About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Happy New Year!

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Monday, December 31, 2007 4:29:55 PM
Well, 2007 is over and we have all survived into a new year while not being able to make the liberals any smarter. They still think money in the hands of the people who earned it is bad, and if the government doesn't own it, it's bad. They think reducing tax rates will not increase the "tax take," even though it has worked every time it has been tried, even by one of their own, John Kennedy. They think the way for us to defend ourselves is to disarm ourselves while criminals have no problem getting guns any time they want. They whine about a "bad economy" (which doesn't exist outside of their imaginations) while doing everything they can to destroy it by trying to kill Wal-Mart, Target, Microsoft, and other examples of "big business." Who do they think is propping up this good economy (which they're too stupid to recognize)? Without "big business," there would be no jobs and no new projects to make the economy better. They believe anything the "child protectors" tell them while they ignore, on principle, anything told them by parents. They can't argue on the facts, so they immediately (within about 30 seconds, according to Rush Limbaugh) start calling us names (labels). But don't fret. As soon as they start name-calling, you've won. They can't debate on facts because anything they'd come up with, fact-wise, will destroy any argument they're offering. (Just common sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A "Positive Genius!"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, December 30, 2007 5:01:27 PM
"Last week, on a campaign stop in New Hampshire, Bill Clinton made the statement that his wife is 'a world-class genius in making positive changes in other people's lives.' 'The reason she ought to be president, over and above her vision and her plans is that she has proved in every position she has ever had in life, whether it was in elected office or not, that she is a world-class genius in making positive changes in other people's lives.' " (CERRCO) What "positive changes" has she ever made in anyone's life? He makes this pronouncement without a shred of truth, and gullible Democrats believe it. I need proof. He has to prove it to me, and even if he does (she can't), she is gullible enough to believe socialism is a good way to govern. She doesn't say so. She doesn't dare. But don't listen to what she says. Watch what she does, and what ideas she supports. She is our "Evita Peron." You remember her. She destroyed a thriving economy in Argentina by selling them socialism. Fortunately, she died before she could complete the job. (The "Evita Factor")
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Water is Indestructible

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, December 30, 2007 3:15:06 PM
You can only change its form. It will still exist, as steam, clouds, rain, and water itself, but you cannot destroy it. Yet the United Nations wants us to sign a treaty supposedly to "protect it," but which merely gives them total authority over any body of water, even a mud-hole on the prairie. The definition they used to use is "navigable waters." That has been removed from the "Law of the Sea" treaty they want us to sign, and which Bush has urged Congress to ratify. One of the first stupid things Bill Clinton did when elected president was to sign this treaty, but fortunately, Congress refused to ratify it. If it is ratified, an international, "world-government-promoting" organization made up of dictators and socialists 9who hate us and freedom) will own every puddle and mudhole in America and we won't be able to do anything about it. Our sovereignty will be subject to the World Court's decisions, none of which have proven friendly to the United States or any other so-called "free nation." (Common Sense Chronicles. 12/28/07) I found this reference on Miguel Diocuore's CERRCO blog. To go to his general blog, eliminate everything after "com" in the URL I'm giving you. This URL takes you to the story I found.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ray's Shorts 12/29/07

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Saturday, December 29, 2007 2:05:13 PM
Copyright © 2007 by Ray Thomas. These are items of OPINION, for which I often don't have URLs to use for documentation and which are usually too short to be a headlined item. When I can, I'll include any URLs I have, or give you an idea where to look. . . . THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER: Your identity being stolen isn't the issue as a reason why you should NEVER give your Social Security number to ANYBODY but the IRS and your employer (The government has "strong-armed" the banking industry into requiring it so you might have to give it there, under protest), although that is an "immediate issue." The reason is when that number is REQUIRED for ALL transactions, the government can then make you into an "unperson" at will and force you to "go underground" in order to live.  . . .  LIBERALS ARE NEVER QUESTIONED: Whenever they make their "pronouncements," they're never questioned by the liberal media. Conservatives, on the other hand, are called liars even before they even open their mouths.  . . .  MISSING WOMEN: How many more "missing women" do we have to have before the "authorities" start looking beyond the husband or boyfriend to the possibility that she was taken by "sex slavers" to be sold in Middle Eastern countries (or even in THIS country) Many people say the United States is "going down the tubes." That may even be so. But it is the very people who are responsible for it who are saying it. If the U. S. is, indeed, "going down the tubes," it is the liberals and intellectuals in our government and in our schools who are responsible.  . . .  CANCEROUS ROT: Liberalism is a "cancerous rot from within." If ANYTHING can beat this country it's that, if we allow it.  . . .  SHOULD RUSSERT BE SHOT? One of Hillary's staffers thought Tim Russert should be shot for asking Hillary a "tough question: instead of the "softballs" the liberal press usually ask her. Boy, she'd hate some of the questions I'D ask her and I'd better stay away from that "unnamed" staffer for a person who is a well-known gun-hater.  . . .   GET THE LEAD OUT: Communist China doesn't care a whole lot how many of its own people they kill with lead poisoning in their products. They figure they have too many people, anyway. That's why they enforce a "one-baby-per-family" policy by forced abortion for the second child. But they'd BETTER start caring about the lead poisoning they're creating in their customers all over the world, or pretty soon nobody's going to buy their slave-labor-created products.  . . .  "KILLING THE GOOSE": Democrats are "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs" by laying extra taxes on those who make a lot of money. People MAKE a lot of money by "creating wealth" for themselves AND others. How many millionaires have been made by Microsoft? Why should they be punished for that? How many of their employees are high middle class, earning top money? Why punish them for that? If the Democrats keep punishing "the rich" for creating new wealth for EVERYBODY, soon there will be no "rich" for them to loot and EVERYBODY, including the Democrats, will suffer. Why they don't understand that, I don't know. Maybe they're just stupid. Liberals (Democrats) just want power. They don't care if their policies destroy life as we know it, as long as it doesn't happen in their lifetimes.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Are We So Easy to Con?

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Friday, December 28, 2007 3:07:32 PM
One columnist, who says Benazir Bhutto is not the person Americans think she is, that she's a "thief" who looted her country through two terms as prime minister,  expressed wonder at how easily Americans are conned about such people. If he's right, it's not so hard to understand. Americans for the most part, pay no attention, or scant attention to "politics" until shortly before an important election. They have bought the "Lincoln Cult's" scams that have caused Abraham Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus, imprisoned thousands of Northern political opponents during the War between the States, shut down hundreds of opposing newspapers, pledged to support a constitutional amendment to prohibit the feds from ever interfering with Southern slavery, and issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court to be "deified" forever to all (well, mostly all) Americans when he was one of the most corrupt presidents we have known (with the possible exception of Bill Clinton). We are, to a large degree, buying the bull droppings of AlGore, who goes around the world crying "the sky is falling" and enough people believe him that he has created a multi-million dollar industry fighting his imaginary man-made global warming swindle. If we buy that con, why not buy what we're told by the liberal media about Bhutto? I'm not saying Bhutto is bad. Neither am I saying she is the "recent coming of our savior." But I am getting tired of trying to wake people up to the many scams that are being run on us by liberals and others. I'll probably be hearing from some of today's "Lincoln Cultists" after this post gets out. But they'd better have proof of their assertions. (Ralph Peters in the New York Post) Another writer in Newsweek says "Bhutto may become in death what she never was in life.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Coward's Act

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:35:10 PM
"Election by assassination." Today, Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, along with 20 others who were in range of the explosion following her death (which may have caused her death) in which the killer blew himself up. I don't know if Musharraf was responsible for her assassination, or not but it's a good bet bet some of his supporters are because he was going to lose the upcoming election (unless the terrorists took her at her word and wanted her dead at all costs). He blames terrorists in which case, he may be next, but what do terrorists have to gain from her death? Of course, that has never been a problem before. They kill just for the fun of killing. They even kill their friends and their own children if that will create a chaos situation, and this certainly does that. I think anybody who would assassinate someone instead of honestly defeating him/her in an election is the biggest of cowards and is about as stupid as they come. (YAHOO News, 12/27/07)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bolton's Truth

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:21:32 PM
"I think we are very close to a decision point," John Bolton says. "And if the choice is between nuclear Iran and use of force, I think we have to look at the use of force." This is the same John Bolton Bush had to appoint with an "interim appointment" because the anti-war, anti-business" anti-everything Democrats would not confirm him for a real appointment. I have a general rule I usually observe: if the Democrats don't want something, I do. Usually, if Democrats do want something, I don't. The fact that the Democrats (and all other liberals) hate Bolton so much is very instructive to me. So when Bolton says we have to consider the use of force to stop Iran from getting a nuclear device, we have to consider it. Yes, we have a lot of troops in Iraq. But that only means they are much closer than Ahmadinijerk likes, and could strike before he can get ready. The same kind of people who are now against "taking down" the current Iran government are the same kind of people who were against taking Hitler down, and you remember what that led to. Bolton needs a job in this administration. If the Republicans do win in 2008 (a long-shot), he should be one of their first appointments. Probably as Secretary of State. Then we could move Condoleeza to another important position. She's too good to lose. But we need Bolton where he can make the most difference in our foreign policy. (News Max, 12/25/07)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Picture ID" for Voting

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:54:02 PM
You would think everybody in the world would be aware that if you don't require identification that cannot easily be falsified in order to vote -- if you allow people to vote with nothing but an envelope they presumably received in the mail (but they might have stolen out of someone else's mailbox), you open your elections to easy cheating. When you require a "picture ID," you make it more difficult to steal an election. The Democrats (liberals) know this, which is why they will "move Heaven and earth" to keep such a requirement from ever becoming law. And why real "right-wingers" (not all are conservatives) will do the same to get it enacted. But there's going to be a "Helluva fight" before either side wins. The liberals will probably win because they are so well-embedded in all our major institutions, such as government (bureaucracy), news media and academia. (Just common sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Climate See-Saw

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:10:54 PM
"It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming -- it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.  The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.” [Emphasis mine. -RT] I love liberals! Because their tired, old "theories" are so easy to disprove. Such as the one where they insist that "there are no absolutes" by making an absolute statement. Global warming is the same. All you have to do is look at history to see how stupid are their "theories." Climate change is a "natural phenomena" and is "cyclical." It has been since the world began, without destroying, or even hurting the world in general. AlGore won't even debate global warming on its merits any more. If an eminent weather scientist disagrees with his ignorant claims, he simply says that scientist "is no longer in the 'mainstream' of science" and refuses to debate it other than that. He is now claiming that all those who disagree with him are simply "global warming deniers," as if that discredited them (he wishes). He says global warming is "settled science," and bases that on what he calls a "scientific consensus." I've got news for you, Al. "Consensus" is not science. Science is or is not. No amount of "voting" by one scientist against another is going to change science. He calls such people "flat-earthers." But that's what I call the "snake-oil salesman" who are pushing Al's con and making millions on it by planting trees on your money. (BMI)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Religious Infighting

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, December 25, 2007 1:55:35 PM
The following is an example of the religious infighting going on in the presidential race: "[In] June 1998, the Southern Baptist Convention held its annual meeting in Salt Lake City, the backyard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- the Mormons. The annual meeting created a stir between the Baptists and the Mormons. The keynote speaker at the gathering was then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. At the annual meeting, the SBC distributed copies of a book entitled 'Confronting the Contradictions Between Mormon Beliefs and True Christianity,' [Notice their effort to separate Mormonism from "true Christianity" -RT] whose lead author is R. Philip Roberts, director of the Interfaith Witness Division of the North American Mission Board of the SBC. The book maintains that while Mormons claim to be Christians, they propagate a non-Christian view of God, a non-Christian view of Jesus, and a non-Christian view of the gospel. In a passage that echoes Huckabee’s question, the book quotes a Mormon apostle as saying: 'Satan is a person with a spirit body in form like that of all other men. He is a spirit brother of ours and of our Lord Jesus Christ.' [A "spirit brother" is not a "brother-in-fact." -RT] In another passage, Roberts and his co-authors state: 'Mormons claim that the early Christian church contained all the same teachings the LDS [Latter-day Saints] embrace today. However, with the death of Christ’s apostles, they believe ["They believe." -RT] the church fell into total apostasy, instituted false doctrine, changed the Scriptures, and lost the authority to minister in God’s name. Mormonism claims that every baptism performed by a minister outside of the true Church of Christ is rejected by God.” [According to this author,with not a single shred of any kind of proof. -RT] This is the kind of thing that happens when you allow religious beliefs to dominate an election. "Religious beliefs" are not "religion." They are beliefs written by men and sold to the "religious" as the "word of God," which they are not. It is such "religious beliefs" that lead me to stay away from Islam (for my purposes), which teaches their adherents to beat their women for the "high crime" of being in the company of a man not their husband, and who beat and kill their women if a man rapes them; who force their women to wear clothes that hide any view of any part of their bodies, since they're so afraid of losing them to others if they can see them; who allow a man to "marry" a whore for a night's fun, then "divorce her" in the morning by going outside and shouting "I divorce thee" three times, thus circumventing the rule not allowing a man to have sex with a woman not his wife (They're allowed multiple wives). Things like these, plus the total control over Muslims by the church including how many times a day to pray, in what position, and in what direction offend me. Plus, Muslins demand Christians and members of other religions observe their customs, while Muslims ignore those of other religions while their "Bible," the "Koran" advises them to kill those who do not believe the same way they do. If anybody can prove me wrong, please do so and I'll be happy to admit it. (Quotes are from News Max)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Swiftboating"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, December 23, 2007 3:12:10 PM
One of the things people who "don't pay attention to politics" until a few months before an election don't understand is that Democrats and everybody else don't mean the same thing when they use certain words. Today, Democrats don't want to be "swiftboated" on the issues. What that means is they don't want people to tell the truth about them. There hasn't been a single one of the allegations of the "Swiftboaters" proven false -- yet they still treat the very term as if is referred to lies.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Get Stuffed"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, December 23, 2007 1:17:16 PM
The liberals are really frightened of Fox News. Otherwise why would they be trying to undermine them "in the dark" by demanding their advertisers abandon them? "NEW YORK (AP) - Liberal activists are stepping up their campaign against Fox News Channel by pressuring advertisers not to patronize the network. MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network. Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos." I guess "raising a fuss about something that never happened is not enough for "Media Strategy." They're so afraid of a real debate that they have to go behind everyone's backs and try and get Fox's advertisers to stop advertising on Fox. But knowing the type of advertisers who choose Fox, I suspect they'll tell them to "get stuffed." They say they "admit their bias" while Fox doesn't. What a load! Thanks guys! I needed a good laugh. Fox has more liberal commentators on staff than CBSNBCABC and their ilk, and present more liberal ideas than all of them. The problem the liberals have is thattFox also gives the conservative side, which the liberals won't countenance and can't stand. (Breitbart)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Islamic Terrorists Laughing At Us

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:27:26 PM
And people wonder why. Maybe it's because our elite liberals, who a lot of liberal dupes believe can "solve" all our problems, don't believe they're a threat. They think because they're still a small part of Muslims, they'll never be able to hurt us. But think about how many people just 18 terrorists managed to kill on Sept. 11. 2001. Think about the hundreds of people they can kill by using our own disbelief in their power to hurt us as a "lever" to do just that. That disbelief is their power. Are we going to wait until they're strong enough to really hurt us? They're trying hard to get their hands on a nuclear bomb. Does anybody think they won't use it as quickly as they get one? That would be devastating. They're not after "territory." They just want to kill. If they get territory in the process and are able to "rule" us (With Sharia Law), they'll take it. But otherwise, they're satisfied just to be able to kill "Infidels." Which is the name given to anybody who doesn't believe the same way they do. Yet our country's elite liberals are being "played" by these people and are playing right into their hands, at the top echelons. Why else did the Democrats recently ask the very Imam responsible for Iran's kidnapping of hundreds of American diplomats to give the "invocation" at their recent meeting? We'd better "get wise" before we ALL are forced to pray to the East five times a day with our butts in the air, or die. These people aren't "strong." They're merely clever scam artists and killers. If we don't crush them everywhere we can find them, we're going to die. Everywhere. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Arabia, France, wherever we can find their nests. Root them out and kill them before they can kill us. Read this article in World Net Daily. It could cause you to do things that might ultimately save your life (and the lives of others). (World Net Daily, 2/9/06)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Trivializing Fox News

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, December 20, 2007 12:30:56 PM
The liberals hate Fox News with a passion because it is fast proving that Americans prefer not to be lied to. Fox brings both sides of political issues and probably have more liberal commentators on staff than do most other news services. Thus, they do not bring us only the liberal side. The liberals just can't stand that and try to trivialize them as often as they can. More evidence that politics should be kept out of comics is "Candorville's" Dec. 7 comic strip, which attempts to trivialize Fox News because it has many "foxes" on its staff who wear short skirts and show much cleavage, and they think that's the reason why Fox is "whipping up on" all the other Cable stations and networks. As if all of them don't have many foxes with short skirts and cleavage. Does this artist (and other liberals) really think we are so ignorant as to not be aware of this?  Notice they also refer to it with three xes, as if the whole network is "triple-x." Subtle. Too bad. When he stays away from politics, I actually enjoy this strip. (Candorville, 12/7/07)


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

Sharpton In Deep Doo-Doo -- Finally

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:08:09 PM
What took so long? The government was provided with clear and specific evidence of campaign finance and tax law violations more than three years ago (at this writing) and he is just now being "investigated." Yes, they've raided some of his "groups." But will that result in any charges being filed against Sharpton? Doubtful. There are too many people sorely afraid of Sharpton calling them "racist." That's his biggest weapon against any criticism or investigation. If you oppose him in any way, or even logically criticize a word he says, you're a racist -- even if you're "investigating" him. Especially if you're "investigating" him. (Earth Times, 12/1407)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »