And the "Jackass of the Year" Award Goes To...

The 82nd and current Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder. If ever there was a man truly deserving of the "Jackass of the Year" award, he most certainly is it. He's also proof that when it comes to picking Cabinet members, The Great Pretender doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

So just what did Holder do to deserve this high honor? Well, to be honest, his involvement in the failed operation known as "Fast and Furious" which resulted in the illegal sales of weapons to a Mexican drug cartel which then used some of the weapons to kill a Federal agent more than qualifies him. Then you put on top of that his refusal to obey the law regarding subpoenas of records for a Congressional inquiry - after all, he IS the Attorney General, the top law enforcement official in the whole nation, right? So you'd think he'd know that when you get served with a subpoena you don't have the option of NOT complying with it. But Holder must think he's above the law, because he's about to get sanctioned by Congress for failing to comply with the latest subpoena issued to him for his records in the "Fast and Furious" investigation.

Then there's his pitiful and downright disgraceful performance when he was called to testify before a Congressional hearing on the "F&F" debacle, the one in which he refused to acknowledge the fact that he was being placed under oath. I guess his razor-sharp legal mind thought that if you just don't agree that you're under oath you can't be charged with perjury later on. Simple, huh? He must think so - but fortunately for the rest of us, that's not the way it is.

Then there's the class act of him losing his temper during those hearings, showing us just what a loser he really is. Yeah, a real class act, this one - if you can't be right, be mad and maybe those awful, mean and nasty Congressmen will just leave you alone. That may have worked on the playground, Eric, but it won't work in Congress.

And now, to top it all off, just when you think he can't do or say anything worse or more stupid than he already has, he pops up and makes the following statement to the New York Times:

"This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him, both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we're both African-American."

Yeah, that's right, Eric, those mean ol' white boys in Congress are only pickin' on you 'cuz you and your home boy Barack are black.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

If this statement had come from a black gang member I would have accepted it; I wouldn't have agreed with it, but I would have accepted it because that's what black gang members always say whenever they get busted. If this statement had come from a black drug dealer, same thing - I would have accepted it but not agreed with it for the same reasons.

But this statement didn't come from a gang member or a drug dealer. It came from the Attorney General of the United States, a supposedly intelligent and educated man, and this fact alone makes it the single most stupid, moronic, and incredibly unbelievable thing I've heard this year. It just blows me away that a man in his position of responsibility and authority would be stupid enough to utter such total nonsense and actually think that the American people are going to believe it and agree with him! This man's stupidity apparently knows no bounds. He is a total disgrace to his office and the nation, and I hope Congress throws the book at him.

If NObama had half a brain in his head he'd be pounding on Holder's office door, demanding that he tender his resignation immediately.

But then again, NObama appointed him to the job to begin with...so much for him having half a brain.

November 2012 can't get here fast enough.

IHC

Random Thoughts on a Friday Morning

There's been so much going on in the world and on the news lately that it's been kinda hard for me to nail one item down to talk about, so I decided to just hit all of them briefly instead of going into a dialogue about any single one of them. Yeah, I know, it's the lazy way out, but it's my blog so I can do what I want to!

Having said that, heeeeeeere we go!

So the US Congress has passed yet another "stopgap" funding bill to prevent the government from shutting down...AGAIN. Is it me, or are we not getting what we're paying for with our elected members of Congress? I mean, really, when is this largest collection of buffoons and asshats in the history of the United States gonna get the message that the budget needs to be fixed permanently instead of temporarily? The more I hear of this bunch of clowns and their antics in the great stinkhole known as Washington, DC the more I am in favor of two things: term limits and a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Of course, the term limits thing will never fly because Congress would have to approve it, and who would approve something that they knew would make them unemployed after a set period of time? So maybe that's why we need to kick ALL of them out and start over with a fresh bunch of Congressmen and Senators who have no ties to the banking industry or Wall Street or "big money" and therefore have no "deals" to protect, and who will therefore do what's right for the country instead of what's right for their party or themselves. And the "balanced budget" amendment just makes good sense, especially since our Congress has proven that they are incapable or unwilling (my money is on unwilling) to balance it themselves because they're too busy doing what's right for their party or protecting their secret deals with "big money." It's waaaaaaaaay past time for the people to speak up on this one.

And while I'm mentioning speaking up on this one, it sure would be nice to hear The Great Pretender tell ALL of Congress to get off their asses and fix the budget instead of just telling Republicans to stop being hard to get along with and do things the Demoncratic way. I mean, maybe it's just me, but I think that once a person is elected to the office of President of the United States he should stop being a Demoncrat or a Republican and start being the President. Party affiliation and loyalty needs to be left at the White House door, ya know? But of course our current "do nothing, say nothing, good for nothing" President won't do that. All he's doing is proving that he's by far a worse president than Jimmy "Mr. Peanut" Carter ever was, hands down.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick to death of seeing people and organizations cave in to the unrealistic whinings of tiny-minded, selfish, "it's all about me!" people who want to do nothing but complain and get their way. I'm speaking specifically about all of those people who are complaining about Nativity scenes being displayed on court house lawns and Air Force bases, and Christmas trees being displayed in the same place. Now before anyone starts to lecture me about the Constitution and what it says about the separation of church and state, I would suggest you go do some serious research on that because you're going to find out that the Constitution doesn't say what you think it does. Having said that, these crybabies who are choosing to portray themselves as "oppressed" and "repressed" because they have to be subjected to seeing a nativity scene on a courthouse lawn need to wake up and realize a couple of things: first, this nation was founded and the Constitution drafted on Christian beliefs, and second, Christians have the same right to display artifacts of their faith as you have to hang up a sign saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" because you don't believe in God or Jesus Christ. You're nothing special because you're a minority, and if you don't like the Christmas tree on the courthouse lawn, then either don't look at it or exercise your Constitutional right to pack your shit and move to another country.

And the same thing goes for the display of the Confederate Battle Flag. I personally don't give a tinker's damn if you don't like it for whatever reason; my guess is that unless you're a veteran of the Civil Rights era and had a personal experience with the Klan visiting you in the middle of the night, you're basing your dislike of the flag on the one-sided, bigoted, and largely inaccurate information you've received from such neutral sources as the NAACP or the ACLU. (Pardon me while I go throw up in my mouth.) Recently here in South Carolina a black college student caused a little bit of a ruckus because he did some research - REAL research - on the history of the flag and why it's displayed today, and he decided that all he'd been told before was wrong. He came to the educated (emphasis on the word "educated") decision that the flag was not a symbol of hate or racism, that the flag had been hijacked by the racist groups of the Civil Rights era, and that today the flag was mostly displayed as a symbol of heritage and pride in that heritage. He therefore chose to display one in his college dorm room, and the college went nuts. They told him to take it down, naturally, which he did - at first. Then he decided to stand his ground and put it back up, getting some news coverage in the mean time. The story was big news for all of two days, and now it's gone. I wonder how long the story would have stayed in the news if the NAACP was ranting and raving about the flag being displayed in his room? Do tell...in any event, to the college kid who did the research and came to his own conclusion, I say this: Good on ya!

And former New Jersey governor John Corzine is a crook, period. There are some of us who knew this all along, but now he's proven it. Case closed.

Then there's Eric Holder, the single worst US Attorney General in the history of our nation. Here's a man who is the head of the largest law enforcement agency in the nation, yet when he gets called in front of Congress to testify about a failed sting operation called "Fast and Furious," he fails to even acknowledge the fact that he's being placed under oath. I dare say that if we had a Republican president, Holder would have been out on his ass in about two minutes after this whole "Fast and Furious" thing broke. But we have a Demoncratic president, and the Demoncrats have proven to us before with the way they handled "Slick Willy" Clinton committing perjury while a sitting President that they're perfectly okay with their party members lying under oath and thereby committing a crime, so what else should we expect from Mr. Useless sitting in the Oval Office? All I can say is November 2012 is right around the corner, and thank God for that.

And speaking of November 2012, now that Herman Cain has dropped out of the running, it looks like my vote is going to be cast for Ron Paul. I did some serious research on all of the leading contenders, and found that I agree with him on all of the issues except one, that one being abortion, and that isn't enough of a "hot button" topic with me to keep me from voting for him. So unless he does something really stupid between now and then - like deciding to run for President knowing that you've just ended a 13-year long extramarital affair and then being stupid enough to think no one will find out about it - he's got my vote.

Coffee time.

IHC

It's Time to "Occupy" a JOB!

I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty tired of hearing about all of the "Occupy" protesters who are still sitting on their asses "trying to make a statement." I would think that by now, SOMEONE in those groups would have enough common sense to realize that they've made all of the "statement" that they're going to make, and that the only "statement" they're making now is that they'd rather cause trouble and make waves than go out and "occupy" a job. Considering that these protests have been going on now for more than two months, I'd say it's pretty apparent that most of the people involved in them are those who are just waiting for their free handout, for some of the "redistributed wealth" that NObama and his band of merry idiots keep talking about to come their way.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that ain't gonna happen. Not in an election year, for sure, and it damned sure ain't gonna happen once The Great Pretender is out on his skinny ass and a Conservative is back in the White House.

As I've said before, I'm all about free speech and the right of the people to peaceably assemble. But when you start breaking laws concerning overnight camping in public parks, when you start constructing wooden buildings on public land which is also in violation of the law, and when you refuse a lawful order to disperse because you're breaking local laws concerning hours of operation of public parks, then you are no longer assembling in a "peaceable" manner and it's time for you to "occupy" a jail cell.

Unfortunately, the participants of the "Occupy" movement and the lunatic fringe of the Liberal movement don't see it that way. They think that the First Amendment gives them the right to do whatever they want while they are exercising their right to "free speech." Well, all I can say is that someone was asleep in American History 101 when they covered the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, because also as I've said before, the First Amendment doesn't say that. No matter how hard you try to spin-doctor it, no matter how convoluted you make it, no matter what kind of twisted logic you may try to use, the bottom line is this: when you start breaking laws you stop being a protester and start being a criminal, and you have no protection under the First Amendment.

It's as simple as that.

IHC

My Reply to John B.

Before I get started, a little background: on the Facebook page for "Former Langley AFB Security Police" today there was a discussion about how the Air Force had changed the name of "Security Police" to "Security Forces," and had merged the two career fields, Law Enforcement and Security, into one. I stated my opinion that I thought both was a mistake, and also stated that the Air Force seemed to be getting away from the Law Enforcement mission at its bases, choosing instead to farm that mission out to the DoD Police. Nowhere in my post did I say anything negative about my Security counterparts or the DoD Police - at least, I didn't think I did.

Well, I'm not real sure what I said that would have offended anybody, but apparently I did because John B. got his panties in a knot about it, and at one point stated that the Law Enforcement troops always "whined like little babies" when they had to work Security. Before I had a chance to reply I guess the moderator of the page saw what was coming, because by the time I got home from work today the thread was gone.

Those of you who know me know that I absolutely must have my say, so here it is in an environment where no one but me can delete it.

To John B:

First, let me say that I, for one, always found the old "Security vs. LE" thing to be incredibly childish, incredibly stupid, and a total waste of time; I also avoided getting involved in those conversations whenever I could because they always ended up with two or more people pissed off at each other, and that never accomplished anything.

I have always realized, even when I was a young airman in Law Enforcement, that each of the career fields within what used to be Security Police had its own unique set of challenges, and that each career field could be difficult in its own way. This was due in part to two of my roommates both being Security troops, so I heard about it first-hand every day; it also stemmed from the many, many, MANY times I got pulled from Law Enforcement duties to work Security because they were short manned for one reason or another. The longer I stayed in the Air Force the more I realized several things: One, the Security mission would always have priority over the Law Enforcement mission; two, whenever the Security side of the house was short-manned they would always pull from the Law Enforcement side to make up for the shortfall, and there was nothing you could do about it; three, whenever Law Enforcement was short-manned we would just have to suck it up and make due because getting additional manning from the Security side of the house was akin to finding the Holy Grail; and four, nothing was ever going to change 1 through 3. So it became an accepted fact of life among young Law Enforcement airmen that every now and then we'd have to put on our greens, pick up an M-16 instead of a .38, and go walk around a parked aircraft or stand on the Entry Control Point of a priority "A" aircraft rather than stand on the gate waving traffic or riding as a patrol rider on a base patrol. Basically, we were trading one shit duty for another, so in most cases it was pretty much a wash any way you looked at it.

You said that LE troops always "whined like little babies" whenever they got pulled for Security duty - well, look at it this way: when we enlisted we didn't enlist to be a Security troop. We didn't enlist to walk around a parked aircraft, or stand guard at the ECP of a priority aircraft, or walk a fence line in a priority aircraft parking area, or walk around the rope along the perimeter of the parking slot for a priority aircraft. We enlisted and trained to work Law Enforcement, because even something as mundane and boring as working a gate, writing visitor's passes, or doing building checks was a part of what we signed up for - it was, simply put, what we wanted and expected to do.

And to be honest, it wasn't anywhere near as boring as the duties of a young Security troop. I'll take standing out in the rain on the gate waving traffic over walking around a parking ramp in the rain any day, all day long, and twice on Sunday.

So sure, the LE troops would complain when they got yanked from LE duty to go work Security - and the seasoned, experienced Security leaders knew why, and knew how to deal with it. In the grand scheme of things it was nothing more than a minor inconvenience that would pass very quickly - like 8 hours later at shift change.

But in the 19 years I worked in Security Police, not once - not so much as a single time - did I ever hear a Security troop complain when he got assigned to work Law Enforcement, even if it meant standing out on the gate and waving traffic, which 9 times out of 10 it did.

Not once. I wonder why that is? You tell me.

You asked what duties LE troops performed during deployments, and then you answered your own question by saying they pulled "security" duties. Well, yes and no, mostly no, because when we deployed it was done not under the Law Enforcement mission, not under the Security mission, but under the Air Base Ground Defense mission. Security Police has always been and always will be the Air Force's infantry, and everyone - everyone - who joins the Air Force and goes into Security Police will go through Air Base Ground Defense training. I went through it, just like everyone else in my Law Enforcement class in 1975 did, and I'm pretty sure they still do. Once the group gets to where its going the mission will include the posting of sentries around the aircraft parking areas, to be sure, so in that small aspect they're performing security duties. But at the same time you'll have listening posts, observation posts, machine gun bunkers, and such that will be manned under the ABGD mission as well. But you'll also have a Law Enforcement mission if the base location calls for it, as we did in Saudi Arabia during Operation DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM. It was a small mission consisting of manning the main gate to the base and having a liaison NCO at the Saudi Police Headquarters, but we had one none the less.

So like I said, as for the security mission during a deployment, it's yes and no, but mostly no.

As for my comments about the DoD Police, sorry, but I just don't see where I said anything that anyone could in any way construe as being negative. All I said was that it seemed like the Air Force was turning its Law Enforcement mission over to them. Personally I think that's a terribly bad idea, not because the DoD cops aren't capable of it - they most certainly are - but because I don't think any civilian agency should have any responsibility for anything on a military installation. And that includes the farming out of CE duties to local construction companies as well.

Finally, you said that you didn't recall the Air Force ever trying to merge the two career fields before doing it in the early 1990s; well, they tried it once in 1976 and again in 1981, and it failed both times. I can't help it that you don't remember, but I most certainly do because I had just enlisted in 1975 and when I was told less than a year later that I may wind up being a Security troop, I was pissed because I had enlisted Guaranteed Job as a Law Enforcement specialist, and the last thing I wanted was to become a "ramp rat."

In closing, let me say this: personally, I always thought it was harder to be a good Security Flight Chief than a good Law Enforcement Flight Chief, because a Security Flight Chief had to deal with the constant bitching, griping, and complaining from all of the young Security troops about how boring their job was, about how much they hated it, and about how much they wished they'd enlisted as a Law Enforcement Specialist instead of a Security Specialist. The Security Flight Chief who could keep his flight organized, trained, motivated and ready on a constant basis was a thing of beauty to behold, and I always admired them.

Too bad you can't say the same about your former Law Enforcement counterparts.

And I think that just about wraps it all up.

IHC

And Speaking Of What the Constitution Doesn't Say...

If ever there was an incompetent, unqualified, ill-prepared, inexperienced and incompetent Cabinet member in the NObama administration, it would have to be Eric Holder. Well, on second thought, maybe he's second to Tim Geithner, but it's a close race.

If you haven't been following current events, the latest trick in Holder's bag of Stupid Human Tricks is the lawsuit the US Department of Justice has filed against the state of Utah over its new immigration enforcement law. For some reason, Holder seems to think that the Utah law, along with the laws recently passed by Arizona, Alabama, and South Carolina, violate the United States Constitution. He doesn't specifically say how, and after reading the laws themselves I can't figure out where he gets his ideas from.

Maybe he's getting them from the same group of morons who gave him advice on the "Fast and Furious" scam, I dunno.

In any event, Holder is now suing Utah and delaying yet another state's attempts to control crime within their borders. Yes, that's right, friends and neighbors, Utah is attempting to control crime, as are the other three states who have passed immigration laws. And before all of you bleeding-heart liberals out there start crying and whining and playing your sad song on your harps, here's how it works. I'll start from the bottom of the list and go up.

3) The number of illegals being incarcerated across the nation, specifically in the midwest states, is rising at an alarming rate. Why is that, you say? Well, it's like this: regardless of what other bleeding heart liberal organizations want you to believe, the population of our prison system is controlled not by the color of the criminal's skin, but by who commits the crime and gets convicted. It's a simple as that.

2) Crime in the states that have a high number of illegal immigrants is on the rise. Need proof? Just check out the stats provided by the states themselves, or if you're suspect of those stats because deep in your bleeding, liberal heart you just know that those states are "cooking the books" to justify their "illegal" laws, then check out the FBI stats and get ready for a shocker.

1) Entering this country without going through the proper procedures already set in place - in other words, entering this country ILLEGALLY is a CRIME in and of itself, which makes illegal immigrants CRIMINALS.

And since the NObama administration has done next to nothing to enforce the federal immigration laws already in effect, the states have chosen to exercise the rights guaranteed to them by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. All Holder and his band of merry idiots have done is try to find ways not to do their jobs; that, and come up with new laws that will make the immigration process "easier."

If it got any easier all it would take is the immigrant stepping foot across the border or stepping off the boat. If the process takes too long, don't pass a new law - fix what's broken and get the system working instead of wasting time and taxpayer's money by filing frivilous and unjustified lawsuits against the states trying to protect themselves.

The states of Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah have shown by their actions that they care more about the safety and security of their legal residents than they do about hurting the feelings of a bunch of criminals who want to do nothing more than come to our country, make money, send it home, and not pay taxes while sponging off of the local government's medical and educational facilities. (And if you think the last two aren't happening, you need to do some research, quick.) And before you liberals out there start playing the "they're just trying to find work and better themselves" song on your harps, let me tell you right now that I think that's crap. I'm all about finding work and bettering themselves, and if someone wants to come to this country for that purpose then I'm all for it. But do it LEGALLY so you don't take work away from LEGAL citizens, and most of all so you PAY TAXES like the rest of us to help pay for the services that you use. If you're not willing to do that, then just stay home because we neither want nor need your sorry ass here.

These states obviously care more about their citizens than the NObama administration does, and that is a sad state of affairs indeed. When NObama took office he swore an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and so far he's failed miserably at his job. Eric Holder is simply following the leader and is but one of a long line of dancing buffoons that is the NObama administration.

There are several upcoming events that I am most assuredly looking forward to, those being the completion of the investigation into the "Fast and Furious" scheme (which will, I hope, result in Holder's losing his job), the reviewing of "NObamacare" by the Supreme Court (which will result in the law being overturned, I hope), and the Presidential elections of 2012.

And you all know how I hope that one turns out.

IHC

What Do Fish, Houseguests, and "Occupy" Protesters Have In Common?

They all start to smell after two days. And after two months, I'm sure most of the protesters are pretty ripe right about now.

The "Occupy Wall Street" protest that started two months ago and spread across the nation and the globe was a good idea at the time it all started, and it sent a very important message to all concerned. That message was received loud and clear: the American people were sick and tired of being taken advantage of by those who are infected with the disease of "Corporate Greed." But as any Union member who's ever walked a picket line will tell you, after a while the protesters stopped being taken seriously and started to become nothing more than a nuisance that people wished would just go away. Such is the case with the "Occupy" protesters world-wide, and here in this country it didn't help the protester's image any when it was discovered and reported that former ACORN leadership was behind the so-called "unorganized" protest to begin with. (That's a topic I could devote a whole posting to, but I'll save that for another time.)

So when things ran the logical course that they were destined to run and both the officials in the affected cities and the people in those cities started getting tired of the protesters, the public officials started moving them out. The protesters immediately cried, "You're violating our First Amendment rights!" which is, of course, bullshit.

So let's take a look at the First Amendment and see just why that defense is bullshit, shall we?

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

The areas of the amendment which the protesters are citing are the parts concerning freedom of speech and the right of the people "peaceably to assemble." Some will tell you it's also about petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances, but since no one submitted any kind of written petition or motion to any branch of any government in connection with the protests that I'm aware of, I'll throw the BS flag on that one.

So do the protesters have the right to stand out in public and display their displeasure in both words and signs? Absolutely. You can say whatever you want about the government, voice your displeasure and opinions as much as you want however you want, and as long as you're not libelous or defaming anyone with your words you may rest assured that you will NOT be arrested for voicing your displeasure with the government. After all, THAT is what this particular part of the First Amendment was aimed at, you know - the Colonists were tired of getting arrested by British soldiers for simply talking bad about the King, so they made this the first - and most important - of the Bill of Rights.

And in voicing their opinions and displeasure, do the protesters have the right to gather in groups and shout as one? Sure they do - as long as they do it PEACEABLY and do not break any laws doing it.

Having said all that, one cannot help but wonder why anyone with an ounce of common sense would say that the protester's rights under the First Amendment were being violated when the municipalities around the globe started kicking them out and arresting them. The First Amendment guarantees the protesters the right to assemble and speak their minds, but there are several things it does NOT give them the right to do, such as:

Camp out overnight in a city park where camping is prohibited by local ordinance.

Throw rocks, bottles, and plates at police.

Take a dump on police cars.

Take a dump on the American flag.

Use the bushes of said parks as toilets.

Break into and occupy empty buildings.

The protesters have done all of these, and are therefore in violation of local laws and do NOT fall under the protection of the First Amendment. Any first year law student will tell you that.

All of this aside, I think the thing that strikes me the most about the protests is this: where are these people finding the time to protest for two months? Oh, I see, you're unemployed - of course, that's why you have the time!

Hey, here's an idea for ya: instead of sitting on your ass protesting for two months, why not do it for a few days and then devote the rest of your time looking for a job?

Oh, I see, you're one of those mindless "Michael Moore followers" who think that they're entitled to what I worked my ass off to get without having to work for it yourself. You think you're entitled to get what you want for free, and that the government should just hand it over to you - after taking it away from me.

Well, I got some bad news for ya, skippy - it don't work that way, no matter what Michael Moore tells you. (And here's a shocker for ya - Michael Moore is one of those "1%" folks you've been bitching about for the past two months, although he doesn't want you to know that.)

So I suggest you stop waiting for the gravy train to stop at your front door, get off of your dead ass and go get a job - THEN you can legitimately complain about how bad the government is treating you.

In the mean time, you need to just STFU and go away.

IHC

When Does a "Christian" NOT Act Like a Christian, Redux

I took a trip on the "Stupid Train" last night, and I'll be the first to admit it. You'd think by now that I'd know better than to get invovled in a religious discussion on Facebook - or anywhere else, for that matter - but sometimes I'm like the big, old, large mouth bass sitting in the shade under a sunken log. If you dangle the bait in front of me at just the right moment, I'm gonna bite. And that's what happened last night.

A former - emphasis on the word "former" - Facebook friend made a post about how his state had just had a vote on a law that would spell out once and for all that life began at the moment of conception, and he was disappointed that the law failed to pass. He claims to be a devout Catholic and a "Christian," so of course he was all in favor of the law because that would be a stepping stone to getting Roe v. Wade overturned. Well, somewhere in the post he made a reference to something being unconstitutional, and that did it - that was the bait that I couldn't ignore.

Religion I can ignore; start spouting your ignorance about what the Constitution does and doesn't say, and I'm gonna jump in with both feet.

So in any event, two of his "Christian" friends joined in the conversation, and one of them wasted no time in proceeding directly to the "insulting" phase of what a "Christian" does when you disagree with them. The converstation had turned to the Holy Bible, and I voiced my opinion on that topic as well. (And if you've read my previous postings in this blog, you know what my opinions are.) The other person then posted something about my needing to go buy "The Complete Idiot's Guide To The Hebrew Bible," or something like that, followed by her - yes, her - opinion that I was not the "expert" on the Hebrew bible. I politely told her that no, I wasn't an expert on the Hebrew bible, that I never claimed to be, I never referred to the Hebrew bible but the Holy Bible (specifically the King James version), and that I never even knew a "Hebrew" bible existed. That pretty much put an end to that conversation, although the sarcasm from this so-called "Christian" was clear.

But things with the second poster, a male this time, got really nasty really quickly. This "Christian" proceeded directly to the name-calling phase of how a "Christian" acts when you disagree with them, calling me "a total dumb-ass." My reply was to ask him if this was how a true Christian acts towards others, and then I told the originator of the thread, "Nice "Christian" friend you've got there, John." (His name really is John, by the way.)

Up until now John had been pretty quiet about everything, but that was to change in another thread that was running along the same lines that I had also posted in. Then Johh took it upon himself to judge me according to HIS beliefs, telling me that he had "serious doubts" about my "devotion to being a Christian," after which he proceeded to regale me with a Bible lesson that ran somewhere along the lines of six or seven paragraphs long. I had already told him that I didn't believe most of the Old Testament, so guess what John did? Yep, you guessed it - started quoting scripture at me from the Old Testament!

As I've said before, like THAT'S gonna work...

But the part that really chapped my ass about the whole thing was not the quoting of scripture part; what got my dander up was when John climbed up on his holier-than-thou, religious high-horse and proceeded to talk down to me like I was some lower form of life, some ignorant heathen who needed to be "saved" because he was "worried about my soul." And YES, he really did say that.

If you know me by now, you can pretty much guess what my reaction was. If not, then let me sum it up for you.

I asked John just who the hell he was that HE should judge ME based on HIS religious views and not MINE. I then told him that my relationship with God was none of his business, and that he shouldn't worry about my soul because me and God had that all taken care of. I also said a few more things along the same lines, but I think you pretty much get the idea by now.

I then went to my home page in the preferences section and blocked John across the board so I never have to hear from him or be subjected to his holier-than-thou attitude and mundane preaching and Bible-thumping again.

So once again not one, not two, but THREE so-called "Christians" follow the same steps that folks like them always follow when they encounter someone who disagrees with them, and by now you'd think I'd know better.

As I've said before, I have no problem with other people's beliefs, I really don't. If you believe it and it works for you and makes you feel good, then that's great - I'm happy for you, I really am. But the moment you climb up on a "holier-than-thou" pedastal and start judging ME by YOUR beliefs, telling me that I'm a sinner, that I'm going to hell, and all that other crap - well, at that point I'm gonna turn on you like a rabid dog and tear you to shreds.

And those of you who know me - and I mean REALLY know me - know that I'm really, really good at that. (Hey, I was a basic training instructor at one time, remember?)

Then again, if I'd just learn not to bite at the bait when it's dangled in front of me I wouldn't have this problem, would I?

Oh, well, I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks, huh?

IHC

How To Tell When a Liberal or a Demoncrat is Scared Shitless Of You

So how can you tell when a liberal or a Demoncrat is scared shitless of you, anyway? Simple: they try to railroad you with a character assassination, that's how.

Such is the case with Herman Cain, a man who has risen in popularity so quickly and with such speed that his campaign has been dubbed, "The Cain Train." This man came out of almost nowhere, and in the past few months he has risen to the top of the ranks of GOP contenders with a speed that can only be described as alarming. His success is due to several things, all of which strike the right chords with the people of this nation, both in and out of the GOP, who are tired as hell of the same old shit coming out of Washington and the bumbling ineptitude of our current President. While the other GOP contenders have been scrambling to find a way to keep up with him, some of the members of the Demoncratic party have realized just what a credible and probably unstoppable threat Cain truly is, and were scrambling to find a way to eliminate him.

In all of the political world, there is nothing that will destroy a candidate faster and more thoroughly than an accusation of sexual harrassment, and it is this dirty trick that someone in the liberal and/or Demoncratic camp has come up with.

Before I really get up on my soapbox, let me say a couple of things: first, most of what follows is my opinion based on what I have heard on the news and what I believe just because it's what I believe based on my own life's experiences. Second, I believe that Herman Cain is completely and totally innocent for one reason: he said so. And considering what he has to lose - which is everything - I see no reason why he should lie. So I believe him, just as fervently and completely as those who believe Sharon Bialek, his accuser, and for the same reason - because she said so.

Having said that...

Anyone who knows anything at all about sexual harrassment will tell you that it is by far one of the easiest and most damaging charges to bring against someone. Even if you manage to prove your innocence, the stigma stays with you and the damage is, in most cases, irreparable. The definition of the term is so broad, so all-encompassing, and so open to interpretation and misinterpretation as to defy description. For example, if I were to compliment a female co-worker, telling her "that dress looks really good on you," according to the broad definition of the term I have just committed an act of sexual harrassment for which my company will fire me on the first offense. To you and I, all I did was compliment a woman on how she looks, but to others I've committed what amounts to the cardinal sin of both the business and political world - I've committed sexual harrassment! It's just that easy.

The other thing about sexual harrassment is that it's so easy to believe and so very hard to disprove, because when it comes right down to it, unless you have a witness and the act is so overt and blatant as to be obvious to anyone but a blind man, it all boils down to the woman's word against the man's. And nine times out of ten, the woman is the one who's going to be believed, because a woman just wouldn't lie about something like that, would she? Take Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, for example: Thomas was nominated in 1991 for the Supreme Court, and everything was going smoothly until someone in the Demoncratic party and/or the NAACP decided to derail the train - at that point they trotted out Anita Hill, who claimed that Thomas had sexually harrassed her ten years before when she worked for him. A media frenzy ensued, and when it was all over Thomas won his appointment to the Supreme Court by a margin of only four votes - the narrowest margin since the 19th centry. The train derailment had failed, but it was close.

History has a way of repeating itself, and it's doing so right now with Herman Cain and Sharon Bialek. This whole thing stinks to high heaven, and here's why.

If this really happened like Bialek says it did, why did she wait fourteen years to report it? This incident supposedly happened when Cain was the head of the National Restaurant Association and she approached him looking for a job. If he had in fact truly "groped" her and made "unwanted sexual advances" to her, then why didn't she report him then and there and get his ass fired? At the very least, the settlement from the lawsuit she could have filed would have set her up and ended her well-documented financial difficulties (I'll get to that shortly, trust me). But no, she said nothing, not until fourteen years later when Cain is running for the GOP nomination for the office of President of the United States. So why did she wait this long, you ask? Simple.

Because it never happened. And now that Cain is a "big fish," he's fair game and a much more juicy and interesting target. The bigger the fish the bigger the settlement, and Bialek has concocted this blatant lie to win herself a nice, big, juicy settlement.

And speaking of settlements and getting paid, Bialek and her attorney - the infamous man-hating and "women's rights activist" attorney Gloria Allred - were very quick to point out on "The Today Show" this morning that Bialek was not getting paid by anyone to come forward, and had not sold her story to anyone.

Yet. I'm betting next month's paycheck that when this is all over she'll be selling her story so fast it'll make your head spin, whether she's successful in her smear campaign or not. Tell me I'm wrong, I dare ya. After all, this is a woman who has filed for personal bankruptcy twice, so to say that she needs the money is the understatement of the year. She sees Herman Cain as nothing more than a personal gravy train, and she wants to jump on board.

Oh, wait, there is one more thing she may see him as - a threat to NObama in next year's elections. Did I forget to mention that Bialek is a registered Demoncrat and a documented NObama supporter? Gee, isn't that a funny coincidence...

Now, about Gloria Allred...in the first place, this woman has the professional morals and ethics of a vulture. I personally also think she's a man-hater, or at least has an obsession to prove to the men of the world that her balls are as big as theirs. She also has a long, long history of filing sexual-based or sexual harrassment lawsuits against men. Here's a short sample of some of the people she's sued:

She sued the Boy Scouts of America when they wouldn't admit an eleven year old girl. (It's called the "BOY Scouts" for a reason, Gloria.)

She sued the former Sav-On Drug Store chain for having a separate boy's and girl's toy section.

She sued the all-male Friar's Club of Beverly Hills when they wouldn't admit a woman to their ranks.

She sued Dodi Fayed for breaking off his engagement with Kelly Fisher when Fayed became involved with Diana, Princess of Wales. (The only thing that stopped the lawsuit was the death of Diana and Fayed in Paris.)

She sued Arnold Schwarzennegger for sexual harrassment when he was running for Governor of California in 2003. (Arnie's a Republican, you know.)

She sued Rob Lowe for sexual harrassment.

There's a pattern here; do you see it?

Oh, and did I fail to mention that Allred is a registered Demoncrat and a vehement NOBama supporter, donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign?

Gee, there's that funny coincidence again...

As for the unnamed woman who made a similar charge against Cain when he was with the NRA and took a settlement some years back, well, it's like this: taking a settlement doesn't mean that the accused is guilty. In many cases a company will offer a settlement not because the allegations are true, but because they want to avoid either the expense of a long trial or the negative publicity that such a case would invariably generate. All we know about this previous "incident" is that a woman made a claim and a settlement was reached, and that's it - we know nothing else because the lawyers for both sides agreed to a confidentiality clause, which means that neither side can discuss the terms of the settlement.

And the last time I looked, in THIS country you were innocent until proven guilty, and a settlement proves neither guilt nor innocence.

The question now is whether or not the "Cain Train" has been derailed by this despicable and treacherous scheme concocted by the liberals and Demoncrats who are scared shitless of Herman Cain. To be honest, I think Cain hurt his case by taking two or three days to address the issue; he basically made the same mistake NObama made when he stalled for two years before finally giving authorization for the release of his full birth certificate - all you do when you stonewall is make people think you're hiding something. Cain finally did hold a press conference today in which he addressed Bialek's accusations by stating "it simply did not happen," but the damage may have already been done. I hope not, but time will tell.

In the mean time I will continue to believe Herman Cain when he says Bialek is a liar, and I most certainly will vote for him in November 2012. And I hope Bialek, Allred, and the low-life, scum-sucking, scab-picking, knuckle-dragging inbred liberal Demoncrat assholes who thought up this smear campaign rot in hell.

But I'll settle for Cain winning the election. Now THAT is "change we can believe in!"

IHC

What Horror Movie Scared You The Most?

I've been a fan of horror movies my whole life, growing up watching the sci-fi and horror classics from the 1950's (which were only about ten or fifteen years old at the time). My favorite "classic" horror movie without a doubt is "THEM!", which is a movie starring a pre-"Gunsmoke" James Arness as an FBI agent who joins forces with a New Mexico State Trooper played by James Whitmore to fight giant ants in the New Mexico desert. They're joined by the usual duo of scientists, who blame the growth of the ants on the usual culprit of the time: radiation from all of the hydrogen bomb tests that were done in the desert in the late 1940's and early 1950's. It's a great movie - for its time, anyway - and is still my hands-down favorite classic horror movie to this date, but it's not the one that scared me the most.

Not by a long shot.

It was Hallowe'en 1969, and my family was living in Highland Springs, Virginia, a small town (at the time) about ten miles southeast of Richmond. The local theater was called The Henrico Theater (named after the county in which HS was located and pronounced "Hen-RYE-co"), which was built in the Art Deco style of the 1930s in which it was built. This old theater was huge, with a balcony and everything, and it must have sat about 300 people or so. You have to remember that this theater was built when there was no television, so for entertainment people either listened to the radio or went to the movies - for that reason, the theaters built in those times had to be big.

In any event, for Hallowe'en 1969 the theater staff decided to hold a horror movie marathon that was going to be hosted by a character called "The Bowman Body" who was the host of Channel 12's "Shock Theater" which played every Saturday night. I was a HUGE fan of The Bowman Body and Shock Theater, so of course I made plans to go. I tried to get the other kids in the neighborhood to go with me, but they wouldn't do it. So I said the heck with it (hey, I was 12) and went by myself. The festivities were supposed to start at two PM with the first of three movies being shown at three, so about one thirty on Saturday afternoon I put my foot in the path and walked up to the theater which was about a mile or so away. Once I got there I paid my fifty cents to get in, getting to finally meet The Bowman Body in person. And promptly at three PM the movies started, with the theater containing quite a few kids. Not enough to fill the place, but still there were a lot of kids there.

To this day I can still remember the movies that played and the order in which they played.

First up was "The Fearless Vampire Killers," a movie made by Roman Polanski right before his actress wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered by Charlie Manson's 'family.' I was 12 and thought the movie was pretty lame, so that tells you something about it. Not even Sharon Tate, who was absolutely gorgeous, could save it.

Next up was a classic Hammer film called "Island of Terror," which starred Peter Cushing. The special effects were kinda schlocky, but that was part of the allure of the old Hammer films. Still, the movie was pretty good, and it scared me pretty good.

But nothing like what was about to happen, trust me.

The third and last movie, which started at around six thirty PM or so, was the original George Romero classic, "Night of the Living Dead." To this day I am absolutely convinced that the staff of the Henrico played those movies in this order on purpose, the purpose being to give us kids a chance to drool over Sharon Tate, get scared a little bit by the bone-sucking monsters in "Island of Terror," and then get the living shit scared out of us by "Night of the Living Dead."

And let me tell you, if that was their plan, it worked like a charm.

It was full dark when the last movie ended and I came out of the theater, and I was so scared I was literally shaking. Then I realized that I was going to have to walk home, in the dark. Alone.

At that time my family lived on the 200 block of New Avenue, which ran north and south from the main road running through Highland Springs, that being Nine Mile Road. (Three guesses how it got its name.) The 200 block was the third of three blocks which made up New Avenue, and the blocks were pretty long. There were two streets that crossed New Avenue, one at the end of each block, with Washington Street being at the end of New Avenue. Like I said, each block was pretty long, and it was an old town so the trees growing along the sides of the road were, at times, pretty big, the branches just about covering the road which made it cool in the summer - and dark as the inside of a cave at night. Of course there were streetlights at each of the two intersections separating the blocks - that were built in the 1930's and were the kind that had the ruffled tin shades and 150 watt bulbs in them, which threw a circle of light about five feet across before it faded out into nothing.

This was the walk I had ahead of me as I stood shaking in my Keds, standing outside of the Henrico Theater in the chilly late October night, just knowing for sure that somewhere along the way that little girl from the movie was gonna jump out of the shadows and stick that cement trowel in my back.

I was so scared I walked home backwards so nobody could sneak up behind me.

I also slept with the light on for the next three nights, and when the other kids in the neighborhood asked me about the movie I refused to talk about it. That movie scared me so bad that it was the 1985 showing of the movie on MTV before I could bring myself to watch it again, and even then the movie still spooked me.

If you've seen the movie, then you know what I'm talking about. If you haven't seen it, then you should. Just don't watch it alone.

So, what horror movie is it that scared YOU the most?

Happy Hallowe'en, y'all...

IHC

Personally, I Don't Give a Damn What Offends You

Sometimes I think I'd be a lot better off if I didn't watch the news. That's a hell of a thing to have to say in this day and age, but it's true. Seems like every time I turn on the TV or check the web for news, someone else - some other group, or person, or minority, or some other bunch of crackpots - is pissing and moaning about how they've seen something or somebody said somthing that "offended" them, and the past week or so seems to have been worse than usual.

It started out last week with the Air Force veteran who was bitching and moaning about how her child's school was going to start having the kids recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of each day, and that this "offended" her.

So let me get this straight: an AIR FORCE VETERAN, someone who served in uniform in defense of her country, is "offended" that her daughter's school is asking them to recite a pledge honoring the county which she herself served? Am I hearing right? Never mind that the school said participation in the Pledge was voluntary - all the mom wants to do is bitch that this "offends" her.

Speaking as a retired Air Force Master Sergeant who spent 23 years in proud service of my country, my message to the "offended" mother is simple: You're a disgrace, and you should be ashamed of yourself. If you don't want your kid to honor her country by reciting the Plege of Allegiance, fine - that's your call, and all you have to do is tell your kid to just stand there and keep her little mouth shut while the other kids do the right thing. (That's right, the 'RIGHT' thing. Deal with it.) As for your being "offended," well, I just don't give a damn. I suggest you grow the fuck up and get a life.

Next, it was just a few days ago when Jeremy Green from Lauderdale County, Alabama had a lawsuit filed on his behalf by the "Freedom from Religion Foundation" because a high school football game had begun with a prayer that included the name of Jesus in it. Green, in what I can only describe as the most twisted interpretation of the First Amendment I've ever seen, said that the prayer violated the First Amendment because it did not follow the "separation of church and state" as stated in the Constitution.

Well, I got a news flash for ya, Mr. Green - the Constitution doesn't say that. Nowhere in that document does the phrase "separation of church and state" or anything even remotely resembling it appear. That phrase was used in a letter by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 when he was President of the United States, and the letter was sent in reply to the Danbury Baptist Association after they had written him. Jefferson used the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," which he used to describe the establishment of religion on a national level - meaning that you couldn't do it. Saying a prayer at a football game does not in any way, shape, or form violate anyone's rights. Once again, if you don't want to participate, then just stand there and keep your mouth shut. And if it REALLY offends you, then you need to exercise your right to LEAVE. Either way, I just don't give a damn what offends you, Mr. Green.

And the coup de grace came today when Mr. John Bahnzaf filed a SIXTY PAGE COMPLAINT with the Office of Human Rights in Washington, D.C. on behalf of a group of MUSLIM students who were voluntarily attending Catholic University in that city. Seems that the Muslims are pissed off because the staff of the Catholic University won't alow them to form a Muslim student group and won't provide them a room in which to conduct their five-time-daily prayers that has had all Christian images - such as crucifixes and pictures of Jesus Christ - removed. So once again a group of Muslims, people who practice the most unforgiving and bigoted religion in the whole fuckin' world, are "offended" and pissed off that we won't bow down to them and their desires. Sorry, but I REEEEEEEEALLY don't give a damn on this one!

For a Muslim to volunarily attend a Catholic college and then complain about the Catholic trappings is stupid at best, ludicrous at worst. I guaran-fuckin'-tee you that if a Christian attended a Muslim university and made the same demands, they'd be kicked out of the college and the country so fast their feet wouldn't even touch the ground! So why should the Muslims expect any different kind of treatment from us?

Oh, yeah, because their religion is the only true religion, and "there is no God but Allah."

Right.

All I know is when I was in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War and again in 1995 we were not allowed to openly display ANY Christian images or paraphenalia of any kind, and that included a crucifix around your neck. The tent we used as a chapel during the Gulf War was not allowed to display a cross on the outside, but had to make due with a sign that simply said, "CHAPEL." And the Christian chaplains were forbidden from wearing the crucifix on their lapels when in uniform, as well. Passing Bibles or pocket New Testaments around in public was a HUGE no-no, and when we first got there in August of 1990 and the first shipment of New Testaments arrived via civilian airline, it took the personal involvement of General Norman Schwartzkopf to get the Crown Prince to allow them in the country. When Christmas rolled around we were not allowed to put up any trees or sing any carols, both in 1990 and again five years later.

So tell me again why we should honor ANY request of ANY Muslim, ANYWHERE. I just don't buy it, and I just don't give a damn. If you don't like the way the Christian college does things, then once again I suggest you exercise your right to leave.

All in all I'm just gettin' sick and fuckin' tired of everyone getting "offended" at every little thing that doesn't go their way. What all of these morons fail to realize and/or accept is that WE have the SAME RIGHTS as they do.

We have the RIGHT to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school if we want to; if you don't want to participate, then just STFU and don't.

We have the RIGHT to say a prayer and invoke Jesus' name before a football game if we want to; if you don't want to participate, then just STFU and don't.

We have the RIGHT to have our Christian symbols in our Catholic and Christian universities; if you don't want to see them, then STFU and don't go there.

Basically, just SHUT THE FUCK UP!

I'm living for the day when the "politically correct" fever that has been crippling our nation for the past fifteen years or so finally fades away, and our national leadership - on BOTH SIDES of the party lines - grows some fuckin' balls and tells all of the whiners to just STFU and leave if you don't like it.

But I ain't holding my breath.

IHC

Random Thoughts on a Friday Morning

Yeah, I know, it's been a while, but things have been kinda busy in Lowe's Land recently, lots of channges going on, and one of my two stores was getting ready for Inventory - which was looking pretty ugly but actually turned out pretty spectacular - so time has been short. But now that the BS excuses are out there, let's get down to it, shall we?

On the International scene - isn't it about time that the United States decided to finally cut some of the BILLIONS of dollars we're giving to that antiquated, useless organization known as the United Nations? Once upon a time there was a genuine need for this organization, but that time is long past. In my humble opinion this organization now serves no legitimate purpose except to try and exert its will upon other unwilling nations while ignoring worldwide events that demand attention. For example, the looney tunes President of Iran has just been exposed as having sponsored a plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States on US soil, and the Useless Nations has said and done nothing. Instead, they'd rather push their agenda of a worldwide "treaty" to limit the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms - which, by the way, Billary Clinton endorses and is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. No, it's time for this organization to do two things: first, PAY UP all the money you owe the United States, and second, DISBAND. Use the land on which the headquarters buildings sits for something useful and that NYC really needs - like a parking lot.

And speaking of lunatic national leaders and other national leaders doing nothing about it, why is our own President sitting on his hands and doing nothing about Iran? The nutjob leader of this nutjob nation has put together a plot to assassinate the ambassador of a nation friendly to the United States, and the assassination was to take place on US SOIL. This is nothing short of an act of war, and in my humble opinion we should have sent the B2's to pay a little midnight visit to this lunatic asshole the very next day. Yeah, I know, the other Muslim nations who are our "allies" would be pissed off about this because the Qu'aran requires them to defend other Muslim nations when they are attacked, but ya know what? I just don't give a rat's ass about that. We need to get our people the hell out of there anyway, and a visit by the B2's would send a very clear message to all of the raghead radical terrorists that if you fuck with us, we're gonna come put a boot up your ass.

So can the "Fast and Furious" scandal possibly get any worse? First, you have the ill-conceived and illegal plan to begin with, conceived and put into operation by the ATFE. Next, you have the guns that the ATFE illegally sold to the Mexican cartels being pinpointed as having been used in the murder of a Federal agent. Then you have the Justice Department's knowledge of the plan - did I mention that the plan was illegal? - which they at first deny and then are proven to have known about all along, and now you have the US Attorney General being implicated as having known about AND SANCTIONED the plan. Oh, and did I mention that the plan was illegal? So now Congress is getting involved - at least the Republicans are, with the Demoncrats bitching about the Republicans getting involved - and the White House has said and done NOTHING. Seems that saying and doing nothing in times of crisis is fast becoming the hallmark of the NObama administration...so back to my original question, can this scandal possibly get any worse?

Sure it can, and I think it will. I believe it is only a matter of time before it is revealed and then proven that the President of the United States knew about and approved this plan - and then did nothing when it went south. And THAT, friends and neighbors, is a CRIME which will finally give the Republicans a chance to IMPEACH NOBAMA. He will deny it, of course, and then the proof will come out, and then the wheels will start turning. The only bad thing about that is that if NObama is impeached, that leaves us stuck with "Clueless Joe" Biden as President.

So yes, it can get worse - in more ways than one.

On the local scene, last February during Black History Month the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP held a big rally on the steps of the State House in Columbia, and in setting up the podium and chairs for this rally they did something which to me is inexcuseable and insulting to say the least. What this bunch of closet racists and bigots did was to construct a wooden box around one of the statues on the State House steps so that it couldn't be seen during the rally. The statue was located directly behind the speaker's podium, so they covered it up.

The statue is one of George Washington, the Father of our country. I guess because he was just another white guy the racists in the NAACP didn't want the other racists in the NAACP to have to look at him. And our President, NObama himself, showed up and spoke at this rally, standing in front of the blocked-out statue and just enjoying the hell out of himself.

Kinda tells ya something about NObama, huh? Does to me, anyway...but I digress.

Anyhow, the State Legislature quietly did something yesterday that they didn't advertise, but I'll say right now that if it had been me I'd have been screaming this from the rooftops. What they did was pass a bill making it ILLEGAL to cover up or obscure any of the statues on the State House grounds during rallies of any kind. And of course, we've heard nothing from the racists in the NAACP about this, and I doubt we will.

And speaking of organizations that have outlived their usefulness...but I think I'll save that one for another day. Right now I hear a Diet Pepsi calling my name.

Peace out.

IHC

What's the Drunkest You've Ever Been?

Got to thinking just now about the drunkest I've ever been in my entire life...maybe because a friend of mine just left about an hour ago after being at my house drinking Sailor Jerry Spiced Rum and coke with me, I dunno...anyhow, I was sitting here thinking, "Just what is the drunkest I've ever been in my entire life? And the answers - yes, answers, plural - came to me right away.

Both times took place in Korea, about ten years apart. One of them took place for a really good reason - at least it seemed good to me at the time - and the other was just plain stupid.

The first time was in September of 1979, and I was a 22 year old buck sergeant stationed at Kunsan Air Base in the Republic of South Korea. This was my first overseas assignment and it was a remote assignment, which meant that my wife and children had to stay back home at my previous base in the States while I was gone - for a whole year. I'd been in Korea for about 4 months and was lucky enough to be roomies with a staff sergeant by the name of Dewey Alabaugh, easily one of the coolest guys I'd met in my young life. Anyhow, it was time for Dewey to rotate back to the States, and on his last night in country I threw him the obligatory going-away party. It started out with just the people on our flight, about a dozen or so, but quickly grew to about two dozen people. Somewhere during the festivities - which means a little after midnight when everybody was good and drunk - someone bet me twenty bucks that I wouldn't drink a half-bottle of Ron Rico Light Rum straight.

Well, I was just drunk enough to do it, so after the airman laid his money on the dresser upon which I was sitting, I grabbed the bottle and down it went. Half an hour later he came back wanting a "double or nothing" bet, only this time it was half a bottle of Ron Rico dark.

He lost that one, too. Do I need to tell you what happened next?

I remember turning to Dewey and handing him the sixty bucks, asking him to put it away someplace safe because in about an hour or so I wasn't going to remember who the hell I was, much less where the money was. I may have been young, but I wasn't stupid. Everything else after that is, well, kinda gone. Just, well, gone.

I remember being really, really thirsty, so I stumbled out of our room in a t-shirt, jeans, and flip-flops and bouncing from wall to wall headed to the water fountain which was located in the exact center of the hallway of the dormitory. I got my drink and then turned to go back to my room, but my feel wouldn't work. Next thing I knew I was lying face-down on the floor, and had NO desire to get up at all. The floor was moving beneath me like the deck of a ship on rough seas, I was that drunk. And then it hit me.

I'm gonna be sick. REEEEEEEEALLY sick.

I lifted my head and looked at the exit door way at the end of the hall, and it looked like that doorway was about a mile away. I didn't know if I would make it, but I was determined to give it a try. So I staggered to my feet and gave it my best effot - and got to within 5 feet of the door before the inevitable happened. I won't go into details, but I'm sure you know what happened next.

Dewey, God bless his soul, sat up with me the rest of the night feeding me bottles of water with alka-seltzer in them so I wouldn't dehydrate and go into shock. All this took place while I was sitting on the floor in a stall of the bathroom in the dorm, hugging one of the porcelain johns into which I would periodically - well, you know. At that time and place, if you got admitted into the base hospital for an alcohol related incident your career was pretty much over, and I have Dewey to thank that that didn't happen.

All I know is that it was close to six AM before I finally crawled into bed, sick as a dog and hung over like you wouldn't believe, and I had to be at work at one PM that afternoon. I made it, but it was tough, let me tell you.

The second time also took place in Korea, this time at Taegu Air Base when I was a Technical Sergeant. I had just processed into the unit and was looking at my first Friday night in-country with nothing to do when a staff sergeant in the Training Section (to which I was temporarily assigned) by the name of Williams told me he was going down to the 'Ville tonight (the area of bars located right outside of the main gate) and get drunk. I told him that I'd come along, and he told me that I wouldn't be able to keep up with him. I told him I could, and the bet was on. Duty hours ended at 1630 hours (4:30PM for you civilians out there) and at 1700 hours we were in the 'Ville.

And Will - the staff sergeant - wasn't kidding when he said he was hell-bent on getting drunk. That boy was SERIOUS, let me tell you! By nine PM we were standing in the middle of the dance floor at The Lion Club - the cop hangout - forehead to forehead, each of us leaning on the other so we wouldn't fall over, both of us so drunk the room was spinning like there's no tomorrow.

"Cowboy, you did it," he said (my nickname in the service was 'Cowboy'). "I didn't think you could do it, but you did it - you kept up with me!"

"Yeah, I did! I told you I could!" I replied, barely able to keep my feet under me. I was so drunk my face was numb.

"You're a hell of a man, Cowboy! No one's ever been able to keep up with me before, but you did it! And now I'm gonna go home and pass out," he said, at which point his yobo - Korean for 'girlfiend' - who was the bartender at the club came out to the dance floor and got him, then took him off to their hooch.

As for me, I stumbled over to a table and flopped down in the chair, then asked the mamasan of the club to call the Town Patrol so I could get a ride back to the base. I was fried to the gills and needed to get my sorry drunk ass back to the base, and I knew it. Ten minutes later the Town Patrol showed up, and I told them who I was and said that I needed a ride back to the base.

"Oh, yeah, you must be the new Flight Chief," the young black sergeant said. "Sure thing, Sgt Craig, we'll get you back to the base." And with that I went out and got into their Hummer and they drove me back to the base. Ten minutes after that I was passed out in my bed, clothes and all.

I was hung over and sick for three days.

I got drunk on Friday night, and it was Sunday morning before I could put anything on my stomach except water and Alka-Seltzer. Thank God for Alka-Seltzer! And when Monday morning rolled around and I had to get into uniform and show up at the Training Section, I did so but it was a struggle. But I felt better after I got a look at Staff Sergeant Williams, my drinking buddy of the previous Friday night. He looked like he'd been rode hard and put away wet.

I haven't been that drunk or anywhere even close to it since, and I don't plan on it, either.

I may be a lot of things, but stupid ain't one of 'em.

I think.

IHC

Random Thoughts on a Friday Evening

Well, it's been two days since the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the world hasn't come to an end. The Big Biker hasn't rained death and destruction down on the US, and I bet that just chaps Fred Phelps' and the rest of the Westboro Baptist Church's ass, huh? Sucks to be them...

And speaking of the homosexual community, here's a perfect example of a group of people not being satisfied with what they've gotten. Within 24 hours of the repeal of "DADT," a group called "The Servicemember's Legal Defense Network" announced that it will begin a campaign to have all of the discharge records of those who were discharged for homosexuality prior to the repeal of "DADT" amended to remove any reference to their homsexuality. The group is led by Aubry Sarvis, who in an interview said: "We need to remove the homosexual characterization that is on those discharge papers. That is very important."

'Scuse me, Aubry, but why is that "very important?" Are you and your clients trying to hide your homosexuality after winning a victory that got positive press worldwide? Are you now trying to say that you're ashamed that you're homosexual, when just two days ago you were saying you were proud of it? The point all along is that homosexuals are just as capable of serving as heterosexuals, and by trying to remove the 'homosexual' annotation from past records it seems like you're trying to hide your sexual orientation again. Doesn't make sense to me. Besides, changing the discharge records now just because the reason they were discharged then is not binding now is like setting a bank robber who's in prison free because robbing a bank isn't illegal anymore. Sorry, that doesn't wash. Why can't you just be happy with what you achieved this week and be done with it?

And on the flip side of the coin in an incident which just stinks to high heaven for a number of reasons, a violation of someone's Constitutional rights being #1 on the list, a school in Fort Worth, Texas gave an honor student with a spotless record a one day "in school" suspension and a two day "out of school" supsension for telling a friend of his that he thought homosexuality was wrong. Seems that the honor student is a devout Christian, and while in his German class the conversation which was being led by the teacher turned to the topic of homosexuality in Germany. (What that has to do with learning to SPEAK German I'll never know.) At one point the honor student turned to the kid behind him and said that he was a Christian and thought homosexuality was wrong. Well, the teacher overheard him and went ballistic. He wrote the kid up, sent him to the principal's office, and the principal in what can only be described as the biggest lapse of common sense in the history of the Forth Worth school system, handed out the punishment of a three day suspension.

All this because the honor student voiced his opinion, as he is free to do under the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Kinda gets you to wondering what got the teacher so riled up, huh? Well, it seems that this teacher - who was teaching a NINTH GRADE class, by the way - has a history of intermingling homosexual topics into his classes. He posted a picture of two men kissing on the "world wall" in his classroom, which naturally offended a lot of students. He also told the students that homosexuality "is happening all over the world and you just have to accept the fact that homosexuality is a part of our culture now."

A part of YOUR culture, maybe, but not mine. And anybody wanna place a bet as to the sexual orientation of the teacher? I'm guessing he's a homosexual, how about you? I've said all along that I really don't care if someone is homosexual or not, but just don't shove it in my face and tell me I have to accept it. I don't have to accept a damned thing, and what this teacher did is wrong, plain and simple. And the asshole needs to have his teaching license yanked and ripped up into little tiny pieces.

I don't know about you, but I was kinda looking forward to hearing the former executives of Solyndra - you know, the now-bankrupt solar energy company tht NObama touted as the wave of the future when he rolled out his big stimulus program last year - testify in front of Congress as to just what they did with all of the millions of dollars they got from Uncle Sam. And to top it all off, they got not one but TWO lumps of cash from NObama and his band of merry idiots! So yeah, I was really looking forward to hearing what they have to say - and then, in the best Mafioso fashion, they get up in front of the panel and plead the fifth. And all that does is make it look like they're trying to hide something, which I'm quite sure they are.

I don't know about you, but I have a feeling this whole Solyndra thing is going to turn into NObama's own personal Watergate. Between this and the ATFE's failed "Fast and Furious" disaster, this could very well spell the end of any chance at all that The Great Pretender has of getting re-elected.

Which would please me to no end.

And no, I didn't watch the debate last night. Why? Well, because none of the present candidates impress me, that's why. Besides, I had a house full of company from out of state and had more important things to do.

And now I hear a pizza and a few bottles of beer calling my name...

IHC

Random Thoughts on a Tuesday Evening

Well, the day that all of the rampant homophobes in America, both male and female, have been dreading has finally arrived - the US military has finally done away with the Clinton-era policy of "don't ask, don't tell" which prohibited openly homosexual people from serving in the United States armed forces. My opinion on this hasn't changed since the last time I posted on this topic, but for those of you who missed it the first time around, here it is: I see absolutely ZERO reason why homosexuals should be denied the honor and priviledge of serving their country based solely on their sexual preference. As much as I'm in favor of this, my support comes with two warnings: first, the homosexuals in the military who are celebrating this need to realize that there are still tons of folks out there who despise them simply because they are homosexual and who will beat the living crap out of them just for that reason, so they should be careful about where and how much they celebrate; and second, by reaching this milestone you have ceased to be "something special." You're just like everyone else now, so you'll neither deserve nor get any special attention or consideration simply because you're a homosexual. Welcome to Mainstream America.

So when the Great Pretender first started talking about his "new" program to create jobs, he minced no words about who would be to blame if Congress didn't approve his grand plan - he named the Republicans as being the ones to blame, saying that if the bill didn't pass it would be their fault. Well, now it appears that he's backing down on some of the provisions of this plan because of "pressure from the left," which means pressure from the Demoncratic members of congress - members of his own party. And he hasn't said one word in condemnation, instead remaining silent and slinking off into a corner to lick his wounds and come up with a "compromise" that will make his fellow Demoncrats happy. It simply amazes me that a man of his supposed intelligence - after all, he is a college graduate - can be so short-sighted, inept, and foolish as this. Every day this man is in office makes me all the more anxious for November 2012 when we kick his ass out of the White House and back to Illinois.

Now if only the Republicans or the Tea Party would come up with a viable candidate...

Guess this is gonna be short tonight, as I've been sitting here long enough without typing anything for my screen saver to come on...okay, I can take a hint. I need some more Diet Pepsi, anyway...

IHC

I'm Still Confused, but Not Quite As Much

A few days ago I wrote a blog entry in which I made the plea that someone who was a NObama supporter try and explain to me how The Great Pretender planned to create jobs by using a newer version of the failed "stimulus program" that he used already, but no one took me up on it. I won't be so foolish as to assume that this means no one is up to the task; rather, I'll make the logical conclusion - and there's a big difference between an "assumption" and a "logical conclusion" - that the person of whom I was speaking has not read my blog lately. Too bad, because I truly would love to have that conversation...maybe I'll send him a text and poke him into action, we'll see.

In the mean time, NObama has answered at least one of the questions I posed in that entry, that question being "where is the money coming from?" In true Demoncratic "tax and spend" form, NObama plans on paying for the "new" programs with other people's money - specifically, millionaire's money. He even named this part of his plan the "Buffett Rule," named after multi-millionnaire Warren Buffet, one of the richest men in the world. This plan would call for millionnaires to pay the same taxes as the middle class, and that money would then be wasted on the latest version of a proven failed, futile program.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of millionnaires paying the same taxes I do - after all, they can surely afford to whereas I and millions of others sometimes have problems doing so - but I also think that this money could be much better used in other ways rather than to flush it down the toilet on the latest version of a futile, useless "jobs creation" program. Plug it into Social Security or Medicare, plug it into the military budget, use it for the Veteran's Administration - hell, use it almost ANYWHERE ELSE where the money will be spent in THIS COUNTRY. Just don't throw it away on a failed program that is destined to fail again.

So my clouds of confusion have lifted somewhat, although I still don't understand just how NObama thinks a newer, updated verion of a failed program will work; in the mean time, my sense of total disgust at every single politician in Washington, DC is growing daily. And I mean every single mother-lovin' one of them, Republican, Demoncrat, Independent, the whole lot of 'em. And here's why.

As I see it, we have three main issues with the politicians in DC; they are:

1) An inexperienced, incapable, and biased President
2) Members of Congress who are Demoncrats first and members of Congress second
3) Members of Congress who are Republicans first and members of Congress second

Let's start at the top and work our way down, shall we?

1) An inexperienced President

Whether those of you who voted for NObama want to admit it or not, when you elected this man you elected someone who has proven himself to be the least prepared, least experienced, and least capable President in the past 150 years, and the latest polls prove it. Earlier this week a poll was released which stated that 50% of the people polled disapproved of NObama's job performance; well, that was Wednesday, and now on Sunday a new poll has been released by CBS News which shows that this number has plummeted down to 43%. Even members of his own party are now turning against him; on August 20 Representative Maxine Waters, who at one time was a vehement supporter of NObama, gave a speech in Detroit in which she told the black community that she was fed up with NObama and his lack of action, and told the audience that all they had to do was give the word and "unleash" her and the other black members of Congress on him. And they gave the word, by the way, so what does that tell you?

As for being biased, it's like this: it is my opinion that when a man takes office as President of the United States, he should stop being a Demoncrat or a Republican and start being a President. The President needs to do what is right for the nation, not what is right for his party, and NObama has proven that he is either incapable or unwilling to do this. On more than one occasion NObama has made statements in which he has said that if his plan or proposal or whatever he's trying to get through Congress fails, it will be the Republican's fault. Not "Congress'" fault, mind you, but the "Republicans" fault.

Yes, I realize that this refers to the different goals and ideologies of the two parties, but to single out one part of a group that has failed as a group to get anything done is wrong. That's the kind of statement you make in closed meetings with that group, not in front of the news media when you're trying to set the stage for your re-election bid.

2) Members of Congress who are Demoncrats first and members of Congress second
3) Members of Congress who are Republicans first and members of Congress second

I'll cover both of these at the same time because the only difference between them is the party affiliation; the causes are the same.

I realize that Congress is made up of Demoncrats and Republicans, with a few Independents thrown in; I also realize that these people got elected based on the beliefs of their parties and the members of their parties who voted for them, and they're expected to follow those beliefs while serving. But I also believe that these people are under the same expectation that I have for the President: once you get elected your first concern should be what's best for the nation, not what's best for your party. And both Demoncrats and Republicans alike are equally as guilty of not doing this. The approval rating for Congress is now a mere 12%; that means 88% of the people of the United States think that Congress sucks. And I'm one of them. Republicans and Demoncrats alike have become so entrenched in defending their party lines and ideologies that they've lost sight of the real reason for their being in Congress, that reason being to make the nation a better place to live. Both parties are equally guilty of screwing the pooch on this one, and both parties need to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and do the right thing. The economic problems facing our country are not the fault of the people; after all, the people don't vote on the budget. Congress does, and only Congress. The President signs it, so he's in there too. So it's the members of Congress, every last mother-lovin' one of them, who are to blame for the financial mess the nation is in. And it's up to Congress to fix it - NOW!

We don't have time for all of this petty "Republican vs Demoncrat" bullshit. The nation is going broke, it's going broke quickly, and unless our elected leaders do something to fix it, we're in for a hell of a fall and a very rude awakening.

Hmmmmm, let's see...."elected leaders." WE elected them; they report to US. WE have a say in what goes on in DC, so maybe WE should start having our say?

The President and Congress have proven that they aren't going to do anything to fix the problems facing our nation, so maybe it's time we did two things: maybe it's time we let them know that we disapprove of what they're doing by writing to them and telling them, and maybe it's time we voted them the hell out of office.

I know where my next letter is going, that's for sure.

How about you?

IHC

Gun Rights vs. State's Rights

If you're a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and have been paying attention to current events, then you've most likely heard that the House is considering a bill which would force all states to recognize the Concealed Weapons or Concealed Carry permits granted by other states no matter what. This is called "reciprocity," and a majority of the states that have CCW laws already recognize most of the permits granted by other states; not all of them do, but most do. For example, my South Carolina permit is recognized and honored by 11 of the 36 states that have CCW laws in effect; this bill would enact a law that would make it recognized in all 50 states.

And of course, the Brady Bunch and all of the other liberal gun-grabbers out there are already crying and moaning about it, and showing just how truly ignorant of this topic they really are. In the "Stupidest Thing I've Heard This Week" category comes a statement from Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, an opponent of the bill. From FOXNEWS.COM:

"Testifying before Congress on Tuesday, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey told the story of Marqus Hill, a man whose Pennsylvania gun permit was revoked after he was charged with attempted murder.

'Despite his record, he then used his Florida permit to carry a loaded gun in Philadelphia,' Ramsey said. "'e eventually shot a teenager thirteen times in the chest killing him on the street.'

What Commissioner Ramsey fails to mention, either because he didn't know - which he should have - or because he chose not to mention it (for obvious reasons), was that the moment Mr. Hill's Pennsylvania permit was revoked, his Florida permit was automatically revoked as well. What Mr. Hill had was a Florida non-resident permit, and according to Florida law in order for a non-resident permit to be granted and remain in effect, your home state permit must be valid at the time of application and must remain valid. Once your home state permit is no longer valid for whatever reason, so is your Florida non-resident permit.

So the TRUTH is that Mr. Hill was carrying a weapon illegally. Gee, I wonder why the Commissioner didn't mention that?

The biggest objection from the gun-grabbers also shows just how ignorant they really are. That objection is that the certification requirements in some states are "more lax" than in other. In actuality, nothing could be further from the truth. The TRUTH is that every state that has a Concealed Carry law have the same basic requirements, those requirements being:

1. That the applicant not have a criminal record other than a traffic offense
2. That the applicant be fingerprinted and undergo a background check
3. That the applicant not have been judged mentally incompetant or ever been admitted to a psychiatric hospital for any reason
4. That the applicant undergo a minimum of 8 hours of classroom instruction on gun safety and gun laws of their state and pass a written exam
5. That the applicant demonstrate their ability to safely handle and fire a weapon

Hardly what I'd call "lax." And in ALL cases, when a state offers a non-resident permit, these five topics are REQUIRED in order for the permit to be issued.

So the short story is that the bill seems to be a good idea, given that all of the states that have CCW laws have these minimum requirements and despite what Commissioner Ramsey and the morons at the Brady Bunch say.

Until you look at it from another direction, that being the direction of State's Rights.

The passage of this bill would absolutely crush the autonomy of the individual states and their right to self-government as guaranteed - not "granted," mind you, but "GUARANTEED" - by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. If the Federal government can force the individual states to recognize a FEDERAL law that covers laws originated at STATE level, then they can force the states to do just about anything they want.

And that is NOT a good thing.

My fear is that the NObama administration, headed by a man who's opinion on gun control and the 2nd Amendment is clearly documented by his past statements and voting record in Congress, will use this bill as a "foot in the door" method towards enacting more gun control laws, or towards enacting more laws to further erode the rights of the individual states to govern themselves. But I will say that I'm more concerned about the onslaught of gun control laws that will follow, should this bill become law. After all, if we give the Federal government the right to tell the states what to do in THIS case, then what's to stop them from telling the states what to do about anything?

And if you think that can't - or won't - happen, then I suggest you need a wake-up call.

No, as much as I absolutely LOVE the idea of my South Carolina permit being good across the nation, I am absolutely against this bill. The right of the individual states to govern themselves is guaranteed in the Constitution, and I'm not willing to sacrifice ANY part of the Constitution for ANY reason at ANY time, no matter what.

And I would hope everyone else would feel the same way.

IHC

Have You Forgotten?

Ten years ago today our nation suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history, with thousands of innocent people being killed by the brutal acts of a group of Islamic radicals.

Time has a way of separating you from the harsh reality of moments such as these, the emotions of the moment gradually fading and softening, the hurt gradually healing, and the effects of the brutal impact of the event slowly easing.

But for the families of those lost, the hurt never heals; the pain never fades, the emotions never ease, and each day on Earth without the ones who were lost is a reminder of that day and what was, and, more importantly, what will never be.

Despite those in our government who tell us we need to be careful about what we say lest we bruise someone's delicate feelings, I say the same thing now that I said then, that I said the year after, and have said every year since that tragic, fateful day:

I'll never forget. And I'll never forgive.

NEVER.

IHC

I'm Confused...and Apparently I'm Not the Only One

I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I'm confused.

I just finished reading a news article on NObama's speech in Detroit today where he gave an outline of the speech about creating jobs and lowering the national unemployment rate that he's going to give to Congress shortly, and after reading the article I'm confused.

When NObama was on the campaign trail one of the many things he promised was to create jobs and lower the national unemployment rate. Well, since he took office almost TWO YEARS ago the national unemployment rate has RISEN, and he's spent millions and millions of dollars in an apparently futile attempt to create more jobs. I mean, if the program hadn't been futile the unemployment rate would have dropped because of all the new jobs created, right? And for the first time in American history, NO NEW JOBS were created in August, and the unemployment rate has remained steady at a whopping 9.5 percent.

Now, I don't know about you, but to me that tells me that the "stimulus program" he fostered has been a whopping FAILURE.

So here's what I don't understand about today's speech: NObama's solution to the unemployment problem is to - hang on to your underwear - spend more money to create more programs to create more jobs.

I'm sorry, did I miss something? Isn't that called "throwing good money after bad?" I mean, really, does it take a rocket scientist to realize that if you throw money away on useless programs that don't work, the solution to them is NOT to throw more money away on more similar, useless programs?

And on top of it all, the other bright idea NObama has is to cut taxes for the middle class. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for less taxes, but if you cut taxes at the same time that you're proposing spending more money, just where in the hell are you going to get the money you're going to spend?

Oh, I got it...just print more! Of course! How silly of me not to realize that! Never mind that the credit rating of our nation was just reduced for the first time in our nation's history, and that the stock market has been tumbling like bowling pins for the past month or two...never mind all that! Just take the word of the clown in charge of the treasury - you know, the guy who said that our credit rating "is in no danger" - and press on!

All sarcasm aside, I'm serious when I say that I simply don't understand how NObama plans to reduce unemployment and create more jobs by doing the exact same thing that he's already done and that statistics have proven has not worked. I truly wish that someone out there who is a NObama supporter would explain this to me because I just don't get it. And if there is someone out there who wants to try and explain this to me, you're gonna have to do it WITHOUT blaming George W. Bush 'cuz he ain't President anymore and hasn't been for nearly two years. Bush didn't suggest the failed programs that NObama implemented; Bush didn't create and implement the failed "stimulus program," and Bush didn't promise to reduce unemployment in November 2008. NObama did, so you're gonna have to explain things to me WITHOUT playing the tired old game of "Let's Blame Bush!"

THIS mess belongs to no one but our current President, and that's a fact.

For the first time in my life, I'm genuinely afraid of what's in store for our nation once this charlatan is finished. But what scares me even more is the fact that there were people in the audience in Detroit today that were actually shouting, "Four more years!" as NObama was speaking.

To those people, I simply say this: are you that fucking stupid? Do you really want four more years of rising unemployment, vanishing jobs, downgraded national credit ratings, unstable stock markets, more government regulations, and more out of control spending? I mean, really?

If so, then I guess that's the answer to my previous question.

I can't wait to see if anybody is gonna take me up on my request. I have a feeling one of my friends may try, but we'll see.

IHC