Ow, my head hurts

I read this on Hot Air, and I didn't believe it. I had to watch the video, and even then I didn't want to believe it.





Congressman Hank Johnson of the Georgia 4th District is famous around the world for finally ridding the Government of Cynthia McKinney. Congresswoman McKinney as you might remember was a radical and a huge embarrassment for those of us who live in Georgia. However, Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia may have just eclipsed even Cynthia McKinney with his recent comment/question in a congressional hearing.

He asked Admiral Willard if Guam is in danger of tipping over due to overpopulation. Apparently Congressman Johnson hasn't yet had it explained to him that there is big difference between islands, and boats. Just because the island appears to be floating serenely on the water, doesn't mean it's actually floating.


Now, I admire Admiral Willard who I have never heard of until this, because he managed to keep a straight and serious face while a moron asked him if an island will tip over. I couldn't have done it. I would have laughed out loud and then fallen out of the chair holding my head as my brain locked up in sheer amazement at the incredible stupidity on display. I would have been unable to resist turning to one of my aides and then saying just loud enough to be picked up by the microphone. "Did that imbecile just ask me if Guam was going to tip over?"

But they did it too... And other Childish remarks

We've all seen it. Someone gets caught doing something wrong, and the first words out of their mouths is that someone else did it too.

It's childish, and it's a stupid response. I mention it today because of the Deem and Pass that the Democrats are planning on using to pass the Senate Version of Obamacare without passing Obamacare. So when people mention it is wrong to do that, the Democrats all scream that the Republicans did it too.

It was just as wrong when they did it. It was their abuses in 2006 that led to the Democrats winning back the house if you remember. People didn't like the procedural games and attitude that Congress had, and they voted the Republicans out.

It was part of the reason that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi promised us the most open, responsive, transparent, and ethical congress ever. She didn't mean it, obviously, but she said it partially over abuses like Deem and Pass.

Yet now the Democrats are abusing the system just like the Republicans did, and then they actually expect to be re-elected to another term in office? This is another example of why I am firmly in the there is no difference between the parties camp. The Republicans should never have done it, the Democrats should never use this Demon Pass technique, no one should.

If it's wrong for one, it's wrong for all. It is one of the reasons that the people voted the Republicans out of office for. It's one of the reasons the Democrats will lose seats in the next election. They haven't lived up to one tenth of the promise they made. They haven't been open, transparent, or ethical. The people who abandoned the Republicans in 2006 will be abandoning the Democrats in 2010, and I wonder how it will be spun by those who are even now screaming that the Republicans did it too.

Truth from a Democrat

A video linked by Drudge, and by Hot Air, and Michelle Malkin, and goodness knows how many others, is astounding that it tells the truth.




Now what is astounding, is this is a Democrat admitting that they've been stealing money in Washington, and tells us honestly that they will keep it up.

Now, Pay as you go, a proposal, and a rule for the Congress, has been ignored already. They have no intention of paying for anything as they go. Congress always tells us that they're powerless to do anything about it, they have to do things this way.

I'm going to thank the Shilling Show for finding this, and posting it to YouTube. I'm further going to thank Democratic Congressman Perrillo for admitting the truth that we've all understood for so long. It's nice to know that one person up there is at least marginally honest.

Runaway cars.

"Dad, what happens, or what should I do if the car runs amok? I mean, what if the gas pedal sticks?"

"Push the clutch in, just shove it to the floor." Dad said while gesturing. "Then apply the brake and stop. The engine will be revving up and may even blow up. Don't worry about that, first rule boy, people's lives, people's injuries, and then property."

"But, what if it's an automatic transmission?" I asked next.

"Bump it up to Neutral. Same thing. Engine will keep running, but the car can then be slowed, and stopped. Don't kill the engine with the key because most automatic transmissions have engines that also power the brakes. Wait until you get the car stopped before shutting down the engine."

"OK, and if the engine blows before I get stopped?" I asked him.

"Use the emergency brake, just shove it down and try to get out of traffic. Or if it's a handbrake, use it to get the car stopped. That works, but most cars with automatic transmissions are so heavy they don't like to stop on the emergency brake."

I spent the next week or so after school practicing this as my father patiently taught me how to drive. Fast forward ten years or so, I'm listening to a CD and the case is sitting on the seat next to me. I braked and the CD case fell off the seat, but I didn't notice. Instead I found an opening and shifted lanes to the left. When I did, the CD wedged between my handy drink and tissue holding doohickey on the Transmission Hump, and the accelerator pedal. The Ford began to speed up and I removed my foot from the gas pedal. It still sped up. I tapped the brake to disengage the cruise control, and then pushed harder because ahead of me was an 18 wheel truck.

Without thinking about it consciously, my hand reached out and slapped upwards on the transmission lever. The car dropped out of drive and into neutral, the engine began to scream as the depressed gas pedal continued to feed it fuel. I pulled over to the left into the center, put the hazard lights on, and when stopped shut the engine off. A quick inspection found the CD case had gotten into the worst possible position. Yet, it was my Father who saved the day from an accident years before. He had me practice for an eventuality that was so improbable, that most driving manuals only barely mentioned it.

Fast Forward again, and I'm driving a piece of heavy equipment. I approach a stop line and depress the brakes. The vehicle does not slow. The brakes have failed. I pull the emergency brake knob and the vehicle continues forward unimpeded. Realizing it's another runaway, I hit the horn next, and as I shifted to neutral, glided through the intersection with the air horn blowing madly. Upon reaching the other side, I turned the wheel into an open area, and left it fully right once into that area. The momentum is finally bled off the vehicle as it circles clockwise, and I shut the engine down, and call for maintenance to come and repair the equipment. A small valve was stuck, and wouldn't allow the brakes to be applied, or the parking brake to be applied. Once changed out, a total of ten minutes of labor later, I was back at work with no injuries and no damage.

A lesson I learned from my father. Expect things to go wrong. They will do that from time to time. He taught me to always act first to stop the vehicle, and accept potential damage to the vehicle as preferable to the loss of life or limb.

I have to wonder, how many of the recent reports of runaway vehicles would have been solved in seconds if the operators had only just shifted to neutral? Forget all the technology, because technology can and will fail at the worst possible moments. Just that simple operator action, shift to neutral, ends the problem 999 times out of a thousand. For that last one, it's the fault of demonic possession, and all the shifting in the world won't drive that out.

New day, new Liberal Histrionics

Liberal Histrionics, defined as normal liberal tantrums by the grown ups, have long been a bell weather. If a Liberal isn't flailing around apoplectic with rage, then you're not doing it right according to Ann Coulter.

Apparently, Texas is doing it right. A San Francisco Liberal goes right past the hoity sniffing at the changes the Texas State School Board is making, and enters stage three insane rage. He accuses Texas of claiming that the Slaves wanted to be, that the Indians were helped by the White Man, and that Viet-Nam was a big victory until the Liberals screwed it up.

Yet, none of these charges are backed up by his evidence, a link to another story that keeps the outrage to sniffing, or level one liberal rage. You reach that with most liberals by wearing a leather jacket. Fur goes to two, or three, depending on the Liberal in question as a comparison.

Now, you know when a Liberal is just outraged for the sake of being outraged. They refuse to give specific examples for their outrage. An example of this would be. They would describe the problems with a conviction of a cop killer by highlighting the procedural errors in the case. The Liberals would tell you specifically what page of the proposed legislation would be used to outlaw a woman's right to choose. In other words, the devil, is in the details.

Yet, our pundit here, doesn't give any examples. He just makes them up and then says that no one should be forced to be brainwashed by the Texas State School Board. One of the horrific changes is that the United States is being referenced as a Constitutional Republic, instead of a Democracy. Well, that's actually true as I explained here.

A strict definition of a Democracy is one person, one vote, each issue. This form of Democracy was practiced in Greek City states in the thousand or so years BC. Yet, our form is that we elect representatives, who in turn, make the decisions and cast the important votes within the framework of the Constitution. In other words, a Constitutional Representative Republic.

So why would this upset the Liberals? The accurate name for things should be something we all strive for right? I'm not sure why the Libs are so upset about this, but perhaps the Lib who wrote this was suffering from a buildup of Republican Rage since he can't really blame Bush anymore. Either way, Texas, you're apparently doing it right.

Why I love Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin has replaced Rush Limbaugh as the Conservative Liberals love to hate. I joked with the wife that if you wanted to avoid hiring a Liberal, the best thing you could do is put a picture of Sarah Palin in your office, an autographed picture would be best, and just watch the applicants enter the room and try to get the job.

A liberal would see the picture, and start to twitch, and before long would be screaming that Sarah Palin is an idiot, and only a bigger idiot would have her picture on the wall. Thus, you would avoid hiring a perpetual complainer who would be a serious drain on the moral of the rest of the employees, and have justification. Spitting all over the office as you rant and rave aren't really good tricks to use to get a job.

Now, to today's reason I love Sarah Palin. Scientific American has an article, that finally explains the end of days theory. The earth will be destroyed if Sarah Palin is elected President. Seriously. I honestly wish I was joking here.

That's right, the connection to 2012 and the end of our world is Sarah Palin. Thankfully, the author has a plan to save the earth, don't elect Sarah Palin, and oh by the way, accept Global Warming, or Man Made Climate Change, or whatever they're calling it this week.

Sarah Palin is a the red cape to the Liberals who happily play the part of the bulls. All you have to do is wave it once, and they can't resist charging it. No matter how stupid they look, no matter how asinine their deranged arguments are, they won't resist the impulse to scream it's all Sarah Palin's fault.

They used to have this kind of reaction to Rush Limbaugh, but they've reached the pretend he doesn't exist stage again. They go through these stages from time to time. Absolute focus on everything he says, and then ignoring him and hoping he'll go away, only to return to absolute outraged focus over something he will say.

However, with Sarah Palin, they never reach the pretend she doesn't exist stage. A picture of her will send them into twitching migraines in record time. If she dares to speak, and say anything, they start frothing at the mouth and go into seizures.

Now, we know why the earth will be destroyed in 2012. Sarah Palin may be elected President. The best thing about that day will be watching all the Liberals have strokes all over the world. I wonder where I go to donate to the Sarah for President fund? Perhaps we can rename it the Send Liberals into Conniption Fit fund.

No difference between the parties.

Recently the argument has again fired up about the political system in our nation. For all intents and purposes, it is limited by tradition, and the reality of winner take all states, to a two party system, especially for Presidential Elections, but also for seats in Congress.

Yet is there really a difference between the two parties? I have long believed that there isn't a difference, and I've mentioned it many times. During a recent discussion, I think I stumbled upon a perfect example of the sameness that pervades both parties.

Both parties want bigger Government. Republicans and Democrats voted overwhelmingly to renew the PATRIOT Act. President Obama hurried to sign the re-authorization, before it should expire and die a natural death. The reason is obvious. The politicians, even those who have railed against the PATRIOT Act, are afraid of looking like they're not going to protect the nation.

Yet, there is a better example. Part of what disgusted the population during the Clinton Years was the Brady Law. The Republicans ran against it, and got both houses of Congress partially because of this abomination of a law. When Bush 43 was elected, the obvious answer existed. Repeal every bit of that freaking law immediately. Instead, they let parts of it expire, and left the rest in place. They never acted to repeal it, because they are not in favor of going against it, they're in favor of having it in place.

So why wouldn't the Republicans, who every election cycle, claim correctly I might add, that the Democrats want your guns not repeal in its entirety the Brady Law? Because the obvious answer is that the fear of losing your guns is a big enough political issue to get you donating, and to the voting booth.

They didn't repeal the law because it is a good way to get you to keep supporting them.

In 2004, the Democrats demonstrated the stupidity of running against something or someone with their campaign motto. Any Body But Bush. That was pathetically the only reason they gave you to vote for John Kerry. Surprising no one, this technique, known as the death by lack of policy, failed to inspire enough voters to achieve their goal.

So what are the Republicans doing for the midterm elections? They're running against Pelosi, Reid, and Obama. Putting out Power Point memo's on how to scare people into donating, and voting Republican.

The biggest win the Republicans had was in 1994 when the Contract With America swept the Republicans into power. Yet for some reason, no one has learned from this. That Contract was a simple document, that highlighted the frustrations of the population. It embraced them, and people who signed onto it swore that they would go with that as their guiding principals. That lasted until about ten seconds after they were elected. Then it was business as usual with bigger Government.

The answer both parties have for every supposed problem is bigger Government. So now, when the people are screaming about the out of control Deficit, and they're shouting about Government taking control of Health Care and denouncing all efforts to even lay the groundwork of that effort what do the Republicans do? Do they finally understand that most Americans really want a smaller less intrusive Government? No, they want to scare people to the polls again, and scare them into donating again, by claiming their opponents are Socialists.

So, what should we vote for? We we should vote for the Republicans because the Democrats are Socialists. Does that sound familiar? It should. It is similar to the Democrats Vote for us because Republicans want to take away your Social Security you Seniors. It's similar to the Democrats vote for us because Republicans want to take away your right to vote Blacks and Women. It's the same fear mongering that has gotten to be the only thing that the parties have to run on.

Neither party will admit to what they stand for. The Democrats are loath to admit that they do in fact have many Socialist polices that they are in favor of. The Republicans are loath to admit that they have many of the same policies, call it Socialism Lite, as evidenced by Bush's push for Prescription Drug Benefit that has cost triple what we were told it would and is in fact, going to help bankrupt the very Medicare benefit and Social Security benefit that Democrats scream Conservatives want to take away.

There is no difference between the parties. The Democrats are in a bullet train to Socialism, the Republicans are on a slower freight train to the same destination. No one actually does anything about smaller less intrusive Government anymore. They just vote to make it more intrusive and much much larger.

A Republic, if you can keep it.

Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying that our nation was a Republic after the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

In order to be a Republic, the Government must be representative of the people. Otherwise, we have a different type of Government all together.

I thought of that quote this morning when I was reading David Frum's latest opinion piece at CNN. David Frum wants to bring back the good old days of Congress, where smoke filled back room deals are what made Legislation happen.

Yet David forgets, that the reason the "reforms" that he denounces happened, is that people weren't happy with those backroom deals that he states were much better than modern gridlock. He points to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Voting Rights Acts which passed as backroom deals. Yet during the same period, many bad laws passed as well, and many bad things happened as a result of the lack of transparency.

There was Watergate of course, where Congress sat on the sidelines until the Press had done a vast majority of the investigation. Then they went after Nixon, who was stupid enough to play into the hands of Congress by ordering people to lie to cover up his first lie, to cover up the Burglary that he didn't order.

There was the cover up of the Golf Class Soviet Submarine sinking, and the creation of the Glomar Explorer as part of Project Jennifer.

There was the Gulf of Tonkin incident which led Congress to get us involved in Viet-Nam, and then there was the inaction of Congress when the North Vietnam broke the treaty and invaded South Vietnam.

There was the Space Race, which led to the creation of NASA. There was the curtailing of that exploration, which led to the limited capacity of the Space Shuttle, which was to be limited by Congress's authorization to research and build it, to Low Earth Orbit.

I could go on and on and on about things that either Congress authorized, Legislated, or required, that went contrary to the Publics own good.

David Frum in desire to have Congress do something, forgets that all too often, those backroom deals have led to Congress doing the wrong thing.

The age of transparency and of representatives who are answerable to the public is much preferred. Because if we had a Congress that still did the back room deals, then what could we have now? Immigration reform would have passed easily. No one would have sent a brick to congress, because no one would have known the details. Congress would slap a misleading name on it, and that would have been all we the people would have known.

Gridlock Mr. Frum seems to say, is a bad thing. He believes we need a Congress that does anything, as often as possible.

I say Gridlock is a good thing, even a great thing. Because that means that when Congress does act, they do the right thing, the right way. Those who wish for Reform, can educate the people as to why they want it. Ronald Reagan sold the AMERICAN PEOPLE on Tax reforms. Congress opposed him. Reagan created the ground swell of public support, and got the people behind it. Congress had to act on that Public Demand. They gave Reagan nearly all of what he wanted.

Open and responsive Government Mr. Frum, has led to some wonderful things. It often doesn't lead to the Oppressive and restrictive governments that we see elsewhere. If my choice is a congress that does everything behind closed doors, and give me lots of legislation, and a Congress that does everything in the open, and passes very little legislation. I'll take the very little route. Change may be slower, but it's the right change, for the right reasons.

That way, the headquarters for NASA isn't put into Houston, while the Rocket Test Facility is in Alabama, and the launch facility is in Florida. Those Geographic choices weren't made just because Florida was a good place to launch Rockets from. The Senators in those states that had to vote for NASA wanted a piece of the Pie. Senator Lyndon Johnson of Texas wanted a piece of the pie. Senator Sparkman of Alabama wanted a piece of the pie. So Huntsville, a sleepy little town, became Rocket City USA. Houston became home of the NASA Administration Headquarters, and Astronaut Training Center.

Is this the way we should get things done? The good old days of backroom deals with the quote most often heard. "What's in it for me?"

Mr. Frum, those landmark pieces of legislation may have been impressive, and even milestones in legislative history. However, you can't seriously believe that backroom deals are better than public interest in, and activism in the legislative process.

As I said before. I would prefer that we not get much of anything done in Congress, because most of what they do screws up the lives of the citizens.