.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
EIB Bumpersticker

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

 

Attacking Non-UH liberalism 'Hispanics Coming Out of Shell w/Immigration Bill' (Both parties to be catering for votes; but liberals will lose again)

Liberals are pandering for illegal immigrant votes. Their words are carefully being tailored towards attracting potential Hispanic voters who are not even legal citizens yet, while at the same time trying to make the Republicans look as bad as possible. And it may well work for a week or two, but you can't fool 'em for long.

But will the Hispanics be attracted to the democratic party? I doubt it.

I mean, looking at what the democrats stand for these days; abortion, which if embraced by the Hispanics and thankfully not, would lessen their familial impact; gay marriage, which if embraced by the Hispanics and thankfully not, would lessen their familial impact; and higher taxes, which if embraced by the Hispanics and thankfully not, would lessen their familial impact. The Hispanic family is arguably the strongest family in the United States. Yes, life is tough, but they have family to help each other thru life.

Everyone in the Hispanic family strives to succeed, to have good news at the next family BBQ or gathering. They are not sitting around collecting welfare; they are working, and working hard. Hispanics houses may not be the finest, their cars may not be the latest, but their family support network and work ethic are among the best, and their reliance on government is among the least. And in time, their efforts will pay off. They're already paying off.

Granted, the liberals have a fair share of the Hispanic vote, but to keep that vote when illegal immigrants are made citizens, the liberals are going to have to change their politics to attract more of them. Democrats will most definitely have to move towards the center and where will that leave the extreme left?

Legal Hispanics, like the Blacks, have been slowly moving to the Republican party after being abandoned by the democrats, and despite what liberals think the Republican party is receptive to Hispanics. I submit that the Republicans have more to offer to Hispanics, not in terms of government benefits, but in terms of opportunities to work and have a chance to be successful in the market. Liberals on the other hand will hogtie the Hispanic family and work ethic just as they hogtied the Black family forcing it to remain on the liberal plantation of intellectual slavery.

Those 500,000 protesters in LA and hundreds of thousands across the country really sent a shockwave in the halls of MoveOn.org and other liberal establishments. It appears that the extreme liberal power structure experienced a jolt this past weekend and that crack is the liberal dam has widened further.

Screw the libs!

Monday, March 27, 2006

 

Attacking Non-UH liberalism 'Are There Any Acceptable Partial Birth Abortions' (Sure -- just one)


Friday, March 24, 2006

 

A Few Random Thoughts - XXXIII

- Bad news for Democrats -- American casualties in the Iraq War are way down.

- The President's spanking of Helen Thomas at his recent news conference definitely shows the liberal media for what they are -- terrorists sympathizers and supporters.

- Laugh at liberals.

- If a liberal tells you something, do or say exactly the opposite and you will be OK.

- We need more UH liberal women taking RU-486.

- The media's touting of President Bush's low poll numbers, reminds me of how Enron touted their profits before their bubble burst. Like Enron, the press skews the numbers to deceive others, and it will come back in their face like a Clinton cumshot.

- Hillary Clinton's recent comments on "Jesus" are uncalled for. God and Democrats simply don't mix.

- Why aren't Big Liberal Media honchos never questioned on their hefty salaries and bonuses when they are laying off liberal journalists by the droves.

- Liberal reporters routinely are found using the same word like gravitas, and towel snapper, etc. Now who exactly who are the mind numbed robots?

- Liberal boys do cry.

 

UH Daily Cougar Crazed and Confused VI (and South Park)

South Park's Trey Parker and Matt Stone have a long way to go to "cross the line."

An episode on Scientology is fair, considering what else they have done in the past, and Isaac Hayes was wrong to quit just because his religion was being lampooned when others have as well.

Matt and Trey should have fired Isaac instead of allowing him to walk.

I say bring on Dave Chappelle as Sous Chef, Chef's cousin, and get on with the damn show.


Thursday, March 23, 2006

 

UH Daily Cougar Looking For a "Leader" for Next Summer and Fall

Well evidently Zach Lee, the Editor in Chief of the UH Daily Cougar is spent. No mas. He's had it. The UH Daily Cougar has dealt him all he can handle.

Who knows what Lee's intentions really are, but it's time to choose a new so-called "leader" for the
Daily Cougar who will be "interested in helping The Daily Cougar evolve into a better newspaper" from the current heaping waist of trees that it already is.

"The deadline to apply for editor in chief of
The Daily Cougar for the Summer and Fall semesters is April 7. Applications are available for students in Room 151 the Communication Building," and "applicants for editor must be juniors or seniors, be in good academic standing and have taken basic journalism courses, among other requirements."

Applications will be reviewed by the Student Publications Committee, and like the
College of Cardinals, they will chose a new "leader," like a Pope, who will take the helm of the Daily Cougar and try to steer it clear of embarrassing the university.

We can only hope and pray that on Passover, Thursday April 13th, when white smoke emanates from the UC Satellite signifying that a worthy "leader" has been chosen, that that person won't wake up on Good Friday morning feeling crucified.

"We're not looking for a specific type of person" Lee said, "just a" liberal.

Screw the libs!

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

 

UH Daily Cougar News Story 'Only the Rich Parking in New Garage' (DC Columnist Nick Somarkis hoping for lower drinking age so he can get laid)

The Shadow reported to me recently that their are less than ten cars that park on the second floor of the new parking garage. What a waste of university and taxpayer dollars so far. I doubt if the garage ever pays for itself, at least not in our lifetimes.

What did I say awhile back? Have a lottery to give away spots in the new parking garage at least for this semester, or make the price halfway affordable. That's liberalism for you, unless it was their idea, no action will be taken. And since when do liberals take action anyway, except for protest against something that is good for America.

In her DC news story today "
Garage permit sales sluggish: Despite University marketing and promotion, parking prices outweigh student's demand," Kelly J. Santos reports that "UH Parking and Transportation Services has sold 406 student parking permits for the new parking garage so far. The building has an overall 1,500-space capacity." Which means that only rich students are able to afford the convienence of parking in the newly constructed garage. Staff to, provided they are not making janitorial wages. This would make a great WIN story, "Only Rich Able to Park in New Parking Garage; Pres. Bush to Blame."

Bob Browand, UH Parking and Transportation Services Director, needs to make a decision quickly to get the garage filled. Like I said, have a lottery so the poor students can have a taste of the 'good life' of parking, and want more next semester. Dope pushers have been doing it for years, and I would say they have been pretty successful in the wards.

Browands comment of "students not being aware the garage is open" is ridiculous, and makes one wonder if those marketing dollars were really wisely spent. It is just a matter of money that students don't have right now, and probably won't have in the future as well.

On the Daily Cougar opinion page today, UH columnist and ex-UH College Democrat officer Nick Somarkis, ever the socialist, is concerned that American 18 year olds are not allowed to drink. Looks like Somarkis' is trying to ruin some kids life with the bottle just so he can find a young drunk cute guy who likes his goatee and wants to bed him.

In his tripe today "
Germany may be on to something," Somarkis like every liberal tries to make illegality legal, this time with allowing 18 year olds the right to drink alcohol.

Somarkis blames the Reagan administration for raising the US drinking age from 18 to 21. At that time the feds held back highway funding until drinking ages were raised, and I think Louisiana was the last state to raise it.

Anyway,
Somarkis calls it "a 22-year-old mistake". I forgot how old Somarkis is, but he is a mistake of about the same age. Somarkis contends that the law leads to "widespread binge drinking and irresponsible alcohol consumption," which it may, but the teens are not buying the stuff of the shelves, which is what the law states. The consumption part is mostly the parents and law enforcements job to stop.

Nick notes cases of stupid 18 year old students who drank way too much and died of alcohol poisoning, and in his stupid mind in order to prevent this we need to change the law. Bull crap.

Somarkis doesn't care about the law. He wants a cute drunk guy to have his way with. Teens are going to get alcohol regardless. I drank moderately as a teen, its the stupid teens that just drink and don't think that make the headlines.

So where does
Somarkis point to in order to show its OK for teens to drink, you guessed it -- Europe -- particularly Germany.

"Germany allows for the consumption of beer and wine at the age of 16. This allows people to build up tolerance and enjoy alcohol without social pressure or dangerous consumption habits,"
Somarkis happily points out. Of course Somarkis doesn't tell the UH weak minded that those habits have been developed over many generations and its now quite normal in Europe. Those habits were not developed in the United States, and to jump right in would be disasterous.

I've lived in Germany for five years starting when I was 18 and I drank responsibly, and had a great time. I still have friends in Germany, and visit every other year. And I can attest that European kids are generally much more mature than American kids. Quite simply European kids can handle their alcohol. That's their way, they drink for enjoyment, not to get drunk. American kids drink to get drunk, case closed.


Somarkis argument for a lowering drinking age, besides his need to get a kid drunk to look at him is that "at 18, you are legally permitted to get married, have children, start a business, purchase a car and purchase a home."

Did you notice Somarkis didn't say "serve in the United States Armed Forces."

That is the only situation in which 18 year old drinking should be allowed. If your willing to serve your country in her armed forces, then you should be able to drink at 18 years old.

Screw the libs!

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

 

UH Daily Cougar Cartoonist John Palamidy 'Chides Big Oil on Profits' (No lib ?'s govt for getting 5X more the profit than Big Oil w/ their taxation)

For every cent that "Big Oil" makes, the government gets five cents. Government wins 5-1 over Big Oil and they don't have to do a damn thing.

Of course UH lead physical plant plumber John H Palamidy, won't draw a giant sized government agent turning Big Oil upside down and shaking them for change.

Big Oil is the fall guy for libs like Palamidy.

John why don't you just stick to plumbing and continue to slop up crap from the pipes instead of posting your crap to the DC.

Screw the libs!

 

UH Daily Cougar Columnist Hasan Rizvi 'Faults Bush for Going to War;Faults Bush for Being a Manly Leader' (Refuses to see any good being done in Iraq)

Liberals are the most impatient people I've ever seen. My God, if this were World War II, the Germans and Japanese would have us on the run, and our liberal media would gladly be cheering the Nazis and Japs along, just as they cheer Code Pink and MoveOn.org on some war anniversary or milestone.

In the mind of failed suicide bomber and
UH Daily Cougar al-Qaeda columnist Hasan Ali Rizvi "America Sucks." Yes, the country that is educating him so he can go back home and become some terrorist hero sucks. The US can nothing right in the mind of this worthless liberal sycophant.

In his tripe today "
Overstayed welcome?," Rizvi is giddy with thoughts of Iraqi Civil War, and cheers on the insurgency which he says "are as strong as ever." Of course no Rizvi column would be complete without lambasting the Bush Administration, who rightly "blame the growing disillusionment with the war on the media for only reporting bad news."

Rizvi is sick, I mean, he literally is hoping and praying that Iraqi erupts into a bloodly mess, just like all the other liberals. Liberals, who claim to be peace loving and kind and gentle, are waiting with bated breath for an entire to blow up just so they can blame it on President Bush, so democrats can get elected.

Of course, the democrats have done nothing, and will continue to do nothing, because they are spineless people who would rather watch and wait and see, than to take action to prevent further occurences from happening.
Hasan Ali Rizvi is a democrat.

Rizvi touts that "the justifications for going to war have proven to be largely false, this won't stop many from spouting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. After reviewing the facts, it seems pretty clear there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." But of course Rizvi won't tell you the UH weak minded student of the documents, the tapes of the meetings with Saddam and his staff, the secret flights under the guise of humanitarian aid that ushered the WMDs out of the country before the invasion. And even though Hasan Ali Rizvi mentions the flights, he downplays their significance to make Bush look as bad as possible.

Rizvi admits the intelligence was faulty. Yes, it was old, but mulitiple countries had the same intelligence. We did the right thing by invading. British Prime Minister Blair did the right thing by being an allie in the invasion as were other countries.

I have a question. If "67 percent of Fox News viewers" are wrong and "there was never any collaborative relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida." Then how do you know.

Are you really al-Qaeda Hasan? Because only real al-Qaeda would know if Iraq an al-Qaeda actually worked together. Both had a common enemy -- the United States, and your worthless explanation how the two entities couldn't work together makes about the same sense as you writing off the secret flights to move WMDs under the guise of humanitarian aid.

Rizvi's and the liberals inability to recognize progress in Iraq continues to boggle my mind. I know its all politically based opposition. I mean if Clinton were at the helm, we would be hearing nothing but praise for our military, and nightly news headlines would herald the latest school named "Bill Clinton Elementary" in Baghdad. But Der Schlick Meister is not at the helm anymore. Clinton was busy sickening the minds of our young and impressionable kids with thoughts of oral sex and cum stained dresses.

Look Hasan Ali, each and every operation that the US military engages in has an exit strategy. Sometimes the exit strategy is to maintain an alert status comparable to the situation. The Korean War ended many years ago, but we have soldiers stationed there. The same thing in Europe and the Persian Gulf Region. As long a country wants US forces helping them protect a peaceful existence then I'm for it.

France kicked out American forces in the mid-1960s, and Iraq may or may not allow Allied forces to remain there. Who knows.

But you can be assured Hasan Ali Rizvi, who would make a great virgin for a suicide bomber because he's not manly and a coward, that the United States exit strategy is a "free and stable Iraq." No more, no less, a free and stable Iraq. My God, I don't see liberals criticizing the Marshall Plan or American actions following WWII or Korea. Building new societies coming off dictatorships takes time, and the new Iraq to this point was built a hell of a lot faster than the United States, which again points to the impatience of liberals.

If anybodys welcome has been "overstayed," it is yours Hasan. You come over here and criticize my country in a time of fucking war no less, giving the other side hope with your worthless Rizvieck thoughts, while making the United States look bad in the whole thing for giving people freedom, my God I hope the FBI has a file on you and your cell.

Screw the libs!


 

UH Daily Cougar Crazed and Confused V


Monday, March 20, 2006

 

UT Daily Texan 'Hundreds Gather in Austin for "Million Musician March" to Protest Iraq War' (Austin liberals advance media action line to bash Bush)

Travis County and Austin protested over the weekend about the war in Iraq. The only problem was -- protest marches across America failed miserably, yet since the protesters advanced the action line of the media, the media welcomed even the smallest protest with open arms.

In a UT Daily Texan news story today, "Musicians march, play to protest war in Iraq," literally "hundreds of people gathered Saturday in downtown Austin" in what was supposed to be a "Million Musician March," in "which participants brought their musical instruments" in hopes of playing "When Johnny Coming Marching Home."

"Protesters chanted "Bush lied, and thousands died" as they arrived at Austin's City Hall. The highlight of the parade was "two women dressed entirely in purple carrying a 4-by-4-foot origami crane."

The liberal UT reporter Kevin M. Callahan hyped his story as much as he could by invoking the D-word -- "draft." He wrote passionately of "Austin resident Steve Stratakos" who was afraid of his son Johnny someday being drafted to fight Bush's liberally illegal war.

Incredibly, some stupid people who attended came "from other states came down to show their support. Some made the trip from as far as the West Coast. One worthless protester said, "We came all the way from Alaska," and made one wonder how he polluted the environment on his way to Texas. Was it by polluting the upper atmosphere via a plane, or by polluting the Alcan Highway by taking away wildlifes breathable air by using a motor vehicle.

Of course, to make the event complete, you had the worthless al-Qaeda loving organizations such as "CodePink Austin, a self-described women's grass-roots peace and social justice movement."

That's Travis County for you, the only county in the state to vote for gay marriage. I'm ashamed I have relatives in Austin.

Screw the libs!

 

Attacking Non-UH liberalism '$40 For a Tank of Gas' (Liberals to blame from A to Z)

I am sick and tired of high gas prices.

I know that the price of oil is set by the world market. I know that when big oil companies are called on their big profits no one ever questions government on their windfall profits. And, I know that liberals have prevented the United States from actively pursuing oil deposits on our own shores, while putting us in the position of potentially paying $5 per gallon of gas, and throwing us into a potential world energy crisis in the near future.

For liberals who believe in incrementalism, they are surely looking for the quick fix when it comes to finding new sources of energy. The transferring of an entire nation from gas vehicles to other forms of transportation such as with hybrids is going to take an entire generation if not two or more, and liberals want it like yesterday with inferior and unproven technology.

Developing a standard for a system takes a while. Does anyone remember the BETA video players and recorders? They have been garbage for nearly twenty years now after the VCR standard was developed. That of course was replaced by the DVD which we have now, and that will be replaced in the future as well. But it took time for those standards to be developed.

Standards have to be developed or the public will be confused. And the public, which is the market, drives the standard with their purchases. Hence VCR beat BETA and gas vehicles currently overrule hybrids. The product has to be reasonably priced for the public to accept it. How do you think Henry Ford got to be so successful.

Since the media has hyped just about everything they have reported, the notion that we are destroying the world with fossil fueled vehicles is ridiculous. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 released more VOCs into the Earth's atmosphere than man has ever created since the start of the industrial revolution, and Pinatubo put all the VOCs in the air at one time, and we are still here. The Earth only cooled a little bit, but again, we are still here.

I agree that we need to look for alternative ways to fuel our homes, vehicles, and businesses, but again, standards need to be set that the market will accept and express confidence in. Liberals are trying to bottleneck us into making purchases of truly untested technologies, which are outrageously expensive and in the long run will cause more harm than good.

I recently looked into adding solar panel technology to the Northern Command house. Incredibly, if you only want to knock $50 to $75 off your monthly bill an initial investment of nearly $20,000 is going to be required. $20,000, to go the liberal way of only saving $50 to $75 off your home or business electricity bill. Of course, it will only take 20 years or more to get your investment back. That's a worthless option for the house, but its comparable to hybrid vehicles because you pay more for hybrids than with gas only, and you continue to lose more money than you would with gas only.

In hindsight, the Clinton Administration screwed up ten years ago when Der Schick Meister vetoed drilling in ANWR. If Clinton would have signed that bill, we wouldn't be facing a major energy crisis now, and most certainly we wouldn't be facing $2.50 - $3.00 gas right now, even with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The liberal attitude of democrats in preventing the US from adding fossil fuel refineries has hurt us, and will continue to hurt us. We were fine as long as China and India were not buying more of the worlds oil, but now that they are in the picture, the system has become strained because the overseas suppliers of oil now have to meet the demands of several more billion humans, and since we are only 300 million we are definitely hurting. Where were the futurists back in the 1970s with their calls on India and China wanting oil?

Rules and regulations have devastated American oil companies urges for the building of new refineries, and building just one refinery literally takes years and is very expensive. Years that we don't have if we want to continue with a strong economy. We have to take care of ourselves now by drilling for our own oil, but liberals will be against this even if it brings on the great world energy crisis that CNN sees later in the decade. Thank you liberals, who would gladly sacrifice your first born to save some endangered roach.

We never hear liberals wanting to bring hybrid technology to the rest of the world where is really needed. Europe is much more than the United States, and you never hear liberals crying about that. Mexico just announced an increase in drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and I've yet to hear any liberal respond to that. But if the US drills in the Gulf, or along the Atlantic, Pacific, or dare say Alaska, then all liberal hell breaks loose. You see, liberals only want the American economy to fail, so they can blame the Republicans along with their friends in the liberal media, and then hope that the American public buys it and elect liberals back into power.

For the time being we need to be drilling oil for ourselves, building more refineries, and telling the world that we are going to take care of our own problem, but at the same time we need to be developing reasonably priced alternative means for fueling our homes, cars, and businesses for the future. In time, the market, not liberals, will make the right choice, and choose hybrid over fossil fuels. But with liberals forcing the market we are getting all this chaos.

No liberal has told me how a hybrid battery is to be disposed of when it runs its course? Where is their concern for the environment? No liberal has ever told me how poor people are suppose to afford expensive hybrid vehicles? Where is their concern for the poor?

Hybrid vehicles are much more expensive than gas vehicles, and offer no real savings over the life use of the said vehicle. I've heard that battery replacement cost for hybrid vehicles is roughly $8,000, which is just about the gas savings that car owners save over the life of the battery. But don't forget, hybrid owners paid much more for that vehicle than the owner of a regular gas vehicle. So it doesn't make no sense to me at all to purchase a hybrid at this time unless the buyer can truly save money and help the environment at the same time.

Of course liberals, who like liberal journalists, think they are "saving the world" with their costly hybrid purchases. But in the meantime the liberals are forcing a scenario of inferior and potentially unsafe technology that is way before its time.

I'm not saying that hybrid technology is bad, of course not. But I am saying that the current hybrid technology can most definitely be the BETA version of the future standard hybrid battery that will emerge. The technology is so complex that the standard may not be ready for 20, 30, or 40 years, but I'm confident that a standard will be developed.

In the meantime, by liberals throwing away the current reliable technology of the combustion engine and limiting our abilities to process fossil fuels we are inviting $5 per gallon gasoline and a collapse in not only the US, but the world economy.

Again, I say "thank you white liberals" and especially "thank you liberal media." With your hyped news and refusal to face the building tidal wave of facts to the situation, you have damned us. You liberals have attacked the rich people that employ the poor people, and have forced those rich people to make decisions that have got us to this point. You liberals have taken a $30 per day hospital stay from 40 years ago into the poor being serviced in ERs for headaches. You liberals have falsely persuaded the poor people to bend to your needs, by forcing them to abortions and telling them that the poor can't survive without you.

And now those poor people will only get poorer not because of the rich, but because they have been forced to pay extra for everyday necessities because of increased fuel costs brought about by the worthless policies of the liberals selfishness.

I'm for alternative fuels. Hell, if solar panels were affordable enough to pay for themselves in an little as two years, I'd buy that technology immediately. Buts that not the case. Over time it will be, but liberals have to learn to be incremental with alternative fuels as they were with their homosexual, anti-smoking, and minority politics.

By liberals forcing expensive alternative fuels on us before it is truly accepted by the market, while still turning down American efforts to drill and increase its own production of gasoline, we will continue to pay $40 dollars per fill-up of gas.

Screw the libs!

Saturday, March 18, 2006

 

A Few Random Thoughts - XXXII

- Bad news for Democrats. The economy is booming.
.
- The Washington Post recently laid off 10% of its newsroom staff in a booming economy. (They won't admit that their journalism is causing the layoffs).

- Liberals claim that the US is destroying the world with pollution, but they won't let wind farms or fuel saving efforts in the own liberal back yards.

- Liberals have now killed more American fetuses than Joseph Stalin killed Russians.

- We need to get some liberals on Vice President Cheney's next hunting trip.

- The drive-by media claims that Operation Swarmer is "politically motivated," but they will never mention the bombing of aspirin factories, Operation Desert Fox, etc. during the Clinton Administration, which were truly politically motivated.

- We are still waiting on the liberals Contract with America (more abortions, more gay marriage, surrender to the terrorists).

Thursday, March 16, 2006

 

Back at the Northern Command following short Spring Break Trip

While on my short spring break trip, I made it a point not to check e-mail, watch the depressing liberal news, or even talk to anyone about any issue whatsoever, even though my motorhome is more than capable of satisfying all those needs. I was more interested in hiking, biking, riding horses, and lastly and most relaxing fishing.

When I returned last night to the Northern Command, I was again pelted with liberal negativism and dreaded checking my e-mail from my liberal connections to find out how much more liberals hate President Bush and how much farther his poll numbers have fell.

Since my girlfriend and family were off visiting other family, my sister's kids asked if they could do some fishing. Since Lake Conroe is low, we headed to Lake Livingston, and come to find out that lake was low as well. No matter, we still had fun. At night, we played Texas No Hold 'Em and whoever lost had to do something crazy, like run in front of the Motorhome for five seconds in their underwear. Thankfully I never lost, but no one saw anyway.

I was glad to see a growing number of Black RVers in my stay. I only saw one democrat sticker in my biking, and I was temped to yell out "liberal" but that would not have been the nice RVer thing to do seeing as those campers were already miserable.

Spring break for me is a time of renewal. A time to get away from everything, and a time to reflect. I wish everyone could get away for a week free from liberal influence. Perhaps people under their influence might actually begin to believe in themselves.

Friday, March 10, 2006

 

UH Daily Cougar Cartoonist Arturo Gonzalez 'Hates the Marines but loves the Taliban' (Pissed that US Marines are now allowed back on liberal campuses)

Today's editorial cartoon from controversial UH Daily Cougar cartoonist Arturo Gonzalez is in protest to the recent Supreme Court decision that reverses liberal universities decisions that forced military recruiters from their liberal premises yet still accepted government money.

Liberal universities like Taliban U, aka
Yale University, which banned recruiters from campus, yet recently and proudly accepted the Taliban's former spokesman Rahmatullah Hashemi as an undergrad, yet they refused to allow military recruiters on campus was a disgrace.

The Supreme Courts unanimous decision gives universities the choice to either accept government money and let recruiters on campus, or go their own way without government funds.




Gonzalez, as many of you will remember is responsible for the infamous editorial cartoon of last September 19th that looks the same as the cartoon of last September 16th, and is seen here, because then racist Opinion Editor James Davis and then racist Editor in Chief Matt Dulin could not collect all the hardcopy papers that were scattered on campus with the offending cartoon after it was distributed.

Arturo has never really apologized for his drive-by cartoon which insulted the evacuees nor will Gonzalez apologize to the military services which protect his ass and allow him to insult them.

Evidently
Gonzalez, like Bill Clinton and many liberals, loathes the military.

The
UH Daily Cougar, well at least the opinion page, is an embarrassment to UH. Liberals hating America, loving the enemy, hating the military, loving the enemy, loving death, hating life and anything associated with happiness.

Looking at the recent Washington Post annoucement that 10% of their liberal newsroom is being laid off, I take schadenfreude in the fact that the vast majority of those in the DC newsroom will never even be considered for employment in liberal news havens.

Screw the libs!

Thursday, March 09, 2006

 

Attacking Non-UH liberalism 'Congress Goes Crazy on the Ports Deal' (DPW kills the deal, bring on Halliburton or Wal-Mart; Patriot Act Renewed)

I hate election year issues especially when they are rank with emotionalism and are hellbent for leather without taking time to look around and see the consequences to ones actions.

The Royal Family of Dubai asked for and secured a forty-five day extension, and took unprecedented steps to bring openness to the deal and quell any national security issues associated with them running the ports terminals, but Congress has gone ape on day six and have finally forced the sinking of the deal.

I would have hoped that the UAE would have embarked on a PR effort to express calm just as Saudi Arabia did following 9/11. But that is now just a dream. Since Dubai Ports World killed the deal and not the UAE, that leaves the door open for Secretary of State Rice to clean up this mess, and allow the UAE to recover economically while saving face.

I'm still trying to be as optimistic as I can.

Has anyone looked at the economics of the terminal deal? Does anyone know the difference between a terminal and a port? Since when have the liberals cared about national security since 9/11?

We have nothing to fear from the UAE militarily. Now economically, that's a different ballgame. If the UAE buys control of a good peace of the world, that could be hurtful to the US economy in the future.

Then again.

In trying to make sense of the fast moving news of today. The House GOP says one thing, the Senate agrees, then DPW kills the whole thing. The news is moving to fast to disgest.

Now I'm postive that the White House and the UAE Royal Family were talking on the phone the whole morning and part of the afternoon, which prompted the DPW press release. So something is up, and we have yet to get the whole story. And when we do, I believe democrats will be thoroughly embarrassed when an American company that they hate will be installed as the new owner of the ports and terminals (can you say Halliburton or Wal-Mart).

I'm starting to think that this could have been a brilliantly maneuvered coup by President Bush. Hell, maybe we can get drilling in ANWR finally passed since liberals are starting to hate all Arabs as part of being tough on national security in this election year. Even Chuckie Schumer says he supports Halliburton taking over the port terminals in question, but that when he was younger, so he could change his mind.

It's funny to see that liberals have been caring more about "terrorist rights" while avoiding comment on the terrorists who actually chop off the heads of Americans, and then in an election year they are trying to take the lead on national security with this deal, it is truly a crock on their part. The Republicans are not to go without blame either since many of them got caught up in the emotionalism stirred up by the drive-by media.

I'm still convinced that Americans are unaware of the facts surrounding the ports terminals deal. Do they know that the ChiCom's have control of terminals on the left coast. Where were they when the ChiCom's were trying to take control of those areas back during Clinton's Administration.

Prior to the DPW announcement I had a growing concern that the US may be blindsided with headlines that US ships would no longer be allowed to dock and refuel in the UAE. US university satellite and businesses campuses could be kicked out of the UAE. Boeing's deal with the UAE to by jets would die in favor of Europe's Airbus, but hopefully all that might be saved. In the end, the UAE needs the US as much as the US needs the UAE, and we can work out a solution so that both countries can prosper.

It's been a hell of a day so far. I still haven't heard anything hard from the lib media on the Indian Nuclear Deal, which takes the Russians out of dealing with Iran nuclear wise, and another annoucement of setting up a "Radio Free Iran" station in of all places -- the UAE.

And of course, the President signed the renewal of the Patriot Act.

All in all, I would say -- it has been a great day.

Screw the libs!

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

 

UH Daily Cougar 'On International Women's Day' (What do they run?)

Yeah, the posting of a woman with her legs spread on International Women's Day is a great idea.

Who checks the calendar over there at the DC anyway?

Sabrina M. Rodriguez's Daily Cougar news story "DeLay makes final ballot," was an unceremonious display as usual in the DC for election stories that were dominated by Republicans. At least they didn't run with Chris Bell winning the Dems nomination for Governor to run against Rick Perry, like most of the other news outlets were doing.

I believe with Tom DeLay's overwhelming victory last night that sent shockwaves thru the Nick Lampson campaign who expected him to be in a run-off or barely garner 50% of the vote, and of course Rodriguez had to remind everyone who already knows "that this is first election win since being indicted" for good 'ol Tom.

I also wanted to congratulate Dan Patrick and his win in SD7. A State Senator with a Talk Show on the grounds will make for interesting votes on taxes in future legislative sessions.

Thanks to the DeLay voters of District 22. Thanks for sticking by Tom who has done less wrong than any liberal democrat would do. I'm sure that they will be watching the new "Fahrenheit DeLay" movie, that will do nothing but embolden more District 22 Conservatives to go out in November and trounce Nick Lampson 80-20.

Liberals can cry wolf some many times, and their allotted number is already way past.

P.S. Elly, I've been waiting for the "special links" to be posted to the WIN site, and I would remove the UH Leftist TV designation from the blog links area. Is that in the works?

Screw the libs!

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

 

UH Conservatives 'Go Vote!!!!' (Liberals can too!)


I almost forgot since I voted early. GO VOTE!!!!

Whether you are Conservative or dare I say -- Liberal.

GO VOTE in the primary of your choice.

 

UH Daily Cougar Columnist David Salinas 'On the liberal teachers hateful comments to his students' (Only sorry that Jay Bennish was caught)

Today UH Daily Cougar columnist and resident cotton picker David Salinas is trying to distance the liberal kook teacher who has been at the core of liberal embarrassment for the past week or so for making liberal statements equating Bush with Hitler, justifying 9/11 from the terrorists perspective, and in the meantime hating America just like every other liberal does.

In his tripe today "That's a podium, not a soapbox," David Salinas is pissed over some "Rush Baby" taping an off-topic lecture from some leftist bent public school teacher in Denver shortly after President Bush's most recent State of the Union address.

Salinas does not apologize for the teachers attempt to turn his entire class into leftists, he does apologize for his getting caught in the form of distancing what the wacko Bennish said and what the democratic party stands for. (I'll let you know as soon as they emerge from the super secret meeting for finding core values -- As a Conservative, I didn't realize that you have to have super secret meetings to find out what you stand for).

Salinas knows the democratic party is in trouble and beholding to the kook left that Bennish is a party too, hell, Bennish is probably is a member of MoveOn.org, and every other kook fringe group out there that has hijacked the dems and have run the party into the ground. Now even faster with non-fund raising Howard Dean at the helm.

As a teacher myself, I've never forced my views on a student like this wacko Jay Bennish has done.

Salinas even takes a swipe at this blog when he wrote, "despite what the obscure, maniacal conservative "bloggers" believe, Bennish is not an example of "the left." Au contraire David, Bennish's comments are just what the left is looking for, and he might be the liberals next Cindy Sheehan until he gets thrown out with the rest of the liberal garbage.

David frowns on high school debate labeling it "not productive," but if the arguments are clear, concise, and not offensive, then all is well. Bennish's comments were very offensive, and he now needs to realize that students in this day and age are smarter, and now have the technology to take from the classroom teacher comments that have to be defended or the teacher risks losing credibility and possibly their job.

Salinas doesn't believe in today's youth. He looks on them as tomorrows liberal dependent voter, unable to make decisions for themselves without asking some wanna-be goverment liberal like him for advise on what to do. Whom to vote for, or where to get her abortion.

It's obvious that David Salinas does not like Conservatives, nor Conservative educators. That fact manifested itself well before 9/11 in his liberal utopia, and will continue to control his life. When he is pelted with the truth that "liberals don't care about foreign policy" he becomes enraged. He boasts that his liberal grandfather served in World War II, which is fine, but did his liberal father spit on soldiers returning from Vietnam?

When Salinas can put multiple paragraphs together in protest of liberal professors as passioniately as he did in protest of a Conservative one in his tripe today, then he might be more believable as a columnists who supposedly detest Jay Bennish's comments as compared to a liberal who welcomes them.

Someone sent an e-mail recently asking what is the difference between Jay Bennish and UH's Bob Buzzanco. I said in reply, "nothing, except that Buzzanco gets paid much more and probably has an expense account." A lighter side of Buzzanco on Bush is posted here.


Screw the libs!

Monday, March 06, 2006

 

Attacking Non-UH liberalism 'Ports Deal Story Dying; Cheney Story Dead' (Liberals looking for next Bush scandal)

I woke this morning looking for more Bush scandal. It's gotta be out there, and knowing liberals if they can't find scandal, they'll make it up.

Where is Cindy Sheehan when you really need her? Perhaps the liberals were taking a break from the Oscars? eh. I know the libs were crushed about Brokeback Mountain.

My bet is that since the elections are nearing, the liberals cannot run on a "hate Bush" platform and expect to get elected. Especially when their side cannot offer a plan to counter anything that Republicans have done, except a liberal platform of denial and hate.

It seems that everywhere I've turned, liberals are hoping against hope that civil war will encompass Iraq. Why? Because it hurts President Bush. A man, who cannot run for office again, yet liberals continue to spend countless dollars on him to destroy his reputation. Money that cannot be taken back against a bonifide GOP challenger in '08.

Back in the days when liberals were hyping President Clinton's approval highs, so now the liberal media is hyping President Bush's approval lows. In the last ridiculous poll, less than 25% of the respondents were Republican, and when the Independents mirrored the Democrats responses, something has to be wrong. Hell, why don't they give Bush a 0% percent approval rating. But remember, whatever Bush's approval numbers Congresses are routinely %10 lower, and then liberal Congress members have to be even lower than that.

In a day, when Hollywood liberals glorify themselves at the Oscars, and do not once mention our troops fighting overseas, but find time to down Vice President Cheney with making really bad jokes about him, they show why people are continually refusing to by tickets to worthless Hollywood products.

I can't wait till Spring Break. I'm going to spend the first part in Garner, and the rest of the week at the Northern Command before heading back to Midtown.

Ruben Borges' guest column "Freedom of press makes no apologies," which was probably in reponse to the DC's Friday drive-by newstory about the Muslim Student Association who protested near the M.D. Anderson Library last Thursday, putting in their two-cent to protest the Danish Muhammad cartoon controversy. This mornings Daily Texan also had a story about the so-called "civil strife" in Iraq, yet there are reporters on the ground in Iraq asking "where is the civil war?" If American newspapers don't have enough balls to run the cartoons, them why are they running all these protest stories about the cartoons and so-called civil war? I suppose to make Bush look bad again. That's fine with me, since the media has overextended its credit with the American public, and I'm a believer in a GOP sweep in the '06 elections due to the wrongs of the media.

With liberals, America is always wrong.

When liberals are denying anything the least bit positive our military leaders have to say, like liberal non-Marine Jack Murtha, who called Marine General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a liar about his views on Iraq. Liberals don't know anything about Iraq because they refuse to leave the Green Zone and go away from the western comforts offered in the hotels to report the real news on Iraq.

Liberals want helpless people for their constituency. Liberals hate people who are white and rich. Just looking at WINs production as of late. Except for Melissa Correa's story on hiring more police officers, the rest of their stories are about or ultimately are about rich white people, and rich people of other races are never to blame.

I can't help it that rich white people make the world go around, but there is plenty of opportunities for Blacks and Hispanics to make it out there, and they are making it, with little or no news coverage.

With liberals, the poor cannot make it without them.

That's why Jesse Jackson will always cry racism even when we have a Black President, and white liberals will always self-loath and hate America, even if liberals win everything, which will not happen again.

I'm still looking for the next Bush scandal, because as with the liberal Chicken Little media -- the sky is always falling.

Screw the libs!

Thursday, March 02, 2006

 

The Crazy World of UH Leftist TV II












(Click to enlarge)

Liberals are incapable of findng fault in other liberals, or liberalism itself.

No, liberals just go around punishing American success stories as with WIN's Wal-Mart story. Wal-Mart works with governments who want their business. Baytown wants their business. Texas wants their business.

Liberal enclaves such as Chicago, Maryland, etc, do not want Wal-Mart's business, or are using Wal-Mart as another source of government income, and that will drive Wal-Mart to drastic measures in those areas. Personally, I hope Wal-Mart leaves all liberal areas. I'd pay good money to see what happens with a sudden Wal-Mart pullout.

I'm glad that Wal-Mart will not take it up the ass, when sniveling WIN libs come a calling.

Screw the libs!

 

Attacking Non-UH liberalism 'Ports Deal Hype Cooling' (Experts now interjecting their insight; ports deal will be safe)

I've talked of patience throughout this whole port deal controversy and now its starting to come back on those who went out on that long limb of emotionalism to cry wolf.

Now that we are in a discovery period the experts are starting to chime in and bring some reality to the deal.

In Zach Haverkamp's DC news story today "DPW no new threat for U.S.: Professors weigh in on concerns about firm in America," he interviewed Prof. Thomas O'Brien who basicly echoed what I've been saying. "They've got experience managing ports around the world, so I doubt it's going to change very much," O'Brien said. "I doubt people working at the ports here in the United States ... (are) going to notice much change at all, except for the logo on their paycheck."

O'Brien's biggest concern in reference to the ports is from the "U.S. weakness in customs screening," since very few of the containers are checked at the ports.

A CNSNews.com report "Security Experts Counter Dem Attacks on Port Deal" showed calm and rational checks on DPW in their approvals, as compared to harsh attacks by democrats, in which "Rear Adm. Craig Bone, director of inspection and compliance at the U.S. Coast Guard, rejected some of the criticism that has been leveled at the Bush administration following its initial approval of the DPW takeover of the ports."

The inspectors admitted that their political guard was down on this deal, but to me that should not be their concern. Let the politicians handle that since it's their jobs.

Despite recent reports that the Coast Guard was questioning the deal, they recently came out and annouced that all their concerns about the ports deal have been satisfied.

This ports deal controversy will remain with us for now until the next big media-hyped "Bush Scandal" hits, and that will be that. Can you say "Cheney retiring following the mid-term elections."

Screw the libs!

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

 

UH Daily Cougar Guest Columnist Ryan Loyd 'To Pack or Not To Pack' (When your life is on the line; screw school rules)

Liberals hate guns.

I once asked a liberal who would not buy a gun, nor have one in his house for personal protection, "if it came down to killing a burglar with a gun or letting the burglar kill your wife, what would you do?" Needless to say, the liberal was speechless, because when the metal meets the meat, that liberal would probably let his wife die so that he can be true to his philosophy. And if the woman is pregnant with twins, then the liberal cultural of death wins big time. Three dead for the price of one.

That aside. Today
UH Daily Cougar guest columnist Ryan Loyd brings up a good point, and seeing as I recently took my concealed handgun training and am now packing on campus, I can answer that question. Of course it won't sit well with UH liberals when they find out that their is a gun on campus.

In his piece today "
UH should be up in arms over arms," Ryan Loyd brings to question why students cannot bring firearms onto campus while people with criminal intent do bring firearms on campus and are able to rob and possibly kill you at their will.

Unless you have a concealed handgun license, you have no business carrying a gun in Harris County outside of your house. The District Attorney has made it plan and clear that he will prosecute anyone who violates the law by carrying a handgun without a license. So am I not encouraging anyone to carry without the proper license.

Also, don't let liberals state that guns on campus will make it look like the Wild West. Five will get you ten, that the crime rate will fall just as it did when the concealed carry law was passed.

People who are licensed to carry concealed weapons, such as myself are aware that the you CAN CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS ON CAMPUS, but of course there are several limitiations, and I will get to that.

The following is according to the UH:

"Disciplinary Code.
3.13
Possession of Dangerous Weapons — Unauthorized possession of a firearm, weapon, dangerous chemicals, or any explosive device of any description (including compressed-air guns, pellet guns, BB guns, shotguns, or illegal knives) or the ammunition of any firearm or other dangerous weapon or explosive device on University grounds. (A weapon in your vehicle constitutes possession.)"

The keywords of course being "Unauthorized possession." If you are licensed by the State of Texas to carry a handgun, then their are certain times you can carry and other times that you cannot carry concealed handguns on campus, and it can be a little tricky.

In PC 46.035 UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE of the TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS and Selected Statutes pamphlet, which is handed out during handgun training, in Section F(3) Premises is defined. ""Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk, or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking areas.

So if you are licensed, you can carry a firearm on campus in those areas that are not considered a premises, and use a fireaem when you feel your life is really threatened. And be careful where you shoot, because third party injures or deaths are the licensees responsibility.

Now of course buildings and especially classrooms are off limits (PC 46.03 (a)(1)) even for concealed handgun licensees, that's understandable since we don't any liberals taken out for saying anything liberal. But if its late at night and a responsible lady has to walk across a dark campus at night way out to a far parking lot, and if her weapon is on her person, then I'm not going to make a big deal of it if she possessed a concealed weapon while in a premises. But liberals will and maybe the law, but that's where the law gets fuzzy because how are you going to protect yourself on a dark night unless you have quick access to a firearm.

PC 46.035 Section B(2) notes that licensees cannot carry "on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a handgun is used in the event." So, we cannot carry weapons into UH athletic or other events either.

I don't agree when Loyd says, "I have a concealed handgun license, but to carry it on campus would be a gross violation of school policy." If it's concealed, who is going to know. As long as he doesn't carry a weapon into a building on campus, or a building that has a state approved sign with the proper verbage, or a UH atheletic event, then he can carry his weapon with a clear conscious.

I don't know about the dorms, but seeing as they are University premises, the only safe place to store a weapon for concealed carry licensees would be their cars. Then again, if the dorms do not have the proper state signs, then firearms would be allowed by holders of concealed carry permits seeing as dorms are residences.

I look at my concealed weapon as an insurance policy. I have it, but I hope to never use it, and risking arrest after protecting my life because some worthless thug wanted my wallet is a risk I will take. And I am a good shot.

As long as campuses have rules of no guns on campus, robbers will always see easy marks at UH. UH might at well advertise "free money from campus law-abiding students via robbery at gunpoint" on campus. There is no way that UHPD can protect us every minute of every day, not even "100 yards from the police department."

I encourage all UH Conservatives to go to a concealed handgun training course. Its about $99, and then you make an application to the state which is about $140, and eight weeks after thatn you will be ready when a thug makes you a UH target of opportunity.

"We should have the ability to defend our lives by any means necessary." If the University can add "unless you have a valid concealed handgun permit" to the current discplinary code, that would be nice. But don't let that stop you from carrying a concealed handgun on campus.

If you feel that you should carry a weapon on campus and are licensed, by all means do. But remember, follow the rules. Because no matter what liberals will tell you, Texas state law does supercede those that any UH policy can offer. I play by the rules, and I know the University can't touch me. I would rather defend myself after an incident being alive with an assailant dead, than being dead myself having followed UH's holier than thou rules.

Screw the libs!

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?