NEW AMERICAN SPENDING HABITS - A SUGGESTION

Our money - that which is still left after our government chops off what it wants - is our money, the tangible reward for our life energy expenditures. We get to decide how to spend it. Your Ostrich Killer, disgusted with what he's seen transpire over the last year or so, has decided to take action by voting with his slim wallet. The contents of his wallet will go to those businesses which operate without any government 'investment'.

Take the examples of Government Motors (formerly General Motors) and Chrysler. The Federal Government owns substantial part of each of those companies. The Poser in Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, personally fired the CEO of GM. Where in hell was the Constitutional uproar over that? The Federal Government has Board of Directors presence and tight oversight of both those companies, all in the name of protecting taxpayer money (spent to buy those companies so they wouldn't fail and thereby throw thousands of UAW workers out into the street where they belong.)

So using just the examples of GM and Chrysler, your Ostrich Killer will buy neither GM nor Chrysler products. As he does his research, he will find out whether other companies are owned in part by the Federal Government. And he won't buy.

The goal here is to help bring about the demise of any company in which the Federal Government takes any ownership or directorship authority. The touch of the Federal Government should eventually become an automatic kiss of death. Business belongs in the hands of entrepreneurs, not bureaucrats. They need to operate from cash reserves, not taxpayer dollars. They need to produce products that do well in the market place, not products that the government wants to force us to use.

For a broader approach to accomplishing the same thing, your Ostrich Killer will spend no money with any business that voluntarily took TARP money. Period. Real simple. For an outdated but representative discussion of TARP and a list of some recipients, you can check Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP

THE 2010 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS

Incumbent Democrats in Congress who are running for re-election this year have to be wondering about the answer to this question: if a Republican can win handily in a state where the history and conventional wisdom says the Democrat should win in a landslide, what does that imply about Congressional elections in states where those races are generally closer?

Since the answer is pretty obvious, that means a second question is necessary: how do incumbent Democrats improve their chances of re-election?

Here are some possible answers to that one:

1. Change parties in both name, rhetoric and voting habits, or

2. just change their voting on spending, taxing and social re-engineering issues, or

3. lie loudly and often enough to do what Obama did - fool the electorate.

4. Recognize that their rhetoric and voting record are irrefutable and unescapable, and not run for re-election.

The electorate can be fooled. One can point to any number of examples of that, only the latest and most egregious of which is the poser Barack Hussein Obama. So your Ostrich Killer will make a prediction: we, the American electorate, will see all four choices attempted. But being once burned, we will be twice shy of anyone with a 'Democrat' or 'Liberal' label.

The new Congress will have a new agenda: how to get started dismantling all the harm that was done by the outgoing Congress. I'd suggest using a sledge hammer would be a good beginning.

VOTER FRAUD - WHAT'S THE PENALTY?

Something has sat at the back of your friendly Ostrich Killer's brain for years, eating away, and finally it came out and made itself known. It's the question: what is the penalty for a person voting illegally? That means voting when not a citizen, when not registered, or more than once. The operative word is illegal, right?

Near as I've been able to find out, although there are laws against fraud, there is no penalty in practice. State elections committees rarely, if ever, prosecute. Courts are busy with real crimes, we're told, such as marijuana possession and child support cases.

Fraud of the above sort should be prosecuted and punished. Breaking that law when casting votes for federal office would be a federal felony, complete with a federal conviction if found guilty. We're talking prison here, not just a piddling fine that the local Democratic campaign committee will happily pay. What is more precious to an American citizen than their right to vote? Yet that right receives almost no legal protection.

Anyone who thinks as your Ostrich Killer does on this matter might consider passing along their thoughts to their representatives in Congress.

GLOBAL WARMING IS NOW 'CLIMATE CHANGE'

The envirowacko fringe has apparently adopted a new tactic in the face of growing skepticism over human-caused global warming: they've de-emphasized the 'human caused' part of their rhetoric, and they've changed the concern to 'climate change.'

Convenient. Now no matter which way the climate changes, they can say they warned us.

New flash: the climate is always changing. Never in the history of this planet has it just sat there, twiddling its thumbs. No, sir. It's always changing - sometimes fast, sometimes slow, but always. So announcing that the climate is changing is comparable to announcing that the dead vegetation littering North America right now will start to turn green in a few months. Both climate and foliage greening are cyclical, and just as certain. And both will take place with or without Man's impact, if any.

So why the big concern by these envirowackos? The short answer is, it isn't about climate at all. It's about sucking tens of trillions of dollars out of the world's productivity in order to create a global serfdom, dependent upon government benevolence for simple subsistence; enslaved to work but not excel; survive but not thrive; obey but not dare to challenge. A humanity of that sort can be easily ruled. So - you think your Ostrich Killer is paranoid again? Well maybe so, but that doesn't mean I'm not right about this. Want proof?

Think for a moment: do you REALLY think that these envirowackos will call for more SUV sales should climate change mean cooling? You remember that these envirowackos and their pet 'scientists' have hammered at us for years that carbon emissions were heating up the planet. So wouldn't it be logical, if we discover we are actually cooling, to want to increase those carbon emissions in order to slow or reverse that cooling? Build more coal-fueled power plants. Burn more wood openly. Oh, there are many ways to increase carbon emissions. But have you heard even one of these guys suggest anything of this nature?

You can certainly think of many more things they've said or pronounced as gospel that they simply will not reverse, no matter whether the climate is cooling or warming. That's because the goal is not reducing the rate of climate change, it's eliminating profit and productivity, thereby 'taming' the human population so that it depends on government for meals and health and transportation and entertainment, which of course means they'll be easily ruled. Got unclean, anti-government thoughts in your head? Your food ration will be cut. Say anything the government might not like? Avoid the hospital . . .

Energy drives the world's economies. Energy comes from coal and wood, nuclear fission, hydroelectric, and oil. All other sources of energy combined make up about one percent of output. But the envirowackos will tell you that coal and wood, nuclear reactors, hydroelectric and oil are unacceptable. So what does that leave us with to drive the world's industries, to light the world's cities, to heat the world's homes, to fuel the global transportation grid?

Exactly. I think you're beginning to get it. Without access to cheap energy, we grind back into a pre-industrial revolution agri-economy. A massive, global feudalism similar to that which existed in King Arthur's time. It would almost seem that the envirowackos are targeting energy on purpose, wouldn't it? What better way to lower productivity than to deprive it of energy? What better way to eliminate profit than to make industry impossible due to lack of energy?

Call it a conspiracy theory if you like, but expect to think about this as you listen to the news about climate change. If you don't believe in this conspiracy now, just wait.

A Tiger Woods Press Conference (I Wish)

"Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the media. I'm glad you all were able to come out today and allow me to bring you up to date on my personal situation, which all of you have covered in exquisite detail, and my plans for the future. This will be a short conference, and I will not entertain questions when I am done.

"First, my personal situation: That is personal. It's between myself and my family, and between myself and the local police, who cited me for that stupid driving accident. So it's none of your business. However, I realize you don't get paid for not digging up dirt, so dig away and be damned. Publish what you will, but expect no comment from me on any of it. Why? Because - duh - it's all personal.

"Next, my plans for the future: I'm Tiger Woods. I'm the best damned golfer in the world. I win piles of money and even do a little good with it, if you'll bother to look into my philanthropic efforts. So what I'm going to do is play golf, and kick every other golfer's butts as often as I can and as convincingly as I can. I will do this no matter what the media has to say about it, because frankly I no longer give a crap what you have to say. What I have to say, I'll say with my golf clubs.

"In case you missed any of what I just said, you can pick up a transcript outside in the lobby. Good day. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out."

DWTS - A WAY TO SELL ADVERTISING, NOT A TALENT COMPETITION

In case some of you might have misunderstood the show, it's not a serious dance contest. It's only partly about talent - dancing talent, that is - and that part is provided by the panel of judges who mostly get it right. The other, apparently far larger part is just a popularity contest fueled by viewers calling in to vote for their favorites. Even Dumbo the Flying Elephant would make the cuts, if kids called in. And this has happened with other talent-challenged pop culture figures (many of them plus sizes, or far too old to be agile). One only has to look at who makes the cuts to figure this out.

And please spare me any complaints about my fatism-ageism comments. They are simply reality: fat, out of condition past their primes people have no business pretending to be dancers. They should be marketing their personal brands of low-calorie popcorn or AARP insurance, or something.

As much as your Ostrich Killer likes to watch some of these shows, he has decided to stop watching DWTS until and unless talent is the sole criteria. That is the only fair way - fairest to viewers who tune in to watch what are often incredible dance routines, fairest to the dancers who work very hard to put on the best show they can. It must be professionally disgusting to the judge panel to see the better dancers get eliminated week after week because they don't get as many phone calls as the Pillbury Marshmallow Man, who fell on his ass twice in one dance but who has a great smile. But hey. Judges are professionals. They get paid to judge. They do that. And then they go home and kick the dog.

Maybe there can be two categories of winners: Judge's Choice, and Viewer's Choice. Cuts would be made based solely on dancing talent (Judge's Choice), but at the end of the show there would be a second award of Viewer's Choice. Any contestant pair, no matter when they were cut, would be eligible for that award. This would show beyond any possibility of doubt that viewers don't care a whit or don't know squat about dancing talent, but so what? The judges already chose the best talent.

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.