Definition of Fecklessness

31 March 2017

So I happened to stumble upon the Sean Hannity Show on SiriusXM yesterday, and heard his interview with Austan Goolsbee, the alleged economist who worked for the Øbama administration. During this exchange, Hannity pointed out the Trump plan to end Øbama’s “war on coal,” and all Goolsbee can do is point out that Trump is disingenuous because natural gas competes with coal and Trump is removing barriers from its production, too. REALLY?! Øbama quite literally put the coal industry out of business. Øbama quite literally put energy production out of reach on federal lands – Goolsbee touted that such production more than doubled “under” the Øbama administration – rightly countered by Hannity that this occurred on PRIVATE land IN SPITE OF Øbama’s efforts.

There was also discussion regarding Øbama’s record accumulation of federal debt (Goolsbee: inflation; Bush’s fault) and many other points of Øbama administration failure to which Goolsbee seemed only able to spew liberal talking points.

Folks, I don’t get it. I cannot conceive of how these idiots continue to try to defend the indefensible. Are they counting on the audience being too stupid or equal ideologues that they cannot see through this stuff? And, yes: there are those who will pull the lever next to “D” if the devil himself was the candidate – just as there are for any other party – but, honestly: how can anybody espouse the liberal “logic” and remain sentient?

Again, I firmly believe that liberalism is an not yet medically defined form of mental illness.


Felony Charges For Investigative Journalism

29 March 2017

Well! If this doesn’t have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, I don’t know what will: Regarding David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress, Kah-Lee-Phone-Ya State Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a longtime Congressional Democrat, charged the two anti-abortion activists with 15 felonies for making undercover videos of themselves arranging to buy fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood. In a statement, Xavier said that the state “will not tolerate the criminal recording of conversations.” You forgot to capitalize that “s”, Xavier.

Covert data gathering has been a cornerstone of investigative journalism since long before Xavier’s birth. It has also been a cornerstone of such enterprises as law enforcement, private investigation – even inter- and intra-party politics, as evidenced by the “leaked” recordings of various private meetings of politicians and party committees where there actually may exist a reasonable expectation of privacy. That’s the key regarding illegal recordings, and this is going to be Xavier’s primary hurdle pressing his bogus charges in court.

In the Planned Parenthood case, at least in the recordings I’ve seen, the recordings were made in restaurants and other public places, where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists. In virtually all of the recordings I saw, there were multiple people involved in the conversation. In none of these conversations did anyone imply or state that the discussions were confidential – not even the Planned Parenthood personnel. So: on what grounds does Xavier, the Champion of the Democrats, find these charges justifiable and viable in court (any court except the 9th District of Kah-Lee-Phone-Ya and the District of Hawaii)? Where is the criminal intent in exposing the criminal activities of an organization?

Personally, I don’t think this case has a leg to stand on – especially in light of similar charges against these two failing in Texas – and is all about punishing those who oppose and expose organs (no pun intended) of the liberal agenda. This is an agent of the government using lawfare to both bankrupt and otherwise punish these individuals, while also sending the clear message that one should not go after any darlings of the State. They are being made an example of.

In all fairness, when this fails in court, Xavier should be impeached for abuse of office and disbarred for unethical behavior.

What are your thoughts? Add your comments below.


Removing A Label From Multiple Emails in GMail

22 March 2017

Executive summary:

  1. Locate and edit filter to eliminate unwanted tags from incoming messages.
  2. Remove unwanted tags from any existing effected messages


I normally write political stuff in these pages, but, since the method to do this was rather simple, but hard to find information on, I thought I’d provide a “tech tip” for those, like me, who use GMail despite that the company is run by a gaggle of liberal putzes.

I recently decided that I valued the mail from WebMD as something more than just ads for their site. Previously, all WebMD was filtered as both “ads” and “promotions,” making them rather easy to hunt up for deletion. So, simple me: I went into GMail’s Settings menu and picked Filters and Blocked Addresses. Gmail Menu

Next, I used the browser’s search-on-page (usually ctrl-f) feature to find WebMD among the saved filters. When I found it, I clicked the word “edit” to the right of its entry. From the resulting window, click the word”Continue” at the bottom right. A new list of checkboxes appears. Since I was already filtering these emails, the “Apply the label” check box was checked and the last-applied label was shown in the text box to the right of it. I clicked this box to reveal the list of possible labels, and selected “Health.”


Before clicking “Update Filter”, be sure to check the box next to “apply to XX matching conversations” to apply the new label to all the emails you found in your inbox.


Well, now! That should have done it, right? Bzzzzt! That only added the Health label – it had no effect on “Ads” or “Promotions” labels already applied – Doh!

Here’s how to eliminate the unwanted labels: In your inbox search (part of the GMail user interface; not ctrl-f used earlier), enter “from: ” followed by enough of the sender’s email address to uniquely and completely identify what you’re after. Note that you can use “to: ” if the sender of interest sends to a unique address – like a listname – or “subject: ” or nothing at all to qualify your search term – you just need to ensure it pulls in all emails of interest for your relabeling effort. As I stated earlier, I used the “from: ” address.

gmail search

Now, click the selection box, and click “All” to select all of the emails resulting from your search.


Finally, click on the little tag icon, and then click off the checkboxes next to any label you no longer want associated with those conversations. Click “Apply” at the bottom to make it so.


The two critical steps of this process – editing your filter and removing unwanted tags – have solved your problem. These emails will no longer show up under any labels except those which you left active.

You’re welcome.


History sometimes repeats itself…

10 March 2017

The President-elect won the election with less than 40% of the popular vote but had the majority of electoral votes. The Republican Party had put forth a candidate to win several crucial states that could swing the electoral college. The election was a bitter one with the Democratic Party fractured between two candidates.

The incoming President received so many death threats that he chose to arrive in Washington in secrecy. The security for the inauguration was the tightest ever with troops stationed on buildings throughout the day. This was an unprecedented amount of protection for any President – elect. Many members of Congress chose not to attend the ceremony.

Despite all this Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as our 16th president on March 4, 1861.



Registered In Multiple States…

26 January 2017

As our MSM gets itself all a-twitter over Trump staff members registered in more than one state, let me remind them what the responsibilities are when you move. It is the voter’s responsibility to register to vote in their new location. It is the former location’s responsibility to update their records, removing those who have moved out of their voting precinct/district/whatever.

I’d swear: to read the published hyperbole, you’d think they’d found an impeachable offense. Besides: the fraud issue is when those who are registered (or not) in multiple areas also VOTE in multiple areas – and there have been conviction in recent times of those who were doing just that (and I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine their party affiliation…).

Where was all this brave investigative reporting during the past 8 years? Why was there controversy over citizenship, school records, social security cards unanswered by the MSM? Why was the press rarely, if ever, interested in anything contrary to what the Øbama administration told them to be interested in?

It all has to do with ownership and control. And those owning and controlling our media have an obvious agenda – and that agenda is NOT to make your lives better…


Comcast Says “Not So Fast”

22 December 2016

Hundreds of thousands of former cable subscribers have dumped cable, using various streaming services for their television. This, of course, is biting into the bottom line of those companies who would keep you in their costly clutches. 

Ah! But the greedy, conniving Comcast will not take that sitting down! Subscribers to their internet service have a new feature! Yes: they are now limited to 1 TB per month, overages resulting in (you guessed it!) additional fees.

Most cable cutters consume gobs of data – particularly large families. Add to this the ubiquitous smart phones, connected home, working from home…  and you can quickly bump up against this limit – mid-month  for my family in December.

Comcast’s letter announcing this new “feature” says that the limit and charges are “to be fair to those  who use less data.” Really, Comcast? You think we’re stupid?How does charging one household more per month do anything for another household that uses less data. It doesn’t. It does nothing more than increase Comcast’s bottom line and serve as punishment for those who dare dump your costly television service.

No matter. Your nearest competitor imposes no such limit. Goodbye, Comcast. I’d say it’s been nice knowing you these 27 years, but I’m not prone to uttering such falsehoods.


Media As Terrorist

22 February 2014


Let’s talk a little bit about terrorism. What is terrorism? It used to be a somewhat covert, violent act against an enemy population, designed to incite terror through the realization that there is no protection against it, and they could strike at will. Small scale guerrilla warfare, but directed primarily against civilians.

But there’s many other forms of terrorism. How about the spreading news of something terrible, but relatively insignificant in terms of likelihood? Like, uh, say – oh, I don’t know – tularemia?

From the CDC: During 1990–2000, a total of 1,368 cases of tularemia were reported to CDC from 44 states, averaging 124 cases (range: 86–193) per year; 807 cases (59%) were reported as confirmed and 85 cases (6%) were reported as probable; the status of 476 cases is unknown. Most (91%) unclassified cases were reported during 1990–1992; all cases during 1990–1991 and 54% of cases from 1992 were not classified. The number of cases reported annually did not decrease substantially during the lapse in status as a notifiable disease during 1995–1999, but an increase in reporting occurred during 2000, when notifiable status was restored. Four states accounted for 56% of all reported tularemia cases: Arkansas (315 cases [23%]), Missouri (265 cases [19%]), South Dakota (96 cases [7%]), and Oklahoma (90 cases [7%]).

Since rabbits are some of the most populous of neighborhood critters, this suggests that, perhaps, tularemia is not so common. It was relisted by the CDC in 2000 due to concern that it may be used in the creation of a bio-weapon. 14 years ago. Huh. So what makes this a headline today? Perhaps to keep a level of fear in those gullible enough to swallow it?

Besides: we all know how to truly weaponize a rabbit – and its manifestation seems about as likely as a bioweapon based on rabbit fever:



BOEHNER: Have you forgotten who you ran as?

12 December 2013

“I think they’re pushing our members in places where they don’t want to be,” Boehner fumed, “and frankly I just think that they’ve lost all credibility.”

con·stit·u·en·cy (kənˈstiCHo͞oənsē/) noun 1. a body of voters in a specified area who elect a representative to a legislative body. “the politician who wishes to remain in the good graces of his constituency”

When Boehner stepped into the role of Speaker of The House, though we did not elect him, we all became his constituency – whether liberal, moderate, or conservative. As for their “members”, I can only ask members of what?! These are supposedly elected representatives. They are supposed to be representing their constituency. Where they “want to be” should be irrelevant. Where their constituency want them to be should be their driving motivation. Though the loud voices being heard are the conservative organizations, just who do you thinks sends these organizations the donations that allow them to operate?

Boehner, Ryan, and anyone else on the alleged conservative side of the house need to take a step backward and consider their position. Most, if not all, were elected because of their alleged conservatism. We who elect conservatives are increasing weary of the constant caving we see from those who sport that “R” next to their state abbreviation. YOU are undermining your party through your actions as your base turns their collective back on you in support of “third party” conservatives. Ultimately, this ensures that those sporting a “D” get into office – and we both are defeated.

And it should be fairly clear from the above whom we conservatives think has lost their credibility…


Hypocrisy vs. Compassion: Planned Parenthood Exposed

11 November 2013

I cannot say it better than this gentleman did: If abortion is only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s business…then how do you explain this? 


Hear ye, hear ye! A royal decree!

7 August 2013

“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it…” Princess Pelosi, 9 Mar 2010

All ye loyal subjects! Hear ye well that King Øbama has decreed in his majestic benevolence that the nobility which maketh the Congress, and their vassals, and their servants, shall henceforth not be subject to the GRAND TAX humorously called the “affordable” care act.

Be it further known that his glorious highness Øbama has decreed this necessary to prevent a “brain drain” within his court; however, he cares not one wit – nay! HE DESIRES! – that a similar brain drain occur across the guilds and trades in the land, rendering all subservient to Washington.

Frankly, I’d argue the brain drain occurred in Washington long, long ago. If you need any further proof that there are two classes in this country – the elite political class, and the rest of us – then I haven’t a clue what form that proof need take.