Sunday, November 22, 2009

RIGHT TO WORK STATES AND STATE UNEMPLOYMENT

The other day your friendly Ostrich Killer got curious about so-called 'right to work' states and the rate of unemployment by state.

So I googled that information. First, the Right to Work states (versus forced unionization): you can see this info at http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm


Go ahead, click back and forth. See if you come up with the same sorts of observations I do.

Bottom line: it looks to me like there is some sort of correlation between forced unionization states and high unemployment. As I write this, it occurs to me that it might be worth researching states in budget crisis and comparing that info with the above info, too.

No, your Ostrich Killer is NOT an economist. I'm just a curious guy.

In the news the other day I read that Boeing decided to build a second 787 line in South Carolina. According to the info above, it's both a 'right to work' state AND a state with high unemployment - an anomaly, with a large available workforce. It should be no surprise that Boeing, who suffered five major, very expensive strikes in the last twenty years at the hands of the International Association of Machinists union, saw this as an opportunity to limit its vulnerability to future such strikes by building a plant in South Carolina.

Is this part of a trend for businesses around the world who decided to build plants and industries in the United States? According to most info I've seen, few of those overseas firms build their plants in forced unionization states. If so, what does it mean about the future of union jobs? Have unions outlived their original purposes, to become just a tool for blackmail?

Many would agree with you if you think so. Few would blame industries for electing to simply move in order to avoid that expensive blackmail.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

ANOTHER OBAMA HALF-BROTHER - WTF??

Not one to begrudge anyone a family tree, nonetheless your Ostrich Killer was surprised to hear, as a one-liner during an ABC newscast on the radio, that during Obama's visit to China he "...took time out to visit with his half-brother, who lives there."

Let's see now - that's a half-brother living in Kenya, I believe it is, in a grass hut, and a half-brother living in China. That's the ones I've heard about. Have you heard of any others?

This sort of 'oh by the way' method of dropping the news on us is sure to fuel more speculation among the group that many sneering lefties like to call the 'birthers'. You recall that 'birthers' want to see Obama's birth certificate, the one that he won't release, because they suspect that he is not a natural born American, and think that part of the vetting process for President should be a public review of birth records. After all, the Constitution requires such natural born status. What could be more routine than a release of those records? And why hide them? For that matter, the 'birthers' proclaim, how can he hide them? Those are PUBLIC records. How can any individual hide his birth certificate from anyone?

But back to the discussion: the 'birthers' are going to want to know where any other siblings might have been born, and where they are now. I would think that any American might want to have at least passing knowledge of his immediate family tree. Wouldn't you?

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

MORE OBAMA COMFORT FOR AMERICA'S ENEMIES

Barack Hussein Obama today announced three new executive orders: No torture, no Guantanamo, and new legal means of dealing with terrorism using the 'rule of law.'

I know all true Americans will rejoice that we have left the dark ages of worrying about our own security and rights behind us, and emerged into a glorious new future where those that try to kill us are afforded the very best protection we taxpayers can provide.

When is ANYONE in Congress going to articulate the obvious truth: the way to deal with terrorism is to kill terrorists? To hunt them down and take them, their support communities, and any enablers, out?

Rule of law. Yeah, right. Oh that'll be a real deterrent. In practice, it'll be more of a deterrent to security than to the terrorists.

Friday, November 13, 2009

TREASON: WHAT IS IT?

". . . the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

I dunno, folks. Can you think of anyone in high office who gives aid and comfort to our enemies? Anyone at all, anyone who tries to cover up for our enemies? Who tries to convince us our enemies are really our friends, or maybe just misunderstood, or maybe they're our enemies because we're the bad guys? Anyone who goes around apologizing for America? Would you call any of that 'aid and comfort?'

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

OBAMA'S EULOGY: WHY HAVEN'T YOU HEARD THIS ELSEWHERE?

By now you've all heard or read or even watched in endless loops Obama's eulogy of the 13 dead at Fort Hood, followed a couple days later by his Veteran's Day speech.

You're probably a little sick to your stomach.

So let your friendly Ostrich Killer say it out loud: give Obama Credit. Yes, give him credit for standing up and doing what he had no choice but to do, knowing perfectly well that those he addressed despise him and everything he stands for. I'm not sure I could address an audience that I know understands that this is a just another photo op and is on the verge of gagging at my every word. But he knew all that, and still did it.

Chutzpah? Or sociopath?

Imagine, for a moment, you're one of those dead. You know Obama is up there eulogizing you. Wouldn't that be enough to make you puke in your coffin?

Monday, November 09, 2009

THE MILITARY STRIKE AT FORT HOOD

Now that your friendly ostrich killer has gotten over his anger at the events at Fort Hood, he has donned his more thoughtful, philosophical thinking hat. The following is something that you may not hear from any other source.

The scumbag who killed all those people was an enemy soldier, who had successfully infiltrated our military and conducted a military strike. That is a time-honored tradition of all armies since the beginning of time.

It's important to notice the primary difference between terrorists and military: terrorists attack the defenseless, military attacks military. Since Hasan attacked a military target, and was an enemy in disguise, this is a simple case of military action.

Now, it's tradition that such infiltrators who do not wear the uniforms of their convictions are shot on capture. Executed on the spot, no trial no nothing. That famous photo taken in Viet Nam is one such case. The guy getting his brains blown out was correctly getting them blown out.

But that scumbag Hasan is still alive. To that I say Hooray. Now he can be squeezed for information. Now he and any of his clandestine helpers and supporters can hear the mainstream muslim leadership condemn what he did. He'll get to learn that a woman half his size brought him down. I'd love to see his face when he learns that. Did you know that among the other signals he was sending out to the Army, he always refused to be photographed with women in group photos?

But there are other troubling items still left on the plate:
1. What intelligence agencies failed to provide the necessary warnings, even when they had good cause to predict what he would do? (You can start by guessing special handling for islamics.)
2. Why did the US Army fail to act when they knew about his 'islam first, America second' convictions? (You can start by guessing PC here.)
3. Why does General Casey, Army Chief of Staff, believe that diversity in the Army is more important than the lives of his soldiers? Here's what he said, direct quote: “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse."
4. What steps will be taken to prevent another such tragedy? This is the second one of its type, both in the Army.
5. Hasan was a psychiatrist. What did he plant in the heads of his patients? What did he learn from them that he may have passed along to his friends in Al Qaeda? Who among his patients might have been a contact / message carrier for Al Qaeda? I'm sure our intelligence agencies can think of many other such questions. OTOH, given the failures to date, maybe not . . . maybe they've been emasculated to the point of utter impotence.

Obama can't blame that on Bush.
WHAT DO WE NOT KNOW ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY?

Your Ostrich Killer provides you this, from yesterday's headlines:

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates — The U.S. Homeland Security secretary says she is working to prevent a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment after the shootings at Fort Hood in Texas.

Janet Napolitano says her agency is working with groups across the United States to try to deflect any backlash against American Muslims following Thursday's rampage by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Muslim who reportedly expressed growing dismay over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That ought to reassure everyone, right? Especially
- islamic terrorists in the US;
- the hand-wringing bed wetters who cry over the perps and forget the victims;
- trial lawyers who stand to make millions in lawsuits

Janet Napolitano promises to make monitoring and neutralizing islamic terrorists in the US more difficult. It's easy to predict that part of her effort to deflect backlash will require more paperwork and diligence on the part of enforcement agencies. Hell, it may even require a few more bureaucracies. Slow them down, in other words, and tie their hands with PC cuffs. What's a few more dead Americans, if we can enforce pretending we don't believe what we all believe?

But another question arises: To a suspicious mind like mine, I see enforcement threats hidden behind her rhetoric. But I was unaware that DHS (Department of Homeland Security) had an enforcement arm. But maybe they do. And maybe they can be used against normal citizens who think they're being good citizens.

I have a political page, where well before 9/11 I predicted certain things, based solely on what I saw as emerging trends. My most recent entries are almost ten years old by now. But there is something eerily reminiscent in her actions. I went back and read what I wrote. The hairs on the back of my head stood up. Read it for yourself, if you're curious, at http://blizzardguy.com/politics/crystal.htm

I even mentioned the possibility of a federal police force, akin to the KGB or Gestapo. I called it the Bureau of Internal Stability back then, before DHS was spawned from the ashes of the World Trade Center.

Can there be a National Homeland Security Enforcement force in the works? Anyone know anything more about such a federal police force in the making? Make a comment, let us all know.

Saturday, November 07, 2009

THE PC BODY COUNT INCREASES

Thanks to PC (political correctness), there are at least 13 more dead Americans.

You can bet that this particular perpetrator, being Islamic, was not handled or investigated the same way a non-follower of the religion of peace would have been. Special pains and precautions were taken during the over six month investigation into his inflammatory, pro-suicide bombing web postings to make sure no one could accuse any law enforcement or military officials of not bending over backwards to avoid being seen as anti-islamic. Even his poor performance reviews didn't keep him from being promoted to Major.

And so this islamic wack job is free to go blasting away and shouting 'Alahu Akbar' until he himself is gunned down. He should have been breaking rocks already in Leavenworth, instead of free to kill. And in the aftermath, the spilled blood barely clotted at the crime scene, our Commander in Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, says not to jump to conclusions.

One doesn't have to jump to conclusions to know that our Commander in Chief is both AWOL and probably chargeable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with dereliction of duty.

This particular post will probably offend someone, meaning that this blog may wind up being taken down or blocked. We'll see.

Thursday, November 05, 2009

JUST BECAUSE WE SAY WE'RE NOT IN A RELIGIOUS WAR . . .

Your Ostrich Killer has said it before, but here it is again: just because we say we're not in a religious war doesn't mean we're not in a religious war.

If we're attacked in the name of religion, then we are in a religious war whether we want to think so or not. Only the truly stupid or agenda-driven will even attempt to argue otherwise.

So get used to the idea. We're in a religious war. Only when our enemies no longer invoke the name of Allah as they slaughter innocents or attack our troops will we be able to delude ourselves otherwise.

God bless and save our fellow American troops.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE AMERICAN VOTER?

It's taken a year of thought, but your friendly Ostrich Killer kept at it and finally, thanks to a really awful chic flick on TV, he saw the answer to the above question. In this movie there's Anthony Quinn explaining the difference between men and women to a WWII vet. He points to his head and says "Men think." Then he pats his tummy. "But women, they feel."

The light went on in my head. Jumping way ahead to the conclusion, I saw the truth of that: we've become a nation of feminized males.

Think about it: in public and even many private schools, boys are punished if they do not behave like girls. Instead of staring out the window and dreaming of fishing and ball playing, or snickering at some classmate's fart, they must sit politely and pretend to pay attention. If they can't sit still like a little girl, they're sent to doctors who give them medicine to help them sit still. Is it only coincidence that the vast majority of ADHD kids are boys? You can Google the stats, if you think your Ostrich Killer is just making this up.

Instead of running around the playground and rough-housing, they're told they can only walk and cannot touch anyone. No dodge ball, it can hurt (Duh. Isn't that the point?) No boxing gloves, there might be a lawsuit. No throwing anything. No jumping. No impolite remarks . . . the list is endless. Our boys, being turned into little girls.

Think that's absurd? Think again. How often have you been encouraged to 'get in touch with your feminine side?' Or counseled or made fun of because you've 'lost touch with your feminine side?' Have you ever heard anyone tell girls to be more like men?

News flash: Manly men don't even know they have a feminine side, which is another way of saying they don't have one. Girley men, on the other hand . . .

But how does this relate to the American voter? You think your Ostrich Killer has run down a bunny trail, but no. Here is the link: Too many American voters vote their feelings, instead of their brains. That can be traced right back to their schooling and pop culture. For example, maybe it feels good to vote for more money to be spent on (fill in the entitlement name here). But a thinker would wonder where the money would come from, but only for an instant because he would realize that the money will come out of his wallet. Then he thinks something like 'would I rather keep my money, or send it to those people (who receive that entitlement)?'

Well the answer to that is obvious, at least to a thinker who takes care of his family first.

Or maybe a feeler will vote skin color just to prove to himself that he's not a racist. Of course, a thinker would realize instantly that is racism - because skin color is a factor in that vote.

Not everyone who voted for Obama did so for that reason; don't get me wrong. Socialists, communists, fascists, liberals, and America's other enemies voted for him out of ideological conviction. But many did vote for him because of skin color. How many? What percent? Was it enough to give him the plurality he received? More? Think back: how often, before the election, did you hear allegedly important people say "the only reason anyone wouldn't vote for Obama is that they're racist." And think: since the election, how many times have you heard those same people say "Those that don't agree with what Obama wants for America are just racists?"

Yeah, your Ostrich Killer knows he's struck a nerve here. You do remember all that sort of rhetoric, and some of you don't want to. No one wants to 'feel' that they are racists. We can hear it now: "We voted for Obama. That proves we're not racists." Does it? That depends on why you voted for Obama. If you voted for Obama to demonstrate that you're not a racist, that makes you a racist. If you voted for him because you agree with him, that makes you a think-alike. Now, a year later, neither of those reasons should make any voter proud.

But enough digression: your Ostrich Killer contends that there were enough 'feelers' that if just male voters had thought instead of felt, we'd have a different president. I call this lack of thinking 'Voter malpractice.'

So here's your mission, O Reader: think. Research. Collect facts. Tell others to do the same. Explain what has happened to their brains in public school, where American history is not taught and the Constitution is not taught and 'alternate lifestyle' is applauded and the scientific method is only applied when it won't conflict with agendas.

And don't forget the women. Just because they are instinctively 'feelers' doesn't mean they won't think. Encourage them to stop saying things like "I feel that (issue opinion)" and instead say "I think that (issue opinion) because (facts and data here)." Do the same with any feminized men you know which, sadly, are many of us.

An electorate with facts and data, that thinks, is dangerous to tyranny. It's a good citizen's job to be dangerous. Elected officials should have a healthy fear of us all. So think and be dangerous. Wield your informed, well-reasoned vote like a sword, and be ruthless. That's good citizenship.