About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Control Guns? Or Criminals?

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Saturday, June 07, 2008 3:26:44 PM
Professor Walher E. Williams asks an intelligent question: "The people who murdered Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski were violent convicts released on parole. So what is responsible for his death: guns, or a criminal justice system that cuts soft deals for such criminals?" Unfortunately, this is not a question people who "hate guns" will ever ponder. They think if they can "get guns out of existence (a "fantasy dream")," violence will disappear. It won't. It existed long before guns were invented, and people would STILL find ways to kill each other if guns simply "disappeared" (which isn't going to happen, and is a little like trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube). I have another question I always ask "anti-gun nuts," but which they never seem to be able to answer. They just start "calling me names" without attempting to answer it. It is, "Why would a CRIMINAL, whose entire life is dedicated to breaking the law, OBEY a law that says he can't be armed while committing other crimes?" I asked that question a few years ago of Andrew Hudson, Denver Mayor Wellington Webb's "press flack," and instead of even attempting to answer it, he accused me of "sending spam." Apparently, he can't tell the difference between spam and a personal e-mail. Another irrational thing "anti-gun nuts" do is create "no-gun-zones," such as Virginia Tech (where a crazy man killed 23 people with a gun that was "illegal" on campus) and other schools such as Columbine, where an armed man killed 13 people. Then there's the restaurant in Texas where a woman who had a license to carry had to disarm herself before entering (because of a "ban" on guns in the restaurant), and had to watch while a crazy gunman killed a bunch of people, including her parents, who were eating with her. What kind of stupid people ARE these "anti-gun zealots?" Guns are not what should be banned. Judges who "slap violent criminals on the hand" and those "anti-gun zealots" are what should be banned. (Walter E. Williams)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is America "Turning Left?"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Saturday, June 07, 2008 3:06:00 PM
That's the title of a recent story in "The Economist," and the question was asked as if this was as "normal" as anything else. Like a change in the weather. But what does it mean if "America is Turning Left?" It means the government is "taking over" all decisions. It is "collectivism." Look it up if you don't know what it is. You don't want it. You have nothing left that you can decide after "America Turns Left." The Soviet Union was an excellent example of a country that had "turned left." The government will either own everything or merely CONTROL everything. You will own NOTHING and control NOTHING. There will be NOTHING in your life for which you don't have to go "hay in hand," "tugging your forelock," to a "faceless bureaucrat" for permission to do what you'd like to do with property YOU used to own, but which the government just "took over." You won't be able to decide where to live, where to work, or how much you will accept to work. All that will be "assigned" by that faceless bureaucrat. Everything will happen "for the good of the people," never "for the good of the individual. Your wishes will be submerged into the needs of the group. You won't be allowed a house. You will be forced to live in an apartment owned by a "collective." You won't have a car or if you do, they;ll tell you what kind, and where you can drive it. Or they will force you to travel around by public transportation, where you will be "on display" for muggers, thieves, rapists, and such, and will be at their mercy because you will not be allowed ANY kind of a defensive weapon. They will tax you unmercifully to pay for all this. This is what it means to "turn left." Is that what you want? The Economist doesn't think it's such a bad thing, but what will happen to their readers if it happens WILL be bad. (The Economist)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The "Unbiased Assessment"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Saturday, June 07, 2008 2:53:06 PM
In this comic strip, the artist deftly illustrates the media's use of the "unbiased assessment," asking for one from someone you KNOW is biased. This is one reason why I'm very selective in my news sources. It is this kind of blatant (but which they think is subtle) scam that fools people who "don't pay attention to politics" until just before an election that "turns me off" to most "news sources." I don't always agree with this artist's politics, but sometimes he hits it "right on the head." Another method is the "gush" or "ignore" scam. I'm listening now to CNN (I only listen to CNN because it's all there is on Saturday morning in the 9 o'clock hour because I got tired of idiot stock buyers on Fox arguing with one another about economics) reporters "gushing" about Hillary's "concession speech," asking breathlessly, "Who is going to be on the stage with her?" "What will she wear?" What will she SAY?" "What is her future?" Questions never asked when other candidates withdrew, from either side. Their bias is very evident if you know what to look for. Only those who "pay attention" do. They've even given it a name: "The Clinton Exit." How funny is that? Fortunately, Fox doesn't "gush" like that, even for McCain. They're a little more restrained.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary's "Concession Speech"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Saturday, June 07, 2008 2:48:58 PM
This is the text of her "concession speech," as "leaked" to her entire "buddy list," whatever THAT is. I don't know how it compares to the real one she delivered to the cheers of Democrats everywhere, even those who didn't want her to be the nominee. I didn't read this, nor do I expect to listen to the diatribe against George Bush and in favor, no matter how obliquely, of collectivism (socialism), a "religion" to which she subscribes, along with Obama, who defeated her.  I heard only a few minutes of it, where she extolled the imaginary "accomplishments" of her husband's administration; accomplishments that were caused by a Republican administration (Reagan's) and lasted through her husband's administration, no matter how hard he tried to destroy them, and for which he tried valiantly to take credit. If you're willing to subject yourself to it, here is a link where you can find it. This is what the liberal media have been breathlessly awaiting. I'm sorry. I can't stomach it. (Hillary's "concession speech")
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bobby Jindal, VP?

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Friday, June 06, 2008 8:31:49 AM
Rush Limbaugh seems to think he'd be a good choice for McCain, to balance his liberal tendencies and the "age problem." " One, he's a "minority," which takes that off the table for the general election. Two, he's young, which means if McCain dies, he'll be there to preserve conservative principles.  He's a conservative in a place where conservatives don''t usually win. "Gov. Jindal has done it partly by making clear he personally embraces social conservative orthodoxies such as opposition to abortion and gay marriage--but soft-pedaling them in public. While running for governor in 2007 (he narrowly lost an earlier bid for the office in 2003), he rarely raised such hot-button issues on the stump. Instead, he campaigned largely on free-market themes such as cutting taxes to stimulate growth, and a populist pledge, honed from his days as a state and federal technocrat, to solve problems. But that strategy may be hard to pull off in the glare of a national candidacy when his views on issues such as abortion and religion in schools would certainly be meticulously examined. The Louisiana governor, who converted to Catholicism from Hinduism in college, is against abortion in nearly all circumstances and supports teaching "intelligent design" in public schools. As a congressman, he voted to build a fence at the Mexico border." I remember a time when his Catholicism would have caused problems, but after JFK, that's not a problem. If he's a REAL conservative, I'd go along with him, too. (Wall Street Journal)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Climate Insanity

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Friday, June 06, 2008 8:29:32 AM
I shudder every time I see a supposed "conservative Republican" sitting beside a "dedicated liberal" touting "climate change." That tells me that Republican has "bought the BS" the liberals are putting out about that nonexistent "problem," "climate change." (They stopped calling it "global warming" because it became obvious that the planet was COOLING, not warming, and they needed to maintain their façade.  But when I see somebody like Newt Gingrich, who up to now I've respected, sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi, I lost all confidence in his ability to make a good decision about anything. The same is true when I see "race-baiter" Al Sharpton and Rev. Pat Robertson together. Not that I ever did have any respect for Robertson. This just makes me dismiss anything he says more. I feel sorry for Newt, but not for Robertson. I predict that you'll see more of this, as the con-men in the Democrat Party con more and more otherwise intelligent people into believing their lies. (We Can Solve It)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Still Trying to Run Things

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Friday, June 06, 2008 8:27:21 AM
The Islamic terrorists are still laughing at us, even in the face of their own deaths at our hands. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, on trial for his life in Cuba for masterminding 9/11, now looks like an "imitation Osama" with his long beard, white robes and glasses. He even criticized the artist who drew his picture, saying "my nose is too big." But maybe it IS "too big, and the artist faithfully captured it. I prefer the picture of him in his T-shirt, unshaven, dirty, and hairy that was shown when he was first arrested to the image he has carefully cultivated in the five years of his incarceration. He should be forced to shave off that ugly beard and wear the uniform of a common criminal, that Day-Glo orange jump suit other prisoners have to wear in court so he will not be able to maintain his unearned dignity. He says he wants to die, and that wish I think we should grant him forthwith. Then maybe he'll never be able to kill any more innocent people. (Free Internet Press)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »