Essie's Bucket List

I started this blog more than six years ago. Since that time, I have written approximately 2,170 posts. I've had a lot of fun and vented a lot of frustration while fulfilling my need to put my words down on paper (or computer screen).

I have many other things on my bucket list, and Essie's no spring chicken anymore! There's so much out there that I want to do and so I'm rearranging and reprioritizing my time. One of the items I've chosen to let go is "Have you seen the news today?"

I'll still have opinions, and I'll probably still verbalize them to anyone who will listen. But I won't be sharing them here anymore.

Even though this blog has actually been more for me than anyone else, I appreciate those of you who have been faithful followers. Who knows? One day I'll probably reprioritize again and I may reappear on Blogspot. Until then -- keep watching the news for the absurd, the zany, the unjust, the biased, and the unbelievably stupid!

They're smarter than we are on this one.

I can't find too many positive things to say about muslim countries, but I do have to say that the United Arab Emirates has more sense than we do on this one. Have you ever heard of Rolf Buchholz? Here's a photo of old Rolf:

 

Yes, those are horns he had surgically implanted on his head. And, yes, those are all holes in his head. You can't see his "ink" in this photo, so compared to some other pics I've seen of him, this one looks quite normal.

 

At any rate, the United Arab Emirates has denied him entry for an appearance at a nightclub in Dubai. They have more smarts than we do on this one!

 

"That hurts: Dubai turns away entertainer." The Dallas Morning News; August 18, 2014; p. 8A.



Is this how our system works?

The press persists in calling the lawless rioters/looters/arsonists/thieves in Ferguson, Missouri, demonstrators. They say that the demonstrators are demanding justice for Michael Brown. From what I've seen and read, Michael Brown received justice about two weeks ago.

At any rate, their definition of justice is "Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson is charged and convicted for the shooting." I don't think that's how our system works. In the first place, we don't know that Officer Wilson is guilty of any crime. The evidence may show that he was justified in what he did. In the second place, it's up to a jury, not a mob, to decide whether justice entails a conviction.

If they're so concerned about justice, what about justice for Officer Wilson? What if Officer Wilson is guilty of nothing but defending himself? Is justice served if he is convicted of a non-existent crime? Let's reverse the races. What if Officer Wilson were black and Michael Brown were white? What would their definition of justice be then?

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Do you want to know why strong-arm robber Michael Brown had no respect for authority? Here's his mom and dad.

 

 

It appears to me that they're inciting riot more than they're calling for justice. If they really want to know who bears the blame for their "baby" being dead, perhaps they should get a good mirror.



The Penalty Is Death

I feel so sorry for Max Soffar. Max is in prison for killing three people at a bowling alley and seriously wounding a fourth. He's been sentenced to death, but what with one appeal for this and another for that, he's been awaiting execution for 33 years.

Max has liver cancer. He wants a compassionate release. I don't believe the sentence said, "You are condemned to death unless you get sick." I don't believe the sentence said, "If you get sick, you get a get out of jail free card."

And remember the Lockerbie bomber? His death was imminent. But he lived a pretty full life for two years after they let him go. And you know how we traded five terrorists for deserter Bergdahl because his death was close? He looks pretty healthy to me.

So if Max's death is that close, it really shouldn't matter to him where he is when it happens. In fact, the prison should feel a lot more like home than any home on the outside. After all, he's spent over half his life there.

"Attorneys: Free inmate; he's dying anyway." The Dallas Morning News; Aug. 14, 2014; p. 4A.

What a Family Outing!

There was a photo in the newspaper the other day of Janelle Pittman. She had her 6-year-old daughter on her hip. She was in Ferguson, Missouri -- confronting a line of riot-geared police officers. She had the little girl holding her hands up like those idiot rioters have been doing.

Family outings have certainly changed since I was a child. We went on a picnic or went to the park to the wading pool or saw a movie or played putt-putt and went to the ice cream store. I can't recall my mother ever saying, "I know what we can do today! Let's go to a riot!"

"Answers sought in shooting." The Dallas Morning News; August 14, 2014; p. 1A.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time -- or pay the fine.

In the state of Texas, there are certain traffic offenses that garner the offender a surcharge in addition to the fine. Notices are sent when that money is owed -- I believe it's generally $250 a year for three years. As you can imagine, this does not apply to the person who is stopped every now and again for speeding or the person who accidentally runs a stop sign or a red light or doesn't notice that his registration or inspection has expired. This charge applies to repeat offenders, those who are driving on suspended licenses or with no insurance, and various other habitual behavior.

But, according to Steve Blow and other bleeding hearts, this is just a way for the big bad state to keep people impoverished. He says it unfairly targets low-income workers. Well, duh! It doesn't if they obey the traffic laws. And even if that were not the case, there is a program available that will adjust the surcharge in accordance with the offender's income.

But Steve holds up for our admiration a fine upstanding citizen named Devin Mitchell. Devin says she feels like a criminal. Perhaps that's because she is one. I looked up her record, and it's not by any means pristine. She says she fears leaving her house because she might end up in jail. Unfortunately, that's the price one pays for living outside the law.

She says all she wanted to do was work and take care of her own (tell that to her probation officer). But she said this desire keeps her from being a "viable member of society." What a stretch that is!

This all started, Devin claims, when she drove her deceased sister's car not knowing that it was not insured. Mistake number one, Devin, is not taking care of business. She knows insurance is required in Texas. Steve Blow says it's that "small transgression" that continues to plague her.

She says she paid the ticket, but no one told her about the surcharge. She says the first she knew of it was when her boss at Pizza Hut told her that her driver's license was suspended. So she switched from being a delivery driver to working inside the restaurant and set up a payment plan to pay off the surcharge.

But she "still had to drive to work with a suspended license." She said, "It's not like I had a choice. I had to work. And I had to drive to get there." No, she didn't. She did have a choice. If she couldn't get her live-in boyfriend to take her to work or catch a ride with a neighbor or ride a bike, she could have walked. I checked, and it's only two miles from her house in Cleburne to the Pizza Hut where she works. I used to walk home from school that far carrying an armload of books (I'm so old, that only nerds carried book satchels back then). 

And guess what? She got caught driving without a license and received another ticket. Since she didn't have a license, she didn't have insurance, either. And without insurance, you can't get a car inspected. So there's two more tickets with accompanying surcharges. Then she got a letter about an amnesty program. So what does she do? She hops in her uninspected, uninsured vehicle with no driver's license and drives to the DMV. And she was stopped again and ticketed again -- no inspection, driving on a suspended license. No insurance.

She tried to explain, she says, that she was going to get amnesty. It just doesn't seem to occur to her that amnesty is usually extended to those who are trying to mend their ways -- not to those who openly and defiantly and repeatedly break the same laws over and over again.

So Devin's solution is to just not pay anything. And now she has warrants out for her arrest. And it's all everybody else's fault. She quit her job and she and her boyfriend and their 7-year-old "scrape by" on his income. What would you like to bet that she's "scraping by" with a little help from food stamps, Section 8, etc., etc.?

Steve Blow says it's just terrible - $3.2 billion in surcharges have been assessed in what he calls the "Poverty Preservation Program." He says this translates into financial misery for low-income families. We'll see if he feels the same way when an uninsured motorist driving on a suspended license totals his car and causes injury to him and his family.

"Low-income workers driven to misery by state program." The Dallas Morning News; August 13, 2014; p. 1B.

Come out from among them . . .

Paul Stevens of Waxahachie is "deeply saddened." He can't believe that Christian-owned businesses don't want to do business with customers that they feel would compromise their principles. We're supposed to accept anything and everybody. He says he asks himself, "What would Jesus do?"

Then he uses the example of the woman at the well. As do most people of Paul's persuasion, he left out the most important part of that story -- Jesus let the woman know that He knew she was living in deep sin, and He told her how she could be saved.

Paul says, as Christians, we are very diverse and don't agree on things like gay marriage or religions different than our own. We don't have to agree -- if God said it's wrong, it's wrong -- and Jesus never shied away from calling a sin a sin.

Paul says we shouldn't "isolate ourselves from those with differing opinions and practices." So are we to accept everybody and everything? I don't think so. What does Paul do with " Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you"?

What does Paul do with "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators"?

What does Paul do with "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them"?

Paul says that Jesus constantly taught his disciples to love one another. Yes, He did. He also took a whip and drove the money changers out of the temple. Paul said that Jesus "ate with sinners, hung out with the undesirables . . ." Yes, He did. But in the process, He always pointed out their sins and the consequences. And I don't think that's what Paul is aiming at when he says a caterer or a photographer shouldn't be allowed to refuse to do a queer wedding.

"'What would Jesus do?'" The Dallas Morning News; August 10, 2014; p. 2P.

You call it unadulterated hype; I call it . . .

Do you know how much our government has spent on high-speed rail since Obama took office? Nearly $11 billion. And the fastest train we have averages less than 110 mph. It reaches 150 mph only on a 30 mile stretch of track. And now, Obama has asked for $10 billion more to pour down this sinkhole. And what will we get for our $10 billion more? Don't know -- on the crowded New York-Washington corridor, it will take at least $150 billion and 26 years to get trains up to the Japanese bullet-train speed of 220 mph.

Here's what Obama said in his 2011 State of the Union: "Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail." Think about that. Eighty percent of Americans? That would mean running trains through every little Podunk village in the country.

Transportation experts said that it didn't take an expert to see that was an unrealistic fantasy. Kenneth Orski, the editor and publisher of a transportation newsletter, called Obama's statement "unadulterated hype." I call it a big fat lie.

"High-speed rail going nowhere fast." The Dallas Morning News; August 10, 2014; p. 5A.

This and That from Letters to the Editor

Eric Foster of Gun Barrel City doesn't like it that we recruit businesses from California to come to Texas. He says that money should be spent on "taxpaying" Texas companies to create brand new "taxpaying" jobs and "rehire" Texans and Texas college grads.

Does he think that the businesses that we recruit won't hire anybody from Texas? Does he think that they will in no way contribute to our economy? Does he think that they will not pay taxes and that their employees will not pay taxes? (Granted, most of them receive big tax breaks, but those are not perpetual). Just what do you think, Eric? Incidentally, I googled Eric and discovered that he's a bit of a fruitcake. He claims to be a famous screenwriter for movies and TV, but he doesn't name any of the shows he's responsible for. IMDB seems to have overlooked him. Looked up the satellite view of his house, and it reminded me a bit of the homes I've seen on Hoarders.

Then there was the letter from Joseph Sartoris. Joseph opines about people having the freedom to "opine on things they know nothing about." He wants to see their credentials. Right back at ya', Joseph. Show us your credentials.

And last but not least among this edition's letter writers was Ron Johnson of Plano. Ron says that he's tired of the Tea Party and Ted Cruz not "stepping up" when they need to. He complains that they "withdraw" when they don't get 100% of what they want. Well, gosh, Ron, do you mean like all those Texas Democrats who fled to Oklahoma a few years ago to avoid a vote? Do you mean like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who won't bring bills to the floor for a vote? Do you mean like Obama who refuses to enforce the laws he doesn't like? Or are you one of those people Joseph is irritated with for opining on things you know nothing about?

"Letters." The Dallas Morning News; August 8, 2014; p. 16A.

You're too stupid to be a Republican.

Just when you think you've heard it all . . . Roland D. Freeman is forsaking the Republican party because he doesn't like his middle name. It seems that Roland's drivers license has his middle name on it, and his voter registration does not. So he received a brochure encouraging him to change his voter registration -- I'm sure in an attempt to make it easier for him when he goes to the polls.

I face the same thing when I vote. My voter registration has my middle name on it while my drivers license has my maiden name on it. All I have to do is sign a little affidavit that says that my drivers license and my voter registration belong to the same person, and that I am that person.

At any rate, Roland says it annoys him to have to use his middle name, and it's stupid to ask him to use it. He says that the Republicans will be losing a 50-year loyalist. I guess it hasn't occurred to Roland that his gripe is not with the Republican party but with his mama. Frankly, Roland, I think you're too stupid to be a Republican.

P.S. I did a little Google search and discovered Roland's middle name. Think Donald Duck's nephews.

"Voter registration." The Dallas Morning News; August 6, 2014; p. 20A.

What was that argument again?

Hasn't one of the arguments for legalizing pot been that it will reduce crime since it will make marijuana readily available and there will be no need to secure it by nefarious means?

A couple of weeks ago, a legal pot dispensary in Colorado was robbed by a couple of bandanna and cowboy hat wearing bandits who pepper sprayed the workers. In another robbery, a man took a large amount of pot from a dispensary in Pueblo County.

What was that again about reduced crime?

"3 Texans accused in 2 Colorado pot thefts." The Dallas Morning News; August 6, 2014; p. 4A.

Maybe Jacob should have taken that into account.

Jacob Lavoro is facing charges for making and selling pot brownies. He had hash oil in his possession -- which carries a much stiffer penalty than marijuana possession because it has much higher TCH concentrations. He has been offered a plea deal which he has rejected because, according to his attorney, they fear prosecutors would be "overzealous" if he missed a mandatory meeting. Well, duh! The solution to that is not to miss the meeting.

Anyway, Lavoro says, "I'm 19 years old and still have a whole life ahead of me. Take that into account." Perhaps Lavoro is the one who should have taken that into account before he opened up his brownie business.

"Pot-brownie suspect 'very scared.'" The Dallas Morning News; August 7, 2014; p. 2A.

I don't really care about your opinion, Jonathan.

Jonathan Rauch wrote an op-ed that I started to read. The sub-head on it said, "When conservative Christians isolate themselves from changes in secular society, we all lose." I assumed he was probably talking about Christians who stand fast by the faith and refuse to go along with every trend that comes along. I think I was right, but I'm not sure. You see, the first paragraph Jonathan wrote said, "I am someone who believes that religious liberty is the country's founding freedom, the idea that made America possible. I am also a homosexual atheist, so religious conservatives may not want my advice." You got that right, Jonathan! And that's where I stopped reading.

"A wall that's not worth building." The Dallas Morning News; August 3, 2014; p. 6P.

Tell the truth, Zeigler!

John Zeigler says the president is being sued by Congress for doing too much and asks if we can't sue Congress for doing too little. John isn't telling the truth. The president is not being sued for "doing too much." He's being sued for violating the separation of powers laid out in our Constitution. However much he wishes it, he is not King Barack I. He is President Obama.

However, if we could sue Congress, we should sue them for "doing too much" -- passing that monstrosity of Obamacare for one thing.

"What's good for the goose." The Dallas Morning News; August 3, 2014; p. 2P.

How's this for arrogance?

The ever-lovely Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg "holds out hope" for the five male Justices who voted for employers' religious rights in the Hobby Lobby case. She says, "As long as one lives, one can learn." I hold out hope for Justice Ginsburg, too. As long as one lives, God can still deal with an arrogant, rebellious, prideful heart.

"Ginsburg: Court won't duck gay marriage." The Dallas Morning News; August 1, 2014; p. 8A.

We just want to be tolerated . . . Part 534.

Remember: queers, transgendered, and other assorted weirdoes just want to be tolerated . . . or so they continue to assert.

Miss Manners received a letter from a man (and I use the term very loosely) who is part of a "two-dad family." He's had his little feelings hurt. It seems that at the school his children attend, they have a "Mom's Night Out" every so often. Is he offended because he wasn't invited? No, he was invited, but he's offended because he doesn't like that they call it "Mom's Night Out." After all, he would like to go, but he's not a "mom." He says the organizers should have checked with him first about that name so that he could have given them the benefit of his expertise in "evolving language."

And of course, the wimpy, PC, Miss Manners agrees with him. She thinks the "organizers would welcome the change [for the name of the group]." She says his polite response just might inspire the mothers to "ponder updating the name."

I can tell you one thing, if I were one of the moms in that group, I'd be inspired to ponder something all right, but it wouldn't be changing the name of my group!

"Dads feel left out of 'Mom's Night.'" The Dallas Morning News; August 1, 2014; p. 1E. 

And that's the goal!

Bleeding hearts were rallying in Dallas recently for "compassion" for all the illegals flooding into Texas. Laura Mendoza was one of them. She says she's proof of the good that can come from "addressing the needs of immigrants." Her parents were illegals when she was born here, granting her illegitimate citizenship.

She says, "Now, I have a voice. I have a vote." And that, my friends, is the whole point of the Democrats' compassion.

"Both sides rally on immigrant crisis." The Dallas Morning News; July 19, 2014; p. 5B.

It was global warming, of course!

Did you hear about the big, unexplained crater in Siberia? It's that nasty old global warming causing it -- "a build-up of excessive pressure" underground due to rising temperatures. Wow! I didn't know that a few degrees warmer outside could cause such disruption underground. Wouldn't you think it would take a very large temperature change to cause a 66-yard-wide crater?

Remember the summer of 1980 around here? Do you remember all the holes that opened up then? The only holes I remember were the holes the work crews had to dig to repair shifting water pipes. I don't remember any craters. However, they certainly should have existed. If you have any pics, let me know, and I'll share them.

"Russian crater blamed on rising temperatures." The Dallas Morning News; July 18, 2014; p. 10A.

How about 3rd and 4th and 5th chances?

I think I've posted before about Scott Walker. He's the poster child against mandatory sentencing. He received a life without parole sentence on drug charges. Unfair! He says everybody deserves a second chance. I don't agree with that (think Charlie Manson, Ted Bundy, the BTK killer and on and on). But for the sake of argument, I'll grant him that everybody deserves a second chance. Now let's take a little look-see at Scott's record.

He started using marijuana at age 14. That's chance number 1, and he chose wrong. Just as an aside, those who advocate legalizing marijuana deny it is a gateway drug. But Scott says he "graduated" to meth. That's chance number 2, and he made the wrong choice again. By his late teens, he was trafficking marijuana, meth and LSD. That's chance number 3, and Scott still hasn't learned to make good choices. He enlisted others to sell drugs for him. That's chance number 4, and he's dragging others down with him. When he was finally caught in 1996, he wouldn't cooperate with police, because he didn't "want his friends to suffer." That's chance number 5. He refused pleas deals he was offered -- that's chance number 6.

Sorry, Scott. Looks like you had a second and a third and a fourth and a fifth and a sixth chance, and you chose wrong every time. It's hypocritical for you to be whining now about second chances.

"'Everyone deserves a second chance.'" The Dallas Morning News; July 27, 2014; p. 25A.

Richard Miller has a screw loose!

Richard Miller is one of those whose heart bleeds for convicted murderers who are executed. Richard says that we are no different from Islamic countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen and totalitarian states such as North Korea. He says we are the only democracy whose citizens claim to be Christian that uses the death penalty which is neither democratic nor Christian.

Yes, we are different, Richard, and here's the difference. We don't execute people because of their religion. We don't execute people unless they have been tried by a jury of their peers. We don't execute juveniles, neither do we force children to watch executions. We don't execute people for witchcraft or sorcery. We don't execute people because they "dishonored" their families. We don't execute people until they have exhausted numerous appeals. We don't execute women for committing adultery while letting their partners in crime go free. We don't execute people for not dressing the way we think they should. We don't force people to kill babies because they've had more then their allotted number of children. We don't allow our politicians to execute those who threaten their political power.

I can list some more things, but Richard should get the idea here. If he doesn't, he should be really glad he lives in America where we don't execute people for being mentally deficient.

"The company we keep." The Dallas Morning News; July 25, 2014; p. 20A.

Here's your credible evidence.

Richard Grant takes issue with Governor Perry calling out the National Guard to secure our border. True, it is not the job of the National Guard, but when the President refuses to do his job, it becomes necessary to take matters into our own hands.

Richard says that he doesn't think it's fair that we call up these people because it will cost them personally and economically. That is true. Most citizens appreciate the sacrifices our armed forces make. But let's be perfectly honest about this -- they all volunteered. You can't take the benefits and then complain when you're called up. That's what the National Guard is for, and I'm sure those people understand that when they sign up.

Richard then worries about the economic cost and the loss of productivity for our communities. He says he's not willing to impose such a burden unless someone can produce credible evidence that not doing so gravely endangers all Texans.

OK, Richard, you asked for it. Many of these children are carrying communicable diseases -- TB, for example. I doubt any of these children have been vaccinated against measles, mumps, chickenpox -- they're being turned loose into our communities. I heard the other day that there is now a leprosy clinic in southern California. Look for all sorts of epidemics in the near future.

Teenage gang members for the El Salvadoran gang MS-13 are coming across the border. They must be treated the same as all the other children. So even violent criminals receive the same consideration and benefits. Attorney General Greg Abbott reported that, "The purpose of adding more resources on the ground is not to address the women and children, it’s to address the growing reality that a lot of people coming across the border are here for criminal purposes. They’re killing, they’re raping, they’re robbing, they’re doing all kinds of harsh criminal activity.”

Is that enough, Richard, or shall I give you some more evidence? Yes, it's costing Texas $12 million a month, but how much was Obama's initial request  -- not to secure the borders but to take care of these children? $3.7 billion. And that will be like bailing out the Titanic with a teacup if we don't stop the flow coming across the border.

"Why put Guard on border?" The Dallas Morning News; July 22, 2014; p. 10A.

It doesn't matter.

Three animals in Albuquerque have been charged with the merciless beating of a homeless man. They repeatedly smashed his head with cinder blocks. Why? Because one of them was mad at his girlfriend, so he solved that problem by attacking a helpless man he didn't even know. This wasn't the first homeless person the trio had attacked -- they had been assaulting people for a year or more.

Now they're all pointing the fingers at each other. "I only watched while they attacked him" goes the line. It really doesn't matter whether they watched or whether they wielded the cinder blocks and threw the punches and kicks. They are all equally depraved and guilty.

"3 teens targeted homeless, police say." The Dallas Morning News; July 22, 2014; p. 3A.

SURPRISE!

Eighteen of twenty illegals didn't show up for their hearings in Dallas last month. The judge didn't order that they be rounded up -- he just reset the date in case they didn't have "proper notification." What do you want to bet that the two who did show up aren't going to be deported, either?

If we extrapolate, 90% of the estimated 57,000 who've recently arrived won't show up for hearings. That's 51,300 who just got a free pass. Of the 5,700 who will show up, I'd wager that only 25% will face deportation. That's another 4,275 with a free pass. That means that out of that original 57,000, we'll deport a whopping 1,425. And the Democratic Party accomplishes its purpose.

Is this what you expect a refugee to be like?

Sonia Perez D. wrote an article designed to evoke our sympathies for the "refugees" from Central America. Her story was about Elsa Ramirez, one of the few who's been deported back home.

Elsa is a widow with a child. How could we be so cruel? She's suffered immeasurably -- her brother was killed in a family feud (I suppose that would have happened wherever her family lived); another brother was killed when he went to "collect on a debt" (I am reminded of the way the mob collects on debts -- perhaps this is why he's dead); her husband was a cocaine smuggler making up to $4,000 a day until a criminal more powerful than he took him out (it doesn't sound like he was a small-time dealer, does it?).

Now Elsa is afraid for her life. If you lie down with the dogs, Elsa, you rise up with fleas. Your case is like the U.S. ghettos -- is it Honduras that makes the criminals, or the criminals that make Honduras what it is? If it's the latter, then we don't need you here -- you won't get away from the criminal life -- you'll only spread it wherever you go.

"Mother fears killers will come stalking." The Dallas Morning News; July 24, 2014; p. 4A.

Here we go again!

The bleeding hearts are all upset because Joseph Wood "gasped" and lingered for a couple of hours after he received his lethal injection in Arizona for murdering his ex-girlfriend and her father. They claim that such a death is cruel and unusual and are calling for an end to this method of execution. As far as I'm concerned, a firing squad accomplishes the job quickly and cleanly. We could just go with that.

Wood was administered a combination of a sedative and a painkiller. Texas uses a big old dose of pentobarbital, and so far, there's not been a problem with the criminal lingering. Or a big old dose of Propofol seemed to work quite well on Michael Jackson.

"Inmate dies 2 hours after execution begins." The Dallas Morning News; July 24, 2014; p. 2A.

Was that a subtle dig?

The George W. Bush Library is hosting a display of fashions by Oscar de la Renta. Gowns and other ensembles worn by Laura Bush and the Bush twins are featured.

I thought Laura Bush's comments were quite interesting:

"When you are first lady, there are certain fashion rules -- unspoken or unwritten, but you're aware of them always. A first lady must look appropriate at all times, lovely but not too flamboyant. . .Oscar knows what first ladies should wear and what would look good on them, but he also knows what would be the most appropriate and the most dignified and the most elegant. And he knows the way anyone would want the first lady of our country to be seen."

In light of that quote, do you wonder that Oscar de la Renta is one of the only famous designers that Michelle Obama has never worn?

Perhaps it's because Mr. de la Renta calls them as he sees them. He criticized Michelle for wearing a cardigan to meet Queen Elizabeth. "You don't. . .go to Buckingham Palace in a sweater," he said.

Michelle, herself, in a Vogue interview said she had a great sense of fashion. We'll let you be the judge. By the way, can't wait to see this fashion display at the Obama library.

Looks like something Granny wore to the church social

I don't care where she's been, a First Lady should never be seen in public

looking like she's headed for the welfare office.

Words fail me.

The shoes are $425 sneakers.

Perhaps she should have spent less on the footwear

and more on the Target clearance rack clothes.

Really? A mid-riff t-shirt and a high waist

skirt put together out of quilt scraps? Can you see Laura Bush wearing this?

The Cadillac with the furry dashboard and fuzzy dice

was parked outside in the Presidential parking space.

Looks like my first home ec sewing project.

 

Bo the dog and Michelle the . . . First Lady.

Mr. Essie May titles this one "Bo walking the dog."

 

Now would you like to see what a real First Lady looks like?

 

Classy

Tailored

Chic

 

Elegant

 

Smart

 

Stylish



Sophisticated

 





Not hard to see which one likes Oscar de la Renta, is it?





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/07/michelle-obama-oscar-de-la-renta_n_3403989.html

Maybe so, maybe not.

Demonstrators outside the Mexican consulate in Austin carried signs that said, "We are all immigrants."

Not true -- I was born here to U.S. citizens, who were born here to U.S. citizens, who were born here to U.S. citizens -- I can take it back to prior to the Revolutionary War.

Even if it were true that we are all immigrants, we certainly are not all illegal aliens. Most of us have no problem with welcoming immigrants to this country. We only have a problem with those who think the laws don't apply to them. Think about it -- if they believe they don't have to abide by the laws to get here, why should we believe that they will keep our laws once we let them stay?

"Number of kids crossing river slows, officials say." The Dallas Morning News; July 19, 2014; p. 3A.

Whose logic is flawed?

James V. Lee of Ft. Worth says he asked this question on Facebook: "What do you think would happen if Christians actually prayed for President Obama?" He says no one answered the question. He says not answering a question is taught as a logical fallacy in essay writing.

So is starting with a false premise, James. You make the false assumption that Christians are not praying for Obama. You ask the classic "When did you stop beating your wife" question. He says those who won't answer the question he poses are just pushing their own agendas. What do you think you're doing, James, by posing such a biased question to begin with? Why didn't you just ask, "How many of you who are Christians are praying for Obama?" If that question is avoided, you might have a point.

But I'll freely tell you, James, that I pray for Obama every day. I pray that God will touch the elected leaders of this country, our President in particular, and that He will lift up the righteous and bring down the wicked. And if that prayer offends you, James, it tells us which side of the equation you think Obama falls on.

"Dodging the question." The Dallas Morning News; July 20, 2014; p. 3P.

What could I do?

Poor little Jonathan Ramsey was starved to death by his father and stepmother. They wrapped his little body in a sleeping bag and took him to a remote area and put him in a creekbed. He was found about six months later. His father has been convicted, and now the stepmother is awaiting sentencing for her conviction.

But, bless her heart, she's a victim, too! She says there was little she could do to rescue the child who was locked in a filthy closet (a closet she walked past numerous times a day) and fed nothing but bread and water. Little she could do? How about call CPS? How about call the police? How about call 911? How about take the child to the neighbor's when the father wasn't there? If none of that was possible (and I don't buy that it wasn't), she could have fed him when she stuffed her own face. From her mug shot, she doesn't look any too mal-nourished.

Her attorney says she wanted to call, but the father wouldn't let her. Well, gosh! I guess he didn't! Criminals don't usually sit passively by while their victims call the police. But was he with her 24 hours a day? She says he punished her daughter from a previous marriage by withholding food from her. Then she goes on to describe him as "a good father." What is wrong with this woman?

She was in email contact with the boy's natural mother, and she told her the child was better off not talking to her. I'm sure they didn't want him talking to her! Why didn't she give some clue in the email that the child was being tortured and starved?

No, this "victim" deserves not one ounce of sympathy. What she deserves is to be locked up in a small room with no windows. She deserves to be fed three times a day -- one slice of plain bread and 8 ounces of water each time. And that's a whole lot more than she fed that little boy.

"Stepmother defended in starvation." The Dallas Morning News; July 17, 2014; p. 1B.

Have mercy, Judge -- we're poor little orphans!

Federal Judge Cormac J. Carney has ruled that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment because it takes so long to implement it. And why does it take so long to implement it? Because the condemned prisoners keep filing appeals!

Kind of like the boys who killed their parents then begged for mercy because they were orphans. The inmates are running the asylum!

"Judge blasts death penalty in California." The Dallas Morning News; July 17, 2014; p. 4A.

If for no other reason . . .

I wouldn't vote for Wendy Davis if for no other reason than that her donor list includes:

• Barbra Streisand
• Marlo Thomas
• Matt Damon
• Holland Taylor (who wrote and starred in a show about Ann Richards)
• Willie Nelson
• Steve & Amber Mostyn (ambulance chasing millionaire lawyers who have given her cash and air fares worth $738,000 -- no one spends that kind of money unless they're getting something in return)
• Service Employees International Union ($250,000 -- this is the union that was forcibly deducting union dues from the Medicaid benefits of disabled adults who were being cared for at home)
• Planned Parenthood (supported with your tax dollars, more than $100,000 of which was donated to Wendy Davis. How is it that a Conservative non-profit can't mention politics, but Planned Parenthood can?)

I wrote the other day about Preston Van Leeuwen from California who was offended that Rick Perry was recruiting business in California. Well, Preston, I don't much care for all your Hollywood types trying to influence our governor's race -- for all the good it will do them. Despite all her money, at this point, Wendy's chances aren't looking too good.

"Hollywood cash flowing to Davis." The Dallas Morning News; July 17, 2014; p. 3A.

Yes, I do have a right to be judgmental!

Ryann Lavy of Grapevine takes issue with those of us whom she judges to be judgmental. She says that she was hot stuff as a teenager -- she made A's, had an iPhone and nice clothes. Little did she know, she says, that in a few years she would be stuck alone, pregnant with twins, and trying to find enough money for food for the next week. (I guess those twins "just happened" through no fault of her own, and there was no father who had a responsibility to come up with the money for food for the next week.)

She says it could happen to anyone, and she wishes people would understand that it's not our place to judge. I'll agree with you Ryann. What you do on your time and with your money and your morals is your business and none of mine. But that changes when you expect me to provide your housing, your food, your medical care, your iPhone, and to take care of your illegitimate children. What you do with my money gives me the right to judge how you spend every penny you have.

Ryann says that the world would be a more pleasant and easier place to live if people didn't judge. Really, Ryann? More pleasant and easier for whom?

"Judging others' hard times." The Dallas Morning News; July 15, 2014; p. 8A.

Ask Malia and Sasha.

Remember when Jimmy Carter discussed nuclear proliferation with 13-year-old Amy? Remember when Obama changed his mind on same-sex marriage? He said that Malia and Sacha were responsible for it, because they don't understand why same-sex parents should be treated differently.

"It doesn't make sense to them and frankly, that's the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective," Mr. Obama said.

Asking kids who don't have a clue seems to run in liberal families. When something doesn't make sense to your child, you don't change your perspective -- you teach your child why it does make sense. I'm sure a lot of children would tell their parents they don't see any sense in going to school. Does that mean the parents should change their perspectives and let them stay home and watch cartoons?

At any rate, Mary Jo Beebe seems to take her child rearing (or should we say parent rearing) cues from the two worst Presidents in this century. She asked her 8-year-old granddaughter for advice on what the country should do about all the illegal kids. Her granddaughter says the adults in our country should help them.

And Mary Jo seems to have ended the conversation there. Perhaps she should have asked the child specifically how the adults should help them. Perhaps she should have asked the child where the money would come from. Perhaps she should have asked the child where we're going to house all these children and who's going to feed them and educate them.

Mary Jo says we must help these children instead of being brutish and uncaring. It is evil, she says, to think that we need to deport them. Will you be home around 10 o'clock in the morning, Mary Jo? We'll be dropping off your dozen between then and noon.

By the way, I did a little Google search on Mary Jo. She's apparently some sort of religious nut akin to a Christian Scientist. That tells you how logical her thinking is. 

"Heed a child's heart." The Dallas Morning News; July 5, 2014; p. 16A.

I have a suggestion.

I wrote yesterday about how secure our borders are. I have a suggestion that just might kill two birds with one stone. Obama seems to like trading criminals, so here's what we do.

For every child that sneaks across our border, we pull a criminal out of our overcrowded prisons. When we have a plane full of convicts, we fly them to Guatemala or Honduras or wherever in proportion to the number of illegals coming from that country. We dump them out at the airport.

That solves our overcrowding problem and frees up our prisons to be used as orphanages for the children we're taking care of. Those children will not, under any circumstances, be returned to family members. They will be housed, fed, and educated in these orphanages until American families adopt them.

In one fell swoop, we get rid of hardened criminals and we humanely provide for the children whose parents don't care enough about them to take care of them themselves. The children will no longer be illegal when they are adopted by American families, so that solves the assimilation problem. Where will these American families come from? We start by contacting every person who has said that we can't send these children back. He will be given at least three children, maybe more if his financial position allows it.

And that, my friends, is how it should be done.

Fret not -- our borders are more secure than they've ever been.

Harry Reid says emphatically that our borders are secure (but Harry Reid also says that paying taxes is voluntary). The White House says that today, border security is stronger than it has ever been. Tell that to the mother of the 9-year-old child who was molested by Israel Andrade.

Andrade, a stranger, broke into their Parker County home and fondled the child. He tried to coax her to go with him, but she screamed and he fled. They followed his footprints and discovered him at a nearby house with the child's underwear stuffed into his jeans.

What do we know about Andrade? He was deported in 2003. He was deported in 2004. He was deported in 2009. He was deported in 2010. That's one man who made it across the border at least five times.

So let not your heart be troubled -- Obama says our borders have never been more secure. . . that's if you don't count the more than 50,000 children who've been able to get by that tough security in recent months. And all the Israel Andrade's out there.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/immigration/border-security
"Deportee is jailed in attack." The Dallas Morning News; July 14, 2014; p. 4B.

How many can we put you down for?

All the atheist bleeding hearts are having a ball casting stones at Christians who think all the illegal children should be sent back to their home countries.

Amanda Davis of Coppell says you can't be a Christian if you believe our borders should be secured and these children should be sent away. She quotes Jesus who did, indeed, say, "Suffer the little children to come unto me." (By the way -- She didn't quote that part about not judging whether or not people are Christians). But Jesus never said, "All the moms and dads in other countries should hire coyotes and send their children to Israel and you should tax the people to provide their medical care, their educations, their food, and their housing." And what did Jesus do with those children after he talked with them and blessed them? Well, one can only assume that He sent them back where they came from, because, so far as I can tell, there is no more mention of them in the Scripture. They didn't have a bunch of high chairs at the last supper. Amanda, as is usual with those of her ilk, has taken the scripture completely out of its context.

At any rate, Amanda, since it is a sin to turn these children away, we'll be depositing a dozen of them on your doorstep tomorrow. I Googled and saw that you live in a pretty nice two-story brick house. If I have the right one, it's worth a pretty penny, too. Uh-oh! Guess you also missed that verse about selling all you have and giving to the poor. See, Amanda, it's a dangerous thing to selfishly use scripture to promote your liberal agenda. You just might get caught in your own trap.

"Suffer the children." The Dallas Morning News; July 8, 2014; p. 10A.

From the TOTA File

I have the WIST file (Wish I'd Said That), the ITIMTU file (I Think I May Throw UP), and now I'm adding the TOTA file (Theater of the Absurd).

The first entry from the TOTA file is a political cartoon by Jimmy Margulies. He shows the newscaster with a map highlighting Syria and Iraq behind him. The newscaster is saying that a religious state has been declared in Syria and Northern Iraq. The frumpy tv viewer holds a newspaper with the headline, "Hobby Lobby Birth Control Ruling." She says, "and the U.S. workplace."

Seriously? He's comparing muslim rule to Hobby Lobby's right to decide whether or not to pay for certain forms of birth control for its employees?  He's comparing beheading women for getting an education to Hobby Lobby paying for only 16 kinds of birth control instead of 20? He's comparing stoning women for being Christian to some woman buying her own morning after pill? I'm not sure, but I suspect that Islam allows no birth control at all. He's comparing that to U.S. employers exercising their religious liberty?

Think about it this way: with the court's ruling, Hobby Lobby has a choice, as do its employees. If the ruling had gone the other way, Hobby Lobby would have had no choice. Quite possibly, their employees would have also lost any choice as far as working for them, because the owners had intimated that they might close rather than compromise their principles.

Which of those sounds like an extremist religious state to you?

Those poor, poor, adults who can't cope -- no wonder they stomp toddlers to death.

Jacquielynn Floyd has written the most ridiculous thing I think I've ever read. Despite her protestations that she's not, she seems to be excusing the animal who repeatedly punched, slammed to the floor, and stomped on a 19-month-old baby. When he finally succeeded in killing the child, the mother (and I use the term very loosely) helped him cover up his crime and went with him to bury the body. She told the police he "didn't mean to" do it. I know accidents happen, but how can you not mean to slam a baby's head against the floor more than once, then stomp on her little stomach, then punch her in the face until she's dead? If the child had one blow to the head and no old injuries, I just might believe that the guy accidently dropped her. I'm sure it's happened before. It could even happen twice. My mother used to tell me about how she let me accidentally roll off the bed one day, and she was so upset and rattled by it that she let me roll off a second time. But this isn't a case of a well-cared for child being accidentally or even negligently injured. This is a case of a willful, angry, violent attack.

Jacquielynn says that it's clear that these people don't understand how children behave or the unique demands of being a parent. I'm not sure what she means by "unique" demands. Billions of parents over the years have reared children, and I daresay most of them have had comparable experiences. She says that the pattern of abuse is of immature parents who just can't cope with crying and dirty diapers. No, Jacquielynn, immaturity has nothing to do with it -- I've seen lots of immature parents, and though they don't always make the wisest decisions, they still love their children and would never in a million years torture them. No, Jacquielynn, these aren't victims who can't cope -- these are despicable, mean, unfeeling people who hate the children who are in their way, and so they decide to get rid of them and inflict as much pain as they can in the process. They deserve no "he just couldn't cope" sympathy!

"When adults can't cope, children die." The Dallas Morning News; July 12, 2014; p. 1B.

You got it, Pard!

Preston Van Leeuwen of San Luis Obispo, California, wrote a letter to The Dallas Morning News. I guess he thought he was being funny, but maybe he really is this ignorant.

He says that Governor Perry's ads in California encouraging businesses to relocate to Texas were offensive to him, because they've had a devastating economic downturn. Well, duh! When 1960's throwback Jerry Brown is your Governor and your businesses are over-taxed and over-regulated, and your tax burden is second only to New York's, you're surprised that there was a devastating economic downturn?

He was offended by the Texas tourism industry when it ran ads in California touting Texas vacations. So does that mean we should be offended that those Hollywood types expect us Texans to go see their movies and watch their TV shows? Does that mean they won't advertise going to Disneyland or Yosemite or touring movie star homes in Texas? But then the kicker comes -- old Preston and his wife and friends are planning on coming to Texas. Can you folks out in California say, "Hypocrite"?

Preston is prepared, though, for the backwoods. He says they've already been warned not to mention words like Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Streisand and gay marriage. They've been told they shouldn't make fun of Governor Perry's glasses or point out that Texas had more executions last year than Yemen. You got it, pardner! But go ahead and talk about the executions, Preston. We're quite proud that we execute those who deserve it -- the only thing we're ashamed of is how few get the needle and how long it takes to get through all their appeals.

Old Preston says that, on second thought, he thinks he'll just cancel his trip. Suits us, Preston. We don't like Pelosi-Streisand-queer lovers around here who are so panty-waist they don't figure it's nice to execute animalistic criminals. As for the Gov's glasses -- the man evidently sees things a whole lot better than you do. Maybe you should get a pair.

"A trip to Texas? Really?" The Dallas Morning News; July 13, 2014; p. 2P.

Want a sex change operation?

If you want a sex change operation and can't afford it, just wait until you're old enough to draw Medicare. A review board of the Department of Health and Human Services has ruled in favor of a 74-year-old who wants to have the surgery. In doing so, it says that requests for sex reassignment surgery cannot be automatically denied. Aren't you glad your tax dollars are paying for such vital services?

"Medicare to cover sex reassignment." The Dallas Morning News; May 31, 2014; p. 7A.

Who slept with who here?

The National Park Service is in the process of installing markers at "places of importance to the history of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans." The initiative is for the purpose of including them "in the national narrative" and (here's the scary part) "components of education."

I would like to make a suggestion for the first two markers -- Sodom and Gomorrah.

"Sites' role in LBGT history to be noted." The Dallas Morning News; May 31, 2014; p. 7A.

Target is playing both sides.

Target has "respectfully requested" that its customers not carry their firearms, concealed or otherwise, in its stores. That's fine. I'll just shop where I can carry my licensed concealed weapon. But wait -- further into the article, we see that "Target will not post signs outside stores and has no further plans to advertise its position on the issue."

That means that in Texas, it will still be perfectly legal for me to carry my concealed gun into Target, because according to the law, if they don't want me to bring my gun in, they must have a sign posted telling me I can't bring it in. And I will do just that. I don't intend to be a passive victim of some crazy idiot who decides it will make a statement to shoot everybody in the Target store.

So does Target not know the law, or are they just trying to play both sides against the middle?

"Leave guns at home, Target asks shoppers." The Dallas Morning News; July 3, 2014; p. 1A.

Why should she have to defend it?

I'm sure most of you have seen the brouhaha over Kendall Jones of Cleburne posting legitimate photos on her Facebook page. Kendall is a cheerleader at Texas Tech (for right now, anyway -- I expect the university will cave to the pc folks and kick her out). She leads an exciting life. She has been to Africa on wild game hunts, and the photos are from those adventures.

Of course, all the people who don't know what they're talking about are outraged. How dare she post pictures of hunting! The title of one article about this case of intolerance was "Tech cheerleader defends photos." Why should she have to defend something that is neither illegal nor immoral? Would they prefer she post pictures of herself carousing in a bar? Would they prefer she post pictures of herself passed out drunk? Or high on drugs? Or scantily clad?

Facebook removed the photos, but, according to their terms of service, there is no reason she shouldn't be able to post them. Kendall has received death threats, including this really classy one from some reality "star" I never heard of: "This _______ Kendall Jones killed this beautiful creature so she post a selfie! That lion is an endangered species .. breaks my _______ [heart] not to mention he had a family .. I wish I can fly to Africa and shoot her ugly _____." The blanks are gross profanity. By the way, doesn't this brilliant woman exhibit wonderful English skill?

Kendall has not filed charges against her, and I love her logical response: "It's not that we aren't taking these threats seriously - we just feel that these are baseless and uneducated threats." Kendall also responded to those who are demanding that her Facebook page be taken down: "If you don't like or agree with what I am doing, then don't be on my page."

You go, Kendall! There are many people out here who understand that a few hunters do more for conservation and preservation of endangered species than all the ignorant PETA and reality stars put together.

Just for the record, can someone point me to some of that liberal tolerance?

"Tech cheerleader defends photos." The Dallas Morning News; July 3, 2014; p. 3A.

What kind of parents are they?

Today's topic is the influx of illegal aliens we are being forced to deal with, because Obama wants "immigration reform." They keep saying our system is broken. What is broken is not the system, but the lack of enforcement. If we enforce the laws we have, we won't have a problem with immigration.

But my real focus today is on the parents of the thousands of children who are arriving here alone. What kind of parent sends his 8 or 9 year old child across a desert alone? I don't get it. The Obama reason is that they are in danger from drug cartels, gangs, etc., but that's been the case for a long time. What officials who have been brave enough to speak are telling us is that 90% of those they've interviewed have said they came here because it was advertised in their countries that if they could get here unaccompanied, they could stay. In fact, the first thing they do when they cross the border is to look for a border agent. Some families are sending the children ahead, then hoping to make an illegal entrance themselves.

Gilberto Ramos was a teenager from Guatemala who didn't make it. His body was found in the Rio Grande Valley. He was 15 years old when he told his mother he wanted to come. She says she relented and armed him with a rosary for safe passage. Gilberto's older brother lives illegally in Chicago, and he's the one who encouraged Gilberto to come. They found a coyote for $5,400, so I have to wonder just how impoverished this family really is.

And now guess who's paying to send Gilberto's body home? We are. If we can pay to send a dead boy home, why can't we pay to send all these live children back to where they came from?

"Teen made trek to aid ill mom." The Dallas Morning News; July 3, 2014; p. 3A.

Wrong, Mr. Love

Stephen Love of Northwest Dallas needs a course in history. He says that "federal taxes are the means by which inequities between the states are addressed."

They may be used for that, but like much that is going on today, that was never the intent for federal taxes. Federal taxes are to fund the federal government in its mission of defense and promoting the general welfare (and that's not "welfare" as we use the word). According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Thomas Jefferson said that "The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. Congress is not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose."

In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described a further limit on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."

We live with a bunch of tax-happy legislators funding illegitimate government programs with our money. Our forefathers, including Jefferson and Marshall, are spinning in their graves.

"Tea party's folly on taxes." The Dallas Morning News; June 30, 2014; p. 10A.



 

What about gay pride?

Last month was gay pride month. All the proud queers were out of the closet and proud of it. Most large cities had gay pride parades. They pranced and they strutted and they wore outrageous revealing clothes (if they were clothed at all) and they waved their rainbow flags and proclaimed that their evil was good and Christians were evil. 

It just so happens that our Sunday School lesson this past week was on pride. Here's what God has to say about pride:

• Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.
• The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.
• The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
• Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness. . . [If you recall, Sodom had it's own version of gay pride parades.]
• God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

They may be proud and loud now, but one day, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Just when you think you've heard it all . . .

Your tax dollars are being well-spent. A recent study related hurricane fatalities to the name of the storm. Yes, they think the name of the storm is an indicator of how many people will die.

The authors of this important study (I'm being facetious here in case you didn't catch it) examined 1000 people in six different tests. They determined that they were "generally" more likely to evacuate from an oncoming storm with a masculine name than from a storm with a feminine one.

I don't know for sure what this says. I guess it's either that people are even more stupid than I thought, or that researchers are grasping at straws to get those grant dollars and we are stupidly giving them to them.

"Woman, they name is deadly." The Dallas Morning News; June 3, 2014; p. 4A.

Eat at Big Earl's!

May I encourage you to eat at Big Earl's in Pittsburg, Texas? They sound like a great bunch of folks. Here's a link to Earl's website:

http://www.bigearlspittsburg.com/

If you Google Big Earl's, though, you'll come away with the impression Earl runs a gay bar. It's social media backlash from the perverts, because Big Earl's daughter told a couple of queers who had engaged in rubbing each other's thighs in the restaurant not to come back, because Big Earl's doesn't serve fags. This was after the "couple" had finished their meal and paid. She didn't call them fags until they tried to argue with her and cause a scene. Big Earl says he expects his customers to behave appropriately for a family restaurant, and he has had a sign on his front door ever since he opened:

Welcome to Big Earl's where

men act like men,

women act like ladies,

no saggy pants.

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

 

So why would two queers go into a place with a warning like that and flaunt their perversion? For the publicity, of course. What's the first thing the two queers do after they've left the restaurant? They call the TV station, of course. Would you like to hear the stupid question the reporter asked Earl? "What do you mean by 'men act like men and women act like ladies'?" The mere fact that someone doesn't know what that means shows you how deep in degradation this country is -- even in East Texas!

 

"Talking Points." The Dallas Morning News; June 1, 2014; p. 1P.

ما هو جيد لإوزة هو جيد لذكر الإوز.

Mariam Saleh lives in Doha, Qatar. She is leading a campaign to make foreign women residing in that country "cover up." She says a steady influx of foreigners is threatening to uproot their customs and traditions.

 

How many times have we seen muslim women in the U.S. refuse to uncover their faces according to our customs and traditions and even our laws? I can't cover my face or wear a head covering when I have my driver's license photo made or when I go through airport security, but they can.

 

The title of this blog is in Arabic just for Mariam. I'm not sure if the translation is correct or not, but we would say, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

 

"A modest request." The Dallas Morning News; June 15, 2014; p. 19A.

Who is responsible for a 10-year-old child?

If you had a little girl who was 10 years old, and the family went to a park with which they were not familiar, would you let the child wander off on her own? Especially if the park were in a metropolitan area?

Ebony McGee and Antoin Lockett say it's all the city's fault their child drowned. They were on a family outing to Walter E. Luedeke Park when the child went off on her own and either fell or jumped into a retention pond. They have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the City of Balch Springs.

Lockett says the fateful day was the first time the family had visited the park. They allowed the child to go off down a trail with "Follow me" signs. Lockett says the pond was hidden from his view by a hill. "I didn't even know a pond was there," he said. Not knowing what was there is all the more reason for him to have made sure an adult was with her! The parents say the child was "very responsible" and would not have entered the pond if "No Swimming" signs had been posted. Maybe so, maybe not -- she was 10 years old.

I just can't imagine taking a child to an unfamiliar place and allowing her to strike out on her own out of my sight. Forget the pond -- don't these people know that child predators often find their victims at parks?

The family should receive nothing from the city, and, in fact, should be investigated themselves for the wrongful death of a child they were neglecting.

"Parents sue after girl drowns at park; city reviewing lawsuit." The Dallas Morning News; June 19, 2014; p. 1B.

Just FYI

The government does not track the number of political refugees in this country who rely on social services. We have admitted about 67,000 Somalis in the past ten years, so I'm guessing that we've added about 67,000 Somalis to the welfare rolls in the past ten years. And that's just from one country.

I'm curious as to why the government can't track this number when it can track all our phone calls, our income, and who knows what else. However, I must admit, this is the same government that can't seem to keep up with Lois Lerner's emails.

"Mayor protests refugee influx." The Dallas Morning News; June 24, 2014; p. 4A.

Uhhhhh - could it be because they're criminals?

Texas officials are blaming the heat and the lack of programs for rampant crime in the Texas prison system. They're even blaming it on keeping violent convicts in prison longer.

My first thought was that crime is rampant in the prison system because . . . well, they're criminals, aren't they? If they were nice folks, they wouldn't be in prison. Duh!

"Prison crime still rampant." The Dallas Morning News; June 24, 2014; p. 3A.

What is the national problem that should be priority 1?

If someone asked you what the priority of the Obama administration should be, what would you say? The economy? Terrorism? The IRS scandal? The VA scandal? The truth about Benghazi? Securing our borders? Releasing enemy prisoners? Welfare fraud?

According to VP Joe Biden, it's none of those. He said that across U.S. government agencies, officials have been instructed to make the promotion of gay rights abroad a priority.

Doesn't that bring you great confidence in the direction our nation is going?

"Biden urges global unity on gay rights." The Dallas Morning News; June 25, 2014; p. 4A.

We got that one out of the way!

Obama has captured Ahmed Abu Khattala, and I guess he thinks that puts that little issue to rest. At least according to Tom Brewer of Mesquite it does.

Tom has a letter to the editor in which he praises Obama for hunting down and capturing "the" culprit responsible for the attack. I don't know why that's so great -- several of the news organizations tracked him down months ago and did interviews with him.

Tom exults that "the" terrorist is in our custody and is heading to the U.S. for trial. He should be headed to Gitmo as an enemy combatant.

My problem is with Tom's continued use of the definite article. From what I saw, there were more terrorists than just Ahmed there that night. What are we doing to catch them?

"Kudos to Obama for capture." The Dallas Morning News; June 22, 2014; p. 2P.