"Why Make Trillions When We Could Make...Billions?"

In an effort to show that he is working on maintaining a balanced federal budget, the Lord Messiah, Barack Obama the Most Merciful (LMBOMM, for short) had told his Cabinet that they must cut $100 million in spending from the proposed $3.5 trillion budget (see the story here). For visual reference,

that is this many: $100,000,000

from this many: $3,500,000,000,000

Do you notice something strange about this? The amount to be cut is only 0.0029% of the budget! Apparently, our "articulate, bright and clean" president (per our vice president's description) either really sucks at math, or is a graduate of the Dr. Evil School of Economics, which is located on the same campus as the Joe Biden Institute of ABCs and 123s (and the Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Don't Read Good, and Want to Learn How to Do Other Stuff Good Too). Maybe I'm being too hard on Obama. After all he may have meant to to say $100 billion, but the teleprompter technician miskeyed it.

All joking aside, though, even $100 billion would be a pittance compared to the size of this budget (it would only be a 2.9% reduction). Just think about it. Three. And One-Half. Trillion. Dollars. There is slightly over 300 million people in the U.S. That means that if they decided to divy this up to every man, woman, and child we would each get $11,666.67. Of course, that wouldn't happen because the people that make over $250,000 a year are included in that 300 million people. This budget is 60 times Bill Gates' estimated net worth. If you hear a peculiar sucking sound, that's the sound of your hard-earned money leaving your wallet. Don't worry, though. Obama is going to "spread the wealth around" and make things better for you...with your own money.

First CA Driver's Licenses, Now This.

Living in California all of my life (and thereby having more than my fill of "multiculturalism"), I thought I had seen and heard almost every product of political correctness known to humanity. Apparently, one must travel to Nebraska to see the latest in PC absurdity. Two Native American tribes are being investigated for selling tribal membership to illegals, under the auspice of providing legal documentation for these people. Neither of these tribes are recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (so they're kinda like Ward Churchill). Since the tribes are not federally recognized, simply being a member is not enough to prove U.S. citizenship. Two illegals were caught trying to procure passports with their tribal membership documents.

For those of my readers that do not know me personally, I am one-eighth Chippewa. Since I was born outside of the community were my tribe originates, my parents were supposed to fill out registration paperwork for me to be recognized as a tribe member. They didn't realize this, and so the registration period passed. My younger siblings were, however, registered within the allotted time. In spite of the fact that my mother and siblings were tribal members, I was not allowed to register until the tribal government had an "open enrollment" period. I was finally able to register...when I was twenty-five years old!

The fact that I was not registered does not change the fact that I was still of Chippewa descent. It did affect my legal standing as such. Since I was not a registered member of the tribe, I was eligible for neither financial assistance for college, nor health insurance through the tribe. Likewise, paying a membership fee and a laminated card will not make you a Native American. I am sure we will hear Chicano studies majors all over the country saying, "Technically, Mexicans are the descents of Spaniards and Native Americans, so they are members of Native American tribes." Well, they're half-right; they're of Native American descent with regard to tribes found in Mexico (e.g. the Maya and Aztecs). I have blogged previously on why illegal immigration is bad for both law-abiding and the immigrants themselves. Sadly, this is further proof that I was correct.

Those Muscles and Helmets are Just Fabulous!

In yesterday's Democratic debate, Mike Gravel stated that the Spartans encouraged homosexuality because men fight for the guy in the trenches next to them, not for love of country or an ideal. He mocks Der Schliekmeister's position of "don't ask, don't tell" as uneducated. I do believe that Senator Gravel needs to revisit his high school's class on western civilization. If that's not possible perhaps he needs to watch the History Channel.

From the time that a Spartan boy was six or seven years old, he was taken from his family and sent to live in military barracks. This was the beginnings of his education in the art of war. Rations were meager, so the boys had to steal food to stave off starvation. This practice was, in fact, encouraged to teach them how to forage. If caught stealing, the boys were beaten severely. The boys were also put to the test in war games, meant to sharpen their skills and toughen them for actual combat. There was no headgear or padding involved; if a blow was dealt by a more skilled opponent, the recipient could die. Another part of a Spartan warrior's training was to be "apprenticed" to a seasoned warrior.

Many people have the misconception that this relationship was homosexual. This may have been the case for some, but it wasn't the rule. In the ancient world, the idea of romantic love was not the highest form of love between two people. This was because a woman was not viewed as an equal to a man. It was brotherly love, the love between equals, that was held in highest regard.

I know that Gravel served in the military, but I have to wonder what he did exactly during his service that would lead him to believe that encouraging homosexuality would improve our military's performance. In my studies of western civilization and battles that defined our culture, the bond forged between warriors in the throes of battle is one that transcends physicality. These brave souls, past and present, fight for more than survival and each other. Through strength of conviction, they are willing to lay down their lives to defend family, faith, and country.

Besides, they already tried to destroy the cowboy image with Brokeback Mountain. The least they could do is let me ogle the film version of King Leonidas.

Huh???

I believe I speak for everyone with half a brain when I ask the carefully crafted question in the the title of this post. What am I asking about, you wonder. Oh nothing special. Just the "Breck Girl" who, I might add has been featured on the cover of Esquire underneath the headline "Sexist Woman Alive" (methinks somebody in the cover art department had to clean out his desk this morning). I just got done watch the national news highlights, and I was treated to John "Two Americas" Edwards saying that his solution to ending the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home is to "turn up the heat on George W. Bush". This, in and of itself is not unusual to hear from today's liberal establishment, but it struck me as strange that this would be used as a selling point...in a Democratic Presidential debate.

I may be mistaken, but are we not having debates amongst potential candidates within their respective parties so that G.W. gets a replacement? Why then, would it make one iota of difference whether or not the current President's feet are going to be held to the fire at a later date? Does Edwards own a calendar? I could have sworn that Bush has only 18 more months in office. Someone needs to leave the Aqua Net alone (at least pre-debate).

Hat Tip: Christina for this video (made by people with more time than I).

Senile Senators' Slumper Party (BYOB Senator Kennedy)

Just when political posturing (and emissions of CO2) couldn't get any more ridiculous, "Dingy Harry" Ried had to declare, along with his cohorts in the U.S. Senate, that they were pulling an "all-nighter" to cobble together a resolution to bring the troops home from Iraq. Oh, I'm sorry, the official language of the DNC is "redeploy" (kind of like Hitler's use of the word "relocate" to describe "rounding up and exterminating millions of Jews"). So, were the news cameras showing pages hauling in cases of Red Bull or their senator's energy drink of choice (and perhaps some Geritol for good measure)? Hell no! They were rolling in foldaway beds for our distinguished elected officials to take a nap. Senator Kennedy's pages must have been sneaking in the booze via the backdoor.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when I was in college (two years ago) an "all-nighter" implied actually being awake and working all night powered by sugar, caffeine, and sheer will...and nicotine for a few of my classmates. You were considered "all-pro" if you could not only stay up, but be a fully-functioning student the following day (complete with class attendance). What a bunch of slackers our Senate has turned out to be.

I can see it all now. Ted Kennedy will be passed out on his cot, martini glasses strewn about, hugging a bottle of vodka, and hiccuping between snores. His junior counterpart will be hugging a bottle of ketchup, and have jumper cables hooked up to the bolts in his neck. Babs Boxer and DiFi will be giving each other quizzes from Cosmo magazine and playing MASH (each will be adorned with curlers and cold cream face masques). Senator Byrd will be busy with a pair of scissors, cutting eyeholes in all of the white pillowcases. Harry will be up in his seat, leaning back with drool coming out of the corners of his mouth. When morning comes, they'll all frantically wake up and try the cram the Cliff's Notes version of the bill that their collective staffs wrote in the night. Even if it's not worth the paper found in the restroom, it will be hailed as a stroke of genius by the MSM. Let's only hope that the producers at CSPAN have the good taste to blur out some of the images conjured in this paragraph.


Update: Wonder of wonders! The U.S. Senate has accomplished...absolutely nothing! I wonder how much money it cost you and I to have those rollaways brought in for them to not even be used (most of our distinguished senators went home in the wee hours of the morning to sleep it off).