OBAMA'S WEST POINT SPEECH - WHAT PEOPLE HEARD

What General McChrystal heard: "Over 3 months ago you asked for 40,000 troops. I and my other hand-picked roomful of REMFs sat around and tried to figure out how I could appear to support your request and still not support it. Here's what we came up with: I'll loan you 30,000 and ask our NATO allies to send the other 10,000. Being NATO and therefore of no common will or commitment, they won't send that many, so I'll have at least two built-in ways to blame you and them should you fail in your assigned mission. I'll send the troops to you in piddling installments over a period of about six months, and then I'll start taking them away again. In a year and a half you won't have any troops. And in the meantime, you'd better sound convincingly pleased with my plan, and save my ass by finding some way to announce victory no matter the real outcome."

What Afghan Leadership heard: "You people have been lazy and timid and worthless as both political practitioners and overseers of your country's internal security. You've got a year and a half to figure out how to survive our departure, because that's when the Taliban will no longer meet military resistance from the United States. Good luck."

What the Taliban heard: "Honored Colleagues: Please withdraw the majority of your forces to secure locations, and take the next year and a half to recruit, train, re-arm and rebuild. At the end of that time we will announce victory, then you will be free to do as you wish with Afghanistan. In the meantime, though, in order to maintain my personal credibility - important to you, I assure you - we will conduct periodic raids and military strikes upon some of your lesser outlying assets. But don't worry too much, because these raids will be mostly for show, so that back in the US I can appear to be doing something of value. You shouldn't suffer too badly from these photo-op military actions because I will ensure that our troops are severely limited by imposing such strict Rules of Engagement (ROE) that few will dare even pull a trigger. So rest easy, my friends, and plan for the glorious future - a future of Afghanistan, free of American military presence."

What the Afghan citizen heard: "You'd better get rid of any ideas you might have about being helpful to American or allied troops over the next year and a half, because after we leave the Taliban will cut your nuts off and feed them to your daughters before they rape them as punishment for helping us."

What the American citizen heard: "Blah, blahblah, blah de blah blah . . . How do I look? Am I pretty? Do I look stalwart and determined? Do I . . . I . . . I . . . blahblahblah."

What his West Point audience heard: "You future war criminals are going to listen to me attentively because this is an important photo op for me, your commander in chief. Using you as background window dressing for my speech will make my American electorate sob with patriotic pride. But just in case your enthusiasm is less than total, we're taking lots of video and photos of you during my speech, and any of you who don't have smiles on your faces can expect to find your futures a little less bright. So applaud and cheer, you baby killers."

What the troops in the field heard: "I'm not interested in winning or even fighting. I'm interested in appearing to fight and win. Some of you will have to die for that to happen. But that's what you get paid for, so get at it. It's important for my image."

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

Next, the state unemployment rates as of October: http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/11/state_unemployment_changes_mixed_in_october.php

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.

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?

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.

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?'

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?

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.

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.

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.

THE WIZ OF AMERICA (Part 1)

We heard a news story a day or so ago, about how school principals in Philadelphia are going to be held responsible for feeding all their students breakfast. No, I didn't say lunch. I said breakfast. That would be in addition to the lunches. Don't be surprised if you see the day that they also have to feed supper.

That prompted me into one of my favorite fantasies, one that has me cast as the Wiz of America. You know, the guy with the pointy hat adorned with stars and planets and who carries a magic wand with which he could make whatever changes he thinks make most sense.

In this case, the Wiz would wave this wand and pronounce that henceforth, parents are responsible for their children's meals. No school would be involved in 'nutrition' programs of any nature, other than perhaps in classes dealing with the topic academically. That's right, no breakfasts on the taxpayer's dime. No lunches. Kids will be expected to be fed at home and bring their lunchboxes to school.

I know this is breathtakingly shocking, that anyone in this day and age would want to require parents to feed their own children. No, to many people it's better that parents pay to feed other people's children, and that other people should pay to feed their children in some bizarre sort of Ponzi-like buck passing scheme, with the Feds and States as middlemen, raking off their cuts and imposing their propaganda agendas.

"But so many parents don't feed their children properly," I'm sure I'll read in comments to this posting. "The only proper meals some children get is at school," others will say. To both arguments I will reply the same. So what? I'll ask. If parents don't feed their children, then by golly maybe the school can report that information to Children Protective Services. I'm all for that. I'm all for holding parents accountable for their own children's nutrition.

Schools, at least American public schools, are not supposed to be little communes, where food and entertainment is provided to help cajole young minds into accepting the crap that passes for education these days. No, the schools are supposed to teach. Parents are supposed to parent, which time-honored task includes instilling values and feeding. This is a proper division of labor. This does not require parents in Rattlesnake, Kansas to cough up tax dollars so that kids in Key West, Florida can have fries with their lunches.

So the Wiz says NO to school nutrition programs. Let the schools teach, not feed. Think of how much money that would save, not having to have kitchens and cooks on staff. Now multiply that by the number of schools in America . . . oh, the mind boggles!

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE (AGAIN) - The Clown Show Goes On.

That's 'Again' because on October 22, 2007, I posted a blog entry titled "THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE IS A CLOWN SHOW." You can read it at your leasure.

But this latest winner says it all. In ten years we have winners Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and now Barack Hussein Obama. What did any of them do to promote peace? Where's Ronald Reagan (Ending the cold war and helping bring down the Berlin wall), George H.W. Bush (who liberated Kuwait), George W. Bush (who liberated Iraq and ended, at least for a decade or more, that regime's support of global terrorism), or - if you'd like a liberal candidate - Bill Clinton, who bombed Christians so that Muslims could prevail in Bosnia / Kosovo? Not saying this latter was necessarily a bad thing, but the dispassionate history has yet to be written about it.

Still. Peace? More immediately, what has Barack Hussein Obama done to promote peace? Anything at all? Can anyone point to something? Because I confess, folks, that your friendly Ostrich Killer can't think of anything, unless you count dissing our former allies and cozying up to our enemies. But maybe you can. If so, leave a comment. If you're thinking of referring to the Nobel committee's specifics to come up with a reason or two, good luck. You'll be blinded by their obfuscatory rhetoric. But then, English is probably their second language . . .

AN OPEN LETTER TO OUR LATE ALLIES

We love you. By 'We', I mean we normal citizens of the United States of America, the former shining beacon on a hill. I assure you of this, because since the election of our aberrant president who you know as Barack Hussein Obama, you may justifiably have doubts that this is still so.

Please do not confuse what passes for foreign policy as it comes from Obama, with the sentiments of the American Citizenry. Yes, we voted him in. Some of us knew what a disaster he would be and did not vote for him. Unfortunately, we were in the minority. Now you will pay as dear a price as will we American citizens. We have already begun. So have you.

You folks in Czechoslovakia and Poland understand of what I, your grief-stricken Ostrich Killer, speak. You folks in Europe of whatever language understand. You new eastern European nations, former Soviet satellite states, know even better. Latvia. Lithuania. Albania. Kazakhstan. All you other Stans. Especially Georgia. You have every reason to be alarmed at Obama rhetoric and actions. And Israel. Can you survive Obama? You'll have to fend for yourself no matter the threat or menace to you, because Obama has shown every sign of abandoning you and siding with your enemies. Prepare. You may be forced into pre-emption, since you can't depend on support to survive an attack.

But if you are a former enemy, rejoice. Obama has held out the olive branch. He has signaled repeatedly that he wishes to do your bidding. He has signaled, as has this lapdog congress, that his goal and theirs is a more humble, vulnerable United States of America. A less influential, less powerful economically and militarily, United States of America. A suicidal America.

So if you're an enemy, the time to attack us is in about two years. By that time we'll be prostrated economically, our military will be in an ill-trained, ill-equipped shambles, Obama will have castrated our nuclear deterrent, and of course Obama is simply not willing to fight for traditional American survival. No, he wants a new type of country, one modeled after Marx and Lenin's teachings. The sort of country most attackers will convert us to. Mr. Obama will be, of course, Collaborator in Chief. - - Wait. On further consideration, maybe he already is . . .

Were you an ally of ours? If you were, now is the time to prepare for going it alone, because the Ostrich Killer doesn't see Obama living up to any treaties with you.

I can't wait to see him out of office. I know you allies have the same sentiments. Let's pray for each other.

THE GIMME SOCIETY

I'm sitting here listening to Walter Williams (one of the clearest thinkers I've ever had the pleasure to hear) on the radio. Here's what he had to say about so-called entitlements - you understand that an entitlement is money that government takes from someone who earned it and gives to someone who didn't, right? - and what they really are.

Here's his example: I'm walking down the street. There's an old woman there, shivering on a grate in the dead of winter in New York. She asks me for some money so she can pay for a room and a hot meal and a visit to a doctor. I don't have any money, but I do have my handy pistol. So I pull the pistol and accost a passerby and tell him to give me $200 so I can give it to the woman, who obviously needs it more than the passerby does.

Walter Williams asks: is this moral? Or is it theft? And how is this different from the government taking money from one person and giving it to another? - - oh. The gun, right? Wrong. Refuse to pay, and armed cops will come for you. Resist them and they'll cuff you and take you to jail. Resist that, and they'll shoot you. So how is it different?

One is against the law, and the other is legal.

Oh, you say. Of course. But that begs the question: what is moral about theft, be it legal or not?

Taking a person's property against their will and giving it to another is immoral. You can make any argument you like about it, but in the end it is really simple theft, no matter the misguided good intentions. Because, you see, the luxury of this sort of good intention comes at the expense of others. It's easy to say that someone else should pay to help the unfortunates or worthless (Yes, there ARE worthless people) in our society. But if a person wants to test the value of their good intentions, let them see if they're willing to surrender their own property to someone else. The answer will nearly always be something like "If we all do it together, it'll cost each of us just a little . . ." In short, they want to keep their own property and pull a gun on the rest of us. They, and the other brain-dead hand wringer bleeding hearts among us, are no better than ordinary muggers.

I quoted somewhere in past blogs a prediction by Alex deToqueville. Something along the lines of 'This noble experiment of democracy is doomed the day the electorate discovers they can vote themselves largess from the public coffers.'

Are we there?

Is our future one of Obamunism - collectivism, socialism, communism? Fascism? Compare, for your own homework, his vision for America and Hitler's Germany.

It's time we non-ostriches begin to lose sleep at night. It's time we let others know what we think about takings, like government oversight of health care, welfare, and other programs that transfer money from those who earn it to those who don't.

Because, in the end, government control of our money equates to government control of every aspect of our lives. If you don't like that idea, let your voice be heard. Start your own blog. Talk to your friends and family about the morality of theft, no matter the perpetrator. Talk to them about the personal traits that made this country strong - individuality, personal responsibility, the work ethic, the knowledge of American History (Pre-PC, of course), and the potential for success without being penalized for it.

Write regularly and clearly to your representatives in Congress. Send copies of those letters to your local newspaper's editorial pages. Show up at political meetings such as Town Halls (if you can get past the screeners). Speak your mind dispassionately but plainly. Bring others with you.

I'll look for you there.

Ford Motor Company - A Doomed Holdout

You all remember that Ford, of the 'Big 3' car manufacturers, is the only one who refused to take government bail-out money. Well, unlike the other two (Chrysler and Government Motors), they recently reported a profit.

Government Motors is going to have to puppet-dance to Congress and the Green Fringe's ecowacko market ignoring tunes. They'll turn out cars that only Congress and the brain dead envirowacko lemmings want YOU to drive. Never mind that they drive around in Escalades or fly about the country in their new G5 Grumman luxury business jets because they're important . . .

So Ford is successful. Their head honcho, Alan Mulally, is talented. But there is a problem here, a huge gorilla lurking in the shadows: government. In a fist-fight with government, talent has no chance. Ford is competing for sales with Government Motors and Chrysler, both of which the federal government has billions of dollars of your dollars tied up in. That won't be allowed to continue.

Ford's successes can only come at the expense of Government Motor's and Chrysler's lesser success. You can bet that Congress and Barack Hussein Obama won't let that go on for long. No, since government makes the rules, they can also change them.

So the Ostrich Killer predicts that it won't be long before our government will legislate Ford into either compliance with their agendas or into oblivion. Even if Ford falls into line with the agendas, their days are numbered, because even lacking Congress's telling them how, they will somehow manage to produce superior vehicles which buyers will still buy at the expense of Government Motors and Chrysler. So, ultimately, in the eyes of the wack jobs currently sitting on their padded asses in the halls of Congress and the White House, Ford will ultimately have to go.

RIP, Ford. It's been a great run.

Cash for Clunkers

Ain't it wonderful? The same people who bought houses they couldn't afford can now buy a brand new car they can't afford. Put another way, the same taxpayers who are now paying for those houses will also be able to pay for those cars, and, if health care goes the way Barack Hussein Obama wants, health care for those same deadbeats too.

SOME THINGS I'VE BEEN ITCHING TO SAY

- - - THE ELECTION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
Okay, so enough of you ostriches pulled your heads out of your holes to elect Barack Hussein Obama. And now he's doing his damndest to dismantle the United States, if not economically then militarily. He wants a weaker, more humble and vulnerable United States - not the baddest dog on the planet that he inherited. He wants our enemies to love us. He doesn't care what our late friends might think of us. I think there's an ancient Arab saying . . .

I guess he never saw Shaka Zulu, who at one point pronounced that it was prudent to 'leave no live enemy behind you.' I'm absolutely certain that he never read Sun Tzu. I'm even more certain that he hasn't read the Tenth Amendment, or for that matter much of the rest of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, I'm sure he has personal staff whose primary duties are to find ways to circumvent it. Never a day in the military, and he's Commander in Chief. A rabble rouser - oh, I'm sorry, I meant Community Organizer - in Chicago, to 141 days in the US Congress, to President. And you ostriches elected him.

I will graciously point out that not one of my previous political predictions or pontificatorial blatherings came to pass; I attribute that to the surprising number of ostriches out there.

So okay, you ostriches: you won one. I am sincere when I say that I pray that we all don't live to regret it more than we already do. While I would normally be pleased that McCain did not get elected, the alternative is worse. Way, way worse. And uncharacteristically, I hope I'm wrong about this too.

- - - RIGHT WING RADICALS
See how cleverly the left, especially Barack Hussein Obama and his Homeland Security bitch - hey, isn't that a rock group? You remember, BO and the Bitch? - I digress. Back to the point: see how cleverly the left has linked the words 'right wing' and 'radicals'? As though they are synonymns. Right wing? Then you're a radical. Radical? You must be right wing. And look at how they describe them - let me lift directly from their words: you might be a right wing radical if you ". . . are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or illegal immigration."

Damn, I'm in both those example groups. They said they'd be watching people in those groups.

More: if you're part of a group that ". . . reject(s) federal authority in favor of state or local authority" you're probably a right wing radical. I guess only right wing radicals have read and understand the Tenth Amendment.

Crap. Now I'm three for three. I guess that means I'm being watched.

The report from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) goes on to say that 'extremist' groups are using the election of Barack Hussein Obama as a recruiting tool - they imply that it's a successful technique.

The musket-armed farmers of the Colonies were 'extremists'. They founded the finest, freest country in the history of the world. It isn't beyond imagining that their descendants might do Americans a similar favor, given enough reason. That's the point of the Second Amendment - to make sure an armed citizenry is capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment is not about making sure we can go out and shoot Bambi, or ward off the boogy man in our houses. It only takes a moment of reflection upon the times during which the amendment was written to understand perfectly what it's about.

But again I digress. Next topic:

- - - GOING GREEN
Spare me! You want me to cooperate in 'green'? Then make it more cost effective; show me how it reduces the rate at which the green leaves my wallet. Don't blow 'future savings' vapor in my face (or anywhere else) if you want me to play along. Show me how it saves me money at the cash register this month. Until then, color me CARBON POSITIVE and proud of it. And why not? What's wrong with carbon? It's a large fraction of what we're made. Carbon dioxide is necessary for healthy plants. Without it they die, and so do the rest of us.

What's the worst global warming (a myth, but allow me this) can do? - - answer: green the snow-covered northern reaches, creating more arable ground for raising crops and feeding the hungry.

Is that such a bad thing? With so much of our global food crops being burned as fuel instead of turned into Hamburger Helper, wouldn't more arable land be welcome? You bet!

Don't tell me I can't crap in the ocean; whales and fish and birds do it. Why not me? Why should I only be able to crap on the one third of the earth that is dry land? Go ahead, explain that logically.

Recycle: the dirty truth is that it costs more to recycle than to use raw materials. No one counts the cost of the work it takes for individuals to sort and package and deliver recyclable items to processors. That's free, I guess. Sort of a Good Citizen contribution. Gets them off the couch, out from behind that TV set. Good for their health, right? But why not put it all into the landfill, so that future generations of land fill miners can make a living?

Okay, so I'm having too much fun. But it's so easy to poke fun at the envirowacko green left. They're such easy, uninformed illogical targets.

Your Ostrich Killer must now leave this missive to refill his cup with fossil-fuel heated coffee. MMM, Good! While I'm gone, you can read one of my poems: http://blizzardguy.com/microbus.htm

Out for now. Enjoy.

My Dream Party's Political Platform

We all have fantasies about what we'd like our favorite political personality to say. I'm no different. So, since this is my blog, I'm going to outline my dream party's political platform. Hope you enjoy reading it as much as I'm enjoying putting it down on paper.

1. Domestic Policy: Leave people the hell alone. Stay out of their lives, stay out of their ways, keep government's hands off their property.
2. Protecting the Poor: This is the land of freedom. Freedom to succeed, freedom to fail. It isn't government's job to enable the poor to remain poor, or the rich to remain rich, or any permutation or combination of those possibilities. See Domestic Policy, above. So let the poor choose: starve, or work. If some bleeding hearts out there think this is inhumane, maybe they could point to the Constitution and show us where it permits the Federal Government to be a charity clearing house, or to take from one person and give to another. Nothing prevents concerned neighbors, communities, families, or bleeding hearts from banding together and volunteering their personal resources to help the poor. But it isn't government's job.
3. Energy: Our country and our economy runs on energy. So cheapest is best, all other things roughly equal. For now and the foreseeable future, cheapest is nuclear. Next is coal. Then oil. Then anything else. Nothing has to be especially polluting, given today's technologies. So we're for nukes, coal and oil. We're also for a robust and energetic research program to see what other sources can be harnessed to produce even cheaper energy, such as fusion, tidal, geothermal, wind, etc. But it's gotta be cheaper, or at least not more expensive.
4. Offshore Drilling: Why drill offshore, when there's lots of oil right under our Red White and Blue dirt? Drilling on land has less chance to pollute, and is easier to clean up if an accident happens. No miles of shoreline are damaged, only a few acres of dirt. So we're for offshore drilling if there is no oil under our dirt, otherwise we should drill right here.
5. Foreign Policy: Our Number One export is freedom. Freedom everywhere is in our national best interest. So our foreign policy priority is first to protect our citizens and national interests at home and abroad, which means expanding the export of freedom. Otherwise, we don't meddle.
6. The Iraq War: See Foreign Policy, above.
7. The War on Terror: See Foreign Policy, above.
8. National Defense: We're the only superpower. We have at least a 25-year warfighting technology lead on the rest of the world. We're in favor of increasing that to a 50-year lead. Why? See Foreign Policy, above.
9. Taxes: They're too high. We're in favor of a flat tax rate, which 100% of American will pay. There will be no exemptions, no breaks for the poor. We want everyone to be sorely interested in taxes; today, close to half our citizens pay no income taxes, so they're in favor of tax increases to pay for increased benefits to them. This will change under our administration. Businesses pay too many taxes; we mean to cut them at least in half to help stimulate more innovation, more entrepreneurism, more exports.
10. Entitlement Programs: Aside for veterans and certain first responders, there will be no federally-funded entitlement programs. This will save our national budget well over a trillion dollars annually.
11. Abortion: We don't know when human life begins, and neither does anyone else. So our position is that any unborn has the same rights to life as anyone who can read this platform.
12. Racism: Policies or programs that benefit or punish people differently at least partly because of skin color or declared race, is racism. Therefore ALL government policies, laws and programs that do that will be revoked.

Do you have other suggestions for this Dream Party Political Platform? Send them to the Ostrich Killer, and maybe we'll add them to this list. Now, back to that coffee pot . . .

The Unprinted Truth about the Wall Street Woes

You faithful readers knew the Ostrich Killer would have to shed some light on this topic, didn't you? Your wait is herein rewarded. Read on.

Just as the major media won't investigate or print anything they know about Barack Hussein Obama's past actions and associates, they won't investigate or print anything they know about ANYTHING that might prove embarrassing or damaging to his chances for election. So hear it here: most of the dive in the share prices of our investments can be laid at the doorstep of the DNC (Democratic National Committee), who brought us Obama, a man of charisma but no substance. The sagging market is a vote of no confidence in the freely expressed Marxist policies that an Obama presidency will bring to this formerly free country, a country where people were free to succeed and also free to fail. Failure is healthy; it's a prerequisite for success.

Market regulation is a little like salt in the soup; the least amount you can get away with is the best. Obama promises to dramatically increase regulation; his lap-dog, brain-dead majority congress will aid and abet in this subversion of free enterprise until the average investor - anyone who has mutual funds or stocks or any other equities in their retirement accounts, for example - cannot hope to make a savvy investment and get rewarded. Businesses won't start up, because people won't be interested in investing if they can't expect a suitable reward.

Why won't they be rewarded, you ask? Because the Age of Obama promises Equality of Outcome. Marxism - "to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities." In other words, take from the successful and give it to the failures. Equality of outcomes, irrespective of inputs. A sure recipe for creation of an entire population of takers, the extinction of do-ers.

What do you think the successful will do, if that actually comes to pass? Easy. Just ask yourself what you would do. I'll bet you'd take your money and run. Run, to a place out of this country where there might be a better chance to grow personal wealth for your family. Run, with your corporation to a country where the tax situation promises a better bottom line for shareholders.

Can you imagine, for example, Boeing becoming a South African country? Or Japanese? Or Indian? Well, you'll see things like that with an Obama presidency. Successful people and businesses do what it takes, within the law, to be successful. If that means moving, so be it.

Is this prospect something you'd like to see? If not, vote conservative.

Your Ostrich Killer now returns to his kitchen for another cup of coffee.

PETROLEUM FUELS AND BIO FUELS - A CONTRAST

How are petroleum fuels and bio fuels different?

Petroleum fuels are made by refining the residues of living things that died millions of years ago. These fuels are used, among many other uses, to increase the efficiency of food harvesting.

Bio fuels are made by refining the residues of living things that we must first grow, then kill. Bio fuels are made of food, and diminish the food harvest (because the food is being refined into fuel).

Once again, your Ostrich Killer has shed illuminating light on what many think is a complex subject.

THE ABORTION ISSUE SIMPLIFIED

Well, fellow ostrich hunters, you knew this topic would have to come up, didn't you? After all, it's an election year and some will try to capture the female vote by shouting 'Woman's Right to Choose.' You hear it every day, it seems.

But it begs the question of 'What would the child choose?' Of course, that's an easy question to answer. All you have to do is ask yourself if you'd like to be aborted right now. Your answer is obviously 'NO!' And why? Because even the most pathetic existence is better than death. With life there is hope. Not so, death. Death is pretty permanent.

Right there almost a quarter of you stopped reading because you say 'it's not a child, it's a fetus.'

Let's explore that, and if you're still reading maybe you'll think that 'it's not a child' concept over a bit more. Ready?

When do the products of conception become a human? I'm not talking about what some legislator might say, or what this or that statute might dictate, or what some court might have ruled. I'm talking about biologically. You know. From a purely scientific point of view, when does that mass of cells in the woman's body become a human, the type of animal that it is against the laws of every country to kill?

Well, maybe DNA testing will tell us. - - Oh. Wait. The DNA of even the very earliest of undifferentiated cells in the woman's belly is 100% human.

Okay. Well how about the 'soul'? When does that collection of otherwise unremarkable cells get a soul? - - No one knows. For that matter, no one has ever pointed conclusively to a soul. It's a matter of faith (or lack of it) that the soul exists or doesn't. So that argument is pointless, lacking tangible evidence either way.

So those who are 'for a woman's right to choose' come up with other benchmarks: it isn't human until month number x, where x is a variable between 3 and 6, depending on who is talking. Obviously this means that the number is a matter of philosophy, not science. A scientist might say something like 'it's all human but statistically not viable until month number y'.

Not viable? That is code for 'if the fetus were thrust into the world outside its mother's womb, it would die.' Logical, right? But what's logical about saying that since it would die, it's okay to abort (kill) it?

So ask a hundred people - scientists, doctors, philosophers, politicians, mothers, sluts - when human life begins, and you're likely to get dozens of different answers.

Bottom line: no one knows, unless you accept the simple results of DNA testing.

If no one knows, then no one knows when a murder is being committed by an abortion. No one wants to think of themselves as a murder, much less actually commit one on purpose. But when is it safe to abort, the confused woman might ask, if we don't know when human life begins?

Exactly.

If the woman doesn't actually know when the child within her becomes a human being, doesn't she run the risk of being wrong about when it's safe to abort? She might be right, she might be wrong.

But she has no way of knowing which, even after the fact (unless you count the psychic damage she'll suffer the rest of her life.) So, from a purely logical perspective, the only civilized thing to do is refuse to take the chance of being wrong. Put another way, if the woman might err, should't she err on the side of life?

Doesn't that make sense?

Once again your favorite Ostrich Killer has clarified and resolved what many others consider a difficult issue. You're welcome.

HOW LONG CAN BIDEN LAST?

Those of you who are smiling at my 'The math is easy' comment about Barack Hussein Obama HAVING to choose Mrs. Bill Clinton as his running mate might want to save the smile for election eve.

Biden has proven himself to be one of the perpetual 'almost good enough' politicians. Almost good enough to run for President. Almost good enough to write papers in college or speak before groups without plaigarizing. Almost good enough to make the bottom third of his graduating class.

Almost good enough to keep from boring the voters to death.

Stay tuned to the Dem squirming that is still to come. Even the DNC is capable of at least detecting the obvious: it's Mrs. Bill Clinton for VP or lose a few million fem voters.

Your Ostrich Killer sticks to his original prediction that Mrs. Bill Clinton will be the Dem VP nominee. Your Ostrich Killer is incapable of believing even liberal Democrats are stupid enough to knowingly - nay, intentionally - lose a couple million voters.

Obama's Credentials and Compadres

Credentials
Okay, this is another bit of public thinking about B. Hussein Obama, would-be President of the United States, the most powerful country in the world.

What qualifies him?
. 143 days in the US Senate, during which he left few fingerprints, fewer footprints, and obviously no legacy - unless you count speech making, international travel and one brain-dead internet law a legacy. From Wikipedia - "He is the only Senate member of the Congressional Black Caucus.[52] CQ Weekly, a nonpartisan publication, characterized him as a "loyal Democrat" based on analysis of all Senate votes in 2005–2007, and the National Journal ranked him as the "most liberal" senator based on an assessment of selected votes during 2007.[53][54]"

. Illinois State Senator, 1997 - 2004. Primary contributions? From Wikipedia - "He sponsored a law increasing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.[29] In 2001, as co-chairman of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, Obama supported Republican Governor Ryan's payday loan regulations and predatory mortgage lending regulations aimed at averting home foreclosures,[30] and in 2003, Obama sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[29][31]"

Pre-1997 - Civil Rights law practice, following getting a law degree from Harvard.

If you're impressed, you're easily impressed. See any foreign affairs credentials up there? See any international relations credentials? See any proof that he even has a map, or knows how to use Google Earth? No. What you see is a history of giving money away, racial politics, and making policework more difficult. But that should be no surprise.

Compadres
How about his compadres? You know, the birds of a feather with whom he chooses to flock. Here's a short list:
1. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. of Trinity United Church of Christ. If you don't know who he is, you probably haven't paid attention to politics in the last few months. Dr. Wright is Obama's pastor, and has been for about twenty years. He married Obama and his wife. He baptized their children. Here is an excerpt from Dr. Wright's church Statement of Faith, lifted directly from their home page: "Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community."

Now, that ought to raise the hairs on the back of your neck, especially in view of the more widely reported invective of Dr. Wright ("God DAMN America," etc.) Consider what an uproar such a statement as above, posted to a different Church website, would cause if it substituted the words German for African, White for Black. See? The word 'RACIST' and even 'NAZI' would pop to mind, correct? What's different for Obama's pastor? Birds of a feather?

2. Louis Farrakahn - Endorses Obama. Isn't that enough? No? Then how about Louis Farrakahn receiving the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. (Yes, that's Pastor Wright, see 1. above) Trumpeter Award? As part of the glowing rhetoric attached to the award, it called Farrakahn a man who "truly epitomized greatness." Greatness? Most Americans consider Farrakahn a racist, anti-Semitic militant black rabble rouser. If you're not familiar w/ Farrakahn's public pronouncements, Google them. But of interest here is the link between Wright, Farrakahn, and Obama. Birds of a feather?

3. William C. Ayers is a friend of Obama's. You may know Mr. Ayers better as a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971. Mr. Ayers has admitted his part, and has on several occasions said publicly he regrets only that he has not blown up more buildings. He and Obama worked together to help fund a group that has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism. The group, the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN, was labeled by the State Department as a terror group. Birds of a feather?

American voters either already know all the above, or have a good sensing of it from various sources. And that is why I predict McCain in a 50-state sweep. But maybe that's for another day's discussion. Your Ostrich Killer is going to lunch.

GASOHOL: THE DIRTY LITTLE SECRET

Okay, fellow travelers. So you've noticed that your car is stopping a little more frequently for fuel? You're not sure why it gets fewer miles on a tank of fuel, despite your being careful with the throttle? Here's a hint: next time you fill up, take a close look at the pump from which you're pumping fuel. Is there a sticker on it informing you that the fuel may contain up to 10% ethanol? That's chemist speak for alcohol. Gasoline containing alcohol is called gasohol. In many places you see a sticker that says E85. That's code for fuel that is 85% gasoline, 15% alcohol.

Ethanol does not produce as much power as gasoline when it is burned. It doesn't contain as much energy potential as gasoline. So of course you won't get the same fuel mileage you used to get, if you are now burning gasohol. The more alcohol in your fuel, the worse your gas mileage will be. Your car will not be as peppy. Not to mention - the more it will cost you to drive one mile.

The envirowackos (my regard for them is showing, I admit) tell us that adding alcohol to gasoline will reduce hydrocarbon emissions - that it's better for the planet than burning pure gasoline. Let's take an admittedly anecdotal look at the truth of that.

Personal experience: In two dramatically different cars - a '92 Jeep Cherokee and a 2005 Subaru Legacy - burning gasohol of the 10% variety reduced my MPG rating by a touch over 15%. For the Jeep, that translated into a gasohol fill being good for 250 miles on a tank, where I used to get 300 before a fill-up.

For illustration purposes, let's assume that it took ten gallons to fill the tank. In the case of pure gasoline, those ten gallons took the car 300 miles. For gasohol, ten gallons takes the car 250 miles. For gasohol, the amount of pure gasoline burned is nine gallons; we also burn one gallon of alcohol. Sounds good, right? Nine gallons instead of ten? But wait! We have to drive 50 more miles to get to 300 - two more gallons of fuel will be required to accomplish that. That's 1.8 gallons of pure gasoline and 0.2 gallons of alcohol.

If you're still with me here, let's add up how many gallons of pure gasoline, as part of the 10% gasohol fuel, had to be burned to travel those 300 miles: 9 gallons for the first 250 miles, 1.8 gallons for the next 50 miles. That adds to 10.8 gallons of pure evil petrochemical burned in the name of reducing petrochemical dependance and cleaner air, in place of the 10.0 we would have burned if we put pure gasoline into our tanks.

I admit to no longer being a rocket scientist, but this seems like something that most folks should have been told by responsible envirowackos. But that's oxymoronic; even if they existed, doing so would be contrary to their agenda, which contains no regard for the truth.

Hey, but gasohol is cheaper, you say! Oh really? Let's do a little more 3d-grade math. If you get 15% fewer miles per gallon with gasohol, how much cheaper does gasohol have to be to allow you to break even on the cost per mile? Duh - obviously it has to be 15% cheaper. But is it? Next time you get a chance to compare the 'expensive' pure gas price and the 'cheaper' gasohol price, do the math and see if the gasohol is really 15% lower in price. Or you can take it from the Ostrich Killer that gasohol is not 15% cheaper, which means it costs you more to drive a mile using gasohol than it does to drive a mile using pure gasoline. And we drive by the mile, not by the gallon.

So, bottom line: Filling up with gasohol means more evil petrochemical is burned to travel a given distance, and it costs more to drive that given distance. So why oh why are so many states pushing gasohol? Why are the envirowackos so enthralled with the idea of burning our food and feed supplies, instead of petroleum? Have you noticed a food price increase? That's because our sugar crops - corn, sorghum, milo, etc - are being made into alcohol for fuel.

Maybe that's a topic for a future discussion.

Your Ostrich Killer is out. Happy Father's Day, and Happy Birthday Josh.

Barack Hussein Obama Leaves His Church Without Condemning Its Messages

The Democratic Nominee for President of the United States, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, has left his church. He did so, he says, to spare its parishoners further harrassement from the media.

He did NOT say he condemns the messages spewing from its pulpit. He did not condemn its rhetoric, its racist, sexist, class-envying anti-American tirades. He instead scolded the media for asking questions of its parishoners.

He spent 20 years in that church, listening to the sort of rhetoric we've all heard lately. It has to have shaped his thinking, perhaps reflected it. Do we need a president who grew up in a racist, sexist and anti-American church, and leaves it now only because the media tries to talk to its members?

Okay, I'll say it: having heard the rhetoric, having heard Obama's half-hearted reasons for leaving the church, I believe Obama to be racist and sexist. And I predict that you'll hear from his wife words that will suggest she is too.

I also believe Obama to be what is fashionably called a 'socialist' whose view of uplifting people is to punish the rich. Not sure how this helps the less than rich, but it might make them feel good, at least until they find themselves out of work because the rich, who create jobs and services, will do what they have to in order to preserve whatever capital Obama lets them keep. Payback, right? Feels good, but you can't eat it . . .

"No Blood for Oil"

What a crock. What a stupid thing to say. Do the advocates for that sort of empty-headed glibness think that any form of human enterprise comes without a blood toll?

What they mean, of course, is they don't want to fight a war over oil. Okay, Your friendly Ostrich Killer can allow them that simple-mindedness. But let's play with the concept a bit, just for grins.

Everyone assumes that the US will eventually invade another in order to control its oil. Some think we've already done that. Despite having no precedent for that sort of thinking, let's pretend that there are invasions to control oil. Who would do the invading?

Answer: countries that most need oil. And who needs oil more than China? No one. And who has a bigger army than China? No one. And who's going to prevent China from doing it? No one. Does anyone think China wouldn't shed blood for oil?

Maybe it's time to think about the global picture here. Obviously the US isn't the only country that runs on oil. Maybe it's time to think about what the US should do if China, say, were to invade the Middle East for its oil. Should we deplore such villany? Should we go to war over it? Or should we just keep to ourselves and take advantage of our own abundant resources? - - Yes, we can support ourselves.

Your Ostrich Killer hopes some of you will lose the slogans and get a firmer grip on reality. Out.

Obama and Mrs. Bill Clinton Ticket - A Sure Thing (for Dems)

Wow, long time since I posted last. But this topic has been nibbling at me and probably you too for months, and so now that the other shoe is about to drop, it's time to do the math and predict the Dems presidential ticket.

Over 50% of Mrs. Bill Clinton voters polled recently declared they would not vote for Obama if he is the Democratic candidate for president. That's a huge chunk, folks. And Obama voters are only slightly more kind toward Mrs. Bill Clinton. If it's true, that means McCain, a RINO popular among less-than-hardcore Dems, is a shoo-in. The Democratic National Committee is in a panic, or should be, over this situation. What to do?

Obviously, the thinking goes, some of those angry voters might reconsider and cast their votes if they see their preferred nominee on the ticket as a VP candidate. Even so, this will lose tons of votes from Dems, but far fewer than might potentially be lost if only one of them is on the ticket. And if you're a staunch Dem, every vote is important. So the math is easy: you'll see and hear lots of discussion and posturing about who might make a good Democratic vice president, but in the end, given Obama's lead in primary delegates now, the ticket will be Obama and Mrs. Bill Clinton. The math says more votes is better than fewer. Duh.

Yeah, the Ostrich Killer knows the Obamas and Mrs. Bill Clinton hate each others' guts. But as one wag once said, politics makes strange bedfellows. Besides, neither of them will have anything to say about who the VP nominee will be - the DNC will shove them each down each others' throats in a frantic effort to salvage every last vote.

Get used to the idea. And you read it here first. Ostrich Killer out.

How to Slim Down a Population

We hear day in and day out how fat we're getting to be as a society. No one seems to have any idea how to prevent that.

Your friendly Ostrich Killer to the rescue!

Here's my plan: At every entrance to every food store or restaurant in America, we place a 'price factor' machine. Here's how it would work: there would be a scale and a vertical ruler. The customer would enter through this machine and be automatically weighed and measured. Depending on his / her weight compared to a healthy norm, he / she would be issued a 'factor' tag. Then they would shop.

At the checkout counter, when their purchases have been rung up they would surrender their 'factor' tag to the checkout person. The factor would be multiplied against the total price rung up.

For example, let's say your Ostrich Killer got a 'factor' tag value of 1.1. At the checkout counter my purchases ring up to $10. I surrender the tag; multiplying $10 times 1.1, my cost would be $11. Or if I had a 'factor' tag value of 1.5, my cost would be $15.

So the fat would be able to afford less food. The skinny would be able to afford more food. Who loses?

Okay, I know. Too simple. So I'm going back to sleep.

OPRAH ENDORSES OBAMA

"I've never endorsed anyone before," she says. "I'm endorsing him because I know him personally and know what he stands for." Those quotes are really paraphrases. If you want exact quotes, google for 'oprah endorse obama' and get them yourself.

Okay, that out of the way, let's examine her endorsement.

First, she knows him personally. Okay, that's fine. Not sure why it's enough to make her finally come out and endorse someone officially, but still. She's entitled to back someone she knows. If someone I knew and liked ran, I might do the same.

Next, though, she 'knows what he stands for.' Okay, Oprah. What, specifically, does he stand for? You didn't mention anything. Let us know. Don't be nebulous and evasive. Stand up! Speak out! Tell us which of his stances on what issues especially resonate with you. Share your insights with the rest of us. After all, it isn't quite sufficient (except, perhaps, to members of your book club) to simply say that you like what he stands for. That isn't exactly a ringing endorsement to critical-thinking voters, who might want a little more meat on the bleached bones of a non-specific statement.

Okay, by now it's clear to everyone that I don't hold Oprah's political acumen in high regard. Her business sense, yes. Politics, no.

Lastly, let me pose a question: Is it mere coincidence that the only viable black candidate on the Democratic ticket ever receives the endorsement of the world's most widely known black woman? Lest I be labeled a white racist for even raising the question, let me propose a mental model: Let's say that Jesse Jackson is running and has won a primary or two. He's viable. He's gonna get votes. In this model, does Oprah endorse him? You decide.

Let's cut to the chase. If your answer is 'probably,' doesn't that mean that Oprah's criteria for qualification includes skin color? Think about it. All these years, all these white candidates. No endorsement. Along comes ONE viable black candidate, and she endorses.

Do you believe in coincidences? If so, I have this bridge in Brooklyn I'm trying to unload at a reasonable price.

Okay, I'll say it. If it looks racist, and walks like a racist, and talks like a racist, then it's possible that it is a racist. Oprah, honey babe, you've been called out. At the very least we have the appearance of racism. At some point you're going to have to produce some reasonable justification for your sudden eagerness to endorse a political candidate who happens to share your skin color.

Sayin' it like I see it, your friendly Ostrich Killer goes back to sleep . . .

Oh, and visit my e-Novels site. Review my novels, and buy them. Best stories you'll read this year! Not only that, you'll help keep me able to post stuff like this from time to time! Win - Win!

The Trouble with the U.S. Constitution

First, let me make clear that I stand at the front of the line of admirers of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. They did a magnificent job. Most of what they framed still works beautifully today.

But they couldn't have foreseen the changes technology has brought us: transportation technology and communication technology have combined to emperil the future of the United States of America.

The U.S. Constitution assumes that America can survive the occasional bad choices that an electorate might make. In their time, when reaction times were measured in years instead of hours, that was true. It is no longer true. A bad choice at the polling place can doom the country. If enemies perceive - and perception is reality, don't forget - that we are unwilling or even reluctant to do what's necessary to protect ourselves or even our interests, they will exploit that.

They will know immediately of our errors. We, on the other hand, have migrated our decision-making from 'who's best for America' to 'who's most attractive on TV.' Can you imagine, in this day and age, a Herbert Hoover being elected? Or a Teddy Roosevelt? They'd fail the 'video byte' test immediately, despite their true qualifications.

An ugly, plain-spoken candidate is automatically a non-starter. Today's candidate must have good hair, bright teeth, an attractive spouse, no history of marital issues, the ability to speak in PC, and a pleasing voice. This says far more about out culture than it does about the candidate.

A lot of good can be said for not hearing or seeing the candidate, of having to read their thoughts instead of listening to them.

The U.S. Constitution makes removal from office a difficult task. Rightly so. But in this day of instant news, global perceptions, and the ability to strike through high-speed transportation systems, can America survive the occasional mistake? More importantly, will enemies resist the temptation to strike?

Let me make clear who I mean by enemies. Domestically, an enemy is someone who would expand the role of government beyond Constitutionally permitted boundaries. Those include anyone who proposes an 'entitlement' program. Nothing in the Constitution permits the Federal Government to serve as a charity clearing house. Nothing permits them to take money from one person and give it to another, just because they need it. Alex deToqueville observed that the 'noble experiment of democracy' is doomed the day the electorate discovers that they can vote themselves largess from the public coffers. That day is long, long past. And in the end, he will be proven right. Think of welfare, of the ADA, of government oversight of health care, of jobs programs, of any sort of government handout. All of these take money from earners and give it to the non-earners. Can you think of a more effective recipe for stifling innovation and ambition?

Yes, I'm advocating that in this country, people should be allowed to starve to death. If their families and neighbors want to help, fine. But not on a federal, hold-a-gun-to-our-heads-and-make-us-pay basis, which is what a tax is.

Globally, an enemy is any country that would prefer we not exist, or who would like to put us into their harness. Let them detect weakness, or lack of resolve, or 'understanding', and it's over.

Voters in the day of our Founding Fathers had fresh knowledge of tyranny and the importance of their votes. They thought about national issues. Today voters often choose based on a single issue - abortion, terror, flat tax, government spending, homosexual marriage, etc. - and ignore other issues that may be of greater importance to the nation as a whole. We are a nation, I'm sad to have to report, of the globally and politically illiterate.

Which brings me to voter qualification. I propose nothing new here, you've heard it before. A qualified voter would be a citizen, a high-school graduate, and be either employed and supporting his family or wealthy, and have served his country honorably in federal service in some manner for a period not less than two years. Anyone else would enjoy the benefits of citizenship, but would not be allowed to vote or hold office. In short, only those who've shown an interest in their country would be allowed into the political process.

I guess that the sort of thinking that your friendly Ostrich Killer has shown above is a clue why he is not in public office - who, you might well ask, would ever vote for a guy who thinks like that?

Indeed.

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE IS A CLOWN SHOW

Okay, maybe not in all categories. Anything science-related is probably worthy of pride if one is awarded the Nobel. Even the Economics prize is worth an extra hat size for the winner.

But the Peace prize is a farce of the most astonishing sort.

Take Algore getting the Nobel Peace award for producing a fantasy film. Even if what the film depicted were remotely true or plausible, how does it relate to peace? But Algore is not the only puzzling prize winner. He is no exception. Review the list for yourself and see. Peace? Only sporadically - seemingly at random - do the prize-winning actions of a winner intersect with an improvement in the potential for world peace.

Here is what appears to be the recipe for awarding the Peace prize:
1. The award of the prize must fractionally destabilize the world further.
2. The prize may be awarded for any action that does not fit the other Nobel prize categories.
3. Where convenient, the award of the prize should prove an affront to most Americans.

How else do you explain Algore and Jimmy Carter getting the prize, but not Ronald Reagan, under whose watch the Berlin wall came down and the Soviet empire began to unravel?

But you can draw your own conclusions. Review the list and think about it.

Your friendly ostrich killer is returning to his lair.

AMADINAWACKJOB HANDED HIS LUNCH BY LIBERAL UNIVERSITY!

As a conservative (you didn't know that, right?) I am always surprised when a liberal appears to 'get it.' I would love to be similarly surprised on a regular basis, but unfortunately that hasn't happened and probably won't until long after the local mall sells snowballs imported from hell.

But back to Amadidnawackjob. Columbia's president, Dr. Bollinger, smacked him with a faceful of clearthink and plainspeech. Columbia University is a well-known liberal institution, but more than that it is an American institution. Welcome to reality, President Amadinawackjob. If you haven't heard or read Dr. Bollinger's welcoming speech, treat yourself to doing so. Check it out here.

Mr. Amadinawackjob is a front man for the real power in Iran. A figurehead. A talking head, a mouthpiece who serves at the pleasure of the equally wacked-out and widely despised clerical leadership of Iran. Your friendly Ostrich Killer wonders what the disgrace of Iran's president and Iran's policies at the hands of a supposedly liberal university in the United States, something seen and heard and applauded by the entire world, portends for the hopefully dim future of Mr. Amadinawackjob.

So join me, and hoist a cold one to Dr. Bollinger and Columbia U, and say "Good One!"

Homosexual Behavior: Genetics or Choice?

Having pondered this question for some time, your friendly Ostrich Killer has come up with the definitive answer to the question of whether homosexuality is the results of genetics, or of choice. You'll need go no further than this blog to understand the final answer - the definitive answer - which you can then use in discussions with folks less informed than you will be.

Here is the answer: it doesn't matter. Either way it's a chosen behavior.

??? - oh, really? You say, eyebrows up. That's no answer!

Allow me to expand. First, none of us can view what resides inside anyone else's skull, so we are restricted in the definition of homosexuality to describing behavior. That is important. One is not a homosexual unless and until one behaves as a homosexual.

So, let's assume for arguments' sake that an inclination to indulge in homosexual behavior is a result of genetics. But we are humans, the only rational creatures. We can think, reason, make choices about how we behave. We, unlike insects or sea cucumbers or furry animals, are not slaves to our chromosomes. We have will power. We can evaluate alternatives and make difficult choices. Therefore, there is nothing that stands in the way of a person who might experience genetically amplified homosexual feelings from choosing to behave as a heterosexual. To carry it one step further, it becomes obvious that sexual behaviors are choices, genetics or no genetics. Genetics, in short, are irrelevant when it comes to making choices.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is a matter of choice even if there might be a genetic link. Humans choose. Homosexuals, being humans, choose to behave in a homosexual manner.

That's why it doesn't matter whether or not homosexual behavior is encouraged by genetics. It is a chosen behavior.

Hate Crime - Mind Reading???

Two identical murders are committed. In one, the perpetrator is silent. In the other, the perpetrator says 'Take that, nigger!'

The latter would be labeled a hate crime and the perpetrator punished more severely than the other perp.

Why?

Aren't both victims equally dead?

Aren't laws about behavior, not thoughts?

Don't you wonder about the justification for the extra punishment of the second perp?

Obviously, the extra punishment is for what he said - or, as some might have you believe, for hating. - - - Amazing. Punishing for an emotion. What's next, folks?

Let's make this straw man even more interesting: perp one is white, perp two is black. Both victims are black. Do we have a hate crime? If not, what is the special distinction? That a black can't commit a hate crime against another black?

Go ahead and play with this straw man for yourself. Ask yourself questions 'what if'. Don't be surprised to come to the conclusion that 'hate crimes' are just crimes with politically incorrect overtones to them. Don't be surprised that you come to the conclusion that 'hate crimes' should be taken off the book, and behavior serve as the only criteria for determining if a crime has been committed.

Punish behavior, not thought. Even the most astute jurist cannot read minds.

Punish behavior, not speech. We're all entitled to free speech, even offensive speech.

Take hate crimes off the books. Tell your elected officials to do it.

If you don't, don't be surprised to learn you've committed one someday.

Terrorism and the abridgement of free speech

Okay, call me stupid, but when a government bends over to avoid calling a spade a spade in order to not offend the people who are attacking its citizens, is that not surrender?

Today Britain has rearranged their vocabulary to pander to the islamic (non-caps intentional) rabble within its borders. Let's not say 'islamic terrorist', is the official British line under their new PM.

I wonder what sort of adjective they'll use to describe terrorists? Middle Eastern? Iranian? Misguided? Or will they only label terrorists if they are not islamic (such as, Anti-islamic terrorism, should someone attack a muslim?)

At some point citizens will decide for themselves what to call these people, and begin taking care of the problem that resides in the hearts of any population of muslims in a more direct manner. Unfortunately, that point will likely not be reached until many thousands of innocent citizens of western countries have died in horrible attacks.

Stay tuned. You know it's coming. And if you are not an ostrich you know what, eventually, must be done about the problem. Prepare yourselves and your families.

DEALING WITH THE IRRATIONAL LEFT

A friend of mine recently (5/21/07) sent a public email to me, some of which I'll print unedited in italics below:

1. The president is not automatically entitled to our respect. He has to earn it just like everyone else. If you work at it you can also earn our respect.
2. Republicans took cheap shots at Clinton's wife from day one and she was not in public office.
3. Bush cannot be impeached because the Democrats do not have a majority. Clinton was impeached because the Republicans had a majority. Clinton committed adultery. Bush is responsible the death of thousands of innocent people. There is a huge different in their sins.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That's it. So as a start of a topic thread, which will continue in future posts, I'd like to deal with each numbered item of wrong-thinking.

Item 1 - respect. Stop and think: don't we all automatically accord everyone, even the perfect stranger, respect until they demonstrate they don't merit it? Yet this person says we have to earn respect before we can have any. That's backwards, don't you think?

Item 2: Mrs. Bill Clinton, from day one, involved herself in politics - remember Hillary Care? - so, as a public figure and voluntarily embroiled in the politics of this nation, she was a bona fide subject for discussion and comment.

Item 3: Bush cannot be impeached because the democrats don't have a majority? Did this friend of mine miss the last election? The democrats control both houses of congress. The real reason that they cannot impeach Bush is because Bush has committed no 'high crimes and misdemeanors', a requirement before impeachment proceedings can begin. And the democrats know it, much to their frustration. And about Clinton - he was not impeached for adultery, he was impeached because he was guilty of a felony: to wit, lying to a Federal Grand Jury. Finally, those thousands of innocent people killed: has my friend ever heard of a war in which only the military suffer casualties? Does he live somewhere down a rabbit hole?

My friend, unfortunately, is typical of the irrational left. They will loudly and wildly spout the most flagrant disinformation and challenge you to change their minds. These people do not care a whit for facts; they operate solely on adrenaline and hatred of anything Republican or conservative, and they consider 'spinning' to be a sport instead of a synonym for lying. So changing their minds by providing the simple truth in fact form is a pointless drill, and political discussion with these people is as good a use of one's time and energy as discussing with a brick wall.

Nonetheless, here are some facts:
1. Bush did not lie.
2. There were WMD in Iraq.
3. Al Qaeda was and is in Iraq.

I guess that'll do for now, folks. Your friendly Ostrich Killer is heading back to the bungalow.

OBSERVATIONS ON DIET AND INTELLIGENCE

Seems to me that, generally speaking throughout the animal kingdom, the heirarchy of intelligence is as follows:

Herbivores (plant eaters) - lower intelligence.
Carnivores (meat eaters) - medium intelligence.
Omnivores (eats both meat and plants) - higher intelligence.

Pondering that observation, some of us might wonder if that applies within a species as well. Said another way, when an omnivore decides to eat only meat or plants, does that adversely impact their intelligence? Or is that decision a reflection of their intelligence? Sort of a chicken or egg question.

Speaking only about populations, then, is a vegetarian less intelligent than an omnivore?

If you contribute to this discussion please let us know if you are a vegetarian or an omnivore.

MICROSOFT GETS FINED BY EU AGAIN

There they go again, gold-digging in the deep pockets.

I wonder what the EU can do if Microsoft simply refuses to pay? Are they going to forbid European residents from using Windows operating systems and any other Microsoft products until Microsoft pays the bribe - er, fine? If not, what else can they do?

European computer users might object to not having any Microsoft products available to them. Entire industries that use Microsoft office products will shut down. European economies will take the hit. Those industries might have something to say to their governments.

The more I think about it, this is a potentially government-toppling situation, if neither side budges. I wonder if the EU has wargamed the consequences of their actions?