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!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
