' by the media and the left (I know, I know). Not withstanding BDS, no matter the issue, when Bush was 'for' what he was 'for' it was because he was stubborn.
Now you have Democrats running against Obama, and the Democrat controlled congress ends the session without voting on the Bush tax cuts. Why? If they are right, and really believe that America will benefit from letting the Bush tax cuts expire, why wouldn't they want to add it to all their wonderful accomplishments?
So, Obama lets Congress adjourn, and then campaigns against the Bush tax cuts. Even if, as Senator Barbara Boxer claims:
BARBARA BOXER: "...a third of the stim was tax cuts and it was considered the biggest tax cut in history over a couple of year period."
WOLF BLITZER: "All right. Let's get into some other issues..."
...I guarantee, you won't hear the word "stubborn" in the media, until HE is out of office...
Now you have Democrats running against Obama, and the Democrat controlled congress ends the session without voting on the Bush tax cuts. Why? If they are right, and really believe that America will benefit from letting the Bush tax cuts expire, why wouldn't they want to add it to all their wonderful accomplishments?
So, Obama lets Congress adjourn, and then campaigns against the Bush tax cuts. Even if, as Senator Barbara Boxer claims:
BARBARA BOXER: "...a third of the stim was tax cuts and it was considered the biggest tax cut in history over a couple of year period."
WOLF BLITZER: "All right. Let's get into some other issues..."
...I guarantee, you won't hear the word "stubborn" in the media, until HE is out of office...
Friday, October 15, 2010
So That Was Bad?
...Two Hosts Walk Off 'The View' During Argument With Bill O'Reilly About 'Ground Zero Mosque'
The View. Joy Blowhard, Woopie Dizpickle, Baba Wawa, and the conservative girl. Joy and Woopie walked off during and interview of O'Reilly. And that was a bad thing? Here is how it went down:
"...O’Reilly explained that the mosque was not supported by the majority of Americans because its location was “inappropriate."
When Goldberg asked why it was inappropriate, citing 70 Muslims who died in the attacks, O'Reilly said: "Because Muslims killed us on 9/11. That's why.”
Goldberg responded, “That is such bulls**t."
"Muslims didn't kill us? Is that what you're saying?" O'Reilly asked.
"Extremists did that!” Goldberg said.
As the conversation became more heated, Behar got up from her seat beside O'Reilly.
"I don’t want to sit here right now, I don’t," Behar said. "I am outraged by that statement.”
Blowhard and Dizpickle then left. Babs then said 'we' should be able to have a conversation when we disagree.
I couldn't watch a show like this. I can't even stand O'Reilly. He needed to come back with "THE PEOPLE WHO KILLED 3,000 AMERICANS WERE MUSLIMS! You want to say extremist muslims, say it, but are you denying they did it because of their muslim faith?"
O'Reilly gets tough on the easy stuff like, "Come on, after the rich guy who stole the money from the elderly got caught, he needs to be punished, and hard!" He should have clarified, force those dimwits to acknowledge the cause of 9/11 was islam. I bet if he did, Dizpickle would have been forced to say what she believes, which is that American foreign policy, or Christian values, or whatever, was the cause.
...O'Reilly's point in the first place, was that 70% of Americans don't want the mosque built there. He should have seen that he was 70, they were 30 (OBTW - do you know anybody that says let them build it there?)...
The View. Joy Blowhard, Woopie Dizpickle, Baba Wawa, and the conservative girl. Joy and Woopie walked off during and interview of O'Reilly. And that was a bad thing? Here is how it went down:
"...O’Reilly explained that the mosque was not supported by the majority of Americans because its location was “inappropriate."
When Goldberg asked why it was inappropriate, citing 70 Muslims who died in the attacks, O'Reilly said: "Because Muslims killed us on 9/11. That's why.”
Goldberg responded, “That is such bulls**t."
"Muslims didn't kill us? Is that what you're saying?" O'Reilly asked.
"Extremists did that!” Goldberg said.
As the conversation became more heated, Behar got up from her seat beside O'Reilly.
"I don’t want to sit here right now, I don’t," Behar said. "I am outraged by that statement.”
Blowhard and Dizpickle then left. Babs then said 'we' should be able to have a conversation when we disagree.
I couldn't watch a show like this. I can't even stand O'Reilly. He needed to come back with "THE PEOPLE WHO KILLED 3,000 AMERICANS WERE MUSLIMS! You want to say extremist muslims, say it, but are you denying they did it because of their muslim faith?"
O'Reilly gets tough on the easy stuff like, "Come on, after the rich guy who stole the money from the elderly got caught, he needs to be punished, and hard!" He should have clarified, force those dimwits to acknowledge the cause of 9/11 was islam. I bet if he did, Dizpickle would have been forced to say what she believes, which is that American foreign policy, or Christian values, or whatever, was the cause.
...O'Reilly's point in the first place, was that 70% of Americans don't want the mosque built there. He should have seen that he was 70, they were 30 (OBTW - do you know anybody that says let them build it there?)...
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Now that...
...sounds like some derned good ol'fashioned police work.
Nassau suspect caught in New Jersey; case revolves around missing man
Nassau suspect caught in New Jersey; case revolves around missing man
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Real Justice...
...politics is a serious business. Especially with what is being done to our country today. That being said, there was never a time when it wasn't crucial to put good people in office. But I didn't live yesteryear, I live today, and these people need to go. We need serious individuals, people who are smart and get things done, and can lead in times of trouble.
There is a great United States Senator from the state of Arizona. His name is John. He is a serious man. If he had been elected President, things would be different, our outlook for the long and short term would be much brighter. His last name is not McCain....
How things would have been different. Why do we elect the people we do to lead us? There are more qualified, better leaders out there. We just have to choose them.
...now, that being said. Here are some of my favorite Republican commercials:
(I have placed the player over to your left <---- press pause if you want to listen to the videos...you're welcome Mom)
...okay, that one wasn't real. Let's get serious folks!
Oh yah....HAPPY COLUMBUS DAY! Celebrating 518 years of great men named Christopher on this continent (or at least islands near it)...
There is a great United States Senator from the state of Arizona. His name is John. He is a serious man. If he had been elected President, things would be different, our outlook for the long and short term would be much brighter. His last name is not McCain....
How things would have been different. Why do we elect the people we do to lead us? There are more qualified, better leaders out there. We just have to choose them.
...now, that being said. Here are some of my favorite Republican commercials:
(I have placed the player over to your left <---- press pause if you want to listen to the videos...you're welcome Mom)
...okay, that one wasn't real. Let's get serious folks!
Oh yah....HAPPY COLUMBUS DAY! Celebrating 518 years of great men named Christopher on this continent (or at least islands near it)...
Friday, October 8, 2010
And now for something completely different...
...In a Galaxy Far Far Away...
I had a meeting with a guy from China today. But when I say China, I'm thinking Hong Kong. He was way too hip for mainland. How did I know, because he was wearing these...
I started off the meeting by gawking at the shoes. Then I asked if I could have them. Based on the nature of our meeting, I think he may have a warehouse full of them. Based on my personality, he thought I was joking, or making fun of him. But I was all too serious.
So I researched it....and found this:
...and my favorite (hint hint)
I had a meeting with a guy from China today. But when I say China, I'm thinking Hong Kong. He was way too hip for mainland. How did I know, because he was wearing these...
I started off the meeting by gawking at the shoes. Then I asked if I could have them. Based on the nature of our meeting, I think he may have a warehouse full of them. Based on my personality, he thought I was joking, or making fun of him. But I was all too serious.
So I researched it....and found this:
There's more...
...and my favorite (hint hint)
and for the ladies...
But of Course...
...its not birdflu, its not swineflue, its, SuperObama.
Yes, it has happened again. People fainting at an Obama rally.
Dozens Fall Ill at Obama Rally in Maryland
...and again Obama to the rescue, interrupting his speech to ask, "Can we get a medic up here?"
I blogged about it last time HERE. But this time it was dozens of people. (Now, I do admit that I start to get a little nauseous when I here him speak, but I think there is something to this). I now believe that this is 50% staged and 50% that these people have put it in their mind that he is a living legend. Look at the posters they have of him, the books, its creepy.
After Rolling Stone magazine does Obama's dirty work by exposing McChristal's views, after being granted CRAZY access to military personnel in theatre, they are rewarded by Obama with an interview just in time for November elections.
Most fainters won't even read the article, which I'm sure is right in line with the other article mentioned on the cover, "The Truth about the Tea Party." All they see is "Obama Fights Back," and they start to get weak in the knees
Yes, it has happened again. People fainting at an Obama rally.
Dozens Fall Ill at Obama Rally in Maryland
...and again Obama to the rescue, interrupting his speech to ask, "Can we get a medic up here?"
I blogged about it last time HERE. But this time it was dozens of people. (Now, I do admit that I start to get a little nauseous when I here him speak, but I think there is something to this). I now believe that this is 50% staged and 50% that these people have put it in their mind that he is a living legend. Look at the posters they have of him, the books, its creepy.
After Rolling Stone magazine does Obama's dirty work by exposing McChristal's views, after being granted CRAZY access to military personnel in theatre, they are rewarded by Obama with an interview just in time for November elections.
Most fainters won't even read the article, which I'm sure is right in line with the other article mentioned on the cover, "The Truth about the Tea Party." All they see is "Obama Fights Back," and they start to get weak in the knees
The first question posed in the article is:
"When you came into office, you felt you would be able to work with the other side. When did you realize that the Republicans had abandoned any real effort to work with you and create bipartisan policy? "
I won't reprint his answer, as you too may faint, but here is his answer to the second question. Wait, sit down, get a warm cloth and a bucket:
"I don't think it's a shock. I had served in the United States Senate; I had seen how the filibuster had become a routine tool to slow things down, as opposed to what it used to be, which was a selective tool — although often a very destructive one, because it was typically targeted at civil rights and the aspirations of African-Americans who were trying to be freed up from Jim Crow. But I'd been in the Senate long enough to know that the machinery there was breaking down. "
He'd been in the "Senate long enough..." 2 years in the Senate before beginning his campaign for President.
The filibuster used to be used during Jim Crow? Lets go back to 2005. The year he started! Remember "the nuclear option?" That wasn't about Iran, Mr President, that was trying to stop the ridiculous filibustering by DEMOCRATS of judges nominated by President Bush.
Oh, wait, you weren't doing anything in the Senate, so how would you know...
I see that he didn't say it was Republicans, but he left out the part that it was Democrats. Tell a lie enough...
I wonder if he mentioned John Boehner's proposals to fix such activity in the House? Probably not.
Somebody needs to put a boot the back of the neck of this administration....like this:
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Hero...
...Usually, with THIS TYPE OF STORY, we get two types of responses. In one, the police or government officials warn of action by citizens, saying the life of the abducted 8 year old was put in danger, and that citizens should just be good witnesses.
The other, is what you have here. The citizen is recognized as the hero that he is.
There are various types of kidnappings. In this one, the suspect matches the description of an unknown subject who approaches random victims unknown to him, and as reported - that is exactly what happened when he abducted the 8 year old girl. These are the least common, and in my book, the most dangerous.
I wonder how much time this guy will get.
Oct 5, 2010: Victor Perez, center, shakes hands with Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer in Fresno, Calif. An 8-year-old girl who was abducted by a stranger while playing outside a Fresno home escaped from her captor after Perez recognized the suspects vehicle and cut it off, forcing it to stop, police said. The suspect pushed the girl out of the car, and she ran to safety. (AP Photo/Gary Kazanjian)
The other, is what you have here. The citizen is recognized as the hero that he is.
There are various types of kidnappings. In this one, the suspect matches the description of an unknown subject who approaches random victims unknown to him, and as reported - that is exactly what happened when he abducted the 8 year old girl. These are the least common, and in my book, the most dangerous.
I wonder how much time this guy will get.
Oct 5, 2010: Victor Perez, center, shakes hands with Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer in Fresno, Calif. An 8-year-old girl who was abducted by a stranger while playing outside a Fresno home escaped from her captor after Perez recognized the suspects vehicle and cut it off, forcing it to stop, police said. The suspect pushed the girl out of the car, and she ran to safety. (AP Photo/Gary Kazanjian)
Monday, October 4, 2010
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Econ Vs Eco...
...I think it is clear that most leftists don't believe in basic economic principles. Especially when it comes to health care, tax policy, education and a host of other areas. They seem to think that money cures all, and they ignore many of the underlying forces at work.
Remember the politicians during the $4.00 a gallon gas 'crisis'? THIS ARTICLE written in 2006 (its short) will remind you. It brings up the "Republicans" joining the left in the outcry against high prices, and blaming greedy oil companies and gas station owners. I know a few gas station owners. If you want to live the good life - don't buy a gas station! One way the Republicans were able to distinguish themselves from the left, was that they acknowledged openly that the tax on a gallon of gas was too high.
One thing that you didn't hear from anyone on the right, was Al Gore's (and others') statements that a higher price for a gallon of gas was actually a good thing. After all, it would reduce the amount of people driving around polluting the environment. (Al Gore hit this one in his Presidential bid for 2000...can't believe he only lost by a few thousand votes).
What happened when the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States topped $4.00? People bought more gas. To his credit, I think Al Gore advocated $8-$9 a gallon for his theory to work, but I'm not up for researching it.
I know that where I work, where everybody has a 'company car', there was forced carpooling, and they published a monthly ranking of everybody's gas bill in an attempt at humiliation (I was consistently in the top 5 thank you very much). Most people found a way to avoid carpooling, or found creative ways of paying for the gas (there is still an open investigation in the Peter vs Paul case).
That's economics baby. Its worth it for most people to pay $4.00 a gallon, rather than ride a bus (ha ha ha, ha ha haaa ha ha), or a bike or carpool. At what price people actually stop driving, I don't know, but I suspect its lower than Al's number.
If we look at it, Al Gore's theory exposed an underlying belief, where he would actually be correct. Oil is not a finite resource. On this planet anyway. Economics baby! A higher price of $9.00 a gallon would reduce demand (or at least the ability part of it) for most American drivers...and extend in the long term the availability of oil for other uses, and for those willing to pay the higher price. Thereby doing NOTHING to our overall oil consumption.
The main stream media buys it hook, line and sinker. More dumberer than the leftist politicians, are the leftist journalists. They really live in their own little bubble.
Study: American Food Waste is a Huge Energy Drain
Is you serious?
I'm all for not wasting food or electricity - but only because we have to pay for it. We are not running out.
I love the outdoors. Hate to be in the city too much. I get upset when I see good trees being cut down (if its in the way, its in the way, but who wants to live in a neighborhood with no trees, no shade? You don't know if its windy until you walk outside, and then its goodbye hat! Don't get me started on trees*. Anywho...)
The left has to decide what they want. Don't use it up because we need to preserve it, or use it up so we can move on to clean green. As for me, I'd much rather clean up an oil spill than ruin the environment with those stupid windmills.
Remember the politicians during the $4.00 a gallon gas 'crisis'? THIS ARTICLE written in 2006 (its short) will remind you. It brings up the "Republicans" joining the left in the outcry against high prices, and blaming greedy oil companies and gas station owners. I know a few gas station owners. If you want to live the good life - don't buy a gas station! One way the Republicans were able to distinguish themselves from the left, was that they acknowledged openly that the tax on a gallon of gas was too high.
One thing that you didn't hear from anyone on the right, was Al Gore's (and others') statements that a higher price for a gallon of gas was actually a good thing. After all, it would reduce the amount of people driving around polluting the environment. (Al Gore hit this one in his Presidential bid for 2000...can't believe he only lost by a few thousand votes).
What happened when the average price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States topped $4.00? People bought more gas. To his credit, I think Al Gore advocated $8-$9 a gallon for his theory to work, but I'm not up for researching it.
I know that where I work, where everybody has a 'company car', there was forced carpooling, and they published a monthly ranking of everybody's gas bill in an attempt at humiliation (I was consistently in the top 5 thank you very much). Most people found a way to avoid carpooling, or found creative ways of paying for the gas (there is still an open investigation in the Peter vs Paul case).
That's economics baby. Its worth it for most people to pay $4.00 a gallon, rather than ride a bus (ha ha ha, ha ha haaa ha ha), or a bike or carpool. At what price people actually stop driving, I don't know, but I suspect its lower than Al's number.
If we look at it, Al Gore's theory exposed an underlying belief, where he would actually be correct. Oil is not a finite resource. On this planet anyway. Economics baby! A higher price of $9.00 a gallon would reduce demand (or at least the ability part of it) for most American drivers...and extend in the long term the availability of oil for other uses, and for those willing to pay the higher price. Thereby doing NOTHING to our overall oil consumption.
The main stream media buys it hook, line and sinker. More dumberer than the leftist politicians, are the leftist journalists. They really live in their own little bubble.
Study: American Food Waste is a Huge Energy Drain
Is you serious?
I'm all for not wasting food or electricity - but only because we have to pay for it. We are not running out.
I love the outdoors. Hate to be in the city too much. I get upset when I see good trees being cut down (if its in the way, its in the way, but who wants to live in a neighborhood with no trees, no shade? You don't know if its windy until you walk outside, and then its goodbye hat! Don't get me started on trees*. Anywho...)
The left has to decide what they want. Don't use it up because we need to preserve it, or use it up so we can move on to clean green. As for me, I'd much rather clean up an oil spill than ruin the environment with those stupid windmills.
*Tree story: I used to work for a city government. Another city employee asked me to meet him in a parking lot. He arrived first, and was parked in the shade of a big tree. I arrived, and started to back into the space next to him so we could have a conversation while staying in our air-conditioned cars. As I was backing in, I saw a tree in my rear view mirror. Yes, the very tree that was providing our shade. I saw what looked like notches in the tree...about bumper level if you get my drift. I slowly backed up so that our driver door windows were lined up. Crash. It was less than 5 mph, but due to the angle of the tree, it hit square in the middle of my trunk. It was a small dent, but I had to report it to the city, and an accident report was written up. About a month later I was scheduled for a committee review of my accident. They scheduled it on my day off, which meant I was to be paid 3 hours of overtime ($121). When I got there, I found a committee of 21 people from various departments. They all introduced themselves, and then I was asked to recount my version of the accident. They each followed in their packet of approximately 10 pages of paper. Then, there was a lengthy discussion about the angle of the tree, and my eyewitness account of the numerous 'notches' on the tree, where other vehicles had similarly struck it. At the conclusion of the testimony, the committee decided to postpone my sentence until they could convene with the arborists. Arborists can't be cheap. I was thanked by the committee for my candor and was released to enjoy my day off (and the $121). One guy from my department was on the committee, and he walked me out. We got outside and laughed at the folly of the whole thing, and he told me that yes, he too was on overtime ($121). Several weeks later I was notified that I was being placed on 'driving probation' for one year. However, the tree was going to be cut down, AND, while my accident was not the sole cause, it may have been the straw that broke the camel's wallet - back-up sensors and alarms were being added to all city vehicles.
The damage to the trunk of my car was $700 (it could have been pulled out by a city mechanic for nothing). But the bureaucracy decided to add $242 on overtime from my department, plus the hourly rate for all those other city employees, the arborists, etc...and...the City of Scottsdale has one less shade tree...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)