Obama's DHS, through its ICE component, has launched a 24/7 hotline intended to provide advice and information for illegal immigrants who are busted by local authorities. ICE agents will man the phones 24/7, providing service to illegals in several different languages. They will take information from the caller, and then send that information to a local ICE office for what they term 'immediate action'. What that action might be, other than going down and harrassing the local authorities and trying to prevent them from doing their jobs, is not explained.
Here's the official press announcement:
http://content.govdelivery.com/bulletins/gd/USDHSICE-23b1e1
So, the Obama Administration once again extends the hand of friendship to illegal immigrants in the hope of buying their votes, all paid for by you and me.
(And before anyone quips 'illegals can't vote', well, that's bullshit. Illegal immigrant votes are one of the biggest reasons Obama, his DoJ, and Democrats in general are so opposed to strengthening voter fraud laws, such as requiring a photo ID to be able to vote.)
As a Natural Born American Citizen, and a taxpayer who is paying for this service, can I call these people for help if the local authorities give me a hard time? Might be worth a call, just to hear how they decline the opportunity to assist me.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Republicans and Iowa - What Does It Mean To The Winner?
Republicans and talking heads are all going crazy with the wildly fluctuating poll numbers heading into the Iowa primary next week. Each time a poll is released, there is a new front runner. Romney, then Gingrich, then Paul, then back to Romney, Santorum on the rise, Perry on the rise ... on and on.
It's as if Iowa is the 2012 election itself.
The only reason the results in Iowa are important is that it is the first state to hold a primary.
How important are the results? Does victory in Iowa give the winner the Republican nomination? Does defeat kill a campaign?
Victory ... No. The winner of the Republican primary in Iowa has gone on to secure the Republican nomination 4 out of the last 6 times there was not an incumbent Republican President. In 2008, Mike Huckabee won with 34% of the vote. Mitt Romeny was second, Fred Thompson (remember him?) was third. John McCain, the eventual nominee was fourth with just 13% of the vote.
Defeat ... depends on who it is, and how strong a showing in defeat they have. Iowa can weed out the bottom feeders, stop campaigns that have no hope before they go any further. For strong candidates, a defeat in Iowa will not cause them to get out of the race. There is no way any of the top 4 vote getters will give up (and no way Ron Paul will give up even if he receives 0 votes - he's such a loon).
I believe that Gingrich is done for. His flash in the pan stardom mirrors that of Herman Cain - initial interest, until his 'issues' start to come out and folks get to know more about him. Newt is sometimes brilliant, sometimes an absolute dunce. There are good reasons he was pretty much run out of politics in the 90s.
Romney just keeps plodding along. Polling numbers don't vary much, he's pretty much a known quantity. A few new items are popping to the surface now that are going to come into play on down the road, giving hope to his rivals of taking him down a few points. Romney is the middle of the road candidate - moderates like him, because he is not conservative. Conservatives don't like him for that very reason. If Romney ends up being the nominee, as looks likely, there is a very real danger of a vast number of conservative Republicans choosing not to vote in November - which will hand victory to Obama, just as it did in 2008.
Ron Paul is dangerous. His high poll numbers in Iowa are going to give his ego a boost and keep him in this thing longer, continuing to screw up the Republicans. He will ultimately drop out as a Republican, tell all his followers that no one who gets the nomination is worthy of voting for, and quite likely end up as running on a third party ticket. If he does that, Obama will win the election, because all the votes Paul sucks off will come from Republican ranks, thereby diluting Republican/conservative voting strength. Remember Ross Perot? Thanks to him we got 8 years of Bill Clinton.
Santorum and Bachman have no realistic chance at the nomination. I think they both know it, and are just waiting for a true frontrunner to emerge so they can drop out and endorse. It is too early for them to do so, because chances are good that they might choose the wrong bandwagon to jump on to, embarrass themselves, and guarantee they won't have any part in an upcoming Republican Administration.
Rick Perry, I think, is still going to be a force to reckon with as we move forward. He will do well to finish fourth in Iowa. He will be off the bottom of the board in New Hampshire. He may be middle of the pack in South Carolina. If his campaign can survive those early tests and get him by the first wave of dropouts, I think he has a very good chance of rising again to challenge Romney. That is, of course, if he doesn't keep shooting himself in the foot (or mouth, as the case may be).
A spoiler could be Donald Trump. His continued threats to run as an independent will have the same effect as if Paul runs on a third party ticket. He won't steal as many votes away from the Republican nominee, but every one he does take will come from the Republican side. You can be sure that if Trump runs, it won't be for political gain or cause, it will just be him stroking his own ego.
A Democrat dream would be for Romney to win the nomination, and both Paul and Trump to run on third party tickets. That would give Obama a landslide victory.
Republicans just have to realize that we do not have a strong, Reagan-like candidate to go up against Obama. Republican candidates have to realize this, and keep their egos from killing our chances. Stop with the negativity, stop with the personal attacks, get the hell out of the race if you have no chance. As voters, we have to understand that, and rally behind whoever the nominee is, for the one and only priority that we have to focus on is getting Obama out of office.
It's as if Iowa is the 2012 election itself.
The only reason the results in Iowa are important is that it is the first state to hold a primary.
How important are the results? Does victory in Iowa give the winner the Republican nomination? Does defeat kill a campaign?
Victory ... No. The winner of the Republican primary in Iowa has gone on to secure the Republican nomination 4 out of the last 6 times there was not an incumbent Republican President. In 2008, Mike Huckabee won with 34% of the vote. Mitt Romeny was second, Fred Thompson (remember him?) was third. John McCain, the eventual nominee was fourth with just 13% of the vote.
Defeat ... depends on who it is, and how strong a showing in defeat they have. Iowa can weed out the bottom feeders, stop campaigns that have no hope before they go any further. For strong candidates, a defeat in Iowa will not cause them to get out of the race. There is no way any of the top 4 vote getters will give up (and no way Ron Paul will give up even if he receives 0 votes - he's such a loon).
I believe that Gingrich is done for. His flash in the pan stardom mirrors that of Herman Cain - initial interest, until his 'issues' start to come out and folks get to know more about him. Newt is sometimes brilliant, sometimes an absolute dunce. There are good reasons he was pretty much run out of politics in the 90s.
Romney just keeps plodding along. Polling numbers don't vary much, he's pretty much a known quantity. A few new items are popping to the surface now that are going to come into play on down the road, giving hope to his rivals of taking him down a few points. Romney is the middle of the road candidate - moderates like him, because he is not conservative. Conservatives don't like him for that very reason. If Romney ends up being the nominee, as looks likely, there is a very real danger of a vast number of conservative Republicans choosing not to vote in November - which will hand victory to Obama, just as it did in 2008.
Ron Paul is dangerous. His high poll numbers in Iowa are going to give his ego a boost and keep him in this thing longer, continuing to screw up the Republicans. He will ultimately drop out as a Republican, tell all his followers that no one who gets the nomination is worthy of voting for, and quite likely end up as running on a third party ticket. If he does that, Obama will win the election, because all the votes Paul sucks off will come from Republican ranks, thereby diluting Republican/conservative voting strength. Remember Ross Perot? Thanks to him we got 8 years of Bill Clinton.
Santorum and Bachman have no realistic chance at the nomination. I think they both know it, and are just waiting for a true frontrunner to emerge so they can drop out and endorse. It is too early for them to do so, because chances are good that they might choose the wrong bandwagon to jump on to, embarrass themselves, and guarantee they won't have any part in an upcoming Republican Administration.
Rick Perry, I think, is still going to be a force to reckon with as we move forward. He will do well to finish fourth in Iowa. He will be off the bottom of the board in New Hampshire. He may be middle of the pack in South Carolina. If his campaign can survive those early tests and get him by the first wave of dropouts, I think he has a very good chance of rising again to challenge Romney. That is, of course, if he doesn't keep shooting himself in the foot (or mouth, as the case may be).
A spoiler could be Donald Trump. His continued threats to run as an independent will have the same effect as if Paul runs on a third party ticket. He won't steal as many votes away from the Republican nominee, but every one he does take will come from the Republican side. You can be sure that if Trump runs, it won't be for political gain or cause, it will just be him stroking his own ego.
A Democrat dream would be for Romney to win the nomination, and both Paul and Trump to run on third party tickets. That would give Obama a landslide victory.
Republicans just have to realize that we do not have a strong, Reagan-like candidate to go up against Obama. Republican candidates have to realize this, and keep their egos from killing our chances. Stop with the negativity, stop with the personal attacks, get the hell out of the race if you have no chance. As voters, we have to understand that, and rally behind whoever the nominee is, for the one and only priority that we have to focus on is getting Obama out of office.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
SOPA - Why You Should Be Very Afraid
SOPA - the Stop Online Piracy Act, was introduced into the US House of Representatives this past October. HR 3261 is sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX). It's stated purpose is to allow law enforcement to go after those who pirate intellectual property, such as movies or music, and post them to the internet.
Laws exist to do this already. SOPA is a vast expansion, and like most big government projects, it goes way too far.
Instead of going after those who do the piracy, it goes after web sites and hosting services that the piracy moves through. Doesn't sound too bad, does it?
In actuality, what it can mean is that services like YouTube will go away. If they try to stay around, they will be responsible for making sure that each and every submission in no way violates any copyright. YouTube will have to research each and every video sent to it to make sure that someone in the chain, from the moment the video was created to the moment it was uploaded to YouTube itself, doesn't hold a copyright on the video or anything in the video. If YouTube is found in violation, in some way having missed some little piece of copyright material, whether the copyright is visible in the material or not, YouTube can be shut down by the Department of Justice, and its owners/operators sued or even jailed.
YouTube will not be able to operate under this. Likewise, Facebook goes bye bye. Google - if a search result pulls up something that is copyrighted, they are targets, no matter if they had anything to do with the material or not. Paypal could be shut down if they funnel funds to anyone who violates a copyright online, even if they have no knowledge of such a violation.
The bill requires anyone who has anything to do with the internet to become 'thought police' - in essence censors who will have to spend the time and effort to examine everything and decide whether to block the material or not, simply to defend themselves.
Supporters of this bill are the owners of intellectual property that is often the target of copyright infringement - movies and music mainly. Hollywood loves this bill.
Detractors are anyone who uses the internet to communicate, to research, to speak out, and to play.
SOPA will not accomplish what its stated goal is. It will not stop piracy - it can't. Most of the sources of pirated material is off shore - China, Indonesia, Mexico, etc. Any country outside of the US is outside of the reach of this legislation.
In addition, web sites that currently stream pirated material are on the move constantly. They change names, switch ISPs, move to other IP addresses frequently, in order to thwart authorities from prosecuting them. The wheels of justice are too slow to keep up with the real criminals. SOPA will not change that. What SOPA will do is provide well known, established, non-moving targets to the DoJ to attack - like YouTube.
This bill is internet censorship under the guise of commercial protection. It takes a legitimate concern, piracy, and blows it way out of proportion, giving the Federal Government powers that reach far beyond the stated purpose.
The list of potential targets for investigation is so large that a politically motivated DoJ (such as the one we have now) can easily pick and choose who they go after. SOPA can become a political weapon. Do you really think that Eric Holder would go after MoveOn.org, instead of Drudgereport? Can you say 'Fairness Doctrine' on steroids?
If SOPA passes and is signed into law, this Blog, and tens of thousands of others used to express free speech will go away, or be severely curtailed. This Blog would become text only, with no links, photos, or embedded content whatsoever. I couldn't post a photo, unless I knew exactly who produced it and had their explicit permission to reproduce it. I couldn't link to a YouTube video, because I would have no way of guaranteeing that no one along the chain had any claim to a copyright. What would be the point then?
If you enjoy the internet as it is, or count on it for your daily life, contact your Representatives and Senators, and express your outrage that Congress is considering this. The House Judiciary Committee has already held two 'public' hearings on the bill, one in November and one just before the Holiday break a couple of weeks ago. Didn't hear anything about those hearings or what was said in them, did you? Just like most of what the Federal Government is doing these days, they are trying to pass it quickly, without the public realizing what is going on. Once it is law, then it is too late to do anything about it. The Committee is supposed to hold more hearings on the bill after the Holiday recess is over.
Don't get me wrong - I am not a supporter of those who pirate music or movies. I am a supporter of modifying current laws where necessary to go after those who do the pirating, not this overkill approach that will have consequences far beyond the stated purpose.
Here is the text of HR 3261, if you are interested:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:
Update - I am almost embarrassed to say this, but I apparently have the same thoughts on this as the Obama Administration. Obama's spokesman has come out and stated that they are concerned with the scope of SOPA and its unintended affects, and that they will be working with Congress to modify the legislation to refine the language to limit what it can do. Logical, and I hope they follow through.
Laws exist to do this already. SOPA is a vast expansion, and like most big government projects, it goes way too far.
Instead of going after those who do the piracy, it goes after web sites and hosting services that the piracy moves through. Doesn't sound too bad, does it?
In actuality, what it can mean is that services like YouTube will go away. If they try to stay around, they will be responsible for making sure that each and every submission in no way violates any copyright. YouTube will have to research each and every video sent to it to make sure that someone in the chain, from the moment the video was created to the moment it was uploaded to YouTube itself, doesn't hold a copyright on the video or anything in the video. If YouTube is found in violation, in some way having missed some little piece of copyright material, whether the copyright is visible in the material or not, YouTube can be shut down by the Department of Justice, and its owners/operators sued or even jailed.
YouTube will not be able to operate under this. Likewise, Facebook goes bye bye. Google - if a search result pulls up something that is copyrighted, they are targets, no matter if they had anything to do with the material or not. Paypal could be shut down if they funnel funds to anyone who violates a copyright online, even if they have no knowledge of such a violation.
The bill requires anyone who has anything to do with the internet to become 'thought police' - in essence censors who will have to spend the time and effort to examine everything and decide whether to block the material or not, simply to defend themselves.
Supporters of this bill are the owners of intellectual property that is often the target of copyright infringement - movies and music mainly. Hollywood loves this bill.
Detractors are anyone who uses the internet to communicate, to research, to speak out, and to play.
SOPA will not accomplish what its stated goal is. It will not stop piracy - it can't. Most of the sources of pirated material is off shore - China, Indonesia, Mexico, etc. Any country outside of the US is outside of the reach of this legislation.
In addition, web sites that currently stream pirated material are on the move constantly. They change names, switch ISPs, move to other IP addresses frequently, in order to thwart authorities from prosecuting them. The wheels of justice are too slow to keep up with the real criminals. SOPA will not change that. What SOPA will do is provide well known, established, non-moving targets to the DoJ to attack - like YouTube.
This bill is internet censorship under the guise of commercial protection. It takes a legitimate concern, piracy, and blows it way out of proportion, giving the Federal Government powers that reach far beyond the stated purpose.
The list of potential targets for investigation is so large that a politically motivated DoJ (such as the one we have now) can easily pick and choose who they go after. SOPA can become a political weapon. Do you really think that Eric Holder would go after MoveOn.org, instead of Drudgereport? Can you say 'Fairness Doctrine' on steroids?
If SOPA passes and is signed into law, this Blog, and tens of thousands of others used to express free speech will go away, or be severely curtailed. This Blog would become text only, with no links, photos, or embedded content whatsoever. I couldn't post a photo, unless I knew exactly who produced it and had their explicit permission to reproduce it. I couldn't link to a YouTube video, because I would have no way of guaranteeing that no one along the chain had any claim to a copyright. What would be the point then?
If you enjoy the internet as it is, or count on it for your daily life, contact your Representatives and Senators, and express your outrage that Congress is considering this. The House Judiciary Committee has already held two 'public' hearings on the bill, one in November and one just before the Holiday break a couple of weeks ago. Didn't hear anything about those hearings or what was said in them, did you? Just like most of what the Federal Government is doing these days, they are trying to pass it quickly, without the public realizing what is going on. Once it is law, then it is too late to do anything about it. The Committee is supposed to hold more hearings on the bill after the Holiday recess is over.
Don't get me wrong - I am not a supporter of those who pirate music or movies. I am a supporter of modifying current laws where necessary to go after those who do the pirating, not this overkill approach that will have consequences far beyond the stated purpose.
Here is the text of HR 3261, if you are interested:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3261:
Update - I am almost embarrassed to say this, but I apparently have the same thoughts on this as the Obama Administration. Obama's spokesman has come out and stated that they are concerned with the scope of SOPA and its unintended affects, and that they will be working with Congress to modify the legislation to refine the language to limit what it can do. Logical, and I hope they follow through.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Obama's Two Faced Arrogance On Display
A 17 day Hawaiian vacation, completely paid for by the US taxpayer. 17 days off, burning through our money. 17 days seen on the evening news wallowing around in the surf, while millions of people wallow around in debt and unemployment. A vacation so important that the Missus Big O had to go a bit early, costing us even more money (two jets, two staffs, two sets of security. etc.).
And this man has the unmitigated gall to say he represents the little man against the rich?
If Obama was a white Republican and did this, the mainstream media would be roasting him alive. As it is, even some of his media buddies are questioning the 'wisdom' of this vacation...
I guess we should be thankful. At 4.1 million for 17 days, this is actually the smallest amount of our money he has wasted on a per day basis since he's been in office!
Not receiving nearly as much publicity as Obama's vacation, Nancy Pelosi is spending time in Hawaii over the Christmas break, in a $10,000 a night hotel suite. I have not seen any report detailing how much of her expenses are at taxpayer's expense. We are fortunate that she is not still Speaker of the House, or we'd be footing every penny for the trip, including her own US Air Force luxury jetliner and security details. If John Boehner did this, what would the media's reaction be to it?
Can someone tell me what law, what Constitutional provision states that the President and his family, his staff, and anyone else he wants to invite, get all expense paid vacations provided by the taxpayer? What statute declares the POTUS can take that vacation anywhere he/she wants, no matter what the expense, and for whatever length of time they want to?
Update - Keeps getting better. Missus O was spotted wearing a $2000 designer sun dress to church at MCAS Kaneohe Bay this past Sunday. No word on whether she, the taxpayers, or some wealthy one percenter Democrat 'donated' it to her. Way to inspire the downtrodden masses!
And this man has the unmitigated gall to say he represents the little man against the rich?
If Obama was a white Republican and did this, the mainstream media would be roasting him alive. As it is, even some of his media buddies are questioning the 'wisdom' of this vacation...
I guess we should be thankful. At 4.1 million for 17 days, this is actually the smallest amount of our money he has wasted on a per day basis since he's been in office!
Not receiving nearly as much publicity as Obama's vacation, Nancy Pelosi is spending time in Hawaii over the Christmas break, in a $10,000 a night hotel suite. I have not seen any report detailing how much of her expenses are at taxpayer's expense. We are fortunate that she is not still Speaker of the House, or we'd be footing every penny for the trip, including her own US Air Force luxury jetliner and security details. If John Boehner did this, what would the media's reaction be to it?
Can someone tell me what law, what Constitutional provision states that the President and his family, his staff, and anyone else he wants to invite, get all expense paid vacations provided by the taxpayer? What statute declares the POTUS can take that vacation anywhere he/she wants, no matter what the expense, and for whatever length of time they want to?
Update - Keeps getting better. Missus O was spotted wearing a $2000 designer sun dress to church at MCAS Kaneohe Bay this past Sunday. No word on whether she, the taxpayers, or some wealthy one percenter Democrat 'donated' it to her. Way to inspire the downtrodden masses!
Friday, December 23, 2011
Your United States Navy - In Action
The Obama era interpretation of the classic 'Welcome home, Sailor' kiss.
Photo credit, unbelievably, US Navy.
BTW - this was not a spur of the moment thing - it was staged specifically for the cameras.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
What The Hell Is A Kardashian?
Can someone tell me what the hell a Kardashian is? I keep hearing references to females with this last name, and I simply don't understand what they are.
As far as I can tell, they don't do anything, but they're famous? They don't sing, don't act, don't produce anything, so why are they famous?
Here in the Dallas area, we've been dumped into Kardashian-mania, I guess. The Mavericks hired Lamar Odom for their team from the Lakers, and he's married to one of them? I admit to not understanding why shots of this creature in the crowd dominates Maverick broadcasts now. This woman dominated local TV news coverage yesterday, because she set up a table in front of Dallas City Hall to sign autographs. Huh? What has she done to warrant 2000 people standing in line to get her autograph? (I will grant you that it was done for charity, and the event collected several thousand toys for kids - and that is a good thing - but why would anyone want this woman's picture?)
These women dominate the tabloids, both in print and broadcast so much that there has to be at least a dozen of them. I confess to not knowing how many there are, or what their names are - and I proudly state that I don't care.
WTF does it say about our society when people who do nothing but use up oxygen are held in such high esteem by so many airheads? (And no, I'm not talking about Obama, even though that statement is just as true about him!)
Mr. Holder, You Owe Me An Apology
Our esteemed Attorney General, the highest law enforcement official in the United States, has told the world that criticism of him and boss Obama is all driven by racism. According to him, if you disagree with the Big O, you are a racist.
Mr. Holder, I disagree with almost everything you and your boss have done since taking control. Your policies, declarations, and actions have done horrendous harm to my country, and it is clear that you intend to continue your destructive goals. Now, do I hold those opinions because the two of you are black? Hell no. As I've stated in my writings before, I don't care what color you are, I would have the same opinions if you were purple, green, white, or pink polka-dot.
Mr. Holder, I do not consider myself a racist. I take offense at you calling me one. Your accusation is racist hate speech.
I demand an apology.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Government Waste - Why Do We Continue To Put Up With This?
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) just released his now yearly report on the horrendous waste of our tax dollars going on in Washington. He details 100 of the worst offenders, and it will make your blood boil. Thank you, Senator, for continuing to show us what a bunch of crooks we've got running this country.
Why in the world do we continue to allow the Federal Government continue to raise our taxes, now worse than ever, when this is what they do with our money?
If you take the time to read through it, you'll find a preponderence of items listed originated with the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation - two organizations that should be wiped from the face of the Earth!
Warning - don't read this if you are easily upset ...
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b69a6ebd-7ebe-41b7-bb03-c25a5e194365
Here are a few gems:
- $740,000 given to Montana State University to study how wild sheep can be used to control weeds.
- $132,000 granted to redesign a show website for PBS, Jonathan Bird's Blue World.
- $499,000 given to the Christopher Columbus Fellowship Society for no reason anyone can identify.
- $80,000 to upgrade a street median in Washington DC.
- $339,000 awarded by the National Science Foundation to study weaving in Iceland.
- $5,180,000 to fund the construction of a Steamboat Overlook Interpretive Center in Louisiana.
- $923,000 awarded by the National Science Foudnation to study how robots can be used to help pre-schoolers learn to read.
- $592,000 from the National Institute of Health to study why monkeys throw their shit.
- $25,000 to transcibe a 6 hour love ballad for the Maldives Islands.
- $198,000 to UC Riverside to study whether using social media makes persons happy or not, awarded by the National Science Foundation.
- $18,800,000 for 160 grants nationwide for theaters to promote performing arts.
- $606,000 to Columbia University to study online dating.
- $160,000 for 16 professors to spend 5 weeks in Rome this past summer, apparently on vacation.
- $425,000 for a study on how to tell Indian (country of India) local level officials how to govern better.
- $52,000 for the USAF Academy to construct a pagan 'Stonehenge-like' outdoor worship location for cadets who worship the earth.
- $500,000 from the National Science Foundation for the creation of plays that explain scientific principles for children.
- $500,000 from the National Science Foundation to study how political information is disseminated on the internet.
- $610,000 to study the well being of people in other countries.
- $300,000 from the National Science Foundation to create a dance program explaining the origins of matter.
- $170,000 to study hookah pipe smoking habit changes in students.
- $182,000 to create an iPhone app to advertise Tennessee produce.
- $8,300,000 for a program to preserve covered bridges.
- $126,000 to study political campaign websites.
- $765,000 from the National Science Foundation to study how students use social networking.
- $492,000 from the National Science Foundation to study whether information in tweets is trustworthy.
And a whole lot more ...
Why in the world do we continue to allow the Federal Government continue to raise our taxes, now worse than ever, when this is what they do with our money?
If you take the time to read through it, you'll find a preponderence of items listed originated with the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation - two organizations that should be wiped from the face of the Earth!
Warning - don't read this if you are easily upset ...
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b69a6ebd-7ebe-41b7-bb03-c25a5e194365
Here are a few gems:
- $740,000 given to Montana State University to study how wild sheep can be used to control weeds.
- $132,000 granted to redesign a show website for PBS, Jonathan Bird's Blue World.
- $499,000 given to the Christopher Columbus Fellowship Society for no reason anyone can identify.
- $80,000 to upgrade a street median in Washington DC.
- $339,000 awarded by the National Science Foundation to study weaving in Iceland.
- $5,180,000 to fund the construction of a Steamboat Overlook Interpretive Center in Louisiana.
- $923,000 awarded by the National Science Foudnation to study how robots can be used to help pre-schoolers learn to read.
- $592,000 from the National Institute of Health to study why monkeys throw their shit.
- $25,000 to transcibe a 6 hour love ballad for the Maldives Islands.
- $198,000 to UC Riverside to study whether using social media makes persons happy or not, awarded by the National Science Foundation.
- $18,800,000 for 160 grants nationwide for theaters to promote performing arts.
- $606,000 to Columbia University to study online dating.
- $160,000 for 16 professors to spend 5 weeks in Rome this past summer, apparently on vacation.
- $425,000 for a study on how to tell Indian (country of India) local level officials how to govern better.
- $52,000 for the USAF Academy to construct a pagan 'Stonehenge-like' outdoor worship location for cadets who worship the earth.
- $500,000 from the National Science Foundation for the creation of plays that explain scientific principles for children.
- $500,000 from the National Science Foundation to study how political information is disseminated on the internet.
- $610,000 to study the well being of people in other countries.
- $300,000 from the National Science Foundation to create a dance program explaining the origins of matter.
- $170,000 to study hookah pipe smoking habit changes in students.
- $182,000 to create an iPhone app to advertise Tennessee produce.
- $8,300,000 for a program to preserve covered bridges.
- $126,000 to study political campaign websites.
- $765,000 from the National Science Foundation to study how students use social networking.
- $492,000 from the National Science Foundation to study whether information in tweets is trustworthy.
And a whole lot more ...
Monday, December 19, 2011
Sheriff Joe Biden - Intellectual Giant
Our illustrious, super smart financial cop on the beat, foreign policy expert, Defender of the Free World Veep, has done it again. In one of the most heinously stupid statements he has made so far (and that covers a lot of really stupid statements), he says the following to Newsweek:
"Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests. If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us."
Uhhh Joe ... buddy ...
If the Taliban isn't our enemy, then just who in the hell is blowing up our soldiers in Afghanistan? Just who are the bad guys you are referring to? Republicans?
"Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests. If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us."
Uhhh Joe ... buddy ...
If the Taliban isn't our enemy, then just who in the hell is blowing up our soldiers in Afghanistan? Just who are the bad guys you are referring to? Republicans?
Update - this man is such an embarrassment to Obama that there are serious discussions going on in Democrat land about replacing him on the 2012 Obama ticket with HIllary. Yeah, its been talked about since Obama won the Democrat nomination in 2008 - but more and more Dem bigwigs are openly talking about it now. The Obama camp would love it. Not sure how the Hillary camp would react.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Who Is The Bigger Thief?
Hmmmm ...
Difficult choice, but I think I'd have to vote for the guy on the left (for being the biggest thief, that is.)
The guy on the right only made off with 1.2 billion ...
Thursday, December 15, 2011
From Hero to Unemployed
The unemployed in this country are about to have their ranks swelled considerably.
Previously planned budget cuts for the Defense Department, coupled with the additional automatic cuts in defense triggered by the failure of the Super Committee, will result in approximately 1,500,000 job losses. These include members of the military, civilian employees of the Defense Department, and defense industry employees, folks whose positions will be eliminated.
The estimates come from Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
Defense Department spending cuts currently mandated by law total about 1,100,000,000,000 dollars over the next decade. A little over half of that was a result of the rigged to fail Super Committee.
Hell of a way to thank folks for risking their lives for their country.
Previously planned budget cuts for the Defense Department, coupled with the additional automatic cuts in defense triggered by the failure of the Super Committee, will result in approximately 1,500,000 job losses. These include members of the military, civilian employees of the Defense Department, and defense industry employees, folks whose positions will be eliminated.
The estimates come from Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
Defense Department spending cuts currently mandated by law total about 1,100,000,000,000 dollars over the next decade. A little over half of that was a result of the rigged to fail Super Committee.
Hell of a way to thank folks for risking their lives for their country.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
I Am Sick Of The War Against My Religion
I am not the most religious person in the world, that's a fact. However, I am a Christian, and I hold Christian beliefs. I am sick and tired of my religion being constantly under attack in this country by another religion.
I am talking about atheism.
Confused? Bear with me a bit ...
Atheism is a religion, just as much as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and all the other recognized religions of the world. Atheists would have you believe (pardon the pun) that they are free of religion, completely independent of faith. That is bullshit.
Atheism is the belief, the faith that there is no God (or Gods, as the case may be). Well, to believe that there is no God is in itself a belief, is it not? No one has empirical evidence of God's non-existance. No atheist can show me proof that there is no God. They may show me things they BELIEVE indicate there is no God ... they may present arguments they BELIEVE show there is no God ... but there's that nasty word again, belief.
To BELIEVE there is no God is just as much a religion as BELIEVING there is a God.
Here is my belief - people of all religions should be tolerant of people of other religions, as long as their religions do not cause harm. Atheists, a member of one religion, cause harm when they attack other religions. In this country, the targets are mostly Christian in nature, and the attack is always guised under 'freedom from religion'. Our Constitution does not guarantee freedom FROM religion, it guarantees freedom OF religion. Atheists are free to practice their religion. I am free to practice my religion. When atheists demand for removal of Christian symbols, or to prevent any Christian proceedings, their religion is attacking my religion. This is especially heinous during the Christmas season (after all, it is Christ-mas, isn't it?).
A common complaint by atheists is about exposing kids to Christian values in school. Even the word Christmas itself is under attack in our schools. Well, that's certainly not any worse than exposing kids to atheist values in school - they're both religions.
Atheists - back off. I don't try to convert you to Christianity. I don't care if you believe there is no God - that is your business, and I respect your right to hold your belief. Kindly stop attacking my right to to hold my belief.
And ... I wish you all a Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year - even if you don't BELIEVE in the reason for the season.
I am talking about atheism.
Confused? Bear with me a bit ...
Atheism is a religion, just as much as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and all the other recognized religions of the world. Atheists would have you believe (pardon the pun) that they are free of religion, completely independent of faith. That is bullshit.
Atheism is the belief, the faith that there is no God (or Gods, as the case may be). Well, to believe that there is no God is in itself a belief, is it not? No one has empirical evidence of God's non-existance. No atheist can show me proof that there is no God. They may show me things they BELIEVE indicate there is no God ... they may present arguments they BELIEVE show there is no God ... but there's that nasty word again, belief.
To BELIEVE there is no God is just as much a religion as BELIEVING there is a God.
Here is my belief - people of all religions should be tolerant of people of other religions, as long as their religions do not cause harm. Atheists, a member of one religion, cause harm when they attack other religions. In this country, the targets are mostly Christian in nature, and the attack is always guised under 'freedom from religion'. Our Constitution does not guarantee freedom FROM religion, it guarantees freedom OF religion. Atheists are free to practice their religion. I am free to practice my religion. When atheists demand for removal of Christian symbols, or to prevent any Christian proceedings, their religion is attacking my religion. This is especially heinous during the Christmas season (after all, it is Christ-mas, isn't it?).
A common complaint by atheists is about exposing kids to Christian values in school. Even the word Christmas itself is under attack in our schools. Well, that's certainly not any worse than exposing kids to atheist values in school - they're both religions.
Atheists - back off. I don't try to convert you to Christianity. I don't care if you believe there is no God - that is your business, and I respect your right to hold your belief. Kindly stop attacking my right to to hold my belief.
And ... I wish you all a Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year - even if you don't BELIEVE in the reason for the season.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Iraq - What We're Leaving Behind
Normally I don't have much use for the mainstream news, and certainly not anything that has to do with the NBC news organization. However ...
I was tooling around last night, bored with Monday Night Football's snooze fest and happened upon Brian Williams' Rock Center. Ted Koppell was presenting his first story for the new show, and it had to do with Obama's mandate that all US troops be out of Iraq by year's end. I only caught a piece of it, so went to NBC's site and watched the whole thing. It is scary.
There's a bit of anti-war politics at the beginning, which is to be expected. However, what follows in part 1 and part 2 should put a chill in all of us. The absolute lunacy of completely abandoning Iraq from a military perspective is clear to see, and it is amazing to see two liberal leaning journalists openly questioning why Obama is doing it.
The videos can be seen at: http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/
Other things concern me as well, most from a military perspective. We are arming the Iraqis with up to date military hardware - in some cases superior to what our front line forces are fielding. Eighteen F-16 Block 52 fighters are on order, with statements being made about an additional 18. This model of the Fighting Falcon is superior to any the USAF now flies. C-130J transports, equal to the newest ones the USAF is receiving. New build T-6 trainers, equal to what our aviators are trained on. M1A1 Abrahms tanks. Weapons systems of all levels, and professional US civilian run training on all of it. We are leaving huge stockpiles of supplies, vehicles, and ammunition, along with billions of dollars of infrastructure - paid for by our tax dollars.
The goal is to allow the Iraqis to stand up to Iran by themselves. The reality is that Iraq and Iran are now closer than at any time since they fought their war. Iran is exerting its influence, and has openly stated that as soon at the US military is gone, they will exert even more influence. The Iraqi military and government are just as corrupt and two faced as the Pakistanis are. Chances are that the two countries will become allies against us, and we may fight our own weapons systems at some point in the future.
Our military forces are still deployed in foreign lands as a result of the outcome of WWII and Korea. We are not still in Vietnam because we lacked the will to win that war, retreated, and lost. Now we abandon a nation that is teetering on the brink of success or failure - as we define those concepts - so a liberal politician can fulfill a campaign promise just in time for the next election cycle. Our enemies are patient - they merely wait for us to give up and leave. It amazes me that anyone is stupid enough to believe we can just walk away while the issue is still in question without begging for the worst possible outcome to occur.
I sincerely hope this does not turn out as I fear it will. It would be very interesting to get a glimpse 10 years into the future and see how this ends up.
Now, Obama is getting ready to do the same thing in Afgthanistan, where the situation is even more tenuous.
Update - Within days of the last US troops' departure, the unraveling of Iraq may have begun. The country's president has issued arrest warrants for the Vice President. He has also issued statements that he may disolve the coalition government that the US had painstakingly put together. Huge suicide blasts in downtown Baghdad. It's very possible that nation will disolve into utter chaos very shortly.
Update II - Related. The Obama Administration announced it will continue pursuing direct negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan, making it one of their top goals for 2012. Obama is doing this in spite of objections from the elected Afghanistan government. The supposedly secret initiative was leaked to world wide news outlets.
Let me predict what the bottom line of these negotiations will be, from the Obama perspective:
"Hey, Mister Moolah Moolah. You keep your buddies in check for 2012. Make sure everything is very quiet leading up to my re-coronation in November. Once I'm locked back in for another 4 years, I'll pull our troops out as fast as I can, just like I did in Iraq, and you can do whatever you want. I don't care. Just let me get re-elected before you go nuts."
Am I being cynical ... yeah, I guess. However, I think this is pretty close to what he is wanting, even if he won't state it publicly to us.
I was tooling around last night, bored with Monday Night Football's snooze fest and happened upon Brian Williams' Rock Center. Ted Koppell was presenting his first story for the new show, and it had to do with Obama's mandate that all US troops be out of Iraq by year's end. I only caught a piece of it, so went to NBC's site and watched the whole thing. It is scary.
There's a bit of anti-war politics at the beginning, which is to be expected. However, what follows in part 1 and part 2 should put a chill in all of us. The absolute lunacy of completely abandoning Iraq from a military perspective is clear to see, and it is amazing to see two liberal leaning journalists openly questioning why Obama is doing it.
The videos can be seen at: http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/
Other things concern me as well, most from a military perspective. We are arming the Iraqis with up to date military hardware - in some cases superior to what our front line forces are fielding. Eighteen F-16 Block 52 fighters are on order, with statements being made about an additional 18. This model of the Fighting Falcon is superior to any the USAF now flies. C-130J transports, equal to the newest ones the USAF is receiving. New build T-6 trainers, equal to what our aviators are trained on. M1A1 Abrahms tanks. Weapons systems of all levels, and professional US civilian run training on all of it. We are leaving huge stockpiles of supplies, vehicles, and ammunition, along with billions of dollars of infrastructure - paid for by our tax dollars.
The goal is to allow the Iraqis to stand up to Iran by themselves. The reality is that Iraq and Iran are now closer than at any time since they fought their war. Iran is exerting its influence, and has openly stated that as soon at the US military is gone, they will exert even more influence. The Iraqi military and government are just as corrupt and two faced as the Pakistanis are. Chances are that the two countries will become allies against us, and we may fight our own weapons systems at some point in the future.
Our military forces are still deployed in foreign lands as a result of the outcome of WWII and Korea. We are not still in Vietnam because we lacked the will to win that war, retreated, and lost. Now we abandon a nation that is teetering on the brink of success or failure - as we define those concepts - so a liberal politician can fulfill a campaign promise just in time for the next election cycle. Our enemies are patient - they merely wait for us to give up and leave. It amazes me that anyone is stupid enough to believe we can just walk away while the issue is still in question without begging for the worst possible outcome to occur.
I sincerely hope this does not turn out as I fear it will. It would be very interesting to get a glimpse 10 years into the future and see how this ends up.
Now, Obama is getting ready to do the same thing in Afgthanistan, where the situation is even more tenuous.
Update - Within days of the last US troops' departure, the unraveling of Iraq may have begun. The country's president has issued arrest warrants for the Vice President. He has also issued statements that he may disolve the coalition government that the US had painstakingly put together. Huge suicide blasts in downtown Baghdad. It's very possible that nation will disolve into utter chaos very shortly.
Update II - Related. The Obama Administration announced it will continue pursuing direct negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan, making it one of their top goals for 2012. Obama is doing this in spite of objections from the elected Afghanistan government. The supposedly secret initiative was leaked to world wide news outlets.
Let me predict what the bottom line of these negotiations will be, from the Obama perspective:
"Hey, Mister Moolah Moolah. You keep your buddies in check for 2012. Make sure everything is very quiet leading up to my re-coronation in November. Once I'm locked back in for another 4 years, I'll pull our troops out as fast as I can, just like I did in Iraq, and you can do whatever you want. I don't care. Just let me get re-elected before you go nuts."
Am I being cynical ... yeah, I guess. However, I think this is pretty close to what he is wanting, even if he won't state it publicly to us.
Perry - Misunderstood and Misrepresented
Rick Perry's latest ad - 'Strong' - has created a firestorm of criticism. All of that criticism is because folks either do not understand it, or are choosing to ignore what it actually says in order to cut him down.
His opponents and liberals all over the place are outraged at his denegration of gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. Problem is, that's not what he said.
He asks a simple question: In a country where gays can serve openly in the miltary, why is it that children aren't allowed to say a prayer in school, or even mention the word Christmas? If our society is open enough and tolerant enough to allow one, why not the other?
At no point does he say anything negative about gays or lesbians. Those who are freaking out about this either aren't listening to what he is saying, or don't care and just want to use it against him. Politics as usual.
His opponents and liberals all over the place are outraged at his denegration of gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. Problem is, that's not what he said.
He asks a simple question: In a country where gays can serve openly in the miltary, why is it that children aren't allowed to say a prayer in school, or even mention the word Christmas? If our society is open enough and tolerant enough to allow one, why not the other?
At no point does he say anything negative about gays or lesbians. Those who are freaking out about this either aren't listening to what he is saying, or don't care and just want to use it against him. Politics as usual.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
More Amazing Government Waste
The people who are wasting our money like this ought to be thrown in jail ...
Our tax dollars, over 250,000,000 of them, have been wasted by Medicare to buy penis pumps for men over the age of 65, during the past decade.
Yes. According to some stupid idiotic Medicare rule, Penis Pumps are valid ED treatments and are fully covered with taxpayer provided reimbursements.
This is ludicrous. It is beyond comprehension. It is infuriating.
My tax dollars are being wasted on sex toys for old geezers.
Why in the HELL are our taxes being thrown away on anything related to sex or ED for anyone over the age of 65? For the few folks who are still interested in fooling around at that age and have a problem doing it, shouldn't it be their own financial responsibility? Why in the HELL do I have to pay for old people to be able to have sex? Old folks - if you want to screw around, that's fine - but why should I have to pay for it?
Some enterprising thieves make out like bandits (pardon the pun) on this. One was caught buying the toys from adult shops for $25, rewrapping them, providing them to Medicare patients, and billing the government for $284 each. He collected over 2 million from Medicare before he was caught.
This doesn't even begin to address the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted annually by Medicare for other ED treatments, like Viagara, penis implants, etc. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out Medicare is paying for porno DVDS, or Hustler subscriptions.
I do not blame the Obama Administration specifically for this. This is big government waste, fraud, and outright ineptness. It's been this way for a very long time. I do blame Obama for allowing it to continue - instead of trying to get rid of this waste, it is glossed over and he demands even more of our money to throw away.
Does this frustrate you? Do you get pissed off at the incompetence of the Federal Government? You ain't seen nothing yet ...
This is the same kind of lunacy and waste that will rule every aspect of your health care under Obamacare, when all control over your well being will be decided by a bunch of pencil pushers and a huge book of rules.
Our tax dollars, over 250,000,000 of them, have been wasted by Medicare to buy penis pumps for men over the age of 65, during the past decade.
Yes. According to some stupid idiotic Medicare rule, Penis Pumps are valid ED treatments and are fully covered with taxpayer provided reimbursements.
This is ludicrous. It is beyond comprehension. It is infuriating.
My tax dollars are being wasted on sex toys for old geezers.
Why in the HELL are our taxes being thrown away on anything related to sex or ED for anyone over the age of 65? For the few folks who are still interested in fooling around at that age and have a problem doing it, shouldn't it be their own financial responsibility? Why in the HELL do I have to pay for old people to be able to have sex? Old folks - if you want to screw around, that's fine - but why should I have to pay for it?
Some enterprising thieves make out like bandits (pardon the pun) on this. One was caught buying the toys from adult shops for $25, rewrapping them, providing them to Medicare patients, and billing the government for $284 each. He collected over 2 million from Medicare before he was caught.
This doesn't even begin to address the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted annually by Medicare for other ED treatments, like Viagara, penis implants, etc. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out Medicare is paying for porno DVDS, or Hustler subscriptions.
I do not blame the Obama Administration specifically for this. This is big government waste, fraud, and outright ineptness. It's been this way for a very long time. I do blame Obama for allowing it to continue - instead of trying to get rid of this waste, it is glossed over and he demands even more of our money to throw away.
Does this frustrate you? Do you get pissed off at the incompetence of the Federal Government? You ain't seen nothing yet ...
This is the same kind of lunacy and waste that will rule every aspect of your health care under Obamacare, when all control over your well being will be decided by a bunch of pencil pushers and a huge book of rules.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Obama's DHS' Latest Tool To Fight Terrorism
This just really pisses me off ...
The Western Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission manages the homeland security program in 13 Michigan counties. This agency recently purchased and distributed new security equipment to the 13 counties, using federal money earmarked by the Department of Homeland Security.
The equipment included one Arctic Blast Sno-Cone Machine for each county. The machines cost about $900 each, for a total outlay of $11,700.
The Commission had specifically requested the machines, citing that "the snow cone machines can make ice to prevent heat related illnesses during emergencies, treat injuries, and provide snow cones as an outreach at promotional events". What these rocket scientists apparently didn't realize, or chose to ignore, is the fact that these machines do not produce ice - they merely take existing ice and shave it into a form that is usable for sno-cones.
There should be an investigation into this. If this was a dirty deal where tax dollars were funneled to someone's friend, or a political ally of someone on that Commission, then they ought to go to jail.
This is an outrage. Obama is screaming at us that he needs hundreds of billions of dollars more in tax revenue or the country will collapse. Bullshit. The government doesn't need any more of our money. It needs to stop wasting what it already steals from us! What is more outrageous than this one incident is that this kind of shit is pervasive throughout our government. The bigger the government, the more control they have over us, the more waste, the more fraud it produces.
I can see it now ... Achmed the Terrorist running out of his cave, shouting to his fellow martyr buds "Run, run away ... they're going to hit us with slushies !!!!!"
AND, by the way - do a google search on Arctic Blast Snocone machines, and you can find them all day long at $440 each. Our wonderful f***ing government overpaid almost $500 each for them!!!!!
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Chris Christie Tells It Like It Is
I like Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ). He's not conservative enough on some subjects for my tastes, but he's been a hell of a lot better for New Jersey than his Democrat (thief) predecessor. What he says here is just common sense, and he says it without regard as to how politically correct it is. That takes big brass ones in the political arena, and he is to be admired for that.
One thing I noticed in this clip, which was apparently shot in a large restaurant. Most of the employees moving around in the backgroud are African-American. They are all Republicans (unlikely), deaf (also unlikely), or exhibiting tremendous self control in not reacting to what the Governor is saying about Obama.
Update - Not to be outdone, The Donald goes off on Obama for inconveniencing New Yorkers, again. This is priceless!
One thing I noticed in this clip, which was apparently shot in a large restaurant. Most of the employees moving around in the backgroud are African-American. They are all Republicans (unlikely), deaf (also unlikely), or exhibiting tremendous self control in not reacting to what the Governor is saying about Obama.
Update - Not to be outdone, The Donald goes off on Obama for inconveniencing New Yorkers, again. This is priceless!
Monday, November 28, 2011
Bawney Say Bye Bye
Rep. Barney Frank has told the world that he will not seek reelection to a 17th term in the US House of Representatives. Anyone who has served that long in a very taxing (no pun intended) and high stress job has certainly earned their retirement, but the actual reason(s) are in question.
Frank, in his announcement, stated that he didn't want to campaign. Congressional redistricting, mandated by the 2010 census, caused Frank's usually safe Democrat district to be not so safe anymore. He would actually have to run a reelection campaign, instead of just claiming the seat he believes he owns. Experts looking at the 2012 elections had predicted a tough campaign for him to win 'his' seat. Apparently, Barney just didn't want to work for his position - or maybe he is afraid of the embarrassment he would suffer if he lost the election - a very real possibility.
There may be more to it than that - high profile members of Congress that suddenly quit usually have something about to come out that they are trying to quash. Another scandal? Is he going to reopen the gay prostitution ring that ran out of his basement a few years ago? Maybe open a parking ticket fixer service?
I don't know, and I really don't care what his reason is. Good Riddance. Our country will be better off without him in a position of power.
Barney Frank was one of the handful of people who started the mess that has gotten us into this economic disaster. He, Chris Dodd, and Bill Clinton sowed the seeds of economic devastation in the 90s, when they bullied the financial industry into giving loans to anyone who wanted them, no matter if they could pay them back or not. That legislation combined with their strong armed tactics created the sub-prime mortgage bubble.
Good riddance, you jerk.
Oh ... there is a downside to Frank leaving, if you can believe that. Frank has been the ranking Dem on the House Financial Services Committee. He runs the Committee when Dems have control of the House. That position is very powerful, and very dangerous in the wrong hands. The second in line for that post, and the default selection to become ranking Dem on the Committee is Maxine Waters (D-CA). Yes, that Maxine Waters - the one under multiple ethics rules violation investigations and one of the biggest race baiters the US Congress has ever known. The one who is insanely anti-capitalist, anti-business, and yes - anti-white. You can bet that business leaders all over the country are already calling Dem members of Congress lobbying to make sure she is not given the position.
Hopefully, Dem leadership in the House will select a more rational person to take that position - but it is doubtful, since doing so would bring down the wrath of the Congressional Black Caucus on them.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
NBA Lockout Was Perfect
The NBA lockout/work stoppage/strike was wonderful. Was it because the owners and players now have an agreement that will allow the season to happen? Did the players get a good deal? Did the owners screw the players?
No, no ... the results of the resolution make it well worth all the pain.
The Dallas Mavericks will play on Christmas Day to open the season. They will play the Miami Heat, the team they beat for the NBA championship - on nation wide TV. David Stern will present Mark Cuban and the team with their championsip trophy prior to the game. The Mavericks will receive their championship rings. The Mavericks will hoist the championship banner in the AAC. And ... LeBron and Dwade will have to sit there and watch it!
How sweet!
Update - Christmas Day may be the only day of celebration for the Mavs this season. Due to conditions of the new CBA, the rules on how much teams can spend on players have changed significantly. As a result, the 4 free agents the Mavs had on the team, Tyson Chandler, Caron Butler, JJ Barea, and Deshawn Stevenson, have all been allowed to sign with other teams. Mark Cuban has so far made no attempt to sign any of them, or to replace them.
His stated reasons are to get a youth movement going on the team - it is (or was) the oldest in the NBA - and to free up money to go after big free agents next summer. Logical, and you can't argue with his track record of success with the team. However, it does mean that this season is likely to SUCK for the Mavericks.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Obama's DHS - The Nation's Protectors
Obama's Department of Homeland Security has sent us a video in time for the Thanksgiving holiday, intended to alert the American public to an imminent threat to our national security.
(In the interest of full disclosure, they sent this out via Twitter in a series of messages on the subject, with one message containing a link to this UL produced video.)
Does it concern being vigilant during this busy air travel time? Does it ask us to keep a look out for suspicious activity as we shop the crowded malls on Black Friday? Not exactly .....
Seriously? Frying a turkey is something the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY must warn us about. What??? Is this a level red WARNING???
This is a wonderful example of how the left views us, the public - completely stupid and incapable of any independent thought. We must be controlled, and protected from ourselves. A few genious Ivy League liberals know what's best for all of us. Thank God we have such people in charge!
I feel so much safer!!!
BTW - No one can accused DHS of not having a sense of humor. On their official website, interspersed with their Thanksgiving holiday travel tips are hilarious, uplifting, side splitting jokes to make our DHS experience so much more enjoyable:
Unlike people who join the Navy, turkeys are destined to join the gravy.
When deceased turkeys are offended, do they roll over in their own gravy?
Turkeys take offense to 'laugh your head off''.
This, from the Cabinet level department responsible for overseeing everything related to defending our country. Billions of our dollars wasted each year on this bloated mess, and this is what we get!
(In the interest of full disclosure, they sent this out via Twitter in a series of messages on the subject, with one message containing a link to this UL produced video.)
Does it concern being vigilant during this busy air travel time? Does it ask us to keep a look out for suspicious activity as we shop the crowded malls on Black Friday? Not exactly .....
Seriously? Frying a turkey is something the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY must warn us about. What??? Is this a level red WARNING???
This is a wonderful example of how the left views us, the public - completely stupid and incapable of any independent thought. We must be controlled, and protected from ourselves. A few genious Ivy League liberals know what's best for all of us. Thank God we have such people in charge!
I feel so much safer!!!
BTW - No one can accused DHS of not having a sense of humor. On their official website, interspersed with their Thanksgiving holiday travel tips are hilarious, uplifting, side splitting jokes to make our DHS experience so much more enjoyable:
Unlike people who join the Navy, turkeys are destined to join the gravy.
When deceased turkeys are offended, do they roll over in their own gravy?
Turkeys take offense to 'laugh your head off''.
This, from the Cabinet level department responsible for overseeing everything related to defending our country. Billions of our dollars wasted each year on this bloated mess, and this is what we get!
Monday, November 21, 2011
Super Committee Fails, Democrats Declare Victory
Well, no surprise on this one.
Leaders of the Super Committee have declared that they are at an impasse, and no deal will happen on the required defecit reduction prior to the Thanksgiving deadline.
Republicans stuck to their stance that the majority of the deficit reductions must come from spending cuts.
Democrats wouldn't budge, the deficit reductions must come from tax increases on 'the rich'.
As I've said before, this was doomed before it even started, and it was doomed by design.
Democrats are jumping for joy in victory, even if you don't see it publicly. The automatic spending cuts that their failure will trigger will fall mainly on the Pentagon, devestating our military - exactly what they wanted.
Republicans in the Senate and House are already working on alternative legislation to keep the automatic cuts in Defense from happening. It will pass the House and might even pass the Senate - there are some Democrats in states with heavy Defense industries that might actually stand up for their constituents.
However, Obama has already come out and publicly declared he will veto any attempt to stop or modify the automatic cuts.
What is sad is that this whole exercise happened at all. It was a sham, at least from the Democrat side. They get to claim they came to the negotiating table, and Republicans obstructed their efforts to reach a bi-partisan compromise. That's absolute horseshit, but they will certainly be claiming it, and the mainstream media will be helping them to do so. A wonderful by-product for them is they get to see our armed forces cut off at the knees.
Here is how this disaster gets averted - Republicans win both houses of Congress and the White House in November, and roll back the automatic cuts (along with Obamacare and a dozen other disasters His Highness has managed to shackle us with).
Leaders of the Super Committee have declared that they are at an impasse, and no deal will happen on the required defecit reduction prior to the Thanksgiving deadline.
Republicans stuck to their stance that the majority of the deficit reductions must come from spending cuts.
Democrats wouldn't budge, the deficit reductions must come from tax increases on 'the rich'.
As I've said before, this was doomed before it even started, and it was doomed by design.
Democrats are jumping for joy in victory, even if you don't see it publicly. The automatic spending cuts that their failure will trigger will fall mainly on the Pentagon, devestating our military - exactly what they wanted.
Republicans in the Senate and House are already working on alternative legislation to keep the automatic cuts in Defense from happening. It will pass the House and might even pass the Senate - there are some Democrats in states with heavy Defense industries that might actually stand up for their constituents.
However, Obama has already come out and publicly declared he will veto any attempt to stop or modify the automatic cuts.
What is sad is that this whole exercise happened at all. It was a sham, at least from the Democrat side. They get to claim they came to the negotiating table, and Republicans obstructed their efforts to reach a bi-partisan compromise. That's absolute horseshit, but they will certainly be claiming it, and the mainstream media will be helping them to do so. A wonderful by-product for them is they get to see our armed forces cut off at the knees.
Here is how this disaster gets averted - Republicans win both houses of Congress and the White House in November, and roll back the automatic cuts (along with Obamacare and a dozen other disasters His Highness has managed to shackle us with).
Sunday, November 20, 2011
NASCAR's Perfect Day
This is how a championship should be decided.
Last race of the season. The two contenders running first and second for the last 50 laps, the guy who finishes in front of the other wins not only the race, but the season long championship.
It is not decided by parts failure, gas mileage, or someone else's wreck. It is decided by two drivers who drove their hearts out, in brilliantly prepared machines.
The two of them end up tied in the points for the championship, it is awarded on a non-controversial tie-breaker. Very cool.
I really wanted Carl Edwards to win. Ford. Roush. Nice guy. Didn't happen.
I don't mind Tony Stewart winning. Owns his own car and team. Speaks his mind. Hell of a race car driver. Not Jimmy Johnson.
I cannot remember another championship in any form of sport that had a more perfect finish.
Last race of the season. The two contenders running first and second for the last 50 laps, the guy who finishes in front of the other wins not only the race, but the season long championship.
It is not decided by parts failure, gas mileage, or someone else's wreck. It is decided by two drivers who drove their hearts out, in brilliantly prepared machines.
The two of them end up tied in the points for the championship, it is awarded on a non-controversial tie-breaker. Very cool.
I really wanted Carl Edwards to win. Ford. Roush. Nice guy. Didn't happen.
I don't mind Tony Stewart winning. Owns his own car and team. Speaks his mind. Hell of a race car driver. Not Jimmy Johnson.
I cannot remember another championship in any form of sport that had a more perfect finish.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Hey RNC - Back Off!
My recently departed mother made a few contributions to her local Republican electoral candidates in her home town. As the manager of her estate, I now see the results of these small donations in the mailbox.
Her name was added to the Republican National Committee's database of donors, and apparently passed along to several other Republican related organizations. OK, I can understand that.
What I don't approve of, and am pissed off at the RNC about, is the heavy handed nature of their constant badgering her for more money.
In the past few months, I have received a dozen or more mailings addressed to her from the RNC. Here are descriptions of some of the more interesting ones:
'Appointment Confirmation - Immediate Response Requested'
"Dear Ms. xxxxx. You know that your membership in the RNC is LAPSED. You have received notice after notice asking you to renew, but you have not. ... Ms. xxxxx, you have had many opportunities to renew your support for the RNC during the past few months. But I am not giving up on you. ...."
signed by the Chairman of the RNC, Reince Priebus
'PAST DUE'
A bill shaped letter addressed to my mother, with the words PAST DUE stamped in large red letters on the outside. Inside, something that appears to be a bill, titled "Republican National Committee, 2011 Septemter Statement".
'2011 GOP Presidential Straw Poll'
A two sided flyer, 2/3 of which is dedicated to how much are you going to dontate to the RNC in order to register for the straw poll.
'2012 Presidential Leadership Survey'
A four page foldout, made to look like a survey form. "This DOCUMENT IS REGISTERED to the individual named below, and must be accounted for." If you wish to participate in this 'survey' you get to choose how much your donation will be.
In addition, mailings from other conservative or Republican sounding organizations keep showing up, all asking for money.
I have tried to contact the RNC three times through their website, to get her name removed from their database. First, because she's no longer with us. Second, I don't want them to waste money sending stuff that will not be answered. And third, I am really pissed off at their pushy tactics towards their donors.
Mr. Priebus - I am a dedicated conservative Republican. However, the RNC will not get a single dime from me as long as you are leading the RNC, and while the RNC is using these kinds of bullshit strongarm demands to try and gain donations. Instead, if I choose to donate it will be directly to the candidate(s) of my choice. Trust me, sir - you are not helping to energize the Repubican voters this way.
Her name was added to the Republican National Committee's database of donors, and apparently passed along to several other Republican related organizations. OK, I can understand that.
What I don't approve of, and am pissed off at the RNC about, is the heavy handed nature of their constant badgering her for more money.
In the past few months, I have received a dozen or more mailings addressed to her from the RNC. Here are descriptions of some of the more interesting ones:
'Appointment Confirmation - Immediate Response Requested'
"Dear Ms. xxxxx. You know that your membership in the RNC is LAPSED. You have received notice after notice asking you to renew, but you have not. ... Ms. xxxxx, you have had many opportunities to renew your support for the RNC during the past few months. But I am not giving up on you. ...."
signed by the Chairman of the RNC, Reince Priebus
'PAST DUE'
A bill shaped letter addressed to my mother, with the words PAST DUE stamped in large red letters on the outside. Inside, something that appears to be a bill, titled "Republican National Committee, 2011 Septemter Statement".
'2011 GOP Presidential Straw Poll'
A two sided flyer, 2/3 of which is dedicated to how much are you going to dontate to the RNC in order to register for the straw poll.
'2012 Presidential Leadership Survey'
A four page foldout, made to look like a survey form. "This DOCUMENT IS REGISTERED to the individual named below, and must be accounted for." If you wish to participate in this 'survey' you get to choose how much your donation will be.
In addition, mailings from other conservative or Republican sounding organizations keep showing up, all asking for money.
I have tried to contact the RNC three times through their website, to get her name removed from their database. First, because she's no longer with us. Second, I don't want them to waste money sending stuff that will not be answered. And third, I am really pissed off at their pushy tactics towards their donors.
Mr. Priebus - I am a dedicated conservative Republican. However, the RNC will not get a single dime from me as long as you are leading the RNC, and while the RNC is using these kinds of bullshit strongarm demands to try and gain donations. Instead, if I choose to donate it will be directly to the candidate(s) of my choice. Trust me, sir - you are not helping to energize the Repubican voters this way.
Prime Example of Why We Need Tax Reform
During a town hall meeting recenly, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) cited GE as an example of why we need serious reform to our tax code. He stunned the crowd with the following details:
GE's reported income for last year was $14,000,000,000. Through the use of loopholes in the tax code, deductions provided for by law, and preferential treatment from the government in the form of tax credits, GE paid no taxes on that income.
Everything GE did was apparently legal. GE's management performed their jobs by maximizing the company's profit and shareholder returns. They did nothing wrong.
Why isn't the Obama Administration attacking GE as a 'rich' tax evader? Why isn't His Highness referring to them in every speech he makes about his desire for wealth redistribution? It's simple - GE's upper management has made a very smart decision to suck up to Obama and his agenda. His policies have no bigger corporate cheerleader than GE. As a result, GE avoids criticism of its 'rich' status, no one is attacking their lack of paying taxes, and it continues to benefit from billions of dollars in government contracts. Smart business.
If GE had paid taxes of, say, 20% on their profits last year, that would have been almost $3,000,000,000 added to the Treasury.
BTW - GE's tax return, if it had been filed on actual paper, would have been 57,000 pages long!
GE's reported income for last year was $14,000,000,000. Through the use of loopholes in the tax code, deductions provided for by law, and preferential treatment from the government in the form of tax credits, GE paid no taxes on that income.
Everything GE did was apparently legal. GE's management performed their jobs by maximizing the company's profit and shareholder returns. They did nothing wrong.
Why isn't the Obama Administration attacking GE as a 'rich' tax evader? Why isn't His Highness referring to them in every speech he makes about his desire for wealth redistribution? It's simple - GE's upper management has made a very smart decision to suck up to Obama and his agenda. His policies have no bigger corporate cheerleader than GE. As a result, GE avoids criticism of its 'rich' status, no one is attacking their lack of paying taxes, and it continues to benefit from billions of dollars in government contracts. Smart business.
If GE had paid taxes of, say, 20% on their profits last year, that would have been almost $3,000,000,000 added to the Treasury.
BTW - GE's tax return, if it had been filed on actual paper, would have been 57,000 pages long!
Thursday, November 17, 2011
United Perversion of Benetton
Benetton, an Italian clothing company I have no interest in, has a long history of trying to generate interest in their products by producing controversial ads. However, their latest campaign hits a new low mark for disgusting.
Multiple digital hacked images of world leaders kissing each other. Sick, stupid, and it has no purpose other than to get the company in the news. On that count, its working.
Anyone who has read this blog knows what I think of our current President. No matter what my thoughts about the man himself, this is an intolerable insult to the Office.
I call for an immediate and complete boycott of all things Benetton. I will have no personal effect on this, since I have never, and never will, purchase any of their product.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Very Concerned About 2012
The closer we get to the elections of 2012, the more apprehensive I get about what will happen. A few months ago, it seemed a lock that no matter who the Republicans nominated, they would wax the floor with Obama. Republican control of both houses of Congress seemed assured.
Now, not so much, for four main reasons.
First, the Republican nomination process, although still far from decided, has left a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of people. A few missteps, combined with a rabid determination by the mainstream media to destroy anyone that poses a threat to Obama has minimized the potential candidates.
Cain had no chance, no matter what the poles stated. Even before the manufactured sexual harrassment crap, the initial excitement of his freshness was wearing off. No matter his message, he simply doesn't have the credentials to hold the office, and that was becomming apparent. Cain should have a future in a Republican Administration - he's a hell of a lot more knowledgable about the realities of finance than most of the idiots occupying Obama's cabinet, that's for sure.
Perry came on with a flash, but his debate performances have been bad - no doubt about it. Will Republicans be so put off by his lack of polish that they ignore the fact he's the most qualified candidate? Time will tell. You would think that an electorate that has seen how much you can count on a slickster behind a teleprompter would be smarter than that. Perry has run the most successful state in the Union for a dozen years. Texas is the envy of almost every other state, and a whole hell of a lot of people have moved here to benefit from that. Is he perfect - Of course not. But he's a lot better than the other Republican candidates, and light years ahead of the moron currently in the White House.
Romney is the default candidate. He will be the nominee if no one else is left standing. He's no one's first choice. The good things about him are he is very presentable, and he is a completely known quantity. The bad things are he is not a conservative by any definition of the word. If he is indeed the nominee, it will be difficult for Republicans to generate excitement over it. Also, as bad as it is to realize this, his Faith will be an issue in the general election to a sizable number of voters.
Gingrich is showing more lives than a cat. He is a puzzle. Sometimes, he is one of the most brillian political minds in our country's history. Other times, he can't get his shoe out of his own mouth. Resurgent in the poles after having his candidacy declared dead more than once, he is bound to step in it again before the convention. He will not be the nominee. If for some reason he is, Democrats will tear him apart during the general election process on his character issues - deserved or not.
Everyone else is just jockeying for the political payoff their endorsement for one candidate will bring them. (Except Ron Paul, whose ego just likes to see him make an ass of himself every 4 years.)
It is too late for anyone else to successfully enter the race. What we've got to choose from is what we've got. The biggest key to the White House next year is going to be whether the supporters of the losing candidates fall in behind the winner, and make him their candidate. If they get pissed off at their guy/gal not being the chosen one and take their toys home, the election is lost.
What Republicans MUST realize, and must be made to realize by all the candidates even after the choice is made, is that getting Obama out of the White House is the overriding mission. No matter who the Republican is, that person will be a marked improvement. 4 more years of His Highness is not something our country can survive - it is that important to return him to private life!!!!
Second, the Democrat spin machine is already moving into high gear. We are flooded with reports of economic recovery, better jobs outlook, and Obama's success in ending two wars. There is no recovery - if we keep going the way we are being led, there iwll be no recovery. The jobs situation is not better - just because the number of NEW unemployed people dropped below 400,000 last month does not mean the economy is adding jobs. Folks, that means that about 400,000 people are losing their jobs each month - according to the government's own figures. Those figures are monkeyed with constantly, with the goal to get the overall unemployed rate under 9.00%. Almost every month you see a revision to the number of lost jobs released a few days after the 'official' release - and the figure is always revised upwards. The first, better, figure is what the media reports. The Obama Administration is trying every dirty trick they can to keep that number down - counting phantom jobs, counting part time jobs, underreporting jobless claims, etc. They know that no President has eve been reelected with an unemployement rate this high.
This spin is going to increase as we progress thorugh early 2012 and into campaign season. If you listen to the mainstream media next summer, you will think that the country's situation is great. It's a lie, a coordinated lie intended to fool the public into believing Obama's policies are beginning to work, and if we just give him 4 more years, we'll be back stronger than we ever have been.
Third - about half of the country is directly benefiting from Obama's policies. They love the message that His Higness spits out - the rich should provide you everything you need. Never mind that is impossible, even if every penny the rich ever have is redistributed. Never mind that if the rich are robbed to the point where they aren't rich, where will the money come from then? Never mind that the left is trying its best to create an entitlement state, where each citizen or non-citizen depends upon the government handouts.
If you have a President who tells you that he will give you whatever you need, and some rich person you don't know is going to pay for it all, you'd be pretty happy with that President, wouldn't you? Of course you would, at least until you start to realize that it was all a line of bullshit - and even then you'd believe his lies about what's causing the delays in their checks.
You also have a good number of brain dead people who voted for Obama in 2008 because he was black, or because they thought it was cool, who will do so again.
Fourth - The conservative wave that swept through Congress in 2010 has done what it could to stop Obama. Unfortunately, pretty much all they could do was stop him, because Dems still had the Senate, and he still has the veto pen. Republicans have been unable to fix anything, because the Senate refuses to any legislation passed by the Republican controlled House to become law.
Democrats are already portraying Republicans as the party of NO. The guys who just stand in the way and don't accomplish anything. Never mind that it is all they've been able to do.
What happened in 2010 is unlikely to reoccur in 2012. It is by no means a given that Republicans will gain control of the Senate, and some Democrats are even now predicting they will regain the House.
It is essential for Republicans to maintain the House, and gain the Senate if they have any possibility of reversing what Obama has done to us. If they only have one side of Congress, we will continue in virtual gridlock. If they have both sides of Congress, but lose the White House, Obama will veto any attempt to roll back his destruction.
As important as the sweeping change of 2010 was, 2012 is a whole lot more critical to the survival of our country. What seemed like a certain victory just a few months ago seems a little less certain each day we get closer to November 2012.
Now, not so much, for four main reasons.
First, the Republican nomination process, although still far from decided, has left a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of people. A few missteps, combined with a rabid determination by the mainstream media to destroy anyone that poses a threat to Obama has minimized the potential candidates.
Cain had no chance, no matter what the poles stated. Even before the manufactured sexual harrassment crap, the initial excitement of his freshness was wearing off. No matter his message, he simply doesn't have the credentials to hold the office, and that was becomming apparent. Cain should have a future in a Republican Administration - he's a hell of a lot more knowledgable about the realities of finance than most of the idiots occupying Obama's cabinet, that's for sure.
Perry came on with a flash, but his debate performances have been bad - no doubt about it. Will Republicans be so put off by his lack of polish that they ignore the fact he's the most qualified candidate? Time will tell. You would think that an electorate that has seen how much you can count on a slickster behind a teleprompter would be smarter than that. Perry has run the most successful state in the Union for a dozen years. Texas is the envy of almost every other state, and a whole hell of a lot of people have moved here to benefit from that. Is he perfect - Of course not. But he's a lot better than the other Republican candidates, and light years ahead of the moron currently in the White House.
Romney is the default candidate. He will be the nominee if no one else is left standing. He's no one's first choice. The good things about him are he is very presentable, and he is a completely known quantity. The bad things are he is not a conservative by any definition of the word. If he is indeed the nominee, it will be difficult for Republicans to generate excitement over it. Also, as bad as it is to realize this, his Faith will be an issue in the general election to a sizable number of voters.
Gingrich is showing more lives than a cat. He is a puzzle. Sometimes, he is one of the most brillian political minds in our country's history. Other times, he can't get his shoe out of his own mouth. Resurgent in the poles after having his candidacy declared dead more than once, he is bound to step in it again before the convention. He will not be the nominee. If for some reason he is, Democrats will tear him apart during the general election process on his character issues - deserved or not.
Everyone else is just jockeying for the political payoff their endorsement for one candidate will bring them. (Except Ron Paul, whose ego just likes to see him make an ass of himself every 4 years.)
It is too late for anyone else to successfully enter the race. What we've got to choose from is what we've got. The biggest key to the White House next year is going to be whether the supporters of the losing candidates fall in behind the winner, and make him their candidate. If they get pissed off at their guy/gal not being the chosen one and take their toys home, the election is lost.
What Republicans MUST realize, and must be made to realize by all the candidates even after the choice is made, is that getting Obama out of the White House is the overriding mission. No matter who the Republican is, that person will be a marked improvement. 4 more years of His Highness is not something our country can survive - it is that important to return him to private life!!!!
Second, the Democrat spin machine is already moving into high gear. We are flooded with reports of economic recovery, better jobs outlook, and Obama's success in ending two wars. There is no recovery - if we keep going the way we are being led, there iwll be no recovery. The jobs situation is not better - just because the number of NEW unemployed people dropped below 400,000 last month does not mean the economy is adding jobs. Folks, that means that about 400,000 people are losing their jobs each month - according to the government's own figures. Those figures are monkeyed with constantly, with the goal to get the overall unemployed rate under 9.00%. Almost every month you see a revision to the number of lost jobs released a few days after the 'official' release - and the figure is always revised upwards. The first, better, figure is what the media reports. The Obama Administration is trying every dirty trick they can to keep that number down - counting phantom jobs, counting part time jobs, underreporting jobless claims, etc. They know that no President has eve been reelected with an unemployement rate this high.
This spin is going to increase as we progress thorugh early 2012 and into campaign season. If you listen to the mainstream media next summer, you will think that the country's situation is great. It's a lie, a coordinated lie intended to fool the public into believing Obama's policies are beginning to work, and if we just give him 4 more years, we'll be back stronger than we ever have been.
Third - about half of the country is directly benefiting from Obama's policies. They love the message that His Higness spits out - the rich should provide you everything you need. Never mind that is impossible, even if every penny the rich ever have is redistributed. Never mind that if the rich are robbed to the point where they aren't rich, where will the money come from then? Never mind that the left is trying its best to create an entitlement state, where each citizen or non-citizen depends upon the government handouts.
If you have a President who tells you that he will give you whatever you need, and some rich person you don't know is going to pay for it all, you'd be pretty happy with that President, wouldn't you? Of course you would, at least until you start to realize that it was all a line of bullshit - and even then you'd believe his lies about what's causing the delays in their checks.
You also have a good number of brain dead people who voted for Obama in 2008 because he was black, or because they thought it was cool, who will do so again.
Fourth - The conservative wave that swept through Congress in 2010 has done what it could to stop Obama. Unfortunately, pretty much all they could do was stop him, because Dems still had the Senate, and he still has the veto pen. Republicans have been unable to fix anything, because the Senate refuses to any legislation passed by the Republican controlled House to become law.
Democrats are already portraying Republicans as the party of NO. The guys who just stand in the way and don't accomplish anything. Never mind that it is all they've been able to do.
What happened in 2010 is unlikely to reoccur in 2012. It is by no means a given that Republicans will gain control of the Senate, and some Democrats are even now predicting they will regain the House.
It is essential for Republicans to maintain the House, and gain the Senate if they have any possibility of reversing what Obama has done to us. If they only have one side of Congress, we will continue in virtual gridlock. If they have both sides of Congress, but lose the White House, Obama will veto any attempt to roll back his destruction.
As important as the sweeping change of 2010 was, 2012 is a whole lot more critical to the survival of our country. What seemed like a certain victory just a few months ago seems a little less certain each day we get closer to November 2012.
They Just Couldn't Help Themselves
The left wing goobers over at the LA Times can't report a single thing without trying to put a liberal slant on it ...
In a report on the formation of a huge iceberg in Antarctica, they make the follwing statements:
"The formation of an iceberg is called calving, and although it's a fairly regular event - probably unrelated to global warming - scientists are awaiting this one with considerable anticipation. Icebergs this big calve off only about once every 10 years."
They take two scientific facts - the formation of an iceberg - icebergs this size are born about every 10 years - and manages to intertwine a reference to global warming.
Global warming, the man-made variety that is supposedly ending our planet, has reportedly been around for how many years? A couple of decades? I can say with a pretty large amount of certainty that there were large icebergs formed before 1990 ...
The new 'berg is a massive amount of ice about to break off the Pine Island Glacier, on the western edge of Antarctica. When it finally breaks free, it will measure about 308 square miles in surface area.
The Pine Island Glacier has been producing large 'bergs for much longer than man has been on Earth. And yet, somehow, these weasels find a way to interject a political agenda into a simple factual report.
In a report on the formation of a huge iceberg in Antarctica, they make the follwing statements:
"The formation of an iceberg is called calving, and although it's a fairly regular event - probably unrelated to global warming - scientists are awaiting this one with considerable anticipation. Icebergs this big calve off only about once every 10 years."
They take two scientific facts - the formation of an iceberg - icebergs this size are born about every 10 years - and manages to intertwine a reference to global warming.
Global warming, the man-made variety that is supposedly ending our planet, has reportedly been around for how many years? A couple of decades? I can say with a pretty large amount of certainty that there were large icebergs formed before 1990 ...
The new 'berg is a massive amount of ice about to break off the Pine Island Glacier, on the western edge of Antarctica. When it finally breaks free, it will measure about 308 square miles in surface area.
The Pine Island Glacier has been producing large 'bergs for much longer than man has been on Earth. And yet, somehow, these weasels find a way to interject a political agenda into a simple factual report.
Monday, November 14, 2011
This Isn't A Surprise, II
As expected, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving Obamacare. As I undersatand it, the chosen case is the one put forth by Virginia, challenging the constitutionality of the law. A Federal Appeals Court ruled in favor of Virginia, which was immediately appealed by Obama's DoJ.
The case is to be heard in the March time frame. A decision is expected in June/July. The court has set aside a whopping 5.5 hours for arguments - which is a very small time period, but is actually lengthy in comparison to other Supreme Court cases. 1.5 hours of that is dedicated to arguments over whether finding one part of the law unconstitutional would void the entire law. Personally, I think putting an arbitrary time limit on what can be presented is bullshit, given the enormity of the issue. I mean, one sixth of our economy and our very way of life hangs in the balance, and these folks can't even put in a full day on it?
Heavy lobbying is going on by both sides currently. The left wants Clarence Thomas to recuse himself, because of hiw wife's ties to a lobbying group. The right wants Elena Kagan to recuse herself, since she was the White House's lawyer while Obamacare was being drafted and passed, and was seen publicly cheering when it passed. Either of these two recusing themselves will decide the case before it is even heard. If they both recuse themselves, the balance of power is unaffected.
When all is said and done, the issue, as I've said before, will likely come down the vote of one judge - one who is such a loose cannon no one can predict where he's going to land on any given issue. It is also likely to come down what the Court decides is the definition of 'tax'.
The Obama Administration furiously fought against any mention of Obamacare, specifically the individual mandate, being a tax, while the law was being being shoved through Congress. As soon as it passed, their tact changed - suddenly it could be called a tax, because that would give the Administration the argument that because it is a tax, then Congress has the power to levy it. Nowhere in the Obamacare bill is the word 'tax' mentioned. There are penalties and fines discussed, but not TAX.
Either side who thinks this is a slam dunk decision for their stance is engaging in some very wishful thinking. I know what this decision should be, but I don't have any idea if that decision will be made.
I also don't know what will happen in the aftermath. If the ruling goes against Obama, will he and Dem leadership in Congress abide by it, or will they just ignore it? If the law is ruled unconstitutional, does that instantly invalidate the law, or does Congress have to go back and specifically rescind it? If the ruling favors Obama, Republicans options are very limited. The only thing they can do is hope that they win both houses of Congress and the White House, in order to craft legislation repealing Obamacare. If they don't win all three, they will have to try to cut pieces of Obamacare off by cutting funding here and there - which will ultimately fail if Obama sits there with the veto pen.
The case is to be heard in the March time frame. A decision is expected in June/July. The court has set aside a whopping 5.5 hours for arguments - which is a very small time period, but is actually lengthy in comparison to other Supreme Court cases. 1.5 hours of that is dedicated to arguments over whether finding one part of the law unconstitutional would void the entire law. Personally, I think putting an arbitrary time limit on what can be presented is bullshit, given the enormity of the issue. I mean, one sixth of our economy and our very way of life hangs in the balance, and these folks can't even put in a full day on it?
Heavy lobbying is going on by both sides currently. The left wants Clarence Thomas to recuse himself, because of hiw wife's ties to a lobbying group. The right wants Elena Kagan to recuse herself, since she was the White House's lawyer while Obamacare was being drafted and passed, and was seen publicly cheering when it passed. Either of these two recusing themselves will decide the case before it is even heard. If they both recuse themselves, the balance of power is unaffected.
When all is said and done, the issue, as I've said before, will likely come down the vote of one judge - one who is such a loose cannon no one can predict where he's going to land on any given issue. It is also likely to come down what the Court decides is the definition of 'tax'.
The Obama Administration furiously fought against any mention of Obamacare, specifically the individual mandate, being a tax, while the law was being being shoved through Congress. As soon as it passed, their tact changed - suddenly it could be called a tax, because that would give the Administration the argument that because it is a tax, then Congress has the power to levy it. Nowhere in the Obamacare bill is the word 'tax' mentioned. There are penalties and fines discussed, but not TAX.
Either side who thinks this is a slam dunk decision for their stance is engaging in some very wishful thinking. I know what this decision should be, but I don't have any idea if that decision will be made.
I also don't know what will happen in the aftermath. If the ruling goes against Obama, will he and Dem leadership in Congress abide by it, or will they just ignore it? If the law is ruled unconstitutional, does that instantly invalidate the law, or does Congress have to go back and specifically rescind it? If the ruling favors Obama, Republicans options are very limited. The only thing they can do is hope that they win both houses of Congress and the White House, in order to craft legislation repealing Obamacare. If they don't win all three, they will have to try to cut pieces of Obamacare off by cutting funding here and there - which will ultimately fail if Obama sits there with the veto pen.
An Open Letter to National Charities
I am addressing this open letter to all National Charities, especially those that use compensated, professional fund raisers.
"If you have a professional solicitor placing calls for you to try and encourage donations, be warned - YOU'RE NOT GETTING A PENNY FROM ME!
Recently, a profesional solicitor placed 6 calls to my residence over a 48 hour period, two of which were after 9:00pm. The number was not blocked, but there was no ID. Normally, I do not answer calls like this, I let them hit VM. Of course, these folks didn't leave any message. After 4 calls, I tried to call the number - just a busy signal. On the 5th call, I picked it up, because I was tired of my phone ringing. The person correctly identified himself as a professional fund raiser for the National Kidney Foundation. I told him I couldn't help him, and asked to be put on the do not call list. Before I could get 'call list' out of my mouth, he had hung up on me.
The 6th call I answered, and ripped into the lady. I explained the previous call and what happened, demanded to be put on the do not call list. She said she would, but offered no apology or explanation.
I have not received another call from these people, so either they entered a note in their system on my phone number, or they did indeed put me on 'the list'.
I have three points to make.
First, I will not pay a professional fundraiser anything. I give to the charities of my choice directly, without paying an unknown percentage to some middleman's phone bank.
Second, if a charity is using a rude, pushy pro to try and drum up donations, you are barking up the wrong tree. Not only will you not get anything from that call, the person receiving the call is very likely to NEVER give your charity anything in the future.
Third (and completely unrelated to the phone call, but I'm going to mention it here anyway), if I see in the news that your President, officers, or employees are making large salaries, don't expect me to give you anything. I see no reason to give my money to an organization that pays its head people in multi-6 digit salaries.
In these days of tight budgets, lousy economy, and millions of unemployed, charities are scrambling to get donations. If you are pissing off the people you are asking to give you money, trust me - you are not helping yourselves!"
"If you have a professional solicitor placing calls for you to try and encourage donations, be warned - YOU'RE NOT GETTING A PENNY FROM ME!
Recently, a profesional solicitor placed 6 calls to my residence over a 48 hour period, two of which were after 9:00pm. The number was not blocked, but there was no ID. Normally, I do not answer calls like this, I let them hit VM. Of course, these folks didn't leave any message. After 4 calls, I tried to call the number - just a busy signal. On the 5th call, I picked it up, because I was tired of my phone ringing. The person correctly identified himself as a professional fund raiser for the National Kidney Foundation. I told him I couldn't help him, and asked to be put on the do not call list. Before I could get 'call list' out of my mouth, he had hung up on me.
The 6th call I answered, and ripped into the lady. I explained the previous call and what happened, demanded to be put on the do not call list. She said she would, but offered no apology or explanation.
I have not received another call from these people, so either they entered a note in their system on my phone number, or they did indeed put me on 'the list'.
I have three points to make.
First, I will not pay a professional fundraiser anything. I give to the charities of my choice directly, without paying an unknown percentage to some middleman's phone bank.
Second, if a charity is using a rude, pushy pro to try and drum up donations, you are barking up the wrong tree. Not only will you not get anything from that call, the person receiving the call is very likely to NEVER give your charity anything in the future.
Third (and completely unrelated to the phone call, but I'm going to mention it here anyway), if I see in the news that your President, officers, or employees are making large salaries, don't expect me to give you anything. I see no reason to give my money to an organization that pays its head people in multi-6 digit salaries.
In these days of tight budgets, lousy economy, and millions of unemployed, charities are scrambling to get donations. If you are pissing off the people you are asking to give you money, trust me - you are not helping yourselves!"
Friday, November 11, 2011
Veterans Day Message From Your C-inC
During his comments commemorating Veterans Day from Arlington National Cemetary, His Highness let slip this little goodie:
"Over the next 5 years, over one million service members will be transitioning back to civilian life."
The mainstream media will be harping about this, how all the folks who have been fighting for our country won't be at war anymore. Peace, we're abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan, the whole world will love us, we don't need a military.
There's a more serious message there for our military members. Whether he meant to slip it in, or it was just a Freudian slip, I don't know ...
If the Dems are successful at destroying the Pentagon's budget, many folks who are employed (either full time or part time) by the military will be out of a job. The sad fact is many soldiers returning from combat will be told thank you, there's no place for you now, you are now unemployed. Members of the Guard and Reserves who count on their part time service as part of their income will find that their positions have been eliminated. The drawdowns have already started, and the big budget axe hasn't even fallen yet.
Not to mention all the civilian employees of the military, and the thousands upon thousands of people who work in the defense industry who are going to find themselves without a job.
Update - The Army has announced the elimination of 8700 civilian jobs by the end of FY 2012, mandated by budget cuts. It is hoped that most of these can be accomplished through early retirements and normal attrition. The cuts will affect installations in 37 states.
The Army is also facing a mandated reduction in force (RIF) of 27,000 soldiers by 2015.
Update - An estimated 1,500,000 people will be put out of work over the next 10 years due to budget cuts in the Defense Department, according to the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. These comprise 800,000 military members, 200,00 civilian employees of the Defense Department, and about 400,000 workes in the Defense industry.
"Over the next 5 years, over one million service members will be transitioning back to civilian life."
The mainstream media will be harping about this, how all the folks who have been fighting for our country won't be at war anymore. Peace, we're abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan, the whole world will love us, we don't need a military.
There's a more serious message there for our military members. Whether he meant to slip it in, or it was just a Freudian slip, I don't know ...
If the Dems are successful at destroying the Pentagon's budget, many folks who are employed (either full time or part time) by the military will be out of a job. The sad fact is many soldiers returning from combat will be told thank you, there's no place for you now, you are now unemployed. Members of the Guard and Reserves who count on their part time service as part of their income will find that their positions have been eliminated. The drawdowns have already started, and the big budget axe hasn't even fallen yet.
Not to mention all the civilian employees of the military, and the thousands upon thousands of people who work in the defense industry who are going to find themselves without a job.
Update - The Army has announced the elimination of 8700 civilian jobs by the end of FY 2012, mandated by budget cuts. It is hoped that most of these can be accomplished through early retirements and normal attrition. The cuts will affect installations in 37 states.
The Army is also facing a mandated reduction in force (RIF) of 27,000 soldiers by 2015.
Update - An estimated 1,500,000 people will be put out of work over the next 10 years due to budget cuts in the Defense Department, according to the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. These comprise 800,000 military members, 200,00 civilian employees of the Defense Department, and about 400,000 workes in the Defense industry.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Democrats and the Sham of Super Committee
Democrats on the Congressional deficit reduction Super Committee have left the negotiating table, and are refusing to speak with Republicans on the committee.
Why?
Two reasons, both of which I have written about before.
First, and foremost, Democrats want this as a campaign issue. Even before Super Committee meetings began, Democrat leadership in the House and Senate publicly scolded their Republican opponents for being inflexible, and unwilling to negotiate. In an almost daily diatribe, all we heard in the mainstream press was some Dem talking head complaining that Republicans would not talke about increasing revenue, that all they wanted was to punish the poor and reward the rich. What bullshit!
Democrats want to be able to harp on this throughout the 2012 campaign to get Obama reelected, and they sincerely hope to retake control of the House and retain the Senate. Aided by the media, they will try very hard to convince the undecided voters that Republicans are the bad guys, the reason we are in this mess, and the only reason we can't get out of the mess.
Second, Democrats are salivating at the idea of the mandatory cuts that will take place, by law, if the Super Committee is unsuccessful. Every liberal's wet dream is to see our military castrated. The mandatory cuts would eviscerate the Pentagon's budget, and devestate our military capability for a decade or more.
So, Democrats never had any intention of being serious about the Super Committee, except in their intention to twist it and sabotage it for political gain.
Disgusting.
Update - Even as Republicans on the committee are making honest efforts at compromise (offering tax reforms and some hikes), Democrats continue to blow smoke up our asses. Their latest attempt - they want to count 'anticipated savings' from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as the largest portion of the spending cuts that will be required to meet the committee's target. Those 'savings' will not be saved (in other words, NOT SPENT), instead being made available for spending elsewhere. Somehow, according to Democrats, that equates to spending cuts.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Practicing for the Zombie Apocalypse
The amount of crap being sold and scarfed up by idiots preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse amazes me. T-shirts, Zombie killing kits, study guides ... It is difficult to tell what is tongue-in-cheek and what is serious. In any case, its just F***ing stupid.
At the local shoot em up range a couple of weeks ago, two young men were occupying the lanes next to me. They had on black tactical gear, combat style boots, and black T-shirts proudly stating they were with the Zombie Extermination Squad, Inc. I spied a hiked up four wheel drive truck, all black, in the parking lot with the same nomenclature spread across the windshield. Rather than using normal targets, these guys had posters with zombies and hostages printed on them. Each of them had a couple of tactically configured M-4s. Laser sights, red dots, 30 round mags - you'd have thought they were contractors preparing to go to Afghanistan.
I hope they were trying to sight those weapons in, because they had no idea where their rounds were going. At 50 yards, they were lucky to hit the target stand, much less the zombie. Zombies of the world are safe from these two! They're watching me put up 5 shot groupings in a 3/4 inch target dot at the same range. 'Holy S**t dude, how are you doing that?'
These guys have a running dialog with anyone who is unlucky enough to get within voice range, extolling the virtues of preparing for the coming zombie invastion. Yes, it must be real, because the government (CDC) came out with an official statement saying it is going to happen. Here, go to our website, and we'll give you all the information you need to survive. Listening to them, I had no idea if they were serious, just having fun, or tyring to peddle their crap.
And no ... I did not visit their web site.
How crazy is this - or better yet, how many people are trying to make money off of it? Here is a VERY small sample of zombie target manufacturers, as advertised in main stream shooting magazines. Very ghoulish (pardon the pun) ...
Zombie Ammo
Zombie Industries
BTW - I certainly do not endorse the 'products' protrayed by these companies, am merely illustrating the absurdity ...
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Wanna Smell Like Rotten Tuna?
If so, Glamour Queen Snooki has got what you need ...
How disgusting ...
How disgusting ...
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
New Democrat Tax Plan
We're seeing the major Republican candidates put forth their plans for reforming the tax code. Most of them involve cutting taxes in some form. Horribly upset at these proposed injustices, Democrat leadership is working on their own reform plan, which they will unveil later. It is a simple plan, probably the flattest tax plan that can be imagined:
Everyone in America pays 95% of their income to the Federal Government, who in turn will redistribute that money to those who they think deserve it.
There are a few exceptions - folks who fall into these categories will pay no income tax at all:
Anyone registered as a Democrat Voter, and can prove they voted for Obama
Anyone belonging to any racial minority
Anyone classified as an illegal immigrant
Anyone of the Jewish faith, unless they actually support Isreal
Anyone who received a liberal arts degree
Anyone who is a card carrying member of a national union
Any government employee who also belongs to a union
Any current or former member of ACORN
Anyone who believed Rev. Wright's sermons were loving gospel
Anyone who works for DailyKOS, Move On, MSNBC, CNN, Huffington, or the other perfectly balanced, logical, and completely fair quaility news outlets.
Any intern that did NOT complain about Bill Clinton's advances
Anyone who believes 9/11 was justified, or caused by US action
Anyone who believes that our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan were simply attacks on peace loving peoples in order to steal their oil.
Anyone who makes under 100,000, and signs a pledge to support the Democrat Party for life
Anyone who makes over 100,000, and pledges to deliver one of these: A) yearly campaign donations of 5,000 or more, B) 25 or more manufactured votes per national election cycle, or C) perform on national TV, giving whatever false testimony the DNC provides to you as your own.
Anyone who will follow ACORN direction and actively participate in the Occupy Whatever movement for a minimum of 30 days.
Any person falling into these categories will receive monthly compensation checks from the government of such a size that they do not have to participate in any actual work. In addition, they will receive free healthcare, free tuition, free drugs, free abortions, free condoms, free needles, and free Obama campaign buttons.
Everyone in America pays 95% of their income to the Federal Government, who in turn will redistribute that money to those who they think deserve it.
There are a few exceptions - folks who fall into these categories will pay no income tax at all:
Anyone registered as a Democrat Voter, and can prove they voted for Obama
Anyone belonging to any racial minority
Anyone classified as an illegal immigrant
Anyone of the Jewish faith, unless they actually support Isreal
Anyone who received a liberal arts degree
Anyone who is a card carrying member of a national union
Any government employee who also belongs to a union
Any current or former member of ACORN
Anyone who believed Rev. Wright's sermons were loving gospel
Anyone who works for DailyKOS, Move On, MSNBC, CNN, Huffington, or the other perfectly balanced, logical, and completely fair quaility news outlets.
Any intern that did NOT complain about Bill Clinton's advances
Anyone who believes 9/11 was justified, or caused by US action
Anyone who believes that our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan were simply attacks on peace loving peoples in order to steal their oil.
Anyone who makes under 100,000, and signs a pledge to support the Democrat Party for life
Anyone who makes over 100,000, and pledges to deliver one of these: A) yearly campaign donations of 5,000 or more, B) 25 or more manufactured votes per national election cycle, or C) perform on national TV, giving whatever false testimony the DNC provides to you as your own.
Anyone who will follow ACORN direction and actively participate in the Occupy Whatever movement for a minimum of 30 days.
Any person falling into these categories will receive monthly compensation checks from the government of such a size that they do not have to participate in any actual work. In addition, they will receive free healthcare, free tuition, free drugs, free abortions, free condoms, free needles, and free Obama campaign buttons.
Celebrate ... Gravy!!!!
Today is the inaugural Chicken Fried Steak Day here in the Republic of Texas, as declared by the Texas House Resolution 1419.
A well prepared Chicked Fried Steak is one of God's favored foods. Tenderized sirloin, double dip battered, fried, and slathered with cream gravy ... yumm. Side of french fries, or mashed potatoes and pintos, fresh made rolls, glass of brewed ice tea ---- it just don't get much better than that.
Celebrate! Go out and eat one for lunch, and strike a blow against the First Lady's food nazis!
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Occupy "Generic" ... Pathetic
The occupy whatever movement is the most pathetic example of American left wing stupidity in action since the Vietnam War protests. Period. This is just a bunch of nutcases looking for something, anything, to protest and make themselves jackasses over. The whole point is to 'stick it to the man'. What they don't seem to realize is 'the man' is their guy!
A couple of examples, shamelessly stolen from threedonia ... (I'm not taking any credit, just passing them along)
The 'Kill Whitey' guy is a white guy, from the Occupy Albany, NY fruitloop gathering. Someone, please, give him his wish ...
Here's a good one ... Authentic Occupy Wall Street members, explaining to a person who grew up in the Soviet Union why Socialism is soooo much better than Capitalism. This will cause your head to explode. These are the people Obama claims to be standing shoulder to shoulder with (and that's one of the few things he's told us that is NOT a lie) ... Can we get these nice folks some tickets to the worker's paradise of North Korea so they will be happy?
Remember those TV public service spots with the frying egg? This, my friends, is your brain on liberalism!
Update - The country has had just about enough of these bums, kooks, and retards ...
Occupy Wall Street thrown out of their squatters camp because it had become a health hazard because of all the filth and trash. Refugees decide they are going to storm Wall Street itself, to shut down the Financial District. Fewer than 1000 of them show up, they shut down nothing. But, when the NYC Police try to remove them from the area they are trespassing in, they turn violent, and two Police are sent to the hospital with facial injuries.
A Washington DC Occupier has been arrested and charged with attempting to assassinate President Obama! The many is charged with shooting at the White HOUse with an AK-47, striking two windows. This has to be quite a shock to Mr. Obama - after all, he's claimed he's down with the Occupier's struggle,l he admires them, and he is with them.
A San Diego Occupier, using a bullhorn, yesterday called upon his gathering to offer a moment of silence to support their DC brother, who shot at the White HOuse, and then praised the man's actions.
Dallas Occupiers, thrown out of their location by a judge, got arrested on purpose. One of them told reporters they wanted to do it so they'd get on TV.
This 'Occupy' movement is nothing but a thinly disquised reason for all the anarchists, kooks, mentally unstable, drug users, perverts, thieves, and social misfits to camp out together and get on the news. There is no movement - because there is no real 'cause'. You ask 100 of these idiots why they are there, and you will get 99 different answers.
A couple of examples, shamelessly stolen from threedonia ... (I'm not taking any credit, just passing them along)
The 'Kill Whitey' guy is a white guy, from the Occupy Albany, NY fruitloop gathering. Someone, please, give him his wish ...
Here's a good one ... Authentic Occupy Wall Street members, explaining to a person who grew up in the Soviet Union why Socialism is soooo much better than Capitalism. This will cause your head to explode. These are the people Obama claims to be standing shoulder to shoulder with (and that's one of the few things he's told us that is NOT a lie) ... Can we get these nice folks some tickets to the worker's paradise of North Korea so they will be happy?
Remember those TV public service spots with the frying egg? This, my friends, is your brain on liberalism!
Update - The country has had just about enough of these bums, kooks, and retards ...
Occupy Wall Street thrown out of their squatters camp because it had become a health hazard because of all the filth and trash. Refugees decide they are going to storm Wall Street itself, to shut down the Financial District. Fewer than 1000 of them show up, they shut down nothing. But, when the NYC Police try to remove them from the area they are trespassing in, they turn violent, and two Police are sent to the hospital with facial injuries.
A Washington DC Occupier has been arrested and charged with attempting to assassinate President Obama! The many is charged with shooting at the White HOUse with an AK-47, striking two windows. This has to be quite a shock to Mr. Obama - after all, he's claimed he's down with the Occupier's struggle,l he admires them, and he is with them.
A San Diego Occupier, using a bullhorn, yesterday called upon his gathering to offer a moment of silence to support their DC brother, who shot at the White HOuse, and then praised the man's actions.
Dallas Occupiers, thrown out of their location by a judge, got arrested on purpose. One of them told reporters they wanted to do it so they'd get on TV.
This 'Occupy' movement is nothing but a thinly disquised reason for all the anarchists, kooks, mentally unstable, drug users, perverts, thieves, and social misfits to camp out together and get on the news. There is no movement - because there is no real 'cause'. You ask 100 of these idiots why they are there, and you will get 99 different answers.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Obama Throws In The Towel
So, now our esteemed leader has decided to declare surrender and retreat from Iraq by year's end. He actually will claim this as a foreign policy victory, a fulfillment of a campaign promise. Why did he do this?
1) First and foremost, to shore up his far left voter base. In spite of being in office for 3 years, he hasn't actually surrendered anything - until now. He's tried, but failed - Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, civilian trials, enhanced surveillance, etc. Got to give the kooks their 'America Last' moment to keep them happy in time for the election next year.
2) A legitimate reason. The Iraqi government's decision not to extend immunity for US troops beyond this year. This is a big deal. If immunity couldn't be guaranteed, any piss ant 'court' in Iraq could charge soldiers for crimes - real or imagined - and throw them in jail. With as much anti-US sentiment as there is in the country (spurred by the Iranians), this would have been a way to embroil US forces in controversy.
What effect will this have? A lot, and in many different ways.
1) Other than the US embassy and 1500-2000 contractors, US military presence in Iraq will be gone. No soldiers, no aviation. If the Iraqis get in trouble, either against insurgents or against Iran, they will be on their own. They are no where near capable of taking care of themselves. Expect Iran to ramp up its efforts to destabilize the government, and for attacks on the government to rise.
2) All the infrastructure the US built will go over to the Iraqis, with no compensation. All the billions of dollars worth of bases and equipment we've poured into the conflict will be given away. What happened to all that oil and oil money compensation we were supposed to get?
3) Plans are currently in the works to reequip the Iraqi armed forces with advanced weaponry, supposedly so they can take care of themselves. State of the art goodies like C-130J transports (equal to the most advanced ones in US service), and F-16 Block 50/52 fighters (superior to ones in US service) are currently on order. It will be interesting to see if these are delivered, and if so who pays for them - Iraq or the US taxpayer. If Iraq falls into a Iran-like theocracy, what happens to that equipment?
4) Huge stockpiles of arms and equipment in use by US forces in country will be left where it is, and default ownership will change to the Iraqis. It would be very interesting to see an inventory of what we end up abandoning there, but of course that won't be made public over fears of the political backlash.
5) Allies and semi-allies in the region, especially Afghanistan, will see this
'commitment' from the US, and realize that they can't count on the US in the long run.Enemies int he area will be emboldened, getting one more historic lesson that tells them all they have to do is wait, and they will win when we run away.
Once upon a time, folks bristled at Iraq being compared to Vietnam. Well, with this master stroke by Obama, the conflict in Iraq comes very close to being a duplicate of Vietnam. Will it fall the same way - a couple of years after the US pulls out, the government collapses and the enemy we spent years, billions of dollars, and thousands of lives trying to defeat ends up winning. The parallels are certainly there, and they extend to the home front. Leftists in the 60s and early 70s wanted more than anything for the US to have its nose bloodied, to be run out of Vietnam as losers. The left now wants the same thing, although its not politically acceptable to attack the troops themselves as it was in the hippie years. Now the plan is to praise the troops in public, while undercutting their efforts behind the scenes.
8 years, almost a trillion dollars, over 4400 lost lives and thousands of others injured or maimed. All of that sacrifice pretty much thrown away by the politically motivated actions of our Coward-in-Chief.
1) First and foremost, to shore up his far left voter base. In spite of being in office for 3 years, he hasn't actually surrendered anything - until now. He's tried, but failed - Iraq, Afghanistan, Gitmo, civilian trials, enhanced surveillance, etc. Got to give the kooks their 'America Last' moment to keep them happy in time for the election next year.
2) A legitimate reason. The Iraqi government's decision not to extend immunity for US troops beyond this year. This is a big deal. If immunity couldn't be guaranteed, any piss ant 'court' in Iraq could charge soldiers for crimes - real or imagined - and throw them in jail. With as much anti-US sentiment as there is in the country (spurred by the Iranians), this would have been a way to embroil US forces in controversy.
What effect will this have? A lot, and in many different ways.
1) Other than the US embassy and 1500-2000 contractors, US military presence in Iraq will be gone. No soldiers, no aviation. If the Iraqis get in trouble, either against insurgents or against Iran, they will be on their own. They are no where near capable of taking care of themselves. Expect Iran to ramp up its efforts to destabilize the government, and for attacks on the government to rise.
2) All the infrastructure the US built will go over to the Iraqis, with no compensation. All the billions of dollars worth of bases and equipment we've poured into the conflict will be given away. What happened to all that oil and oil money compensation we were supposed to get?
3) Plans are currently in the works to reequip the Iraqi armed forces with advanced weaponry, supposedly so they can take care of themselves. State of the art goodies like C-130J transports (equal to the most advanced ones in US service), and F-16 Block 50/52 fighters (superior to ones in US service) are currently on order. It will be interesting to see if these are delivered, and if so who pays for them - Iraq or the US taxpayer. If Iraq falls into a Iran-like theocracy, what happens to that equipment?
4) Huge stockpiles of arms and equipment in use by US forces in country will be left where it is, and default ownership will change to the Iraqis. It would be very interesting to see an inventory of what we end up abandoning there, but of course that won't be made public over fears of the political backlash.
5) Allies and semi-allies in the region, especially Afghanistan, will see this
'commitment' from the US, and realize that they can't count on the US in the long run.Enemies int he area will be emboldened, getting one more historic lesson that tells them all they have to do is wait, and they will win when we run away.
Once upon a time, folks bristled at Iraq being compared to Vietnam. Well, with this master stroke by Obama, the conflict in Iraq comes very close to being a duplicate of Vietnam. Will it fall the same way - a couple of years after the US pulls out, the government collapses and the enemy we spent years, billions of dollars, and thousands of lives trying to defeat ends up winning. The parallels are certainly there, and they extend to the home front. Leftists in the 60s and early 70s wanted more than anything for the US to have its nose bloodied, to be run out of Vietnam as losers. The left now wants the same thing, although its not politically acceptable to attack the troops themselves as it was in the hippie years. Now the plan is to praise the troops in public, while undercutting their efforts behind the scenes.
8 years, almost a trillion dollars, over 4400 lost lives and thousands of others injured or maimed. All of that sacrifice pretty much thrown away by the politically motivated actions of our Coward-in-Chief.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
'Stolen Valor' Heading to the Supreme Court
The Stolen Valor Act was passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 2006, in response to an upward spiral in the number of cases where liars misrepresented military service - either service itself, or awards received during service. The practice of falsely hyping ones' war record has been around since the beginning of organized conflict. However, in recent times, high profile cases where people are trying to scam money or favor by claiming they are something they are not spurred action by Congress.
The Ninth US Circuit Court (the most liberal court in the land, located in San Francisco, of course) ruled that the law was unConstitutional. Somehow, in their twisted left wing sense they determined that lying was a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment. (Their decision, by the way, was 2-1, unusual because dissenting opinions rarely are produced by this radical activist bench). The Ninth then went on to block further judicial review by a broader group of judges. A survey of appelate judges that might have been asked to participate in that review showed that the vast majority of them would have sided with the law being Constitutional.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. That group almost always picks up cases that involve Constitutional isses regarding legistlation. Previous Supreme Court rulings indicate that it should side with the law being Constitutional. Watch for a 5-4 vote, right down liberal/conservative lines.
Obama's DoJ finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having to defend the law before the Court. For His flunkies to have to fight against the Ninth, bastion of liberal activism, must grate against their very core. One hopes they don't tank the case on purpose in order to support the Ninth.
I hope that the Supreme Court does rule in favor of the law. Scumbags who try to profit in any way, shape, or form by lying about military service and/or decorations deserve a special place in Hell.
The Ninth US Circuit Court (the most liberal court in the land, located in San Francisco, of course) ruled that the law was unConstitutional. Somehow, in their twisted left wing sense they determined that lying was a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment. (Their decision, by the way, was 2-1, unusual because dissenting opinions rarely are produced by this radical activist bench). The Ninth then went on to block further judicial review by a broader group of judges. A survey of appelate judges that might have been asked to participate in that review showed that the vast majority of them would have sided with the law being Constitutional.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. That group almost always picks up cases that involve Constitutional isses regarding legistlation. Previous Supreme Court rulings indicate that it should side with the law being Constitutional. Watch for a 5-4 vote, right down liberal/conservative lines.
Obama's DoJ finds itself in the uncomfortable position of having to defend the law before the Court. For His flunkies to have to fight against the Ninth, bastion of liberal activism, must grate against their very core. One hopes they don't tank the case on purpose in order to support the Ninth.
I hope that the Supreme Court does rule in favor of the law. Scumbags who try to profit in any way, shape, or form by lying about military service and/or decorations deserve a special place in Hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
