Butch Jackson stormed the Cafe after watching week end news shows, "Two months after the voters routed the Socialist Dems the media has launched a gigantic counter attack aided and abetted by RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). Old John McCain, after calling Obama a patriot, now says 'he has already changed'. And then, of all people, they drag Collin Powell out and he says the Republicans should not make cuts across the board, like returning to 2006 spending levels, but should itemize every program they want cut and by what amount. Any idiot knows this plays right into the Socialist's hands so that they can claim Republicans hate the elderly, the young, the poor and downtrodden, women, minorities, and of course gays. This is exactly what Powell, who supported Obama in 2008, wants to happen."
"And what are the Republicans in Congress doing? They are trying to decide which Socialist they will sit by at the State of the Union speech? Any idiot knows this is a ploy by the Dems to disguise the number of losses they had in November from the TV audience in an attempt to spread their small number across the screen. And Obama has already tipped his hand with this quote, 'I want to make America competitive and create jobs, not just now, but into the future. How, by investing in education and green energy for the jobs of tomorrow'. This is code for 'don't hold me to create jobs now or in the short term as I continue to cripple America's energy industry and the economy even more'. I will continue to send tax payer money to Algore, GE, and the Chinese who are stashing it away for Michelle and my retirement'. God help us if American voters and RINOs believe this crap.Has anyone noticed that gasoline prices have risen from a national average of $1.65 to $3.15 since big O took office. Donald Trump says we are going to over $5.00. "
Billy Roy strolled into the conversation like John Wayne in the real True Grit movie, "Well the folks are not falling for it. Did you see the road sign in Waco with a picture of Obama calling him a 'Socialist by Conduct'? This weekend letters to the editor in the Waco Tribune answered those who thought the sign was 'disrespectful' to our President. Here is what they said:
'I looked up the definition of a Socialist as one who advocates collective government ownership and administration of production and distribution of goods rather than private or corporate ownership. Listening to our President I have learned that all big business and rich people are bad and that it is fair and right for the government to take money away from these bad guys and spread it around. Of course not included in that list of bad people are folks like George Soros, book writers like he and Clinton,and selected crony-capitalism companies like Goldman Sachs, GE, and now Wal-Mart. Can you believe with all the real problems in our large cities with crime, drugs, abortions, welfare, hip-hop, illegal immigration,and parent less children that Michelle and Wal-Mart are going to save the ghetto with inexpensive healthy meals.'
'Liberals and Socialists advocate for the unlimited powers of the Federal Government in violation of our Constitution the following ways: income redistribution, rich versus poor class warfare, micro-managing the economy, and a takeover of certain industries such as health care, student loans, real estate banking, energy, and Wall Street. These are socialists themes and policies and are un-American. If liberals and progressives don't want to be called socialists they should quit advocating socialist policies.'
'We need to get rid of this guy in 2012. I have yet to see another liar like him in politics. He is nothing but a socialist at heart and wants to enslave the U.S. population.
'Why would Progressives object so profusely to us calling Obama a socialist by observing his conduct? As I recall Socialism is supposed to be an internationally accepted respectable set of political beliefs. Why do socialists have to always hide their attempts at political takeovers?'
'Regarding the billboard, I am reminded of that old saying, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.'
'Surely there has never been a President more vilified than George Bush. There are many avowed socialists in this administration and Congress. We all know who their leader is.'
'On my way to Killeen on Sunday this road sign made my day. It proves that I am not the only one that knows Obama is a socialist'."
BM then close things down, "The RINOs say we should treat Obama like a patriot and not question his motives. They might as well tell us to just be deaf, dumb, and blind while leaving things to Washington. Ain't no way! And, sit with your own folks!"
Think about it,
Jim
Monday, January 24, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Politely Vote His Ass Out of Office in 2012
Scott Riddle made his weekly visit to the Cafe, not being a regular since he is big time busy with his cows, insurance, and mostly Texas Holdem poker games, and as usual launched into an assessment of current political strategies and tactics, "Well Obama waits a week after the Arizona shooting to check out the polls and read the wind's direction before he kicks off his 'triangulation' strategy."
"What the heck is triangulation? I never understood it when Clinton was doing it? Does it have anything to do with having sex with young girls?", Butch Jackson engaged with a semi-serious set of questions.
"Don't know about the sex part, Butch, but Obama did meet with Clinton for advice after the November shellacking he took. Triangulation is where the President sits at the top of the triangle with the Conservative Republicans on one vortex and the Progressive/Liberal/Commie Dems at the other vortex. The idea is for Obama to appear moderate for two years and stay above the fray in an attempt to get re-elected in 2012. So Obama comes out with a plea for civility and a plea for us to all get along and work together trying to make both sides look bad and for him to look good. Of course, the whole strategy is based on folks being stupid enough to fall for it because if re-elected, he will gut this Country and Conservatives like a pig before a 4th of July barbecue"
"And how do you think his first triangulation worked?"
"Obama's approval ratings are up about 6 points since his speech, so it did work to some degree with Moderates. A great example is old John McCain. The Arizona senator and Obama's 2008 opponent penned an op-ed in the Washington Post, saying Obama 'comforted and inspired the country' by calling for greater civility in the nation's political discourse. I disagree with many of the president's policies, but I believe he is a patriot sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause,' McCain wrote. 'I reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America or opposed to its founding ideals.' Now that sounds nice but the last time I looked up the definition of patriot it described someone who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors. Obama defended our country just last night by giving one of his few state dinners sucking up to the Communist President of China who is killing us in trade because they cheat by controlling their currency valuations, and they support every enemy we have (N. Korea, Iran, etc.) in the world. Obama defends us against Islamic Muslim Terrorists by calling them a small radical group of outliers and wants to give captured murderers full US Citizen rights in our courts. The man will not say the word war."
And here came Billy Roy, "Scott, you are right on. First, this is exactly why McCain isn't President. He consistently compromises with the Socialists, particularly when he isn't in an election year. More importantly though, I hear Republicans say we should question Obama's policies and not question Obama's motives. The problem with that is that he and his thugs lie like dogs. They will argue with the Republicans over whether Obamacare will reduce health care costs when the truth is they don't care what is in the legislation as long as the government can take over and run all of the insurance companies out of business. Their motive is not to reduce the costs of health care, but to take it over."
After a sizable deep breath because BM is a big man, "Look what happened when people didn't question Castro's motives, or Stalin's, or Hitler's motives. Many people in those countries tried to have civil debates and could not believe that anyone would take over the government and destroy their freedom and way of life. We damn well better question Obama's motives. He has told us everything we need to know and that is he wants his government to 'transform' American and redistribute our wealth in a manner that he will determine to be fair. Period. What more do we need to know about his motives. Limbaugh has it right. Obama's agenda must be stopped now by the Republican House and by the non-Socialist courts. We need to be civil and polite all right. We need to politely vote his ass out of office in 2012."
Scott actually closed this session, "I just hope folks realize we face a choice between two futures. One is a Socialist future where the federal government claims ever increasing shares of our income and grants itself the authority to make decisions affecting virtually every aspect of our daily lives. The other future is built upon the idea that individual freedom trumps government authority, and that in those rare cases when solving a problem requires government, the government that governs best is the one that is smallest and closest to the people. That is the future that we should fight for – reaffirming our individual liberty, strengthening private markets, shrinking the size of governments, and making decisions wherever possible at the local level rather than in Washington."
Think "civilly" about that,
Jim
"What the heck is triangulation? I never understood it when Clinton was doing it? Does it have anything to do with having sex with young girls?", Butch Jackson engaged with a semi-serious set of questions.
"Don't know about the sex part, Butch, but Obama did meet with Clinton for advice after the November shellacking he took. Triangulation is where the President sits at the top of the triangle with the Conservative Republicans on one vortex and the Progressive/Liberal/Commie Dems at the other vortex. The idea is for Obama to appear moderate for two years and stay above the fray in an attempt to get re-elected in 2012. So Obama comes out with a plea for civility and a plea for us to all get along and work together trying to make both sides look bad and for him to look good. Of course, the whole strategy is based on folks being stupid enough to fall for it because if re-elected, he will gut this Country and Conservatives like a pig before a 4th of July barbecue"
"And how do you think his first triangulation worked?"
"Obama's approval ratings are up about 6 points since his speech, so it did work to some degree with Moderates. A great example is old John McCain. The Arizona senator and Obama's 2008 opponent penned an op-ed in the Washington Post, saying Obama 'comforted and inspired the country' by calling for greater civility in the nation's political discourse. I disagree with many of the president's policies, but I believe he is a patriot sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause,' McCain wrote. 'I reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America or opposed to its founding ideals.' Now that sounds nice but the last time I looked up the definition of patriot it described someone who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors. Obama defended our country just last night by giving one of his few state dinners sucking up to the Communist President of China who is killing us in trade because they cheat by controlling their currency valuations, and they support every enemy we have (N. Korea, Iran, etc.) in the world. Obama defends us against Islamic Muslim Terrorists by calling them a small radical group of outliers and wants to give captured murderers full US Citizen rights in our courts. The man will not say the word war."
And here came Billy Roy, "Scott, you are right on. First, this is exactly why McCain isn't President. He consistently compromises with the Socialists, particularly when he isn't in an election year. More importantly though, I hear Republicans say we should question Obama's policies and not question Obama's motives. The problem with that is that he and his thugs lie like dogs. They will argue with the Republicans over whether Obamacare will reduce health care costs when the truth is they don't care what is in the legislation as long as the government can take over and run all of the insurance companies out of business. Their motive is not to reduce the costs of health care, but to take it over."
After a sizable deep breath because BM is a big man, "Look what happened when people didn't question Castro's motives, or Stalin's, or Hitler's motives. Many people in those countries tried to have civil debates and could not believe that anyone would take over the government and destroy their freedom and way of life. We damn well better question Obama's motives. He has told us everything we need to know and that is he wants his government to 'transform' American and redistribute our wealth in a manner that he will determine to be fair. Period. What more do we need to know about his motives. Limbaugh has it right. Obama's agenda must be stopped now by the Republican House and by the non-Socialist courts. We need to be civil and polite all right. We need to politely vote his ass out of office in 2012."
Scott actually closed this session, "I just hope folks realize we face a choice between two futures. One is a Socialist future where the federal government claims ever increasing shares of our income and grants itself the authority to make decisions affecting virtually every aspect of our daily lives. The other future is built upon the idea that individual freedom trumps government authority, and that in those rare cases when solving a problem requires government, the government that governs best is the one that is smallest and closest to the people. That is the future that we should fight for – reaffirming our individual liberty, strengthening private markets, shrinking the size of governments, and making decisions wherever possible at the local level rather than in Washington."
Think "civilly" about that,
Jim
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Washington "Made Off" With Our Money and Now They Want to Manage Our Health
Semi-unofficial Chairman of the Hubbard City Cafe, Billy Roy Mitchum, loves Ronald Reagan, and it all started when he heard someone ask Reagan how the government was going to solve a particular problem. He answered, "The government doesn't solve problems, the government is the problem." In a rare show of domination, BM seized the Cafe's stage on this particular day in a show of passion. "With huge arguments just around the bend on how the government is going to solve our entitlement problems, which have bankrupted the country, we need to be careful about compromising with Socialists. They will agree to anything as long as they can get control. I saw a comparison that everyone needs to understand. Here it is:
Why did Bernie Madoff go to prison? To make it simple, he talked people into investing with him. Trouble was, he didn't invest their money. As time rolled on he simply took the money from the new investors to pay off the old investors. Finally there were too many old investors and not enough money from new investors coming in to keep the payments going. Next thing you know, Madoff is one of the most hated men in America, and he is off to jail. Not enough of the folks know that the government has been screwing tax payers, Madoff style, for years.
Yep, I repeat, Madoff screwed his investors just like the Congress has been screwing us for over 70 years with Social Security. There is no meaningful difference between the two schemes, except that one was operated by a private individual who is now in jail, and the other is operated by politicians who enjoy perks and privileges, fly in tax paid jets, and lie to the public like dogs.
Do you need a direct comparison? Well, here it is:
BERNIE MADOFF
Takes money from investors with the promise that the money will be invested and made available to them later.
SOCIAL SECURITY
Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a 'Trust Fund' and made available later.
BERNIE MADOFF
Instead of investing the money Madoff spends it on nice homes in the Hampton's and yachts.
SOCIAL SECURITY
Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund the politicians use it for general spending and vote buying for their own re-elections.
BERNIE MADOFF
When the time comes to pay the investors back Madoff simply uses some of the new funds from newer investors to pay back the older investors.
SOCIAL SECURITY
When benefits for older investors become due the politicians pay them with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the geezers leaving future problems to future generations.
BERNIE MADOFF
When Madoff's scheme is discovered all hell breaks loose. New investors won't give him any more cash.
SOCIAL SECURITY
When Social Security runs out of money they simply force the taxpayers to send them more while blaming 'the other party'.
BERNIE MADOFF
Bernie Madoff is in jail.
SOCIAL SECURITY
Politicians remain in Washington arguing the government should be working in a bi-partisan way to 'solve' all of our other problems like energy, global warming, wall street, local school curriculum and menus, marriage, gun ownership, conservative talk shows, and of course enabling illegals to vote while they continue to leave our borders open for drug dealers and the entry of more illegals.
This is why a real economist, Milton Friedman, said, 'If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand'. And now Obama and crew have put the government in charge of health care, 1/6 of the economy, giving the government control of our health as well of our economy. Give the government ten years managing health care and they will solve the retirement problem because most folks won't live long enough to retire.
Well my Dad always said good judgment comes from experience, and a lotta that comes from bad judgment. We can't let Obama do the same thing to health care (the greatest system in the world) that they have done to Social Security. Promise to pay for every one's health care with no limitations. Then , when they run out of money, they will increase taxes again on the 'rich' (no harm there, right?). When they run out of the rich's money (which won't take long), they will cut back and ration health care like any other third world socialist country. We will run out of health care just like we'd run out of sand in Friedman's Sahara."
Think about it,
Jim
Why did Bernie Madoff go to prison? To make it simple, he talked people into investing with him. Trouble was, he didn't invest their money. As time rolled on he simply took the money from the new investors to pay off the old investors. Finally there were too many old investors and not enough money from new investors coming in to keep the payments going. Next thing you know, Madoff is one of the most hated men in America, and he is off to jail. Not enough of the folks know that the government has been screwing tax payers, Madoff style, for years.
Yep, I repeat, Madoff screwed his investors just like the Congress has been screwing us for over 70 years with Social Security. There is no meaningful difference between the two schemes, except that one was operated by a private individual who is now in jail, and the other is operated by politicians who enjoy perks and privileges, fly in tax paid jets, and lie to the public like dogs.
Do you need a direct comparison? Well, here it is:
BERNIE MADOFF
Takes money from investors with the promise that the money will be invested and made available to them later.
SOCIAL SECURITY
Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a 'Trust Fund' and made available later.
BERNIE MADOFF
Instead of investing the money Madoff spends it on nice homes in the Hampton's and yachts.
SOCIAL SECURITY
Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund the politicians use it for general spending and vote buying for their own re-elections.
BERNIE MADOFF
When the time comes to pay the investors back Madoff simply uses some of the new funds from newer investors to pay back the older investors.
SOCIAL SECURITY
When benefits for older investors become due the politicians pay them with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the geezers leaving future problems to future generations.
BERNIE MADOFF
When Madoff's scheme is discovered all hell breaks loose. New investors won't give him any more cash.
SOCIAL SECURITY
When Social Security runs out of money they simply force the taxpayers to send them more while blaming 'the other party'.
BERNIE MADOFF
Bernie Madoff is in jail.
SOCIAL SECURITY
Politicians remain in Washington arguing the government should be working in a bi-partisan way to 'solve' all of our other problems like energy, global warming, wall street, local school curriculum and menus, marriage, gun ownership, conservative talk shows, and of course enabling illegals to vote while they continue to leave our borders open for drug dealers and the entry of more illegals.
This is why a real economist, Milton Friedman, said, 'If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand'. And now Obama and crew have put the government in charge of health care, 1/6 of the economy, giving the government control of our health as well of our economy. Give the government ten years managing health care and they will solve the retirement problem because most folks won't live long enough to retire.
Well my Dad always said good judgment comes from experience, and a lotta that comes from bad judgment. We can't let Obama do the same thing to health care (the greatest system in the world) that they have done to Social Security. Promise to pay for every one's health care with no limitations. Then , when they run out of money, they will increase taxes again on the 'rich' (no harm there, right?). When they run out of the rich's money (which won't take long), they will cut back and ration health care like any other third world socialist country. We will run out of health care just like we'd run out of sand in Friedman's Sahara."
Think about it,
Jim
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Try This Rhetoric: No Fight, No Freedom
With the press, talk show hosts, and politicians flailing away frantically over the shooting in Arizona, Butch Jackson, the Cafe's primary researcher of some local renown, decided to dig in and report, "While there have been approximately 20 assassination attempts against U.S. presidents, four of which were successful, attacks on members of Congress and local judges are much more rare. There have been only five recorded attempts against members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including the attack on Gabrielle Giffords. And two of those five attacks resulted from disputes between representatives (one of which was a duel in 1838). But there are also many more threats voiced against public officials, which should never be ignored. The majority are issued by what we call lone wolves — individuals acting on their own rather than with a group according to the Stratfor Research Group in Austin."
"Now, not only are dumb dumbs blaming people like Palin for the shooting, but they are screaming for legislation to protect our legislators. Even people like Bill O'Reilly can't help but join the noise. He says we just don't have enough US Marshalls to do the job, so let's make government bigger. Typical! What is unbelievable, yet typical, most calling for increasing the government;s size and regulation don't even know who is charged with the task of protecting our Congress-folks. Again Stratfor says, 'A little known fact is that the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) is the agency in charge of safeguarding congressional officials not only inside the perimeter of the Capitol grounds, which includes the House and Senate office buildings and the Library of Congress, but also when those officials are traveling. The USCP has its own protection division to analyze and investigate threats against members of Congress. Based on threat assessments, this division can assign teams for countersurveillance and security whenever and wherever a representative or senator travels. The USCP is also responsible for liaison with local law enforcement in order to ensure some level of security even when there is no identifiable threat.'
'In the case of any scheduled public appearance, protocol should require congressional staff members to notify the USCP, whose liaison unit will then alert local law enforcement, including city, county and state police, depending on the event. At this point, we don’t know why there was no police presence at Giffords’ event on Jan. 8. It appears that the event was announced the day before, according to a press release on her website. The Pima County Sheriff’s office has said it was not given prior notification of the event.'
Stratfor thinks there are security methods that can be effective. 'We need not think of a security detail being a scrum of uniformed police officers surrounding a public official. Instead, plainclothes protective intelligence teams assigned to countersurveillance as well as physical protection can be interspersed within crowds and positioned at key vantage points, looking for threatening individuals. They are invisible to the untrained eye and do not hinder a politician’s contact with the public. Moreover, a minimal police presence can deter attackers or make them more identifiable as they become nervous and they can stop individual attackers after the first shots are fired.' So we have the organization and resources to do the job. Now the people making noise should get out of the way, and those responsible should just make the system work and make changes if needed."
"Good report, Butch," weighed in Billy Roy. "As usual I agree with the Ronald Reagan quote that Sarah Palin used this week, 'We must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty instead of the law breaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is responsible for his actions'. Certainly these 'Lone Wolf' situations are not reasons to indict our society and our country. Even Obama, in one of his better speeches since his campaign when he was again going to 'bring us all together', was calling on Americans to change. Why do the acts of a wacko in Arizona call for a change in all of America? Sounds like another one of Obama's 'transformations' to me. You have to hand it to the guy, he never let's up in pushing his agenda that being that America is screwed up and must be transformed by the government."
This report from the Cafe coupled with our sorrow over the loss of the precious nine year old girl in Arizona reminded me of another Reagan quote, “We have the duty to protect the life of an unborn child.” This week it was reported that we did not protect the lives of 1,400,000 children who were aborted in the year 2008 alone. Also, in that number is the fact that up to 60% of all black pregnancies in urban areas end in abortion. It seems to me that if we could get as concerned about our unborn children as we are about our "rhetoric" that we might find more favor from the Man Above.
Again, it was Reagan who said "that freedom is always just one generation away from extinction. We don't pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we're going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children's children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free."
Fighting for freedom is repealing Obamacare, reducing the size of government, killing cap and trade, protecting marriage, and defeating terrorism. Mark my word, Obama's idea of 'coming together' is starting next week for the Republican House to fall in behind him and the Democratic Senate and compromise away a Free America.
Think about it,
Jim
"Now, not only are dumb dumbs blaming people like Palin for the shooting, but they are screaming for legislation to protect our legislators. Even people like Bill O'Reilly can't help but join the noise. He says we just don't have enough US Marshalls to do the job, so let's make government bigger. Typical! What is unbelievable, yet typical, most calling for increasing the government;s size and regulation don't even know who is charged with the task of protecting our Congress-folks. Again Stratfor says, 'A little known fact is that the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) is the agency in charge of safeguarding congressional officials not only inside the perimeter of the Capitol grounds, which includes the House and Senate office buildings and the Library of Congress, but also when those officials are traveling. The USCP has its own protection division to analyze and investigate threats against members of Congress. Based on threat assessments, this division can assign teams for countersurveillance and security whenever and wherever a representative or senator travels. The USCP is also responsible for liaison with local law enforcement in order to ensure some level of security even when there is no identifiable threat.'
'In the case of any scheduled public appearance, protocol should require congressional staff members to notify the USCP, whose liaison unit will then alert local law enforcement, including city, county and state police, depending on the event. At this point, we don’t know why there was no police presence at Giffords’ event on Jan. 8. It appears that the event was announced the day before, according to a press release on her website. The Pima County Sheriff’s office has said it was not given prior notification of the event.'
Stratfor thinks there are security methods that can be effective. 'We need not think of a security detail being a scrum of uniformed police officers surrounding a public official. Instead, plainclothes protective intelligence teams assigned to countersurveillance as well as physical protection can be interspersed within crowds and positioned at key vantage points, looking for threatening individuals. They are invisible to the untrained eye and do not hinder a politician’s contact with the public. Moreover, a minimal police presence can deter attackers or make them more identifiable as they become nervous and they can stop individual attackers after the first shots are fired.' So we have the organization and resources to do the job. Now the people making noise should get out of the way, and those responsible should just make the system work and make changes if needed."
"Good report, Butch," weighed in Billy Roy. "As usual I agree with the Ronald Reagan quote that Sarah Palin used this week, 'We must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty instead of the law breaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is responsible for his actions'. Certainly these 'Lone Wolf' situations are not reasons to indict our society and our country. Even Obama, in one of his better speeches since his campaign when he was again going to 'bring us all together', was calling on Americans to change. Why do the acts of a wacko in Arizona call for a change in all of America? Sounds like another one of Obama's 'transformations' to me. You have to hand it to the guy, he never let's up in pushing his agenda that being that America is screwed up and must be transformed by the government."
This report from the Cafe coupled with our sorrow over the loss of the precious nine year old girl in Arizona reminded me of another Reagan quote, “We have the duty to protect the life of an unborn child.” This week it was reported that we did not protect the lives of 1,400,000 children who were aborted in the year 2008 alone. Also, in that number is the fact that up to 60% of all black pregnancies in urban areas end in abortion. It seems to me that if we could get as concerned about our unborn children as we are about our "rhetoric" that we might find more favor from the Man Above.
Again, it was Reagan who said "that freedom is always just one generation away from extinction. We don't pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we're going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children's children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free."
Fighting for freedom is repealing Obamacare, reducing the size of government, killing cap and trade, protecting marriage, and defeating terrorism. Mark my word, Obama's idea of 'coming together' is starting next week for the Republican House to fall in behind him and the Democratic Senate and compromise away a Free America.
Think about it,
Jim
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Terrorists, Terrorism, and Nut Jobs
Scotty Anderson is the proud father of a football coach at a major university. Father, like son, is a student of strategies, tactics, and competition. The recent tragic shooting in Arizona of a US Congressperson and several other innocent people including a 9 year old girl, has prompted a major debate about terrorists and extreme acts of violence. Scotty came into the Cafe with considerable insight, "It seems to this old country boy that it is good time for folks to look at the big picture of terrorism and terrorists. Seems to me that modern terrorism is really a media event in today's world. Someone or some group with a cause that they would like to advance by drawing attention to this cause design their strategy around gaining access to the huge media outfits that trade on spectacular events of interest. These media companies have 24x7 outlets that can cover an event in a near real time environment. So if I am a terrorist by definition I have a cause and design and implement an event to draw maximum attention. A smart terrorist group will attempt to do this with minimum risks, costs, and maximum effect."
Butch Jackson jumped all over this, "Sounds like real smart talk Scotty but give us an example that we can chew on."
"How about 911, a true terrorist act? A group with a passionate cause, radical Muslim Jihadists with a worldwide intent to wage war and disrupt non-Muslim nations, chose a big operation by hijacking four large planes to bring destruction to the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and probably the White House. They, with the assistance of massive media coverage, can drive fear into all free world citizens, disrupt governments and even world economies (which they did by causing a recession), and even create conditions that lead to our invasion of Afghanistan. A big act of terrorism. Now the strategy can move to smaller incidents with less risks and costs and yet gain massive media coverage advancing the Jihadists cause. Smaller, less costly events like Fort Hood, the shoe bomber, and the NY Times Square incident. Each gaining huge media attention and coverage. Fifty years ago a hostile country would have to attack another nation to gain the media attention and exposure that these guys can gain with several very limited actions."
"So what is the significance of this to us?" came back Butch always probing for significance to the Cafe folks.
"Clearly if we are going to play defense against terrorism, we have to understand their strategy and defend accordingly. For example, if the government paints all terrorists as random acts of unbalanced people and treats them as criminals and a law enforcement problem you do stupid things like reading a terrorist his Miranda rights. I understand the first thing the cops did with the Arizona shooter (I will not dignify nor publicize him by using his name) was to tell him he had the right to remain silent. At the time we didn't know if he was acting alone or a member of a large group in a co-ordinated attack. You don't treat Radical Muslim Jihadists, who have a worldwide movement and strategy, who clearly fit all definitions of the terrorists using terrorism as their weapon the same way you treat a nut job like the guy in Arizona who killed six people. The nut job appears to have no major agenda, movement, nor organization. In fact, Arizona is not a terrorism act in my book," Scotty strived to connect the dots for Butch.
Billy Roy came in late as he is apt to do most of the time, "Scotty, that's good. I think I got it. In fact it helps me understand a group that really drives me crazy. Based on your definitions I would call these groups 'sideline terrorists'. They don't run the risks and costs of creating these media events of terror. They sit on the sidelines and then leap out like Tommie Lewis did in the Cotton Bowl when he tackled Dickie Moegle by coming off the bench on the sidelines and on to the playing field. Example: Gun control activists who wait for a shooting like the one in Arizona and then make every attempt using the media coverage to make the Glock pistol the perpetrator instead of the nut job that plotted the act and pulled the trigger. Same thing with the Socialist haters of Sarah Palin/Rush Limbaugh/Glen Beck/Tea Party who come rushing in from the sidelines to get media attention to their cause which is to control the press by blaming conservative media which they think costs them the November election. In my mind these groups are as sleazy as it gets."
Scotty closed it down, "BM, that summary is better than a Merle Haggard slow dance on a Saturday night. I might add, regarding gun control, the only person I have heard that ran toward the Arizona shooter did it because he was packing. I sure wish a soldier at Fort Hood would have been packing. He would have saved many, many beautiful lives."
Think about it,
Jim
Butch Jackson jumped all over this, "Sounds like real smart talk Scotty but give us an example that we can chew on."
"How about 911, a true terrorist act? A group with a passionate cause, radical Muslim Jihadists with a worldwide intent to wage war and disrupt non-Muslim nations, chose a big operation by hijacking four large planes to bring destruction to the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and probably the White House. They, with the assistance of massive media coverage, can drive fear into all free world citizens, disrupt governments and even world economies (which they did by causing a recession), and even create conditions that lead to our invasion of Afghanistan. A big act of terrorism. Now the strategy can move to smaller incidents with less risks and costs and yet gain massive media coverage advancing the Jihadists cause. Smaller, less costly events like Fort Hood, the shoe bomber, and the NY Times Square incident. Each gaining huge media attention and coverage. Fifty years ago a hostile country would have to attack another nation to gain the media attention and exposure that these guys can gain with several very limited actions."
"So what is the significance of this to us?" came back Butch always probing for significance to the Cafe folks.
"Clearly if we are going to play defense against terrorism, we have to understand their strategy and defend accordingly. For example, if the government paints all terrorists as random acts of unbalanced people and treats them as criminals and a law enforcement problem you do stupid things like reading a terrorist his Miranda rights. I understand the first thing the cops did with the Arizona shooter (I will not dignify nor publicize him by using his name) was to tell him he had the right to remain silent. At the time we didn't know if he was acting alone or a member of a large group in a co-ordinated attack. You don't treat Radical Muslim Jihadists, who have a worldwide movement and strategy, who clearly fit all definitions of the terrorists using terrorism as their weapon the same way you treat a nut job like the guy in Arizona who killed six people. The nut job appears to have no major agenda, movement, nor organization. In fact, Arizona is not a terrorism act in my book," Scotty strived to connect the dots for Butch.
Billy Roy came in late as he is apt to do most of the time, "Scotty, that's good. I think I got it. In fact it helps me understand a group that really drives me crazy. Based on your definitions I would call these groups 'sideline terrorists'. They don't run the risks and costs of creating these media events of terror. They sit on the sidelines and then leap out like Tommie Lewis did in the Cotton Bowl when he tackled Dickie Moegle by coming off the bench on the sidelines and on to the playing field. Example: Gun control activists who wait for a shooting like the one in Arizona and then make every attempt using the media coverage to make the Glock pistol the perpetrator instead of the nut job that plotted the act and pulled the trigger. Same thing with the Socialist haters of Sarah Palin/Rush Limbaugh/Glen Beck/Tea Party who come rushing in from the sidelines to get media attention to their cause which is to control the press by blaming conservative media which they think costs them the November election. In my mind these groups are as sleazy as it gets."
Scotty closed it down, "BM, that summary is better than a Merle Haggard slow dance on a Saturday night. I might add, regarding gun control, the only person I have heard that ran toward the Arizona shooter did it because he was packing. I sure wish a soldier at Fort Hood would have been packing. He would have saved many, many beautiful lives."
Think about it,
Jim
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Captain America is a Stud
My Mom, Maxine, loves the Dallas Cowboys. She loves them to the point that she can't watch anymore on a play by play basis. She says she just gets too excited and genuinely believes her watching too closely brings them bad luck. So she flips back and forth between their games and other programs. She recently ran across a letter that she shared with the folks at the Cafe. It follows:
"Recently, my brother was sitting in first class on a flight from Dallas-Fort Worth to Colorado Springs when a couple boarded and sat in front of him. He immediately recognized the man as Roger Staubach. They exchanged greetings, and Staubach said he was headed to Colorado Springs for the inaugural Warrior Games.
After 60 or 70 percent of the plane was boarded, a female Army soldier who had lost her leg boarded. Staubach insisted she sit in his seat; she said, 'no, thanks,' but he insisted. He took her place in a middle seat way in the back. After a few minutes, the young girl got tears in her eyes and said she wanted to go to her seat and have Staubach return to his.
The flight attendant overheard, and, as the female soldier headed to retrieve Staubach, the attendant said she had a no-show and both could sit in first class.
The flight attendant returned with the female soldier, but Staubach sent a double amputee Army soldier to sit in his seat. Staubach remained in coach the entire flight and disembarked last. My brother waited and asked for an autograph for my birthday; Staubach said certainly. It's a great gift, but the greater gift is knowing Roger Staubach is still Captain America."
Signed,
Drew Werner, Addison, TX
Nothing fires Butch Jackson up more than a good story about heroes, so he immediately took the stump to expand on Captain America, "Roger (the Dodger) Thomas Staubach was born February 5, 1942 in Cincinnati, Ohio. To no one's surprise he is a very successful businessman, Heisman Trophy winner and legendary Hall of Fame former quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys from 1969 until 1979. Staubach was key in developing the Cowboys to become one of the best teams of the 1970s and led the team to nine of the Cowboys record-setting twenty consecutive winning seasons. Staubach led the Cowboys to their first Super Bowl victory and as a result he was named MVP in Super Bowl VI. Staubach was described by legendary coach Tom Landry as 'possibly the best combination of a passer, an athlete, and a leader to ever play in the NFL', and Tom was the master of the understatement.
Staubach first achieved national attention when he was named the starting quarterback of the Navy football team in 1962. He was hailed by Navy coach Wayne Hardin as 'the greatest quarterback Navy ever had.' He led the team for three seasons, leading the Midshipmen to two victories in the Army–Navy Game and an appearance in the 1964 Cotton Bowl Classic. Yep, he came down here and beat up on us. In addition to earning the Heisman trophy by the seventh largest point margin, Staubach was elected to the College Hall of Fame in 1981.
After his required service in the United States Navy, including a tour of duty in Vietnam, Staubach joined the Dallas Cowboys. He led the club to five Super Bowl appearances, with victories in Super Bowl VI and Super Bowl XII. Staubach was named Most Valuable Player of Super Bowl VI becoming the first of four players to win the Heisman Trophy and Super Bowl MVP. Jim Plunkett, Marcus Allen, and Desmond Howard are the other three. He was named to the Pro Bowl six times during his eleven-year NFL career."
And of course, Billy Roy closed, "In other words, Roger Staubach is a stud."
Where are today's studs?
Jim
"Recently, my brother was sitting in first class on a flight from Dallas-Fort Worth to Colorado Springs when a couple boarded and sat in front of him. He immediately recognized the man as Roger Staubach. They exchanged greetings, and Staubach said he was headed to Colorado Springs for the inaugural Warrior Games.
After 60 or 70 percent of the plane was boarded, a female Army soldier who had lost her leg boarded. Staubach insisted she sit in his seat; she said, 'no, thanks,' but he insisted. He took her place in a middle seat way in the back. After a few minutes, the young girl got tears in her eyes and said she wanted to go to her seat and have Staubach return to his.
The flight attendant overheard, and, as the female soldier headed to retrieve Staubach, the attendant said she had a no-show and both could sit in first class.
The flight attendant returned with the female soldier, but Staubach sent a double amputee Army soldier to sit in his seat. Staubach remained in coach the entire flight and disembarked last. My brother waited and asked for an autograph for my birthday; Staubach said certainly. It's a great gift, but the greater gift is knowing Roger Staubach is still Captain America."
Signed,
Drew Werner, Addison, TX
Nothing fires Butch Jackson up more than a good story about heroes, so he immediately took the stump to expand on Captain America, "Roger (the Dodger) Thomas Staubach was born February 5, 1942 in Cincinnati, Ohio. To no one's surprise he is a very successful businessman, Heisman Trophy winner and legendary Hall of Fame former quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys from 1969 until 1979. Staubach was key in developing the Cowboys to become one of the best teams of the 1970s and led the team to nine of the Cowboys record-setting twenty consecutive winning seasons. Staubach led the Cowboys to their first Super Bowl victory and as a result he was named MVP in Super Bowl VI. Staubach was described by legendary coach Tom Landry as 'possibly the best combination of a passer, an athlete, and a leader to ever play in the NFL', and Tom was the master of the understatement.
Staubach first achieved national attention when he was named the starting quarterback of the Navy football team in 1962. He was hailed by Navy coach Wayne Hardin as 'the greatest quarterback Navy ever had.' He led the team for three seasons, leading the Midshipmen to two victories in the Army–Navy Game and an appearance in the 1964 Cotton Bowl Classic. Yep, he came down here and beat up on us. In addition to earning the Heisman trophy by the seventh largest point margin, Staubach was elected to the College Hall of Fame in 1981.
After his required service in the United States Navy, including a tour of duty in Vietnam, Staubach joined the Dallas Cowboys. He led the club to five Super Bowl appearances, with victories in Super Bowl VI and Super Bowl XII. Staubach was named Most Valuable Player of Super Bowl VI becoming the first of four players to win the Heisman Trophy and Super Bowl MVP. Jim Plunkett, Marcus Allen, and Desmond Howard are the other three. He was named to the Pro Bowl six times during his eleven-year NFL career."
And of course, Billy Roy closed, "In other words, Roger Staubach is a stud."
Where are today's studs?
Jim
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
The Bigger the Lie, The Bigger the Socialist
As we start a new year with a new Republican House of Representatives, but the same old President and US Senate, the press is focused on bi-partisanship and compromise. Butch weighed in, "How do you compromise with lying Socialists? Can you imagine compromising with Castro, Stalin, Hitler, Chavez, or Mao before they took office or after for that matter? Can you imagine these guys ever telling the truth? When I think about it I get this picture of a cute little white hen going out into the woods to negotiate with a gigantic Fox with feathers sticking out of his mouth. Which begs the question, 'Are Obama and his regime as dangerous to the US as the cutthroat Communist Foxes that I just named'?"
"Nope they are not as dangerous, they are way worse," came back Scott Riddle, local philosopher and cattle baron. "Worse because they are attacking from within the country with the aid of the Liberal press. One way to size the threat is by sizing the lies they use to gain power. In her inaugural address in 2007, as speaker of the house, little Nancy Pelosi vowed that Congress would engage in no new deficit spending. 'After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,' she said in an address from the speaker’s podium. 'Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.' She said this with two years left in Bush's term. She peed right in our eye and told us it was raining. And how big was the lie? Numbers don't lie:
The 108th Congress with Bush and Republican Majorities in Both Houses created $1.159 trillion in new debt
The 109th Congress with Bush and Republican Majorities in Both Houses created $1.054 trillion in new debt
The 110th Congress with Bush and Democratic Majorities in Both Houses created $1.957 trillion in new debt
The 111th Congress with Obama and Democratic Majorities in Both Houses created $3.220 trillion in new debt (a 64% increase over the 110th and 3 times the last Republican Regime, the 109th)
"During little Nancy Pelosi’s tenure as speaker, which commenced on Jan. 4, 2007, the federal government has run up $5.177 trillion in new debt. That is about equal to the total debt the federal government accumulated in the first 220 years of the nation's existence, with the federal debt rising from $5.173 trillion on July 23, 1996 to $5.181 trillion on July 24, 1996. As Nancy leaves her position of leadership she says she is very 'proud of her record'. I think this statement is true. She and her Socialists buddies have done what they set out to do. They have bought millions of votes and bankrupted the federal government in hopes of 'transforming' it to a Socialist State."
"What a mess," Billy Roy Mitchum lamented (he ever laments like Merle Haggard). "The reason George Bush's approval rating went through the floor wasn't that Liberals and Moderates deserted him. They never liked him much before. The Conservatives deserted him because of the $1Trillion deficits he allowed with the Republicans and then the Democrats. Little did we know that was chump change compared to the economic havoc that the Dems could, and did, bring. It boggles the mind that any regime could over spend $3,220,103,625,307.29 in two years. Write it out. That is a really big number. That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census. It drives our national debt to over $13 Trillion or $44,886.57 for every man, woman and child in the United States. A typical family of four owes almost $200 thousand."
Butch came back with passion having enticed the Chairman into the conversation, "Meanness don't just happen overnight. The lies come back to haunt you. Obama wants to demonize the Republicans for any reductions in spending. He had his henchman and advisor Austin Goolsbee on the Sunday talk shows claiming that a refusal by the Senate to increase the government’s debt ceiling (currently $14.3 trillion) would be 'catastrophic' and a sign of 'insanity'. This will be the next stupid debate. The Republicans will try to use the debt ceiling topic to make cuts in spending and the Democrats will disagree with the cuts and claim the Republicans are trying to ruin the country just to fight Obama. And yet Obama looked at the debt ceiling very different in 2006. Listen to his statement when George Bush was asking for an increase from the level then which was at about $8T versus Obama's $14T today:
Obama read his teleprompter, 'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.'
"The guy is a shameless liar, just like Pelosi, and the facts prove it. Only those that are 'bought off' in some way could still be backing these guys."
BM closed things down, "The Republicans are going to have to toughen up cause when you wallow with pigs, expect to get dirty. The carnival begins now with the Socialists demonizing every move of the Republicans to cut spending as rich people bringing harm to women, children, blacks, gays, Hispanics, Muslims, unions, government employees, and students. Meanwhile the Republicans must have the gonads to define how large the government can, and should be, win that argument and then force reductions under the spotlight of the American people. Every act should be Constitutional and aimed at reducing government and creating private sector jobs. It starts next week with the Health Care debate. Let's get it on."
Think about it,
Jim
"Nope they are not as dangerous, they are way worse," came back Scott Riddle, local philosopher and cattle baron. "Worse because they are attacking from within the country with the aid of the Liberal press. One way to size the threat is by sizing the lies they use to gain power. In her inaugural address in 2007, as speaker of the house, little Nancy Pelosi vowed that Congress would engage in no new deficit spending. 'After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,' she said in an address from the speaker’s podium. 'Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.' She said this with two years left in Bush's term. She peed right in our eye and told us it was raining. And how big was the lie? Numbers don't lie:
The 108th Congress with Bush and Republican Majorities in Both Houses created $1.159 trillion in new debt
The 109th Congress with Bush and Republican Majorities in Both Houses created $1.054 trillion in new debt
The 110th Congress with Bush and Democratic Majorities in Both Houses created $1.957 trillion in new debt
The 111th Congress with Obama and Democratic Majorities in Both Houses created $3.220 trillion in new debt (a 64% increase over the 110th and 3 times the last Republican Regime, the 109th)
"During little Nancy Pelosi’s tenure as speaker, which commenced on Jan. 4, 2007, the federal government has run up $5.177 trillion in new debt. That is about equal to the total debt the federal government accumulated in the first 220 years of the nation's existence, with the federal debt rising from $5.173 trillion on July 23, 1996 to $5.181 trillion on July 24, 1996. As Nancy leaves her position of leadership she says she is very 'proud of her record'. I think this statement is true. She and her Socialists buddies have done what they set out to do. They have bought millions of votes and bankrupted the federal government in hopes of 'transforming' it to a Socialist State."
"What a mess," Billy Roy Mitchum lamented (he ever laments like Merle Haggard). "The reason George Bush's approval rating went through the floor wasn't that Liberals and Moderates deserted him. They never liked him much before. The Conservatives deserted him because of the $1Trillion deficits he allowed with the Republicans and then the Democrats. Little did we know that was chump change compared to the economic havoc that the Dems could, and did, bring. It boggles the mind that any regime could over spend $3,220,103,625,307.29 in two years. Write it out. That is a really big number. That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census. It drives our national debt to over $13 Trillion or $44,886.57 for every man, woman and child in the United States. A typical family of four owes almost $200 thousand."
Butch came back with passion having enticed the Chairman into the conversation, "Meanness don't just happen overnight. The lies come back to haunt you. Obama wants to demonize the Republicans for any reductions in spending. He had his henchman and advisor Austin Goolsbee on the Sunday talk shows claiming that a refusal by the Senate to increase the government’s debt ceiling (currently $14.3 trillion) would be 'catastrophic' and a sign of 'insanity'. This will be the next stupid debate. The Republicans will try to use the debt ceiling topic to make cuts in spending and the Democrats will disagree with the cuts and claim the Republicans are trying to ruin the country just to fight Obama. And yet Obama looked at the debt ceiling very different in 2006. Listen to his statement when George Bush was asking for an increase from the level then which was at about $8T versus Obama's $14T today:
Obama read his teleprompter, 'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.'
"The guy is a shameless liar, just like Pelosi, and the facts prove it. Only those that are 'bought off' in some way could still be backing these guys."
BM closed things down, "The Republicans are going to have to toughen up cause when you wallow with pigs, expect to get dirty. The carnival begins now with the Socialists demonizing every move of the Republicans to cut spending as rich people bringing harm to women, children, blacks, gays, Hispanics, Muslims, unions, government employees, and students. Meanwhile the Republicans must have the gonads to define how large the government can, and should be, win that argument and then force reductions under the spotlight of the American people. Every act should be Constitutional and aimed at reducing government and creating private sector jobs. It starts next week with the Health Care debate. Let's get it on."
Think about it,
Jim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
