George Bush, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. Bad All the Way Around

If this wasn't so disastrous it might be funny. Do you really think one is better than the other? You're crazy if you answer to the affirmative.













I as you know by now remain well entrenched in conservatism and find myself somewhere to the philosophical right of Attila the Hun. If I had any fame or journalistic recognition at all the pundits would call me a neocon's neocon. Belief in a value system and applying it to your political decisions is one thing and marching lockstep with one party or another for the sole purpose of maintaining party unity is foolish. I am not a George W. Bush fan nor am I a particular supporter of Dick Cheney and his Halliburton empire. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the attempted destruction of the Taliban and the Al-Qaida training camps housed within the poppy plant's homeland. I even supported the administration regarding the invasion of Iraq based on our intelligence estimates combined with those researched and supposedly validated by the British Empire. Bush's war detractors make an error not in opposing the war itself but in calling for an immediate or nearly immediate withdrawl. Even the Democrats if pressed on the issue admit that a Vietnam-style withdrawl would prove catastrophic to the entire Middle East and give Iran, Russia, and China added bravato if future tensions arise with them. We stay until it's stabilized or until the Islamic communities in the region prove to all of us once and for all that their value system is flawed and based on a guttural 5th century mentality. I am afraid the latter will always hold true. Anyone for turning the whole damn sand box back to glass? That would be a sigh of relief.

Bush's policy or perhaps Bush's luck in policy has prevented another 9/11 type of attack on our homeland. We have to give credit where credit is due. Beyond that, George has disappointed diehard conservatives like me beyond measure. Our current spending would give Tip O'Neill a massive erection and he's been dead for years. Democrats still gripe about the education system but no president has thrown more tax dollars at public education than Bush. Democrats don't want to tackle the real issues of personal responsibility rather than promoting moral relativism. Problems in the public school system start at home miles away from the classrooms. Bush is bankrupting us. Every industry in the country receives giant subsidies. You name it and it gets money. Big oil, corporate farming, poorly run airlines, and even mismanaged financial institutions like Bear Stearns get taxpayer bailouts. How do I sign up for one of those?

Those of us on the hard right view spending like this. Taxes are to be paid to provide for national security and an infrastructure that accomodates capitalism by ensuring the building blocks are in place to facilitate a free market economy. In other words we want a mighty military to protect us from foreign lunatics like those in Iran, China, Syria, and Russia. We believe in a proactive rather than reactive strategy when it comes to protecting our assets and well being in the world. Barack and Hillary, well, not so much. We believe that things like roads, airports, bridges, and other technologies that promote an efficiency in the course of doing business is what makes America's businesses and workers succeed. Take a majority of entitlements and pork barrel spending not directly related to the above and flush them with the kitty litter. Throw in some tax dollars for a modest federal law enforcement presence to uphold the Constitution and a revamped and less imposing list of federal statutes and voila we have a productive country with a surplus. In general economic terms George W. Bush doesn't speak for me. Give me the freedom promised in the Constitution and less government intrusion. If there is a problem at home let my state figure it out rather than imposing more federal regulations. Simple really is productive.

Now let's take on the views of dumb and dumber. I mean Hillary and Barack. BIG GOVERNMENT is better. The government knows what's best for you. Take Hillary's health care proposal. Your freedom is eroded before your very eyes. You have to have my health care. It is law that GOVERNMENT takes your money for a program you have no choice in. Scary. Choice equals freedom and any lack thereof sways us precipitously towards socialism. Barack's comments about us "rednecks" clinging to our guns and religion and belief in national border security make me wonder if he thinks personal freedoms and values are overrated. Maybe he believes his control and initiatives save us because after all we really can longer make decisions for ourselves. Can't you see it coming or does his toothy smile induce the cessation of neurons in your brain? Personal freedom MUST trump government intervention or we're all lost and lost for good. It is scary to know that liberals like Clinton and Obama have built giant constituencies because they've convinced people that personal responsibility and work ethic no longer apply. Trust me says Barack, I'll take care of you. No thanks Barack, I'll take care of myself and provide for my own like the framers intended it to be.

In summation, of the three boobs talked about here today one is no better than the other two. They simply have a different method and set of calculations to bilk us and dumb us down. Just remember, personal freedoms can only be maintained through our opposition to undue government influence and an adherence to our own responsibility for ourselves and our actions.

Barack and Hillary woo Montana Democratic Faithful in Butte, Missoula

The Democratic Party hosted both of their candidates for the office of president in Butte yesterday to the cheers of thousands of supporters. Barack Obama included an earlier stop in Missoula Saturday morning. On the positive side the spectacle brought Montana national recognition and did create its own historical context because it included both candidates that currently engage in verbal fistfighting desperate to obtain the Democratic nomination. I think it's also kind of neat that as far as the Democratic primary process goes, Montana closes the primary season as it's the last one to close its polls on June 3rd.

From news reports I've obtained both candidates stayed on message. George Bush is bad and government will take control and heal your wounds if I'm elected. Fair enough; those have been the talking points in stump speeches since the Iowa caucuses. Barack continues a masterful charm offensive while enthusiastic crowds roar in approval even if his message contains little in concrete detail and relies heavily on glittering generalities. Hillary takes the stage like the mad little woman she is; she's still upset that no one but she and Bill understand that she's entitled as a Clinton to have the office of president delivered to her much like the monarchy in England. Hillary obviously stares at the nomination much like Sir Edmund Hillary (no she wasn't named after him, she misspoke) stared at Mount Everest while standing at its base. Even in Montana I feel the winds of change blowing. The state could vote in the Democratic category this fall and hasn't done so since swaying for Bill Clinton in 1992. Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee even though Hillary will pull out all the stops before finally if ever conceding defeat. A vicious political machine like the Clintons maintain won't sink of its own accord. In good old Montana terms, Hillary is a raccoon in a creek being closely pursued by bloodhound Barack Obama. I've seen a coon push a hound's head under the water in an attempt to drown it. I am thankful that all the infighting will benefit John McCain this fall.

Montana voters maintain an independent streak and don't usually adhere to their parties in lock step fashion and thankfully that makes us unique. Most Montanans I know, Democrats included, generally maintain somewhat of a conservative outlook on social issues but may drift left on economic and other issues. We have a Democratic governor and two senators. Our single representative is true blue conservative through and through and his success or failure in reelection this fall will serve as an accurate indicator in gauging if the state in its entirety has moved decidedly left. Senator Jon Tester defeated long time incumbent Republican Conrad Burns in the last election based in no small part on a smear campaign alleging close ties between Burns and convicted lobbyist Conrad Burns. Whether it was time for Burns to go or not, Tester is lucky to be in office after being elected on false pretenses.

I would have loved to travel to Butte to see both Hillary and Barack speak to the thronging masses. However I'd already scheduled some time to shampoo my plants and I simply had to prioritize. When I found out it cost $40.00 to purchase a ticket for entry I decided that money could be better spent on driveway de-icer and some items from the dollar store. I still find myself chapped to know how many of the blue collar common folks fall in line with both Clinton and Obama. That whole representation of the common man is a train load of crap big enough to fertilize the Mojave. Bill and Hillary earned $109,000,000.00 in the last several years and they still won't divulge donor records from his presidential library because trust me, they don't want you to know who's on there. Hillary absolutely bashes corporate America in true Socialist fashion but how in the hell do we think Bill makes his big bucks? What do you think his money is made from? He's an "adviser" and "consultant" to corporate titans in Dubai. I wonder if there's any oil money associated with Dubai in the MIDDLE EAST. I'll let you decide. I hope it makes the supporters of Clinton happy to know that after making all that money off "corporate" interests (yes, Hillary's book publishers are corporate too) they still bilk the taxpayer for hundreds of thousands of dollars on secret service details and perks related to Bill's disservice in office.

Barack Obama's position relative to Hillary's is a little more tenuous when it comes to the general election against McCain. Barack's involvement with a racist religious organization, corrupt real estate mogul Tony Rezko, and a man once convicted for trying to blow up federal buildings may cause him some problems come November. Couple that with his relative inexperience in just about every category of leadership and I think it may develop into a perfect storm for him. His refusal to lay out black and white (there's been plenty of black versus white) details of his policy plans and more importantly how he plans to pay for them further adds to the intrigue. He's been labeled as the most liberal senator in the country. Even with his frenzied support now among his Democratic supporters, independents and Republicans may find themselves just as energized this fall to come out swinging and I mean swinging hard. He has mentioned nothing of substance to convince me he is little more than a populist demagogue that delivers eloquent speeches of questionable substance from within the confines of an empty suit. Even though the liberal mainstream media including the disasters of NBC, MSNBC, and CNN remain in the tank for him, the truth may in fact set him free. It may set him free from the constraints of winning the presidency.

One news report that troubled me came from the Missoula rally. As the reporter so poignantly set the mood, a supporter remained in the stands after Barack left the stage and wept. Yes, I said wept. I've cried before but not over an unproven politician that says nothing that hasn't been said at thousands of high school pep rallies across the country. It reminds of that scene from the hilarious airline spoof movie "Airplane." A woman finds out her flight is in trouble while strapped into her seat and starts panicking and wailing uncontrollably. She is driving everyone absolutely nuts and there is a line of people in the aisle wielding everything from pipes, baseball bats, and brass knuckles all too willing to quiet her unnecessary outbursts. If I'd been in Missoula after the rally, I may have been one of those people.

Have a great day.

The Pregnant Man Story: How Low Can It Go?

I just happened to be asleep in my chair the other day and when I woke from my snoring slumber this is what I saw on the television screen a few feet away. I am neither a fan or drooling supporter of demagogue Oprah Winfrey in any way, shape, or form but I did watch the show if only for reasons of morbid fascination. It was through bad luck only the television found itself tuned to the CBS frequency. We must preface the high points of this article with an underlying theme that holds true under most scientific testing and analysis. Stupid is as stupid does. I'm pretty sure I learned that same theory in biology and church. Who knew? Okay, this image is just flat-ass creepy and that is only the beginning of this bizarre and appalling set of circumstances. Let's run through the facts before I begin chastising this person with inappropriate and politically insensitive sarcasm.

First we should clarify that this is not a pregnant man at all. This is a photograph of Thomas Beatie formerly known as Tracy when he was a girl growing up in Hawaii. Before she became a he there were beauty pageants and boyfriends. How would you like to be one of those guys? You're at home having a beer with your buddies and Oprah comes on. Hey Bill, I used to date him. After throwing up for hours I picture these guys playing Russian roulette with a .357 magnum and bottle of Chivas Regal. At the very least we're talking about hours of painful psychiatric therapy and strong prescription medications. Yes, he is pregnant because he is really a she. Beatie is a transgender male. Although born a female and living as a female for most of his/her life, he noted that when he woke in the mornings as a female he felt like a man. So I hypothesize that he ran to Home Depot, bought a circular saw, and playfully engaged in a double masectomy masking the pain with several vodka and testosterone cocktails. Then he/she visited one of those adult playthings stores and purchased an appropriate rubbery phallus and glued it to a generally appropriate area behind the zippered gates. Some needle and thread and voila that pretty much sews this case up. (I couldn't help it.) That is truly interesting. Now we're back to having the right to act on our feelings regardless of the consequences. I've wanted to get up many times and head over to my neighbor's house with a four foot section of cast iron pipe and beat him and his property senseless when a party kept me up most of the night. The point is I didn't act on that impulse. Why is this any different? I would have hurt my neighbor and this pregnancy will certainly damage the growing child for life.

Beatie was quoted as saying being pregnant as a male doesn't define who he is. It defines you're a freak. End of that story. During Beatie's "transition" he chose to keep his internal female reproductive organs because he thought he may want a child but apparently not in his natural form of a biological female. How selfish and morally inept was that decision? It travels the same path as the argument I have with homosexuals adopting and raising children. If all established norms find themselves eviscerated under theories of moral equivalence, where do we timidly and tentatively form any baseline of decency even if only infintismal? Beatie is married to a middle aged woman with two grown daughters of her own. Her voice is deeper and mannerisms seem quite masculine if you're keeping score at home. Homosexuals and this transgender couple claim that their lifestyle is somehow the result of some biologic progression. It is naturally buried within an individual's DNA or so say the promoters of gaydom. Homosexuals won't define their actions as a lifestyle choice because they claim biology is overriding social norms. If biology is at the root of homosexuality and transgender science, why don't homosexuals agree that they simply can't have children because it falls beyond the borders of the natural science fence they put themselves behind? It is not natural or biologically possible for same sex couples to have children. Remember when gays hung their hats on the study that noted scientists believed some male sheep were gay? I could always tell because they were the ones at the feed trough wearing pink leg warmers. What if biology and personal choice spiraled out of control? What if everyone and everything became inclined naturally or otherwise to pursue same sex relationships. All species of flora and fauna become extinct. My point is that their argument is as ridiculous as what I've just noted. Same sex relationships and the desire for children violate the most basic of natural principles yet most fighting in the political arena for gay rights claim it is a God-given right to have your cake and eat it too.

I'm wondering how long it takes a scientist or doctor living in any old American town to skip down the street to a retarded neighbor's home. Some medical study will pay for the use of this unwitting person to breed a chimpanzee or gorilla. I wonder how long before Oprah aired that episode. Do you see my point? Maybe you have a person you know that wants to marry a goat or have sexual relations in public with his 1983 Buick Skylark. How can we accept one form of supposed biologic relationship based on progression and not others? I don't see how the train won't just steamroll off the tracks. Oprah noted in her interview with Beatie and his/her wife that this is a "new definition of what diversity means for everybody." Not for me Oprah. I am not filled with the absolute hubris that Oprah is nor will I cast such generalized statements in that glib fashion. As far as I'm concerned, if Beatie wants to have a baby as a transgender male he can just play the "natural" game to the end. He must deliver the baby as a male would if a male could. Let's see how Thomas/Tracy Beatie handles a rectal delivery. I imagine it would be something like passing a bowling ball or coffee maker. Maybe after that being pregnant won't hold the same nonsensical allure it does now. Instead of making high pitched squealing appearances on Oprah he'll be the lifelong spokesperson for Preparation H. It's just that silly.

Apparently we're traveling into uncharted territory. The lines are so blurry I'm afraid that any act can now be achieved regardless of personal accountability or social acceptance. The religion of science now replaces the very foundations we've built civilization on. There are no more norms and traditional values based on Christian principles. I quite think George Washington or John Adams would shutter uncontrollably. Those in my non-progressive conservative camp are now the established minority and our persecution will follow. Mark my words.

U.S. Energy Policy Spirals Downward

I write today to appease my father's desire to lambast U.S. energy and agricultural officials and chastise the global environmental alarmist movement. That seems like a heck of a lot of work for a Sunday but I'll give it the old college try. Unfortunately our energy policy will be tied to carbon dioxide emissions and the yet to be honestly debated global warming theory until the last dog dies. Did I mention that not only are the scholars and scientists that oppose the "consensus" theory given no voice in any debate format they are branded as hacks by media surrogates even though many of them have far more impressive credentials than Al Gore's all too agenda driven lap dogs. If many of the proposals burped up by the environmentally friendly politicians and presidential candidates come to pass, I for one believe the end of our free market economy as we know it is close at hand.

The problems associated with intertwining energy policy with the whole "earth turns to fire" prognostication are at the very least dangerous when viewed broadly. Even the EPA acknowledged when issuing a notice of proposed rule-making that rapid and poorly researched regluations for instant emissions controls on cars and trucks cripples everything from corporate America to mom and pop operations serving as the backbone of competitive enterprise in this country. First of all, heads are in the sand if anyone believes there will be an overnight shift from fossil fuels to alternative sources of energy. If every available acre suitable for the production of corn was seeded exclusively for the production of ethanol used in weaning us from gasoline consumption, it would constitute only 9% of the fuel utilized now. Even with aggressive conservation methods we are stuck trying to develop a source for the other 90% (and growing) need. That means no affordable corn feed for cattle and hog producers and food-based corn costs would skyrocket beyond exorbinant levels. What about the taxpayer and tax break dollars already flowing to corn producers and producers of biofuels? Where in this picture does the consumer get a break? Is it one of the tenets of the environmental movement to ensure the wealth and liquidity of large corn producers while you and I still pay inflated prices at the pump and grocery store for food now in short supply because of its fuel value? Most concerning to me is that we are contemplating a major investment in technologies that are still relatively new and unproven. The questions just keep on coming too. Changing corn to ethanol is extremely expensive and inefficient. It takes as much or more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the finished product itself gives us. Recently concerns about biofuel emissions and its effects on warming have come up. I'm hesitant to spend all this money on unproven technologies only to have the controlling environmentalists tell us we're still killing the planet. Maybe we should just scale down to loin cloths and clubs and forage for our food. I'm not really kidding, is this what they want?

As a rule of thumb we've been importing about 14 million barrels of oil a day at a cost of $340 billion dollars a year from countries and zealots that would happily enjoy our collapse and participate in a festive round of beheading. Little do you hear in the way of gigantic oil reserves our own government has outlawed us from recovering in the Atlantic Ocean. We've in quite cowardly fashion slithered away from refuge drilling by extremely environmentally and eco-friendly processes. China and India can of course pursue that which we've stupidly castrated ourselves from obtaining but they're entitled right? Oh, and they're modern industrialists that have a handle on pollution controls right? They're responsible for more direct particulate emission than we ever dreamed of. Have you seen the air in Beijing (cough, cough)? When is the last time you've heard about the vast supplies of oil in the Bakken field of North Dakota, Montana, and South Dakota? 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are waiting to be horizontally drilled out of the Earth in an environmentally friendly way but apparently the American consumer isn't worth the effort or doesn't deserve the information. Do you ever hear about the vast reserves available on the Wyoming and Utah border, the new formations in the Gulf of Mexico, and a million others the environmental propagandists don't want you to hear about? I hate to sound like Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory" but understand you and I have been deemed unworthy by our government and those that control it.

Does it bother you to know that states like Montana with vast reserves of coal get the thumbs down from environuts even if the technology is available to sequester carbon dioxide emissions? Has anyone told you the break consumers would get when clean coal to diesel technology was up and running and decreasing our reliance on foreign energy thus driving down energy costs for everyone participating in the economy? No you haven't heard because they don't want you to. I guess bozo politicians figure we've ran a dismal trade deficit for this long, why change a good thing? I'd start fashioning that loin cloth if I were you. Don't even mention clean nuclear power to envirocons. Regardless of its "clean" potential they just don't like it. Seems to me they're more about control than solutions. Nuclear power if allowed to benefit from a reduction in mind numbing regulatory barriers can be an effective form of energy production. Collecting berries on a windswept hillside can be a marvelous family outing or so I've heard. Although contrary to popular belief, most of the profits from big oil benefit American investor's 401K's and not a small group of corporate demons. Still, with the record profits I believe the time is now to cut oil subsidies as currently structured. If you want to use subsidies and tax breaks as an incentive, do it by requiring the major oil companies to invest in their infrastructure and the manufacture of refineries. Therein lies a great deal of costs associated with the farce theory of "supply and demand."

Perhaps the most dangerous element regarding upcoming energy policy changes revolve around the carbon tax and cap and trade issues. Let's scale this down for dummies like me. Every business, large or small, mom or pop, farm or ice cream shop will inherit a tax passed on to them by energy producers penalized through hidden taxes for the production of fossil fuel energy. Basically the government would allow energy producers to produce a set limit of energy. After that limit is exceeded by increased demand from consumers, the energy producer can purchase auctioned or allocated permits from other producers that haven't hit the imposed limit. Notice the permit terminology. It's a tax and it will be passed to you. By 2050 carbon taxes would in today's language equate to about $.50 per gallon. Don't fret though because you're going to pay it if you use natural gas, heating oil, or propane. It's an all-inclusive gotcha tax. Try to make money at your business and the government will happily take your profits on the backside through this carbon taxing process. I'll mention again that the whole carbon dioxide emissions tied to global warming alarmism is still an unproven theory. Isn't the government and the cerebrally challenged morons that run it a wonderful spectacle to bemuse?

At any rate I've just brushed the surface of these issues and each one could expand to pages and pages of dialogue and research. For now diesel hovers around $4.00 per gallon and biodiesel is the same. Sketchy science and production for the same price. If the trucking industry collapses due to high fuel prices and government inactivity the economy will follow long before we crown the next presidential dunce. I wonder if I should learn how to start speaking Chinese so I'm prepared for their takeover.

Illegal Immigration, Murder, and a Corrupt L.A. Mayor. The Southern California Cesspool Coming Soon to a City Near You.

I felt truly saddened when this story broke on March 2nd. Jamiel Shaw Jr., a 17 year old high school football standout and ostensibly good kid was brutally and viciously gunned down near his home in Los Angeles by an illegal immigrant punk named Pedro Espinoza who apparently was eager to earn his killer wings at the ripe old age of 19. Was young Jamiel Shaw a gang member in the wrong place at the wrong time? No. Did Jamiel Shaw flash incorrect gang signs at the car load of 18th Street Gang Latino thugs that passed him by on the street? No sir. Shaw reportedly had no gang affiliation. Jamiel Shaw did absolutely nothing to contribute to his untimely and tragic end.

There is a lot more to this story and we're going to discuss it. Some have easily pigeon-holed the issue as a "Latin gang members kill blacks and black gang members in the Crips and Bloods kill Latinos" but the issue reaches into the darkest recesses of our national immigration policy and specifically into the corruption of Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The death of an innocent child in this way is senseless enough but to know that the United States government and specifically one corrupt politician did nothing to prevent the tragedy through the utilization of concrete policy steps bloodies the collective hands beyond measure. The mayor of L.A. should be hung from a yardarm in a public street to be spat upon. Wait until you learn about his current and past affiliations.

Where should we start? Let's start with the cowardly killer. Pedro Espinoza lived in our (not his) country illegally since the age of four. Now this mindless murderer spent little of his time slithering through back alleys in the City of Angels to avoid detection that might lead to his deportation. In fact he was well acquainted with our criminal justice system and proudly owned a rap sheet longer than the California coast. Did anyone bother to check his legal status in regards to his physical presence on U.S. soil or his ties to the violent 18th Street Gang? Apparently they missed that unimportant and minute detail. Immigration officials and law enforcement officers in L.A. County are too busy running around trying to do the impossible without offending anyone. To dig into the immigration issue in a sanctuary city or arrest someone that is not white will inevitably result in hours of press conferences and apologies that result in internal affairs investigations while crime runs rampant and unchecked. Yes the rumors are true. There are neighborhoods in east L.A. that cops do not enter unless accompanied by the equivalent of a military division. That should comfort God-fearing Angelinos.

The day before Espinoza murdered Jamiel Shaw, Jr. in cold blood he confidently strode out the doors of a detention facility in Los Angeles County just as pretty as you please. He just spent four luxurious and fun-filled months there on charges involving illegal weapons possession, assault, resisting arrest, and obstructing a peace officer. Classy huh? Now maybe it's just me but would it be beyond conception to think that in these modern times of lightning quick computer databases and electronic information transfer that somewhere along the line a "cross-check" or document verification system existed that would tell officials whether or not an inmate was a legal resident? Does it concern you to know an illegal immigrant, gang member, and defendant possessing a firearm with a violent record avoids detection while in CUSTODY? It frankly boggles my mind. I know, I know I just don't understand. That is way too much to ask for. After all California is and has been the Ellis Island for western illegal immigration since the dawn of man it seems. The city cowers in the shadow of illegal gang activities that leave the streets littered with rotting corpses both innocent and culpable. After the murder of young Shaw a U.S. Immigration and Customs officer explained away the agency's lackluster involvement by saying "the system isn't 100 percent." You got that right sister. I'd venture a guess and say our system isn't even 20 percent. At any rate, Espinoza finds some 18th Street Gang members to cruise the streets with doing nothing more than wasting oxygen fit for productive members of society. Maybe before the shooting they all cuddled and got some of those gay tattoos pictured above. While driving down the street they encounter young Jamiel Shaw walking on the sidewalk near his home. Espinoza slows the car and mutters in his best "hey dude" voice to Shaw, "Where you from?" Espinoza expects to hear an appropriate gang response but probably kills the young man regardless of an affirmation that did not come from Shaw's lips. Jamiel falls to the ground on the 2100 block of Fifth Avenue after being riddled with bullets as his father runs to cradle the dying child in his arms. Ironically, young Shaw dies near a tree he planted with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa three years ago. Let's move on to the second criminal in this case identified as Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Villaraigosa became the city's mayor in a 2005 runoff election against Mayor Hahn. Villaraigosa is a long time philanderer of absent morality that has publicly admitted to infidelity twice. I believe his wife finally filed for divorce after living with this jerk for however many years. She must have been sleeping with Prince Valium or the like to let it go that long. Villaraigosa is believed to be a mover and shaker in the Democratic Party and many believe he has his sights set on higher office. At the least the mover and shaker part is right if you include headboards as part of the shaking process. No wonder he's a Clinton supporter. I don't know if he smokes cigars or not but he claims his personal matters have no impact on how he manages the city. Yeah, the state of the city pretty much debunks that argument Romeo.

Villaraigosa has long believed in free borders in regards to illegal Mexican immigration. A kind of "more is better" policy if you will. When asked he refused to address the issue of illegal immigrant healthcare and the closing of many hospitals in the area due to the free treatment of illegals and the resulting budgetary collapses of several hospitals. He apparently believes that new Mexican blood infused into the city somehow promises a brighter tomorrow. I see it like an infestation of cockroaches on a mostly eaten cherry danish. Eventually the best part of the pastry is gone and the cockroaches have to feed off each other to survive. If you're a race card player out there stand still a moment. I do not think Mexicans here legally or illegally are cockroaches. I am making a symbolic analogy and any comments to the contrary validate you are not intellectually competent to contribute to the discussion. We press onward.

While in college in southern California Villaraigosa participated in and retained proud membership in MEChA. I don't get the small "h" either but that's how it's listed. This is the nearly or soon to be militant wing of the illegal immigration support movement that not only wants to overrun the southwestern United States with an influx of illegal Mexicans but literally wants to reclaim this part of our country and place it under Mexican rule. They want to reclaim as they put it "Aztlan." Yeah folks, that's who the mayor of Los Angeles is and the pursuit of vanity is his indulgence. It's kind of like putting Michael Jackson in charge of a home for runaway boys. Yet the media considers him a darling and none of the Hollywood nitwits speak out against him. That's because those that control the money and media in Lalaland are rich and liberal elitists that feign compassion for those elements in society deemed as less fortunate as long as the resultant filth doesn't spill pass the gated entries to their palatial estates. Mayor Villaraigosa is a bad man that represents the denigration of any moral code however insignificant that provides stability and direction to a city, state, or country and the tax paying inhabitants. He should be banished to Cuba or the like.

How does it end? I don't think it does. At best we might be forced to struggle to stem the flow of this mutating plague. Do we have to amend the Constitution and take to the streets with our own military to wipe out gangs in the country with extreme prejudice? It's not that far fetched of a call to action. Do we rise up and physically remove corrupt politicians like L.A.'s mayor? Where is the line drawn between anarchy and the salvation of our city streets? People elected the mayor with their right to vote but do they have to die and be violated before a change can be made? What do we do? How do we stop it? The time to pray is now. Action rather than hollow words may be all that is left if the very idea of hope itself is to survive.

I'll write again tomorrow. Please forward the blog address to your friends and neighbors. I love to hear from you.

http://www.montanaconservative.blogspot.com/

Network and Cable News. Don't Look to Keith Olbermann for the Truth.

Do you remember when you parked yourself on the sofa or in your lounge chair and clicked on the network news at the end of the work day to find out what was happening in your world? Boy, a lot has changed if I do say so myself. The major news networks fight for economic survival with stiff competition from cable news providers like Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. Okay a quick sidebar to clarify some terminology. When you think about MSNBC and how it relates to the overall news landscape I doubt you relate the term stiff to stiff competition. When I think about MSNBC in relation to its anchors, programming, and the word stiff, I usually relate the "stiff" connotation to pronounced rigor mortis. News outlets all seem so desperate for viewership and advertising dollars that most of them have taken to inventing the news in the most bizarre and sensational terms. The truth in reporting standards are now arbitrary and editorial slant rules the day.

CNN is and has been a traditonally biased quasi-news organization. Remember back when Ted Turner and Hanoi Jane sold buffalo burgers from their Montana buffalo ranch? How quaint. It really stirs a person's gag reflex. I never really cared about CNN's transgressions because it was humorously obvious and I felt intellectually competent enough to pull the truth through the eyehole of bias. Besides, which network ever had the journalistic guts to promote a furry little anchorman with a twitching hyperactivity disorder, a monotone delivery, and a cable news ready name like Wolf? Brilliant shouts the gnome of similar stature and hair color. I hear people dig Anderson Cooper's prematurely white hair though.

No distinguished friends and neighbors, CNN pales in comparison to the gutter dwelling producers, editors, writers, and anchors at NBC News and perennial sister disappointment MSNBC. Yes sir and yes maam you can take it to the bank. NBC News reports that our sons and daughters in uniform that fight for something they believe is greater than themselves are murderers of innocent civilians. I could go on and on but I've chosen to expose maybe the worst of the lot in the whole NBC News organization and by God that's saying a mouthful.

The arrogant man characterized above is Keith Olbermann. Do you remember his days with ESPN? Keith is the opinionated and often factually deficient host of MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann." I will paint him in the best light possible because I believe in giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, regardless of how different their political pendulum swings from mine. So here goes. Keith Olbermann is at best a liar and a bumbling hack. He makes NBC's David Gregory look like Dan Rather. Please use this towel to cleanse yourself of that dripping sarcasm. Olbermann has the right to say what he wants when he wants to just like I do but the credits for his show intimate that factual news is included as part of the programming and that friends is simply and unequivocally false.

Keith Olbermann is a hateful smear merchant that marches lock step with his progressive handlers that now control most mainstream media. He remains not so cleverly hidden behind the secular and ideologically rabid liberals that contribute to a value system based on moral relativism. He bows before puppet masters like MoveOn.org and MediaMatters that support the Socialist agenda and infected theory of moral equivalence. He is a major contributor to the subjective moral cesspool that represents modern mainstream journalism today. Olbermann and his ill-received excuse of a program serve only as a laughable medium for the spewing of far left political propaganda that remains out of touch with mainstream America. But like failed left talk radio network Air America, liberals just don't know when they're defeated. Ramp it up, get knocked down. Ramp it up louder, get beaten down further. It's a vicious cycle that defies logic. Even a retarded dog knows to back away after it's been whipped.

I sometimes wonder with "shock and awe" (just for you Keith) why Olbermann insists on denigrating Bill O'Reilly and the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News. I guess jealousy really does breed absolute and pronounced ignorance and unhealthy doses of contempt. O'Reilly's viewership smothers Olbermann's seven or eight national viewers so Olbermann's answer is to routinely cast O'Reilly as the worst person on his "worst person" segment. Real clever if anyone was watching. It's like a minnow taking on a shark and at Sea World the shark wins every time. I wonder if it's because of a minnow's smaller cranium.

Olbermann was literally upset at all the invasive coverage of that evil little hate monger Eliot Spitzer, disgraced former governor of New York. Like most relativists, Olbermann doesn't believe character or honesty are important qualities to be possessed by our leaders. I think he stomped out of MSNBC once before because he didn't think Bill Clinton's moral compass had a pervasive tick in it either during the stained dress/tiny cigar incident either. It tells you about the desperation of the MSNBC network because the buffoons hired him back. Keith Olbermann compared the recent discovery of Barack Obama's passport application tampering to watergate. What? Are you kidding me? The contractors fired for the snooping in Barack Bob Shiny Pants' briefs (couldn't help that pun) were directly involved with Obama's organization! I bet Keith won't report that inconsequential news flash! I wouldn't expect him to because like others at his network (I'm looking at you Hardball Matthews) he is and has been totally in the tank for Obama. He covered the whole Pastor Disaster with Reverend Wright as if it were a story about a misunderstood sheperd comforting lost sheep. That's quite in keeping with tried and true journalistic standards isn't it Keith? I bet he slips into garters and hose every time an Obama segment airs and fondles his microphone.

Keith Olbermann is such a mouthpiece for truth, justice, and honesty. You know, if it's a liberal talking point it simply has to be truthful and just. And woe to you that says it ain't so. That is probably why he used his influence (what there is of it) to get his no-talent live-in girlfriend a gig as a "freelance" reporter on a local New York cable channel. Like I said, what an influence. That local cable channel probably gets more exposure than MSNBC. Olbermann's book attacks the very value system most Americans hold dear so Keith I'll take it as a compliment. Maybe the only way to get some viewers back to the program is to nominate yourself as the "worst person." Sometimes the truth has a way of garnering results. I sure watch ESPN a lot more than I used to. I'll keep watching FOX to get a decent perspective.

Where Is Our Democracy Heading?

Some time ago I published an article that discussed the differences between a representative democracy and a direct democracy. The United States of America utilizes a representative democracy because you and I are represented by senators and congresspersons that vote on legislative agendas. They supposedly carry your will in the halls of Congress through proxy if you want to call it that but I still believe this type of democracy disappoints us more and more as time passes.

The last time I wrote on the subject I expressed my interest in a direct democracy but received no feedback probably because you crashed your forehead into the monitor after falling into a deep sleep triggered by my article. I readily admit that I am a sociologist and not a political science expert yet still I cannot understand some of the founding fathers support of a representative democracy rather than a direct one. So I hope I don't bore you to death but we're going to tackle the subject again. If any readers have political science majors or professors in the vicinity, please do not hesitate to force them to respond on this subject so that I too can hear the pros and cons of such a system. To keep you from falling asleep reading about what makes our country tick I'll try to throw a few of my trademark and sarcastically inappropriate zingers in the article to keep you reading.

The main issue and complaint I have with our current system revolves around the term representation. I think my half-baked brains are still coherent enough to understand the situation. In Montana the voters elected their senators and lone representative by a majority vote. Other states like California and New York do the same thing but get more representation because they have more people. Makes sense because each man and woman has the right to vote and be represented by that vote. Now let's use this overbearing and snipey presidential election to provide some context to my argument. Barack Bob Shiny Pants, Hillary Bill Clinton, and John "Flashback" McCain are currently spending millions of donated and not so donated funds obtained legally and probably illegally to convince you to vote for them so that they can lead our country after winning a majority of the vote. Whoops. First and foremost toss the popular vote out the window. When you cast your ballot the Constitution provided states the plenary power to have a certain apportioned number of electors (based on population) actually cast a vote for president. In other words 538 electors ultimately decide but pledge to cast their electoral vote for their district's popular ballot winner. Remember the 2000 election between Gore and Bush? Gore supposedly won the popular vote but lost in the electoral process. As an aside I argue Gore did not win the popular vote because his campaign successfully blocked the tally of votes from U.S. service persons overseas but I digress. Just focus on the issue of the popular vote.

Let us see about this whole majority thing. Let's say for argument Barack Obama wins the presidential election 51% to 49% based on electoral college results. That means like in 2000 the popular vote is within a razor thin margin of error. What if as Gore claimed in 2000 the loser won the popular vote but this time McCain really did without trying to cheat? Let's also say that after a recount and legal wrangling Obama officially defeats McCain on this infintismal margin, gets inaugurated, goes to Disneyland, and gets to do shaving cream commercials. (Yes Hillary would still be campaigning and only after Vietnamese shock treatment are Democrats able to pull her from the race, tell her she's lost, and institutionalize her in upstate New York.) What then does the term "majority" mean? Let's further assume the Democrats maintain control of both houses of Congress. I think you're starting to catch my drift. Now you have a President, a Speaker of the House, and Senate majority leader claiming a mandate to decide things for you because their party and associated ideology clearly possesses this now all important majority. In my hypothetical world what if Obama won the election popularly by a tally of 30,151, 360 to 30,151,359? Not only does the word majority become meaningless it simply doesn't apply at all anymore. It's like telling your stomach it would feel more full after consuming 10 pancakes rather than 9.999999 pancakes. The argument drifts into absurdity.

We'll now travel back to Congress assuming your senators and congresspersons won by the same thin margins in districts and claim a majority mandate even if by only a few popular votes. Now you have them on committees spending money on things you flat don't believe in because of this pain in the arse majority word. A majority is 80/20 or 90/10 not 49.9999/50.0001. At any rate the argument becomes a little redundant (in the dictionary under redundant it says "see redundant") but my demented philosophy still holds water; it is murky smelly water but water. One hundred senators and 435 congresspersons control the country and make decisions for you, spend your money, and promote the "mandated" ideology even if not representing the popular will of the people and certainly not by a fair representation of a majority. Legal? Yes. Fair? No. Basically in this current system 535 people plus a President control just about everything that affects you. Does it seem like someone piddled in your corn flakes when you see how Congress votes themselves pay raises with your money and receives some of the best health care and pension opportunities in the country? How does that equate to a free society? You can vote but when the whole system is based on a majority through actual control by a few is it tragically flawed? New York has a gazillion people stuffed on an island with a culture and mindset of its own. Because of the population on this small geographic plane they get tons more representation than small states like Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming combined. Look at how many diverse cultures lose in the representation race because of a lack of population. A culture encompassed in a few square miles trumps many cultures totaling millions of square miles. Folks, our current system is out of date and out of touch just like the rest of society is.

I really started thinking about this subject when the whole pork barrel spending and congressional earmarks issue raised its serpent-like head. Hillary Clinton can write an "earmark" into a piece of legislation that appropriates your tax dollars for a hippie museum in New York or a cigar factory in Bill's shed out back. You had no choice. An Alaskan senator can appropriate funds for a bridge to nowhere with your money. Guess what? You have no control over it. The President and Congress can agree to appropriate funds for state controlled programs making government bigger and more expensive with your money. You have no control over it. They base their moves on the right of a majority which we've thus debunked. The current electoral process makes your vote worth less if you live out west than it does back east. A small geographic area with the same cultural standards carries more weight than a much larger geographic area with more cultural idiosyncrasies. Remember what I said regardless of your ideas about what it is that makes a majority. In our country a FEW CONTROL ALL. Do I have a solution? Maybe.

In this modern era of instant communication through the internet and other telecommunications systems we could literally take back control of our government if we controlled everything with a direct vote. Take the United States and divide it into equal geographic grids. Tally every direct vote and help those (the elderly and infirm) to vote through secure firewalled systems and the popular vote and you, yes YOU now control the government again. No more earmarks or geographic subcultures controlling your world. Billions of dollars saved, bogus programs buried, and each vote means something now with your input instead of your honest desires being unfairly delegated to a representative that may or may not represent your philosophy and ideology.

In that case even enough moderates linked to a different political ideology other than yours may vote with you on a case by case basis. If you're like me I want more control of our money and the direction of the country. Tax dollars are meant for only a couple of things not so that government can become a monster that feeds off itself with your monetary support. A strong national defense, a sound infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports, etc.) that enhance trade in a free market and capitalist society, and federal law enforcement to uphold the laws of the constitution. Spare us the billions in waste that go to secure constituencies in individual locales that further corrupts our current political process. A small but effective government that encourages your freedoms rather than one that takes to secure the future of its evil self. Think about it and let me know.

Am I Homophobic? Probably.

"It's fun to be at the YMCA, it's fun to be at the YMCA." Sorry but how can an image like this one not invoke memories of the Village People? There you sit laughing madly at the television screen during their very "open" performance. These nice nancing fellas found themselves captured on film at the Gay Pride Parade in New York City on June 24, 2007. I almost couldn't tell but the princess in the middle of this photograph pretty much gave it away. "Oh you stop it Scottie!" As a registered homophobic personality I rarely spend much time giving any creedence to gay rights issues because frankly I could care less. The gay and lesbian community pretty much forces you and I to know what their platform is whether you give a damn or not. Can you imagine the uproar of a heterosexual pride parade? Men and their wives or girlfriends dressed in casual attire marching through New York without having raided the wardrobe of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. The progressive secularists would descend like possessed raptors upon those traditional couples almost immediately railing against such a mean spirited attempt to force an agenda on those same sex hotties. Yes it's an example of a societal and journalistic double standard. The Gay Pride Parade in New York does little more than magnify the distance between homosexuals and those coined the "religious" right by the media.

Look close neighbor, those opposing homosexuality may not be as religiously right and crazy as the network and cable news anchors tell you. Most opponents are not religious at all but simply members of a mainstream majority. Yeah I know, since when did the majority in this country have any business in saying anything? Don't you know dummy, only subversive subcultures have their voices heard on the six o'clock news. Sorry Elton, even those that don't go to church on Sunday find homosexuality at the very least icky and most often flat out disgusting.

Now, do I stand out on a street corner with a sign extolling to gays in my area that the wages of sin is death? No I do not. If I did have gays I knew about in my neighborhood I certainly wouldn't waste my time trying to convert them to Christianity by ranting at them maniacally. Just because I'm a little obsessive compulsive I'd probably devise a thick metal butt pad to wear in the back of my pants that would just add that little extra bit of security that my wandering mind may require. I may have expressed my hope that the more vocally astute gays shut up and stay in the closet because no one would bring up the issue if it was kept private and held close to the vest. You know the old line. What you don't see can't hurt you. I have more class than that. I don't have to have TV cameras and news coverage to force my thoughts and beliefs on you.

I would venture a guess and say most people like me that don't support the fairy agenda pose little risk to the gay community because they never see us. I don't seek the spotlight that in essence forces them to hear what I have to say. They don't care anyway so why would I? Why can't the fag army do the same? Just continue believing not in Adam and Eve but Adam and Steve and we'll all live in harmony. Your hedonistic displays of guttural animalism during events like the parade do not make us respect your position but rather make us run to the toilet in a painful fit of giggle barfing. Yes it can happen at the same time.

The first gay couple I ever encountered did little more than possess me with morbid curiosity. They were a hand holding couple and happened to be African American men. The he-guy or male role player of the two was a big man dressed in a T-shirt and jeans like most other males in that area or demographic. His she-guy partner certainly took on the role of the loving wife-man or girlfriend-guy. Although the colors escape me after so many years I do remember a brightly colored woman's swim suit complete with leg warmers and white tennis shoes adorning this male-female hopeful. Even then my natural reaction was to take notes with my butt placed firmly up against the plate glass entrance of the establishment.

Listen to me please. I don't have any history of confrontation with anyone in the gay community. I am generally kind and receptive to everyone I meet as I would be to a gay person because if no one blurted out they were gay I wouldn't know the difference right? I'm heterosexual and keep to myself. Why can't you in gay land do the rest of us the same common courtesy? Staying in the closet has its advantages and benefits for everyone. We that feel homosexuality is an unnatural sin don't usually rail against what we can't see and hear, do you get it? Forcing your agenda on us by publicly displaying a skewed value system will only deepen the divide. If you want to have a philosophical argument continue gathering data to prove us wrong. Let's have a dialogue around a table in a civil and fact-finding way. When you convince me that an outie is an innie and that burying a bone in the backyard is natural even if reproduction from it is impossible, you will have really done something. I have heard the nature argument before but how come no one ever ventures into a cerebral argument? If someone is overweight they diet with willpower to change that destructive behavior. If someone is a kleptomaniac many times some limited therapy helps them in ceasing to rob the Ben Franklin blind. A dog wants to bark but a rolled up newspaper or bark collar changes the behavior. Someone needs to address this issue from a behavioral platform complete with testing analysis. Fair after all is fair. I'll catch you all later.

"YMCA, it's fun to be at the YMCA."

Clinton or Obama, Do They Really Represent Your Views?

Take a damn good look at this picture. You pro-choice supporters and MoveOn.org fanatics did this. Please spare me the emotional shock and indignation. What in the hell did you think your "viewpoint" and "opinions" would result in if put to action? I served as a coroner for many years and bloodied my hands with just about every macabre deed humans inflicted upon themselves and others. A picture like this still twists me to the ground and to this day I cannot tell you if anger or sadness consumes me more. If any of you think that late term abortions ceased after the "Partial-birth abortion ban of 2003" you better do a little investigating to fully understand the differences in jargon between partial birth and late term abortions. Can abortions be performed to save a mother's life? Yes they can and the procedure is completely legal. Can an abortion be performed to minimize risks to a mother's health and her ability to have children in the future? If you think they can't you're really kidding yourself. There is an army of government officials (Senators and Representatives) that redirect your taxpayer monies to legalized murder clinics across the country. Your taxpayer dollars still fund physicians that perform these vicious acts with little more concern than if they were surgically removing a plantar's wart.


The point reaches far beyond the issue of whether late term or partial birth abortions should be performed and how many actually are performed as decided by a doctor "looking into circumstances regarding the health of the mother." Pro-abortion activists have swayed the public consciousness to believe in the absolute lunacy of their proposition. Where does life begin? We think life begins here because the cellular transfer of blah results in blah and blah doesn't happen until blah moves two inches to the left. Abortion supporters through the exquisite parsing of medical and legal terminology determined for you (not with your participation) that some galactic scientific controversy exists because no one really knows when the life of a baby begins. So much for intelligent and modern science. Even Darwin would regard this argument as delving into a world of at least mild political retardation. I'm sorry, I'll call the baby a fetus to be fair. So if you look at the photograph of the murdered infant above I think we can agree that the child looks viable and capable of sustained life. Obviously I don't know the exact circumstances of the child above but for the sake of a sane argument let's say that this child was vacuumed and crushed based on the mother's decision or "choice." What was the state of this baby, infant, little person, or fetus prior to what you see at the tragic and grisly end? At some point during or after the female egg's fertilization by male semen was there ever a chance that this innocent child could've possibly evolved into something else? Have any mothers ever went to a gynecologist or obstatrician after becoming impregnated only to hear the earth shattering news that what's inside them is not a child but a lizard, platypus, or baby hippo instead? "You know Mrs. Smith we in the medical community can never quite tell what's going to develop after what we term impregnation. Apparently something went very wrong during the zygote phase. Would you like to have a baby hippo or would you like to discuss termination? By the way we'll leave the father or husband out of this because the courts, abortion supporters, and general public believe him to be inconsequential. If you choose to have the hippo we'll be happy to contact the San Diego Zoo to discuss the possibility of adoption"


Where does "His Highness" Barack Obama and the "Shrillish" Mother Clinton stand on this issue? Probably where you thought they would. On March 12, 2003 Hillary Clinton voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except to protect the maternal life of the mother. This was Senate bill S.3, vote number 2003-51. She generally supports the death penalty for heinous crimes committed against innocent victims. Does anyone but me see the not too subtle juxtaposition here? His "Barackness" takes what liberal elitists coin the moral high ground. Obama though claiming to be a stalwart member of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago is also an abortion supporter. In proving my theory that Obama is mostly eloquence and extremely short on substance, listen to this. Regarding abortion Obama minces, stumbles, and as is the case in most of his stump speeches says absolutely nothing. "This issue is very complicated for me. This issue rises above the moral dimensions surrounding it." Obama you're such a coward. Just come out and say that you unequivocally support abortion and for those of us with brains do us the common courtesy of taking church and Christ away from your affiliations. We prefer you don't cling to "token" religious symbolism. There is nothing about church, Christ, and abortion that fit together at all unless you're denouncing the practice. You too support the death penalty for those convicted of committing heinous crimes on innocent victims so you and Hillary both talk the talk but stumble on the walk.


Let's end this with some concrete observations. Life begins at conception. Any argument to the contrary is nothing more than smoke-filled coffee house crap.


What you see in the photograph at the top of the page is no different in substance than a like photograph of a gunshot wound to the head of an infant.


Abortions are performed after sustainability on a regular basis. Yes that means after fingers clutch and little feet kick. Rarely do ultrasounds indicate that the growing infant has an elephant's trunk instead of the usually recognizable human features.


If we buy the only argument that can be made in that little babies in mothers' wombs are human children, we have and continue to fail miserably. Isn't it sad to see the American justice system provided more representation and safeguards to O.J. Simpson than to innocent babies incapable of finding a voice of their own? Are abortion supporters really going to say children like those pictured above don't feel pain or the warmth and closeness of their mother?


Perhaps Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will volunteer to attend a workshop in which I'll volunteer to teach them some of what I feel would be practical examples of some of the vicious procedures implemented. Don't fret, I'd only close the vice or squeeze the forceps hard enough to give them a sustainable headache in which they soon wouldn't forget. After all, are they going to claim they feel more pain than the child above? I don't "scientifically" see how they could.


Regardless what side of the debate you find yourself on let's at least make the dialogue honest and on even footing. The radical feminism movement wholly supports any and all forms of abortion because of their honest intention to destroy the traditional family which in the long run equates to genocide. Abortion concerns regarding a mother's health represents an infintismal percentage of the cases under discussion. The truth is, abortion in modern times is about an anything goes culture steeped in flawed moral relativism. Modern abortion is ultimately about selfish choices and the inability to assume responsibility for personal choices and a destructive lifestyle. Don't let the abortion supporters fool you. Choice for protection of the mother in factual analysis pales in comparison.


I'll talk to you later in the week.

There's Only One L.A.

I remember growing up like a lot of other kids in the 70's and 80's enjoying peace and prosperity and thinking quite astutely that the world was my oyster. Growing up in a town of 1000 people isolated me from the reality of what was really out there in the big world and how exciting it could be. Yes, until adulthood I had no idea that everybody in America didn't go cow tipping! We had to travel by car over 250 miles just to get to an airport with scheduled passenger service. We couldn't really consider old Paul Winters and his Super Cub "scheduled" passenger service even though he could boast at least four successful forced landings after engine failures. He only tore off one wing and knocked down one power pole during those emergencies. I think that record stands yet today.

There wasn't a hell of a lot of hustle and bustle to deal with in my farming and ranch hometown in eastern Montana except for the occasional traffic jam caused by old man Johnson at the one yellow flashing light in town, you know the one at the Corner Bar and the abandoned hotel. He'd start out into the only "downtown" intersection in that yellow 72 Ford pickup and invariably stop in the middle because in the distance he saw a farm truck meandering it's way through the middle of town destined for the grain elevator. So he'd sit there until the truck passed his precarious position in the middle of the intersection a couple of minutes later making its way at a blistering 20 miles per hour. Morning traffic was such a headache! Our morning commute to school never exceeded about 8 minutes and that encompassed the entire walk and a quick stop at the old fountain drug store on the way.

One of the fondest memories of childhood consistently remains the old theater downtown. It closed for a period of years before reopening and even now the interior looks exactly the same as it did when my parents went to movies there in the 1960's. I still maintain that regardless of the many home entertainment systems available out there, the only way to see a movie is to see it on the big screen and allow yourself to be drawn into the fantasy for the next couple of hours. The house lights darken as the smell of buttered popcorn wafts through the seating area. Your pulse quickens in anticipation as the sound booms through and beyond the flickering previews on the screen. Don LaFontaine, the voice of Hollywood, captures your entire attention as that voice of his pulls you into the images of the theatrical trailers presented on the screen with that signature and commanding speaking style. Nothing felt quite like going to the movies in that old theater.

I'd always wanted to go to Los Angeles as a kid but never had the means or opportunity. I wondered how neat it must be to wander through Hollywood or the streets of Beverly Hills. I'd only seen pictures of the mansions and palatial estates but wouldn't it be something to go there and meet a movie star or see the magic of a movie set! I guess it makes a mark on you knowing that L.A. represents the entertainment capital of the world (you New Yorkers can argue your point for NYC) and most of what mesmerized you in that old hometown theater had its origins in this city on the west coast. At any rate, Los Angeles seemed to me as much about the concept of fantasy as it did the pavement, people, cars, and beaches.

I finally got my chance to descend on the L.A. basin in 1990. Although it wasn't in the way I would have preferred as in being discovered as the next Clooney, Pitt, or Cruise, I at least got to see the city for the first time. I was working for a guy that hauled pigs, yes oinking pigs into a processing plant in Vernon in east Los Angeles. We loaded them at different Hutterite colonies in Montana and switched off driving sleeper team in the semi-truck so that we would make L.A. in less than 32 hours from Great Falls. I know, the jokes are just waiting to spring from your lips but I'll continue anyway communicating this redneck adventure to you as best I can. I remember looking around in Victorville thinking wow this must be it and was shocked to know that even the suburbs of L.A. still waited some 20 miles in the distance.

We dropped down El Cajon and past the San Bernardino split and continued south on I-15. Shortly after passing the entrance to I-10 we travelled west on 60 or the Pomona freeway. About 45 miles later I got my first really good shot of the Los Angeles skyline, kind of like that early morning scene featuring Richard Gere in "Internal Affairs." I guess Los Angeles isn't known for having the most domineering skyline in comparison with other cities but for a small town kid like me it was still pretty cool. I remember arriving in that area at about 2:00 in the afternoon and the term concrete jungle finally took on a reality it never had before that day. The 60, I-5, I-10, the 101 all came together and twisted over and under like cornonary arteries feeding pulsating heart muscle. One wrong move and we would have been stuck as some of those neighborhoods down there didn't afford a lot of room or patience for truck movement and emergency manuevering.

You had to be in the proper lane to make the Soto Street exit and God forbid if you missed it. California interstate exits and on-ramps aren't necessarily designed for large vehicles to make a quick exit and turnaround on. The pace of traffic and precise handling required force you to be at the top of your driving game. Some of the corners are tight to make with that trailer coming around and car traffic views you with contempt and disgust. We make a left on Slauson or Vernon I don't remember which and enter the cramped parking lot, back up to an unloading chute, and offload our smelly squealing cargo that by now are quite grumpy after having ridden in a trailer for 1500 miles. Yes, after unloading I donned coveralls and shoveled over 1300 pounds of pig waste from the trailer so that we could load a legal load of cattle later in the week. I remember leaving the Farmer John's plant and traveling north on I-5 up past Dodger Stadium and seeing all the signs along the freeway indicating the exits for Burbank. Up over the grapevine and into the south end of the San Joaquin Valley and Los Angeles is a distant memory in the past. It was exciting to see and a little scary too. I felt ill-equipped to match the pace with which people seemed to live.

Since that first trip in 1990 I've made many like it over the past 18 years into the L.A. basin. I've hauled flatbed loads of decorative moss rock into Rolling Hills Estates near Lomita and plastic pipe from Ontario to Yakima, WA. I've delivered onions in Commerce at 3:00 am and I've hauled malt barley from Spiritwood, ND to the Miller Brewing Company in Irwindale. I've delivered barley to Anheuser Busch and lumber to a small yard in Van Nuys and loaded roofing granules in Corona destined for Owens-Corning in Portland, OR. It's still exciting to see the city and it still is a little stressful to navigate a large tractor-trailer unit there but I find myself more confident having developed somewhat of a truce with the city and her traffic.

I still marvel that I found myself in the city I wondered so much about as a young person after some dangerous and tragic times. I remember going into Vernon in 1992 shortly after the L.A. riots and seeing a cop literally on every corner. I remember the network of concrete overpasses that collapsed just north of the Santa Clarita exit several years ago. I passed under what had collapsed only days before that quake. I was in the city the day the Alaska Airlines flight plunged into the Pacific after unsuccessfully trying to navigate the damaged plane to LAX. It doesn't really mean anything to anyone else but I've developed my own bond with L.A. I've yet to be discovered, meet a star, stare at the ocean from the Santa Monica pier, or wander the streets of Beverly Hills but it really doesn't matter. To me there will always be only one L.A.

Planned Congressional Apology to American Indians

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas attached an apology to a bill subsidizing Native American tribes. In it America at large apologizes for wrongs committed against Native nations for misdeeds and depridations of all shapes and colors in years past. Most Indian leaders and activists say they appreciate the gesture but the tone to me indicates they wouldn't oppose a boat load of reparations either. Did the United States government commit harm and acts of ill will against tribes and their members? Absolutely. Were tribal women and children slaughtered during armed conflicts with armed United States soldiers? Indeed they were. Did the natural progression of humankind including western expansion in the United States and its territories have a negative effect on the nomadic and hunting culture of the American Indian? It no doubt did.

Okay, that is as much boo-hooing as I can muster. First and foremost, the Native nations that we support with taxpayer dollars did not spring from the ethos as activists and sympathizers would have you believe. They are not indigenous to the parcels of Earth they now reside on. They had to come here just like everybody else did. What you say? Oh, they were here FIRST? That's like saying I built my house on this block first so no else can build now because I'm indigenous to this piece of land. Hogsnickers.

What about the modern reservations themselves? They are a blight on the countryside and signs of the oppression of an earlier and far less advanced time. They are filthy and the elected leaders touting their tribal sovreignty fail in managing the economic and social issues of their Indian culture. The reservation system is a disaster. Why don't we cut off the taxpayer money and disband reservations altogether? Yeah we'd be breaking a treaty or two but for goodness sake the current system is unarguably broken. Why couldn't we focus from the beginning on assimilating Indian culture into modern America thus allowing Indians to reap the rewards of a free market capitalistic society? It worked with immigrants from Italy, Germany, and Ireland. You've heard "out of many one." If anything, subsidizing Indian life is proof positive that entitlement programs are destined to fail and promoting a culture of victimization and dependence further dooms the future for these people and generations of their children.

Okay, bad old America did bad things during conflicts especially during westard expansion in the mid to late 1800's. But were the atrocities any more harmful than innocent deaths in any conflict in any time period? How about the 3000 innocent lives lost on September 11, 2001. Was that loss of life in one day more or less tragic than what we're analyzing here? How many innocent victims were killed and labeled as collateral damage in World War One or World War Two? Just how mean and cruel was the American government when viewed objectively? Why don't you do a little research and see just how friendly and cordial the Sioux tribes were in dealing with other tribes in other geographic locations on this continent. How about the gentle persuasion of the Blackfeet when it came to interactions with other tribes? These tribes gained power, hunting territory, and assets (stolen horses for one) through absolute and vicious murder, theft, and enslavement. There wasn't much need for retail shops in this enterprise unless you sprung for a hatchet and arrow shop. They weren't being attacked but rather provoking attacks to propel themselves to absolute dominance within any area a chieftain saw fit. Do Native Americans now believe that the nomadic hunters in the 1800's possessed the divine right to slow the progression of humankind and its science, culture, and advancements from populating the world? Bad is bad but it swings both ways baby, remember that.

What about the notion that Native Americans are the true and most natural environmentalists of all time? Certainly a modern assessment of this claim is indisputably proven to be false. What about during nomadic times? There is plenty of stunning evidence to suggest that tribal encampments were moved only after polluting one area until it became uninhabitable and then moving to the next and continuing the pattern. You don't like what I'm saying? Take a drive sometime and make sure you pay enough attention to look out the window as you're passing through. The truth hurts but denying it will never fix anything.

In regards to this Congressional apology Steve Ortiz, tribal chairman of the Prairie Band Potowatomi Nation in northeast Kansas called the apology "a great gesture" but said he doesn't want the Congress to lose sight of the more practical needs of American Indians. "In the end, it's Congress' committment to helping the Native nations with healthcare, education, housing, and infrastructure. That's what counts," Ortiz said. Well Steve, how about helping yourselves? Why don't you promote the dismantling of entitlement driven reservation systems and focusing on promoting your people as capable components of American society rather than victims living with ghosts of hurts committed 150 years ago? In claiming Indian healthcare could be better there are those of us who have no healthcare at all and I certainly don't expect the government to pick up the tab. The only help you can hope for is helping yourself out of a hole created by being all too eager to suckle from the teat of America's coffers and failed entitlements. Invest in your children, stop the social chaos of unwed fatherless pregnancies on the reservations, and give your people the hope that the best way to flourish is to break self-imposed bonds and trek beyond the status quo.

Global Warming, Don't Buy That Ton of Sunscreen Just Yet.

What is that creature up in the tree? Do you see it dear? Is that some kind of Arctic bear escaping the perils of the polar ice caps? No, no, no. It's just a dirty, smelly, and disoriented Woody Harrelson. Should we take him some food? No, I see he's getting by with a jug of lemonade up there. Those green groups could publish television advertisements featuring any one of a hundred wacko environmentalists like B-actor Harrelson and his elitist friends. Each commercial ends with, "Coming to a tree near you." That would explain the mess on my new lawn I guess.

There are a number of issues in which the positions of both 2008 Democratic presidential contenders should scare us to death. Suffice it to say Republican candidate John McCain doesn't lag far behind. I argue with those that claim some Democrats and far-left liberals (including Republican liberal McCain) disavow religion. This whole global warming phenomenon fits that bill for them quite nicely as Christianity does for a majority of others. For political leftists "An Inconvenient Truth" is the spoken word and that in and of itself ends the controversy. We cause the warming, we need to blame ourselves, and we will be held accountable. How does all that happen without destroying an economy, jobs, growth, and standard of living? You better read on because it doesn't.

I find it interesting that far left activists and politicians including Clinton, Obama and House Speaker Pelosi support punishing oil companies with 18 billion dollars worth of fines and carbon taxes which Nancy will then redirect to her green constituencies with marked agendas. Unless the excited utterances of "clean environment do-gooders" paralyzed a clear majority of American taxpayers and maybe it has, have we forgotten that for at least the next 15 years our economy will be petroleum based and right now it hovers at nearly $3.50 per crippling gallon? The American consumer that relies on oil for survival cannot afford much more "environmental" punishment than this current market painfully inflicts. That is why the cause/effect relationship between human carbon output and its effect on the environment and this possibly insignificant warming cycle deserves so much attention.

Al Gore's dedication to a cause like the environment may under more direct and honest circumstances be admirable and worthy of praise. Unfortunately for Gore and his minions, the premise of the movie and message is based on agenda driven science rather than a reliance on accepted data retrieval, interpretation, and thesis. In other words the science is molded to fit a given hypothesis. A supposedly unbiased mainstream press fuels the fire towards this end. Gore thrives on the contrived adulation while millions of Americans unwittingly soak it up during network and cable news broadcasts. "Hey, when does the movie start?" Al Gore is a demogogue supported by mainstream press agents including those producers and journalists putting out propaganda like "Scorched Earth" and "Planet in Peril" and other such mindless drivel. There has been no formal debate against Gore and his supposed consensus of climate experts and a cadre of scientists. Maybe there is a small sliver of hope in the coming days.

The Heartland Institute will host The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change at the Marriot New York Marquis Times Square Hotel in the city from March 2 through 4th 2008. Hundreds of scientists given no voice by Gore, those like him, and the liberally biased mainstream press will be allowed to give their viewpoints and dissenting opinions on climate change. That will be a nice break from what is force fed to you through the tube-media and tabloid publications like the New York Times. Before you pipe up and say they're a funded arm of an oil company or lobby keep in mind they've accepted no more than 5% of their budget from any oil company and no money from them in the last two years. Ask some of Gore's supporters how much money they've received from the radical MoveOn.org people and their Socialist/Fascist agenda to propagate a debate-less theory.

Al Gore and other liars involved in the fear mongering environmental consensus club have been asked to join in the debate but as usual most if not all of them declined to attend. They never asked organizations like the Heartland Institute for comments or debate during their moment in the sun and just as expected when politely asked to attend this conference there is no response. If these facts are so self-evident you'd think Gore would jump at the chance to put an end to the debate once and for all in a venue that would surely make him immortal. That in and of itself should make you interested in pursuing the issue further and keeping a healthy distance on reports from mainstream media outlets.

I hope the scientists at this conference cover the following topics or at least touch on them. You keep track too.

1. How do you explain warming during what has been coined the Medieval Period? There certainly was no carbon output from industrialization at this time.

2. What effect does ubanization (i.e., paving and construction at points of measurement) have on the consensus scientists readings and trends?

3. What proof do consensus scientists give showing for a fact that we are not in a recovery from the "Little Ice Age?"

4. Is there scientific data suggesting that warming played any part in the chain of events that led to dinosaur extinction?

5. Isn't a quasi-measurement involving carbon outputs always a lagging indicator? How would we know now what effect these outputs have if we have no scientific way to determine this?

Keep an eye on the debate and hit www.heartland.org to keep up with this all important debate and fleecing. And by the way, if Woody doesn't get out of your tree by next Tuesday I've heard he can be lured with the assistance of some mixed nuts and a pellet gun. I'll see you all on Arbor Day.

Hillary is sure to become one mean badger.

As you can see I snapped this picture of an unhappy Hillary Clinton shortly after another one of her stunning primary collapses in Wisconsin, affectionately known as the "Badger State." (That is one hell of a metaphoric segway if I do say so myself.) Actually for you by the book science types out there the correct breed of vermin shown here is the "Marxist Badger." Whenever Hillary stands on a stage forcing herself to smile for the network cameras, smile at ugly mothers with ugly children, and smile with clueless wellwishers I can assure you my gag reflex simply responds uncontrollably. I've never seen a camera angle that actually captures her knee high jackboots. Come on now NBC, we know you love her but let's see the leather! Now that the nomination is slipping from her grasp not even the invocation of the superdelegate ploy saves her unless it is reported to me with great joy that the popular vote results have been thrown for another lustful Clinton power play. Take that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson! The liberal fanatics would shred each other in riotous fashion which would play out sadly on our television screens. You have to admit it would be far more entertaining than an ultimate fighting or American Gladiator marathon. Hillary's corrupt and loose zippered husband's attempts to bolster his man-wife's campaign backfired because it simply reminded the American populace of the Clinton scandal machine and 25 years of misdeeds and power addiction. Luckily enough for the far-left faithful, frontrunner Barack Hussein Bin Laden Obama can arguably be seen as the most liberal candidate the Democratic Party can offer up on its pyre of deceptive lies and fascist ideology. Yes I said fascist because isn't it interesting that the Democratic candidates are the only ones that tout the state's control of most everything central to the operation of the country on a daily basis. The rank and file Democratic Stalinists are simply abuzz with excitement at the prospect of not just one but two wonderful candidates with visions for making the state or your adherence to its directives all encompassing. Hooray! Hooray! Government programs and redistributed income for everyone! If that fails, we'll just create another government program to fix that one and another one for that one until maybe with any luck the United States government will employ a majority of American people like well trained robots. We'll pay 50% income tax to feed the machine and for once we can all be equal! Laugh now but it's coming.

So Hillary loses and slithers back to her hole in New York, then what? Barack "I went to a radical Islamist school as a young man but have forgotten to bring it up" Obama easily captures the White House in November running against an angry old white guy that has no chance against vile and vicious media smears by liberal activist organizations like the New York Times and NBC News. Hordes of indoctrinated followers will camp on lawns in Washington D.C. and at the National Mall after Obama's inauguration. They follow him because he promised change in glowing terms with the deepest of emotional sincerity. He didn't promise much else on the substance end but he did promise change. Specifics on policy apparently serve no purpose to the modern voting bloc of apathetic and uninformed Americans now comparing Obama to JFK. I'm not sure what positives made JFK such a revered leader either other than he was a young man taken tragically by an assassin's bullet. I think Obama supporters must postulate the following: "Man, life is so hard I'm just glad that Barack came along to CHANGE circumstances for me. I just can't cope and he'll TAKE CARE OF ME and that makes him just the greatest. Have you heard him speak? I don't remember what he said but he said it so eloquently. He said the government is going to provide healthcare paid for by all of us at large. Can you pass the fries with that burger?"

We are in a mess and this Republican administration has left loyal conservatives like me behind. Couple this with a preoccupation of style over substance and I have no doubt in my swelling mind that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. I guess looking on the bright side, his four years in office will probably destroy liberalism as we know it if we're around to reap those rewards. Apparently Barack has a fondness for his old buddy in Iran. He wants to sit down and acquiese and capitulate to madmen in Iran, Syria, and North Korea. Terror will again gain a strong foothold due to our cowardice. All of America is wishing for an Obama presidency. Dear God be awfully careful what you wish for.

Hold on till we meet again. By the way, have you noticed that your morning coffee seems to have more flavor or maybe a "Barackness" to it since his stunning rise to the top? I was just wondering.