Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous 10

Jan. 5th, 2013


New Blog Address

I have moved my blog and thoughts to a new location:


Thank you.

Jan. 22nd, 2011


Rules for Civil Discourse

There I was, minding my own business, when from an unidentified - ahem - source, this draft copy of the Administration's "Rules for Civil Discourse" appeared on my desk top.  I could tell it was new because it didn't have much dust or cigarette ashes on it.  It seems to have been prepared by the Civility Czar's office, and is endorsed by several high ranking members of the National Democrat Politburro.  The Secretary has denied all knowledge.  Then it blew up.  Honest.

Rule One:  Republicans must never use a tone of voice possibly construed as 'hostile' or 'aggressive'.  Democrats may scream and drown out Republicans because Republicans are hostile, mean spirited and aggressive.

Rule Two:  Any comment made by any person, perceived to be critical of any action or policy of the Obama Administration, shall be deemed an official Republican issuance and racist.  Any comment in support of the Obama Administration shall be deemed to be made spontaneously by a loyal U. S. citizen - including all paid employees of CNN, NBC, MS-NBC, CBS, ABC or any other commercial news source approved by the DNC - and deemed as enlightened, warm hearted spontaneous statements.

Rule Three:  Facts presented by Republicans will be subject to denial.  Opinions presented by Republicans will be dismissed and scorned as ignorant rantings.  Any statement made by Sarah Palin will receive immediate attention and specific denial, dismissal and scorn.  (NOTE:  Sarah Palin will never be referred to as 'Governor'.  She will be identified as 'mayor of a small inconsequential village', 'fisherman's wife' or 'killer of innocent animals' and must be mentioned as inciting violence towards Rep Giffords.)  Opinions presented by Democrats will be accepted as fact without question.  Even those made by Keith Olberman, Jesse Jackson, Charles Schumer, Al Sharpton or Bono.  Or "Bonny Fwanks".

Rule Four:  Facts must be studiously ignored.  Far too many facts are contrary to the official policy of the Democrat Party and Obama Administration and therefore are hostile and decidedly uncivil.

Rule Five:  In any public discussion or debate, the Democrat must always be considered correct, well informed and superior.  Republicans are ignorant, lower class and reactionary.

Rule Six:  Christians are all Republican and therefore uncivil.  Any statement of Christian morality, doctrine or belief - especially those touching on sexual conduct of any kind - is automatically hate speech, vile aspersions and racist.  The blanket condemnation of Christians as racist, reactionary, uncivil and ignorant is an enlightened view and cannot be questioned.

Rule Seven:  Republicans may not draw comparisons between Democrats and any other socialist or central authority predicated organization.  Republicans may be labeled as NAZIs, Fascists or Racists at will.  Republicans by definition are 'hard hearted' and 'mean spirited'.

Here the document ended.  I suppose this is what is to be known as 'civil discourse'.  I feel so much better now.

Jan. 21st, 2011


Writer's Block: How could you?

Would you ever take someone back after they cheated on you, and why? What could change your mind?

My first inclination would be no.  But, if there were a serious emotional attachment prior, I would be inclined to say yes.

It depends, of course.

People do stupid things.  People do things from anger, or fear.  There's always that "... it seemed like a good idea at the time..." phenomenon.

I've been cheated on and I've cheated.  I can't say I'm really proud of that, but it does give me an insight into the complexity of human relationships and emotions. 

That's as far as I can go with this, absent specific details of the entire situation.

Deep, deep 'journalism'

So there I was, minding my own business; my room mate had CNN news on the tele for some unknown reason.  The news reader, Avi somebody was getting ready to talk about the commutation of Estaban Nunez's by former Governor Schwarzeneger when - gasp - they had to interrupt for 'BREAKING NEWS'.

The 'BREAKING NEWS' was Representative Gabrielle Giffords arrived in Houston.  Yup.  The air ambulance that flew her to Houston made it and we were rewarded with the sight - live, no less - of the aircraft setting on the tarmac at Houston Hobby airport and a helicopter setting on the tarmac nearby waiting for the transfer.  Wow.  In the three or four minutes following, not a cotton picking thing moved except for the flags in the background.

Understand this:  I am delighted Rep Giffords survived the attack on her by the loony lefty that shot her.  I pray for her recovery and wish her well.  However, her airplane landing in Houston is not 'BREAKING NEWS'.  

Then, Elizabeth Cohen - live on scene from, based on vantage point and lack of noise, a building at the airport - goes on about how Rep Giffords will be transferred to the helicopter to be flown locally to the hospital where she - Rep Giffords, not the local reporter - will undergo rehabilitation therapy.  We're still watching the two aircraft static on the tarmac all the while, by the way.  Then, just to make sure all the viewers got it, Avi whoever repeats the procedure about moving the Representative from the airplane to the helicopter to fly her to the hospital and receive rehabilitation therapy.  This process repeated twice, I think.

Are the people who regularly watch CNN so dumb they need that sort of repetition?  Just curious.  (In defense of my room mate, he turned on the tele and went to sleep.  He may not have been actually watching CNN.)

Again, my complaint here is not about Gabrielle Giffords getting the best of care in order to assist her recovery.  In contrast to leftist propaganda spouters who want Representative Giffords to die so they can sling more mud at Governor Palin specifically and conservatives in general, I am praying for Representative Giffords total recovery and well being. 

My complaint is about CNN's casting a rather routine medical flight as 'BREAKING NEWS'.  What a pack of ninnies.  Then again, it take up air time instead of President Obama's dismal failure with the U. S. economy and attempt at socialized medicine, didn't it?

Jan. 20th, 2011


The Difference between Liberals/Progressives/Leftists and Conservatives

Having been in this discussion of things political for some years now, I've done a lot of thinking on the subject.  For over thirty years, I've discussed, argued and disputed with those of the 'progressive' view and could not understand why it is they just do not GET IT.  No doubt, many of them feel the same about me.

I do believe I've finally figured it out.

Conservatives deal with facts and reality; Progressives concern themselves with appearance and style.

I always liked President G. W. Bush's speeches and comments.  While he did mispronounce some words and occasionally made grammar errors, President Bush always had good solid ideas and had substance to his thoughts.  Progressives laughed at President Bush, calling him a 'high functioning moron' and hearing absolutely nothing but the errors.

Progressives think President Obama's presentations are simply wonderful.  Progressives call President Obama's speeches thrilling - remember the progressive commentator who faked the orgasm? - and stirring and inspiring.  I think they're empty.  I find President Obama's speeches to be lofty phrases lacking any serious underlying thought.  He reads - very admirably - from a teleprompter.

What is the difference?  Why is it thinking people find George Bush to be a considered, intelligent man and progressives sneer?  Why do progressives shiver with ecstatic joy when President Obama speaks and conservatives wonder what he's trying to say?

Here's the answer:  Progressive like President Obama's style.  He's cool and he sounds good.  That's it.  That is what progressives look for, nearly exclusively.  Conservatives listen to the substance of speeches.  Therefore, they prefer speeches with actual substance.  This accounts for the conservative preference for George Bush.

Here's the 'smoking gun'.  Did every hear about the shooting of Representative Gabriel Giffords a couple weeks ago?  It was in the papers and stuff.  Immediately following the shooting came 'reactions'.  The conservative reaction was to offer condolences to the survivors and families of the victims.  The 'progressive' reaction was to make some political hay from the incident - by blaming conservatives at large and Governor Palin specifically. 

Here's the progressive thinking on this:  "There was a shooting!  Conservatives believe in the Second Amendment, so we'll say they are pro-assassination.  Who to blame?  Ah!  Sarah Palin!  She owns guns, so she is obviously involved.  And she said something about 'targeting' Representative Giffords' district.  Perfect!  It looks perfect."

The facts are the man arrested for the shooting is tentatively a 'progressive'.  He is 'anti-government' in the same sense as the Bolsheviks and anarchists of the early Communist movement and he claims his favorite book is "Mein Kampf", written by the leader of the National Socialist Party.  His high school associates describe him as a 'leftist pot-smoker.'  There is no reason he listens to conservative talk radio, and he doesn't seem to have any connection to anything remotely conservative politically other than he did buy a couple guns.

Those are facts, and are pertinent to conservatives.

He shot a Democrat - one who supports the right to own firearms and voted AGAINST Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House in the last election - and he's pretty nasty looking. 

Those are the appearances that appeal to progressives.

For all their claims to 'intellectualism' liberals, progressives, leftists - and all the rest of those who seek to destroy the U. S. Constitution and establish a socialist paradise on Earth - are really pretty superficial.

Oh.  I used the phrase 'smoking gun' a couple paragraphs ago.  Just in case there are progressives reading this, that is what is known as a 'figure of speech' and is not based on any real firearm, recently fired or not.  Do not shoot anyone without legal cause.

Jan. 19th, 2011


Rocks and Defense Attorneys

There I was, minding my own business watching the Fox News Channel.  Here comes one of the interview segments. 

I must confess I cannot remember the hostess, but it was the blond, somewhat round-faced woman.  I could pick her out of a line-up.

She was interviewing two opposing position people regarding the recent attempted murder of a Border Patrol Agent and the resulting shooting and death of the Agent's attacker.  Turns out the attacker was a fourteen or fifteen year old aspiring thug.  I'm sure you all have heard about this; it's been on the news.  The two people being interviewed are attorneys, one a female Hispanic sort, who is defending the Agent, and the other is a black man named Joey something. 

My apologies, I was so offended by the errant stupidity the man demonstrated, I have seemingly suppressed the memory of the man's name.

In short, Joey was telling the world and sundry how this action was unjustified and criminal.  Joey claims the 'child' was 'unarmed'.  Joey claims the 'child' and his companions were '...only throwing rocks'.  Joey is either lying or just a fool.  The simple-minded statement - and self-contradictory - statement about 'unarmed children' who were 'only throwing rocks' is the first clue.  A rock is a weapon; just ask Abel. 

I was a Border 'Troll for six years in Calexico, California.  I had one windshield broken out of the vehicle I was driving by 'children throwing rocks'.  Happily, I wasn't hit, but for a number of years I kept a reminder; a jagged edged rock, weighing about half a pound that passed rapidly between my face and the steering wheel of my vehicle.  It did leave a nasty cut in the inside of the passenger door of the vehicle I was driving.  It would have done serious damage to my face, had it hit.

This attorney's assertion a rock is not a dangerous weapon is - as I said before - either an outright lie or the statement of a fool.  Not an idiot, the man seemed normally intelligent, but a fool; one who cannot assemble reasonable thoughts and concepts.  Or one who simply ignores reality in favor of his own pet pipe dream.

This man is obviously in favor of the criminal.  Perhaps it's because he is a 'defense attorney' and has no other income apart from defending accused criminals.  That's part of our court system, but it's obvious reality does not intrude upon his concept of 'facts'.

Coming in second in the outrageously stupid things said was the hostess.  The particular stupid thing she said was Border Patrol Agents aren't as highly trained as regular patrol police.  I spent nineteen weeks at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia learning to be a Border Patrol Agent.  Among other things, I had classes in Constitutional Law, Use of Force - statutory law and policy - U. S. Criminal Code, Immigration and Naturalization Law and all the normal 'cop' stuff, like fingerprinting, report writing, and the physical aspects of handcuffing and so forth.  This hostess really needs to do just a bit of background research before making rather stupid comments.

Jan. 15th, 2011


Hello, I'm Back!

I've moved this last summer and fall. 

I finally escaped from the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of California (PDSR Ca).  With the Grace of God, I sold my house in Long Beach and bought a house in Hastings, Nebraska.  Which partially explains my absence from these virtual pages.  The other part is my bent toward procrastination.  Actually, not procrastinating, just re-evaluating my priorities.  Repeatedly.

But I'm more or less back to what passes for normal in my portion of the space-time continuum.  And, as ever, politics provides a target rich environment.  Oh, dear!  I'm not supposed to use phrases like that, am I?  According to the left, metaphors like 'verbal sniping' lead to 'actual sniping'.  Gads; should I now live in fear of the left?  From their reaction, I must presume leftists are prone to shoot people which whom they disagree.  They seem to expect that of all others, it must start from within, right?

Well, reality calls and I've put it off as long as I can.  I must be about my day and do some more 'organizing' about the house.

As always, your humble servant -

Archie the Preacher

Writer's Block: Living in the limelight

Do you think parents should have the right to post public pictures and videos of their children on the Internet? Why or why not?

Absolutely Yes!  Parents have the right to make decisions on behalf of their children; that's the premise behind the word 'parent'.  Parents must decide what children eat, what they wear, where they attend church, where they attend school and with whom they associate. 

The question presumes an entity with authority to prevent parents from making such a decision.  The question implies a 'law' or 'regulation' which would deny parents the right to make such a decision.  Obviously, government at some level.  Not a new thought, actually. 

Government seeks to control all decision making processes.  (This is not directed at any party, it is simply what governments do to establish themselves.)  Can parents use corporal punishment on children?  Historically, yes; it is a parental duty to control children and teach them right from wrong.  Corporal punishment assists in this endeavor.  However, it seems the trend in U. S. governmental (Federal, state and local) theory is to deny that duty and right, and prevent parents from so doing. 

Feeding children.  Governments are also in the process of deciding what children may eat, which includes what parents may provide to children.  Fat and sugar are the common targets. 

The examples are endless.  Parents no longer make many decisions.  Infant car seats are a prime example.  Parents must put children of a certain age and size in an 'authorized' car seat.  Please do not understand; I am not arguing against the use of car seats - or seat belts or helmets on motorcycle riders - but I find governmental mandates and enforcement by force to be counter to a free society.

Having said that, with all the child molesters and thugs loose upon us - and mostly due to that same government complex who wish to tell us what food to eat - it may not be prudent to post pictures on the internet.  But that does not mean it comes within governmental purview to regulate the practice.  Many decisions are not prudent, but life is composed of decisions; the government who cannot balance a checkbook is not suited to dictate to me how much of my family I decide to share.

I will admit the possibility of 'damage' from parental decisions accruing to children.  However, parents can only screw up their own kids; government regulation screws up all kids.

Oct. 24th, 2009


(no subject)

So now the Obama Administration has decided they control pay levels.

Fox News reports it was not President Obama who came up with the pay control for bailout companies, but Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg.  It seems that Czar Feinberg has been granted authority from the President to make such decisions without input from any other authority.  The President doesn’t second guess him, Congress has no oversight. 

So how does an appointed official, appointed to a position created out of the air, get the authority to dictate pay levels of anyone?  I know some supporter of the Obama Administration and other socialist goals will immediately try to argue about the excessive pay rates and bonuses of ‘fat cat’ executives.  That is not the point.  The point is, how does a government appointee who answers to no one get to unilaterally decide pay levels for anyone?

 In a related story, Senator Charles “Chuckie” Schumer of New York is calling for governmental control of all salaries and pay rates. 

Allow me to remind all the government, by virtue of owning majority holding of General Motors, Chrysler and several aspects of the finance industry, controls some thirty percent of the U. S. economy.  If the Socialized Medicine program passes, that will raise government control to some forty-eight percent of the economy.  The type of government in which the government owns the means of production is Socialism.  That’s the definition.  If the Obama Administration is not in fact Socialist, they’ll do until a real Socialist comes along.



(Concluding paragraph only)
A bill put forward by Senator Charles Schumer – the Shareholder Bill of Rights Act of 2009 – includes say on pay among a larger set of governance proposals. Support for the idea from the current administration is clear, as President Obama had already sponsored a say on pay bill while he was a senator during 2008.
If the Shareholder Bill of Rights Act were to be signed into law then say on pay would become a universal requirement for all listed companies."

Paul Hodgson — Senior Research Associate

Oct. 8th, 2009


Writer's Block: Job search

I'm a federal lawman.  Just which agency will remain private, so as not to embarrass my employers.  However it does give me the ability to nose into other people's business and every twice in a while gives me the illusion I'm making the world a better place.  I even get to carry a gun and handcuffs and stuff.  Every so often I ever get flirted with by some rather nice looking female.  She's probably trying to schmooze me, but at my age, I'll take what I can get.  So, yes, I like my job on the whole.  There are times I would chuck the whole mess for a nice comfy cave somewhere out where no one could find me, but don't we all.

Is there a dream job?  I'd like to think so.  In reality, nothing works out perfectly.  Even dream jobs have nightmares.  As close as I'm likely to get will be setting up some form of endeavor in which I can pursue my own research projects and get paid for so doing.  I fancy myself a scientist and philosopher of various disciplines - primarily firearms and ballistics research. 

Yes, I'm working toward that goal.  I'm in the final years of my active professional life.  I'm still mentally qualified, but I'm just not physically able to do what I could used to do.  So I'll be retiring in a year or two.  Once I'm safely retired and moved away from the abysmal dump that is Los Angeles County, I will set up housekeeping on hopefully a small - five to twenty acres or so (more if I can get it) - plot of land and a moderate sized house and start working on a medley of ballistics research, theological study and the contemplation of Cosmology on a full time basis.  Hopefully I can peddle some of my observations and conclusions over time and make enough to keep on shooting.

Maybe I can even get in some walking and lose some weight.  But I'll still be writing.

Previous 10


January 2013



RSS Atom
Powered by LiveJournal.com