Who says the homeland security report did not target veterans and other patriots?

On page 4A of today's Denton Record Chronicle is a AP story by Eileen Sullivan of the Associated Press entitled "Homeland Security Secretary Apologizes."
Apparently the deranged Janet Napolitano met with the American Legion on Friday to apologize for a "right wing extremism report" written by her agency.
She "blamed one of her agency's analysts for prematurely sending out the intelligence assessment to law enforcement."
So, does throwing your subordinates under the bus count as an apology?
Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota called her "stark raving mad."
Rep. Michael Burgess (my Congressman) told Fox News that she needs to step down.
Question:
Does king barack have the sense to fire her?
barack's first question should be: "why didn't any of you morons tell me that Napolitano was a lunatic?"
The second question should be: "what do we need to do to get rid of her?"

Cougar punishment...

It looks like someone took this crime seriously after all. One of those women that victimize younger boys got 5 years in the pen from a jury for sexually assaulting a 13 year old boy.
According to the story, the boy did not want to tell, but his parents tricked him by leading him to believe they had installed a camera in the room, and asked the boy if there is something he wanted to tell them before they viewed the video.
That's one for the good guys.

FYI, just because someone asked.

I call him king barack, once again for those of you who weren't paying attention the first time, because he thinks that he is the king, and his followers call his administration his "reign."

He exhibits terribly puerile behavior when all of this programs don't go through Congress just the way he wrote them. He simply can't understand why we are not all falling down before him.

And because our democratic form of government is in danger from this man.

More upset about Obama than me!?!

I just wanted to thank Denny at "bostonlegalsass" for this link. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I wonder if the rest of the country is starting to see the folly of the Obamanation.

Denton Mayor to Saudi Arabia?

Why in the world is the Mayor of Denton going to visit Saudi Arabia? Is it not enough that our President bow down before him? Does he also need that from leaders of small towns, as well? I did not know that Mark was a democrat.
By the way, who is paying for this unbelievably frivolous trip around the world?

Good Question

A little girl was next door visiting with the neighbor lady, and as they talked over milk and cookies, the woman asked the child, "What would you like to do when you grow up?"
The child responded, "I would like a job that lets me help homeless people."
"How nice," the lady said.
The child said, "There is a homeless man there, I wish I could help him."
The lady replied, "Well, how about this: if you mow my lawn and wash my car, I will give you $50 and you can go and give it to the homeless man."
The little girl stopped eating, blinked a couple of times, and then thoughtfully said, "Why don't I bring him here and he can mow the lawn and wash the car, and then you can give him the $50?"

Welcome to the Republican Party, little girl.

Another letter to the editor makes the paper

Well, well, the DRC published one of my letters (you have to scroll down a bit). I thought you should hear it from me before you hear about it from a stranger:

A letter to Obama
Mr. President:
Do you want to see the biggest threat to national security? Simply gather your Cabinet and closest advisors around yourself and take a group picture.
You must stop this continuous apologetic talk about your own country. You are empowering those who would take our freedom and destroy us.
This is the greatest nation on Earth. It is a place where, at least up to now, we were free to chart our own destinies without the government impeding progress. And by the way, you really need to get a leash on the EPA; it is out of control.
Kevin Henry,
Denton

The Administration needs a lesson in who the enemy is.

They won't call the people we have been fighting since 9-11 terrorists, but they don't have any trouble labeling American patriots as "terrorists". Janet Napolitano, the director of the Department of Homeland Security under "king barack the enabler" has issued a report warning against conservative terrorism. I have already heard sound bites of her apologizing the the American Veterans for some contents of the report warning that American Veterans were a danger as potential conservative "terrorists." Here is a link to a pdf file of the Department of Homeland Security Report. This is the response of the current administration to the TEA Party phenomenon: to label us as potential terrorists.
First, they try to freeze our first amendments freedoms with this so called "Fairness Doctrine" which is nothing more than a tool to drive conservative talk shows out of business.
Now, they are trying to label patriots, conservatives, Christians, and Veterans as potential terrorist threats.
My God, do any of you left wingers regret what you have done by putting this lunatic in the Whitehouse?

king barack keeps selling us out

I have never seen nor heard of an American President more willing to sell out his nation than this guy. If you haven't heard, the President, his highness king barack, is down in Mexico selling us out to the world. He is telling the world that we (the United States) are to blame for the drug corruption and drug cartels operating in Mexico. He says that we in America provide the market for these cutthroat thugs.
Can you believe that guy?
He was so willing to sell us out, to bow and scrape before the arab nations, to bad mouth and demean his own nation in Europe, but that wasn't enough.
If we are so bad, why aren't there drug cartels operating north of the border, too?
Does he say that because we have so many drug addicts running loose around here?
Do the drug addicts run around loose because the the way the liberal left has hamstrung law enforcement?
Mr. President, my fellow citizens and I are not responsible for the criminal activity south of the border. What happens in Mexico is the responsibility of Mexico and the Mexican government, such as it is. The person ultimately responsible for evil that is done is the evil doer.
Next, king barack will be blaming a rape victim for wearing revealing or sexy clothing; it will be the fault of the robbery victim for having money in his pocket; it will be the fault of the murder victim for not dodging the bullet.
How in the world are we to blame for evil drug lords murdering and maiming innocent people?
He also said that 90% of the guns they use come from the US. How in the hell does he figure that? Those weapons are bought on the black market, and the last time I heard, the black market was already illegal.
This President is no leader, he is a butt kissing coward.

TEA PARTY

There is a TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party going on outside the Wise County Courthouse right now. It is a good time for all of us.
It is inspiring to see real Americans asserting themselves over the liberal rabble that usually hogs all of the attention.
People want their freedom from taxes and the huge government. People want America to lead the world and not just be another third world spectator waiting to see who the next psychotic dictator to try to take over the world will be.
I enjoyed the rally, and I hope there are more.
(I am kicking myself for not having my camera with me to take some pictures.)

The funniest TV show ever

I have put a poll on the right.
What do you think is the funniest TV show ever?
If I missed any really funny ones (and I'm sure I did); let me know.

North Texas or West Texas?

This reminds me of those wonderful Spring days in Lubbock when the sky would be orange for two weeks at a time as New Mexico blew over. One felt as though one were being entombed by the orange dirt.
Can you smell the smoke? How many out of control grass fires do you suppose are going out there?

Nothing good can come of this...

"I would not go out and begin using drugs because they were legal and I do not smoke cigarettes. What could be better than taking the profit away from the killers and dealers." writes one commentor.
You might not use drugs even if they were legal, but alot of people would. Is there any doubt in your mind that many people are deterred from these things because there are criminal penalties attached to getting caught? You might not get caught, but then again you might. I have seen alot of examples of drug induced stupidity in the presence of police officers. There is no point in criminalizing things people never want to do. Murder, robbery, theft, etc. are illegal because if these things were legal, people would be more inclined to steal what they wanted or murder their fellow man just because the guy needed killing. Is there any doubt that theft or robbery would increase if made illegal. Look at the tax system thought the coercion of the IRS legally taking your money by force, and there is no stopping them.
Yes indeed, cigarettes and alcohol are legal. How much do you think other people's cigarette or alcohol induced chronic illnesses are costing you? The government pays disability to people who become unable to work. But even if there is no tax cost, how much of our insurance costs are to make up for the claims paid by smokers for oxygen tanks and alcoholics for liver transplants or any of the numerous other expenses the insurance company must cover due to someone's self destructive behavior. Do I really want my government to legalize more ways for Americans to disable themselves? Of course not, because when they do, Kevin and every other decent hard working American has to take up the financial slack in one way or another.
By the time people figured out how really bad alcohol was, it was a socially acceptable libation. Jesus changed water into wine to save a wedding celebration. Prohibition did work by to an extent, but once the genie is out of the bottle, it's hard to get back in. Alcohol enslaves people, I have seen it over and over again. Drugs enslave people worse.
The argument that people should be allowed to do whatever they want to their own bodies fails in light of the fact that the rest of us (including Kevin) have to pay in some way for their bad choices. Their bad choices don't just hurt themselves; they hurt alot of other people beyond their own families.
To think that the government will control it by taxing it is absurd. Taxes are for revenue raising. For a taxed thing or activity to create revenue, people must engage in the behavior and those relying on the revenue need them to do the activity in large numbers.
Do we really need more worthless potheads, crackheads, and methheads lying around?
And, with more and more people becoming unemployed, do you really want to put all of the police officers, prison guards, probation officers, parole officers, prosecutors, and defense attorneys out of work?
Yes, there are bad thing in our society that are legal, but it is a falacious argument that we should legalize even more bad, more destructive things just because some bad things are legal now.
It might be a good idea not to let all of the evil out of Pandora's box.

Go Rangers!

I know it's early in the season, but they look good so far. They are beating up on the Indians now. I like the new home uniforms, especially the jersey lettering.

Dredging up an old issue

This week's Leonard Pitts column is about legalizing illegal drugs. Why do left wingers insist on revisiting this issue? Do they want to tear our society completely apart? How in the world can it be good to make even more harmful, destructive substances available to everyone?

Part of the role of government it to protect the citizenry from harm. That includes banning harmful substances from general use. (Do not include guns in this because the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms for defense.) Tobacco and alcohol are legal, and they have been for a long, long time. As bad as those two substances can be when abused, they are not as bad as the drugs Leonard wants to make available to all of us. From Methamphetamine to Marihuana. My God, what is the argument?

That we spend too much time and effort trying to battle those things and the people that use them? We spend alot of time and money battling many, many harmful things and harmful behaviors from theft to child pornography. We don't catch them all by any means, but that does not mean that we should stop fighting. We always need to continue that battle for goodness and righteousness.
These things destroy people's lives more savagely and quickly than tobacco and alcohol. Methamphetamine has no valid medical purpose whatsoever. And what about marihuana? Studies show that it is 10 times more carcinogenic than tobacco ever was. The stuff that people are smoking now is 10 times more potent than what the hippies of the '60's used. Advances have given us plants with way more tetrahydracannabinol than they had in the weed of the old days. Plus, marihuana is highly addictive. Addicts cannot kick it in a regular 30 day program. It takes at least 6 months to get over a marihuana habit. Moreover, the THC attaches to fat cells in the body, and as these cells metabolize, THC is released into the system at random times.
How can anyone in their right mind advocate the legalization of any of that crap?
Do you want to make it easier for more people to destroy themselves with that stuff?
How can you wish that on your brothers and sisters?
Do you give up the battle against evil because it is difficult?

Go State

Did anyone besides Tom Izzo have Michigan State in the NCAA Championship game?

No...seriously...

But seriously, folks...All philosophical disagreements aside...Isn't this just another example of a liberal court trying to override the will of the legislative representatives elected by the voters?
Is it similar to the Court creating a duty for a policeman to describe a suspect's constitutional rights before an otherwise voluntary confession is admissible?
Is this the same as the Court manufacturing a right to murder unborn children?
Of course it is. It seems to me this should be bound for the United States Supreme Court. If they uphold this ruling, it should be a message to the rest of the country to never let another Liberal President appoint a Supreme Court Justice. How can any interpretation of the United States Constitution give the Supremes license to redefine a concept that has been defined for centuries?
You know what is next, right?
Next the polygamists are going to want Equal Rights...
Then children are going to want the right to marry without parental consent...
When does the madness stop?
Somehow, I don't think the Framers intended such absurd interpretations of their document.

What is up with Iowa?

The Iowa Supreme Court has struck down a state law prohibiting GAY_MARRIAGE. I have no real problem with it one way or another. After all, chefs have been "marrying" ingredients and flavors for years. Any attorneys that practice family law ought to be in favor of this all the way, you know, more business (fodder) for the divorce courts. So, does that mean that they will have the spousal privilege rules against having to testify against each other in criminal cases if they do get married? Will common law marriage requirements and rules apply to them?