Texas Rainmaker
110859897839833345
February 17th, 2005 4:58 am
Don’t Like It? Stop Breaking The Law, Asshole!

When I read this story in the L.A. Times today, that line from Liar, Liar was the first thought that ran through my head. The issue is whether those who’ve been convicted of felonies ought to lose their right to vote. Aside from the fact this ought to be about 573rd on the priority of issues in this country, I think it’s remarkable how some are positioning their argument.

First, I’m guessing there probably aren’t alot of felons that have a huge interest in the political process. (Or maybe they do now that they’ve chosen to break the laws our elected officials thought important enough to enact).

But let’s not forget, we’re not talking about petty criminals here, we’re talking felons. Part of the definition of felony in English common law that differentiated it from less serious crimes was “forfeiture”… of rights, of property, even of life.

The article goes on to talk about how sad it is that felons can’t vote in some states, and in other states, it’s really hard for them to register when they get out of prison. Sorry, but no tears are being shed on my keyboard.

These “experts” suggest remedying the situation by just letting them vote, making it easier for them to register when they get out of prison, etc. The same experts claim “restoring felons’ voting rights can help them stay out of trouble.” Are you kidding me? If that was the answer, then our crime statistics ought to be going way down since there were so many new voter registratons filed last year. Maybe we can replace all of our police officers with voter registration workers and head off crimes before they’re committed. We can end crime around the world by just registering more would-be thugs.

I’d be curious to see just how many of these newly formed political activists gave a damn about voting before they went to prison. Now suddenly they’re “reformed”? Hardly. Heck many of these felons aren’t even reformed enough to stop committing crimes… we’re supposed to believe they’re suddenly excited about their civic duties?

A post from last year on TalkLeft gives me a pretty good indication why MSM would run with this story. They quote an op-ed piece by Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza that states:

Our estimates show that at least seven of every 10 votes cast by these lost felon voters would go to Democratic candidates. … Our work suggests that if [Florida’s] 613,000 former felons had been permitted to vote � and even if you factor in a far-lower-than-expected turnout rate than the general population � Al Gore would have defeated George W. Bush by about 60,000 votes and would have been elected president. What’s more, if all U.S. felons � in and out of prison � had been allowed to vote, Gore might have carried the nation by more than 1 million votes.

There’s nothing like counting on the criminal population to get elected, is there? What a sales pitch. It says so much that there would be a body of research showing how Democrats would win more often if only rapists, robbers and murderers would be allowed to cast ballots*. Of course, MSM drools over any opportunity to cast doubt on the legitimacy of a Republican President like Michael Moore eyes the release of a new Krispy Kreme flavor.

I think the subject of a couple other works they’ve offered sum up the whole sad ordeal:

Democratic Contraction? The Political Consequences of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States

If Felons Could Have Voted, National Election Outcomes Would Have Been Different

Well, you guys have just sold me on becoming an outspoken opponent of your cause. Nice work.

Bottom line, if you can’t handle the consequences, STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!

*UPDATE: It appears the Democrats proved the theory in the Washington Governor’s race.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
My Friend, the American Hero
February 15th, 2005 3:11 pm
The book is available today. I am so happy for Dave and his family. It’s been 17 years since we played high school football together. What a difference a decade makes. I can’t imagine living another 100 years and ever accomplishing anything as heroic and brave as Dave has done. I’m proud to call him an American soldier and I’m honored to call him a friend.

Back In Action: An American Soldier’s Story of Courage, Faith and Fortitude

“They put a price on his head. They did everything they could to disrupt his mission. Finally, when an anti-tank mine tore off his right foot, the warriors of jihad in Iraq thought they had neutralized one of their most resourceful, determined foes.

They were wrong.”

Imagine what our country would be like if everyone could be like Dave.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
110848982622567757
February 15th, 2005 10:39 am
Making fun of gays is politically correct…if you’re a liberal.

Much like the overuse of the “n” word is apparently appropriate in some circles, so too is poking fun at gays. Chris Rock, the loudmouth, obnoxious, unfunny, eat-an-apple-through-a-picket-fence-huge-teeth, b-grade talent, racist, recently insinuated that only queers would watch the Oscars. (”What straight black man sits there and watches the Oscars? Show me one.”)

I’m not making a judgment call on his comment, because frankly I don’t care enough about the overhyped, slap-yourself-on-the-back, boost-your-self-esteem, make-more-money-for-Hollywood, beauty pageant called the Academy Awards. But I am curious about the reaction being given to Rock’s comments.

Academy Awards producer Gil Cates said “These were humorous digs…

Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation issued a statement in defense of Rock. GLAAD executive director Joan Garry said. “It’s shtick …

Interesting that they’d just consider it “schtick” when someone like Chris Rock, a Hollywood liberal, makes the jokes. The same group had this to say about Jef and Jer, a couple of white guys on the radio in San Diego:

GLAAD got reports from several LGBT community members that the DJs from the Jeff & Jer Show were playing several games that some members of the San Diego LGBT community found offensive. One game involved questions where one of the DJs would ask: “Is this a gay nickname or a fishing lure?” The answers were nicknames such as: a “red hole ripper” and “I’ll butt out.” Another game involved asking male callers to talk about their “gay trait,” i.e., an “effeminate” mannerism they had.

We contacted the show’s producers and told them that they were offending San Diego’s LGBT community with these comments.

I’m not surprised.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
110831091249161916
February 13th, 2005 9:36 am
Hating the Pajamahadeen…

Mainstream Media (”MSM”) is proving again how arrogant the establishment has become. The recent case of Eason Jordan and MSM’s rush to excuse the lies and America-bashing are showing their real agenda. It used to be that news outlets existed for the sole purpose of disseminating “news”, that is, “items which were new to the public”. But as the industry has grown into a profit-driven system of monopolistic entities, it has a new goal… to manufacture stories that will sell more units of its product and increase revenue. To hell with “newsworthiness”… it’s all about “what sells”.

Such is the Eason Jordan affair. Here’s a guy who decided to make up a story on the spot and asserted that he knew of 12 journalists who had not only been killed by US troops in Iraq, but they had in fact been targeted. He repeated it a few times because it was drawing applause, but then began to backpedal when confronted and asked for evidence of such claim.

So here’s where the split between real journalism and manufactured, profit-driven journalism have encountered the great divide. MSM would like to pick up on Jordan’s assertions, without regard to any supporting evidence, and splash such concocted story across the headlines as well as lead the nightly news with it. But a person in search of the truth posts a record of the event on his blog and the story quickly works its way through the blogosphere, being filtered for truth as it advances.

For so long MSM has been in a position to press on with a story like Jordan’s without being held accountable for the veracity of the underlying claims. But now with the advent of talk radio, the Internet, and more specifically blogs, the public has the ability to respond publicly and demand truth. MSM just doesn’t like that.

Competition is not a friend to those who enjoy monopolies. That’s why you’re seeing MSM try to discredit the art of blogging, making wild claims ranging from bloggers are just “scalp-hunting sons of McCarthy who thwart the freedom of expression,” to bloggers are “salivating morons who make up the lynch mob.”

Apparently these MSM “journalists” have forgotten that truth is the ultimate goal. For them, though, I guess finding profits has replaced that goal.

It’s ironic to see MSM call bloggers “enemies of the First Amendment” when it’s the bloggers that are advancing the very definition of free speech. They call it “lynch mob”, but I see bloggers as the populist check on a corporate monopoly. Afterall, with respect to Eason Jordan’s claims there were only two things to take away… either his claim was true at which point we ought to question why MSM was not leading with such an important story… or his story was false, further proving that executives in MSM are biased against America, which is a story as well.

Since Eason Jordan backtracked on his initial claim when confronted, one can only logically assume his story wasn’t true, so the second of the two options I just listed was the real story. MSM adds fuel to the fire by refusing to cover that story in an attempt to protect one of its own.

But the story didn’t die under the wet blanket of MSM coverup. The story got traction among the real truthseekers and in a matter of days had been fully exposed for what it was: A biased reporter’s fabrication and the resulting coverup by MSM.

If you doubt that was the real story, just look again at the current attacks the MSM is launching on the blogosphere. I guess it’s more inappropriate to call attention to a CNN executive’s lies about U.S. soldiers’ actions than it is to fabricate stories of American soldiers murdering innocent journalists these days.

No wonder MSM s dying on the vine. They just don’t get it.

Update: Cox & Forkum always say it best in cartoon:

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
110824968886721119
February 12th, 2005 5:05 pm
Definition of irony…

From the Virginia University newspaper The Daily Cavalier. A professor accused of sexual harrassment is fired and replaced by Professor Richard Handler.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
110823110045517084
February 12th, 2005 11:13 am
“We are everyday working folk…”

So sayeth the new DNC Chairman, Howard “Screech” Dean. Hate to break it to Mr. Dean, but resonating with the unemployed, dope-smoking, hippie-wannabes does not invoke the image of “everyday working folk”.

By the way, just what defines “everyday working folk”? I mean, Screech’s net worth is over $4 million. I wonder how many “everday working folk” enjoy such a lifestyle. What the Democrats apparently don’t get is that “everyday working folk” don’t want to hear rich elitists pretend to understand their pain and turn around and tax them to death. “Everyday working folk” want to know their government will provide protection and then get the hell out of the way while we try to improve our own standards of living.

But apparently the definition of “everyday working folk” includes a couple who combine to earn $18 million for allegedly writing books. “Everyday working folk” are worth $164 million, $111 million, $82 million, etc. Senators who make up the “party of everyday working folk” occupy 8 of the top 10 richest positions in the U.S. Senate and account for 84% of the total net worth in the political body.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not begrudging them for building, acquiring, inheriting or marrying into wealth. But I don’t think “everyday working folk” find much in common with these elitists, which probably explains their continued political defeats.

Now they’ve elected a man who still believes the key to winning is not sharing core beliefs with constituents, but to “talk about them in a different way.” Yeah, that seems to be working.

Screech, who is a physician, claims “Democrats are not pro-abortion, but we are the party in favor of allowing women to make up their own minds about their health care.” But as far as the defenseless, innocent child, I guess the Democrats positions is “screw them”. How about once proposing adoption and abstinence instead of abortion as the “choice”.

Then Screech says, “Democrats are not for gay marriage, but we are the party that has always believed in equal rights under the law for all people.” Color me confused. But that’s a typical “take both sides” non-answer traditionally given by Democrats.

Finally, he wraps it up with, “We are the party of moral values.” Oh really? Sure about that? Which morals would those be? Is “hating Republicans” one of those moral values?

Keep denying, ignoring and pandering. The Democrats see the cliff before them and now they’ve switched to a driver with a lead foot. Fasten your seatbelts.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
110805204551339219
February 10th, 2005 10:06 am
Peace Through Strength vs. Peace Through Appeasement

North Korea announced for the first time Thursday it has nuclear weapons, and it rejected moves to restart disarmament talks anytime soon…

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Instead of giving yet another lessons learned post about our actions toward North Korea in 1994 versus our actions toward Iraq 10 years later, I’ll just refer back to some of my previous posts.

Wanna know why the removal of Saddam Hussein was just and right? - June 26, 2004

Kerry: “I’d handle Iran like we’ve handled North Korea” - October 3, 2004

It’s amazing some would still prefer the failed policy of appeasement to the proven policy of action.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
110784488106359440
February 8th, 2005 1:15 am

…and they claimed Blogs are the unreliable news source…

Jayson Blair made up stories for the New York Times. Claimed he inadvertently mixed up his notes with news clips

Dan Rather made up stories about the President for 60 Minutes. Claimed he was duped into using fake documents to support a story he maintained as true even after disproven.

Now Eason Jordan makes up stories about U.S. soldiers intentionally killing journalists for CNN. Claims it’s all a big misunderstanding.

It’s only a matter of time before one of the major outlets announces its new anchor…

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
110756282444915771
February 4th, 2005 5:50 pm
Janeane God-Aweful-Ho: Verbal Diarrhea Extraordinaire…

Proving once again that even bottom of the barrel B-grade actors can get more publicity for being idiotic than being talented, Juh-neen showed the world that she’d prefer a return to nazi death camps over freedom and liberty.

Apparently during her idiotic rant on MSNBC last night, she compared the supportive gesture of Americans waving blue-stained fingers signalling to Iraqis that we stand with them in their transition to democracy to the nazi salute. Right on cue.

I guess someone might want to inform the parents of Shelby Dangerfield, then. Shelby is the 12 year old who got the ball rolling on the blue finger gesture. Those little nazis grow up so fast.

Captain Ed gives Juh-neen a little history lesson so she’s better informed next time she tries to resuscitate her non-existent career with public idiocy.

Protein Wisdom joins the pile-on.

Michelle just doesn’t understand B-grade, grungey, pot-induced, lesbian-persuaded, shower-avoiding, live-at-home-until-your-thirty, dipshit liberalism. Must be an acquired taste.

Kevin wants us all to email Juh-neen and thank her for making the world a safer place by pointing out all the scary little 12 year old nazis that have invaded our homeland.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
110747773469957263
February 3rd, 2005 5:55 pm
Social Security: The Government’s Ponzi Scheme

Let’s examine two programs:

First, an investor is asked to invest money into a program with the promise that he’ll see returns. The manager of the program asks subsequent investors to invest and uses that new money to pay the initial investors. Essentially the system has created an endless cycle of investing where the last one in will never be paid.

Next, you have a program where an investor is forced to invest money into a program with the promise that he’ll see returns when he turns a certain age. The manager of the programs forces subsequent investors to invest and uses that new money to pay the initial investors. Essentially the system has created an endless cycle of investing, but this system is designed in such a way that eventually fewer late investors are available to be forced into paying and more early investors will never be paid.

So what’s the difference in the two? The first is an illegal scheme called a Ponzi scheme, the second is Social Security. Invest in the first, go to jail. Fail to invest in the second, go to jail. Isn’t it nice that the federal government wants to protect us from fraudulent schemes in the private sector, while simultaneously forcing us into one of their own?

As if that wasn’t bad enough, look at the rate of return you’re forced into receiving…if you’ll receive anything.

Social Security’s inflation-adjusted rate of return is only 1.23 percent for an average household of two 30-year-old earners with children in which each parent made just under $26,000 in 1996.1 Such couples will pay a total of about $320,000 in Social Security taxes over their lifetime (including employer payments) and can expect to receive benefits of about $450,000 (in 1997 dollars, before applicable taxes) after retiring at age 67, the retirement age when they are eligible for full Social Security Old-Age benefits. Had they placed that same amount of lifetime employee and employer tax contributions into conservative tax-deferred IRA-type investments-such as a mutual fund composed of 50 percent U.S. government Treasury bills and 50 percent equities-they could expect a real rate of return of over 5 percent per year prior to the payment of taxes after retirement. In this latter case, the total amount of income accumulated by retirement would equal approximately $975,000 (in 1997 dollars, before applicable taxes).

Of course, Congress just wants to protect you right? Afterall, according to Harry Reid says,

“Bush’s Social Security plans sound more like “Social Security roulette” than reform. Democrats are all for giving Americans more of a say and more choices when it comes to their retirement savings. But that doesn’t mean taking Social Security’s guarantee and gambling with it. And that’s coming from a senator who represents Las Vegas.”

See, the Democrats just don’t want us idiots to “gamble away” our retirement when they know better how to manage it and guaranteee us a whopping 1.23 percent. And what to the Democrats use to scare the uninformed? Stories of knuckleheads who would invest the money they’d otherwise put into Social Security in speculative pork belly futures, or worse… Enron!

Just one small problem with their analogies and rhetoric. None of the options under consideration would allow owners of private Social Security accounts to speculate in commodities, which are notoriously volatile and risky. The kinds of ideas under discussion all call for accounts to be invested in broadly diversified stock and bond funds. The AARP is correct to suggest that even stock and bond funds carry risk. However, the stock market also holds the promise of substantial gains for those who invest and hold stocks for the long term. According to Jeremy Siegel, professor of finance at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, from 1802 through 2003, the broad stock market provided �real� returns � adjusted for inflation � averaging 6.8 percent a year. �On average, you have doubled your purchasing power every decade in the stock market,� Siegel said during a recent talk. He said that while stocks have failed to meet that average over a few long periods, performance has been remarkably consistent.

So let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and just buy the nonsense that private investment of part of our earnings in diversified stock and bond funds is risky. Surely there are other alternatives, right? Of course there are. In fact, there’s a nifty program called the Thrift Savings Plan. Of course, don’t expect to be invited to participate in that plan… unless you’re a federal employee, like say…. a MEMBER OF CONGRESS.

So now you’re asking yourself, how much better is this TSP than my guaranteed social security? Well, a 10-Year Summary of TSP Annual Returns shows rates of returns ranging from 4.32 percent to 10.00 percent.

So to sum up this whole debate… they want to continue to force us into a system that:

1. If it were in the private sector would be illegal; and
2. Has a historic rate of return 552% less than we could get in the private market;
3. Has a historic rate of return 893% less than a plan they themselves enjoy.

I’ve recommended in the past that before any of these social programs get dumped on the American public anymore Congress ought to have to impose it on themselves for a minimum of 2 years first. If they can live with it, pass it on. If they can’t, scrap it and start over.

If they’d followed my plan on this program, we could consider the TSP a success and allow all Americans to enjoy it. It appears that is what George W. Bush is trying to accomplish.

I wish him luck.

Update: I keep hearing Democrats saying the the President’s plan to offer the option of private accounts for part of the SS investment still won’t deal with the impedning bankruptcy of the program. However, those arguing this fail to see that if we’re allowed to invest some of that money privately, and increase our rate of return on that money by 2, 4 or even 10 times the rate of SS return, SS’s impending bankrupcty won’t be an issue, as we’ll have taken our retirement into our own hands and removed the reliance on the flawed program.

Posted by TexasRainmaker | (0) Comments
divider
Evde zayıflama ile ilgili ipuçları Evde Zayıflama kilolarınızı hızlı verin. kilo vermeToplu sms te tek adres toplu sms izmir escort arıyorsanız bu adresten izmir escort zayıflama ile ilgili kısa bir makale hızlı zayıflama Hızlı zayıflama ile ilgili dikkat eken bir makale kilo vermek Tourisme Dentaire,facette dentaire tourisme dentaire

Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes

Copyright © 2003-2006

Users Online


    •  

      sidediv




    • HuckPac.com



    • sidediv


    • sidediv



  • CATEGORIES

    Fatal error: Call to undefined function wswwpx_fold_category_list() in /home/texasrai/public_html/wp-content/themes/rainmaker/sidebar.php on line 62