Advertisements

The End Result

I was lying in bed last night, minding my own business when I hear a familiar noise sneaking up behind me. This sound is not one of my many children of the herd, but more of a slow door creaking in a horror movie. I proclaim proudly once finished that I have accomplished the feat of the six minute poot. I begin to explain to my resting spouse, waking her up to do so, that I did not experience a fart, but a poot. She replied

Does it really matter? The end result is the same.

I attempt to debate this topic with her to which she responds by rolling back over ensuring I witness her rolling her eyes on the way. I was simply trying to explain that a poot is much drier and less content than a fart. A poot generally produces air, and mine never stink, while a fart moistens the gears a little, and have to potential to be somewhat smelly. Perhaps we will continue the conversation elsewhere. As for last night in bed, I guess the means did not matter as much as the end. To me, it was a long, drawn out, hilarious poot.

– Me

Advertisements

Obama Claus Explained

As the title suggests, Obama Claus needs a little explanation. Like Santa and his magical elves working diligently for little to no reward, just to give the fruits of their labors away, the Progressives on the left are trying to fill those shoes in a modern and more adult fairy tale manner. Jello brains say that electric cars are pollutant free and cost efficient while ignoring the fact that you have to plug these things in somewhere. Electricity is not free and the power is not generated from the magical wires in the sky or underground. That juice comes from power plants (nuclear, coal, etc). While the emissions from the actual driving is significantly less while on battery power, the power plant is being overwhelmed by the uptick in electrical demand and is producing more. I wonder which of the two produces more waste now – the electric plant powering your car partially or the car that is self-sufficient. A debate surely worth investigation. Free stuff, it’s already paid for! Once again, the Jello brained adults who believe this are either stupid or blind. Let us take the lifeline free cell phone. A low income person gets a FREE cell phone from the government with 250 talk minutes and 250 texts per month. This is the elf-produced free product that brings about the conversation.

How does the progressive left explain the FREE cell they are GIVING to the masses of underprivileged voters? Short answer is word salad, which I will give you – I will also explain that word salad for those lacking gray matter. This “FREE” cell and usage is actually a tax. This is a redistribution policy where everyone who pays for their cell service pays a tax called the Universal Service Charge. Universal service charge is intended to sound official enough so you do not ask questions. Who would question a universal service charge? It is universal, so no matter the cell company you use, you pay it. Another crafty name for this is all-end-user-surcharge. Basically if you pay a phone bill monthly, you pay the fee to your provider, who then transfers the money to the state, who then purchases cell phones and minute plans to give to the oppressed.

You see how that works? If you work, you pay for those who do not. Interestingly, that is the exact method used for all government programs. Santa Claus and his magical elves are hard at work building you goodies while asking for no pay in exchange. The only pay they require is to see your happy mug receiving your much deserved free stuff. Obama and his magical elves (progressives in government) are “hard at work” making sure those who work pay for those who do not. Obama Claus will punish those who work harder in order to make those who do not receive the same quality of life. After all, shouldn’t the unemployed high school drop out be entitled to a home, car, money to spend, nice clothes, and a cell phone? Why not when Obama Claus and the magical elves are giving it to you for the low price of your loyalty in the voting booth. Your vote is the equivalent of the smiling face for Santa – it is a fairy tale. Santa is not real and if he were would more than likely be exhausted from making toys for the world in exchange for a bit of a cheap cookie and warm milk at every home. Obama Claus is not real either, he does not GIVE anyone anything, he can’t – so he takes from some to give to others…

Maybe it should be Obama Hood instead?

– Me

Wisdom (inverted)

“If the government wants it compliant; it will not work… If they want it to work, it will not be compliant”

This is the crux of our governmental wisdom. Take this quote and apply to your government job or installation…

– Me

Attack on Constitutional RIGHT

Roe -v- Wade (abortion) is under attack in Arkansas according to Geraldo Rivera! According to the radio show host, this is the most blatant attack on a Constitutional RIGHT he has ever witnessed and a slippery slope to more scary things. I agree that attacking a Constitutional right is a slippery slope, and that doing so is a tendency toward more scary events. I also disagree with his assertion that abortion is a Constitutional right. It is not. It is a Supreme Court ruling. That is why its not know as the right to abortion, but Roe -v- Wade.

What I find interesting about this Geraldo’s selective acknowledgment of what is a right and what is not. Guns for instance, are not a right according to Geraldo, but abortion is. Right to bear arms is actually in the Bill of RIGHTS, so I am a little confused about the mindset here. How is a Supreme Court ruling more of a right than a RIGHT in the Bill of Rights? Can anyone explain this to me because I just can’t wrap my head around it.

What a ridiculous man with stupid thoughts. He tries so hard to be popular and have the majority thoughts that he can no longer form his own opinions. He is actually contradicting himself now and does not even realize it. I guess I just take it as entertainment at this point.

– Me

Crazy Talk

During the Rand Paul filibuster yesterday (From around 10:30 AM – 12:30 AM) Democratic Senator Dick Durben (IL) asked Rand Paul this:

was Osama bin Laden an imminent threat when U.S. Navy Seals killed him in his bedroom?

This was an attempt to show cause for using a drone strike in the Continental US against US citizens. What a stupid remark, and I will explain why.

First, Bin Laden was killed during a combat mission over-seas. He is not a US citizen and was an active combatant. At the time of his death, he was not wielding a rocket launcher or something stupid like that, but apparently warranted return fire from the assault team. This was a military operation, in a foreign country and did not involve bombing anyone with a drone. This was set up as an extraction no matter the outcome. So was he an imminent threat? All I can say is he must have been or he would be alive right now.

Let us hypothetical this for a second. Let us say that Osama Bin Laden was a US citizen IN the US. They knew where he was and sent in the FBI or ATF or SWAT team to apprehend him. Oh, wait, that IS what they would do. That is what they DID do. They attempted to arrest him, but deadly force was deemed necessary for whatever reason. Same goes here. The arrest would be attempted and the fact that he was shot or would need to be shot in his bedroom would really depend on his reaction during the raid. Osama Bin Laden was an imminent threat and a drone was NOT used against him. For that fact, I am not sure what Durben was attempting to say.

Now, let us say he is sitting at your local Starbucks having coffee since that is the example that continues to come up on the Senate floor. Why, in this scenario, would you entertain a drone strike? You can not argue intelligently that a drone strike in a city is better than sending in law enforcement. There are too many variables in using a drone attack against someone in a populated area. The lives of everyone surrounding this person are going to be taken. The property damage will be extensive, and the lack of due process for the accused and those around him is undeniable.

What about a fugitive hiding in the mountains? Well, if you can not go get him, then wait for him to come down from the mountain. If you want the person arrested bad enough, you will go get him, not kill him.

Eric Holder stated the possible remains for a drone strike in circumstances referenced like the attack on Pearl Harbor or the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Once again, unless the person is actively (ACTIVELY) posing a threat, how can you justify this? Is that to say the government can randomly pick someone they accuse as guilty of a crime, and then go kill them? The attackers of 9/11, the actual people on the planes were suicidal, and swift in their actions. How would a drone strike have prevented this? Would you theoretically strike them before they commit a crime? The FBI handles investigations and arrest of this nature, and due process takes place.

I don’t think anyone out there is arguing against using deadly force when needed DURING the act of a crime when deadly force is being perpetrated. That is a normal response. Deadly force begets deadly force. This is NOT what we are talking about here. Do not be fooled, the administration is not talking about active terrorist attacks, they are talking about punishing their enemies with deadly force. Why should you be worried? Obama has repeatedly stated his political opposition is his enemy. The absence of due process is the introduction of sanctioned government killings. I think someone else did that; Hitler.

– Me

Spin like a Round Up at the local fair…

I find it so interesting the spin CBS put on the Paul filibuster story. CBS attempted to make Paul seem as though he were loony and going about nothing on his own. CBS went as far as stating this about the dinner Obama requested with Republican Senators last night:

While Senator Rand Paul filibustered, other Republican Senators were participating in a bipartisan dinner with President Obama.

Bipartisan dinner? So, am I to assume that if the parties do anything together now it is bipartisan? So if Harry Reid and Rand Paul hit the can at the same time, is that a bipartisan bowl movement? No, that is not what they were implying. They were implying that Obama was being bipartisan and Rand Paul was not. That, away from the smoke and mirrors was the intent of the commentary. After all, everyone knows Republicans are holding back the country and not letting Obama do what he wants. The left seems to think the Republicans should agree with everything they want. If that is the way it worked, then all involved would be of the same party.

Wait a minute… Is that not the way our government was designed? Silly to think Obama can’t just do what he wants, all because of the opposition party; I mean his enemies.

This type of one-sided reporting is exactly why I stopped watching major news channels. I simply can’t believe the “reporting” anymore when so much left or right is placed on the it.

– Me

First of many to come

My wife was explaining to me last night about weight loss based on a commercial about a new healthy sausage biscuit thingy. If I am not mistaken, this particular sandwich was around 350-400 calories. She immediately took note that there were no 6′ men on the commercial, as that would have served as a tasty snack for the massive calorie vacuum. No, only women, and none appeared even slightly overweight. To top it off, this was in an office environment that resembled a cubicle farm, so seeing thirty sedentary women who are all somehow in shape seemed a stretch. Now to the musing….

My wife took note that the only way to lose weight effectively is not to diet, but to always be in a state of hunger. She expanded her thought and concluded that once a person reaches the optimal low weight they can sustain, if you wind up full at any meal, you gained weight that day! Amazingly simple, yet undeniably true. If you want to lose weight by changing your dietary habits, you have to stay hungry according to her. I trust what she says is true and found it truly funny. There were more and have been, so I created the new tag My Wife’s Amusing Musings to give her funny and sensible voice somewhere to linger.

So, if you want to lose weight – just make sure you are always hungry and never full. Try it and see what happens, because it sounds about right.

– Me

%d bloggers like this: