I may not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death my right to ridicule it.

Leany home   |   Articles   |   Chronicles   |   Prostitution Arrests   |   Who is Frank Leany?   |   Libotomies   |  

Past Blogs

Refresh to get latest blog entry

I love a story with a happy ending.

(This is the story about the father who killed the man raping his daughter. I'm glad the rapist is dead. I wish every piece of filth like him would meet the same fate. Anyone who holds an opinion different than that is someone I don't want to know.)

Meanwhile, over in an Alternate Universe

Sixteen years ago you were driving home from work in the late spring and you heard on the radio "The White House says that if it doesn’t reach some type of budget agreement there could be a government shutdown."

You thought "What the . . .?" It made no sense. No one was even discussing the budget yet; that doesn't happen until the fall. You had an odd disjointed feeling about it. What am I missing here?

A year later you understood. After Bill Clinton shut down the government and blamed it on the Republicans as a campaign tactic, you understood.

Yesterday, you had the exact same feeling.

Eric Holder ran Fast & Furious, got American agents killed, the committed crimes by withholding evidence in the case.

When Congress said that's bad, Nancy Pelosi said "This is obviously an attempt to suppress the vote. There's no other way to look at it."

What?

Doesn't make any kind of sense. She's looking at a butter knife left in the sink and saying "Clearly this was used in an alien probe—there's no other way to look at it."

It's the exact same feeling you had when the White House first talked about a government shutdown.

Only this time you know. The democrats are working to suppress the vote. You've seen this trick before; don't be fooled again.

The democrats are going to do a full-court press to cheat in the elections in November.

On This Day in History

Continued below
(Best viewed with a mind not clouded by the Kool-Aid)

The John Galt Society

It can be discouraging to look around at who's running the show these days and wonder "Where have all the grown-ups gone?"

Take heart. There are still some people who are not drinking the Kool-aid. Here's where to find them. I would suggest going gown this list every day and printing off the most recent articles you haven't read to read over lunch.

Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin is a feisty conservative bastion. You loved her book "Unhinged" and you can read her columns here.
Ann Coulter
Ann posts her new column every Thursday, or you can browse her past columns.
George Will
What can you say? It's George Will. Read it.
Charles Krauthammer posts every Friday. Just a good, smart conservative columnist.
If you want someone who gets it just as right, but is easier to read, try Thomas Sowell, who just posts at random times.
Jonah Goldberg seldom disappoints.
David Limbaugh carries on the family tradition.

Jewish World Review has all these guys plus lots more good stuff.

Or you can go to radio show sites like
 Laura Ingraham's or Glenn Beck's or Rush Limbaugh's..

If you'd like you can study The Constitution while you wait.

Then there's always TownHall.com, NewsMax.com, The Drudge Report, FreeRepublic.com, World Net Daily, (which Medved calls World Nut Daily), News Busters, National Review Online, or The American Thinker.

For the Lighter Appetite

If you have to read the news, I recommend The Nose on Your Face, news so fake you'd swear it came from the Mainstream Media. HT to Sid for the link.
Or there's always The Onion. (For the benefit of you Obama Supporters, it's a spoof.)

Dilbert.
Dave Barry's Column
Daryl Cagle's Index of Political Cartoons
About half of these cartoonists are liberal (Latin for wrong) but the art is usually good. (Fantastic, if you're used to the quality of art on this site.)
Townhall Political Cartoons
In case you want cartoons that are well-drawn and don't make your jugular burst.

Or just follow the links above and to the right of this section (you can't have read all my archived articles already). If you have read all my articles (you need to get out more) go to my I'm Not Falling For It section.

Above all, try to stay calm. Eventually I may post something again.

What the hell kind of country is this where I can only hate a man if he's white?
        Hank Hill

Socialism: A Tax on Innumeracy

Did you know that in the United States a woman is not guaranteed any paid maternity leave?

It makes me proud to be an American.

Two words should leap out at you: "Paid" and "Leave."

Whenever anyone gets something they don't pay for, someone pays for something they don't get.

Wealth doesn't just magically fall out of the sky because politicians say things that make a tingle run down your leg. Who pays for you to not work? Everyone that is working does. That includes you when you do work. This applies to paid sick leave and paid vacation. So you're thinking "Woo-hoo? You pay me when I don't work?"

Uh, no. We just pay you less when you do.

I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. Most people don't have the discipline to save part of their salary for when they are sick or go on vacation. It's not a bad thing if your employer does it.

Just don't be an idiot and think you're getting paid for not working.

Socialism is a horrifying concept for anyone who can work a calculator.

The morons who are horrified over this chart are the same brain-dead imbeciles who wring their hands over the unequal distribution of wealth in the United States. You know who has phenomenal equality of wealth distribution? Somalia. Everyone in that whole toilet is dirt poor.

It's simple mathematics. The reason we have unequal wealth distribution in the United States is because we have wealth.

Is this how liberals think?

"Dude, that girl has beautiful hair?"

What are you talking about? She's practically bald!

"Yeah, but the hair she does have is so evenly distributed."

The complete freaking idiots who buy this load of crap get all their understanding of politics and society from word pictures posted on Facebook.

If you are so freaking concerned about paid maternity leave, maybe you should offer it to your employees. What's that? Oh, my mistake. You're absolutely right, carrying around a sign and peeing in public is something you can do on your own. You don't actually employ anybody.

Oh, but I'm sure that if you did . . .

My close personal friend has a niece who has bought into this bull puckey. She's always going on about what a horrible place America is to live. And she has great evidence—seven word charts someone has posted on Facebook.

But I'm cool with that. You know why? 'Cause she chooses to live in Mexico.

Mexico . . .

You can talk about what a horrible place America is to live, or you can choose to live here. But you can't do both without being a despicable hypocrite.

So if you are that wrought over it, you really should move to a place that has more equal wealth distribution, like Somalia.

I know less about this than anyone. I'm not here to instruct you, I'm asking you, what is wealth?

So a politician says "I promise to create wealth," what is he going to do? I've struggled to nail that down over the years.

Wealth is not just an amount of money. You can't measure wealth by how much money there is (mainly because money just isn't. It's like heat—it's not a measurement of the amount of thermal energy, it's movement of thermal energy). It's not as simple as GDP . . .

I don't know—I can't exactly define it, but the closest I've come always revolves around: Wealth is basically a measure of productivity. It's an efficiency deal. Somehow wealth is how much gets done with what you have. A wealthier nation uses the same number of people working the same number of hours to produce more.

Bored. Done.

I wish I had interesting obsessions. My obsessions even bore me . . . that really sucks.

But it's my obsession—I have to pursue it . . . or them, as the case is.

First one, the thing I've been boring you with about counterfeits and how the reason people even try them is because there is a real counterpart.

Political correctness—that's the best example of the way something wrong can be masquerading as something right.

Treating people with respect and being sensitive to their feelings is essential to a society that we want to live in. So that's how you're able to creep that to the extreme to the point where it doesn't accomplish that. That's the issue—the goal isn't the original one in all of these. But it looks enough like that's what they're trying to accomplish that they can pass it off.

So you start out with respecting people, then move into insulting them and crippling their ability to advance.

It's closely related—somehow . . . that's the amorphous part of my obsession, but the most important part: defining not just the issues but how they are related, kind of like the square of opposition diagram relationships—to the idea of a rape hoax. (Now, go show that sentence to your English teacher when she asks for examples of violations of the 25 rule.)

The rape hoax is based on something that's really, really important, so you don't dare discount it. But, just like the counterfeit above, it's not the thing, it's just the thing that gets you to buy into the real thing.

The democrats don't care about Race. But they know we do, so they use it. They don't care about the environment, but they know it's a sacred thing so we won't question when they use it as a vehicle to get power. The democrats don't care about [insert the cause du jour here], but nothing's sacred when you're after power.

I told you it was a plural deal. Here's some more stuff for the Encyclopedia of Tricks—or whatever it's called.

Stating something as if it were a fact. This is a classic salesman trick. They seriously teach this one at seminars. "Where are you going to put your new water softener, Mr. Leany?" Another embodiment of the trick is "So what would work better, 4:30 tomorrow or 3:00 on Friday?" It's not a question of 'if.' Now the discussion has moved to 'when.'

That's why you hear people say "Why is the Republican party not enthusiastic about Mitt Romney?" instead of "Is the Republican party enthusiastic about Mitt Romney?" Your psyche takes a little bobble for a second, then says "Oh, I guess I missed that, glad I'm up to speed now."

The alternate is the mistake people make, Rush Limbaugh among them, by stating the other side's argument as if it were an accepted fact. "Everyone thinks that liberals are the intellectuals . . ."

They do it in the process of refuting it, but even stating it lends credence to it. Then, when you're trying to make your case it gets a "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" texture.

That's why marketers used to follow the rule that you don't ever mention the competition's product in your commercial. You don't want to give the potential customer information about the other product he may not have, or make him think "Hmmm, maybe there is something to that."

Obviously, this isn't limited to marketing. You see it all the time in personal life, too. You might tell your friend "My wife is so wrong when she says that I can't keep a secret about anything, and I'll tell you why."

Your friend isn't listening to your explanation. He's thinking "She thinks he can't keep a secret? She knows him better than anyone. I'm going to be careful what I tell him."

Okay, I'm done.

Here's a good story on that BS that the whacked out Obama worshippers are spreading about Obama's record on spending.

Peripherally it makes the point that struck me the first time I heard the Chosen One talk about it. He phrased it like "I just found out that . . . "

What? So you watched TV to discover the math about your policies? Just bizarre. Getting his promotional points from the media . . .

It sounded very amateurish, like someone who has no idea what's happening in his organization. It's like your carpool passenger pointing out that your car has a DVD player. What? It does? That's pretty cool.

Here's your reward.

Civility is a wonderful thing. Which one of these sounds better?

Brain dead idiots who are always bellyaching about civility are too stupid to understand how democracy works.

Or

I wonder if my friends who voice their concerns over "civility" could benefit from another viewpoint on the topic.

Disagreeing doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable (holy crap, did I really just spit out a pithy bromide?). But it's true. Being nasty doesn't help your cause . . . well, not usually. That's the reason I can't listen to Sean Hannity. He's on my side, but he alienates people he doesn't need to.

But it's a funny thing—the ones moaning about the "tone" of the debate are always the nastiest ones out there. Nothing is as predictable as projection. Their aim isn't to raise the level of discourse. They want to silence any debate at all.

In their universe that is "Open minded."

So, lacking any kind of logical support for their viewpoint, they resort to nastiness. But in their assault they try to make rules that I can't use the same tactics. If you come swinging at me, don't pretend to be shocked when I break your jaw.

Democrats are just astonishingly despicable. That's me being civil. Screw them. They lie constantly and call us names, then kick their little feet and cry about civility when we defend ourselves. Screw them.

I appreciate people with a different opinion than mine, as long as it's honest. I greatly prefer that person to the one who happens to be advocating my viewpoint, but only because that's what he was told he believes.

That's why democrats are so astonishingly despicable. They are dishonest. I could respect them standing up for something they believe in, but they adopt positions as battle tactics.

You know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about rape hoaxes: Environment, Poverty, Women's Rights . . . and Race.

You remember during the primaries in 2008 when Bill Clinton was talking about the "fairy tale" that Barack Obama was spreading. Obama supporters immediately feigned outrage: That was racist!

I'm sure it's as obvious to you as it is to me how using the phrase "fairy tale" is racist. I'll bet that your household was no different than mine; that all the childhood stories heard at your mother's knee were about white people hating black people.

Just reprehensible.

These people don't give a flying crap about racism. If they did, they wouldn't trash the concept. They have no qualms about taking something as sacred as decent respect among human beings and abusing it to achieve their shortsighted ends.

These people are the same walking piles of excrement who use children as chess pieces when they get divorced.

I know you know someone like this. This is the man whose driving passion is to punish his wife for daring to divorce him. Screwing her over is the most important thing in his life. It is so important that he is willing to wreck his own children to achieve that end.

It's obvious what he's doing, but with every move for his own advantage his battle cry is "OMG, think of the children!"

These people comprise the most contemptible class of human beings that I can think of.

Democrats are racist. That's a fact.

You heard about that reporter, Munro, from the Daily Caller, who interrupted Obama during a press conference in the Rose Garden.

I found it rude. The guy had an excellent point, but I still thought it was rude and inappropriate. He shouldn't have done it, for a few reasons. First, it was rude and unbecoming, but also, it didn't help his (our) cause, because it was rude and unbecoming.

But, never fear, the democrats used the opportunity to prove that they are even bigger idiots than the reporter.

EPSTEIN: Would the right-wing be doing this if we had a white President there?

LEMON: They don't treat him with the same respect that they would treat a white man in that position.

DYSON: Does it have anything to do with the fact that this is the nation's first black president and the level of disrespect is alarming and stunning?

WILLIAMS: It's very, very difficult to place race outside of this context.

OBEIDALLAH: This is a campaign to delegitimize the presidency, and to me, I think race is a component.

CUMMINGS: The same thing is happening with our Attorney General. These are two men who are doing outstanding jobs, but there are folks who just don't like it.

What?

Wow.

Did I mention that democrats are racist? The furthest thing from any sane person's mind was anything to do with race. When they came up with that, you thought "What? Did I black out for a minute? We were talking about interrupting a press conference, then suddenly I come to and they've moved on to race."

That's an order of magnitude past any detectable harmonic of that chord.

Two things here . . . no, three. First, democrats are despicable racists. It's so telling that the first thing they think of is "Well, black people are the only ones you treat with that kind of disdain." Yeah? Maybe if you're a total inbred schmuck . . . in Alabama . . . in 1952. Wake up, rip Van Dinkhead.

No one on my side of the aisle sees Obama as black.

Second, seriously? Obama's little feelings are hurt because someone didn't kiss his ring? Boo-freaking-hoo, you pantywaist. Get back to me when people start treating you like they treated Bush. I wonder if the press would yuck it up if someone threw a shoe at their little Messiah.

Finally, it's the same old game. Just another way democrats say "shut up." Your guy is a piece of crap, but you're still trying to paint anyone who realizes that as a racist. Give it up, morons . . . no, wait! Keep it up! It's a brilliant strategy. It quit working a long time ago, but maybe you're just not trying hard enough. Don't explore any other strategies, no sir, stick with that one . . . it might hit, you never know . . .

Clinton was a piece of crap, so was Carter. So is Al Gore, John Edwards, Tim Robbins, John Kerry, Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Chuck Schumer, Michael Bloomberg . . . and 87.2% of the white democrats in congress. Why should I hate Obama any less than I hate them?

Wouldn't that be judging him on the color of his skin instead of the content of his character?

Hate. Add that to your list of big concepts that have been jacked up by misuse, like racism and the environment.

Hate used to be something bad—something that you avoided. Your mom used to tell you "We don't hate anybody. Hate only hurts you. Maybe you're frustrated with your teacher, but you don't hate her." Hate was a very strong emotion that was reserved for occasions that deserved it.

Not anymore. Now a "hater" is someone who's opinion you'd rather not hear.

If I like Mustangs and you like Corvettes, you are a hater . . . or I am, depending on who can spit out the word "Hater!" first.

If you despise Sarah Palin (because the media told you that you are supposed to) and I like Sarah Palin, I am a "hater," meaning, my opinion is different from yours, so I should shut up."

This is not rocket science; it's just a new way of doing what the left has always done: try to silence debate. This is what they did to Miss California when she answered a question with her honest opinion. "You are only allowed to have opinions that are sanctioned."

In the liberal universe this is being "Open-minded."

Their solution to the divide is that we come over to their side. They never want to budge, but if we cave in to them, then we have unity. More on that later.

Alternate phrasings are: Tone down the rhetoric, keep a civil tone in the debate . . . you've heard them all. And, have you ever noticed that the ones screaming the loudest about the lack of civility are the nastiest ones?

Projection . . . I'm telling you, bet on it every time . . .

I was intrigued at the lady who called in to the talk show wringing her hands "Oh, I really wish people would quit calling democrats evil."

Oh? Do you wish it as much as I wish democrats would quit being evil?

It seems like that suggestion is always missing from the democrats' proposals.

You know the deal here. The intended effect is to give automatic immunity to evil (the Bill Clinton effect). They are making it a greater offense to point out the wrongdoing than to commit it. So you can do whatever evil you want, because no one can call you on it, or they are worse than you are. You may be a thief and a liar and a scumbag, but they are (gasp) a hater!

Language is funny. When you want someone to do a good job, you say "Break a leg!" You might call someone who's really good at something "sick." Spoken English is a fluid proposition, and that's what makes it interesting. No one wants to remove the nuances and connotations from language.

But there are limits.

When you use a word in a way contrary to its meaning, what word do you then use to convey the original meaning?

"Dude, that's a bad painting!"
What? I thought it was pretty good.
"I know, I really like it. It's bad!"
I . . . I mean . . . I'm confused. Why do you like it if it's bad?

When you are programing you have certain reserved words. The computer only understands one meaning of any word. Makes sense. Computers are very organized. You may think that's very inflexible of the computer, but would you really want it any other way?

You: Computer! I told you to monitor the temperature and activate the cooling when it exceeded the limit!
Computer: Oh, by "activate" you meant, to turn it on? I was being creative and figured 'activate' meant to drain the cooling.
You: You burnt down my spaceship, stupid computer!

That's how the Navajos messed up the Germans in WWII. Navajo doesn't have unique words for every concept. It's an adjective rich language, but very noun poor. The Germans' organized mind was looking for patterns, but every code talker that described something described it different.

So . . . well, see now? I'm getting bored with the topic. It's a hugely important subject, but if you give a crap you've already figured it out.

Bottom line, what word are we going to use now for someone who really does hate? Huh?

And I love the way people who are trying to screw me over become expert in my religion. Fortunately for me, the same New Testament that says I have to turn the other cheek says that he has to forgive me when I don't.

My close personal friend was with his wife at the doctor's office when she was going to have a baby. She told the doctor that she had heard that they give you an enema in the delivery room. She didn't want an enema.

The doctor gave her some advice that I'd like to pass along to every Republican: Don't roll over. If you roll over, you are going to get an enema.

Those who wring their hands saying "Oh, the horror, we disagree on everything in this country," have NO understanding of democracy.

Let me 'splain this way: Go to a wedding, any wedding. What advice are you for sure going to hear? Say it with me: "Never go to bed angry with each other." (Phyllis Diller said "Yeah, stay up and fight!")

I heard someone refute that advice, saying that if you don't ever go to be angry, you don't have a healthy marriage, because one party in the relationship is able to dominate.

"Peace" comes through a disparity of power; Equality is a noisy proposition. When one faction dominates to the point that there's no discussion, then you have "peace," but not equality. That's how Hugo Chavez wins with 94% of the vote.

So think of the debate as a barometer of the health of the democratic system. As long as we're chattering, the democracy is healthy. When you quit hearing Republicans and democrats disagree, that's when it's time to worry.

Next week: Civility.

Roger Clemens was found not guilty. Our national crisis is finally over!

Did you notice how last month the unemployment rate plummeted from 8.2% to 8.1% . . .
but this month it crept up slightly from 8.1 back to 8.2?

I seldom post anything worth reading here, then when I do, I usually do it right at the end of the month, so it immediately gets stuck one page back where no one ever sees it (seriously, when is the last time you clicked on the "Previous" link?).

So I'm posting this one again, for your viewing pleasure.

---

---

I'm surprised more democrats haven't implemented the MSNBC chart idea, you know, where you leave out the parts that make you look bad. "Well, other than that federal spending has flattened out under Barack Obama!"

John Edwards: I have never fathered a child out of wedlock—not ever! Oh, come on, seriously? You're going to count that one?

Osama bin Laden: I have never launched a terrorist attack on the United States . . . and of course, we only need to look at data after October 2001.

Bernie Madoff: Come on, Judge, I mean other than that what do you have on me?

Warren Buffet: I make less than the average American wage earner . . . as long as you don't count anything I make beyond the average wage earner income.

Rod Blagojevich: Really? You count bribes in US currency as corruption? I never heard of that kind of funky accounting.

Mel Gibson: I have never in my life said anything bad about the Jews. Never! Not once! Anything I said when I was mad or drunk or talking obviously doesn't count.

Teddy Kennedy: I have never killed a woman in a car. I don't know anybody who'd consider an Oldsmobile a "car," really.

I've been flapping my gums a lot lately about counterfeits—things that work because they mimic something that's real.

Here's one: The inherent need to be involved in something significant.

That's not a bad thing . . . in the hands of adults. In fact, it's basically the source behind the country being formed. People got caught up in a worthy cause and saw it through.

But that same "I wanna be involved" sentiment also gave us gave us the Vietnam protests. Only this time it was more like "Hey, you wanna go to class or protest the Vietnam war?"

Uh, gee, I dunno . . . are there are going to be any easy, ugly chicks without bras?

Then, the young’uns who missed out on that action want to be like their bra-burning grandma, and you get the WTO protests, or Occupy Wall Street, or . . . electing Barack Obama.

That's what happened. Barack Obama wasn't elected by voters so much as by mindless emotion from people whose minds are easily controlled.

First we advanced to the point where racism was universally acknowledged as an ugly, bad, undesirable thing. That's a good thing. But we had a portion of society who were resentful that we did that without involving them–the useful idiot faction, as they are called. That's a bad thing. That 'come along for the ride' crowd who trespass in parks on Wall Street are the exact same dumbasses who got us Barack Obama.

Since these people have no minds of their own, it was an easy feat for the media to whip up them into a frenzy. "You can be involved in a transformational moment in history." These morons don't have the skills to look up "transformational," but they can't walk past a TV interview without making faces and white boy gang signs into the camera, so what the hell? There are a lot of easy lays in this crowd, I'm in!

So this is how we got "My vote made history" bumper stickers and an empty suit in the Oval Office.

Either you've already figured this out or your body parts are starting to rot off from the nasty chicks at the Occupy camp.

While National Peoples Radio is using clips from fiction movies ("Historical Documents," as they call them) to illustrate what happened in the 2008 election, you can watch a real account of what happened in the documentary "Media Malpractice."

It uses actual clips and walks you through what happened. I understand that's not as fun as making up your own version of what happened and hiring actors to play it out (Tonight on NPR—the crew of Capricorn One exposes the moon landing hoax!), but if you have any interest at all in what actually happened, the information is available.

Available on Netflix Instant Queue, I highly recommend it.

I was talking about the insane infatuation the left had/has for empty suit Barack Obama. It really reminds me of how the girls in Junior High School acted about Shaun Cassidy.

I remember a panel on a Meet the Press type show after Obama took office. It may have been at the 100 day point, 'cause they were asking about what had Obama really accomplished.

Stack o' Bibles, one gal piped up "What about cutting the deficit in half? That's a great accomplishment!"

Somebody pointed out that "Uh . . . yeah, he hasn't actually done that."

What? What do you mean?

No, he promised during the campaign that he would cut the deficit in half. He hasn't done that, so I don't think you get to count it.

Well . . . but I . . . still . . . I mean . . . hmmmph!

Just astonishing. She was all indignant "Can't you people see how amazing Obama is? Cutting the deficit in half—in half! That's phenomenal! It's astonishing! Barack Obama is just marvelously spectacularly fabulous!"

It's like Christopher Hitchens said when Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize (WTF?), "It's like giving an Oscar to try to spur someone to make a good movie."

By Edward Klein. Buy the book. Read it.

Just do it.

So federal spending has flattened out under Obama? Yeah, sure, if you pick a number that shows it's flattened out then ignore anything he spent beyond that.

Here's the deal: If you have to lie to convince me of something, I'm going to believe the opposite.

For example, George Zimmerman may have murdered Trayvon Martin. Maybe he did, but I'll never believe that, 'cause you couldn't just give me the facts and let me come to a conclusion. You had to doctor the tapes. That tells me you don't believe it, so why should I?

NBC was just trying to keep up with CBS. The consummate example of this was Dan Rather.

He said, he literally said, "Yeah, the evidence was fake, but the story it tells is true." The scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail sprang to my mind: "Well, we did do the nose, but . . . but . . . she's a witch!"

If the story is true, why did you have to fake the evidence?

So it's pretty obvious liberals know what a disaster Obama is. If they thought he was a decent President, they could give us the facts and let us come to that conclusion. Since he's a waste, they have to make up these fake charts.

Mitt Romney has to be careful of the same thing. Please don't think I'm drawing a moral equivalent between Mitt Romney and Obama Spawn of Satan. But he principle's the same. If I find out you've fudged to get me to believe something, I won't believe it.

Romney says that most of the jobs that have been lost under Obama have been women's jobs. Okay, that sounds believable. But then he says that in fact, 92.3% of the people that have lost jobs have been women.

Hold on, now, wait a minute. That sounds really high.

Well, it is true, but only if you examine the numbers a certain way. It's technically true, but it damages your credibility.

When you're trying to find the source of a leak, you use what's called a "Parakeet Trap." You deliver the information to different parties with different wording. Then you can tell by the wording what the source of the leak is.

Let's say you are about to sell your technology to Teknolix. So you tell Sam "We will be inking a deal within a week."

You tell Marie "Corporate representatives will be flying out to close in the next seven days."

You tell Harold "Things are looking good for funding to come through by the first."

Then when Kelly sees you in the hall and says "Hey, I hear that guys from Teknolix corporate are flying out to close the deal," you know he got it from Marie.

So you hear someone call in to a talk show about the fake federal spending chart. "You can't argue with black and white. The facts are black and white."

Okay, so that person has an opinion. But then you switch stations and someone is saying "How can you argue with black and white?"

Well, maybe that's just a good way to word it . . .

But when everyone who defends the chart on radio or TV uses some variation of "You can't argue with the facts when they're in black and white," you know it's the 10:00 o'clock conference call where the democrats tell you what your opinion is. Total seminar callers.

Projection. It's a universal attribute of human beings. You just see the other people through the lens of how you are. For example, I always see people as intelligent and attractive.

It's just natural. "Wow, that must have torqued you off." The only reference you have is yourself, so you have to assume that humans are wired the same way you are.

Understanding that makes it handy to read evil people (democrats). To find out what they're guilty of, look at what they are accusing people of. To find out their vulnerabilities, look at where they attack.

Obama says that Mitt Romney's background does not qualify him to be President.

Wow.

Wow.

Never in history has there been a man whose background qualified him less to be President than community organizer Barack Obama.

Wow.

How stupid would you have to be to question your opponent's qualifications if you're Barack Obama?

"Hey, gather around, gang. I'm going to reveal my can't miss new campaign strategy. Ready? Here it is: We are going to say that Mitt Romney's background doesn't qualify him for the job of President! Huh? Huh? Whaddya think?"

Awkward silence . . .

Uh, sir, do you think it's wise to bring up qualifications given your own . . . ?

"Nonsense! It's a brilliant strategy. I happen to know Romney is vulnerable in that area."

Uh, actually, sir, he's had quite a productive . . .

"Productive?! He's done nothing his whole life but do drugs, tour around the world, and write books about himself."

Uh, sir, if I may, sir, I wonder if maybe you're actually thinking about . . .

"Quit arguing with me and get out there and execute my brilliant strategy!"

Let's just clarify before we get started: Obama was born in America. Under the Constitution he's qualified to be President. Under any kind of common sense he's not, but the guy was, without a doubt, born in the United States of America.

Okay. As it turns out as late as April 2007, Obama's publishing firm Dystel said he was "born in Kenya."

Obama wasn't born in Kenya. The statement from his publisher, which Obama didn't correct, doesn't tell us he's Kenyan. It tells us he's not above stretching the truth if he thinks it's to his advantage.

Being "Kenyan born" is exotic and appealing to some (stupid) people, so he gets to say it that way when he wants to come across as one type of person. But then, when he wants to be President, he gets to say that his father is Kenyan, so he really is "Kenyan born," and he can't help it if you heard it wrong. Remember the Bill Clinton trick?

As long as we're talking about tricks people play and Obama's birthplace, you might have hear that his grandmother said that she witnessed his birth in Kenya.

Yet I still maintain that he wasn't born in Kenya. How can I say that if his grandmother said she witnessed his birth in Kenya? Isn't she a reliable source.

You have back off one step. Someone said his grandmother said that. You didn't hear her say that. His grandmother didn't say it, someone said she did (remember the flight attendant in that Jodie Foster movie Flightplan?)

This is the same thing as that e-mail about Obama saying "I only saw Rod Blagojevich one time, and that was in the stands at a Bears game," then includes lots of pictures of the two of them together. Hey, it's photographic evidence. You can't deny, Obama really was with Blagojevich on many occasions.

He really was, but he never did say he wasn't. The statement is a lie, but we're conditioned to skip right past that part.

If you're a liberal, you might be smart to ask a follow-up question whenever you are asked a question about your position on something.

"Is it wrong to abuse women?" Oh, absolutely . . . wait, are these women conservative?

This is a trick liberals are always getting caught in.

"So what do you think about Bush saying he's going to bankrupt the coal industry?"
"That's just evil! You can't do that. Bush is pure evil for wanting to bankrupt the coal industry!"
"Hang on . . . wait . . . oh, my mistake. Obama's the one that wants to do that."
"Oh. You know, sounds like an idea whose time has come. No, Obama really is a genius."

You know what's going on here. Nothing is sacred to democrats except their power.

If Republicans want to "target" certain areas for attention in an election, that's violent rhetoric. That's horrible, it could incite violence. In fact, their wording on that occasion is absolutely without question what caused the shooting of congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

But a liberal can appeal to us to stone to death a conservative congressman—advocate going to his house and dragging him and his wife and children out into the streets and stoning them to death, and that's just a harmless joke.

When congressman Mark Foley was having unseemly relationships, Hillary was outraged. Was Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert turning a blind eye to that? What an atrocity, for him to let stuff like that be going on right under his nose!

Oh, really? What about when your husband was banging all those women right in your house?

Oh . . . well, that was different . . .

You understand this. The rules are different depending on which side you're on.

In the same breath the left is whining about how vicious the dialog is, they are viciously bashing Sarah Palin (see previous entry on projection). Can you freaking imagine if that were going the other direction?

When liberals say "tone down the dialog" they mean "Don't call us on our evil."

You remember the outrage from the left when Limbaugh called admitted slut Sandra Fluke a slut? Well, look at what the left is doing to conservative S.E. Cupp.

You know the deal with the double standard. A full catalog of these would take more server space than I have (and I have a lot), but you get the picture.