Monthly Archives: January 2007

Coveted Maples Endorsement Puts Hillary in the Driver's Seat

Marla Maples, former wife of Donald Trump, has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.

Maples made the endorsement in an email sent to friends. The letter concluded with a quote from Winston Churchill:

“You make a living by what you get, but you make a life by what you give.”

Not the least of those things you make a good life by giving is “fellatio to really rich guys.”

Coveted Maples Endorsement Puts Hillary in the Driver’s Seat

Marla Maples, former wife of Donald Trump, has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.

Maples made the endorsement in an email sent to friends. The letter concluded with a quote from Winston Churchill:

“You make a living by what you get, but you make a life by what you give.”

Not the least of those things you make a good life by giving is “fellatio to really rich guys.”

Light Bulb Ban for California: Because You Can't Smoke Cigarettes If You Can't See 'Em

The world is going mad about the speculative-at-best “science” of man-made global warming — simply nuts. And nowhere is this happening more than in California, which is weaving itself into a cuckoo’s nest to such a degree that the only way to save The Golden State now would be to crop-dust it with Thorazine.

Recent “news” stories inform us that we might as well kill ourselves now, as our future holds nothing but misery, so one state is taking drastic steps.

California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has introduced the “How many legislators does it take to change a light bulb act.” The legislation would ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012. They say it’s to save the planet, but I think it’s only so any smokers slipping through the cracks of all the smoking bans can’t see their cigarettes.

California is also leading the nation in the ranks of states who are trying to ban trans fats and SUV’s so people don’t hurt anybody by wrecking the planet and suffering heart attacks while driving to the abortion clinic.

“How many legislators does it take to change a light bulb?” isn’t to be confused with “How many legislators does it take to screw in a light bulb?” The answer to the latter being, “Depends on how many legislators the light bulb can hold.”

It’s somewhat comical that California lawmakers are concentrating on hamburgers, cigarettes and light bulbs when the real environmental culprits are right there on their television sets and in the movie theaters.

According to a UCLA study, Hollywood pollutes, big time – second only to the petroleum industry. Producing just a couple more movies about the environmental evils of big industry is sure to push Hollywood into the top spot.

As one example, consider the makers of the global-warming film “The Day After Tomorrow,” who had the foresight to help ensure there would be an opportunity for a sequel, because it’s reported that they spewed out 10,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions during production. The UCLA report found that the film and television industry emits 140,000 tons a year of ozone and diesel pollutant emissions from trucks, generators, special effects earthquakes and fires, demolition of sets with dynamite and other sources.

Leave it to Hollywood to spend a fortune and destroy the environment in order to generate fake earthquakes and fires when, right behind them, are actual earthquakes and fires.

If the government was really concerned about the environment, they’d address the apparent environmental rapists in Hollywood — but, like most things, this isn’t about what it would appear to be on the surface. It’s not about light bulbs — it’s about control. That and perhaps big campaign donations from the energy-saving fluorescent light manufacturers lobby.

I have no problem with energy-saving measures, but liberals are now throwing around the word “ban” like baseballs during spring training. The word “ban” is really in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? This is why it’s so dangerous.

It’s a case study in irony. If you say you want to ban trans fats, SUVs, smoking, spanking, and light bulbs; the left lionizes you as a hero. If you say you want to ban books on homosexuality from your kid’s elementary school library, you’re a Nazi scumbag. Most “bans” are best left to totalitarian regimes, which apparently the left is hell-bent on creating in the United States.

The first “pollutant” we need to ban are buffoons in government, but that won’t happen anytime soon, as the “what to ban” docket is quite full for the foreseeable future.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Light Bulb Ban for California: Because You Can’t Smoke Cigarettes If You Can’t See ‘Em

The world is going mad about the speculative-at-best “science” of man-made global warming — simply nuts. And nowhere is this happening more than in California, which is weaving itself into a cuckoo’s nest to such a degree that the only way to save The Golden State now would be to crop-dust it with Thorazine.

Recent “news” stories inform us that we might as well kill ourselves now, as our future holds nothing but misery, so one state is taking drastic steps.

California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has introduced the “How many legislators does it take to change a light bulb act.” The legislation would ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012. They say it’s to save the planet, but I think it’s only so any smokers slipping through the cracks of all the smoking bans can’t see their cigarettes.

California is also leading the nation in the ranks of states who are trying to ban trans fats and SUV’s so people don’t hurt anybody by wrecking the planet and suffering heart attacks while driving to the abortion clinic.

“How many legislators does it take to change a light bulb?” isn’t to be confused with “How many legislators does it take to screw in a light bulb?” The answer to the latter being, “Depends on how many legislators the light bulb can hold.”

It’s somewhat comical that California lawmakers are concentrating on hamburgers, cigarettes and light bulbs when the real environmental culprits are right there on their television sets and in the movie theaters.

According to a UCLA study, Hollywood pollutes, big time – second only to the petroleum industry. Producing just a couple more movies about the environmental evils of big industry is sure to push Hollywood into the top spot.

As one example, consider the makers of the global-warming film “The Day After Tomorrow,” who had the foresight to help ensure there would be an opportunity for a sequel, because it’s reported that they spewed out 10,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions during production. The UCLA report found that the film and television industry emits 140,000 tons a year of ozone and diesel pollutant emissions from trucks, generators, special effects earthquakes and fires, demolition of sets with dynamite and other sources.

Leave it to Hollywood to spend a fortune and destroy the environment in order to generate fake earthquakes and fires when, right behind them, are actual earthquakes and fires.

If the government was really concerned about the environment, they’d address the apparent environmental rapists in Hollywood — but, like most things, this isn’t about what it would appear to be on the surface. It’s not about light bulbs — it’s about control. That and perhaps big campaign donations from the energy-saving fluorescent light manufacturers lobby.

I have no problem with energy-saving measures, but liberals are now throwing around the word “ban” like baseballs during spring training. The word “ban” is really in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? This is why it’s so dangerous.

It’s a case study in irony. If you say you want to ban trans fats, SUVs, smoking, spanking, and light bulbs; the left lionizes you as a hero. If you say you want to ban books on homosexuality from your kid’s elementary school library, you’re a Nazi scumbag. Most “bans” are best left to totalitarian regimes, which apparently the left is hell-bent on creating in the United States.

The first “pollutant” we need to ban are buffoons in government, but that won’t happen anytime soon, as the “what to ban” docket is quite full for the foreseeable future.

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

U.S. Over-reacting In Response to 9/11?

Some of my friends on the right are shaking their heads at Johns Hopkins history professor and New Republic contributing editor David Bell’s column Sunday in the L.A. Times. In the essay, Bell spells out why he believes that the United States is reacting too harshly to a 9/11 that was, to Bell’s way of reasoning, not that big a deal — in a historical sense.

Here’s the opening paragraph:

Imagine that on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

Let me propose a slight variation of this opener: Imagine that on 9/11, thousands of people were killed in an attack on Johns Hopkins University.

If the above sentence were fact, do you think the rest of that “we’re over-reacting, historically speaking” column would have ever been written?

Bell closes the column with something that really confused me:

…the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler — can you imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.

Wow. You see sitting ducks sometimes, but not many will walk up and stick their bill in the barrel of your shot-gun.

Though half of that final paragraph could have been written by George W. Bush, the other half is baffling.

“Has not been much of a war after all”? Isn’t this guy from the same philosophical bunch that has military “death-counts” on their websites and announced from the hilltops the death of our 3,000th soldier in Iraq as if it were Iwo Jima II? I guess it’s “not much of a war” from a desk in the Johns Hopkins nerdery, but for our people who are there, they describe it differently.

But Bell also is admitting that this “war” (or “scrum” or whatever he thinks it is) is necessary, it’s just that we’re being a tad too aggressive – in essence running with scissors and not waiting the full 30 minutes after a meal before jumping in the water.

The problem with liberals is that they think there’s a Nerf version of everything.

Update: The author explains on his website what he really meant.

John Kerry: National Pariah, International Embarrassment

Senator John “botched joke” Kerry, who has himself become a sort of national pariah — at least if you’re a member of the military or have properly functioning neurons – is the winner of this week’s “Jimmy Carter Award” for doing what liberals do best: going overseas to knock the United States and tap dance for some of the world’s biggest America bashers and sponsors of terrorism.

At the annual “World Economic Forum” in Switzerland (anti-greed world leaders like to be near their money on occasion) Kerry called the U.S. an “international pariah.” Ironically, this happened at almost the exact same time that fellow insulter of Vietnam veterans, Jane Fonda, was in D.C. speaking at her first anti-war rally in 34 years.

Was this simply an anti-Bush statement and not intended as an insult to all Americans? No. It’s your fault!

Kerry criticized what he called the “unfortunate habit” of Americans to see the world “exclusively through an American lens.”

We also have the “unfortunate habit” of electing elitist, leftist pinheads. “Through and American lens”? Well, I’ve tried looking through John Kerry’s lens, but Vineyard security keeps stopping me before I can get in the house.

What global suck-ups like Kerry never understand is that, in most cultures, the despots or “enemy” you’re brown-nosing and appeasing do not look higher upon an individual who sells out their own nation, whether merely verbally or literally — especially when that person is one of the most powerful senators in said pariah.

People like John Kerry are constantly seeking acceptance, and the less they get it here, the more they look for it there.

I have no hard data to support this, but I can almost guarantee you that the people who Kerry tries to appease with his anti-U.S. rhetoric, while appreciating his selling out of his own country, don’t respect him in the least. Relationships with turncoats are sort of like being married to somebody who cheated on their former spouse: they did it once, and in the back of your mind you know they could do it again, even if they now claim that “you’re the only one for me!” Next thing you know they’re in the vegetable patch bangin’ the gardener.

This is why there cannot possibly be any respect for John Kerry in either direction: To both sides involved, Kerry is more valuable as a member of the other team.

“Traitor” isn’t a dirty word. At some point it went out of style here in the United States, but that doesn’t mean they still don’t exist. They’re not called “traitors” anymore, but rather “enlightened,” “progressive,” or “open minded,” but the end result is the same. The inherent punishment, however, in being a traitor, is that once you begin playing both ends against the middle, nobody likes you. John Kerry’s finding that out.

Let us not forget that Benedict Arnold died a man without a country. So would John Kerry, if his wife didn’t already own so much of the United States.

Most amazing are the people in Massachusetts who keep voting for the man who bounces around the globe calling them myopic morons and outcast boobs. Come to think of it, maybe Kerry’s right.

Above we see one of the main reasons terrorists are so encouraged — along with some other guy in a turban.

John Kerry signs and autograph for the former president of one of the world’s biggest sponsors of terrorism, Ayatollah Mohammad Khatami of Iran. “Khat-man, stay as sweet as you are. Have a bitchin’ summer!”

———-

Recent posts: U.S. over-reacting to 9/11?Air America Sold For a Hybrid Car, Tofu Burger, and a Birkenstock To Be Named Later — Jane: Stop this crazy thing!

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com

Air America Sold For a Hybrid Car, Tofu Burger, and a Birkenstock To Be Named Later

The long-struggling liberal talk radio network Air America, which filed for bankruptcy back in October, has been sold to the SL Green Realty Group for whatever they had under their couch cushions.

It was reported at the time of the bankruptcy filing that Air America had $4.3 million in assets, $20.2 million in liabilities and has lost around $42 million overall. Or, as Michael Jackson refers to it, “Mini-Me.”

Also, Al Franken will be leaving, fueling speculation that he’s going to run for Congress. Either that or his departure might have something to do with the fact that Franken isn’t being paid. Ya think? Nah, it can’t be that, since liberals aren’t greedy.

The Star Mangled Banner: "Hillary Rodham Clin-tone Deaf" Rocks Iowa

Well, it’s taken years, but Hillary Clinton finally has something in common with me. Neither of us can sing. Will it be enough to get my vote? I seriously doubt it, but at least she’s trying.

There’s something in the air in Iowa. This kind of thing isn’t new there. Candidates who are rookies at presidential races really need to be educated on the Howard Dean model: Those open microphones can only lead to embarrassment. Hillary hasn’t learned that yet.

Here’s the New York Senator and presidential hopeful in Iowa over the weekend, impressing voters in the Hawkeye state with her golden pipes. I’m not sure she could find a note even with the help of Onstar and Mapquest.

If you listen closely, toward the end, you can hear Helen Keller’s pleas of “knock it off!” from beyond the grave:

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at Doug Powers.com

The Star Mangled Banner: “Hillary Rodham Clin-tone Deaf” Rocks Iowa

Well, it’s taken years, but Hillary Clinton finally has something in common with me. Neither of us can sing. Will it be enough to get my vote? I seriously doubt it, but at least she’s trying.

There’s something in the air in Iowa. This kind of thing isn’t new there. Candidates who are rookies at presidential races really need to be educated on the Howard Dean model: Those open microphones can only lead to embarrassment. Hillary hasn’t learned that yet.

Here’s the New York Senator and presidential hopeful in Iowa over the weekend, impressing voters in the Hawkeye state with her golden pipes. I’m not sure she could find a note even with the help of Onstar and Mapquest.

If you listen closely, toward the end, you can hear Helen Keller’s pleas of “knock it off!” from beyond the grave:

———-

Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at Doug Powers.com