About Producer Thomas

Producer Thomas is the producer of the Teri O'Brien Show.

Scandinavian Socialist Paradise’s Public Policy Turnaround Exposes Liberal Insanity Again

I read an article the other day about the “cradle to grave” welfare states in Scandinavia. (For you democrats, Scandinavia is not in Canada. It consists of the European countries of Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark.) Anyhow, the article talked about how Sweden, Finland and Denmark were starting to cut back on social services and free health care benefits due to the high costs and glaring inefficiencies. In Sweden, for example, one may have to wait a year before getting treatment for cancer. All that and the system is bleeding money, too. Denmark and Finland (where Nokia is the only employer – just kidding) are also realizing that socialized everything is the road to financial ruin. As an aside, I thought of a friend of mine who spent nine months in Finland and hated it. According to him, it’s too dark and all the people do is get drunk. This runs counter to the liberal argument that Scandinavia is the greatest place on earth because the people pay extremely high taxes but are overjoyed with the benefits wrought by big, big government. But returning to the point, one country in Scandinavia is NOT scaling back it’s welfare state policies, and that’s Norway. Why not? Because they have money to burn. And why to they have money to burn? Because they are reaping the benefits of being on the coast of the North Sea, and that spells a three letter word (four if you’re Joe Biden): o-i-l.  In fact, they have so much oil from the over 3,300 offshore wells they control, that the per capita amount of their budget surplus is around $3.5 million something or others for every Norwegian man, woman and child.  Drill, baby, drill.  My point is that it’s a supreme irony that the same people who argue for the welfare state also argue against fossil fuels, but in the case of Norway, fossil fuels make the the welfare state possible.  So stick that in your Keystone pipeline, Sierra Club…

On another note, it’s truly amazing how the media is treating the Obamacare fiasco.  It’s like they actually expected it to work.  Anything close to actual reporting would have prepared us for what’s going on now, but, of course, they didn’t do any actual reporting.  On the contrary, they simply parroted whatever line of crap Obama and his minions fed them.  Actually, they are his minions.  Consider how a Bush Social Security Reform Plan would have been scrutinized had it been enacted.  We’d get news bulletins everytime the DOW went down to warn us how screwed we were going to be once we started investing our own money.  The non-reporting of Obamacare as a looming disaster has to rank right up their with Walter Duranty’s coverup of atrocities in the Stalin-led Soviet Union.  It has to serve as a lesson to all of us that there is no more journalism in the USA, only partisan cheerleading for democrats…

Do any of you watch the 60 minute book promotion on Fox News aka “The Lou Dobbs Show”?  Dobbs keeps shoving his book into our faces regardless of the topic.  He even reads excerpts, and the book sounds like a piece of over-simplified crap-osity, much like Dobbs himself.  If I could, I’d escort Rush Limbaugh’s talking horse (speaking of annoying self-promoters) into the studio and have him take a huge dump right on the book cover, which happens to feature Dobbs’ face.  Doesn’t Fox pay this guy?  Shut up about your damn book already.  It’s disgusting, tasteless and unprofessional…

Speaking of books, my terrific new e-Book will be out soon…


The Trayvon Martin case – 15 really essential hypotheticals to wrestle with

I was reading yet another perspective on the Trayvon Martin case, and it seems that the Trayvon-o-philes have a very popular pastime:  asking hypothetical questions about the case.  Most commonly, “Can you imagine what the verdict would have been if Trayvon had been white and Zimmerman black?”  This got me thinking.  Since no one really knows the answer (although the Sharptonians and the Smileyans and Obamabots seem to believe that they do -  GUILTY BY VIRTUE OF BLACKNESS!) these questions are useless, except to reinforce the notion that “Amerikkka” is full of bigoted white people.

However, if we are going to indulge in the useless pursuit of pointless “prophet”- teering, we should probably also consider these too-important-to-ignore hypothetical scenarios:

  • What if Trayvon and Zimmerman were both black?
  • What if Trayvon and Zimmerman were both white?
  • What if Trayvon’s last name was Garcia?
  • What if George Zimmerman’s middle initial was W?
  • What if they were both white hispanics (like George Zimmerman)?
  • What if they were both white negroes (like President Obama)?
  • What if Florida were part of the British Commonwealth?
  • What if George Zimmerman had carried his pet armadillo instead of a gun, it had bitten Trayvon Martin and he got leprosy (that’s right non-NatGeo fans, those cute little armored things spread leprosy.)
  • What if George Zimmerman was legally married in California – to a man?
  • What if both were wearing women’s underwear?
  • What if Trayvon Martin’s ghost came back and beat the crap out of Piers Morgan?
  • What if Skip Gates had been there?
  • What if a piano had fallen on them during the fight?
  • What if Trayvon was a Hutu and George Zimmerman a Tutsi?
  • What if neither had hi-speed Internet?

You have to admit, had any one of these factors been in play, the verdict may have been different, very different.  Just ask juror Maddie.


Rachel Jeantel – Trayvon was afraid of being raped!

On the Piers Morgan show the other night, Rachel Jeantel pointed out that Trayvon Martin feared that “creepy ass Cracker” George Zimmerman was a homosexual rapist. Further, she pointed out, Trayvon had to confront Zimmerman, he couldn’t run home. He didn’t want Zimmerman to find out where he and his little brother were staying. (After all, Zimmerman might have staked out their house until the little guy went out to play or something, I guess.)

When we saw the highlights of Jeantel’s interview on Monday night, we immediately thought of something else. When initially interviewed by the police, Zimmerman recounted Trayvon asking him something like “What’s your problem, Homie?” Zimmerman said he couldn’t be sure of the exact words. Well, would we really expect Trayvon Martin to call George Zimmerman “homie”? That’s a term of endearment, as in “He’s my homie” or “We’re homies.”

But consider this: within the context of Rachel Jeantel’s revelations, it makes perfect sense to surmise that what Trayvon Martin really said was “What’s your problem, homo?” So, perhaps Trayvon Martin wanted to teach the “homo” a lesson, and that’s why he set out to beat the crap out of him, why he assaulted him with such apparent passion.

It makes perfect sense, and even though Rush Limbaugh will claim to have formulated this theory (he’s been blabbing about it since yesterday), he has made no mention of the “homie” remark, which is a key part of the big picture.

So, the real question is, was Trayvon Martin committing a hate crime at the time of his death? Was he a homophobe? (As of today, we do not know what his position was on same sex marriage.) On the other hand, since Zimmerman is not gay, can it be considered an actual hate crime, or just an attempted hate crime?

The bottom line: the more we learn, the more we begin to feel that George Zimmerman was more victim than villain, and Trayvon Martin was more Tupac Shakur than Will Smith.

Zimmerman Ain’t No Hero, But…

…the prosecution is distinguishing itself as a cabal of demagogues and scoundrels.  At this very sensitive time, while the “professional negroes” (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Ben Jealous) try to evoke memories of real victims of racism like Emmett Till in order to incite violence, the prosecutors should be graciously accepting the jury’s verdict and publicly saying so, again and again.  Instead, they are effectively calling for George Zimmerman to be lynched, insisting on pushing a scenario for which there is no evidence whatsoever: that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin as the pugilistic prodigy, the one punch wizard was backing away from the guy who he’d just beaten the crap out of.

But, if the lack of evidence for this contention were the only issue, we could dismiss the prosecutors as sore losers and incompetent government hacks.  But there’s a much bigger issue to be addressed, and it’s this:  the prosecution called witnesses to testify that Trayvon Martin was on the bottom; they called witnesses to testify that it was Trayvon Martin’s voice heard yelling for help.  As the trial progressed (and they realized their case was a loser) and during their closing argument, they switched gears to the “Trayvon was on top but backing off” scenario.

This can mean only one thing for Bernie del Rionda and his motley crew of legal misfits: THEY CALLED WITNESSES TO THE STAND WHO THEY KNEW WERE GIVING FALSE TESTIMONY!  How else can you interpret it?  The prosecution was willing to base its original case on a version of events they themselves did not (and still do not) believe.  When their own witness (the guy who made the 911 call; yes, he was a prosecution witness) torpedoed their fiction, they conjured up a new version of the “facts”, a version they are vigorously pushing today.

I’m no lawyer, but I think this calls for further scrutiny.  They can’t believe both of the scenarios they presented.  That means they knew beyond a doubt that they were presenting one fraudulent case. I believe they acted illegally and should face their own day of legal reckoning.  And the more del Rionda, Guy and company shoot off their self-righteous mouths, the deeper the hole they could be digging themselves.  Eric Holder, are you listening?

Obama “Scandals” Really No Big Deal

Here are the ten top reasons none of the Obama so-called scandals are any big deal:

1. Benghazi talking points scandal: At this point, what difference does it make?
2. IRS targeting of political adversaries: Nixon started it!
3. Eric Holder’s false Congressional testimony: Everybody lies. And, if you’re old enough to remember the Lewinsky scandal, you probably remember reading in the mainstream media that several experts think that lying can be good.
4. Michelle’s vacations: If you had to lug that posterior around, you’d need lots of vacation time too.
5. Obama’s constant golfing: Eisenhower golfed every bit as much– almost!
6. Obtaining and examining AP phone records: Nixon started it!
7. Doing the same thing to Fox News reporter James Rosen: Nixon started it!
8. Hacking into CBS reporter Sheryl Atkisson’s computer: Nixon would have done it if there’d been PC’s back then, and he would have done more of it.
9. The mysterious whereabouts of President Obama during the Benghazi attack: At this point, what difference does it make?
10. Obama’s re-election: Not a scandal, just a shame and an outrage. And now he’s president of the United States – all 57 of them – for another four years. Maybe it is a scandal…

Voter ID – Racism spreads beyond the polling place!

The poor in America are really getting the shaft, but thanks to the democrats, at least they can vote. While the republicans attempt to deprive minorities and the poor of their voting rights by requiring photo IDs, the issue goes well beyond voting. Here are some of the other things the poor cannot do because of oppressive ID requirements:
- Claim their lotto winnings. Lotto winnings must be reported to the IRS at the time of collection. In order to do that, you must provide proof of identity. THIS MEANS THAT ONLY THE RICH CAN WIN LOTTO!
- Buy cold medicine. Since the main ingredient in the most popular and effective cold medication is now a controlled substance (people use it to make methamphetamine,) the poor and minorities CANNOT BUY IT! This means that they must suffer through their colds, while the rich can get relief from their symptoms. As if life isn’t tough enough on those who have been victimized by racism and the economic terrorism of capitalism, they also have to sneeze their way through their miserable existences.
- Buy guns. (Never mind. They seem to be able to get around this one, at least in Chicago.)

So, the bottom line: we live in a cruel society, where the poor and minorities are oppressed. For God’s sake, can we take the measures necessary so that the poor and minorities can participate as fully as we, the well-connected, fortunate winners of life’s lottery?

No, I’m not proposing that we eliminate all requirements for photo identification. That will not solve the problem.  We must ask ourselves, WWFRD (What Would Franklin Roosevelt Do?)  And I think we all know. That’s right. I’m proposing a complete ban on the new Jim Crow – photo identification. The photo ID should be banned by force of law.  Under this ban, when someone asks for proof of identification, they would be arrested.

But if it happens to you, there’s no need to be concerned with having an arrest on your record. At the arraignment, just give them a fake name.

Random thoughts before today’s show…

I’m tired of hearing about how 90% of all Americans are for universal background checks. What a charade. No one is even discussing what the disqualifiers would be (taking an antidepressant, DUI. unpaid parking tickets, overdue library books…?) I propose we have universal background checks for anyone who wants to work in media, and full disclosure of the results. Then at least the public would know that 90% of them were at one time connected to the democratic party or related to someone who is.

With some libs planning to push higher taxes on ammunition, we may find ourselves living in a country where only the rich can afford to lock and load. But don’t worry, I’m sure the democrats will come up with an “ammo-stamp” program for the “poor.” Like food stamps, it will be abused more often than the wife of an alcoholic hillbilly, but it will do what it’s intended to do; produce votes for democrats.

Here are a couple of items from the “It’s Great to be a Short Term Thinker” Department:

The democrats and the media mocked Ronald Reagan’s strategic defense initiative, saying that it would be at least 2000 before it would yield the desired result.. That means by now, we’d be about twelve years down the road from being in a position to tell Kim what-the-fuck and Ah-ma-dim-wit to take their nuclear weapons and shove them straight up their asses.

Back in 2003, the opposition to the war in Iraq (jagoffs like Dick(head) Durbin pointed out that Saddam Hussein wasn’t even close to having a nuclear weapon and wouldn’t be until at least…2007. Hey, wait a minute. That’s six years ago…

When President Bush tried to open a microscopic section of the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve to oil exploration, the democrats argued that we wouldn’t even see any oil production until… 2012.

Short term thinking has cost us greatly, and we’re seeing it again, with President Numbnuts putting forth a budget that NEVER balances. His reasoning is that the deficit his budget allows is “manageable.” That may be true, President HeWho (as in, He who doesn’t know what the capital gains tax is), but the national debt is cumulative, as is the service on that debt. If we don’t balance the budget and start paying the service on the debt, we are going to have a new national pass time: knitting “What me worry?” sweaters to sell to the Cypriots.

So, you may have guessed that I’m a little steamed today. Blame it on Michigan. If the weasels had lost, I’d have won my NCAA pool. But not all is lost. If Louisville wins tomorrow, I still win. I’ll bet President Blow-bama is for Michigan.