Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico

24Jan/170

Democrats Hold a Forum: white people are the problem

I would bet that even the most dedicated political junkie did not realize that the Democrat party held a forum for the candidates desirous of becoming the chair of the party to express their views. The forum was held Monday night and was supposedly geared to discuss what went wrong in 2016 and how to get their party back on track. What became evident quickly is that it was the problem caused by white people. Specifically, consultants or consulting firms that are either white or owned by white people.

As the current chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party, Jamie Harrison, put it, "we have to stop, particularly with the consultants. You cannot come to the DNC and get a contract and the only minority face you have is the person answering the phone." Fox news consultant Jehmu Greene, said, "minority consultants need to get the same resources that the white consultants have gotten. The DNC did in his poor, pathetic job attracting minorities she said. Really? While they got fewer votes from minority groups than they normally do they still got the overwhelming majority of votes from those constituencies. Maybe they should be looking at how their policies affected those groups and why they finally woke up to realize it was the Democrats who have been in charge for the last 50 years.

Sally Boynton Brown, who happens to be white and director of Idaho's Democratic Party opined that the Democratic Party needs to provide training that focuses in part on teaching Americans how to be sensitive in how to shut their mouths if they are white.

Each of the candidates said that the Democratic Party must embrace completely and unapologetically the Black Lives Matter movement. Sally Boynton Brown said that she was saddened that they were even having this conversation about BLM. She felt it was her position to sit down and listen without speaking, to tell other people to shut up and then to tell them what she heard from the activists.

If you really believe that when people are the problem than where you running for the chair of the DNC? Shouldn't you let the minority have that position simply because of the color of their skin? After all you agree that the color of your skin is the real problem.

19Jan/170

Back with some random thoughts and observations

it was unintentional but we have not posted for a while for a lot of reasons. But we are back after having some time to drive around Southwest New Mexico contemplate what I was hearing on the radio and come up with some observations and of course opinions.

I listened to a good portion of Obama's final press conference (Yahoo!) And it is very clear that he lives in a fantasy world. All of his comments about how great the economy is how much better America is because of him being president and all that egotistical bull crap that he likes to spout about himself. One thing that was very clear is that the press representatives in the room idolize him and never asked him tough questions about the deficit, the increase in terrorism, or any of the reality that we live with every day. But one thing struck me more than everything else about his statements; that was his claim that race relations in America are so much better now than when he took office. Of course he said there is some work to do but things are so much better and he is so hopeful because among our young people they are much more tolerant and understanding and less likely to judge people based upon the color of their skin or some other demographic characteristic. What a load of crap. How many times have we seen college students hold a rally to keep white people from entering certain areas? How many safe zones do we have in college campuses where you cannot say the word Trump or other words that might be offensive to their little ears? There are places where white kids are not allowed so that black kids or those practicing the Islamic religion can go to be by themselves, heaven forbid that one of the excluded groups enters their safe space, that person is likely to be verbally assaulted if not physically assaulted. We can go on with the examples of the tolerance that our young people are showing in the acceptance of others, damn I need a sarcasm font. We are raising some of the most intolerant kids because of what they are being taught in college and for president Obama to say anything else means he is totally ignorant or is a liar. Hell, he might even be both.

Mark Lamont Hill is a professor at some school teaching race history or tolerance or something like that. He's probably one of those people responsible for safe places where black kids can go and not be exposed to white people. But he's making news because of what he said about comedian and television host, Steve Harvey. Harvey is an activist in addition to his professional gigs. He often talks about issues facing black communities. He was invited to meet with Donald Trump this week and like other black activists who have met with Mr. Trump, he came away believing that the president elect is serious about addressing the issues facing many of our inner city citizens. Mr. Hill is not impressed with Steve Harvey, Jim Brown, Ray Lewis, or any of the other black activists who have met with Donald Trump. Mr. Hill says that Steve Harvey is a "mediocre Negro". He states that Harvey is not really an activist for his race, especially because he is successful and is thus not a good example of what black people face in this world. In fact he doesn't like any of the successful black people talking about race issues that face the average black person in America, according to Mr. Hill. Never mind that many of these successful black Americans came from impoverished backgrounds; never mind that they overcame many of the obstacles that Mr. Hill claims to be an expert on, never mind that their experiences could serve as a shining example for everyone, not just black youth. But can you imagine if a conservative or a white person used the phrase "mediocre Negro"? There would because for that person to be strung up from the nearest tree, for them to lose everything that they had ever built or gained or earned, and for them to be banished from public life forever. Maybe Mr. Hill should get out in the real world and try to understand that you do not have to be a professor to be a leader in any movement, that practical experience can make you a leader in your community.

I have a new definition for Metro sexual: gay in the streets, straight in the sheets.

I listened to portions of the four confirmation hearings being conducted by the Senate this week. Nikki Haley is the nominee for ambassador to the United Nations. One of the Senators, and I did not catch his name as I came in to the hearing midstream, was asking how ambassadors select Haley thought the United States should deal with the United Nations. The gist of the overly long question was did Nikki Haley believe that the United States should pull out of the United Nations altogether? Mrs. Haley said that there were certainly grave concerns about the integrity and efficacy of the United Nations as currently formed. She also expressed concerns about the fact that the United States pays approximately one quarter of the operating budget for the United Nations, yet that the body continually works against the best interest of the United States and its allies. I thought it was interesting to note that we are still the primary funding nation for the United Nations. When Obama took office he said that the United States cannot be the sole leader of the world that we must take our "rightful place" alongside the other nations of the world rather than out front. So wouldn't that mean that every nation that is a member of the United Nations should be paying their fair share of the operating costs? Yet not one nation even comes close to supporting the United Nations monetarily compared to what the United States pays. Shouldn't Russia, England, France, or Germany be paying as much as we are?

I was listening to some of the Democrats in the Senate question Dr. Tom Price, president elect Trump's nominee for health and human services director, and they were talking about the repeal of Obamacare. One of the Senators asked if the plan that would be put forth to replace Obama care would insure or guarantee that all Americans would have insurance coverage. She opined that any replacement for the current affordable care act would leave so many Americans out in the cold without access to healthcare. First of all, there is no problem with anyone having access to healthcare. It is typical of the liberals to skew the argument to make it seem like people are going to die if the current plan is scrapped. The simple fact is that Obama care and any other similar program is not about healthcare but paying for healthcare. That aside, if making sure that all Americans have coverage is a goal for the Democrats then why do so many Americans not have coverage now? How is it that the affordable care act that they authored and shoved down our throats took health insurance away from so many American people but yet they demand that any replacement cover everyone? There must be some kind of device that removes all principles, ability to detect hypocrisy, or somebody's ability to tell the truth when they enter Congress.

So if Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden of Eden because they ate the forbidden fruit of knowledge, was it God's goal or wish that man remain ignorant and half naked?

If Jesus is the Lamb of God, did Mary have a little lamb? A friend tells me I'm going straight to HE double toothpicks for that one.

Have you ever noticed that the symbol doctors use for their profession is a snake on a stick? How did they come up with that? If you saw someone coming at you with a snake wrapped around a stick how would you react? Would you be all happy and saying, gave the doctors here? Or would you be like get the hell away from you with that snake on a stick you crazy moron? Shouldn't a snake wrapped around a stick be the symbol for lawyers?

5Jan/170

Hate crimes are on the rise?

the media is reporting that there has been a spike in "hate crimes" since the election of Donald Trump. The majority of these records are based upon a press release from the Southern poverty Law Center which lists 701 hate crimes against Muslims and other minority groups since election day. What's interesting is that a significant portion of those 701 reported crimes involve people using racial slurs that are uncorroborated and, if they happened, while reprehensible do not meet the definition of a crime. What is also notable in its absence is the attacks upon Donald Trump supporters were people that someone believes is a Donald Trump supporter. If calling someone names that are vile and reprehensible is a crime then certainly anyone who has supported Donald Trump has experienced those crimes. Shouldn't they be reported as well? Not to mention the actual vandalism and property damage Trump supporters have suffered at the hands of the tolerant left.

But has there really been a spike in hate crimes since the election? As an example, the female Muslim student at the University of Louisiana who claimed that a white male ripped her hijab off, then spent at her admitted later that she made the story up. She is not the only one: Eleesha Long, a student at Bowling Green University, posted on her Facebook page that three men wearing Trump T-shirts began throwing rocks at her and calling her racist names. She did not report the incident to police but after her Facebook post began to get a lot of attention, police at Bowling Green University took her down to the station where she filed a written complaint. as police began to investigate her claim, other posts on her Facebook page as well as a search of her cell phone found that she was nowhere near the location where she claimed the incident occurred at the time she claimed it occurred. Again, she later admitted that she made the incident up. Yet the Southern poverty Law Center kept these and other fake incidents on their list in order to prove their claim. These are far from the only incidence that have proven to be fake.

Then there are the incidence which have dubious connection to any type of hate crime. A woman in Florida returned to her car after shopping to find that her car window had been broken out and her purse stolen. A note was left under the windshield wiper which contained a number of racist terms and threatened the woman if she did not leave the country. It turned out that she had left the note in order to make it look like a hate crime rather than a simple burglary. Once again, even though disproven as a hate crime, Southern poverty Law Center kept this on their list. There are number of other dubiously reported hate crimes that include things like vandalism, such as a swastika being painted upon the door of a minority business owners shop. Video surveillance shows the individual spray painting the symbol on the door but it cannot be determined what race this person is or was.

Quite simply if you begin to look at the list from the Southern poverty Law Center which is the basis for most of the reports in the media, and you extrapolate the number of false or unprovable stories, hate crimes are not on the rise. What is on the rise is the hatred from the left being spewed towards those that they believed to have voted for Donald Trump. What is also on the rise is the number of attacks upon the person or property of people that others believe may have supported Donald Trump. That story is not being reported in the media because it doesn't fit their narrative that America is racist and that Donald Trump supporters are racist as well.

Filed under: Stupid People No Comments
21Dec/160

This says it all about liberals

One of the 'principles' that liberals have is that they know better than you what's good for you. They are also always right and if you disagree with them, you are a racist, misogynistic, demagogue. Just look at the laws we now live by; you can't have a big gulp soda, you can't have suites in the vending machine, you don't know how to raise your kids and shouldn't homeschool them, etc.

One of the other things, tenets, that liberals live by is that they are okay to do certain things because they are doing it for the right reason. You do not have that right. Obama exhibited that behavior perfectly in a recent interview with National Public Radio.

President Obama has some advice for President-elect Donald Trump: Do as I say, not as I do.

The outgoing president, in an interview with NPR, urged his successor to pursue policy changes through Congress and not via executive order. “Going through the legislative process is always better in part because it’s harder to undo,” Obama said.

The pen-happy president may be learning the hard way, after he accelerated his use of executive actions in his second term. Frustrated by Republican opposition in Congress, Obama in 2014 had openly shifted tactics to rely on executive and administrative actions to pursue his agenda.

“I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” he declared at the time.

While some of his subsequent directives were uncontroversial, others were sweeping and met immediately with legal challenges. Some of the most ambitious executive actions were meant to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation; however, the Supreme Court effectively blocked those 2014 changes this past June.

Quite simply, he's telling Trump to 'do as I say, not as I do' because you're inferior to me in all aspects.

Filed under: Stupid People No Comments
21Dec/160

We can’t say he’s mentally ill, but he’s mentally ill or help us great emperor

I am not overly surprised at the continued hypocrisy and lack of principles that are continually exhibited by liberals. What does surprise me is that many so-called professionals who have to live up to professional standards in their chosen career field, failed to do so often. In the medical community there are very specific and strict standards for behavior by professionals especially when it comes to discussing publicly a person's medical condition. But if liberals believe they are right and they are saving the world from a perceived evil, principles be damned.

Have you heard about the three psychiatry professors who have written to Pres. Obama asking him to require Donald Trump to undergo a psychiatric evaluation by an "independent" psychiatrist or medical professional. Judith Herman, Nanette Gartrell MD, both of Harvard, and Dee Mosbacher MD, of University California San Francisco have written to Pres. Obama claiming to know that Donald Trump is mentally unstable. What is unbelievable about their letter is that they make a diagnosis of a mental disorder and they ask Obama to basically be King Obama and require Donald Trump to undergo a neuropsychiatric evaluation prior to becoming president.

It is interesting in their letter that these three medical professionals who have sworn an oath to adhere to a set of ethical standards say they cannot make a diagnosis of a public figure like Donald Trump without having personally examined the individual. in the letter they say that President-elect Trump exhibits behaviors like grandiosity, hypersensitivity to criticism, impulsivity, and an inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality. In addition Dr. Lynne Meyer, a psychologist expands upon the comments in the letter by diagnosing Mr. Trump with narcissistic personality disorder.

According to the diagnostic and statistical manual, the book used to codify certain diagnoses that are accepted by the medical community, narcissistic personality disorder can be diagnosed if an individual exhibits five of nine personality traits. The nine are listed below.

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
3. Believe that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. Requires excessive admiration
5. Has a sense of entitlement
6. Is interpersonally exploitative
7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.”

So if you look at these nine does Donald Trump Exhibit 5 of the 9? I wouldn't disagree that he has a large personality but has he exaggerated his achievements were talents? If he had the media would've told us so over and over. He is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success power etc.? I don't think he's preoccupied with fantasies because he's achieved all of that. As to number three, during the campaign he connected with the average person, the average voter. Throughout his career he has spent time on job sites talking to the actual workers who like him. Requires excessive admiration? Well he does have an ego. As a sense of entitlement? Based upon the way he outworked Hillary Clinton I would say he never thought he was entitled to the position especially if you compare it to her attitude towards the presidency. Does he exploit interpersonal relationships? To save exploiting means that he takes advantage of other people but the people who work for him are unbelievably loyal, so I'd say they don't feel exploited. He certainly doesn't lack empathy based upon the way he connected with the average person and could articulate what they were feeling. I would say there's no way he's envious of anybody else but maybe he believes others are envious of him and he would be correct. Is he arrogant? That's a tough one, maybe; but he's also confident and those two things are often mistaken for each other.

For these medical professionals to come up with a diagnosis is unbelievably arrogant and unprofessional. What if someone had asked for president Obama to undergo medical evaluation as these people are of Donald Trump? The media would have called into doubt there abilities and called for them to have their medical licenses revoked. But I would argue the president Obama exhibits more of these traits that Pres. Trump does.

And here's the kicker, to ask Pres. Obama to force President-elect Trump to undergo a neuropsychiatric evaluation grants him more authority than our laws do. President Obama is not King or Emperor although I can argue that he believes he is. Just look at how many times he has gone around Congress to accomplish what he wanted when Congress clearly told him no. He's even said that he will take whatever action he needed to take to accomplish his goals and ignore Congress. How is that not demonstrative or indicative of narcissistic personality disorder?

And it belies the attitude of the liberal, that government is here to take care of everything. That government and by proxy the individuals in those high offices have all the authority to tell us or anybody else what to do (except other countries of course). Can you imagine a Pres. Obama tried to execute their wishes? But it just goes to show you that would liberals lose they cannot accept the results and they will do anything they can to denigrate the winner and usurp their authority, Even abandoning any principles they might've had. Microphone off

20Dec/160

Tolerance, isn’t that what they preach?

yesterday the electoral college confirmed the election of Donald Trump. Right up to the time that members of the college were to vote opponents of Donald Trump or lobbying to have them change their votes. Isn't it ironic that more members of the college decided not to vote for Hillary Clinton than did members decide not to vote for Donald Trump?

But we're told by the left that we are to be accepting of the results of the election but as we know that's only if we lose. If they lose tolerance is the least important thing in their mind. We saw a number of stories regarding the efforts of many people on the left side of the aisle to influence electoral college members and try and get them to change their vote from Donald Trump.

I will not disagree with their right to say those things. What I will disagree with is the victory all and hatred and threats that they used. Certainly there were people on the right side of the aisle who asked elect towards to not vote for Barack Obama. We did not see a lot about that in the media at the time but it did happen. There were no reports that members of the electoral college were threatened or needed police escorts. However when the liberals lost the death threats were numerous and frequent. There were black members of the electoral college who were also Republican and voting for Donald Trump. They needed police escorts to go to their meeting.

We saw a number of protesters show up and try to disrupt the meetings when the vote was not going to go their way. They threatened the elect doors many of whom are required to vote that way by law in their state. So they were asking those people to violate the law and face fines or jail time for doing so. Some states require that if the electors is not going to vote the way the people of the state asked them to that that person is removed and an alternate is put in his or her place. We saw that with a couple of the electors who decided not to vote for Hillary.

In fact, moviemaker Michael Moore offered to pay the fines for anyone who took the risk and made the decision to not vote for Donald Trump. Now isn't that trying to influence an election by an outside force? I know it's not the same thing as the alleged influence of the Russians but it is offering money to public officials charged with voting for the president to change their vote and abrogate their duties. Isn't that illegal? At the very least, it's using money as free speech which is protected by the laws of this country, which the liberals don't like that particular Supreme Court case by the way.

Certainly the liberals speak of tolerance and acceptance but when it comes to practice they rarely practice what they preach. Supporters of Donald Trump were told to put a gun in their mouth, they were physically threatened, physically assaulted, and verbally abused. Some people said they would not participate as a member of the electoral college ever again because of the experience. Isn't it sad that the liberals can't practice what they preach, accept the results of the election and move forward?

20Dec/160

Then v. now – Snowflake edition

I think we have put this post up before but it's always amusing and probably appropriate now because of the way our Utes have acted during this election cycle. We've raised a generation of namby pamby wussies.

Scenario one: Johnny goes quail hunting before he goes to school. He drive straight to school after hunting and his shotgun is hanging in the back window from the gun rack.

1970 reaction: the Vice Principal sees Johnny's gun hanging in the back of his truck, goes to his truck pulls out his shotgun and shows it to Johnny they talk about how many birds each one shot that morning.

2016 reaction: the Vice Principal sees Johnny's gun in the back of his truck locks down the school calls the SWAT team. Johnny is arrested and his truck and gone are seized by the police. The school calls in counselors to help the little snowflakes deal with the trauma of having a gun in the parking lot.

scenario two: Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight outside of school.

1970 reaction: the crowd gathers all the to fight it out. Johnny wins the fight, picks Mark up off the ground shake hands and go their separate ways. Neither one holds a grudge.

2016 reaction: a crowd gathers to film the fight with their videophones. As Johnny begins to win a couple of marks friends step in to help you. Ultimately a member of the school administration sees the videos posted on Facebook calls the police and both Johnny and Mark are arrested. Both are expelled from school. Counselors are called in to help the snowflakes deal with the trauma of violence in the vicinity.

Scenario three: Billy breaks a car window when he throws a baseball while playing in the front yard. The car belongs to a neighbor. Billy's dad yells at him.

1970 reaction: Billy's dad makes him go next door and tell the neighbor what happened. Billy spends the next four weekends working for the neighbor to pay off the cost of replacing the window. Billy doesn't make the same mistake again and goes on to a successful businessman after graduating college.

2016 reaction: a neighbor sees Billy's dad yelling at him and calls CYFD. Billy is removed to foster care as is his sister. Dad is arrested and charged with child abuse. A counselor says that Billy sister suddenly remembers being sexually abused by her father. Billy's dad goes to prison and must register as a sex offender when he's released. Both Billy and his sister in the bouncing from house to house, using drugs and ultimately go to jail themselves. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist who identified her ex-husband as a sex offender.

Scenario four: Pedro moves to America from Mexico with his family. Pedro fails English class.

1970 reaction: Pedro goes to summer school to improve his English. He gets good grades the next year, goes on to college and gets his degree.

2016 reaction: an advocate for minority rights here's about Pedro and takes up his cause. The national media pick up the story and find experts to say the teaching English in American schools is racist. The ACLU files suit against the school system and the English teacher, as a result English classes are removed from the core curriculum at the school. Pedro doesn't learn English, gets his diploma anyway, and ends up mowing lawns for a living because he can't get a job where English is spoken.

Scenario five: Bobby take some firecrackers panels them on top of finance bed and put the can over them. He likes one and runs away to watch what happens.

1970 reaction: ants die and a coffee can flies in the air.

2016 reaction: ATF officers are called and arrested Johnny charging him with domestic terrorism. PETA asks for animal cruelty charges to be filed also. Johnny's parents were arrested and their computers are confiscated. Because Johnny's dad bought the fireworks for a Fourth of July celebration he is charged with domestic terrorism and is put on the no-fly list. The children are removed from the home and put in foster care.

honestly, we could go on and on most of the scenarios having to do with overreaction by public authorities and counseling for little snowflakes that didn't even know something was going on around them much less get traumatized by it. And we wonder why so many kids today were crying and claiming to be in fear for their lives when Donald Trump got elected.

7Dec/160

Random thoughts and observations; Secretary of State edition

head out of ass

isn't it interesting that so many people, especially in the media and in the political elite, are criticizing Donald Trump for taking so long to name a secretary of state? He's interviewing more and more people and it is driving them crazy. These are the same people who were upset that Donald Trump was quickly naming people to other cabinet positions believing that he should wait 3-6 weeks to begin naming people to fill those posts. But isn't it better that he's taking his time on filling this position in his cabinet? This might be the most important position that he fills and he wants to make sure that the person he selects is not only competent but is generally in agreement with the principles that Donald Trump has espoused, not to mention that this person will be straightforward and honest with him. If you think that Trump is going to get any kind of fair break in the media, you are dead wrong.

Chicago's mayor, Rahm Emmanuelle, has said that Chicago will continue to be a sanctuary city, no matter what Donald Trump says as president. This past week, Mayor Emmanuelle said that he is putting aside $1 million of taxpayer money to provide legal representation for any illegal aliens that might be caught and sentenced to deportation. Given all the problems that Chicago has, lack of an effective police force; deteriorating public schools; underpaid teachers; deteriorating infrastructure, and so on, doesn't it seem more appropriate to have him put that $1 million somewhere else? The illegal aliens might be contributing to that taxpayer money but I would bet not as much as legal citizens. Why not pay the legal bills that some of those citizens have for being wrongly accused of crime by dirty cops? Or fighting the regulations that are onerous and unnecessary? They might want to use that to help the homeless veterans, but that would be too obvious. In the eyes of many of the left wing those homeless veterans are getting what they deserve because they were probably baby killers. We'll see what happens when Chicago loses its federal funding. They will be able to pay their teachers, police men and women, or fire department but at least the illegal aliens will have attorneys.

The left wing is all up in arms because Donald Trump took a phone call from the president of Taiwan. They are saying that we are offending the Chinese government, a government that we need to help fight climate change, to control North Korea, and to not call in our debt, much of which they own. First of all, China has done absolutely nothing that they are obligated to do by agreement and treaty regarding stopping pollution or so-called climate change. Neither have they done anything to stop North Korea's nuclear weapons program or to stop North Korea from selling military equipment and technology to terrorist nations and groups. Certainly they are primarily a communist country and have been oppressive to the people of China, with a few notable exceptions where they have created free market zones. Why would they be upset, those on the left, that we would actually take a phone call from a democratic government? Why would we let a communist dictatorship tell us how to run our foreign-policy? The only reason the left has is because they are scared of China. We should be reaching out to a democracy and helping them to remain a democracy when China has been threatening them increasingly with annexation. What Trump did is the right move.

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel has been at the forefront of the movement to bring middle eastern refugees into all the countries of Europe. Germany has let millions and millions of them into their country and they are now regretting it for a variety of reasons. Chancellor Merkel has now called for a ban on anyone wearing burkas. There is legal precedent in that country for enforcing such a ban. Essentially Germany's Constitution and laws allow for such actions if it threatens security and safety. There is no doubt that covering your head and face so that people cannot see you does threaten the safety and security of the German people. You need to be able to check identification and confirm the person standing in front of you is the person that is supposed to be there or who is who they say they are. Of course the left-wing is up in arms calling and discrimination as are many Muslim organizations. Maybe if so many of the terrorists were not wearing burkas it would not be a need to have such a ban.

Pres. Obama has made a private agreement with the government of Australia that will bring 2500 illegal immigrants to America from Australia. We will send them 2500 illegal immigrants as well but there is a huge difference in the makeup of those two groups. We are going to send 2500 illegal immigrants who originated from Costa Rica and who are Catholic, to Australia. They may not want to go but they do not have a choice. Can you imagine how hard it will be for them to visit their homeland? We should be sending them back to Costa Rica but that's another point for another day. In return Australia is going to send us 2500 Islamic terrorists. All 2500 have been held in Australian jails and prisons not only for coming to that country illegally be because some of them were found to be terrorists or have strong terrorist ties. At least two of the group are high on our terrorist wanted list and a number of others or on the terrorist watch list that our State Department puts out. Why would we make such an agreement? I've said in the past that I refuse to put the tinfoil hat on but when you look at the totality of Pres. Obama's actions regarding allowing potential terrorists into our country you have to wonder what his real motives are.

7Dec/160

Dumass

Wizard of Oz Monkey

yesterday I put a post on my Facebook page that said, "the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter". Winston Churchill did not know how much that would be true 60 years or 70 years later. I then had an experience at the local establishment while having an adult beverage that just absolutely brought that point home.

I was sitting at the bar talking to a member of the wait staff who had finished his shift and was having an adult beverage. There was a chair in between us that was empty and after a while the manager at the bar and sat down between us. He had been there earlier in this particular person that waited on him. The man said he had gone to the Silver City planning and zoning commission meeting. He was extremely frustrated with the way the meeting was run and his version of how he was treated by the "all-female panel". Now he went on to say that he had been in education his entire career, over 30 years and had no problem working with women. however based on subsequent comments, I'm not sure I believe him. That is a story for another day.

his big complaint was the lack of coherency in the city's zoning regulations. He pointed out that it is difficult to move a single wide, even if it's a 2015 model, into certain areas of the city. He's correct. He also complained that in some areas you will have nice, site built homes next to trailer parks that have run down 40, 50, or 60-year-old trailers. I listened to his tirade for a bit and then asked where he had come from. He came to Silver city from El Paso. He said that El Paso's zoning ordinances were idyllic and perfect. I pointed out that El Paso country club, a place with beautiful homes, is right next to a commercial area and a trailer park is nearby. No different than what we have in Silver City. He accepted my point as being accurate but still said that El Paso was much better. That's fine, that's his opinion.

So I asked him what he would do about changing our zoning ordinances and regulations. His very quick and very stern response was, "I don't know". I suggested that he propose changing the ordinances to allow newer single wide mobile or modular homes to be moved into those areas. He thought that was okay but still complained. I asked what changes he would make to tell people who own the property that the trailer parks were built upon what they can do with their property. Again, he was stumped. The conversation did not go on much longer but he still had no solutions or suggestions.

This is the perfect example of why we do not have a democracy. This is also the perfect example of why our kids education has lagged over the last 3 to 4 decades. This educator, and I use that term loosely, liked to complain when something did not meet his expectations but was unable to offer any solution. He had no critical thinking skills. However he was adamant that he would attend the next planning and zoning commission meeting to tweak the chairperson, who he believes did not like him because he pointed out all of the things that are wrong with the zoning regulations. This is also a perfect example of why we need to bring back lawn darts and clean the gene pool.

Filed under: Stupid People No Comments
30Nov/160

It sounds plausible…

GlobalWarming

one of the things that many people do to convince others of their opinion or their position on an issue is use big words, often incorrectly, but stringing them together will impress the low information voter and convince that person that the or writer is correct. There is also a modicum of logic, I use that term loosely, that also helped to convince the general public of the stance that the person is taking. So it goes with California and their attempts to curb man caused global warming.

Back in September Governor Moonbeam, known officially as Jerry Brown, signed a law that regulates methane created by dairy cattle and other livestock. According to the global warming alarmist crowd, 14.5% of "human induced greenhouse gas emissions", from beef and dairy production operations. If you think that might be an accurate statement, understand that first of all Pauline are not human and second of all the source for that factoid is the United Nations. No California has been on the forefront of trying to reduce carbon emissions and producing renewable energy. So to control methane produced by cattle, which the immature side of me says I have to tell you those are cow farts, is the next "logical" step. The goal is to reduce methane emissions from Terry's and livestock operations to 40% below 2013 levels in the next 14 years.

Ryan McCarthy is a science advisor for the California air resources Board and is one of the key authors of the regulations and laws that will accomplish this goal. He of course believes that what they are doing in California will be a model for the rest of the world. While he does agree that this will drive up costs for dairy farmers especially, he believes the benefits far outweigh the potential disastrous side effects. Paul Sousa, Dir. of environmental services for Western United Dairymen, believes this is a very foolish position for the state of California to take and that the cost of complying with the regulations will cause dairy farmers to leave the state.

Sousa says that many farmers have already started to move to states where not only these at regulations don't exist but it's unlikely they will be implemented in the foreseeable future. Some of the things that the California air resources Board are asking farmers to do is change the diet of their cattle. With dairy farmers especially this could not only change the quality of the product, but could also reduce the output from each milk giving cow further straining the ability of farmers to make a living.

The New Hope Dairy, owned by Arlen Van Groningen, a third-generation farmer has been one of the first dairy farmers to comply with the new regulations. One of the things California has done is set aside $50 million to help dairy farmers purchase methane digesters which will store methane gas produced by the cattle and the manure they create and use that gas to create electricity. Sounds really nice doesn't it? Reducing enteric commissions, again one of those fancy phrases, by converting it into energy. Here's the little problem, a single methane digester costs $4 million. Van Groningen Has partnered with California Biogas to create electricity for the Sacramento municipal utility District. Arlen admits that there is no way he could afford to buy the digester himself. But there are 1500 dairies currently operating in the state of California; at a cost of $4 million apiece that would mean the state needs to shell out almost $6 billion. Or the farmers have to bear that cost themselves which is economically unfeasible. The return on the sale of methane gas does not offset the cost for decades.

Even those farmers who want to comply and do their heart admit there is no way this can work from an economic standpoint. It's much easier to purchase property elsewhere and move all of your cattle and equipment than it is to buy everything you need to comply with California's laws. So California continues to take steps to run businesses out of their state and too often to other countries rather than other states. Thus taking not only jobs, but uprooting families, and decreasing tax revenue for those of you that worry about that type of thing.

As we have said there are number of scientific studies that prove bovine methane emissions are negligible in creating global warming or climate change or whatever phrase they're going to use this year. The amount of human induced greenhouse gases is negligible compared to what the earth itself produces through volcanoes for example. But below information voter certainly wants to leave the world a better place and if this sounds like it's possible they'll go along with it.