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.

Barack Obama? Could Hillary be right? I shudder.

I must not be completely rid of my recent bout with influenza yet. Apparently during a moment of viral haze I wandered into the garage and consumed either weed spray or really old paint chips. I actually agree with Hillary Clinton! The conservative voices alive and dead that so delicately formed my social and fiscal outlook must be spinning in the grave or at the very least choking on their Rainbow Stew. Hillary Clinton, the great socialist Satan and me the great right wing nut job in agreement? If I had the poison pill I'd probably swallow it.

As Hillary finds herself behind in the delegate count this week and more importantly further behind in the momentum count, the gloves are coming off her bony pointed fingers. Basically Hillary and I agree on one substantive point regarding Barack Bob Shiny Pants. Barack's message and leadership skills are based on what? Yeah that's a cricket chirping and a pin dropping. Oh no, the room goes silent. I've been saying it for some time because early in the primary process I didn't really believe Barack had a legitimate shot at the Democratic nomination. Barack is all snake oil and no substance. I think he enters a speech event full of doe-eyed elitists that want to feel so good about themselves for electing the first African American president that they forget to ask themselves if he's qualified. We'll get back to the race thing in a minute.

What exactly is it about old Shiny Pants? He's a nice looking guy and talented speaker or "communicator" but what is he communicating? I can guarantee you he is passing along nothing of substance. I want to change Washington, I want to change our place in the world, I want to change underwear. My God people you're electing the leader of the free world here not the next American Idol. Oh wait, he's a lawyer. That's good news. So is Hillary and her corrupt significant other the one and only old "Slick Willie Magic Zipper." Lawyers are at the root of all evil that is the modern House of Representatives and Senate in Washington D.C. What else qualifies Barack? He's such a great communicator in reaching out and touching our soul. Yeah? Lassie reached out and touched my soul when she found little Jimmy in the well but I didn't run out and paint "Lassie for President" signs either.

Has Barack sponsored one piece of legislation during his extensive 18 month iconic career of serving our country as a senator? The answer is no. If you want to elect a token "communicator" to make yourself feel good and warm as most liberals crave, why not elect Denzel Washington? I mean Denzel got an Oscar for his role in Training Day and if ever a token award was given that was it. What about this race thing anyway? Why is Barack for all intents and purposes to be the first African American nominee, he's half white isn't he? Couldn't I just as easily call him a white candidate as a black one? Why is the black now more important than the white?

If you're a Democrat and want to vote true conviction vote for Hillary. Even if she's wrong about nearly everything and would like to create a Politburo in Washington at least she's got real substance even if that substance is medieval and deadly. If you're bent on voting for Barack because he's mixed race and that would make you feel damn good about yourself you better think about what you're doing. I don't care if he's been voted the most liberal senator in America. What has he got to offer all of us in this time of war against radical Islamic fundamentalism? Sadly he has nothing and I'm afraid his supporters are too infatuated with his Hollywood traits rather than even the most meager substance and that friends will certainly cost us all in the end.

I'll see you all soon.

Miller Time

I've waited far too long to pay tribute to a best friend and all around superb human being I've had the pleasure of knowing quite well for nearly 15 years now. As often as people move and shift in modern life while changing jobs and focus, it is really no surprise how we lose touch with those we call the closest of friends. Not in this case. Sheriff Thomas K. Miller and I have known each other since late 1993 and maintained a closeness (no, not in a manly way) ever since. We still to this day engage in that gross police humor and I always tease him about me dating his very dedicated and sweet wife. (What he doesn't know won't hurt him or better yet won't hurt me since I live miles away now!) I graduated from the law enforcement academy in Montana that year and began thumbing for a job in a rural area that fit my eastern Montana background and interests. I found my first law enforcement gig in north central Montana. Back then "big Tom" was a deputy and a very well respected one at that in the city and county we served. I was 22 years old then and when I first met T.K. I thought he was just a mountain of a man. Once you spoke to him you would find immediately that he is a gentle soul with an appreciation for humor (gallows or otherwise) and unwavering honesty.

No, this is not an obituary as he is very much alive and running things in his department efficiently and competently (Yes, I could probably do better but don't have the time to challenge him in making those thousands of lip impressions on the rears of local luminaries and so on,,,.....) as he always has since his ascenscion to the office. When men and women work in a profession such as law enforcement the personal bonds are enhanced because of the trust involved watching each other's backs in dicey situations. You see just about every ugly and heart wrenching facet of humanity and eventually every officer's emotions run the gamut from intense adrenalin rushes to panic and fear and to the depths of sadness. That's where a friend and fellow officer like Sheriff Miller became so important on a personal level to his officers.

If we were on the way to a hot call involving guns, knives, or violence it was always comforting to hear from dispatch that 11-1 was responding. (Although once he clipped that Sheriff's badge on his chest he came in to the office wearing polo shirts, a yuppie holster with that jamming Colt .45, and an apparent medical condition that precluded him from ever venturing out after dark.) You knew you could count on his physical strength but more importantly you knew you could count on his quiet resolve and disarming personality.

But more important than the dispatch calls and late night laughs while on patrol was the way he held the department together in times of great loss. I won't lament for too long but those of us on the old crew lost a great young friend just entering his prime as a man and new father. Tom handled it all with grace and poise and carried most of us that were close on his shoulders. That is only one of many instances in our past I could reflect on. His leadership pulled the officers in the department together and made them friends too. Tom faciliated the best of camaraderie in all of us. (Except for Weber and Novotny, very socially inept!)

So in closing I want to thank Tom for being a good friend and someone you could always look up to, literally and figuratively. You are a salt of the earth type of fellow and anyone that knows you will be better for it. Now before your head swells up too much (you know what I mean) I plan on leaving you with a few funny words or deeds from the old days with some of the boys.

Tom M.- I know what happened out at the dikes east of town. Pepto anyone?
Bryan W.- Just the most fast talking and quick thinking perv on the planet.
Scott M.- I died laughing after she blew too hard on that Intoxilyzer!
Greg S.- So tight a jackhammer wouldn't do. Steaks from Jim's freezer?
Shawn- My God a date with a chiropracter or driving school instructor.
Larry-I know you know every nook and cranny in the city. Scary, very scary.
Tim-George Jetson's jammy eyes? I thought you had him in Whitewater.
Dan R.-I never knew monkeys got nosebleeds.
Alan-I taught you everything you know; too bad it didn't stick.
Burt-I know why you take those long supper breaks you bad dog.
Bones-An old time croney like me. Someday the government will arrest us.
Mike G.-I had the slack pulled out of the trigger for you that night.
Travis L.-OK until a perp had intestinal problems.
Tye F.- I never knew executing a sick horse could be so damn funny!
Scott S.-You kept it rockin' from the Delta to the DMZ!

Well Tom, a little trip down memory lane I hope you'll share with the guys.
Take care and keep on fighting the good fight and remember from your old friend,

Burma Shave.

Pimping Chelsea Clinton? Ugh.

David Shuster, an anchor at MSNBC, apparently ruffled the Clinton campaign's feathers the other day because he accused the campaign of "pimping out Chelsea Clinton" in an attempt to gain more recognition for her mother in Hollywood. During an interview with an analyst the discussion centered on Clinton's campaign and its dwindling coffers. Shuster then asked an obvious question about Chelsea's calls to celebrities in an attempt to garner high profile exposure and a few $50's and $100's for her mother's war chest. I said war chest.

The Clinton campaign reacted unfavorably to the unintended slight of the unhandsome and toothy former first daughter. The head of MSNBC and NBC News vehemently condemned Shuster and his ill fated metaphoric slight. I would imagine both of these failing news organizations panicked because the thought of losing Bill and Hillary Clinton's trust and favor signified the crumbling of their very own Holy Grail. NBC News in general maintains the modern journalistic standard in its propagation of left leaning and biased news coverage. At almost every chance both networks cast favorable light on liberal viewpoints and insist on slanting hard news stories as far to the left as editors of the networks deem acceptable. I am sure that at least one editor at MSNBC nearly swallowed his uppers when Shuster humorously accused Hillary Clinton of callously using her daughter to pander.

Let's sort this out and state a few facts. Of course the Clintons and both networks came down hard on Shuster for his remarks. You don't use the restroom where you eat if you catch my drift. Sorry for that old cliche' but I hesitate to use bad words here for fear of upsetting the Clintons or NBC News. They'll slant stories to the left or denigrate conservative values but they never ever cuss and that's a fact Jack. Point number two is also quite obvious. Of course Chelsea is being pimped out by Hillary and her handlers, not dog handlers but political handlers. Chelsea has dog handlers but rarely are they seen on camera. Hillary Clinton would probably sell her daughter to the highest bidder in a prostitution ring in Thailand or pit bull breeder in Des Moines if it benefited her rise to absolute power.

Isn't it funny that one of the most vicious political machines in the history of American politics suddenly tries to capitalize on the fruits of an unintended metaphor that was in fact darn funny even if accidental? I guarantee if Barack Obama or better yet any Republican of your choosing was tied down spread eagle in an interrogation room and Hillary entered with a filet knife in her hand someone would exit the room a falsetto for life. Hillary Clinton weaves her way through the political tapestry of this election season based on slant, half-truths, and a nearly devouring type of contempt for anyone standing in her way or opposing her misguided and all too controlling power agenda. She is as vile and mean spirited as they come so don't feel too sorry for the unintended words uttered by the now job hunting Shuster. A wolverine like Hillary Clinton will turn any positive comment or negative hurt committed against her or someone in her pack into a positive for her sociocommunist and domineering vision for your world.

By the way, just for the intestinal comfort of the information hungry readers and viewers, do not mention "pimping" and Chelsea Clinton in the same sentence. If you don't get it just ask a pool of male voters between the ages of 18 and 30.

Good night and good luck.

Mormon Sympathizer Bashes My Anti-Mormon Piece

I thought I could put this whole "I don't like the Mormon cult" thing to bed but someone of flesh and bone or perhaps a cyber "only" being calling himself Brad tried to haze me on the right path regarding my visceral disdain for Mormonism. I hope Brad scrolls through my blog once in awhile so he can read my retaliation that he so graciously predicted I'd spring from the ethos with. After reading Brad's response to my Glenn Beck piece he thinks I am both bigoted and wrong about Mormons not being Christians. Brad, please forward my article to Jeff Lindsay because your response to me though well intended and marginally drafted remains rather pedestrian on an intellectual level and I'm going to tell you why.

First, don't read too much into what I wrote in the Glenn Beck piece. Please just pull the factual truths from the words. I appreciate your disagreement with my philosophical tenets but calling me an idiot isn't exactly the best way to facilitate a scholarly argument. I am not recommending we revisit the Crusade-like hatred against Mormons and their beliefs or to relive the persecutions in Missouri of 19th Century fare. I know lots of kind and gentle Mormons and completely agree that most live very productive and successful lives while striving for the model of ideal citizenship. Did I tell you that as I pen this rebuttle that I may be voting for Mitt Romney for President because of his conservative ideals and the fact he simply has the best hair of all the presidential candidates? All I said in the piece was that Mormonism begat Mormonism and have a bang up time believing in it if you want to but don't call it Christian. Keep reading Brad. I'll give you factual examples of why I can exclude it from Christianity while you lump the religion into orthodox Christian thought through a variety of petty rationalizations.

Let's use a political example to start. It is perfectly legitimate for a person within the privacy of their own heart and soul to question if he or she subjectively believes that Mitt Romney's Mormon beliefs may or may not influence or control his actions in such a way as to provide any concerns of merit about his governance and direct influence in our lives. Delving further into one's personal faith and belief in Christianity, it is also possible to define the basics of what makes you think your religion is "Christian" and what fundamentals of Mormonism make it not Christian. That is not bigotry. It is a sort of personal comparative analysis. Our government as a controlling body cannot impose any religious tests on its leaders but we can at the most private and intrapersonal level. If a radical Muslim ran for office on a platform of converting America to a rule of Sharia law and could run because of the protections provided in our Constitution against religious discrimination, would you vote for him? If you didn't vote for him would you be a bigot? You just fell into the first trap set by Mormon apologists. You pigeonholed or categorized me as a bigot for disagreeing about the fundamental construction of the Mormon and Christian relationship. This is the first example of why what I wrote and you disagreed with precludes me from being a bigot. I may be an idiot Brad but I disproved your bigot thesis. Now let's talk about the Christian versus Mormon argument in more detail,,,,,,,again.

First, being Christian-like doesn't make you a Christian. Whether you call Christianity a belief system or religion because it's the quickest way to differentiate your preference from other so-called mainstream religions like Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, and so on, simply calling yourself a Christian doesn't automatically adhere you to normative Christian ideology. Most of us that call ourselves mainstream Christians believe in some fundamental things that we believe cannot be manipulated by any other sect, Christian or otherwise. For one you made quite a production about my bad Christianity judging Mormons for having their own sacred texts while orthodox Christian religions have many versions of the same Bible. I think I just made my point there Brad. Normative Christian texts like the King James Bible may be variations of the exact same things while sacred Mormon texts are completely different works authored by "prophets" in modern times. Hmmm, doesn't ring a bell with any of the apostolic gospels to me Brad. I mean look at photograph at the top of this article. "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" has no place in orthodox Christian thought. There is only one testament in what we anti-Mormons call true Christianity and it is called the Holy Bible. Attack its variations if you will but understand we didn't take it upon ourselves to compose texts for a specific sect and have the audacity to call these "additions" Holy more than 1700 years after the deaths of Christ's apostles.

Brad, us dumb old orthodox Christians require just a couple of things to make salvation a reality. You can mostly jiggle it down to faith in Christ as your Lord and Savior and repentance. This is the extremely short version, I simply have too much to cover. Part of the requirement of making any religion accessible for a defense revolves around asking the question can you make the Holy texts fit into some type of historical apostolic context. In other words can we make the Bible fit the times and events of when it was written in context of the overall Christian philosophy. Score that argument as Christians 1, Mormons 0.

How can you call yourself Christian when your "religion" completely endorses modern day prophets or "apostles" and believe their words as Holy prophecy which by any interpretation stretches beyond the bounds of traditional Christian thought? Do we bigoted mainstream Christians reject the Holy Trinity or believe that the Holy Bible is corrupted through a loss of purity? Do we believe that the Holy Scriptual Canon was left open to interpretation of modern day prophets? I've checked my history Brad now you check yours. Ask a Mormon bishop if those outside of Mormonism are Christians. You will find that anyone claiming to be Christian outside the Mormon faith is considered by Mormons to be apostate and known in derogatory terms as Gentiles.

As far as history lessons go Brad you better dig into this issue a little deeper. Check into the validity of Joseph Smith's claims and literature because if Mormons are claiming those texts are Holy they better fit into some type of arguable historical context for the basic sake of validity. Did he copy nearly word for word in the Book of Mormon from previously published texts? Did Smith fraudulently make a boo-boo on the Egyptian funerary documents that were later hidden and translated as funeral rites and not the sacred texts of Abraham like Smith contended? I could go on and on but I'm tired of beating this Mormon argument to death. Is there anthropologic or archaelogic evidence to support the Mormon claim of their life in the "ancient" Americas? No, no, and no again. Mormonism is a choice, a religion, but not a Christian one. I'm not advocating harm or violence or even loud public degradations. Just don't belittle me for trying to convince you and Mormons in general that my views on normative Christianity will get us to heaven while the Mormon way won't. Believe me, they believe the same. You can't just lump your philosophy and force yourself to be included with others just because you accuse others of being bigoted if they refuse or disagree with your advances. Wise up and make sense man. Don't waste time with illogical justifications. It doesn't further the larger argument. I do appreciate the fact that you didn't ask me to go digging through Mormon doctrine for you. Whenever someone tries to discuss their opposition to Mormonism, the Mormons usually say something like "just read our doctrine." What difference does that make? It might make it true to you but serves as concrete proof to me that the whole foundation in that religion is an aberration. It's like saying black is blue and red is green because somebody wrote it on paper and said "accept this as fundamental reality." It doesn't hold water friend.

Hillary Clinton, January 31, 2008 Debate

Liar. Cheat. Windbag. Viper. Abortion. Posterwoman. Vile. Communist. Socialist. Codependent. Sneak. Thief. Venomous. Divisive. Control. Redistribute. Big. Government. Tax. Spend. Immoral. Dove. Coward. Irresponsible. Relativism. Hollywood. Forced. Healthcare. Decreased. Liberty. Terrorism. Danger. Dialogue. Mistake. Carrot. Failure. William Jefferson. Disaster. My Money. Gone. My Freedom. Evaporated.

Thank You and please BEWARE.

In 2008 This Train Is Running Off the Tracks

I like to claim I haven't been alive long enough to make the often heard claim "never in my entire life" because the entirety of my life length is not that spectacular. However, with much regret I am saying that never in my entire life in this country has an important election like this one been represented by the worst possible array of so-called top tier presidential candidates. I mean Good God friends and neighbors. Just pick your head up from your plate of spaghetti or your favorite evening sitcom and spend a couple of minutes analyzing the state of the world we live in. And just like Hillary Clinton I think you'll find, it ain't pretty. To condense our discussion within reasonable limits we'll discuss the two front runners on the Democratic side and the two front runners on the Republican side. Just calling any of these four putzes "front runners" leaves an acidic taste of bile in my mouth as if a dirty carp has been swimming in it. So goodbye to John Edwards the well groomed communist and Rudy Giuliani the old liberal who tried unsuccessfully to wear Ronald Reagan's skin like Bruce Wayne's bat suit. Hello to the remaining imitators of integrity.

As usual Hillary Clinton and her "bozo" bulbous nosed husband banter about like royalty at a swinger's convention. In their case he probably swings and she waits in the car. There is no doubt Hillary wants to revisit the disaster she attempted to inflict on us all through her expensive and chaotically doomed public health care program. State run health care in Socialist countries like Canada, Great Britain, and Norway function like a blind cab driver in New York. It is about government control and her control of the government. Do you get it? Tax the rich and redistribute that earned wealth to those that don't want to earn it. Seems pretty old school liberal to me. Penalize success and reward mediocrity because she's convinced mediocrity that she'll take care of them. And she will, with your tax dollars.

Barack Bob Shiny Pants Obama is hot on the cool coattails of Mr. Hillary Clinton. He is my favorite little Muslim in hiding. Notice that the liberal media doesn't allow any of us to discuss Barack's questionable ties to radical Islam during his formative years in Asia? What is Barack's message anyway? We need to talk with our enemies and bring our troops home regardless of the recent success our surge has had in curbing worldwide terrorism through the destruction of Al-Qaida in Iraq? What experience to you have there Shiny Pants? You're a slick talker in a well pressed suit but I maintain you lack any substance at all. Talk is cheap when your feet are to the fire. What have you done for us in the Senate? You don't deserve to be in this race.

The Republican Party apparently hasn't learned from its mistakes in its disastrous 2006 election. How much motivation do you need to right the ship after watching a pompous shrew like Nancy Pelosi and a cadaver like Harry Reid control the agenda for this country and getting absolutely nothing done in the meantime? And now the Republican choices for President are Mormon Mitt Romney and moderate to liberal to moderate John McCain? Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave. Will the Republican Party abandon the very conservative underpinnings that differentiates it from the moderates on the other side? What happened to social and fiscal conservatism? What happened to our steadfastness in Christianity? The two Republican front runners seem to find themselves juxtaposed. McCain has in the past teamed up on legislation with the fat drunk liberal murderer Ted Kennedy. Did I use enough accurate adjectives? Did I tell you old Ted isn't my favorite? Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper of political convenience (as is McCain) and the antithesis of a Christian candidate. Where is McCain on immigration and the necessity of permanent tax cuts?

I never thought I'd say I may not vote for president when election day rolls around. And I know conservative pundits say I have to vote or else Hillary the Viper or Shiny Pants Obama will rule the Oval Office and how much fun would that be? Maybe that's what it will take to forcibly change course in the Republican Party. Politics has poisoned the pool so to speak and maybe suffering through a Democratic presidency that completely undermines the fabric of who we are and what this country stands for is the only choice. Maybe I'll take the "weather the storm" approach and move up into the mountains for a few years and live off the land away from television airwaves (or digital cables). Maybe when I slide down off the mountain top in four and one half years Hillary will have been impeached and a special election finds that old videos of Ronald Reagan have taken over to fill the remainder of her term. One can always hope!

Goofier Than a Peach Orchard Boar

Yes indeed, I too watched in dismay as Tom Cruise spewed the most wretched and nonsensical hogwash in the "leaked" Scientology indoctrination video. "Paging E.T., a telephone call from Mr. Cruise." Only a Hollywood heavyweight like Cruise could accept any of the fundamental tenets of Scientology as believable. I think those of us with rational viewpoints understand Scientology for what it is, a kind of loony quasi-reality held in close quarters by a few of Lalaland's misguided and tragically simple elite. Scientologists hold as part of their dogma a spiteful disdain for the psychiatric and psychology disciplines. Gee, what a shock I couldn't tell. I'm sorry Tom but watching you in "real" life away from a make believe movie set is even more fantasy than when the cameras are rolling. Even if Scientology's founder the late L. Ron Hubbard could see Cruise, he may be calling for some Paxil to be prescribed for Tom's benefit.

It is down right scary to see how brainwashed Cruise is. Freedom of religion is one thing but I maintain the right to criticize craziness for what it is. "Tom, yoo hoo, you're crazier than a pet coon. Try to focus on what I'm saying and stop drooling." Scientology certainly isn't "religion" as defined by those of us living on Earth but it is rather a science fiction organization sort of like an all chimp Bible study on Planet of the Apes. I mean in one respect Hubbard is a genius because Scientology came about as the direct result of a bet that Hubbard made while sitting stewed in a bar in the early 1950's. Hubbard basically bet he could put a pen to paper and compose the most mindless drivel in which nothing means something and some wacko like Cruise needing something of substance in his life to latch on to would pick it up and run with it not understanding that it was all a big joke and completely meaningless matter. Great goof L. Ron!

Scientology maintains "religious" status for tax protection purposes only. They run it like a giant pyramid scam and its entire goal is to make money through sales of its study materials and other membership goodies in the goal of profit to power base. I do have to laugh at some of the more science fiction aspects of the quasi-religious cult. Thetans, SP's, KSW's, little martians with small hands and pointed teeth, and of course spaceships modeled after the late 1950's model DC-8 jet aircraft. I don't know what they are having for dinner at the Cruise residence tonight but please remember to take your little pointed tinfoil Hershey's Kiss hat off as you pass the microwave. And to think, we make Tom Cruise what he is by spending money to perpetuate his power, wealth, and craziness. Maybe Tom and old L. Ron aren't so crazy after all. "Doctor Cruise, beam me up with that little handheld bugger you used in Mission Impossible Three."

Montana Conservative for President

The Democratic Party over the past 20 years embraces socialism and communism due to liberal influences, the popular swell of moral relativism, and extremist viewpoints. The Republican Party fades from its roots and embraces moderate viewpoints in both the social and fiscal arenas. I truly understand why some people call themselves independent. Rush Limbaugh once said it was intellectually dishonest to call oneself independent. I hope Limbaugh chokes on that cigar. In light of how both parties act and the grossly inept Congress that wastes our money and good faith every moment, there is really no other choice if one is to be clear-headed and free from the disappointing dogma of both the Republican and Democratic Parties. Rush, I'd rather be an independent than a droned dependent led astray because I'm content to accept the ramblings of a few in control of a political party. It just seems like we are destined to parallel the great fall of the Roman Empire.

I maintain a history as a registered Republican but consider myself an independent thinking fiscal and social conservative. That doesn't necessarily equate with the Republican Party anymore. I guess I'm one half Ron Paul Libertarian and one half Ronald Reagan hawk Republican. Notice they both have the name Ron? Scary isn't it. In modern times I think there is room for another party that fits my outlook. Let's see how to blend fiscal and social and conservative. I think I'll call it the Old Timey Party. That settles it.

In this most important 2008 election we are in deep trouble on both sides. On the Democratic side we have three possibilities. Hillary Clinton is a haggard and bogged down Washington insider that embodies corruption traded for power and where winning and maintaining a power base means everything. Barack Hussein Obama has absolutely no experience in doing anything but looking slick and using his looks and communication abilities to woo the sheep standing doe-eyed at his speaking engagements. He has no experience and as a Senator has sponsored no significant legislation on his own. His Muslim background concerns me. We haven't made it to this point in time based on the tenets of Islam. We've made it on Christian principles. Barack joined a Christian church because he had to. If that attitude is prejudicial, so be it. John Edwards is just to socially socialist for me. The government must be the controlling entity on Earth rather than individual freedom. The government controls the equality of all under its umbrella unless you're John Edwards. You then get to control the government and the citizens under its wings. Hello Uncle Stalin. Edwards is so disingenuous. I fight for the little guy from the lanai of my 40,000 square foot mansion that I obtained from suing corporations that provided millions of jobs for the people I claim I protect. Yeah right.

The Republicans suffer even more than the three disastrous individuals listed above. There simply is no one that embodies the ideals I hold sacred. Mitt Romney flip flopped on abortion, gay marriage, and gun control. Those are such deep and personal issues. To "change your mind" on those issues prior to running for President means one of two things. Your boat has been adrift for some time or you are a professional politician that is setting up to pander. Mormonism is an issue to me. More so than any other facet of who we are, our devoutness to our religion shapes who we are and what we believe in. No thanks Mitt. John McCain is more liberal than Joe Lieberman. John you're great on national security but horrible on everything else. You abandoned Christians in 2000 and the Mexican border in 2004. I think you'll find yourself abandoned in the end. Mike Huckabee has no foreign policy experience and questionable policies on taxes. I question his allegiance to strong American borders as well. He has a lot of baggage and some gaps in experience. Rudy is a New York liberal. I don't care if he was a successful mayor in America's biggest city. New York does not represent me or most of the rest of America. He is a liberal in a fiscal conservative hawk's clothing. Sorry Rudy I want the full package. Fred Thompson just can't get going. Maybe he doesn't want to. I'd hate to lose him from Law and Order anyway. Ron Paul is too Libertarian for me. A good conservative is one half Libertarian but with someone like Ron Paul the circle goes so far to the right it nearly touches the extended circle coming from the far left. And he's a gynecologist? Somehow a leader that is a gynecologist just opens us up for too many hind-end jokes worldwide.

Therefore ladies and gentlemen you must elect me. I am not a lawyer, doctor, or Washington insider. I have not been raised in Washington or grown up in a family where politics was a way of life. I've dug a ditch and built a fence and earned rough hands. (Al Gore, can you hear me you lifelong cheese puff?) What's wrong with electing common people that make this country to high office? Why do we fixate on electing people that break this country instead?