GULF OIL SPILL - THE PERSPECTIVE OF NUMBERS

"Unparalleled disaster" "Environmental catastrophe" "Massive pollution"

You've seen these and other End of Times headlines everywhere in the news covering the gulf oil spill.

Your favorite Ostrich Killer will now, without any comment whatsoever, give you the numbers that pertain. You may draw your own conclusions, as thoughtful people do.

Spill: 200,000,000 gallons (max. Probably less, but let's use the worst case quoted.)

Gulf: 700,000,000,000,000,000 gallons, rounded off.

Doing long division, we get 1 gallon of oil for every 3,500,000,000 gallons of water.

Doing a little more long division, we get 1 drop of oil for every 55,000 GALLONS of water. To do your own long division, assume 16 drops in a cc of oil.

But wait! It gets better! Turns out, about forty percent of that leaked oil was collected on ships. Of the remaining sixty percent, a substantial amount - maybe a third - has evaporated. Much more - another third? - has filled the bellies of oil-eating microbes, untold quadrillions of which roam the Gulf of Mexico feasting on the crude that has seeped naturally from the bottom every day since before the first well was ever dreamt of. Doing a little more math with the above numbers, we come up with only twenty percent of the oil still available to pollute in one way or another. 40,000,000 gallons of the original 200,000,000 gallons. That's a lot, but . . . well, you know.

Doubt this? Do your own research and your own math. I rounded off; you may not wish to. Have fun.

NEWS FLASH: Drudge story headline - "Disappearing Oil: Cleanup crews can't find crude in gulf."

Let's see . . . I have 55,000 gallons of water, in which I'm trying to find twenty percent of 1 DROP of oil . . . I wonder why it's so hard to do?

Duh. And no, that is not an editorial comment.

MEL GIBSON RANTS - SO?

A guy and a gal have a big, name-calling argument over the phone. Unbenownst to the guy, the gal is taping him.

First, that's a felony in most states. But leaving that aside, let's look at the obvious. And the obvious is - drum roll, please - that the conversation was private. There was a hundred percent expectation of privacy by the guy. People say things in private, especially when angry and maybe even a little buzzed, that they would never say in front of a television camera or at a press conference.

So what Mel said was ugly. Who among us has not said an ugly thing in private? Had he said that stuff in public, then there's a story. But in private? C'mon. Get over it, stupid mainstream media. Is there really such a shortage of actual news that this can get your attention?

TEA PARTY DECLARED A RACIST ORGANIZATION BY NAACP

News Flash, Dateline somewhere in America: Today the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People - an organization whose sole purpose for existence is to promote and benefit the fortunes of people with black skin at the expense of people of any other skin color -denounced the Tea Party as a racist organization. While offering no objective proof, they point to the predominantly white membership of the Tea Party as a smoking gun. They offered no explanation for why that membership population should differ from the general population.

In unrelated news, in the home of Mrs. Silas Jones in Peoria, her teapot reportedly called the soup kettle 'black.' Investigation is continuing.

GEN. PETRAEUS HAS ARRIVED - EVERYONE ELSE CAN GO HOME

For those of you who haven't read my blog of December 3, 2009, or if you've forgotten it, take a moment to look at it. Especially the part about 'What the Taliban Heard.'

My hat is off to Gen. Petraeus for seeing his duty and stepping up. Gen. McChrystal was rightly relieved of command - he probably saluted and said "You don't know how relieved I am, Sir" when departing the Oval Office - and both poser-in-chief Obama and his lapdog congress rushed to thrust Gen Petraeus into his now empty traces.

But what is Gen Petraeus's actual duty? Is it victory? Is it pacification? Is it casualty minimization? Road and school building? No, it is none of those things. And he knows it. He knows that he has been sent over to Afghanistan so that, eventually, Mr. Impeachable can point a finger at him and say "We sent our finest officer to command our forces, and still we couldn't succeed. That proves the battle is futile and it's time to pull our sons and daughters out of there." Yes, Gen. Petraeus failure will be the proverbial final straw. He knows he is to be thrown under the bus.

Never mind that he will be deprived of the resources he needs. Never mind that he is hamstrung with a time certain withdrawal scheme, developed without regard to military or political objectives by a party wholly invested in defeat. Never mind that he and his forces are emasculated with rules of engagement (You did read my December 3 column, right?) so stringent that scarcely a trigger can be pulled without landing an American in jail.

But Gen. Petraeus will do his best. That's his nature, and he'll do it. A pity that his best needs ammo and equipment and troops and intelligence. He won't be getting those things, because if he did he might actually pull off a victory of sorts. But our leadership on the left side of the aisle and in the Oval Office yearn for defeat, are clamoring for defeat, are universally predicting defeat, so they will carry out any unworthy deception - including lying to the American electorate - to bring about our defeat.

Makes one wonder how they can even lay claim to the title "American." I salute the General, I flip off the poser-in-chief and the sorry leadership of the left in congress and say to them that they are not fooling everyone.

ARIZONA'S LAW AND WHAT WE CAN DO

Whoa, there. Your Ostrich Killer SUPPORTS Arizona's law concerning allowing police officials to question someone's immigration status. So if you're looking for a blog about how to help get rid of that law, you're at the wrong place.

I want to suggest ways that we can encourage and enrich Arizona for having the stones to do what is right. Here are a few possibilities:

1. Vacation in Arizona instead of, say, Los Angeles or Sacramento. This is called a 'buycott.'

2. Buy products made in Arizona when that's a choice. Another buycott.

3. Write blogs like this one.

4. Encourage Arizona to deport illegals to cities and states that have enacted sanctions against Arizona. Just put those illegals on buses or trains and send them to Los Angeles, or Sacramento, or Seattle, or a number of other places. If the actions of the leaders of those localities match their words, those illegals will be quite welcome there.

5. Write your congressmen and women and tell them to support Arizona's law. Make sure they understand that their jobs could be impacted by their rhetoric and actions concerning this issue.

It's a crying shame that a state has to take this sort of action to pick up the slack caused by federal inaction. If only the feds would enforce the laws already on the books . . .

FAMOUS LAST WORDS

or

"I have several friends who are muslims."

That's true, if you're a muslim. If you're islamic. But if you're anything else, you are either an infidel or a non-believer.

Unless you're a muslim, you can be lied to, cheated, imprisoned or killed. Any follower of islam may do any of those things to you and suffer no consequences under islamic law, so long as they are satisfied in their own minds that what they do furthers the aims of islam.

If you're an infidel, you must be killed. If you are a non-believer, you must be converted - but if you refuse to convert, you must be either put to work for the benefit of islam, or killed.

You decidedly do NOT have any friends who are muslims. You only know people who are islamic, who seem to be friendly. But you cannot trust them. So take off the blinders.

AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO . . .

Today's blog post is for the entertainment of Americans citizens only. Anyone else may find a certain entertainment value in trying to come up with correct answers as well, and may in fact score better than most Americans. Sadly.

Okay, let's talk about American 'rights.' You know what a right is, right? You hear the word dozens of times every day, until some of us want to throw up at its very mention. But try to hold your lunch.

The United States Constitution provides Americans their rights. They're written down, clear and obvious. But they're in there in two ways: those rights reserved for Government, and those reserved for the citizens. We're going to concern ourselves, in this blog, with those rights that belong to the citizen.

So here's the quiz: which of the below 'rights', semi-colon separated, are rights according to the US Constitution? Pick all that apply.

You have the right to:

A lawyer; a speedy trial; privacy; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; separation of church and State; vote; own property; offensive speech; health care; a job; associate with whomever you choose to associate; shelter; free exercise of your religion; own and carry firearms; food; not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure; special treatment if you are of a specified race or gender; money and other necessary resources; health care; transportation; your safety; not associate with whomever you do not want to associate; a cell phone; an abortion; freedom of movement; television; an education.

Good luck. Let your friendly Ostrich Killer know how you do. You can score yourself by consulting your research assistant, Mr. Google, about the US Constitution.

While you're browsing the Constitution, take a look at the Tenth Amendment. Then think about it.

AMERICAN ANTI-SEMITISM

The other day I had lunch with a close friend, one who served in the armed services of the United States with distinction. The subject of Israel's blockade of Gaza came up.

I was astounded at my friend's ignorance of history. He said words to the effect that if Britain and the United States hadn't divided up the middle east and helped Jews steal the land that is now Israel from the Palestinians, none of the trouble we see today would be occurring. Then he echoed the MSM (Main Stream Media) line that Israel's enforcement of the blockade had been 'botched' and probably criminal.

He is a frequent listener to PBS, the government-owned and run propaganda radio network.

In thinking about this later, I came to the conclusion that he lacks knowledge, and isn't truly an anti-Semite. I know him to be a man of good will and soft-hearted. He's just ignorant and too lazy to do a little research on the actual history of the situation there. Then I went on to extrapolate that his functional anti-Semitism mirrors much of American thinking, or rather lack of it. Much of what passes for thinking and knowledge in the United States is little more than spouting the latest buzz phrases delivered by the MSM.

So yes, I place a lot of blame on the MSM for the message: Jews are wrong. Never mind that they're trying to prevent re-arming of Hamas, the elected government of Gaza and officially a terrorist organization. Never mind that any time Gaza gets an uninspected shipment of 'humanitarian relief' supplies, a barrage of rocket attacks on Israel ensue.

The MSM is the collective lapdog of the Obama regime. Barack Hussein Obama is an anti-semite, both in words and in actions. Other than Jimmy Carter, he is the only president in recent history to be so obviously an enemy of the Jewish State. So it's no surprise that the MSM, lapdog that it is, spouts Obama anti-semitic propaganda and simply refuses to provide their listeners with the truth about the blockade. So it's no wonder that their historically illiterate and intellectually lazy American audience thinks poorly of Israel for the 'botched' blockade enforcement.

What should Israel have done? Their 'botched' enforcement wound up costing the blockade runners nine lives and deportation. The blockade held. Very humanitarian, among the annals of historical blockade enforcements. And it accomplished its mission.

Your Ostrich Killer, being simpler-minded and less interested in keeping my enemies alive, would have simply sunk the ships who refused to comply with their order to either go into port for the usual (yes, usual) cargo inspections prior to transshipment to Gaza, or to leave those waters. A blockade is a systematic act of war, legitimate and time-honored, but is only useful if the imposing country is willing to enforce it. In short, a blockade is not a blockade if it isn't enforced. Gaza has fired over 4,000 rockets into Israel. I'd say that constitutes a state of war, wouldn't you? Plenty of reason to blockade them.

So I am with the Israelis on this matter. They have the absolute right to self-defense. And I'm talking about forward, active, pre-emptive defense of the sort we, as Americans, would use in their place if we received a constant rain of rockets from across any of our borders. However, apparently the rest of the world thinks their mere existence is an affront to peace and thus should suffer this endless barrage in silence and passively. I am ashamed of my current government's position on this and other matters concerning the state of Israel. And I shake in my boots at the awful prospects for that region as long as Barack Hussein Obama is in power. How long can it be before the states hostile to Israel detect - or think they detect - a Barack Hussein Obama green light to attack Israel? If they do, this time it's likely millions will die. And those deaths will be directly attributable to Barack Hussein Obama.

He needs to go. Thank God he appears to have committed an impeachable offense in trying to bribe people with white house jobs.

My hat is off to Benjamin Netanyahu for his standing up for his country, against pretty much the rest of the world. I'm with you, buddy. And I'm not alone. God be with you and your countrymen.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND YOUR CIVIC DUTY - A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

Let's begin this by presuming that the drafters of our Constitution wrote the Second Amendment to the Constitution to make sure that the citizenry would have the means to keep the federal government honest and defend our national security. Here's what they said:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Put another way, our Founding Fathers intended that our citizens be able to defend our freedom by force of arms, if necessary. We can reasonably presume this was their intent by simply looking at the history of the times leading up to that Constitution - they'd just been through a terrible shooting war to overthrow a tyrannical government. That war is called the Revolutionary War, and it resulted in the founding of a new country, the United States of America. Without an armed citizenry at that time, that war could not have been fought. There would be no United States of America. So, extrapolating, it's perfectly logical to conclude that our Founding Fathers meant to preserve that same capability for the citizenry of the new country. They meant to preserve an armed citizenry.

But back to our thought experiment: when does it become a civic duty to pick up that musket?

Our Founding Fathers gave us the legal, Constitutional means to do that if necessary, to preserve our freedoms. Freedoms won with blood, sustained with more blood, and promising to cost yet more blood. Does that imply an ugly duty, if necessary? After all, it is the right to keep and bear - emphasis on 'bear' - arms that makes all other rights possible.

Some would tell us that under no circumstances should anyone pick up a musket and join like-thinkers to protect our freedoms from the enemy, be they from abroad or from within. To them your Ostrich Killer says that a citizenry that under no circumstances will pick up their muskets to protect our national sovereignty or our Constitution is one that has already agreed to be ruled, that is tamed and subdued. They would be right at home in North Korea.

Your Ostrich Killer is not sure we're at that point yet, as a citizenry, but wonders what catalyst - or final straw, if you will - would trigger a little house cleaning? It would have to be something massive, obviously, but the possibility has to exist if our employees in Washington are to be kept honest. So is it a civic duty to actually bear those arms, then? That's the question that this thought experiment raises.

Or is your Ostrich Killer missing something here? If you think so, drop me a note and let me know the error of my thinking.

Now, another cup of coffee . . .

A NUCLEAR HOMICIDE BOMBING SCENARIO

We're all far too familiar with the near daily reports of homicide bombings, those murderous attacks on non-military and non-political people and targets. In those attacks the murderer commits his / her heinous crime with the full knowledge that they will be instantly destroyed.

People like that are either captured or killed before they carry out their planned crimes, or they succeed. If the 'civilized' world knows of such an impending event, they arrest or kill the perps. Either is an appropriate action.

But what happens when an entire nation develops that homicide bomber mentality? A nation that so hates another nation or group that they are perfectly willing to be destroyed just so the history of the world will note that they struck a blow for their cause?

You're the leader of the free world. You know of such countries. You, my faithful readers, can all name more than one like that. So what do you do? You can't arrest them. Will you legitimately kill them by striking pre-emptively? Or will you wait for them to strike their blow first, suffer untold millions of deaths, before you do the 'civilized' thing - retaliate?

But wait! Don't call yet! There is a complication! Our current poser, Barack Hussein Obama, has all but announced to the world that he will not use nukes. I guess, should we be attacked, our retaliation will be his superior intellect, good intentions and vast hordes of briefcase-wielding lawyers - assuming he survives. But what message do you think those homicidal nations will take from his 'no nukes' position? Remember, these are nations whose leadership cares nothing for who might be in charge of 'civilized' nations. It is enough that 'civilized' nations exist, for them to be the targets of their hatred.

Your ostrich killer has the answer, as do many millions like myself. It isn't a pretty one, since deterrence of the classical sort (big stick) won't work. But sometimes survival depends on beheading the snake before it bites.

National security, then, would seem to have at least two distinct components: deterrence of rational nations via 'big stick,' and neutralization of nations that can't be deterred by any way other than depriving them of means to carry out such an attack. Neutralization means simply making them harmless. There are obviously many ways to do that, all of them difficult and distasteful. But make no mistake - failure to do so will result in millions of American deaths, because we are the Great Satan, or whatever odious name other irrational countries call us.

I don't see any tangible proof that 'civilized' attempts at neutralization anywhere in the world are paying off. Do you? Doesn't that beg the question 'Okay, so what else can we do?'

PROFILING IS A TOOL - USE IT!

Okay, so your ostrich killer is becoming famous for saying what everyone already knows anyway. So be it. Here's the latest: profiling works. Duh.

Looking for a rapist? Maybe one should focus on males . . .

Looking for homicide bombers? Maybe one should focus on followers of islam . . .

Looking for high-priced call girls? Maybe one should pay particular attention to attractive younger females . . .

Looking for illegal immigrants? Maybe one should look more carefully at Mexicans . . .

All the above are examples of how applying demographic, ethnological, gender, and and religious 'filters' to a person of interest pool will shorten searches and produce quicker results. You can think of many, many more examples.

But we live in a society where, for some reason, 'profiling' is considered somehow discriminatory.

Guess what? It is. That's why it works. We all discriminate. Discrimination is a tool that helps us all make our choices in life. All our choices, if you think about it. Every one. Yet, when it comes to immigration law enforcement, or national security, or any number of other arenas, somehow it's gaspingly offensive.

Spare me. Did you know that at least one 9-11 bomber was allowed on an airplane because the ticket agent was afraid of being accused of profiling if she / he raised an alarm? PC has a price, usually paid in blood.

Accusations of profiling is a PC-enforcement tool. Thoughtful people ignore PC. Thoughtful people know profiling works.

Where are the thoughtful people in government?

BOYCOTTS OF LAWBREAKER BUSINESSES

This column is a call to boycott two types of products and businesses: those sold, owned or operated by, or staffed by, followers of islam, and those sold, owned, operated or staffed by mexicans, whether legal or not.

Why? you ask. Isn't that a little broad-brushed of you?

Your Ostrich Killer has an explanation. How often do you hear any major leadership in the islamic community of this country, or any other, taking any significant action to reduce or thwart terrorism? Along the same lines, when do you hear of any major leadership in the mexican community standing up to encourage strong action against illegal immigration?

So your Ostrich Killer, who already knows the answers to those questions just as you do, has decided to let his dollars do the talking. Hurt them where it hurts: in their bank accounts until they take the lead on demanding the right sort of action on these matters, because otherwise they'll starve.

Nothing like a little starvation to help clarify right from wrong. In this case, bottom lines will improve when those two communities start standing up and doing what's right.

How do you start?

. Patronize no arab restaurants, gift shops, markets, etc. Buy no arabic goods, patronize no businesses whose employees seem to be arabic. Do the same with mexican products and businesses. Remember, you don't have to prove in a court of law that those businesses are arabic or mexican, or that employees are. It's enough to suspect it. It's your money, after all. You get to decide where to spend it.

. Insist on being spoken with in English in this country. Anyplace that brags about being multilingual (code for Spanish-speaking) ought not get your dollars.

. Let your friends and family know what you are doing, and why.

At some point in the future, when you are satisfied that those ethnic groups are doing what's right, you can adjust your spending habits.

One last note: your ostrich killer has exempted the Persian / Iranian community from this boycott, because there is a very strong ex-pat community in this country. They are vocal and noisy and carry signs and pass out leaflets condemning what is happening in Iran, their home country. They want to change it, but fear living in it for obvious reasons. So if you see a Persian business with revolutionary literature or posters in the windows, go out of your way to help them succeed. A successful Iranian revolution will benefit the entire world, and you want to be a part of that.

ANOTHER INTERVIEW (I WISH)

Goldman Sachs Representative to Senate panel:

"Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to set the record straight on what this panel has called 'sh__ty deal' investment vehicles which, this panel would have the press believe, were both designed to fail and marketed in some shady way to unsuspecting clients and customers.

"As this panel well knows, or should, all investment vehicles must pass SEC scrutiny before they can be offered to the public. That includes information on how they are to be marketed, and their risks. This was, and is, the case with any investments offered by my firm. While we are in the business of making our clients and customers richer and more financially secure, something we do very well judging by our list of satisfied clients, we freely - even cheerfully - acknowledge that some investments are more secure than others. We offer a wide range of investment vehicles of all categories, all of which have passed through the SEC first for evaluation and approval, and all of which are described in detail for the benefit of any client who might be considering an investment.

"We stand ready to participate in any SEC re-evaluation of our methods, policies, or products, confident that any such re-evaluation will not only exonerate us of these charges but will applaud our diligent conformity to their rules and governance. The SEC has published rules and is the proper body to determine the quality of our diligence. Sadly, the same cannot be said for this panel.

"By definition any Senate investigation panel is about politics. In a heavily partisan panel such as this one, that includes posturing, rhetoric of questionable content and quality, back-handed name calling, and the harvesting of political points at the expense of the person or entity represented on this side of the table. This is not the place to explore conformity with published policy or governance rules; that is the purview of the experts at the SEC. We submit to this panel's chest-thumping and allusions to unwritten law because that is our duty as responsible citizens and businesses in this great country. So ask your questions and make your points, now that our statement is part of the record of these proceedings.

"Thank you."

YOU MIGHT BE AN AMERICAN SCUMBAG IF . . . (Apologies to Jeff Foxworthy)

- You pay no taxes (that means someone else is paying your rightful share)

- You receive any form of government support greater than your contribution to that support

- You've been 'between jobs' more than 3 years

- You think a lottery ticket is an investment in the future

- Someone else is feeding your kids

- You think that the wealthy should give you some of their money

- You think success is mostly luck

- You think you have a right to a home, a car, a job, privacy, a cell phone, HDTV, your health, or anything else that needs to be paid for

- You think work is for suckers who don't know how to work the system

- You think doing your duty to your country is allowing them to support you and your spawn

- You pay no taxes, or you have no job, or you have no home, but you vote

- You think the First Amendment allows you to say what you want, but those with differing opinions need to be 'regulated'

- You think you're not a racist and you voted for a 'black' to prove it

- You take from your country, but you don't give to it (we're not talking taxes here)

- You think Oprah, Jerry Springer, Sean Penn or anyone else in Hollywood are astute political visionaries

Enjoy that? Your Ostrich Killer certainly did. Did I miss anything? Drop a comment and tell me what else belongs on this list.

THE AMERICAN TRADITION

"DEMS FEAR VIOLENT BACKLASH," shouts today's Drudge Report headline. As though, somehow, that should be a surprise or even news-worthy.

I heard one of the more civilized conservative talk show commentators say yesterday that Americans don't get violent, they go to the ballot box.

I wonder if he forgot how this country was wrested away from a tyrannical government in the first place? True, back then there was no ballot box. But look what it's done to us lately. And what is the recourse? To shrug it off and condemn generations of our descendants to fiscal servitude - servitude to an overlord government, that rules instead of carrying out the duties the citizens assign it?

Isn't a tyrannical government one that governs without or against the consent of the people? And didn't this government recently ram multi-trillion dollar spending down our throats despite the sure knowledge that the overwhelming majority of us did NOT want them to do that? And aren't they promising to do the same again, on other issues?

"DEMS FEAR VIOLENT BACKLASH." I wonder if they think they're exempt from suffering the consequences of their actions.

Let the Ostrich Killer make it crystal clear: in no way do I condone violence (other, maybe, than a quick trip out behind the barn with an offending legislator and a belt) to solve the problem of a runaway congress and executive branch. But that doesn't mean I don't completely understand it.

It should be no surprise. Screw with the people enough, they will screw right back. That's in the American tradition.

THE WAR ON PERSONAL MOBILITY

Your government is doing all it can to restrict your ability to move anonymously around the country. Here's how:

1. Traffic Cams. They're everywhere. Ten years ago the average citizen was photographed / taped 18 times a day as they carried out their normal daily routines. Today most of these cameras are linked to servers, so they can be viewed by interested parties in near real time. So the capability to monitor your every movement exists. Doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy?

2. Transmitters and receivers embedded in your new cars, probably to be followed soon by mandated retrofits for older vehicles. You've seen that commercial where OnStar is used to slow a stolen vehicle so that police could capture it? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that police might not be the only ones interested in that capability, under certain circumstances.

3. Legislation whose hidden agenda is to drive the cost of oil so high that few will be able to fill their fuel tanks.

4. RFID tags on your car, which today you pay for if you want to use certain bridges or traffic lanes, but tomorrow (? or sooner?) may be factory-installed and hidden and used to track your movements. Maybe in that 'black box' that some in congress keep talking about adding to all new cars.

What would be the motive for this war on mobility? The government is getting increasingly nervous about the citizens of this country getting fed up and doing something decisive about them. The citizenry needs to be controlled, many of our elected officials might think. Limit their mobility. Threaten them with less than optimum health care if we say or do anything they don't like. Find ways to abridge the first and second amendment rights of all citizens. A citizenry that must depend on government-provided transport (buses, ferries, light rail, trains, air) and government-provided health care is a citizenry that can be controlled - especially if that same citizenry is given a check every month, that might go away if they misbehave.

The war on mobility is part of the greater effort to 'harness' (euphemism for subjugate and enslave) the citizenry. Oh, and just because I might be paranoid doesn't mean I'm not right about this. Pay attention to the news and see if you don't eventually come to the same conclusion.

HOW DARE YOU, MR. PRESIDENT!

Just who do you think you are, sir? You're president. Not king. There is a separation of powers in this country, which you know at least intellectually since you mentioned it at the State of the Union address just before you took the Supreme Court to the woodshed for an old-fashioned paddling.

How dare you? The court is, as a body, your co-equal under the Constitution in that they represent one-third of our government - just as you do. They are the judicial branch, you the executive branch.

And then, just days later, you crash a Republican retreat and do the same to them! Did you forget that the Congress is, as a body, one third of our government - just as you are?

You have the right to open your mouth and reveal your disdain for that separation of powers. The First Amendment gives all Americans that right. You have the right to continue to bash the U.S. Constitution with rhetoric and actions. And we have the right to wait, hopefully, for that last arrogant gesture that will move you from mere malpractitioner to prime subject in a felonies and misdemeanors investigation.

Keep it up, you arrogant POS. We Americans may be stupid enough to have elected you, but we're not deaf to your anti-American apologies, your anti-Constitutional words, and we're not too stupid to miss an opportunity to remedy that bad choice.

How dare you, sir!

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.