About Me

Name: The New THOMA$...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Does Obama's "Bitterness" Comment Offend Me?

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:46:11 PM
Not necessarily. OBAMA "offends me." Every word out of his mouth offends me. Yet the news media tells me what he says many times every day. I was eating in a restaurant the other day where they had several television sets running, and got to hear Obama and Hillary's crap on several different channels at one time. I remember wishing there was some way I could avoid hearing such crap all the time, but there isn't. Even FOX gives me his every word (Hillary's, too!) McCain, not so much because there's no fight there until the general election. I'm really getting tired of hearing all that election crap every time I turn around (and sometimes when I don't). Elections are okay, but this one's been going on for two years, now and it's getting to me. I'm tired of hearing Democrats "worshipping" either Obama or Hillary. Talk about free advertising!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Can Obama Be "Resurrected?"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:49:10 PM
After revealing his "out-of-touch elitism" to voters? Maybe, But that's the least of his problems in my estimation. It's interesting that Hillary is "on the warpath" about his "bitter" comments, since she is one of the most "elitist, out-of-touch" candidates currently in the race for president. But Obama's biggest problems stem from his socialist leanings. I know it's hard to believe, but he's even more socialist that she is if you look at his lifetime voting record. If I were to have to choose between the two of them--I couldn't, except for the fact that I think Hillary needs to be "taken down a peg or two," since she believes she is "destined" to be president, no matter how many lies she must tell and how many crimes she must commit to attain that goal. If she DOES get elected, look for her to try and remove the "two-terms"  law so she could be "president for life." (Reuters)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Isn't This Unconstitutional?

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Friday, April 11, 2008 8:22:39 PM
I've been "holding onto" this a while because I've just had too much else to tell you, but unless this didn't pass, it's a patent violation of SEVERAL constitutional provisions. The right to a "fair trial," and the right to "self-protection." But when has unconstitutionality ever stopped politicians from enacting their own ideas of how things should be? Example: "McCain-Feingold," a law that is patently unconstitutional on its face, but which was passed into law and even survived a Supreme Court challenge by allowing liberal Justices to rule, based on their own liberal opinions, rather than on how the Constitution was written. The fact that this kind of thing is even ATTEMPTED frightens me because it DOES have a chance of passage.(CCRKBA) 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Prison Release Plan Stupid!

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Friday, April 11, 2008 8:18:22 PM
Prisons across the country are considering the wholesale release of prisoners early because they're running out of room and personnel to guard them. It amazes me that these otherwise intelligent (maybe) people can't think of something better, such as not imprisoning the VICTIMS of the "drug war." They've got so many otherwise non-criminals who are only there for using drugs in there that they're having trouble keeping them all in jail. But they're not just releasing people in there on drug use charges. If they only released all the drug addicts, there'd be plenty of room for the criminals. But they're releasing violent criminals, as well. What effect that will have on society as a whole, I can't say. But it will not be good. (CCRKBA)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tax Funded Islamic Public School

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:41:29 AM
Everything I've heard lately tells me that "school authorities" are REQUIRED to keep ALL religion out of schools. This violates the constitutional prohibition against ANY law "concerning religion or the practice thereof." But they interpret this to mean anything CHRISTIAN, while they not only ALLOW, but PUSH "Islamic religion teachings." In this story, the writer tells about her investigation of just such a school, funded by taxpayers, and one she was not allowed to enter on some specious and untrue excuse. Now a "substitute teacher": who has worked in this school is talking, and says Islamic religion and religious teachings and practice is a big part of the curriculum in this school. How is this possible? With laws PROHIBITING the "teaching of religion" in our schools (with which I disagree, by the way), how can they teach about a religion that is so FOREIGN to our way of life, trying to "recruit" impressionable children? I don't care if they teach Islam in other places, but I will not stand by and keep my mouth shut while they teach it in PUBLIC school, at taxpayer expense, while keeping Christianity out, and keep people who might expose them out. If they're going to teach one, they must teach both. (Minneapolis Star-Tribune)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Screwing Little Girls

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:30:27 AM
Warren Jeffs and his "co-conspirators aren't just having sex with a lot of women. They're also having sex with little girls. They SAY they're "marrying" these little girls, but they're "marrying" them in wholesale numbers. These little girls have nothing to say about whether or not they want to have sex with these "old men." These "old men" have convinced their parents it's okay to "marry" children at just barely teenage. This is not a case of "religious tolerance." It is a case of "child sex abuse" DISGUISED as "religious tolerance." These people should be "put away," and forced to register as sex offenders, as would happen with the average sex offender. There's nothing worst than this kind of person, who would claim "religious authority" for their child sex abuse. They've still not found the little girl who called them, which makes you wonder what happened to her. Did they just change her name and hide her, or is she dead. Are these people just "child-screwers" or murderers, too? Gawd, I get so sick of hearing stories like this! I'm offended that there are people like this allowed to remain in this world. There are some people who are only still alive because it's illegal to kill them, and these people match that description. (KUTV) 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pull Out of Washington!

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:20:58 AM
We have 160,000 troops in Iraq., and a total 0f 2112 deaths (as this is written). That's 60 per 100,000. The death rate in Washington, DC is 80.6 per 100,000. You're 25% more likely to be killed in Washington, DC (which has some of the strictest "gun-control" laws in the country) than in the war zone in Iraq. Conclusion? We should move our national capitol to Iraq and "pull out of Washington." The liberals make a lot of noise about Iraq casualties, but ignore those casualties in U. S. cities where the average person is not allowed to carry a gun for self-defense while criminals have no problem getting guns. (This info came in an e-mail)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Shriller and Shriller Screeching!

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:51:05 PM
The "global warming swindlers" are growing shriller and shriller and making more and more outlandish claims in an effort to frighten people into giving them more money to "fix a problem" that does not exist. The current warming trend is a cyclical occurrence that happens every few years as the earth goes through its weather cycles. It's NOT "man-caused."  Man could not CAUSE it, and cannot "fix" it. Twenty-five years ago, they were telling us we were "approaching a new ice age." They were worried about "global COOLING." We are ever more scoffing at their antics, so they get even more stupid and shrill. Now Ted Turner (the television millionaire who was stupid enough to marry a traitor) is telling us (with no proof offered, of course) that if we don't "do something" (give him and his fellow swindlers money, of course), we're going to end up eating each other. He thinks such shrill claims will make more people amendable to the "global warming swindle" AlGore is pushing. It ain't agonna work. We're getting "wise" to this scam and I expect they'll get even more shrill, while their claims are going to become ever more outlandish as we "marginalize" them ever more. (The Jawa Report)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Giving Back"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:45:32 PM
One of the most evil phrases ever pushed by liberals is the "giving back" scam that seems to be almost universally accepted, even by conservatives who should know better. Even people such as George Bush, who is otherwise very intelligent, have "bought" this scam. Truth is, the ONLY people who need to "give back" to society are those who have been on some kind of welfare most of their lives. Those who work HARD to convince those "in charge of the purse strings" (the looters) that they are "the most needy." Those of us who earn their own way have NOTHING to "give back," and we are the only ones who can afford it. Those on welfare can't, so they're not the ones the liberals are talking to. I've earned my own way all my life (Except for one time looooong ago when I was in the hospital for two weeks and my wife went on welfare. I immediately cancelled it as soon as I got out and even WALKED three miles to get to work the next day in the snow.) and I feel no need to "give back" to society for ANYTHING. If anybody is interested in convincing me otherwise, I'm happy to listen, but you’d better have your facts straight and provable. (Ron Pisaturo)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Subtle" Racism Today

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:10:08 PM
I hear a lot today from "race-hustlers" like Jesse Jackson, "Calypso Louie" Farrakhan, and Al Sharpton about "subtle racism." Things like using "code words" that really mean racism. Has anyone ever wondered why racism (such as still exists today) is so "subtle?" It is subtle today because it is no longer "the law of the land." It is no longer legal and acceptable, as it was in the fifties and sixties. There are more black and Hispanic politicians elected to office (especially in the South) today than ever before. We have a black man (well, almost black) running for the presidency, with a real chance of winning. We have a black WOMAN Secretary of State, and many other blacks in high office in our government. There is a reason for that. They didn't get there BECAUSE they were black, but IN SPITE of it. They got those jobs because they were felt to be competent to do the job, and color wasn't a consideration (except to the liberals, that is). But the "race hustlers" mentioned above, and many others, think they can win by "calling us names" if we tell the truth about them. Bert Prelutsky says, "If a black person tells the truth -- namely, that in 2007, 99% of black problems are self-inflicted -- he is, like Bill Cosby and Thomas Sowell, dismissed as an Uncle Tom. If a white person tells the truth -- namely, that with a 70% illegitimacy rate, no amount of government hand-outs will do anything but provide the cancer victim with a very expensive band-aid -- he’s condemned as a racist." In both cases, they don't bother to answer the facts, they just call us names. That's "the liberal way," not just here, but ANY time their ideas are  criticized. They never even TRY to answer the criticism because they can't, and they know it. So they just call the criticizer names and hope he/she is too busy arguing against the label to remember the original argument.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How Do You NOT Kill Civilians?

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 12:58:43 PM
One of the Islamic terrorists' favorite things is to accuse American soldiers of "killing civilians." That's after they have forcibly detained civilians and attacked the Americans from places were they have the civilians prisoner, then run out the back, leaving the civilians, with guns taped to their hands, to be killed in the predictable counter-attack. They dig up dead babies (whom they've no doubt killed) and parade them before television cameras, claiming the Americans killed them, backed up by testimony from other "civilians" who turn out to be terrorists. Then they go out and kill their own civilians and our liberal media says nothing about it. They don't have room. Most of it is devoted to the bogus stories about Americans killing civilians. I tried to get a URL for you, but all I got on Google was liberal sites, and what I saw there made me violently ill with the lies they tell. I found only one that told something like the truth, but it was not about how WE killed Iraqi children, but how the TERRORISTS killed them. It was dated in 2005, but I'll give it to you, anyway. (Jihad Watch)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"The Nose on Your Face"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 11:55:02 AM
The liberals (Democrats all, for the most part) continue to try HARD to CREATE a recession by telling the lie, over and over, that "a recession is coming." Maybe it is. But would it have come if Democrats weren't "in power" in Washington while threatening to gain even more power if a Democrat is elected president while hollering "recession!" over and over? Do they EVER gripe about a recession and "economic bad times" when they're in power totally? Do we need another four years like we suffered under Jimmy Carter, with double-digit inflation, hundreds of our diplomatic corps people held hostage by the man who is now the Iranian president, and more rising taxes than you can count? The worst "failure of presidency" in recent history (other than Bill Clinton, that is)? Clinton had a pretty good presidency economy-wise, mostly because his was preceded by a Republican presidency; of course, while he did everything he could to destroy the economy. Bush brought it back up again with his tax cuts, and Democrats have been trying to get rid of them ever since. This stuff is as obvious as the nose on your face. Why then, did an otherwise intelligent man the other day tell me that Clinton is the best president we've ever had? I wanted to pop him one, but you can't hurt people for ignorance. (News Busters)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Are We "Mostly Dependent on Food Stamps?"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 11:39:46 AM
What A bunch of bullpoop! In a country where the Food Stamp people are ADVERTISING for participants, they're "decrying" the imaginary fact that a lot of people are "dependent" on food stamps? Why then, are there so many people in this country able to afford those enormously expensive ski lift prices? Why are so many people able to fly all over the world while airlines are adding "fuel surcharges" to their already overpriced fares?How can people "dependent on food stamps" buy all those $20,000 to $100,000 cars? What about those expensive vacations? And how can 96% of mortgage holders continue to make their payments? The British think we are already in a recession: "We knew things were bad on Wall Street, but on Main Street it may be worse. Startling official statistics show that as a new economic recession stalks the United States, a record number of Americans will shortly be depending on food stamps just to feed themselves and their families. Dismal projections by the Congressional Budget Office in Washington suggest that in the fiscal year starting in October, 28 million people in the US will be using government food stamps to buy essential groceries, the highest level since the food assistance programme was introduced in the 1960s. Astounding. My airport was packed on Sunday. Vegas is absolutely jammed with tourists. Went to Cirque du Soleil's 'O' on Sunday -- $165/ticket, totally sold out. And people are talking Depression. Anybody see the absurdity, or is it just folks like me that travel a lot and see what's actually going on outside of the media's small prism?" (Written by a News Buster staffer) This is just more evidence that liberals are trying very hard to CREATE a recession in this country so they can get elected to make it "all better." (News Busters)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Don't Confuse Us With Facts"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 11:24:29 AM
"Our minds are already made up!" That seems to be what Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is telling General Petraeus as he prepares to report to Congress on progress in Iraq. She's telling him Congress doesn't want to hear "good news," only bad news. When she did that, she told the world that Democrats will just "not believe" him if he tells them ANYTHING good. That tells me a lot more about HER and the rest of the Democrats than anything else. They just want us to LOSE in Iraq and won't hear anything good if he speaks it. It's too bad the General must "report" to such ignorant people and actually treat them as if their opinions mattered. They don't. And unless the Democrats get a bigger majority and win the presidency this year, their opinions WON'T matter. If they win, their opinions will kill a lot of people, maybe even YOU.  Al Sadr called for a cease-fire after six days of fighting because he was losing. He need time to resupply and move more troops in. That's how they operate. If they call for a cease-fire, you can bet they're losing. But Pelosi and the other Democrats don't want to hear it because it would prove their usual rhetoric to be a lie. How such an ignorant woman ever got to a leadership position is beyond me except for the fact that failure (and illicit sex) is a resume enhancer to the Democrats. Teddy Kennedy gave us his opinion of Petraeus' "report" last week! After Petraeus gave it, he said, "I have nothing further to comment on this propaganda-filled hate-speech." This from a man who swam away and let his pregnant girlfriend die in his submerged car and DID NOT suffer, either legally or politically for it. It's a real shame such heroes as Petraeus have to actually "testify" before such people, as if they were really "important people." People such as Kennedy ought to just shut up and go home to his mint juleps and "waitress sandwiches," staying away from where REAL things of importance are discussed. People like Kennedy, with his record, have no right to criticize ANYBODY! Just seeing his ugly face on television still in a position of power offends me. (Politico)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Releasing Prisoners to "Save Money"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Saturday, April 05, 2008 3:03:20 PM
They apparently can't see the effect on prison populations of their policies of imprisoning the victims of the "drug scene. So they're going to release drug dealers and other criminals, some of them violent criminals. They also go out of their way to imprison people who get their own means of self-defense to defend themselves against these selfsame criminals, who have no trouble getting and carrying guns. They by them illegally on "the street" or just steal them. It amazes me how ignorant our politicians are on the WAY to solve our problems. They continue to adhere to their liberal notions that the way to self-defense is to DISARM honest people, rather than to enforce the "throw-away" laws already on the books to make crime worse if the criminal is armed. Instead, they regularly dismiss the "concealed weapons" charges if the criminal "cops a plea," But if they catch honest people carrying guns, they enforce the law to "the letter." The "Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" advises honest people to ignore those silly "anti-gun laws" and get their own guns with which to defend themselves. I don't blame them. If a criminal shoots me, I want it to be the last thing he does in his life. (CCRKBA) Also posted on "The Unarmed Citizen."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345Next »