Barack, Meet Bill

The Bill Of Rights (as approved by the TSA)

If you plan on watching the President's State of the Union Speech this evening, please take a moment to check out the Rights granted to you by courtesy of a series of Amendments to the Constitution known as the "Bill of Rights". 

No, not the redacted Rights (above) granted by the TSA,  but, rather, the ACTUAL Bill of Rights, given to you by a bunch of old White guys who cared more about your Freedom than the man currently serving as the President, the Commander In Chief, the Leader in Absentia, President Barack Hussein Obama [APPLAUSE]!

If you find the President violating ANY of your Rights during this evening's speech, please feel free to print out the following listing and check off the violations put forth by the Teleprompter, um, er, President.  Put a nice big X on any Amendment he's trampled upon this evening while he's re-hashing speeches of the past two years.  

For Example (por ejemplo):

• Government taking over private industries?
• Government running guns into Mexico to promote 'Gun Control'?
• Government mandating that you buy health care insurance from them (or anyone)?
• Government telling you what you may, or may not, eat?
• Government working for the good of Unions at the expense of the private sector?
• Government monitoring / managing the exchange of information on the Internet?

VIOLATIONS!    

Tomorrow, or later tonight (if you can't sleep), please submit your "Violations to the Bill of Rights As Outlined In the State of the Union Speech 2012" and send them to me here.  

My mailing address is:

MoosRoom

1234 Anywhere But Here Drive

Mootown, MOO  60609

This, of course is not my ACTUAL address, as providing an actual address would inspire Crazies from across the country to seek me out and hurt me (all in the name of 'fairness').  Well, at least they would TRY to hurt me.  Luckily for me I used to be big and strong, now I'm only, well, you know; 'big' (still not sure if this is a 'good thing' or not...).  

In closing, please refer to the following for your complete, your guaranteed, your God-given (oops, now I AM in trouble - 'Crazy Alert' Begins NOW!) Rights as granted to you via the first Ten Amendments to The Constitution. 

Ladies, Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, I present to you - The Bill of Rights 

(President Obama read the Cliff Notes' Version - but for the rest of us, here they are in their entirety!!!) 

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

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

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

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

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

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

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

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

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

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

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

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

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

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

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

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

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.    

If you read and understood the above Amendments - congratulations, you're an informed American Citizen! 

If you have not read, or understood the above? 

Perhaps one day you can be President! 

A word of warning though...  To get the 'nod', you'll have to be a Progressive Liberal Democrat.  Unless of course, you're Bernie Sanders, I, VT, in which case you'll have to be a card-carrying Socialist Democrat.  In Democrat-speak - that's a Weapons Grade Democrat... 

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

“We have been expecting businesses to provide health insurance coverage, but is this fair?  Or, should health insurance be like education, a public responsibility?” -- Bernie Sanders

"Will the 99% Please SHUT UP!!!", Cordially, the 1%

Ahem, WILL the 99% PLEASE be silent until we need them again...

My friend, Grumpy, over at www.GrumpyElder.com sent me a link to a post last night intended to give me what President Obama has never given me - HOPE.  Not 'hope' in the bumper sticker sense, but rather, 'hope' as in the, "Please God, if you are there, can't you give us a break - if it wasn't for bad news there wouldn't be ANY news?" sense.

And, the 'Hope', at least for me, came last night at roughly 9:18pm.  Grumpy sent me a link regarding a story I had heard NOTHING about.  A story of Citizenship, a story of courts, a story of possibilities.  You can find it here by clicking the following link:  LIVE FEED FROM THE COURTHOUSE 

Bottom line is that a private citizen in Georgia (images of NASCAR dance through your head) is questioning whether the current President of the United States should have been allowed to RUN for President in the first place.  No, it's not the 'Birther' thing, you can follow the story link and get the details there.  I'm not going to re-write what's already been written. 

So where do I find my 'Hope'?  I decided to do a Google Search to see what else I could find on the story since I had heard nothing about it online or on the nightly news.

Begin Google search sequence now:

   

And then something wonderful happened... 

I followed the 1st link I found and...

Get ready, here it comes...

Two things:

1. First, someone within the Occupy Wall Street organization posted the link about President Obama's eligibility hearing, and then,
2. Second, someone else within the Occupy Wall Street's '1%' took away their right to be heard

 Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Hypocrites.

Below is an excerpt from the occupywallstreet.org's "Principles of Solidarity":

How many crises does it take?  We are the 99% and we have moved to reclaim our mortgaged future.  Through a direct democratic process, we have come together as individuals and crafted these principles of solidarity, which are points of unity that include but are not limited to:

 ■Engaging in direct and transparent participatory democracy;
 ■Exercising personal and collective responsibility;
 ■Recognizing individuals’ inherent privilege and the influence it has on all interactions;
 ■Empowering one another against all forms of oppression;
 ■Redefining how labor is valued;
 ■The sanctity of individual privacy;
 ■The belief that education is human right; and
 ■Endeavoring to practice and support wide application of open source.

We are daring to imagine a new socio-political and economic alternative that offers greater possibility of equality.  We are consolidating the other proposed principles of solidarity, after which demands will follow.

I took the liberty of highlighting the Principles Violated by the "1 Percenter" who pulled the (DELETED) post down.  Ironic that the people who whine and scream for  a chance to be heard are so quick to silence others, isn't it?

Makes you wonder whose side they're on...

Conservatives vs. Liberals (The Turn-About-Is-Fair-Play Edition)

Things have gotten a bit heated lately with regard to Presidential Politics, primaries, and, in general, the state of the Union.  Since President Obama is having his own 'State of the Union' address tomorrow evening, I'm thinking that it's time to lighten things up a bit. 

I went to the Internet and looked for jokes about politics.  I found a site dedicated to jokes about Conservatives (who saw THIS coming???) sooooo,  I took the liberty of changing the subject matter 'a bit' and came up with the following:

Question: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher?
Answer: One has a Radio Show and is the most listened to man in America, the other speaks almost entirely to himself.  (Acceptable alternative answer:  "Who's Bill Maher???") 

Question: Why can’t liberals find facts?
Answer: They aren’t looking for any.

Question: How do liberals brain cells die?
Answer: Lonely.

Question: How do you confuse a liberal?
Answer: You don’t, they are born that way

Question: If Barack, Harry and Nancy and all the other liberals are on a sinking ship, who gets saved?
Answer: We do.

Question: What’s the difference between a terrorist and a liberal?
Answer: The terrorist makes fewer demands.

Question: What’s the difference between liberals and cow pies?
Answer: Cow pies stop stinking after awhile  (This is true - trust me...)

Question: What’s the definition of a liberal genius?
Answer: A liberal who can count all 50 (acceptable alternative answer:  '57') states.

Question: How is being at a Democrat convention different from being at the circus?
Answer: At the circus the clowns don’t beg and whine at you.

Question: How many Liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer: It takes ten, nine to deny that darkness exists and one to hire a Republican to change it.

Question: What is the difference between giving to the poor and giving to Liberals?
Answer: The poor don’t follow you around for three weeks whining for more.

Question: How do you drown a Liberal?
Answer: You paint Barack Obama’s face at the bottom of a pool.

Question: Why do Liberals like smart, highly-educated women?
Answer: Opposites attract.


THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE CHILDREN
(Yes, it's a joke - just go with it...)

Scientists were struggling to understand the differences between children raised in Liberal homes vs. Conservative households.  They devised a study to determine if there were traits which distinguished one from the other in response to external stimuli.

Past studies indicated that Liberal children are less happy than their Conservative counterparts.  In an effort to more deeply investigate the reasoning for this disparity, scientists devised a plan to study the effects of 'surroundings' on a Liberal child as well as his Conservative counterpart.


LIBERAL TEST SUBJECT "BARRY":

Barry, son of a middle-class Liberal couple is led into a darkened warehouse, seated in a wooden chair and told that he must sit for one minute after which the lights will be turned on and he can play with whatever he finds in the massive room once the lights are illuminated.

The lights turn on and Barry finds himself surrounded by brand-new toys of every shape and size, a mini-bike, and, in a distant corner of the room - a pony.  The researchers film Barry's reaction at being surrounded by toys should have fired his imagination sparking youthful, gleeful play. 

However, in spite of his surroundings the boy remains seated staring down at his hands neatly folded upon his lap.  After two hours of observation the researchers re-enter the room to ask Barry questions:

• "Why did you not play with all these wonderful toys?
• "Why did you not leave your chair?"
• "Didn't you SEE the pony?  Every boy wants a pony?"
• "What were you thinking after the lights came on?"

Barry sits gazing at his hands as he replies slowly to the questions raised by the researchers. 

In response, the boy says the following: 

"Oh, sure, the toys LOOK wonderful, but they will probably break once I start playing with them.  Most likely they're made in China and are chock-full of lead paint which will kill me if I'm exposed to it for a long enough period of time." 

"If I left my chair and you turned the lights off again, I may have fallen and hurt myself, being left alone here in the dark to die.  I don't know who you are, why would I trust you - just because you're carrying a clipboard and wearing a white lab jacket?  The lady in my lunch room does the same thing when I line up for my Free Lunch program at school.  The only difference is that since she works for the government?  I trust her."   

"Yes, I saw the pony, but as everyone knows ponies and other livestock is mistreated and abused every day.  If I try to ride the pony I will be forcing my will onto his, taking his freedoms away.  Not to mention that fact that ponies are animals which live outside!  Until I see notification from the Department of Agriculture that this pony doesn't carry any diseases and has appropriate health documentation, I'm not going any where near that thing."

"As for the lights, yes I saw them come on, but since they did not come on slowly, I realized that you were using old, inefficient incandescent bulbs.  These are very expensive to operate and have a greatly diminished useful life as compared to Federally-Mandated Compact Fluorescent Bulb alternatives.  I thought that if I sat in the chair that you WOULD turn the lights off again so you would not be wasting electricity.  And I knew you weren't REAL researchers because real researchers would never us high intensity halogen bulbs to illuminate a warehouse full of toys - because, honestly, there's no point to it... "

The boy's voice trailed off as the researchers look from one to another.  "Okay Barry, thank you for participating in our study today.  Follow us out and we'll get you back to your folks in the next few minutes..."    


CONSERVATIVE TEST SUBJECT "TOMMY":
Baffled by the child's reluctance to play with a warehouse full of toys, the researchers summoned Tommy to the facility for evaluation the following day.

Given the disappointing results of Barry's experience, they modified the experiment as follows:

The warehouse was emptied off all toys and games.  

The pony was taken out of the facility and in his place a huge pile of manure was stacked upon the floor in the furthest corner of the warehouse.  

The experiment was repeated as before, this time, with Tommy, the Conservative kid seated in the chair.  When the lights came on, Tommy lept from his chair and ran for the pile of manure.  He grabbed fist fulls of the stuff and threw it into the air and everywhere around the room.  He laughed, he sang, he was joyful beyond all rational expectation.

Twenty minutes later, the researchers entered the room with a single question among them,  "Tommy, we put you in a room full of horse poop and you're having a LOT of fun...  Why?"

Tommy looked back at them in his filthy clothes, dirty face, smiled at them and laughed, "Well, with all those horse poop in here, I figured if I kept moving this stuff around, I'd find a pony!" 


As for myself, I continue to look for the pony - in SPITE of the amount of miscellaneous Liberal poop (and Nincompoops) which come my way.

I haven't found him yet, but I know he's out there. 

Just a bit more digging???

Kid, question away...
It keeps 'em guessing.

No Birds - No Stone

Photo courtesy of 'GreenAutoBlog'
Seriously, not kidding...

Several months ago I posted an article called, "Two Birds One Stone".  The premise of the post was simple: 

The Obama Administration wanted to turn the economy around by having U.S. Citizens BUY more Chevy Volts (which 'might possibly' catch fire and burn your house down as you sleep). 

Once your house is gone, you (assuming you are not a crispy critter in an upstairs bed) will contract with a construction guy / gal to rebuild your charred and damaged home.  In addition to propping up Government Motors' financials you'll also be doing your part to bring Construction Numbers back up prior to the next election, assuring four more years of "Hope and Flames" (oh, sorry, that last entry SHOULD read "Hope and Change"). 

The Two Birds One Stone scenario be illustrated mathematically by the following equation:

One Chevy Volt + One Siemens Car Charger = $200,000+ of Economic Stimulus 

As illustrated above, your initial Volt investment of $46,000 will 'possibly' yield a 400+% return on investment (ROI) for the US economy.  It should be noted that this is a MUCH greater return than we've seen with Abortion ROI's over the past several years from Planned Parenthood.  

Perhaps if the Federal Government provided Chevrolet Volt vehicles to pregnant women considering aborting their unborn child we'd have the Economic Trifecta.  The "Three Bird - One Stone" ROI model in which we would reduce funding to Planned Parenthood, sell a GM vehicle AND stimulate the construction industry simultaneously!

Alas, this uber-potent Economic Stimulus model will never come to pass.

Why?

Oh, sure, you want to know WHY?

I learned this morning that there is NOTHING wrong with the Chevrolet Volt.  No, really, I did - nothing wrong at all with the Volt. 

For the past several months I was giving credit to the Obama Administration for coming up with its ONLY innovative method of stimulating the economy and turns out...  

Well, suffice to say that their Innovative Job Creation counter remains firmly set somewhere in the -2,200,000 range.    

According to a Bloomberg article this morning:  U.S. regulators, who ended their investigation yesterday into the Chevrolet Volt, said electric- powered vehicles do not pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline cars. 

“Based on the available data, NHTSA does not believe that Chevy Volts or other electric vehicles pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles,” the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in an e-mailed statement.

The conclusion by NHTSA came two weeks after General Motors Co. (GM) told Volt owners to bring the vehicles to dealerships for repair. 

The government started investigating the Volt after a side- impact crash test in May led to a fire three weeks later. During that test, the lithium-ion battery pack broke open and coolant leaked into the battery. When the car was physically rotated as part of the test, more coolant leaked into a circuit board, leading to a fire. NHTSA replicated the fire in November and started an official probe Nov. 25. 
...

The Volt blaze had little effect on sales of the vehicles, so there may not be any significant improvement with the government completing its investigation, said Jeremy Anwyl, vice chairman of auto-researcher Edmunds.com, in an e-mail.

“Volt buyers tend to be passionate about their vehicle,” Anwyl said. “They really want an electrified vehicle. The small risk represented by the potential for fire wouldn’t have been an obstacle for this group of buyers.”

“We see gasoline powered vehicles blow up in the movies all the time,” he said. “A vehicle with batteries catches fire and it is portrayed as a big deal.”  

PAUSE

PAUSE

PAUSE


PAUSE

Sorry, I was shootin' milk all over the keyboard with that last quote.  I'm okay now, I just thought it was 'kind of' funny that a guy defending the Chevrolet Volt would use, "We see gasoline powered vehicles blow up in movies all the time" as his primary defense of a car which has, on several occasions (NOT MENTIONED in this report), caught fire and burned down homes while people slept. 

This 'other' issue, of course, has been linked to the battery charging station and NOT the batteries themselves.  But I guess that's all the NHTSA was concerned with in releasing the 'ALL CLEAR!' declaration for the vehicle which the Federal Government (NHTSA) owns 32% of.

Not that there might be any perceived conflict of interest THERE...

General Motors states that they have sold 8,000 Volts since its introduction in November, 2010, for an average of 525 cars per month.  Sales numbers like these have not been seen since the introduction of Neptune Manufacturing's "Submarine Screen Door" back in 1971. 

By way of comparison, the Chevy Cruze, introduced last year, sold 230,000 units during the same period.  Of course, at less than one-third the cost of the Chevrolet Volt, this shouldn't really come as that big of a surprise to anyone who has ever had to make a car purchase decision before. 

If the two vehicles deliver roughly the same gas mileage (they do) and provide transportation from Point A to Point B...  WHY would you pay 3x the cost for a Volt?

Oh, that's right, because the guys over at Green Auto Blog told you to - right?    

Good luck with that.  When YOU get yours, remember to place your charging station OUTSIDE of your home, preferably on an exterior concrete wall.  Last time I checked, concrete does not burn.  As for your Chevrolet Volt vehicle, battery, and charger?  Well, they are NOT made of concrete, are they?    

If Government Motors truly wanted a cost-efficient, reliable, all-electric vehicle, they could have looked no further than right here...

THE ROBERTS ELECTRIC VEHICLE

Built in 1896, the Roberts Electric Vehicle gets over 40 Miles Per Charge -- Same as the Chevrolet Volt!
Only major differences are that it's 115 Years Old and has not (yet) burst into flames

The Roberts Electric Vehicle - Now there's:  "Charge You CAN Believe In!"

For over 11 Decades.

Have a nice weekend folks! 

Drive safely.

Council Bluffs, Iowa - Never been there, I hear it's nice...

Just a quick note of appreciation for the person(s?) checking into the blog on a regular basis.  I don't know who you are, but I wanted to let you know that IF (of course there isn't) a prize for the most consistent MoosRoom visitor existed - you would most likely win.

I don't know who you are, but I sure do appreciate you stopping by from time to time.  While I'm currently running about 150 hits per day, it's nice to see the recurring appearance of "Council Bluffs, Iowa" on the little 'Mappie-Thingie' over there to the right of the screen.  

I've never been there, but I used to work for a company based out of Cedar Falls, Iowa.  Actually got to visit there for training back in the 1980's (when I could run faster and jump higher).  Nice area, even nicer people - we could use more folks from Iowa over here in New York State (although that would be cruel and unusual to the folks from Iowa...).

That's it for now, lunch is over, and I need to be back off to work.  

Have a great weekend!

Mike (A.K.A.:  Moos)  

A Lesson In Physics (The Doctrine of Universal Permeation)

Everything which exists is at once capable of acting and being acted upon. In everything that exists, therefore, even the smallest particle, there are these two principles. By virtue of the passive principle the thing is susceptible of motion and modification; it is matter which determines substance.

The active principle makes the matter a given determinate thing, characterizing and qualifying it, whence it is termed quality. For all that is or happens there is an immediate cause or antecedent; and as cause means cause of motion, and only body can act upon body, it follows that this antecedent cause is itself as truly corporeal as the matter upon which it acts.

Thus we are led to regard the active principle force as everywhere coextensive with matter, as pervading and permeating it, and together with it occupying and filling space.

This is that famous doctrine of universal permeation, by which the axiom that two bodies cannot occupy the same space is practically denied.


Got that???

Okay, if 'two bodies cannot occupy the same space'... 

How do theoreticians explain the fact that President Obama AND Goofy are BOTH at Disney World today?

Hmmmmmm?

Just wondering...

Mission Accomplished?

Remember when Leaders of Major Political Parties didn't encourage citizens to 'occupy' property, to prevent people from going to work, or to damage private / public property? 

Yeah, me neither.  I can't remember this far back.   

We've come so very far in the past three years. 

Let's step back and take an admiring look at all we've accomplished...

According to PEW Research, January 11, 2012:

The Occupy Wall Street movement no longer occupies Wall Street, but the issue of class conflict has captured a growing share of the national consciousness. A new Pew Research Center survey of 2,048 adults finds that about two-thirds of the public (66%) believes there are “very strong” or “strong” conflicts between the rich and the poor—an increase of 19 percentage points since 2009.

Source:  Pew Research Poll

Not only have perceptions of class conflict grown more prevalent; so, too, has the belief that these disputes are intense. According to the new survey, three-in-ten Americans (30%) say there are “very strong conflicts” between poor people and rich people. That is double the proportion that offered a similar view in July 2009 and the largest share expressing this opinion since the question was first asked in 1987.

...

The biggest increases in perceptions of class conflicts occurred among political liberals and Americans who say they are not affiliated with either major party. In each group the proportion who say there are major disagreements between rich and poor Americans increased by more than 20 percentage points since 2009.

While the survey results show a significant shift in public perceptions of class conflict in American life, they do not necessarily signal an increase in grievances toward the wealthy. It is possible that individuals who see more conflict between the classes think that anger toward the rich is misdirected. Nor do these data suggest growing support for government measures to reduce income inequality.

In fact, other questions in the survey show that some key attitudes toward the wealthy have remained largely unchanged. For example, there has been no change in views about whether the rich became wealthy through personal effort or because they were fortunate enough to be from wealthy families or have the right connections.

A 46% plurality believes that most rich people “are wealthy mainly because they know the right people or were born into wealthy families.” But nearly as many have a more favorable view of the rich: 43% say wealthy people became rich “mainly because of their own hard work, ambition or education,” largely unchanged from a Pew survey in 2008.

The interesting thing about this survey is that in spite of President Obama's, Vice-President Joe Biden's, and former Speaker Of the House Pelosi's coordinated attacks on Capitalism and the Free Enterprise System...  Americans are aware that people are wealthier than others - but they don't BLAME them any MORE for their wealth in 2011 than they did in 2009.

I guess we live in interesting times when a polling organization feels the need to determine if we HATE successful people more now than we did previously.  In spite of the best efforts of of US Politicians, Occupy Wall Street, Unions, Communist Party USA, and USA Nazi Party members, awareness of the concern has increased, but the anger, the vitriol, the 'hoped for' violence has not happened.   

This is most likely attributed to one of two things:

1. Democrat Party leadership legislation has tainted its message of 'Hope and Change' to the down-trodden, tired, and otherwise 'financially beaten-up' citizens of America.  You can TELL people that you're 'for them' but if you create policies to the contrary, well, most people are going catch on sooner, vs. later.
2. Or, much to the dismay of Progressive folks in places of power, Americans still believe in the American Dream.  Somehow, in spite of 50+ years of Progressives running educational institutions teaching children how "Evil America is", the dream, against all odds - survives. 

I don't know which situation applies, perhaps it is a combination of both.  The American Dream can not survive if American workers, businesses, and foreign investors fear America is destined for a 99 64/100% chance of bankruptcy.  We, of course, became 'morally bankrupt' YEARS ago, but why beat a dead horse?  The bad news is that it wastes you time, the good news is that the horse doesn't really seem to mind it so much...   

All I do know is that hearing the President ask for an additional $1.2 TRILLION to keep the government running past the 2012 elections (better sweep this under the rug NOW, lest it become an uncomfortable Election Issue), I'm thinking we should be done kicking the problem down the street.

Better yet, perhaps we should get OFF the street we're currently on? 

The Congress and White House have increased our National Debt by 43% in the first three years of the Obama Presidency.  I heard this particular bit of news from CBS (yes, Bob said it best, "the Times they are a-Changin")... 

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama's four-year term.    Source:  CBS News
  

'Spending yourself' into prosperity hasn't worked EVER in the history of mankind - despite what Paul Krugman over at the New York Times says. 

I know this to be true as I've spent more than I've earned for YEARS.  If spending your way to prosperity worked, I'd own Rhode Island.  Only problem with owning Rhode Island?  As it turns out, it's NOT actually an island.  Don't believe me, look it up!  Dang, that ain't right...

On second thought, I've got to spend MUCH more money so I can buy Manhattan.  I'm pretty sure that it IS an island, but unfortunately, I think it'll be big-time expensive.  I'd better spend a LOT of money soon, 'cause with all that Global Climate Change going on, Manhattan's gonna be a reef within the next ten years.

Man, I just can't get a break...  Anybody know how much mountain ranges are going for - I may need to set my sights a bit higher.

"See ya flatlanders..."

Up... Chuck!

Okay, I'm not cool any more (I'm not sure if I EVER was, but I'll leave this for my kids to determine).  I don't pick up on trends, fads, or fashions since they aren't really that important to me.  I do not read 'People', 'Us', 'Time', 'Cosmopolitan', or, hard as it is to believe, the 'National Enquirer'. 

I have an unhealthy distrust for 'all things Hollywood' as I believe that actors who read lines which are written for them are, in general, not to be trusted when speaking about anything affecting national security, presidential politics, or scientific matters.  (Matt Damon springs to mind...)


It has recently come to my attention however that there is ONE man who is different.  His name?  "Chuck Norris"


I learned much about Chuck Norris earlier this year while shopping at Kohl's for clothing for my boys.  I hadn't seen Chuck Norris in years (except hawking that multi-purpose Power Gym).  I thought Chuck's celebrity career ended when "Walker, Texas Ranger" did.  But there I was at Kohl's, looking at Chuck Norris' face plastered on T-Shirts everywhere, and accompanied by 'manly' expressions regarding the amount of 'manliness' embodied in a single man, yes, THE man -- Chuck Norris.  Man, oh man... 


I had no idea of the phenomena I almost missed.  In case you've been living in a cave also, check out the following (so you'll be 'cool' enough for your kids to be seen with):

TOP CHUCK NORRIS FACTS:

Chuck Norris counted to infinity - twice.

Chuck Norris does not hunt because the word hunting infers the probability of failure. Chuck Norris goes killing.

If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can't see Chuck Norris you may be only seconds away from death.

When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night he checks his closet for Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris has already been to Mars; that's why there are no signs of life there.

There is no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard. There is only another fist.

The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.

Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming 'Law' and 'Order' are trademarked names for his left and right legs.

Chuck Norris once commented, "There are few problems in this world that cannot be solved by a swift roundhouse kick to the face. In fact, there are none."

Chuck Norris kicked Neo out of Zion , now Neo is "The Two"

Chuck Norris knows where Carmen Sandiego is.

China was once bordering the United States, until Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked it all the way through the Earth.

If you have five dollars and Chuck Norris has five dollars, Chuck Norris has more money than you.

When Chuck Norris had surgery, anesthesia was applied to the doctors.

Chuck Norris once broke the land speed record on a bicycle that was missing its chain and the back tire.

Chuck Norris once tried to wear glasses. The result was him seeing around the world to the point where he was looking at the back of his own head.

Chuck Norris sleeps with a night light. Not because Chuck Norris is afraid of the dark, but the dark is afraid of Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris can touch MC Hammer.

Chuck Norris ordered a Big Mac at Burger King, and got one.

A Handicap parking sign does not signify that this spot is for handicapped people. It is actually in fact a warning, that the spot belongs to Chuck Norris and that you will be handicapped if you park there.

Chuck Norris frequently donates blood to the Red Cross. Just never his own.

There is no such thing as tornados. Chuck Norris hates trailer parks.

Chuck Norris never cries, because of this when he's sad he roundhouse kicks himself and it makes him feel better since he knows he is the only one who can survive the roundhouse.

When asked what type of vehicle he drives, Chuck Norris responded slyly with "Don't you mean what kind of vehicle drives me?"

Although it is not common knowledge, there are actually three sides to the Force: the light side, the dark side, and the 'Chuck Norris'.

Chuck Norris is why Waldo hides.

And just in case you wanted to prove the strength of your 'kitchen appliance'; the ultimate test MUST be:   the 'Chuck Norris Will It Blend' Test:

I've got to go work on my abs now (a.k.a.:  the snack machine calls to me once more...)


Before I sign off, in case you're wondering, I now own two Chuck Norris T-Shirts, although mine are X-Large (unlike Chuck's). 

His size would probably be called, simply, 'Chuck Norris'. 


One size does NOT fit all. 

Ain't that the truth?

Through the Looking Glass...

Cheshire Cat: If I were looking for a white rabbit, I'd ask the Mad Hatter.

Alice: The Mad Hatter? Oh, no no no...

Cheshire Cat: Or, you could ask the March Hare, in that direction.

Alice: Oh, thank you. I think I'll see him...

Cheshire Cat: Of course, he's mad, too.

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.

Cheshire Cat: Oh, you can't help that. Most everyone's mad here.
[laughs maniacally; starts to disappear]

Cheshire Cat: You may have noticed that I'm not all there myself.

"Most everyone's mad here..." (Ain't THIS the truth?)

I didn't plan on posting anything today after running a marathon chasing Margaret Sanger's 'in context' quotes for this morning's earlier entry, but sometimes, life throws you the oft-unexpected 'curve'.

By the pricking of my thumbs, something 'curvy' this way comes...

Reported last night online at The Telegraph:

The White House covered up an Alice in Wonderland-themed Halloween party staged by film director Tim Burton and actor Johnny Depp for fear of creating the wrong impression during a recession, a new book on the Obamas has claimed.

Depp greeted guests in the costume he had worn in a film version of the Lewis Carroll story released around the same time by Burton, who was given carte blanche to transform the state dining room into a Mad Hatter's tea party in "his signature creepy-comic style".
A long table was "set with antique-looking linens, enormous stuffed animals in chairs, and tiered serving plates with treats like bone-shaped meringue cookies", writes New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor in The Obamas, which is released on Tuesday. Fruit punch was served in blood vials at the bar, she adds.

...

The White House press corps was allowed to report on more modest festivities earlier that day for Washington-area school children, but did not release details of the more glamorous festivities that occurred later for what was the Obamas' first Halloween in office in 2009.

Okay, a couple of things which do NOT bother me about the White House Halloween Party 2009:

1. If this was a BIG deal back in 2009 we should have talked about it THEN. Last time I looked, it was 2010, oops, make that 2012. Personally, I don't care any more. Over the past several years I've become numb to goofy, misguided, tacky, and inappropriate actions taken by the Obama Administration.
2. Plus, putting things in context; in 2009 we were still waiting for the 'Hopee / Changee' magic to kick in. I don't think it would have been a huge story back THEN, let alone coverage of this because of a book published in 2012? No, I don't give a flip.
3. When I first read this report, I thought it was a scam. Why? Because it was just too perfect. The story detail above includes: "The cover-up!", "Silencing of the Press Corpse" (yes, this is a joke - if you get it, just chuckle quietly along with me), "Movie Stars!", "Chewbacca!", "Johnny Depp", and lastly, "Michelle Obama" dressed as some kind of "Leopard Woman".
4. Seriously, can Halloween 2009 in the White House get any MORE stereotypical than the above?

Is the story being touted on the Telegraph online 'Historically Accurate'? I don't know. I don't care. I fear we have greater issues facing our nation than how the Obama White House celebrated Halloween in 2009.

Things in 2012 which, at a glance, are TRULY scary:

1. A nuclear Iran
2. A $15+ TRILLION National Debt
3. 15% of All Americans are on Food Stamps (Another Record!)
4. Second-Hand 'Snoring' may be killing my wife
5. It'll cost me $50,000 to clone "Good Dog Kelly"

Bottom line is, whether the Obama family and staff recreated the entire "Alice in Wonderland" set, or not, in the People's House? I don't care.

If these same folks want to dress up like the "Bevery Hillbillies" and jump up and down in Jethro Bodine's "Cee-ment Pond" - again, I do not care.

So then the question remains: What should I care about?

Oh, I dunno, I guess I have a general sense of unease about the Nation my / your kids will inherit.

I worry that the declining size of the Nation's workforce will be unable to provide for 'Seasoned Citizens' who have the audacity to live longer than their parents did. And since no one is actually attempting to FIX Social Security or Medicare, things will only get worse for the folks who handed over the keys to the Nation to us. We, of course, have managed to find every tree along the roadway to drive into.

I fear that ObamaCare will be the "OnRamp" to the Complete Lives' System, as seen through the eyes of Ezekial Emanuel, the guy who worked behind the scenes to take-over an additional one-sixth of the US economy for the President.

I worry that we have become a Godless Nation whose only claim to fame is that we were 'once great'.

Many of you may have the same concerns I do. Others, I fear, stand on the other side of Alice's Looking Glass and see no more than their own reflection.

I look through the glass. As I write this - I do not like what I see.

If only it were 'just a Hollywood movie'; it would be over in a couple of hours, but we have MONTHS to go. And we'd better not fall asleep again. Once you're through the glass, getting back is hard. Just ask Alice.

Meet Maggie!!!

Aw, come on, knock it off!  You KNOW what I asked for!!!

So I sent my crack team from the MoosRoom to get a very specific image online and they come back with... 

A cartoon image of Maggie Simpson.

Super, thanks guys...

Honestly, if I PAID them anything, I'd want the money back; assuming, of course, they could remember where they put it... 

Well, if you want something done, you'd better do it yourself. 

Never send a calf to do a cow's job. 

Hold on, I'll be right back.

Holding...

Holding...

Holding...

Here we are - here's our girl now! 

Margaret Sanger - Founder of Planned Parenthood with excerpts from: "Woman in the New Race", published, 1920

  Infanticide did not go out of fashion with the advance from savagery to barbarism and civilization. Rather, it became, as in Greece and Rome, a recognized custom with advocates among leaders of thought and action. So did abortion, which some authorities regard as a development springing from infanticide and tending to supersede it as a means of getting rid of undesired children.   17

.

As progress is made toward civilization, infanticide, then, actually increased. This tendency was noted by Westermarck, who also calls attention to the conclusions of Fison and Howitt (in Kamilaroi and Kurnai). “Mr Fison who has lived for a long time among uncivilized races,” says Westermarck, “thinks it will be found that infanticide is far less common among the lower savages than among the more advanced tribes.”

.

SOURCE:  Women's Struggle for Freedom

...

.
What material is there for a greater American race? What elements make up our present millions? Where do they live? How do they live? In what direction does our national civilization bend their ideals? What is the effect of the “melting pot” upon the foreigner, once he begins to “melt”? Are we now producing a freer, juster, more intelligent, more idealistic, creative people out of the varied ingredients here?

Before we can answer these questions, we must consider briefly the races which have contributed to American population.

Among our more than 100,000,000 population are Negroes, Indians, Chinese and other colored people to the number of 11,000,000. There are also 14,500,000 persons of foreign birth. Besides these there are 14,000,000 children of foreign-born parents and 6,500,000 persons whose fathers or mothers were born on foreign soil, making a total of 46,000,000 people of foreign stock. Fifty per cent of our population is of the native white strain.

Source:  The Materials of the New Race

...

Women who have a knowledge of contraceptives are not compelled to make the choice between a maternal experience and a marred love life; they are not forced to balance motherhood against social and spiritual activities. Motherhood is for them to choose, as it should be for every woman to choose. Choosing to become mothers, they do not thereby shut themselves away from thorough companionship with their husbands, from friends, from culture, from all those manifold experiences which are necessary to the completeness and the joy of life.  16

Fit mothers of the race are these, the courted comrades of the men they choose, rather than the “slaves of slaves.” For theirs is the magic power—the power of limiting their families to such numbers as will permit them to live full-rounded lives. Such lives are the expression of the feminine spirit which is woman and all of her—not merely art, nor professional skill, nor intellect; but all that woman is, or may achieve.

Source:  Two Classes of Women

...


The woman of the workers knows what society does with her offspring. Knowing the bitter truth, learned in unspeakable anguish, what shall this woman say to society? The power is in her hands. She can bring forth more children to perpetuate these conditions, or she can withhold the human grist from these cruel mills which grind only disaster.  15

Shall she say to society that she will go on multiplying the misery that she herself has endured? Shall she go on breeding children who can only suffer and die? Rather, shall she not say that until society puts a higher value upon motherhood she will not be a mother? Shall she not sacrifice her mother instincts for the common good and say that until children are held as something better than commodities upon the labor market, she will bear no more? Shall she not give up her desire for even a small family, and say to society that until the world is made fit for children to live in, she will have no children at all?

SOURCE:  When Should a Woman Avoid Having Children

...

LABOR seems instinctively to have recognized the fact that its servitude springs from numbers. Seldom, however, has it applied its knowledge logically and thoroughly. The basic principle of craft unionism is limitation of the number of workers in a given trade. This has been labor’s most frequent expedient for righting its wrongs. Every unionist knows, as a matter of course, that if that number is kept small enough, his organization can compel increases of wages, steady employment and decent working conditions. Craft unionism has succeeded in attaining these insofar as it has been able to apply this principle. It has failed insofar as it has been unable to apply it.   1

The weakness of craft unionism is that it does not carry its principle far enough. It applies its policy of limitation of numbers only to the trade. In his home, the worker, whether he is a unionist or non-unionist, goes on producing large numbers of children to compete with him eventually in the labor market.

Even with the temporary advantages gained by the wiping out of millions of workers in the Great War, labor’s problem remains unsolved. It has now, as always, to contend with the crop of young laborers coming into the market, and with the ever-present “labor-saving” machine which, instead of relieving the worker’s situation, makes it all the harder for him to escape. Fewer laborers are needed to-day for a given amount of production and distribution than before the invention of these machines. Yet, owing to the increase in the number of the workers, labor finds itself enslaved instead of liberated by the machine.

SOURCE:  Will Birth Control Help the Cause of Labor?

...

This is the dawn. Womanhood shakes off its bondage. It asserts its right to be free. In its freedom, its thoughts turn to the race. Like begets like. We gather perfect fruit from perfect trees. The race is but the amplification of its mother body, the multiplication of flesh habitations—beautified and perfected for souls akin to the mother soul.   16

The relentless efforts of reactionary authority to suppress the message of birth control and of voluntary motherhood are futile. The powers of reaction cannot now prevent the feminine spirit from breaking its bonds. When the last fetter falls the evils that have resulted from the suppression of woman’s will to freedom will pass. Child slavery, prostitution, feeblemindedness, physical deterioration, hunger, oppression and war will disappear from the earth.   17

In their subjection women have not been brave enough, strong enough, pure enough to bring forth great sons and daughters. Abused soil brings forth stunted growths. An abused motherhood has brought forth a low order of humanity. Great beings come forth at the call of high desire. Fearless motherhood goes out in love and passion for justice to all mankind. It brings forth fruits after its own kind. When the womb becomes fruitful through the desire of an aspiring love, another Newton will come forth to unlock further the secrets of the earth and the stars. There will come a Plato who will be understood, a Socrates who will drink no hemlock, and a Jesus who will not die upon the cross. These and the race that is to be in America await upon a motherhood that is to be sacred because it is free.

SOURCE:  The Goal

Seriously, where to begin?

Perhaps a shower?  Not now, I've got to get this particular chore done.  

Margaret Sanger subscribed to the principles of something called, "Eugenics". 

What are Eugenic Principles? 

Spending a moment with Dictionary.com we find the following:

eugenics (yjĕn`ĭks), study of human genetics genetics, and of methods to improve the inherited characteristics, physical and mental, of the human race. Efforts to improve the human race through bettering housing facilities and other environmental conditions are known as euthenics.  

Sir Francis Galton Galton, Sir Francis , 1822–1911, English scientist, founder of eugenics; cousin of Charles Darwin. He turned from exploration and meteorology (where he introduced the theory of the anticyclone) to the study of heredity and eugenics (a term that he coined).  Galton introduced the term eugenics, is usually regarded as the founder of the modern science of eugenics; his emphasis was on the role of factors under social control that could either improve or impair the qualities of future generations.

Modern eugenics is directed chiefly toward the discouragement of propagation among the unfit (negative eugenics) and encouragement of propagation among those who are healthy, intelligent, and of high moral character (positive eugenics). Such a program involves many difficulties, especially that of defining which traits are most desirable.

The first half of the 20th cent. saw extreme coercive application of such principles by governments ranging from miscegenation laws and enforced sterilization of the insane in the United States and other nations to the Holocaust, the name given to the period of persecution and extermination of European Jews by Nazi Germany. Although anti-Semitism in Europe has a long history, persecution of German Jews began with Hitler's rise to power in 1933. 

Regulated eugenics continues in some parts of the world; China enacted restrictions on marriages involving persons with certain disabilities and diseases in 1994.


Margaret Sanger, the Founder of Planned Parenthood, believed that if you control the reproductive capabilities of the people who were having children, you could control the very FUTURE.  In her Progressive Utopian view, only the best, and brightest parents would pro-create, giving rise to future generations chocked full of Platos, Newtons, Socrates, and Jesus.

POINT OF CLARIFICATION:  I'm sorry, but after almost 100 YEARS of Planned Parenthood, I'm NOT seeing a whole lot of well-meaning Geniuses running around making our Nation a 'better place'.  

Might this Utopian 'disconnect' indicate that Margaret Sanger was, in the best case scenario, mis-guided, or at worst, a Racist-Idiot bent upon the extermination of what Hitler (another Eugenics-guy) later referred to as 'sub-Humans'?  Adolph should have checked HIS DNA prior to building those ovens of his (LINK). 

"Now seating, table for one, Mr. Hitler, table for one?"

Margaret was a Progressive Elitist Big-Brained type who, "As any enlightened person will know", (she used this phrase a LOT in her writings) also happened to be a moron. 

This does not, however, explain why our government continues to fund roughly $500 MILLION per year to HER progeny, Planned Parenthood.  Why would the US Government continue to pour money into an organization whose Mother was Racism, and whose Father was Arrogance? 

I've got a single-fingered salute saved for Ms. Sanger.  It's a shame she'll never see me give it to her.  I'm thinking there's another guy who's been having tea with her on a regular basis in a fiery, smelly, and 24x7 scary place.

Heil Hitler - Heil Sanger - Heil Progressives!

"What the heck am I pointing to?  How do I 'Heil myself?
Do you like my gloves?  They are made from Russians."

Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, Progressives, Liberals deciding who 'deserves' to live and who 'ought to' die?  And paying for these decisions with my / our tax dollars? 

Not just 'NO'. 

Oh, Heil No...