Sunday, November 30, 2008
He goes on: "Hasn't done it. Know why? Doesn't have one! That's why." Who's Dr. Manning talking about? Barack Hussein Obama.
He goes on again: "You oughta join with [Alan] Keyes and join with others around America who are demanding some proof! Show us!
"I'm gonna say that I don't want to see your birth certificate, maybe you don't have one. I would simply be satisfied if I could look at your admission application to Columbia University! I wanna see what name did you graduate under?
"I wanna see whose Citizenship did you respond to when you applied for admission to Columbia? Show me that, and I'll back up! But we can't see that either! Because if we saw it, it wouldn't say Barack Hussein Obama, it would say Barry Soetoro of Jakarta Indonesia! A foreign student is what it would say! That's why you can't see it, and he will not release it!"
Telling, isn't it? I don't agree with Dr. Manning on more than a few things, but I do on this. "Listen, Barack; if your birth certificate is what it is, what's the big deal?"
Quote taken verbatim from a YouTube video about Dr. Manning speaking about Barack Obama's refusal to show his birth certificate or his admission papers. Emphasis his.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
I have to be careful about this next, and I know it. But somebody on a certain account in Star Wars Galaxies accused me of logging into this person's AOL account, reading email, and then replying to a certain mail. I have screenshots of the conversation, and used the "./report" feature and submitted a ticket.)
There are just several problems with the claim against me; none of it happened.
This person states I logged in as her; this is in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, as amended in 1994, 1996, and again in 2001 in reponse to the Patriot Act.
Specifically, it makes it a crime to "Knowingly and with the intent to defraud, trafficking in a password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization. " *1.
That's only part of it. For the record, I did not know this person's password, would NOT want to know this person's password, and wish only to be left alone by this person. And yes, I have told them so in person (and have screenshots of that too.) It's coming to the point where I'm considering getting my attorney involved (again.)
This person offered to send me the proof. I've yet to receive anything.
What makes it worse is that I'm fairly positive that this person has told their friends and/or their family about my "misdeeds" and that makes it liable. *2 What is that? "In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image." (Wikipedia article. Emphasis (bold) theirs.)
That's a direct quote, but let's distill that down to what we're talking about. "Libel is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual a negative image." (Again, that's distilled down.)
So if you were to hear from this person "Hey, he logged in as me and read my mail and did this," you'd think less of me, right? That would give me a "...negative image." right?
As stated, and again for the record: I have never done such a thing. I would never do such a thing.
I just want it to stop ... period. So if you (that certain person) are reading this, be forewarned, I have had enough. It stops.
In case that is not clear enough, let me state it again:
LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE.
*1 - Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
*2 - Liable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
If those pirates are in that much of a hurry to die, I'm sure our US Navy could be pursuaded to send them there.
Of course, those pirates are cowards and the sons of cowards and won't have the balls for a real fight. Seizing grain ships, an oil tanker, and a Danish oil ship ... what real threats they must've been for those motherless cowards.
Don't have the cojones for a real fight, do they?
From the trailer I saw, all I can say is this: "Can't wait to miss it."
The truly sad part is that they gave Dr. Randy Pausch (Yes, that Randy Pausch) a bit part in the movie (and a line!) ... but I'll be willing to bet you that Dr. Pausch's line ended up on the cutting room floor. And that is sad.
Can't wait to miss it.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
The reason I asked what twofold. First, a blurb in each pamplet states "Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: "Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College." "
You'll note it states "Permission to reprint in whole or in part..." And that was the reason I contacted them. I've heard before that permission was granted to do this, that, or something else provided that you do something. I've also read about people getting sued. I was threatened with a lawsuit. Thankfully, it went no further.
But I contacted them and got the official 'green-light go ahead and do that' provided that the credit line is used.
So when I do begin writing from their publications I will put "From Imprimis: "Article's Name Here." " in the subject line. The first and last paragraphs will be the credit line and a link to Hillsdale College.
Now for the full disclosure thing. :) I do subscribe to Imprimis, which is a publication of Hillsdale College. In each pamplet it states something we're come to expect: "The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College." Come to think of it, I might not agree with 100% of what it states. :)
But I just wanted to make everybody aware that these writings are going to start appearing in some of my blogs. I'll also include the address for the College as well as ways to get your very own copy of Imprimis.
Now for more disclosure: They are not asking me to reprint this. In fact, I approached them about doing so. They are not paying me to do so and there is no relationship between the College and myself other than the fact that I receive their publication.
This is all Government vehicles at all levels, Federal, State, and County, and local. As stated, this is all vehicles including law enforcement, probation officers, dog catchers, the Postal Service, snow plows, State Police ... all vehicles. I'm emphasising all because I know I'm going to get a question sooner or later about "what about this type of government vehicle?" If it's a government vehicle, the answer is yes.
Mr Brinker's plan has a few good things going for it. First, if the government got off its behind and actually did this (and yes, it could be phased in over time) it would save us from having to purchase a million barrels of oil per day.
According to the best recent estimates we (the US) are importing between 12 and 13 million barrels of oil a day. Mr Brinker called some of those countries that aren't friendly to us "...oil blackmailers..."
How many times have I written on this blog about the need to get off of foreign oil? The countries that we get oil from know that they have us by the gonads. They know it. They could decide tomorrow to stop selling oil to us. Granted, from their point of view that would be akin to shooting themselves in both feet, but it sure would cripple us wouldn't it?
Crude oil prices in the US would soar, as would petrol (gas) prices. Lines could easily form at the pumps and riots could easily break out. It would make the Arab Oil Embargo seem like child's play. If Mr Brinker's estimates are correct (and assuming $50US per barrel) not importing a million barrels per day would be a savings of $50,000,000 per day.
Assuming 365 days a year, that would be 365,000,000 barrels of oil in a year. Assuming $50 per barrel and we end up with a savings of $18,250,000,000 per year. That's $18.2 BILLION dollars.
Using domestic natural gas would deprive hostile foreign governments of $18.2 BILLION of our dollars. I guarantee you that that would make them sit up and take notice. I also guarantee you that they would soften their hardline rhetoric towards us. I guarantee you.
We could use that money right here at home to improve infrastructure or pay for other programs. So that's the first good thing; it would save us from importing a million barrels of oil and day and would save us $18.2 BILLION in a year.
The next good thing about Mr Brinker's plan is that it would cut C02 emissions by half for each vehicle. While it is true that combustion of natural gas also creates carbon dioxide, it only produces half of the emissions as using petrol does. Assuming one million government vehicles, that's a noticeable impact. While that estimate is low, it should make a point. If the government could do it so could the private sector, and then the "oil blackmailers" would lose yet more of our money. I guarantee that their rhetoric towards us would soften. They would know that they don't have the oil club to beat us over the head with anymore.
The THIRD good thing about Mr Brinker's plan is that it would create jobs right here at home.
To be fair, however, there are some disadvantages to Mr Brinker's plan.
The first would the "Not in my backyard syndrome" or NIMBY. I guarantee that just as we see with wind generators or solar panels, somebody somewhere would say "WOAH! I agree we need to get off of oil, but you're not building that here! Not in my backyard!"
The second would be the fact that although C02 emissions would be cut in half per vehicle converted, there would still be emissions. We need to get off of combustion, as both natural gas and gasoline (petrol) create C02 when they burn. Granted that mankind is not the sole source for global warming, but we still make a difference. Here's the link for when I wrote about the global warming hysteria and according to some people "propaganda." http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/10/article-mit-scientists-baffled-by.html
And third, Mr Brinker's plan is a stop-gap ... at best. While we do have massive natural gas reserves, they will run out sooner or later. (And this is assuming that the theory of abiotic oil is bunk ... and that remains an open question.)
If we can make cold or even hot fusion work, it would end the oil problem ... for good. So would solving the nuclear waste problem. France is using quite a bit more nuclear reactors than we are and they seem to have no problems. So those who are complaining about nuclear power have only to look as far as France for a solution.
Having said that, some of their reactors are breeder reactors* and those use 20% enriched uranium. Add to that that they are more unstable than "conventional" reactors.
But we can do it. We can solve the problem and we can get off foreign oil. The question is, do we have the willpower to do it?
* - breeder reactor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_Reactor (Source: Dr. Michio Kaku on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on 15-DEC-2003.)
(H/T: Bob Brinker, Wikipedia, Dr. Michio Kaku, Coast to Coast AM)
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The URL: http://www.illinoislottery.com/subsections/NumPanel.asp?optGame=P3&P3A=6&P3B=6&P3C=6&optSearchP3=Straight&P4A=&P4B=&P4C=&P4D=&optSearchP4=Straight&LLA=&LLB=&LLC=&LLD=&LLE=&LOA=&LOB=&LOC=&LOD=&LOE=&LOF=&MMA=&MMB=&MMC=&MMD=&MME=&MMF=&checkbox=YearLimit&Submit2=Submit
Friday, November 14, 2008
Another link to the same story is here: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/irresistible/17981349/detail.html
But the results are the same; Janella Spears lost $400,000 to Nigerian scammers. If you want to make yourself really sick do a Google search for "Nigerian." As of this writing five of the first 10 hits involve the scam, or variations thereof. That is not a good image for the country of Nigeria.
The truly bad part is the last line in the Denver Channel's article: "As for Spears, it's still not over. A man from Texas called her as recently as Wednesday, she said, asking for another chance to “make things right.” "
Wikipedia has an excellent article on this scam, its variations, and a tale of caution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_419_scam
Here's the part of the article that worries me for Ms. Spears: "In other cases, the victim will continue to contact the scammer after being shown proof that they are being scammed or even being convicted of crimes relating to the scam, having been drawn so deeply into the web of deception that their trust in what the scammer tells them overrides everything else in their life. Such victims are easy prey for future scams, digging themselves even deeper into financial and legal trouble."
It's the last sentence that worries me: "Such victims are easy prey for future scams..." The article states that sometimes the scammers contact the victims and pretend to be attorneys, private investigators, or others who are trying to help ... for a fee. I don't know it, can't prove it, but I have to wonder if that caller from Texas was another scammer.
Again, I don't know it and cannot prove it. But it really makes me wonder. This poor woman lost $400,000 which included her husband's retirement account. Hasn't she lost enough?
"Baltimore, Nov 11, 2008 / 10:37 pm (CNA).- The Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) has not yet been able to determine if grants made to ACORN were used for fraudulent voter registration, but has cut off all funding to the community organizing group, Bishop Roger Morin announced on Tuesday." (Link left intact.)
It's about bloody time. I will, however, correct something the article said, and that is that ACORN is being investigated not for voter fraud, but for voter registration fraud. And that they're being investigated in not 13, but 14 states. The distinctions are important because voter fraud and voter registration fraud are two completely different animals. Saying that voter fraud and voter registration fraud are the same would be like pointing at a Bengal Tiger and then saying "Oh, isn't that snow leopard cub adorable!"
Yes, they're both of the Family "Felidae" but the Genus is different. And they are two very different animals not only in appearance but in temperment.
The article does go on to state that there is an alleged decade-long pattern of these allegations, but somehow fails to note that several ACORN employees have in fact plead guilty to various crimes. It also somehow fails to mention ACORN's connection to the worst case of voter registration fraud in Washington state history. Here's that link: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/10/acorn-and-worst-case-of-voter.html (it includes another link.)
In that case, ACORN handed over 1,800 new "voter registrations" to elections officials, who in spite of a lawsuit decided to check them.
Out of 1,800 new "registrations" a total of six were valid.
The question for me isn't why some of ACORN's funding was (finally!) cut off. The question for me is why is this group still around?
Doodad Pro, Mickey Mouse, Good Will, Watchem Groe, and the starting lineup of the Dallas (TX) Cowboys were unavailable for comment.
So was Freddie Johnson, although it remains unclear which of the 72 different registration forms he submitted via ACORN should be used.
All I can say is congratulations, Gen. Dunwoody. I'm not going to tackle the fact that she's the first female four-star, but I am going to point you to her Wikipedia article where it lists her accomplishments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_E._Dunwoody And her accomplishments have been many.
For me, it's not about the fact that she's the first "anything." Somebody must, after all, be the first. For me it's about the fact that Gen. Dunwoody was not promoted due to political correctness; she was promoted because she earned it.
I'm leary about using the word "deserved" usually, but not in this instance. Gen. Dunwoody deserved her promotion and I'm proud and thrilled for her. In fact, I wouldn't mind a bit if Gen. Dunwoody became the Chief of Staff of the Army.
"Dunwoody, 55, has made it clear that she feels no need for special acclaim for her historic achievement. " (from the Breitbart article)
And that serves to confirm what I already knew about the General ... she deserved and earned it. Please accept this humble salute from a gropo, General. ::crisp salute::
(As an aside I wonder if any spirits of the liquid variety will be flowing at the General's household tonight. She's earned those, too. As long as she doesn't drink and drive.)
(H/T: Drudge Report, Wikipedia)
Yes, I did vote in the Presidential election. As an American Citizen it is my responsibility to do so. I know that a great many people don't like that particular "r" word, in fact rank it right up there with "rain," or "rubbish," but I like that word. Yes, we all have our responsibilities. One of them as American Citizens is to vote. At least, in my opinion.
Being an American brings certain rights along with it, and along with those rights come responsibilities. We have the right of Freedom of Speech, but that brings with it the responsibility not to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater. (Although I'm not sure about screaming "MOVIE" in a crowded firehouse.) We have the right of Freedom of Assembly, but that brings with it the responsibility not to throw rocks through windows or burn cars as you demonstrate. Peaceful demonstrations, however, are to be protected.
You have the right to demonstrate and to make your voice heard, you do not have the right to knock me on my butt because my views might differ from yours.
But to get back to the question of whom I voted for: I've written here before, and I stand by it, that I could not have voted for President-Elect Obama if you had held a loaded firearm to my head and threatened to shoot me or somebody close to me unless I voted for him.
Having said that, he did get elected, is the President-Elect, and when he takes the Oath, he will be my President. If he calls, I will answer. Again, the answer won't be: "Go the (censored) away" it will be "Yes, Mr President." That is my duty, my responsibility as an American Citizen.
The shrub I'm beating around is this - I did indeed vote for Mr McCain. None of the other candidates except President-Elect Obama had any realistic shot at winning and for me it was the lesser of two evils.
I still disagree with most of President-Elect Obama's policies and positions. To be brutally honest, however, I was in no way impressed by Mr McCain. Granted, he was a POW for several years and I respect anybody that wears this Country's Uniform. But I disagreed with a great deal of what Mr McCain said and stood for. Had the Democratic candidate been Gen. Powell, I would have voted for him in less time than it takes to blink.
For me, I vote my conscience. It's not about who is popular, it's about who I agree with. It's also not about colour or gender, yet I still to this day hear "sexist" thrown at me for speaking out about Hillary Clinton. Had Dr. Rice been a candidate I would have voted for her.
Had General Colin Powell been the candidate I would have voted for him in less time than it takes to blink. Seriously.
But do you remember that hypothetical matchup I created in an earlier posting? If not, here it is again: Let's assume the two Presidential Candidates are Dr. Rice and Gen. Powell. This hypothetical matchup removes the race card from play, but you know as well as I do that someone somewhere would still scream "Sexist!" if you voted for Gen. Powell.
But conscience. That seems to be another politically incorrect word. I wrote in an earlier posting about Joseph Lieberman [D-CT] (except I misspelt his name as Liberman) needing a food-taster during a Democratic luncheon. This was before he stood with Mr McCain at the Convention. I don't agree with many of Mr Lieberman's positions, but he votes his conscience. Too many of our politicians don't. They vote where the money and the power is. And poor Mr Lieberman is now paying the price. His own party is ostracising him, criticising him for speaking his convictions.
Remember, the first bailout failed. When round two came around it had been sweetened with pork for individual politicians if only they'd vote for it.
Dennis Kucinich [D-OH] is another politician I don't agree with on many things, but again, he votes his conscience. I've written savage things against him in the past, but I also give credit where it's due. Mr Kucinich voted against the bailout every single time it was brought to a vote. Various pork was thrown at him, too. Unlike many others, however, his conscience won out. I don't agree with him on a great many things. I cannot and will not deny that. But I admire him for voting as his conscience and his convictions dictated. Frankly, we need more politicians like him.
We need more politicians to put their ambitions on hold and vote for the American People, not for their own pockets.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
"Vandals spray-painted the words "No on Prop 8" at the church's property on Hazel Avenue sometime between late Thursday and early Friday, Sacramento County sheriff's spokesman Sgt. Tim Curran said."
But it's an oddity, that. Certainly, the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church have strong, anti-gay messages. They likewise define a marriage as being between one man and one woman. And the gay community is up in arms about it. I'll say it again since it bears repeating: Both the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church have strong anti-gay messages, but they're not the only ones. Before we get to that, however, let's take a look at some of the reactions:
" "Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," wrote "World O Jeff" on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier."
" On a blog website, "Tread" wrote, "I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives."
Another contributor to the JoeMyGod website said, "While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve."
A contributor identifying himself as "Joe" said, "I swear, I'd murder people with my bare hands this morning." "
This, then, is tolerance? Remember the definition of tolerance from an earlier posting of mine? If not, here it is again: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance "1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own."
Burning churches to the ground and talking about stabbing people is tolerant?
So who else supported Prop. 8? Latinos and African-Americans. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/05/state/n111547S31.DTL
"California's black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, provided key support for a state ban on same-sex marriage. Christian, married and older voters also helped give the measure the winning edge, according to exit polls for The Associated Press."
According to those exit polls, 7 out of 10 (70%) of African-American voters voted for Prop. 8. Latino voters voted for it by a better than 50% margin.
Now here's a question for the oh-so-tolerant Liberals: will you dare go into those areas and vandalize their churches? If not, why not?
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
I have to be careful on this one because I know a great many people who smoke. They're good, decent people in my opinion. They work hard, they teach their children (those of them that have children that is) the difference between right and wrong, and they try to be good Citizens. And, they smoke.
Smoking is still viewed as a "personal preference," in that we live in a free Country and those who wish to "light-up" should be able to do so.
However, this is where we run into a problem. Cigarette smoking is dangerous to health. I think that's been pretty conclusively proven.
The problem here arises from so-called "second-hand smoke." "Smoking and secondhand smoke kill 443,000 people annually from cancer, lung disease, heart disease and other causes, the CDC said. Half of all long-term smokers, especially those who start as teens, die prematurely, many in middle age.
So the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) states that "Smoking and secondhand smoke" kill people. Indeed, when you go to http://www.cdc.gov/ (as of this writing) this is the very first image that loads: (Screenshot)
There it is in big bold letters: "Don't Smoke" It's not just about the personal preference. If somebody wants to smoke in the safety of their own home, I believe they should be allowed to do so. Same thing with consuming alcohol. It's when people drink and drive that I have a major problem. But the same thing could be said of smoking. If you drink in a public place, such as a bar or restaurant, and somebody else drives you home; where is the harm?
You paid your bill, you had your drink(s), and somebody else drove you home. No harm, no foul. That is a personal preference and it involves only you and the person who will drive you home.
But then we come to smoking. This time it's different because of secondhand smoke. Indeed, the term "passive smoking" (aka: secondhand smoke) was actually coined in Nazi Germany!
From Wikipedia (Hyperlinks are theirs and are left intact): "The link between lung cancer and tobacco was first proven in Nazi Germany, contrary to the popular belief that American and British scientists first discovered it in the 1950s. The term "passive smoking" ("Passivrauchen") was coined in Nazi Germany. Research projects funded by the Nazis revealed many disastrous effects of smoking on health. Nazi Germany supported epidemiological research on the harmful effects of tobacco use." (the numbers are for the references at the bottom of the page. Notice also the link to "Passive Smoking." "Second hand smoke" redirects to the "passive smoking" page.
And, as it turns out, Mr Huttig was correct. Here's an article from 4-SEPT-2007 titled "Nicotine In Breast Milk Distrupts Infants' Sleep Patterns." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070904072857.htm
The point is that smoking while pregnant can harm your child. But I'm gratified to learn that smoking in the US is now on the decline.
Yes, I have my own personal reason for it. The simple truth is that I can't breathe well when or where people are smoking. I spent an hour one day fixing a neighbour's computer. Although she is a smoker, she knew I wasn't and didn't smoke while I was there. Nevertheless when I got home, everything that I had worn went into the washing machine to get rid of the smell. I retched (vomited) and then took a shower to get the smell off of me. I simply can't breathe around people who are smoking.
I took my parents to a restaurant the other day and one of the men at the bar had a pack of cigarettes out on the bar. He wasn't smoking, but had just come in from smoking. He smelled like it, too. The point, however, is that secondhand smoke is a danger to non-smokers. I do respect the rights of smokers to light-up in their homes, but not out in public would it would affect my health.
(H/T: Drudge Report, Wikipedia)
Young Catherine Vogt, aged 14, tried an experiment in "diversity" and "tolerance" at her school. It didn't go too well. This isn't a 'duh' moment because it's the Liberals who failed.
Honestly. Yet they are the ones that preach to us about "tolerance," and "inclusion," and "diversity." They failed, and in rather spectacular fashion. Let's examine each of these three virtues that I listed.
First up is "tolerance." This is a variation of the word "tolerant," but I actually went to the dictionary for "tolerance." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance Here we go:
"1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."
That's a good definition, isn't it? I'm going to parse it down to "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude to those whose opinions ... differ from one's own." I like that. An objective attitude to those whose opinions differ from one's own. But that's not what happened at Miss Vogt's school. " "One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed," Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park."
!!!! She was told to go die?!? Does that sound "tolerant" to you? Granted, the article does describe her suburb, Oak Park, as "liberal." Yet liberals preach tolerance. It appears to me that they failed the tolerance test.
" "That's what we discussed," Cassin-Pountney said about the debate in the classroom when the experiment was revealed. "I said, here you are, promoting this person [Obama] that believes we are all equal and included, and look what you've done? The students were kind of like, 'Oh, yeah.' I think they got it." "
I don't think so Ms. Cassin-Pountney. Maybe they got it that day, but unfortunately some lessons must be learned many times. In my opinion, they'll forget it because schools no longer teach it. They teach political correctness and that anybody who isn't politically correct is a bigot.
Next up is "inclusion." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inclusion The first definition is "The act of including."
"Other entries in her notebook involved suggestions by classmates that she be "burned with her shirt on" for "being a filthy-rich Republican."
Some said that because she supported McCain, by extension she supported a plan by deranged skinheads to kill Obama before the election.
And I thought such politicized logic was confined to American newsrooms. Yet Catherine refused to argue with her peers.
She didn't want to jeopardize her experiment."
That's inclusion? How about this? "One girl pulled her aside in a corner, out of earshot of other students, and whispered, "I really like your shirt." " That's inclusion? It seems to me that our oh-so-"tolerant" Liberals failed this one as well.
Now we come to "diversity." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diversity I'm going to give all of the dictionary's definitions:
"1. the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.
2. variety; multiformity.
3. a point of difference."
You'll notice those words "difference," "multiformity," and "unlikeness." Remember also the definition for "tolerance" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance "2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own."
"a fair ... and permissive attitude towards opinions and practices that differ from one's own."
Yet it seems to me that they weren't very "diverse," either. They told her she should die, that she should be "crucifixed" (meaning, of course, "crucified.") Crucified for wearing a tee-shirt that holds a view different from your own? That's "diversity" and "tolerant?"
Not in this universe.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
I knew that "the one" or "the Obamessiah" would win the election. Too many people bought into his line about how a vote for McCain was a vote for Bush "by proxy." I'll be blunt in that if McCain had been running against Joe Lieberman (and at least I spelled his name correctly this time!) I would have voted for Mr Lieberman. Had Mr McCain been running against Gen. Powell, I would've voted for Gen. Powell in less time than it takes to blink. Seriously.
But Mr McCain wasn't running against Gen. Powell because the General wasn't running. He was running against Obama. And I could not have voted for Obama if you had been holding a firearm to my head and told me you were going to kill me or somebody close to me. For me, it wasn't about colour or gender. Sadly, too many people still believe otherwise. The facts, of course, speak differently, yet apparently facts do not matter to some people. That is their loss.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I regret having voted for Bush the second time. But I did, and I cannot change the past.
I voted against Bill Clinton as well. Nevertheless, when he was elected he became my President. As it is now with Mr Obama. When Obama takes the Oath of Office, he will be my President. I am an American Citizen - and that is not open for debate.
Yes, I have rights as an American Citizen, but unlike far too many others I am also aware that those rights come with responsibilities. I know that that is a politically incorrect word, but there you go. Another politically incorrect word is "consequences. As in "for every action, there is a consequence."
Sometimes you get "unintended consequences," which are called 'side effects' when talking about medicines. How many times have we read the pill bottle only to read that this particular medication might make you drowsy and not to drive or operate machinery? I like Benadryl because it really does help me breathe easier. Unfortunately, I've also learned that I go out like a light after only two tablets. Yes, it helps me breathe. It also puts me to sleep for about ten hours and makes me really groggy for an additional six hours. That is but one example of an "unintended consequence."
I believe the United States will be in for several of these "unintended consequences." I also believe that it won't be pretty.
We've all heard by now about how most people believe we are in a de facto recession. Some are even using the "d" word ... "d" as in depression. Many economists are viewing the troubles as "market corrections," however a small but growing number are viewing the stock market tumble not as a "correction" but rather as a "crash."
Yes, I've been gone for a while, but now I'm back. I didn't vote for Barack Hussein Obama, but when he takes the Oath, he will be my President.
I am an American Citizen and it is my duty. If he calls, I will answer. The answer won't be "Go the (censored) away," it will be "Yes, Mr. President."
Having said that I feel the need to make one thing perfectly clear: I reserve the right to speak out against the President and his actions if I believe them in error. Indeed, while I was in the military I had the obligation to do so provided that I follow the Chain of Command and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Obviously, I'm not in the military any longer so those do not apply. That still does not give me the right to go off half-cocked. I have the responsibility to conduct myself according to the privilege of being an American Citizen.
If I believe him or his policies to be wrong I will say so. That doesn't make me disloyal, it means I have an opinion.
Didn't this Nation's Founding Fathers also have their opinions?
Why do I say this? Simple. I just got yet another mail claiming I'd won an all expense paid trip to Disney/Orlando. The "signer" was our old friend, Sue Madden. The address that I apparently registered from was a business ... a business I've never lived at.
The domain this time was flconnect1.com which resolves to ... GoDaddy.com. Seriously.
This time, however, the registrant did give a valid address. The city, Altamonte Springs, FL actually exists. So does the street address given. The telephone number given in their registration is a valid one and returns to the street address given.
But the domain flconnect1.com is not one that Disney World uses. If they did, it wouldn't resolve to GoDaddy.com
I have to ask this again: You do verify these, correct? How long will it be before I get another one that isn't a valid address or phone number? Say an ACORNIFIED address which is a park bench or a vacant lot?
It took me two minutes of searching Google.com, USPS.com and WHOIS.net to verify the registrant. Do you do that?
I've sent the standard "abuse" report to GoDaddy, which I am beginning to suspect is an unmonitored emailbox. As soon as it gets full it gets purged and the garbage collects anew.
GoDaddy, this is your chance to make a good impression. Comment?
Monday, November 3, 2008
It says "Barack Obama wants to spread the wealth around. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." - Karl Marx. And then, we come to this:
It says "They tried that in Zimbabwe and got hyperinflation. It took 100BILLION of their dollars to buy two loaves of bread."
I think somebody else has been reading this blog.
And do what? Vote illegally?
"CARACAS, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Anti-U.S. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez predicted on Sunday the "black man" will win the U.S. presidential race and offered to hold talks with him to improve ties between the superpower and one its biggest oil suppliers."
Hugo Chavez, whom the article itselfs describes as a "socialist."
But read the last paragraph. What beholds us, again, to these regions? Oil. Black gold. Ever read (or hear of) the book "Black Gold Stranglehold" by Dr. Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith? You should.
Just imagine what we could do with the money we're paying these miscreants for their oil. If we could wean ourselves off of oil (which, for the record we can do. But it will take the will of all Americans to do so) we could tell these countries that we didn't need it any more.
Then they wouldn't have the United States by the testicles any longer. The only way it will happen is if all Americans demand it. And then make the politicians get their hands out of the lobbyist's arses and listen.
I'm just going to quote a little part of it. First, the Weather Underground terrorists wanted "organizers" in each "Community" to use "audacity" to bring about "socialism." Zombie gave the entire quotes, to make sure that people couldn't say that he/she was taking people out of context. Read it. Then weep, because unless things change, Barack Obama will be President and we will be the Socialist States of America.
It's the last paragraph I'm interested in, and it says "Theory and ideology are important tools, and we should make study of Marxism-Leninism an important part of our work." (emphasis added)
Barack wants to redistribute the wealth, he himself has said this. But what was it that Karl Marx said? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Sounds to me like he learned it well.
And what's that about William Ayer's new book? "Race Course Against White Supremacy," which will be published in June of 2009. He doesn't sound reformed to me.
And what did Paul Harvey have to say today during his midday broadcast? He quoted from the latest Pew Research Centre poll. Here's exactly what Mr. Harvey said:
"Shop talk. Is it a biased media? Has the media already made up your mind? Pew Research says most Americans, 70%, think journalists want to see Barack Obama win tomorrow's election. 70% [of journalists] want to see Barack Obama win, and only 9% believe that reporters are rooting for John McCain."
(H/T: Michelle Malkin, Zombie, Paul Harvey)