Convict 8675309 reporting for flight

That is how I feel. I feel like a criminal for even attempting to fly the unfriendly skies this morning. I am leaving a small regional airport in the middle of an entire state of of Podunk towns and I get the millimeter -wave -booth -put -your -hands- on your- head- like -a -known convict- while -some booger- picking -morning -making 8.75 -an-hour -looks- at -your- fat naked- ass -treatment; Aka the naked body scanner. It is too effing early for this crap. Then because I am sure that I had a look of extreme rage and indignation on my face AND because the TSA guy who had just had me visually raped while wearing clothes said in my general direction "hold on a minute" and I looked at him. He has to get all pissy with me and ask "Is there a problem,sir?".

I said, "no" but what I wanted to say is "Hell yes there is a problem, but you are just doing your job"

There is absolutely a problem with this country, with homeland security, the TSA and air travel in general.

What we need is to a) have a certified traveler program and b) profile the living shit out of people. I am sorry if you are of middle eastern descent and have zero intention of body packing five pounds of dynamite up your ass. You look like the assholes who do. I don't, and I travel once a month for work. I am a fat white male who has never had more than a speeding ticket. Leave me and granny alone and pick on the guys who fit the profile it works, ask El Al.

-via my iPhone

Denis Leary on the Proposed Cigarette Labels – 18 years ago

as well as some bonus quotes from a movie that at the time seemed so incredibly over the top and now looks to be about 10 years down the road, except no one will be wealthy.

Denis Leary’s stand up routine “no cure for cancer” 1992:

“There's a guy- I don't know if you've heard about this guy, he's been on the news a lot lately. There's a guy- he's English, I don't think we should hold that against him, but apparently this is just his life's dream because he is going from country to country. He has a senate hearing in this country coming up in a couple of weeks. And this is what he wants to do. He wants to make the warnings on the [cigarette] packs BIGGER. Yeah! He wants the whole front of the pack to be the warning. Like the problem is we just haven't noticed yet. Right? Like he's going to get his way and all of the sudden smokers around the world are going to be going, "Yeah, Bill, I've got some cigarettes.. HOLY SHIT! These things are bad for you! Shit, I thought they were good for you! I thought they had Vitamin C in them and stuff!" You f***ing dolt! Doesn't matter how big the warnings are. You could have cigarettes that were called the warnings. You could have cigarettes that come in a black pack, with a skull and a cross bone on the front, called tumors and smokers would be lined up around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these effing things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up! Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm" Doesn't matter how big the warnings are or how much they cost. Keep raising the prices, we'll break into your houses to get the cigarettes, ok!? They're a drug, we're addicted, ok!? Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm *wheeze*”

And now, prophecy for our future (from Demolition Man- 1993):

For those of you who have not seen this movie, rent it. 

Edgar Friendly (Denis Leary, Libertarian who is forced to (literally) live underground due to his love of freedom) :

“According to Cocteau's  Obama’s plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, ?

I've seen the future. You know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin, sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing, "I'm an Oscar Meyer wiener." “We are the World” or “Give Peace a Chance”

All I wanna do is bury Cocteau Obama up to his neck in sh**, and let him think happy-happy thoughts forever.

I'm no leader. I do what I have to do--sometimes people come with me.

You live Up Top, you live Cocteau's Obama’s way: what he wants, when he wants, how he wants. Your other choice, come Down here, and maybe starve to death.”

-----

Lenina Huxley (Sandra Bullock, naive but tough police officer, is infatuated with the old days;meaning the 20th century)and John Spartan (Sylvester Stallone, recently re-animated tough guy cop from the 80’s) :

Lenina Huxley:“Anything not good for you is bad, hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, salt, contact sports, meat . . .”

John Spartan: “Are you sh**ing me?”

A computer: “John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute.”

John Spartan: “What the Hell is that?”

A computer: “John Spartan, you are fined one credit . . .”

Lenina Huxley: “…Bad language, child play, gasoline, uneducational toys, and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal. But, then again so is pregnancy, if you don't have a license.”

-----

Simon Phoenix (Wesley Snipes, evil 20th century killer recently escaped from prison to run rampant in wimpy progressive dystopia):

“I'm sorry to say that the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself--run by a bunch of robed sissies.”

“You can't take away people's right to be assholes”

Indeed

-Kook

Joplin Mo Smoking Ban

Joplin council to revisit smoking ban » Local News » The Joplin Globe, Joplin, MO By Debby Woodin Globe Staff Writer The Joplin Globe

JOPLIN, Mo. — More work will be done today by the Joplin City Council in considering whether a public smoking ban will be imposed and, if so, how wide-ranging it will be.
…The council last Monday rejected the measure after hearing two hours of testimony.
Proposed by a local coalition called Smoke-Free Joplin, the original ordinance would prohibit smoking in any public place or workplace, including outdoor restaurant or bar patios. It also would bar smoking within 20 feet of a door.

What I want to know is why do these anti-smoking crusaders hate kids?  Didn’t we just raise taxes on cigarettes to help fund education?  If so, discouraging smoking will lower education funding and cause illiteracy and drop out rates to run out of control, right?

If you love children, you should encourage people to smoke, by that logic, not discourage it.

Do it for the children…

This is all anti-capitalist.  If you are offended by the smoking of a cigarette in an establishment you no one forces you to go there.  Stay home, or get your order to go.  For those who talk about the perils of being employed in an establishment that allows smoking, Missouri is a right to work state, meaning no one forces you to work for that establishment or as a cook or waitstaff either.  If as a business owner your business suffers from offering a smoking section, it should be up to you whether or not you make a decision to change that fact, and everyone else can vote with their patronage.

This is all about restaurants.  Many in Joplin are already all no-smoking.  Others still ahve a smoking section.  No one smokes in stores or gas stations. There is simply no reason to have another senseless rule that someone will have to enforce

...besides our children’s futures are counting on Cigarette sales…

-KOOK

Obama: Egocentric Ideologue, Proof From His Words

From a story in the WaPo by Dana Milbank: Obama is sad but not sorry about the election results

You can read the whole thing from the link above, I just want to point out a few key points.

The president, facing the media in the East Room the day after what he called his "shellacking" at the polls, admitted it had been a "long night." He confessed that it "feels bad." He acknowledged "sadness" that so many friends and allies had lost their seats.

But what he would not acknowledge is that his policies had in any way contributed to the shellacking and sadness.

Many have said Obama will moderate, or “pivot” due to the election.  He will not, he is incapable of it.  When asked if this election was a rejection of his agenda, he justified it as just being a result of not enough “progress” …whew… He still feels he was right in all of his decisions.  We don’t dislike his policies, you see, we just are dissatisfied with his outcomes.  It is not the policies we hate, I am sure, it is probably our lack of understanding as simpleton citizens.

Secondly, many obamabots believe he is a pragmatist, he is not, and his own words prove it.

No matter how many ways reporters phrased the question, the answer was the same. CNN's ED Henry suggested there may be "a majority of Americans who think your polices are taking us in reverse," and asked: "You just reject that idea altogether that your policies could be going in reverse?"

"Yes," Obama said sharply.

As the questions kept coming toward the end he said something else that proves he is locked dead onto target and there will be no moderation, no capitulation, and no compromise (not that I want to compromise with the communists)

He declined to rule out an effort by the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. He vowed to push back against Republican efforts to cut spending on education, research and infrastructure, reminding his audience that "we already had a big deficit that I inherited."

On a slightly different note:

Obama ultimately absolved himself of even the communications mistakes he acknowledged. "You know, a couple of great communicators, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, were standing at this podium two years into their presidency getting very similar questions, because, you know, the economy wasn't working the way it needed to be," he said.

I would just like to interject here that when the economy was going bad for both Reagan and Clinton, what got it turned around was lowering taxes and helping businesses, not raising them and bashing business on the head at every opportunity.

Thirdly, Obama says things that are quite alarming when viewed through the lens of history.  His devotion to ‘action’ and ‘doing what is regrettable, but necessary’ are they types of phrases and justifications that dictators use, and have used throughout history.

He said "everybody in the White House understood" that his efforts to rescue the economy might be portrayed as government intrusions into the private sector, but "we thought it was necessary."

His closest admission to a failure of substance was that he failed in his pledge to "change how business is done in Washington." He explained: "We were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn't change how things got done."

But the Piece De Resistance was the last two lines of the story:

Obama's conclusion: "Getting out of here" -- the White House -- "is good for me."

On that, at least, he'll probably get Republican support.

For my part, we could vote on that right NOW.

-KOOK

Finally!,

and Hopefully, the Grown-Ups are back in Washington.  Now it is time for them to get to work.  This is the elephants last dance, if they rise to the occasion and listen to the people and do what they have been sent to do…this should be interesting indeed.  If they get power drunk and think this is a mandate to do all of their pet projects they have sat on for a decade then we will see another violent swing. 

Watching the house the last two years has been like being tied to a chair during a drunken frat party on acid and speed using all our stolen credit cards for the strippers and blow.

Our nation is more and more polarized all the time, but I do still believe that the rabid communists are a minority.  The fact that we are ever more divided does concern me.  It seems as though we are being distilled into more and more pure elements of our ideology.  There is a literal wide no man’s land in the middle now.    Which from the perspective of a constitutional libertarian is a good thing for our side.  I suspect that from a far left moonbat standpoint they like it too.  The loser though is probably our nation as a whole.  It seems we are now drawing the battle lines more clearly than ever before and we may be locked into a battle to the death.  Obviously if the Republicans do not hold up their end of the bargain now, they are done; and it seems last night was a clear repudiation of the Liberal Agenda.  Then again, the 2008 was a clear repudiation of what had become the Republican agenda.  Does this indicate a clear shift to the conservative side, or just a general dissatisfaction in general?

We want our cake and to eat it too, do we not?  I know I for one would love to see entitlements nearly completely eliminated, but even I would not be in for the legitimate suffering, and certain social upheaval that it would cause.  The Other side feels as thought the Democrats have not done enough moving left.  Which is simply incredible to me… mind blowing really. 

We seem to me to be like a car on ice, the wobbles start small and through several over-corrections one way and then the other, the swings get larger and more uncontrolled until finally there is a crash.

But our problems right now are less philosophical and more realistic; we have to stop the bleeding.  We have to put our finances back in order.  My rudimentary political strategizing tells me that the best thing this house could do would be to pass a balanced budget, undo the worst of the damage, and wait until 2012 blaming Reid and Obama all the while.  That will allow a further takeover in 2012 and possibly allow us to repeal decades worth of bad ideas.  I fear that if the Republicans move too far too fast they will just cause  a strong swing the other way and allow Reid and Obama to take the upper hand.  We have them down, they are up against the fence and we need to keep whaling away at them until they are knocked out and the Referee has to pull us off of them.

The die is case, this is a battle for the soul and the future of our nation, we cannot take prisoners.  Democrats are petty and pretty much evil, and proving that in typical fashion, Nasty Botoxi cannot even be gracious in her resounding defeat.  Good riddance.

-KOOK

Missouri 2010 Election Guide and Ballot Measures

It seems as though it is nearly impossible to find out what is going to be on the ballot and who is running and what the ballot measures mean and how a like minded individual might want to vote.  I am very much in favor of secret ballots but I am also bold enough to tell everyone how I voted; or plan to vote.
In Short, here is my plan: Amendment 1 – Yes; Amendment 2 – Yes; Prop A – Yes; Prop B – NO.  Senate: Blunt; House- erg.  Billy long is a weasel and Eckersley is a Democrat.  Make up your own mind on that one. Auditor – Tom Schweich
Missouri has on senate seat open due to the retirement of Christopher “Kit” Bond.  The other one will not come up for grabs until 2012 at which time if there is any justice in the world Claire McCaskill will be voted out so loudly she will fear to come outside her big house ever again.  The choice this year is between Roy Blunt and Robin Carnahan.  Using my tried and true rule of thumbs 1A and 1B (1A- vote Republican if at all possible; 1B- Never vote with anyone attached to the names Carnahan or McCaskill) I will be voting for Roy Blunt. A Carnahan should not be elected to walk your dog.
My district’s house seat is CD7 and the race is between Billy Long and Scott Eckersley. Billy Long is a weasel.  I do not like the man’s personality, and I think he is of dubious character.  I think he tries to pull off the ‘aw shucks’ country boy persona, but I believe he is more of a Vegas high roller.  I know for a fact that he was being texted his answers at one of the candidate forums during the primary. We could have certainly done better by nominating virtually any other candidate in the republican primary.  Scott Eckersley talks a good game, he tries to sound conservative, but he is on the Democratic ticket.  I know a lot of Republicans plan to back Eckersley.  I am not sure I can do that, but I honestly may try.  I really believe Billy Long is Wrong for Missouri – I am just not sure Eckersley is right.
We also have a vote for State Auditor which is between Charles W. Baum,(L), Susan Montee (D) and Tom Schweich, (R). Rule 1A – Vote Republican.  I will vote for Tom Schweich.
Constitutional Amendment 1 – VOTE YES.  A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to require that assessors in charter counties be elected.  This proposal will affect St. Louis County and any country that adopts a charter form of government.  I am always for direct elections; that is the only method to assure any kind of accountability.
Constitutional Amendment 2 VOTE YES
A yes vote on this one will amend the constitution to exempt former POWs homes from being assessed Property Taxes.  POWs are one of the very few groups that I am fully in favor of giving entitlements to.
Constitutional Amendment 3 VOTE YES. 
A yes vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to prevent the state, counties, and other local political entities from imposing any new tax, including sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or real estate.
Preventing Governments from levying new taxes?- Hells Yes I am for that.
Prop A – Vote YES
Let the voters decide if cities in Missouri should be allowed to tax the earnings of people who work in certain cities but live outside those cities.  This is a city earnings tax.  The key here is if you pay city earnings taxes you get a deduction on your state taxes.  Eliminating the city earnings taxes would increase the amount of money flowing into state accounts.    Kind of a tricky issue.  People who work in KC but live in the ‘burbs may have to pay city earnings taxes now to fund things in the city.  This may come at the expense of state projects that would benefit their town.  I can see both sides of this a bit, but again, always in favor of letting voters decide.
Prop B VOTE NO
This is all dressed up as “end puppy mills”, which is a nebulous term at best.  But the meat of the language will do very little of what it intends, in fact in some way it will lessen the regulations.  This is purely an attempt to get animal rights legislation started and would be used as a springboard to go after other animal breeders and producers next, to the detriment of agribusiness and our state economy.  VOTE NO to this BS.

	Republican	Democrat
CD1	Robyn Hamilton	Lacy Clay*
CD2	Todd Akin*	Arthur Lieber
CD3	Ed Martin	Russ Carnahan*
CD4	Vicky Hartzler	Ike Skelton*
CD5	Jacob Turk	Emanuel Cleaver II*
CD6	Sam Graves*	Clint Hylton
CD7	Billy Long	Scott Eckersley
CD8	Jo Ann Emerson*	Tommy Sowers
CD9	Blaine Luetkemeyer

Not sure about CD4 or CD7 but everywhere else, Vote Republican.
*Incumbent

-KOOK