Would You?

WorldNetDaily asks:

If the primary season reveals no decisive front-runner, and if conservative delegates head toward the GOP convention with the nagging feeling that our best candidate wasn't in the race, we urge them to consider acting on what so many Republicans and Reagan Democrats are thinking. Drafting Newt Gingrich is a real solution to the current leadership problem. Even as a vice presidential choice, Gingrich would solidify the ranks and reinforce the GOP's position as the party of bold ideas, but as a presidential choice he could bring about a truly needed Second Reagan Revolution.

Would you consider Newt Gingrich as a presidential nominee?

BZ

Florida

McCain comes out number one, Romney number two and the person who spent, it seemed, the last ten months campaigning in Florida, Giuliani, is third.

Giuliani ran third, his best showing of the campaign but not nearly good enough for the one-time front-runner who decided to make his last stand in a state that is home to tens of thousands of transplanted New Yorkers.

Last stand? Giuliani didn't even make a "first stand." His campaign manager should be flipping burgers at Wendy's by Wednesday of next week. How does "no campaign" = "a campaign"? What part of "let's stay out of the public eye whilst campaigning for President" resembles anything close to a winning strategy?

Huckabee came out fourth, Ron Paul fifth.

McCain now has more delegates than Romney.

It is rumored that Giuliani may throw his support to McCain.

Thompson is gone, Giuliani is essentially gone, Huckabee is diminishing, Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul. The future will be between Romney and McCain.

Wrap your brain around that one, boys and girls.

BZ

The Logical Extension

When I customarily see, hear or read of an issue or event, I like doing what I call the "logical extension" -- that is, given the nature of human beings, how can they push the envelope ever further? What is the next step? What does it mean? Where will it (or can it) likely be going?

Well, I am sorry to say I missed a "logical extension" that has been staring us in our faces for at least two weeks; I've only now done the L.E. and made a frightening conclusion. And from such a small story, and such a small object -- but with absolutely huge implications.

India's Tata Motors (I had visions of some smarmy graphics or links here, the likes of which I shall not indulge) rolled out their new Nano automobile in early January. The Tata Nano takes the mantle of the world's cheapest car -- priced at $2,500 to around $3,000 (100,000 rupees in Indian currency).

This is a vehicle crafted to be pitched to "the masses" at a price that, literally, millions of people may be able to afford.

The four-door Nano is a little over 10 feet long and nearly 5 feet wide. It is powered by a 623cc two-cylinder engine at the back of the car. With 33 horsepower, the Nano is capable of 65 miles an hour. Its four small wheels are at the absolute corners of the car to improve handling. There is a small trunk, big enough for a duffel bag.

No information yet on its curb weight or mileage estimates. And yes, it is a gasoline-powered engine.

I have mostly owned motorcycles and economy cars in my life, by fiscal necessity. I had a 1974 Subaru GL, a 1979 VW Rabbit, then a 1985 Chevy Sprint, actually manufactured by Suzuki, possessing (as I was fond of saying) "993 throbbing and pulsating cc's packed into three massive cylinders."

Yes. My new '85 Chevy Sprint didn't even have a 1 litre engine. It shipped with a left door mirror (I had to order the right door mirror later), cloth seats, a 4-speed manual tranny, crank windows, and no air conditioning. On a trip to Santa Cruz, I got an actual observed 55 mpg out of that thing. I was, however, ridiculed at work because my fellow employees said I would save additional bucks by purchasing Hoover "Carpet Master" tires instead of real tires.

My Sprint was retired in 1987 when it was struck amidships in the rain on I-5 by a 1977 Kenworth, having been knocked into the K-Wobbly's lane by an uninsured asshole who sped by me and lost control. My poor car ended up being a good 1.5' less wide than when issued from the factory. 1987 was a bad year: the accident almost killed me, I got a divorce, then was shot at and missed (by about an inch) by a recalcitrant DA investigator. But that's another story only to be revealed after numerous shots of Stoly.

From there, I purchased a 1989 Geo Metro. It didn't get quite the mileage, general high 30s and low 40s.

After a few other failures, I purchased a dark green 1999 Chevy Metro -- my absolute favorite small car. And probably most responsible for my skin cancer since its windows were inches from the side of my face. I customized this car as much as I could, hard-tinting all its windows, upgrading its seat covers, purchasing the back storage cover, upgrading its stereo. It got a consistent 40+ mpg. It once acquired 50 mpg on a long freeway trip. My then-girlfriend backed up into it and dented the hood, which she never replaced (though she swore she would -- the beginning of the end, as it were). But that's another story.

I already predicted $100 a barrel oil.

From there, a cramped 2004 Subaru Outback Sport, to my current roomy 2007 Toyota RAV4 SUV with the chipped 280-hp V6 engine (which kicks much ass and is, essentially, a Q-Ship).

Back to the Tata Nano, and the application of this "logical extension" thing.

I'll make it brief:

A $2,500 car = hundreds of thousands of buyers in India.

Which means China will have to produce its own version of the People's Nano (if not allowed for immediate import into China proper).

Which means more gas. More gas. More GAS. For those thirsty, thirsty nouveau-riche car owners.

Which means more global competition for limited gas production. Not limited gas -- limited gas production. Refineries.

You can expect crimped supplies within two to five years, I estimate.

WE won't drill our resources. We won't tap what we have. We already get the bulk of our oil from our northern neighbor, Canada. You know, oil sands, Alberta and the like.

Enjoy what you have for a few years. Right or wrong, my analysis being greedy or self-centered, you'd best adjust. This isn't just an exhibition; this is a full-out competition for oil. And I know who I want to win. I want us to use carrier groups, FA-18s, cruise missiles, nukes, be my guest.

But throughout all of this, who will additionally continue paying, via "aid" and "assistance" for the world?

Why -- would it be -- the AMERICAN TAXPAYER?

And with those monies, what will you GET? How far will you be stripped? How far will you be pushed? Before, under dire petrol straits, when will you actually expect some kind of return for your investment?

BZ

Iraqi Study Hugely Biased By The Left

And the true facts about the biased study have, oddly enough (are you sitting down?) been purposely smothered by the so-called Mainstream Media (MSM). After all, have you heard or read about its debunking? I suspect not.

Jeff Jacoby in The Boston Globe writes:

. . . there was great interest when the Lancet published a study in October 2006, three weeks before the midterm US elections, reporting that 655,000 people had died in Iraq as a result of the US-led war.

But the truth, it turns out, is that the report was drenched with politics, and its jaw-dropping conclusions should have inspired anything but confidence.

Much of the funding for the study came from the Open Society Institute of leftist billionaire George Soros, a strident critic of the Iraq war who, as Munro and Cannon point out, "spent $30 million trying to defeat Bush in 2004."

Coauthors Burnham and Roberts were avowed opponents of the Iraq war, and submitted their report to The Lancet on the condition that it be published
before the election.

But because it served the interests of those eager to discredit the war as a moral catastrophe, common-sense standards were ignored. "In our view, the Hopkins study stands until someone knocks it down," editorialized the Baltimore Sun.

Now someone has, devastatingly. But will the debunking be trumpeted as loudly and clearly as the original report? Don't hold your breath.

Indeed! Though not widely publicized (imagine that), the DemocraticUnderground had to chime in with its two cents, and one of the very first comments attacks The Boston Globe itself -- you know, the same Boston Globe, in the city of Boston, both of which are bastions of horrendous Right Wing activity. Give me a damned break.

And of course, let's not forget the all-hallowed personal attacks:

6. We don't need no steenkin republicon propagandist chickenhawks
Jacoby is just another highly paid republicon chickenhawk propagandist.No cred. No talent. No relevance.

As I have written many times in this blog: never let facts, rationality, logic, common sense and proportion get in the way of a good fucked-up decision -- or, in this case, a fucked-up belief. Wouldn't you say there's a bit of a difference between 45K and 655K? I think I would.

BZ

Another Blow

Not just to Hillary, but to the GOP as well.

Hillary hied her ass directly into her rental jet the moment the polls in South Carolina closed. The writing was on the wall and she knew it. Results:

1. Obama

2. Clinton

3. Edwards

Yes, Barack Obama delivered another roundhouse kick to the sagging (sorry, read: experienced) jowls of the Hillary Regime.

This is SO not in keeping with The Great Plan. The Great Plan consisted of one sole strategy: Hillary Clinton running roughshod over any competitor, supported by every Demorat, for two primary reasons: 1) She is a Clinton and 2) She thusly deserves it. She honestly and truly believes: she is owed this Presidency.

The problem is this: Hillary is simply a polarizing entity within the Demorat party. She is (as I have bleated forever) insufficently Left for The Left. Because of this polarization, if she wins or loses it will not be by a wide margin.

Because of this innate polarization, I submit that Hillary is more inherently "beatable" by the GOP than Barack Obama. And I will tell you, in the most base terms, precisely why:

1. Hillary doesn't have a lock on what's left of "feminists";

2. When Hillary opens her mouth, it's reminiscent of nails screeching on a chalkboard;

3. No one admires thick ankles;

4. She wields power in its most abject fashion and people recognize this on a subliminal level;

5. Many will hold for Hillary when, in fact, in the back of their brains they still want Bill;

6. Hillary represents Old School;

7. Obama represents New School;

8. Obama doesn't spew Black Urban Gutterspeak;

9. He's White enough to not be immediately threatening on the first-glance-surface;

10. He is well-groomed, wears a suit, has a presence;

11. He doesn't have a southern accent; that in and of itself kills Edwards and killed Thompson;

12. People are so OVER with ANYONE possessing a so-called "southern accent";

And here is what I think appeals to a good number of persons about Obama:

Obama is a vacuum. Obama is whatever you want him to be. Obama conforms to whatever your general Left-Leaning brain envisions. He is an empty vessel to be filled with what exists in your brain, in your world. Because he has been sufficiently nebulous on the issues, in order to acquire the greatest amount of appeal.

He is a younger, darker Bill Clinton: dynamic, a presence, willing to be what you want him to be when you want him to be it. Anyone remember what Joe Biden said about Obama?

So: could the GOP beat Hillary? Yes, I believe that is possible.

Could the GOP beat Obama?

The bulk of the electorate, quite frankly, votes its emotive gut. Bottom line: who is more likeable? Hillary or Obama?

I think we can all do the math on that one.

BZ

P.S.

On the GOP side, it still amazes me that we are leaning towards a doddering liberal, John McCain. Michael Medved, a man I once respected, is simply wrong.

Cloverfield

I so wanted to enjoy this movie!

I'm a child of the '50s, literally raised on monster movies. The trailers looked enticing. Something of a modern-day Godzilla with current CG technology? I couldn't wait!

I saw Cloverfield the weekend it opened.

When it finished, just shy of 90 minutes later, my wife was physically sick and I had to relinquish my next movie pick. I was not pleased.

JJ Abrams, involved with the TV series Lost (which I actually enjoy) seems to think that "cheap" is the way to go. Don't get me wrong; there were a few compelling scenes in the film. But a few scenes does not an excellent movie make.

Problem # 1:

The Shaky Video Camera Syndrome (a la Blair Witch Project) is SO passe. It is SO yesterday and, now, overdone. No one told us: the ENTIRE film is based upon one asshole holding a videocam and -- moreover, the shaking NEVER FUCKING STOPS. It only gets worse. It made my wife physically sick, which is why I write this post to warn others.

Problem # 2:

Beginning with the SVCS, in a film that is under 90 minutes, the entire lead-up to the actual realization is not only banal, it is beyond boring. JJ: dude, your characters are cardboard. The "party shots" go on and on and on -- oh, let me be generous -- about FIFTEEN MINUTES TOO LONG. Because of this, you force the audience to not give a shit about who lives or who dies. Your two male leads look too much like each other. I know: let's not only piss off the audience, but let's confuse them.

Problem #3:

If your characters are representative of this current generation, with limited vocabularies such as you display, then I recommend the monster and its concomitant louses kill all of our kids. Kill them all. They have not the mental capacity or verbosity to deserve life.

BOTTOM LINE:

Don't spend your $10 on this movie. And even when it comes to DVD, hold it at arms-length. Trust me: it'll get stamped to DVD in a month or two, discounted by Costco or Sam's Club. Rent it, don't buy it. You'll thank me for the savings you incurred.

BZ

Who's Actually Running?

My-my-my, the consternation Willie J seems to be causing on the Hillary side.

He just cannot seem to keep his graying mug off television, the internet, news shows. He's ramped up campaigning for Hillary because, in my opinion, by transference, he's running once again.

Who's been making all the news the past few days? Face time? Sound bites? News bits? It hasn't been Hillary.

DILLON, S.C. (AP) - He's not on the ballot but Bill Clinton seemed to dominate the South Carolina presidential campaign, disparaging Barack Obama and journalists and predicting that many voters will be guided mainly by gender and race loyalties.

Liberal talk show hosts are coming out and actually accusing Bill Clinton of lying.

Bill's attacks are not playing well:

In response, Bill Clinton said Harpootlian's comments were a distraction, and he accused the Obama campaign of funneling smears through the media.

Because of she AND Bill, some media are accusing the Clinton campaign of "going negative."

Willie J's tactics are actually beginning to backlash in the liberal media. And Bill Clinton really IS the legacy that won't go away, as I wrote here waaaaay back in 2004.

But, bottom line, you can't tell me that some won't vote for Hillary because they actually want to have Willie J back in the White House. Once there, if there, my question is this: who really will be running the White House? The country? You believe, even for the faintest of moments, that WJ will simply step back, fade into the woodwork? And if he does not -- can you feature the behind-the-scenes flying sparks? Which would, by logical extension, tend to bleed into quite public sparks? Willie J will not be "background" -- he won't stand for it. And I think a good portion of the electorate will "enable" him on the matter as well.

On second thought, this really might be a most interesting potential Presidency. . .

BZ

How I See John McCain

Ooopsie; McCain got Putin confused with Angela Merkel. Huh? And just who's pushing McCain, do you think? Would you be surprised if I told you that it was . . . nah! (Thanks, Michael Ramirez.)

BZ

Massive Clue

We've all been thinking -- and some bloggers have been writing -- that the GOP and Conservatism appear to be on geometrically diverging paths. There have been no end (myself included) of posts wondering what to do, how to solve the problem, and the resolutions that some are considering -- to include not even showing at the polls this November.

Now, the Number One Republican protagonist, the Number One Carrier of President Bush's Water, Rush Limbaugh, has come out on-air and said:

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh stunned his listeners by announcing that he might not support the Republican presidential nominee in this year’s election.

Limbaugh said on Monday’s show: "I can see possibly not supporting the Republican nominee this election, and I never thought that I would say that in my life."

The reason: “You don’t have a genuine down-the-list conservative” among the GOP candidates.

But Limbaugh’s remarks are not quite so surprising in light of statements he made about GOP candidates Mike Huckabee and John McCain last week:

“I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it. A lot of people aren't going to vote. You watch.”

Coming from Limbaugh, this borders on complete and utter heresy.

Yes, people, we have actually sunk that low. How depressing.

Solutions in sight?

BZ

P.S.

Many thanks to Texas Fred for the heads-up.

A Moment On Fred

Perhaps like some of my readers, I had initial hopes for Fred Thompson. He has officially pulled out of the Presidential race.

Sometimes "what people have been saying" turns out to be correct. In my opinion:

1. Fred entered the race too late.

2. The application of verve and excitement to his running was primarily absent.

3. He had some good occasional soundbites; a soundbite does not a campaign make.

4. He wasn't the extemporaneous speaker everyone expected him to be.

5. His advisors weren't. Many thought his advisors were too linked to Bush.

6. He avoided many speaking and appearance venues. That never helps.

And finally: many of us now realize he may have been doing nothing more than "dabbling." No matter what he says, I'm still not convinced he applied himself to the campaign.

And so goes Fred.

BZ

Box of Rocks

1. Green Bay Packers

. . . are not going to the Super Bowl. They lost the NFC Championship yesterday by one field goal in overtime, 23 to 20, against the New York Giants. The better team won, simple as that. After missing two prior field goals, Tyne hit his final and most important kick in overtime following a Favre interception.

On Sunday, February 3rd, 12 days from now, Super Bowl XLII will feature the New England Patriots vs the New York Giants. This is a "gimme" prediction: New England will walk away with the game and be the first team to ever have such a "perfect season" in all of NFL history.

On the continuing NFL front:

Tony Dungy (probably the finest Class Act in professional football today), who was considering retirement, has said he's coming back to the Indianapolis Colts for 2008.

Brett Favre's return to the Green Bay Packers is uncertain. He was seriously thinking of retirement after the rather disappointing 2006 season. His decision was, obviously, to return for 2007 and Green Bay turned their record around astoundingly for '07. My gut says: Brett will be back. I think he still enjoys the game too much to walk away yet; you can see it in his face.

Baltimore Ravens coach Brian Billick (and his entire coaching staff!) was fired following the Ravens 5 & 11 season. The Ravens then hired former Philadelphia Eagles secondary coach John Harbaugh.

2. My Days With Microsoft Are Nearing An End

I've just about had it with Microsoft and, by extension, PCs. I walked into an Apple Store the other day and eyeballed the hell out of a gorgeous 24"-monitored iMac. The newest issue of PC World magazine indicates that Apple is one of the best (if not the best) brands out there. I'm tired of the Windows bugs; I'm tired of the 3-Fingered Salute; I'm tired of the constant updates; of the slow speeds on boot-up and shutdown; I'm tired of the constant threats of viruses aimed directly a Bill Gates and anything he makes; I'm just tired of most any PC I've had just being plain unreliable. Period.

In the new iMac, I can get a 2.8Ghz dual core Intel processor, already running a 64-bit system, max of 4 gigs memory, and up to a TB of drive. I'm considering using this unit to learn video editing via Final Cut Pro or Express.

Anyone have experience with Apples and perhaps an iMac in particular? Experience with Apple's new OS called Leopard? Thoughts on video editing with Final Cut Pro or Express? Opinions about PC vs Mac? Am I about to make a mistake, or step into a new and liberating dimension?

Obviously, I'm politicked out for now. . .

BZ

If Only We'd Give Up

Right?

If only we'd give up, capitulate to the Islamic World, things would simply be better, would they not?

We could call off the so-called "Global War On Terror" (or GWOT, in our acronym-loving world).

We could pull out of Iraq. We could pull out of Afghanistan. We could bring our soldiers home. We could park the ships, the planes, the tanks.

Perhaps we could actually have our military and our National Guard begin to apply the rest of their time and their commitments to food banks in destitute American communites raped by the capitalism of our nation, to rebuilding New Orleans, to the creation of new single-family (meaning, single-parent) housing tracts nationwide, to Government Assistance Offices (GAOs), to Worker High Rises (a lesser footprint on which to live), to Energy Pedal Centers (EPCs) for electrical generation. This would then allow the various Underclasses to sign up for any number of high school and then university educational and, to a much slighter degree, vocational programs (though we should do our best to ensure the military begins to take up the vocational training slack, considering their group-think mindset. - Ed)

Our stolid American soldiers could then re-up to dig trenches for water in Nigeria, parking lots for Mexico, convenience stores in Bangladesh, and certainly more gas stations in both China and India. Think of the global Good Will to be acquired.

We could actually begin to fund things that truly matter for this nation:

We could concentrate on acquiring marriage rights, and more, for all Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgenders (another acronym: GLBT). We could create a law mandating businesses employ a certain percentile of GLBT persons -- say, 35 -to-40% of their total complement.

We could apply those billions of dollars towards the creation of a True Living Minimum Wage (guess what: TLW) of, beginning at $18.00 to $25.00 per hour.

We could completely fund any and all artistic expressions, and ensure that artistes of all stripes, varieties, nations and sources may make a federal profit on their creative expressions of diversity.

We could instigate more laws to more properly direct funding away from any religions (with the obvious exemption of non-Western, non-Anglo religions) or their general countenance in our progressive society.

We could place a cap on individual earnings of $1 million per year, and corporate earnings of $500 million. Earnings beyond any of those limits would be mandated, by law, to be placed into the federal government's General Fund. Corporations would be rightly forced to their knees and subject to the appropriate redistribution of their Anglo-headed profits, for the benefit of the common good.

We could create HateSpeak, HateWrite and HateHear (SWHHCubed) laws that would completely remove the oppressive, unenlightened Right Wing dominance (and its concomitant barbaric, uneducated thugs) from our local and national communications.

With monies saved, we could completely fund more Planned Parenthood stations around the nation and ensure that Womyn have complete and utter control over their bodies, not just for abortions but for STD, AIDS and PRN birth-preventive research, and are no longer submissive to and subjugated by men, nor have to be riddled with the disparate, disjointed and antiquated thoughts of opposing dribbly-mouthed religious minions, who do nothing but tote the party line of Dead Historical Anglos.

With monies saved, we could create an entire level of Commoner Health Services (CHS) centers, where every human being within the confines of the United States could and should be treated, and extensively, for any medical ailment or discomfort, free of charge, free of identification, free of concern with regard to income, status or country of origin.

We could commit ourselves to the entire Global Community and, more importantly, commit ourselves to Kyoto, to LOST, to the World Court and the United Nations. With much of the cash appropriated from oppressive American capitalistic countries, at least initially, we could enrich those lesser nations surrounding this most blessed but oppressive of nations.

And we could do this all, if we'd but give up our entire defense budget completely. And then raise all taxes on the so-called "middle class" which is, as we all know, is not the "middle" but the upper sixteenth of the nation and solely comprised of elite, overeducated Anglo males and a scattering of repressed Anglo females. A tax rate of 60-to-70% is the least we can do!

Once this good and pure global people of nations witnessed our complete and dedicated commitment to disarmament, abandonment of oppression, acquiecence to the Whole, they would surely likewise lay down their arms in sympathy and empathy to our truly united goals of one-ness -- for surely everyone recognizes there are no bad people -- only bad governments.

Not just nationalistic goals (such a dated and repressive term!), but truly global and unified goals!

NO poor people! NO wanting people! NO overworked people! NO elites! NO houses better than others! NO private lands! Complete parity and equity! ULTIMATE "power to the people" as in our most glorious dreams!

All this could be achieved!

If only we'd give up our Global War on Terror!

NO ONE comes to "kill us." WE only kill OTHERS -- who are NON-Anglo!

BZ

Lies and Treachery

We need the names, we need trials, we need convictions, and we need to send a message from the American people to those who would sabotage America: at least one execution.

THE FBI has been accused of covering up a key case file detailing evidence against corrupt government officials and their dealings with a network stealing nuclear secrets.

Whose "corrupt government officials"?

She says the FBI was investigating a Turkish and Israeli-run network that paid high-ranking American officials to steal nuclear weapons secrets. These were then sold on the international black market to countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Ladies and gentlemen, this doesn't purport to deal with office workers taking pens, persons who might be racist, sexist, any other form of -ist, bad words, offensive gestures or any other manner.

This deals with the most very base method of ensuring and maintaining our own security. This deals with betraying national trust, security, oaths of office, common sense, logic, sovereignty, the welfare of this entire state but, moreover, the ability of this nation to not only enable its defense but the defense of those nations falling under the umbrella of United States protection -- western nations, western culture, the freedom of the entire world.

Edmonds is the subject of a number of state secret gags preventing her from talking further about the investigation she witnessed.

“I cannot discuss the details considering the gag orders,” she said, “but I reported all these activities to the US Congress, the inspector general of the justice department and the 9/11 commission. I told them all about what was contained in this case file number, which the FBI is now denying exists.

“This gag was invoked not to protect sensitive diplomatic relations but criminal activities involving US officials who were endangering US national security.”

The United States is not by definition an Empire. Empires exist to conquer, take and occupy lands. The United States is the only nation in the entire history of the planet to assist other nations and groups of nations with their defense, against common enemies, and then turn those lands back to its enemies. There has never been, nor likely ever shall be, another nation acting in that fashion.

This is the same nation, yours, mine, ours, that is threatened by these "American officials." For providing nuclear secrets to other nations jeopardizes the ability of the United States to be secure and powerful for itself itself and the rest of the free world.

These revelations are now in the exposed and deadly light of day. Being in the public domain, I repeat, and not lightly or in an ill-considered, abrupt or thoughtless, cavalier fashion:

We need the names of these officials, we need trials, we need convictions and we need to send a message from the American people to those who would sabotage not only America but potentially all of civilization: we need at least one execution.

BZ

American Officer Killed

It's starting in earnest; American officers are being killed by Mexican smugglers -- actually, it's continuing:

A U.S. Border Patrol agent is dead in California after being struck by one of two vehicles fleeing toward the U.S.-Mexico border during a pursuit by law enforcement today.

The officer, whose name has not yet been released, was laying spike strips across the road in the Imperial Sand Dunes recreation in the southeast portion of the state at about 9:30 a.m. when he was hit by a Hummer believed to have been driven by smugglers.

The Hummer and a Black Ford F-150 pickup truck escaped into Mexico, Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Jeremy Schappell told the Yuma Sun. It is unknown whether the vehicles were carrying drugs or human contraband.

"Right now our Mexican liaison unit has contact with the Mexican authorities ... try and track these individuals down," Schappell said.

Where will be the justice for this dead officer? The suspects have already fled back to Mexico. Do you actually believe Mexican authorities will hunt these suspects down and turn them over to American law enforcement?

In the meantime, for shooting ONE Mexican drug dealer in the ass, two USBP agents sit and rot in prison.

Where is the equity? Where is the logic? Where is the outrage?

BZ

What Conservatives Need To Do, Part I

(BZ Note: This will be the first in a continuing series of posts contemplating the future of Conservatism and the Republican Party, the purpose of which shall be to not only identify key problems but, more importantly, plan and plot and suggest future paths in order to set this nation on a course of not only merest survival, but thrival, prosperity, admiration, respect and power.

If this can be done within the current GOP, all is well; if this requires the abandonment of the GOP and the creation of a Third Party, I say: so be it.

These posts and the comments solicited thereby, will exist as a public record, so to speak -- a stream of consciousness, if you will -- of the necessary steps I believe must be taken in order to not only save this nation, but keep it safe, prosperous, powerful and sovereign. No matter how many enemies align themselves against it.)

If there is anything that was revealed to me in the past, say, two years, it is this: I am a Conservative first, and a Republican, so clearly now, second.

It pains me to realize such a conclusion.

My party seems to have abandoned me. I didn't diverge from it; it diverged from me. I can only, now, think of a mere handful of Republican politicians worthy of the title.

Moreover, it seems to me that, with some somewhat massive but separate differences, the two major parties, Republican and Democrat, tend to blend together at their very foundations, their very bases:

- They seek nought but power;

- They are whores for money;

- They will cover their collective asses on both sides of the aisle when it affects all of them;

- They wish The Political System to NEVER be exposed to the Light Of Day;

- They each know they could never have achieved that amount of power, deference, respect, accommodation, in any other job or venue;

It's never about the salary; it's about the future power derived from the position.

And even then, I have had to reassess my Conservative views in the midst of numerous realities adjudged.

Your job, now? Because without you, my readers, my thoughts, ideas and suggestions are diminished beside yours.

Give me your FIVE top priorities for a Conservative agenda. Not the GOP, not another party, but Conservatism in general.

What are YOUR top five priorities?

BZ

P.S.

I'll likely accommodate those and more into the new platform I am considering.

How Truth Is Not

1. Global Warming:

It snowed, but they still came. A heavy snowfall blanketed a global warming protest outside the State House in Annapolis this morning, but it did not dampen the shouts of about 400 activists who urged lawmakers to pass the nation's toughest greenhouse gas control law.

As supporters waved signs, chanted and banged drums, 18 legislators walked down a symbolic green carpet to sign up as co-sporsors to a bill that would mandate that all businesses in Maryland cut emissions of global warming pollution by 25 percent by 2020 and 90 percent by 2050.

Plus, Greenland is attacked by ice:

While the rest of Europe is debating the prospects of global warming during an unseasonably mild winter, a brutal cold snap is raging across the semi-autonomous nation of Greenland.

On Disko Bay in western Greenland, where a number of prominent world leaders have visited in recent years to get a first-hand impression of climate change, temperatures have dropped so drastically that the water has frozen over for the first time in a decade.

2. Republicans Hate More:

Actually, no. The Hatemongers are Liberal:

The same logic is evident in the complaint the American political left has with conservative voters. According to the political analysis of filmmaker Michael Moore, whose perception of irony apparently does not extend to his own words, "The right wing, that is not where America's at . . . It's just a small minority of people who hate. They hate. They exist in the politics of hate . . . They are hate-triots."

What about liberals? According to University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone, "Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others." They also "believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference." Indeed, generations of academic scholars have assumed that the "natural personality" of political conservatives is characterized by hostile intolerance towards those with opposing viewpoints and lifestyles, while political liberals inherently embrace diversity.

So, statistically, who hates more?

Why, of course, as readers to my blog know, that would be The Left:

In 2004, the University of Michigan's American National Election Studies (ANES) survey asked about 1,200 American adults to give their thermometer scores of various groups. People in this survey who called themselves "conservative" or "very conservative" did have a fairly low opinion of liberals -- they gave them an average thermometer score of 39. The score that liberals give conservatives: 38. Looking only at people who said they are "extremely conservative" or "extremely liberal," the right gave the left a score of 27; the left gives the right an icy 23. So much for the liberal tolerance edge.

Oh shit! Once again, the Right deals with FACTS and The Left deals with ee-mo-shuns.

As one of my friends is frequently wont to say: "I hate it when logic, facts, common sense and proportion get in the way of a good fucked-up decision."

Don't they, though?

BZ

Government Big Enough

Found inside the cab of, oddly enough, a Union Pacific diesel-electric locomotive set idling within the constraints of my mountain domain.

It shouldn't shock anyone that the BLET (Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen) stems from, essentially, the very first union of note in this country.

What I find remarkable is a truth like this written amidst such a strong union presence.

But not that the UP is the quintessential "employee-friendly" company by any stretch of the most daft imagination. If you looked up the word "adversary" you'd see the UP shield.

However the truth is still, no matter what, the truth.

And truer words were never written.

BZ

Frightening Days for Free Speech

I don't think I've seen as many frightening days and as many bad portents on the horizon as I have this past year and now.

One of my greatest concerns is the potential loss of our freedom of speech which, of particular import to me, translates to writing.

Our very own First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There was a time when, in a playful manner if you will, I perhaps joked a bit about the loss of our freedoms due to various Politically Correct postures taken by venues of the Left. Being "P.C." in portions of our speech was something of which we poked fun.

No more. Now there are laws extant and laws in the making.

Today, it is no longer anything even remotely resembling a joking matter. It is of such import that there are two current cases of great concern which may change the way we choose, in a so-called "free society," to deal with so-called "free speech," and may alter forever the real meaning of "free."

This case is occurring in England.

This case is occurring in Canada.

Also, Mark Steyn's feet are being put to the censorship fire in Canada. Check this out as well, regarding Finland, Israel and Austria.

And in America, mark my words all readers within the periphery of my blog, many of these things are here. Now. In the United States. And coming.

I've written numerous time about the Fairness Doctrine and its future when the Demorats may take power in November. Controlling the White House, House and Senate, two things can be guaranteed: taxes up; free speech down. Some of my prior posts on the topic include:

FCC States The Truth;

It's The Economy, Stupid;

Traitorous;

The Push Continues;

Everything Except Free Speech;

Killing Conservative Communication;

Wanted By Liberals: Freedom of Speech Removed;

The Fairness Doctrine: Coming Soon To A Licensee Near You;

But how do you modify free speech? Sultan Knish says: by the carrot and the stick.

The carrot comes in the form of the manifold benefits of the nanny state that promises to feed, clothe, educate, heal and otherwise take care of everyone from cradle to grave. To get these things you of course have to accept the rise of an increasingly authoritarian social and political system and despite swallowing the bulk of your income, the nanny state has trouble delivering decent results and its bureaucratic arrogance inevitably makes life unpleasant-- but the carrot offers benefits in exchange for compliance and complacency.

The stick is censorship. The first tier of censorship is self-censorship, in which a person censors himself and is careful to avoid saying or even thinking what is 'outside the lines'.

The second tier of censorship is indoctrinational censorship which covers the range of institutions from school to university to the media to the government's press agencies which set the tone for "acceptable" and "unacceptable ideas. This indoctrination usually involves repeating and promoting a simple concept or idea.

The third tier of censorship is social censorship, the goal of indoctrinational censorship is to create and enforce the social consensus of what the acceptable view is. When indoctrinational censorship is successful, social censorship crystallizes by making it impossible to say certain things out loud.

The fourth tier of censorship is police censorship. Despite social censorship, some people will have contrary opinions. The approach to managing unacceptable opinions is the steel behind the velvet glove, the stick itself, censorship by law enforcement and legal action. Currently British blogger Lionheart has been targeted but he is merely part of a larger situation.

Finally we come full circle to the fifth and the first tier of censorship, self-censorship. The end result of this Orwellian tangle of indoctrinational, social and legal censorship is to induce self-censorship, to keep people from not only speaking out but to prevent them from even thinking about those things. To create an atmosphere of fear and guilt at the very thought of dissent itself.

It is deeply disturbing to me, to see Western Cultures fall prey to the hacking and slashing of their freedoms of speech and thought. And yet it appears that Western Cultures only are subject to this trending and, oddly enough, only Western Cultures once thought to be the firmest bastions and repositories of free speech.

This just isn't coincidence, ladies and gentlement -- and it isn't piecemeal. It is a concerted, cognizant, deliberate attempt to repress your fundamental God-given rights, and your American rights.

We ignore these trends at our global, national and individual peril.

BZ

It Just Gets Worse

What more could happen during the Bush Administration?

Glad you asked. How about this:

Since "unrestricted" private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.

The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.

Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to "reasonable regulation" and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment," he wrote in the brief, the Times reported.

Since when can you recall a Republican administration that looked upon the Second Amendment as a "hint" or a "suggestion" and not really an immured portion of the U.S. Constitution and the basis of all our law?

And here's a "suggestion" of my own: try actually enforcing laws involving gun crimes, and sentencing those who possess a firearm during the commission of any crime to some very serious time.

"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."

BZ

Conflicted Demorats

These are either the best or the worst of times for Demorat voters:

1. They can either vote for Barack Hussein Obama against Hillary Rodham Clinton and be sexists.

2. Or they can vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton against Barack Hussein Obama and be racists.

What turmoil!

Whatever shall they choose? What an impossible Leftist dilemma!

Poor Demorats!

BZ

P.S.

Tomorrow in Michigan? Romney will pick up a chunk but, unfortunately, I think I'll have to call McCain for a win. I just don't know where Huckabee will fall. Thompson did well on the last debate, and I'm very curious to see how that shows in this primary. Michigan is a union state, plain and simple, and the Demorats will do well here. I can see Hillary pulling out ahead of Obama by a pinch. Obama's recent "race card" spat between he and Hillary won't help him in Michigan.

Can You Spot The Difference?

It is said that Republicans are, generally, happier people.

What do you think?

BZ

Green Bay: On To The NFC Championship!

My Green Bay Packers kicked the ass of Mike Holmgren's Seattle Seahawks today, 42 to 20, at a Lambeau Field buried in snow.

A classic and prototypical Green Bay game.

You know Holmgren: he of the former GB coach-but-got-it-into-his-head-that-because-he-couldn't-be-GM-he'd-leave-Green Bay? That guy? The traitor Holmgren? That guy?

Let me repeat: a game played at Lambeau Field. A field named after the founder and first head coach of the Green Bay Packers. Not "Depends" field, or "Swanson's Chicken Pot Pie" field or "Trojan Condoms" field or "Gerber Baby Food" field. You get my drift? You suck-up, acquiescent field, bend-us-over-for-cash-field LOSERS?

A real field named after historical figures where real men play real football in the snow during winter.

A field that Brett Favre still enjoys, like some college player, true competition, the seeming innocence of the game. Where you can still find a grin on his face despite his now being the oldest active quarterback in the NFL at age 38, a three-time NFL MVP.

I can only hope for a replay of Super Bowl XXXI, in 1997, where Green Bay beat the New England Patriots 35 to 21, the Packers' third Super Bowl victory.

How wonderful would it be for Favre to have, essentially, a replay of SB XXXI wherein, once again, he beats the Patriots (above, he kisses his wife Deanna)?

And then retires on that awesome win?

I can only hope.

It couldn't go to a more deserving, honest, humble athlete.

What a way to wrap up an incredible career.

BZ

Big Brother DEMANDS That You Obey!

Ladies and gentlemen, the war is on, the gloves are off, our sovereignty is under fire, out lives are threatened from without and, at the same time, we have to fight our own government:

• In many venues, you can no longer smoke in your own car when a child is present;
• In many venues, you can no longer smoke in your own home;
• In many venues, you can no longer have your groceries placed in plastic or paper bags;
• In some venues, children cannot play games or run on the playground;
• In some venues, there are additional taxes on sweet or fattening foods;
• In some venues, you cannot even smoke in public, in parks, sports facilities, etc;
• In some venues, there are laws regarding the kinds and types of water bowls and the food "pet guardians" may use for animals;
• In some venues, you cannot even possess a handgun despite various state laws allowing same;
• In some venues, you cannot speak or write certain words (Google: California SB 777, which has been signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger);
  

And more.

Now, in Fornicalia, the California Energy Commission wants control over the temperature inside your home:

California utilities would control the temperature of new homes and commercial buildings in emergencies with a radio-controlled thermostat, under a proposed state update to building energy efficiency standards.

Customers could not override the thermostats during "emergency events," according to the proposal, part of a 236-page revision to building standards. The document is scheduled to be considered by the California Energy Commission, a state agency, on Jan. 30.

The description does not provide any exception for health or safety concerns. It also does not define what are "emergency events."

And be prepared, folks. This may in fact become law. And if it does so in Fornicalia, what do you suppose will be heading for your state? Particularly following November of 2008?

Can we all say "baaaa," in unison?

BZ

P.S.

To my Fornicalia readers: have you seen this in print yet? Made public? Front page? No? I wonder why that might be? But building MORE power plants? More infrastructure for Fornicalia's INCREASING population -- mostly ILLEGAL? Common sense? Oh no; let's freeze people in Winter, boil them in Summer, then let their homes be dark and dangerous with CFL lights containing MERCURY, then CHARGE THEM MORE MONEY to dispose of and clean up broken CFLs.

Thursday's GOP Presidential Debate

In summary:

Ron Paul came off as a deaf reactionary. Brit Hume nailed his counter question to Paul with regards to the Strait of Hormuz incident. Why the over-reaction? Every other candidate counseled confidence in the reaction of the captain. Ron Paul is simply a Moonbat and I couldn't care less who disagrees with me. He is one frightening man -- to even consider putting Presidential power in the hands of Ron Paul is a shocking proposition. He seems to think that, for example, when one makes a "friend" of a nation, that nation should stay a US friend for life. Times change. Administrations change. Leaders change. Demographics change. Motivations change. One consistent? Ron Paul, truthfully, scares me. He appears primarily thoughtless.

Fred Thompson had a number of proper and appropriate observations and responses to questions posed. He doesn't speak so well extemporaneously; many "uhs" and whatnot, but he provides the air of a man who is assured of his stance, who doesn't particularly care what others think of his positions, and who doesn't mind going his own way.

When Mitt Romney told Congressman Paul that he'd been reading too many of Ahmadinejad's press releases? Ab-so-fucking-lutely classic.

McCain was just off. He smiles inappropriately, as if on cue. He makes verbal mistakes and gaffes. I actually wonder about his mental capacity.

Huckabee didn't particularly impress or disappoint.

Giuliani seemed off his game. I expected more forcefulness. More decisiveness. More insistence, more interruptions, more New York attitude. I didn't get it.

Immigration?

McCain is not believeable. He "seems" to have "come around" on illegals? I don't believe him for a microsecond.

Romney: too slick to grasp firmly. He is too covered in oil. Too perfect. "He'll tell you what you want to hear when he thinks you want to hear it." He is, in my opinion, the GOP equivalent of Hillary Clinton. Another perfect hack.

Thompson spoke the truth and brought about unaddressed issues. Thompson didn't couch his answers in euphemisms.

Paul: they undermine our tax system (I agree with him on this one point).

Huckabee: we need a period of time for people to go to their home country. When people come here, they should be here with their heads up. We should have the assumption that everyone here is legal, not illegal.

Giuliani: I allowed children of illegal immigrants to go to school. I had 70,000 children; what was I to do? We need to change behavior. We have only 14,000 Border Patrol agents; we have 12 million illegal immigrants.

Winner?

Fred Thompson, by a large margin. He was sarcastic, honest, truthful. You had to listen to his words, not his presentation.

Loser?

Ron Paul. In five words: he's still a fucking Moonbat.

BZ

Just Flat Wrong

President Bush has, for whatever reason at this point in his second term, decided that it is his job to somehow wrangle "peace" between Israel, a state that actually exists, and so-called "Palestinians," a "people" without a state -- a state that doesn't exist.

I should also care to mention: "Palestinians," a people that their fellow Middle Easterners have no interest whatsoever in assisting, in any way, in terms of sacrifice or sharing. Except with guns, bombs, bullets, rockets. But assist "Palestinians" by providing them a portion of their own country? Providing just a bit of land to their brethren? Their own flesh and blood?

No, absolutely not, say Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Yemen. They all say no.

Excerpts from the Jerusalem World News:

President George Bush is moving full-speed ahead with his Annapolis Road Map plan to have a Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital before he leaves office.

However, this plan has become corrupted by Saudi Arabia and other fundamentalist Islamic forces into a plan to divide Jerusalem and make east Jerusalem – the home of Christianity – the capital of a Palestinian state and force Israel to return all lands reclaimed in 1967. Former prime minister Ariel Sharon asked to include 14 amendments to the plan. Then-secretary of state Colon Powell refused to include any. On January 3, 2007 Bush urged Israel to honor its commitments under the Road Map to remove West Bank settlements.

I've written about this on numerous prior occasions:

On Christmas, I Stand With Israel;

Iran No Threat?

Syria: Clear Danger;

Jacket's Visit;

Just Wait;

Israel At Highest Alert;

Hamas Is Fatah, and Fatah Is Hamas;

Israel's Huge Mistake;

Losing The Will To Fight?

Bush: What The Hell Are You Thinking?

Inviting the "Palestinians" into Israel's back yard is the same as inviting three or four rapists into the empty fourth bedroom of your own home -- you know, the bedroom right next to your two 16-year-old daughters.

Allow me to be remarkably blunt for the next few paragraphs:

You could give all of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, and it wouldn't be enough;

You could give all of the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians and it wouldn't be enough;

You could chop off more land from Israel and give it to the Palestinians and it wouldn't be enough;

What would be "enough"?

The complete, repeat, complete eradication of Israel and the death of every Jew in, first, the Middle East, then the world. Following that, the eradication of every Western Culture and death to every infidel refusing to convert to Islam.

Then, once the world were entirely Islamic, Muslims would fall upon each other in a bloodthirsty attempt to kill those who don't believe in various Sunni, Shia and other sects.

Even that would not be enough.

There will NEVER be peace in any Islamic country. EVER. It is because Islam is ruled by barbaric, nomadic, tribal men whose only goal is power and the saving, at all costs, of what the Japanese commonly term "face." The only peace to be achieved under Islam is that which is acquired at the point of a sword, an AK-47, and by a dictator as ruthless (or moreso) as Saddam Hussein.

When will Western Cultures finally realize: you cannot reason with ignorant, barbaric cultures and religions? Everyone does not think as do Westerners.

Israel INVITED the monsters into their back yard when they acquiesced to so-called Palestinians. And what we see in the Middle East, here, now, and in Europe, is PRECISELY what we shall get in the United States if we continue to "look aside," in terms of political correctness, and tolerate Muslims and Middle Eastern culture on our shores. Increasingly aggressive, increasingly hostile, increasingly intolerant, don't be surprised when small enclaves of Sharia Law (Islamberg, for example) spring up across the nation. If we don't FIGHT, and NOW, for our country, we are in fact doomed.

Yoni Tidi wrote:

So America hangs Israel out to dry at Annapolis, with a follow up visit by President Bush to Israel in January 2008 in an attempt to push forward the birth of a terrorist state and now Israel will have to shoulder the fight against Iran alone.

America may talk the talk but mark my words when the Iranian nuclear program is taken out it will be with missiles that proudly wear a Star of David not Old Glory.

Israel needs to look at our relationship with America with a new honest assessment, about who are our real friends.

This Middle East Plan is wrong, just plain wrong. It won't work. It hasn't worked for thousands of years. Appeasing thugs never works. I shake my head in thinking that our "leaders" could be this thick -- and it smacks of fourth-quarter "legacy making."

BZ

P.S.

From Yoni Tidi's blog on Thursday:

Based on the speech given in Jerusalem, Israel today by President Bush where the President stated that the Palestinians deserve to have a Palestinian state:

I think America should support returning Germany to the rule of the Nazi party.

If murdering Jewish women and children as the Palestinians have done for 100 years qualifies a people to have a state, then of course the Nazi's deserve a state.

Also President Bush stated that the Palestinian state must have contiguous borders. In order to achieve this, Israel could not be a contiguous state. The connection from Gaza to Judea and Samaria -- the location of the terrorist state called Palestine would cut Israel in two.

May G-D judge President Bush in this world and the world to come for his actions against the Jewish people.

NOT New Hampshire

Everyone's going to be wrapped around the axle on New Hampshire today. McCain won as I surmised he might. As of this writing, Clinton slightly pulled Obama -- as I didn't predict (however, it's still only the very first primary). Instead of an analysis of N.H., I have a few other things I'd like to write about:

1. CFLs: WORSE Than What They're Replacing
Many state governments (and Candada) have said we must all be incandescent bulb-free in four more years (by 2012) so waiting in the wings stands the CFL, otherwise known as the Compact Fluorescent Light (or Lamp). But what advocates of the CFL don't say is:

- CFLs don't produce immediate light; they must warm up;
- They cost up to TEN TIMES more than incandescents;
- Light produced by the CFL is harsher than incandescents;
- You can't just throw a CFL away, because:
- CFLs contain mercury -- hello? Anyone remember? Mercury is toxic? Dead fish anyone?
- CFLs may cause skin cancer;
- CFLs may set off migraines, dizziness, disorientation for those with epilepsy;
- CFLs cause pain to Lupus sufferers;
- CFLs aren't for bathrooms; humidity shortens their lifespan;
- Improper usage (track lighting, for example) may cause fires.

Remember when Brandy Bridges of Maine broke a CFL in her house? The cleanup cost her $2,000. She couldn't vacuum the carpet. The EPA had to test the air in her home. Recycling experts say solutions to disposal of CFLs is about five years away.

From Canada:

Are there any disadvantages?
- Yes. They cost more to buy.
- They can pose a fire hazard if the wrong bulb is used in the wrong place.
- They don't like power surges, so if your area is prone to electrical anomalies, you may not want to use them.
- And because of their mercury content, they should only be thrown out at a proper waste disposal site, an inconvenient stop for most.

My area is prone to numerous power surges and fluctuations. But Fornicalia isn't going to give me any choice in bulb, by 2012.

Smells to me of more emotive, ill-thought-out, feel-good Leftist Bullshit where the solution is worse than the problem ever could be.

How about this, since we're letting more illegal invaders into the country by fiat, and because more people = a greater demand for infrastructure on all levels:

1. Build more power plants
2. Build more power plants
- and -

3. Build more power plants.

Holy Christ. How you'll soon wish for the days when you could just screw in a new bulb. D'ya think ol' BZ has a few hundred packs of Costco and Sam's Club 60 and 100-watt bulbs stored up?

2. Concealed Carry In Michigan = LESS Violent Crime

When the State of Michigan passed its concealed carry law in 2001 (requiring permits), naysayers predicted mass killings, bloodshed on the streets, horrible gun deaths. The number of Michigan residents who packed heat went up 600%, to a little over 155,000 people, or 1 in 65. Omigawd!

Guess what? The Detroit Free Press says violent crime is down. Despite more people in the state. Despite an increased number of gun permits.
You do the math.

BZ

P.S.
Once again, you see or hear either of these stories covered in the Defeatist Elitist Media? And finally: perhaps I'd best just shut up; I think Republican candidates could more easily defeat Hillary than Obama.

Weepy For New Hampshire

There's no crying in baseball!




Hillary Clinton apparently got all weepy on Monday, and the narcissism bled through like a shit stain on white shorts. Kinda like trying to stuff an unanticipated turd down the drain in the shower -- ya actually gotta step on it. But wait -- did anyone actually see tears? Once again, a pre-engineered event in which she couldn't produce an actual human emotion. Shocking (yawn).

Trust me; it's a ploy. She likely called up Willie J and asked: "ya think it worked?"

I really don't think it did, Hillary. It's a gardening trowelful (not even a shovelful!) of "too little too late." Because it's like this:

As I wrote in a prior comment, Hillary's about as warm as the average American Standard urinal in a movie theatre. And the electorate can actually suss that out. The Hard A-Port believe Hillary's insufficiently Left. Young Demorats can sense her "old school" insincerity. And "old school feminism" ain't playing too well either.

Let's be blunt: Hillary's goose is cooked. Like Howard Dean and his "eeeeeyaaaggh!" scream, she stepped into the undignified column with her pandering "sniffles" -- hell, I can't even write the word "tears."

She's losing. She's pissed. She's frightened. But moreover, she's Hillary Rodham Clinton and she is fucking DUE this race and it is OWED to her because she's a Clinton and as we all know, everyone loves a Clinto. . .

Ooops. That's right. Everyone loves Bill. Sounds like a TV show.

Let me guess; I'll place a palm to my forehead -- I predict -- I predict -- she'll indicate she failed because (wait, here it comes) -- she's a woman! And we're all sexists and assholes!

Her ego, her narcissism should trump everything. She thinks she's placed herself out on a limb, giving her all, sacrificing everything for the Good of the Country. Oh, woe is Hillary!

Really?

How about the average US soldier in Iraq, Hillary? How about the soldier with a wife and kids waiting for him at home, in his 14th month of a 15-month deployment? Wearing 60 pounds of armor and equipment in 119-degree heat every day? Hoping like hell he won't get snuffed on his last week in-country?

If Life doesn't go so well for you on the Campaign Trail, and this is how you act (particularly after you've done your damnedest to ensure you're the Quintessential Ice Queen), then what would you do, how would you react to the most recent poll in Pakistan, revealed today, that 90% of the population wants Sharia law?

And today is the first Presidential Primary in New Hampshire. A few thereafter, then 20 more states (including my Fornicalia) on February 5th.

Prediction for New Hampshire? Pretty easy:

- Hillary gets her ass handed to her by Barack Hussein Obama.

- McCain comes out Number One on the GOP side. Romney gets clobbered. Mitt, like Edwards, is too slick and pretty for his own good. Rudy just waits for Florida.



BZ