More Stupid Liberals

"It is better to confess ignorance than provide it." ~ Homer Hickam

Newsbusters has published a video featuring George Lopez, comedian and talk show host under the headline, "George Lopez: If Sarah Palin Becomes President ‘I Will Move to Canada’.

While that, in itself, is a typically stupid statement by a typical wacko Hollywood Liberal, it isn't the first time one of these nuts has threatened to move out of the USA if certain Republicans get elected.

Robert Altman, big time Hollywood director, once famously said, "If George W. Bush is elected president, I'm leaving for France."

He didn't, by the way. He still lives in America.

Here's the video:



But, what astounds me even more than that statement about moving to Canada, is this statement: "I like my politicians to actually have a political background, to be politically -- to know politics, to actually have inherited something from working in the political world."

This completely amazes me.

This is from a guy that (presumably) voted for a community organizer over a career politician in 2008. And now, apparently he thinks that a background of being a Mayor and a Governor, not to mention a candidate for Vice President, somehow isn't political experience.

Then, he carried it even further by saying (You can't make this stuff up), "Or do we elect somebody by their smile instead of by their content?"

Just how does he think Obama got elected? My God, Obama is the poster boy of no content!

You know? I've been thinking lately that I've been wrong about Sarah Palin. I think she'd make a great President.

If, for no other reason, electing her President will make stupid Hollywood Celiberals move out of the country.

Who's Holding The Gun?

"If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion." ~ George Bernard Shaw

Trader Rick has asked me to post another blog entry, and although I am not feeling particularly passionate at this time about anything other than Obama's ongoing destruction of America, the moral decline in our country, and the continual media love affair with Obama and all things Democrat, I have blogged on those things ad infinitum.

What more can I say?

The only thing everyone is talking about right now is the question of whether raising the debt ceiling would be beneficial in solving the economic crisis or economic suicide.

I don't know.

I consider myself woefully inadequately educated, economically speaking, to address this subject with any kind of expertise.

I try to be objective but, I've heard both sides of the issue explained, and they all sound feasible in different ways, so instead of clarifying the issue for me, I am left further confused than before.

I just watched this video:



I've always made it clear that I am no economist. I don't understand economics. I'm sure if I did, I'd have more money in my bank account.

All I can do is relate the economic crisis is this country to my own economic situation. Throughout 40+ years of having to balance my income against my outgo, I have some practical experience with which to draw some (what I consider to be ) common sense conclusions.

Coincidentally, America's economic problems appear to be remarkably similar to my own, to wit:

Too much debt, and not enough money to pay it off.

Obama says Republicans are "holding a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners."

(and, by the way, isn't he one of the ones who blamed Republicans for the incendiary rhetoric that resulted in the shooting of that Democratic Congresswoman in Tucson, Arizona? I guess when you're the President, or at least a Democratic President, you can be as insensitive as you want)

Personally, I don't see it that way. The way I see it, Obama is the one holding the gun. He has been suggesting the Republicans want to take away senior citizen's social security, medicare, and medicaid if they succeed in not allowing him to raise the debt ceiling.

I don't believe for one minute that would be the consequence.

But, I admit, I don't know.

What I do know is this:

Raising the debt ceiling would simply increase the amount of debt we owe. That makes it harder to pay off. (duh!)

Example: If I have reached my limit on my credit card, and the credit card company offers to raise my debt limit so I can continue to charge more purchases to my account, eventually, I am going to be expected to repay that money. If the credit card company continues to raise my debt ceiling over and over again, I will come to the point where I can no longer make those payments. Then, I will default.

It's inevitable.

The Democrats insist we will be in default if we don't raise the debt ceiling, but in my experience, we will reach default status if we do.

The more we borrow, the more we are expected to pay back.

If we raise our debt to the point where our income cannot keep up with the pace of the increasing interest on our debt, how will we ever pay the debt back?

Especially if Obama wants to continue his reckless spending (and there is no evidence that he intends to stop). As I said, I don't know economics, but it seems logical to me that one cannot spend his way out of debt.

If we want to reduce the debt, we must stop spending so much, stop borrowing, and start living within our means.

Just as it works in my personal life.

Responding To More Liberal Idiocy

"False words are not evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." ~ Plato

In a comment at Joe's Blog, one particularly annoying, persistent Liberal posted this link (be patient, for some reason the web page loads painfully slow), ostensibly, I guess, to make some point. I have quite forgotten the point he was trying to make, as Liberals usually make such stupid points, they really aren't worth taking the time and effort to consider.

Even so, I tried to read the article he linked to--I really did-- but I couldn't get past the following exercise in absurdity:

"Take the enormous amount of misinformation that is taken for truth by Fox audiences: the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that he was in on 9/11, the belief that climate change isn't real and/or man-made, the belief that Barack Obama is Muslim and wasn't born in the United States, the insistence that all Arabs are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists, the inexplicable perceptions that immigrants are both too lazy to work and are about to steal your job."

I then responded to the Lib's comment by telling him I could easily refute the lies spouted by the author of the linked article but I highly doubt the aforementioned commenter really believed that tripe himself.

He responded by challenging me to "go to it".

I didn't (not there, anyway), because as Lone Ranger has noted, ad infinitum, "Liberals not only refuse to learn from their mistakes, they refuse to admit them."

However, I will now attempt to refute the false charges leveled against Fox news, one by one, right here, right now, on my blog:

First falsehood: "the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."

Saddam Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction, as Iraqis unfortunately found out the hard way when he used them against his own citizens. Not only did he have WMD, but even the Democrats admitted to that fact.

This is not opinion. It is historical fact. All one needs to do is look it up.

Second falsehood: "[H]e (Saddam Hussein) was in on 9/11."

This charge is probably the closest to the most accurate, but still way off base. There is no evidence that Hussein wasn't in on the conspiracy to attack the USA, but there is a suggestion that he may well have known about the impending attacks in advance. At any rate, if Hussein did not invite al Qaida to come to Iraq to conduct their terrorists training camps, he certainly didn't discourage them, or ask them to cease and desist, and he celebrated the terrorist attacks on 9/11 right along with bin Laden.

Also, I don't recall ever hearing Fox news make that particular charge, except in a speculative way, which is a far cry from deliberate misinformation. So, the statement that Fox misinformed their viewers in that regard is in itself, false.

Third: "the belief that climate change isn't real and/or man-made."

How can a theory that is unproven and unprovable be the subject of misinformation? Climate Change, or Global Warming, as it was originally called before real scientists (you know, the ones without an agenda) proved the earth was not warming but cooling, has never been proven, nor is there any evidence that it is any more than a theory, and a completely implausible theory at that.

Fourth: "T]he belief that Barack Obama is Muslim and wasn't born in the United States"

Fox news never made that claim. They did, however, report that others have made that claim, but they never made that claim themselves, and that usually in conjunction with a disclaimer that the opinions expressed by guests on their commentary programs are not necessarily the official opinions of Fox News. As any good news outlet should, they simply reported what others have said, and let the viewers decide.

In fact, it is the Liberal media outlets, such as MSNBC, CNN, and others who have propagated that misinformation under the guise of claiming Fox News is the culprit.

Fifth: "Arabs are Muslim and all Muslims are terrorists"

No one--not Fox news--not anyone, has ever, EVER made such an obvious stupid generality about Muslims and Arabs. Some Arabs are Christians. Some are atheists, and some are probably other religions as well.

Likewise, no one--certainly not Fox News-- has ever said all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, they have always clearly stated that, although most terrorists are Muslims, all Muslims are not terrorists. This fifth charge against Fox news is patently false and quite frankly, created out of whole cloth. It's difficult (to say the least) to believe anyone, even a moronic Liberal, would make such a stupid and irresponsible accusation.

It's equally unbelievable to believe anyone, even a moronic, kool-aid drinking, dyed in the wool, lemming mentality, bleeding heart Liberal sob sister would believe such a ludicrous statement.

And last, but not least: "the inexplicable perceptions that immigrants are both too lazy to work and are about to steal your job."

The author of the article, as all Liberals continually do, conveniently left out the one word that defines the crux of the illegal immigration argument:

"Illegal".

But, to respond directly to the false allegation, Fox news has never created a perception that immigrants are lazy or "about to steal" anyone's job. Just the opposite, Fox news has repeatedly stated that, for the most part, legal immigrants are hard-working, responsible, upstanding, law abiding people, and that those who have become naturalized citizens usually love America as much, and sometimes even more than the average natural born citizen.

However, any perceptions about illegal aliens who have illegally entered our country, have mostly been the result of their own disregard for our nation's laws and sovereignty.

You know, I'm just an ordinary guy, but even I can easily refute these ridiculous, slanderous accusations. Imagine what Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh could do with them.

Not Guilty

"The sword of justice has no scabbard." ~ Antione De Riveral



I admit I didn't watch the trial of Casey Anthony. I didn't hear the testimony. I didn't weigh the evidence. All I know is part of what the news outlets reported.

It seems the general opinion of the people who did watch the trial in it's entirety is that Casey Anthony is guilty as charged. And, from what I've heard, she probably is.

Despite the verdict handed down by the jury.

But, I have all I need to know to opine on the results.

I've heard the attorneys offer their points of view. I've heard journalist's analyses. We have all heard the opinions of the observers.

What I haven't heard is the juror's opinions. And, in the end, it's really only the jury's opinion that matters.

Perhaps many people don't understand the singular responsibility of a jury. Juries are charged to make a judgement on the facts of the case only.

Not on emotion. Not on feelings. Not on public opinion. Not on some sense of fairness.

Just the Facts, Ma'am.

But, above all, the judgement of the jury is dependent on whether or not guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Throughout any court trial, jury members are continuously charged by the Judge, in no uncertain terms, before, during, and after all testimony and evidence is presented:

There must be no doubt of guilt, or the defendant must be found "not guilty".

The States attorney has the burden of proof. If he cannot prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must reach a verdict of "not Guilty".

The Casey Anthony jury therefore have discharged their solemn and sacred duty in the way the American Justice system intended.

It could well be, and probably is, that the jury members believed in their hearts that Casey Anthony was guilty of murder in the first degree.

But, in their minds, the States attorney failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and they voted accordingly. And, I feel confident, when the interviews with the jury members are published, that is exactly what they'll say.

No doubt the state attorney wanted a guilty verdict, but unfortunately, he should have done a little more homework, sealed the evidence down more tightly, and done whatever was necessary to remove any semblance of doubt about the guilt of Casey Anthony.

Obviously, as far as the jury was concerned, he failed to accomplish that goal.

This is the way the American Justice system is intended to work.

Like it or not. The system works.