Wednesday, January 28, 2009


Well, I was just over at Urban Dictionary ( looking up "Obamessiah" to see if I could determine when the word was first used.

I should've remembered that they typically don't give the etomology of words - that is, how they came to be used in contemporary language. I ran into "Obamedia" and "Obamagasm" and thought I'd share the definition for "Obamagasm" with you:

"Spontaneous orgasm which takes place while listening to Barack Obama speak. Can happen to both men and women, but especially to old black women with large hats.

Oh my God, Chris Matthews just had an Obamagasm! "
That's the second definition given at this link:

It harkens back to when Mr Matthews, that "impartial" and "unbiased" "reporter" said that one night "I had this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often." You can find it here: And it's a good thing he doesn't have it that often, too. Otherwise, he'd need to be sitting on a porta-potty as he did the "news."

And he did coin the term "projectile victory" at this link:

Now we all know about feelings going up (or down) legs. To link that in with an Obamagasm, I would think that Mr Matthews would've felt something warm going down his leg. Probably, however, at the same time the thrill was going up. :)

But that's not the coincidence. That came when I went back to the Drudge Report's home page to check the news one last time. Here it is:
The Obamamedia having an Obamagasm.
Note there that I am not referring to the Drudge Report - I'm referring to the New York Times.
But that reminded me about "Obamafuscate."
"to engage a smoke screen of nonsensical political type weasal words in the guise of openess to blur and cover one's negative actions, deeds or relationships.

the candidate completely obamafuscated his relationship to the pastor of his church. "
Sounds about right.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Weather Forecast Changed - Again - AGain - AGAin -AGAIn - AGAIN

You get the idea. The first "forecast" called for snow tonight (Tuesday night) accumulating 4 - 6 inches by morning. Then an additional inch of two on Wednesday.

Now the "forecast" depends on whom you listen to. The local radio station, which says they get their "forecasts" from the National Weather Service is saying 3 - 5 inches of snow tonight and an additional 1 - 3 inches Wednesday.

BUT ... the Weather Underground (NOT the terrorist group!) which also gets its "forecasts" from the National Weather Service) is saying 4 - 6 inches tonight and an additional 1 - 2 on Wednesday.

Do we have two National Weather Services?

This leads me to the conclusion that nobody knows what's going on.

Here's my forecast: occassional light snow developing tonight and lasting until morning. Up to an inch of accumulation. Tomorrow (Wednesday) : Occassional light snow. Additional accumulation of 1 - 2 inches. Total storm accumulation of up to 3 inches by Wednesday night.

*- Weather Underground (NOT the terrorist group) This is, indeed, based at the University of Michigan, where the terrorist group came from. They took their name as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the terrorist group, but these people are not terrorists. A background primer on the Weather Underground (NOT the terrorist group) can be found here:

As an aside: I once worked at a place taking calls from computer users who were having troubles with their computers. I sent a female Customer to one of my favourite websites: , which will lead you right back to the place we're talking about. In my notes, I gave the URL exactly as I just gave it (above.) She, however, said that I'd told her to go to underground (dot) com, which is something completely different. (DO NOT GO TO THAT SITE!!!) That, and the tape recording of my telling her which site to go to are all that saved me from being in deep trouble. If you're working in an industry where you need to keep copious, detailed notes; do so.

The hide you save might be your own.

Article: "Republicans Object to Stimulus Dollars for ACORN"

The link:

"Republican lawmakers are raising concerns that ACORN, the low-income advocacy group under investigation for voter registration fraud, could be eligible for billions in aid from the economic stimulus proposal working its way through the House. "

That should boil your blood, but I did write earlier that the Obamessiah would be beholden to ACORN, who is under investigation for voter registration fraud in 14 states.

Freddie Johnson, who ACORN pressured into registering an astonishing 72 times, could not be reached for comment. Of course, we're not sure which address to reach him at.

"He [House Republican Leader John Boehner] said the money was previously limited to state and local governments, but that Democrats now want part of it to be available to non-profit entities. That means groups like ACORN would be eligible for a portion of the funds.

"Sen. David Vitter, R-La., told FOX News Tuesday that the money could be seen as "payoff" for groups' political activities in the last election. ACORN generally supports Democratic candidates and actively backed President Obama last year. "

You don't say. Actually, a few of us did. And we were called quite a few nasty things because of it, too.

But what the hell, right? Imagine the firestorm that the liberal press would've started (and then poured lighter-fluid on) if ACORN had been right-leaning and that they'd endorsed Juan McAmnesty (John McCain.)

Does anybody else remember that now-prophetic article from the Wall Street Journal? Here's the link again:

"- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally." (emphasis added. The italics are due to those words being italicised in the article.)

Granted, this did come from an Op-Ed article, but it is still valid. But please read the article, especially the part about the "Green Revolution" stating a " and regulation scheme..." and then go right back to another article: "In one of the most politically left-of-center cities east of Berkeley, Calif., ideas put forth at city hall in Madison, Wis. would dramatically limit free enterprise and personal liberty, all in the name of environmental sustainability.

According to the “Broad Strategies” section of a meeting agenda recently posted on the City of Madison Web site, an ordinance being considered would force city zoning to account for and mitigate climate change:" (Link left intact and is not mine) ARTICLE:

And I remember being told by somebody (literally) laughing in my face (LITERALLY laughing in my face) that that was just a "conspiracy theory."

She's not laughing any more. But I was easy on her: All she had to do was whisper that it wasn't just a conspiracy theory. She didn't even have to mean it.

You're not going to get these facts from the mainstream press, folks. They're too busy patting themselves on the back because the Obamessiah is now "ruling."

Article: "High-Flying Citigroup Grounds Plans for $50M Jet."

The link:

"The high-flying execs at Citigroup caved under pressure from President Obama and decided today to abandon plans for a luxurious new $50 million corporate jet from France. " (Link left intact and is not mine.)

You know, you gotta love Citi and all fat-cat bankers. Here people are losing 30-35% of their life-savings and they're getting $50m jets. Of course, the Obamessiah picked up the phone and complained.

Citi, to its credit, did the right thing and scrapped plans for its fancy jet. But I'm willing to bet that they didn't "cave-in" because it was the right thing to do: I'm willing to bet that they "caved-in" because of how it would look if they didn't.

And they got billions of our tax dollars to bail out of trouble. But they've learned nothing: this jet fiasco simply proves that.

Remember when the auto execs first flew to Washington to ask for their slice of the bailout pie? In the ensuing firestorm, they drove the next time. Well ... other people drove them in hybrid vehicles. A few of the execs actually got behind the wheel for a part of the trip (a short part of it.)

Then there was AIG paying for a posh party for its execs after the bailout. When the press got wind of it, they cancelled those plans.

And now Citi says "no" to its fancy jet. Not because it was the wrong thing to do (which it is ... it is the wrong thing to do) but because of how it would look. And because the Obamessiah told them so.

The conclusion, based on this extremely limited data set is that the people who drove the US and the world to the brink of depression, simply don't care. For them it's about power and money.

Does anybody remember when Mr Paulson said that the Fed didn't have to explain what it did with the first part of the bailout money? $350 BILLION is just gone, folks. GONE. We've no idea what they did with it or where it went. And the Fed has said that we don't have the right to know.

(H/T: Drudge Report)

Sunday, January 25, 2009

And Another Terrorist Goes Free...

Actually, it might've been at the same time as the first one. The link:

"WASHINGTON (AFP) — Two men released from the US "war on terror" prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported.

One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.

Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333."

So we have the first guy I mentioned, then we have Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi. So who, pray tell, are the other two?

"The other men in the video are identified as Commander Abu Baseer al-Wahayshi and Abu Hureira Qasm al-Rimi (also known as Abu Hureira al-Sana'ani)."

I had to ask.

I wonder if they're terrorists too. Since Abu Baseer al-Wahayshi has the title "Commander," I doubt they're with Avon or the Welcome Wagon.

But then we come to the bottom of the article: "The latest case highlights the risk the new US administration faces as it moves to empty Guantanamo of its remaining 245 prisoners and close the controversial detention camp within a year. "

Yes, another 'duh' moment. Let me ask it this way: How long will it be before one of the former Guantanamo prisoners makes it to US soil and commits an act of terror? And by this, I don't mean mugging a little old lady and stealing her pocket book, although I think it's a safe bet that she'd be terrified.

"How Obama Got Elected"

Do a Google search for that.

Here's the video I'll be referencing:

But I just wanted to mention something the Obamessiah's supporter said. His name is Bill Burton and he served as the campaign's spokesman.

"But the notion that the McCain Campaign, uh, and the Republican Party would want to come to the American People and say they want to join up with the Obama Campaign to have an open and an honest, uh, election: If that's the case, I think they ought to turn inward and pay attention to the voter-suppression efforts that they've uh .. "

And at this point, Ms Kelly began talking over him, so I've no clue what he said past that point.

But ... "...voter-suppression efforts..." You mean, perchance, the New Black Panther Party members that showed up (one of them with a knight stick no less!) in front of a Philadelphia polling place? Such as this "...voter-suppression efforts..." Well, effort. Here's that link:

That type of "...voter-suppression..." Mr Burton?

How many states, again, is ACORN being investigated on for voter-registration fraud?


New Mexico,
North Carolina,
Connecticut, and

And I know I'm missing one. But there's 13 of 'em.

How about this one:

"ST. LOUIS -- A voter registration recruiter working for the group ACORN has been indicted on two felony counts of voter registration fraud.

"Deidra Humphrey, 44, of East St. Louis, is expected to appear in U.S. District Court in St. Louis this week after a federal grand jury indicted her on the charges Dec. 31, according to the U.S. Attorney's office.

"Humphrey is accused of submitting forged and false voter registration cards for the November general election, including forging cards for nursing home residents, U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway said Monday. "

You don't say. I wonder how many of those people she "registered" tried to vote. But let's guess at this point: Guess how many of them would've voted for the Obamessiah.

Let's look at this one now:

"Voter registration is at record levels and new registrations are coming at a torrid pace. Indeed, Paul Ogden does the math and figures that voter registration in Indianapolis and Marion County has exceeded 105 percent of the over-eighteen population, which is quite a feat!

There’s a bit of hubbub about this in the blogosphere. Warner Todd Huston thinks the dreaded MSM is missing the story and wonders whether “ACORN, Barack Obama’s favorite fraud immersed ‘community organizer’” is behind it. Moe Lane, The Anchoress, Michelle Malkin, Rob Port, and others concur." (links are not mine but have been left intact.)

But there's one more thing that got me about that first link (the How Obama Got Elected video) and it bothers me a great deal.

Apparently, most people believed that the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress (or at least one of them) during the 110th United States Congress. Granted, it was during the last two years of President Bush's time in the White House.


Where we find this:

"The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. Although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes." (Links are Wikipedia's but have been left intact.)

You don't say.

No wonder the Obamessiah got elected. The people that voted for him either weren't valid (thank you, ACORN, for registering Freddie Johnson 72 times in Ohio,) or just didn't know that much about the government. Of course, with the mainstream media firmly in the tank for "the one," it really shouldn't surprise anybody.

But, for more proof of the MSM's love-fest with "the one," two words. Actually, a name. Gwen Ifill.

And yes, Ms Ifill did "moderate" a "debate" between the one and McShamnesty.

!!! A Folder Name !!!

I opened my IE temp files folder ... and found a folder name that I never expected to see. This is an actual screenshot and is not meant to offend anybody. I saw this folder name and about fell out of my chair.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Article: "Obama to GOP - "I Won" "

The link:

"President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation. "

Win? You didn't win, you egotistical, self-righteous son of a bitch. Most people (those that didn't vote or voted against you) in fact didn't choose you.

And now, the rest of us are stuck with a self-righteous bastard who has his lapdogs in the mainstream press and the liberal folks at ACORN to thank for it.

Let's not forget that ACORN is being investigated (as a direct result of the 2008 Presidential "election") in not one

not two
not three
not four
not five
not six
not seven
not NINE
not 10
not 11
not 12
not 13

BUT FOURTEEN (14) STATES for voter registration fraud. FRAUD, Mr Obamessiah. But what the hell, right? How about Seattle Washington in 2006, when ACORN turned in 1,800 new "voter registrations" and it was discovered that 6 were valid. SIX, Mr Obamessiah.

What is it that Mr Malone wrote about the mainstream press during this election? "But nothing, nothing I've seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.

Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don't have a free and fair press. "

A few things here: "...the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign." He didn't say favouritism, although that would also work. Mr Malone said "BIAS."

BIAS, Mr Obamessiah.

Mr Malone also said "...the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates..." and then goes on to say " -- no, make that shameless support -- they've gotten from the press..."

"One-sidedness" or "shameless support" Mr Obamessiah. Here's the link to Mr Malone's damming article: (I know that it says 'page=2' but it will actually land you on the first page of the article. I dunno why either. :) )

"But perhaps taking a cue from Obama’s “I won” line when Democrats were asked if they were concerned about Republicans blocking the package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a swift one-word answer: “No.” "

Of course not! The Democrats have controlled the House since the 2006 elections, but of course the majority of the Obamessiah's voters didn't know that. They just reinforced their majority during the last swindle ... er ... election.

But you "won?" ACORN is accused of voter registration FRAUD, the mainstream press was in full-out cheering mode, and you "won?"

But what was it the usually-liberal Wall Street Journal had to say? "If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on." (emphasis added)

Can't read that, Mr Obamessiah? It says "...especially with the media cheering it all on." But I digress and keep forgetting. There is no liberal bias in the media, according to them. Here's that WSJ link:

But what was it that Linda Bloodworth-Thomason had to say? She described MSNBC as "completely out of control" for "...what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential campaign." You can find the link here: (It's #2 at the bottom.)

So, we have liberal coverage of the presidential campaign, liberal coverage of the election, and your old pals at ACORN have been accused and are being investigated for voter registration FRAUD in 14 (FOURTEEN) states.

Do you still think you "won?" you arrogant bastard?

United States Screws Up - Terrorist Goes Free


The title that we're interested in (for now) is on the left-hand side and is in red. "Freed by the USA, Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief..."

"BEIRUT: The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order that President Barack Obama signed that the detention center be shut down within a year." (Link is not mine but has been left intact.)

This particular nutjob terrorist, Said Ali al-Shihri, was released to our Saudi "friends" in 2007 and went through a "...rehabilitation program..." before resurfacing in Yemen. They probably used feathers on him. "Now play nice. Remember, it's not polite to blow people up. In fact, it's terribly impolite. Not to mention messy."

They probably used "Dick Durbin's Terrorist Interrogation Kit."
It should make you wanna spit. Those of us who've been warning (and writing) about this have been called nearly every name under the sun. Granted, again: this particular nutjob was released in 2007 ... on Bush's watch. But the Obamessiah has ordered Guantánamo to be closed so it's a safe bet that we'll see many more nutjobs released, "...rehabilitated..." and then sent right back out to blow more people up.
Since this is also related, let's look in the middle column. The one we're interested in now is the second one down. "Obama urges Israel to open Gaza borders; Stark break from Bush..." Here's THAT link:
"President Barack Obama urged Israel on Thursday to open its borders with Gaza.

The plea came in a speech that signalled the new US administration’s shift from Bush-era policy on the Middle East and the world as a whole. In a high-profile address on his second day in office, just hours after he signed an executive order to close the centre at Guantánamo Bay, Mr Obama proclaimed that the US would “actively and aggressively seek a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians” in the wake of this month’s Gaza war.
“The outline for a durable ceasefire is clear: Hamas must end its rocket fire: Israel will complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza: the US and our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot re-arm,” the US president said. "
Granted, there is a lot there - and the bulk of it is rubbish. Tell me, Mr Obamessiah, exactly where has Hamas been getting its war materiel from? That would be Iran. Seriously. But if the Obamessiah expects Hamas to end its rocket fire, he's got a few screws loose. Remember; their (Hamas') goal is the elimination of the Jewish state! The same goes for Hezbollah and most of the other terror groups in the region ... if not all of them.
Remember: Their goal is the elimination of the Jewish state.
They won't be happy with just a temporary cease fire; they want the Jewish state gone. How many times has Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the president of Iran) said that Israel should be wiped off the map?

That should also scare the crap out of you. We really are screwed. Feel the "change" yet?

Thursday, January 22, 2009

"The Bernanke Two-Step"

As coined by Gerald Celente, the only two solutions presented by Mr Bernanke and wall street are:

1) Adjust interest rates (down ... to try to spur lending and/or borrowing) or
2) Print more money.

Adjusting the rates down hasn't helped, and printing more money that's backed by nothing almost always leads to hyperinflation.*

But now I'd like to quote (again!) from Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell. This time, the show is dated 18-DEC-2008.

AB: "Perhaps for the last time, Wall Street could take care of its own panics. Today, only governments have that resource and it's not even certain that [Ben] Bernanke and [Henry] Paulson can pull it off.

Not everyone, of course, thought [J.P.] Morgan [yes, that J.P. Morgan] a hero. Populist politicians claimed he'd done it for his own gain. But even Teddy Roosevelt, who'd once viewed Morgan and his ilk as malefactors of great wealth, was in awe.

The Panic of 1907 (*2) lead to important reforms such as the formation of the Fed [Federal Reserve (*3)] as we know it today - who knows what new regulations and new controls the present crisis will produce?

There are ironies heaped on ironies - the U.S. - our United States has touted free markets as the holy grail; and even liberal democracies have been exforeated [I'm guessing at this word] by Washington for not wringing out their last vestiges of socialism. However; today, much of the US economy is about to be run by the central government, which is supposed to be where socialism went wrong.

Today, China is looking to the United States for inspiration on what to nationalize, rather than privatize."

Granted, there is a lot there. But I quoted more than I needed to so that you'd get an idea of why this was important.

Let's look at those last few sentences again: "However; today, much of the US economy is about to be run by the central government, which is supposed to be where socialism went wrong. (emphasis added)

"Today, China is looking to the United States for inspiration on what to nationalize, rather than privatize." (emphasis added)

But what is on the Drudge Report's front page as of this writing? Again, let's look on the right-hand side. The one that we're interested in is the second one down:


Only this time, I'm not saying it. But I WILL say this: Gerald Celente called 2007-2008 "The Panic of '08." He's said it will be followed by "The Collapse of '09."

This comes back to what some prominent economists, including Nobel laureates, are now saying. They're not using the "R" word anymore. "R" as in "recession."

They're using the "D" word. "D" as in "depression." And we've got those money-hungry politicians, their fat lobbyists and the fatter wall street ilk to thank for it.

Makes you wanna spit, doesn't it?

But I AM going to leave this entry with one more thing -

This is a direct link to the YouTube video:

And the title on the Drudge Report? "VIDEO: Dems To Spend Nearly $1 Trillion and can't Promise 1 Job?" Yes, you read that right. Does anybody else remember their famous proclamation "We'll spend our way out of this!"

And they admit that for all the money they've taken, they can't promise ONE SINGLE job. This isn't about money - it's about power.

It's a power play, a play to consolidate power into the hands of fewer and fewer people. If you have signed up for Streamlink, I'm going to point you to a number of Coast to Coast shows. These are the dates for the most recent shows that you'll want to download.

(Streamlink members have access to 90 days of archives)

18-DEC-2008, and

* - Hyperinflation:
* - Panic of 1907:
* - Federal Reserve: NOTE: See also Federal Reserve Act at:

Coast to Coast AM...

...with George Noory. I recently re-upped my Streamlink account and downloaded ... get ready for this ... 2.3 GIGABYTES of C2C shows.

Wow. I'm glad I have a 120G harddisk. :) What can I say? I love Coast to Coast AM. I even, some time back, got a personal email from George Noory.

Granted, he was replying to something I'd sent to him, and granted, his reply was three words long, but for me it was like winning the lottery.

So I'm re-upped for Streamlink. Let the LEGAL downloading begin (again!)

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

President Barack Hussein Obama...

has taken the "throne" and is "...ready to rule..." as some people have opined.

Buuut... you know I'm one for screenshots, to show at least some proof of what I'm saying. Of course, we all know that screenshots can be doctored in this age of Photoshop, where Iran can fake their "missile" launches, Hamas can fake scenes in hospital, and nobody in the American mainstream media cares. But here we go. This is the current first page on Drudge Report:

I'm going to be covering quite a few things here, so let's begin. First, the very first item on the right hand side: "US financial losses 'may reach $3.6 trillion'..." This should really be a 'duh' moment for anybody reading this blog as I've written this before. Well...the truth is, I linked to a similar article. Here's the link to what I had to say about it:

Only back then, they were saying the cost would be $2.8 trillion. You'll notice the discrepancy in numbers: 2.8T versus 3.6T. Where, pray tell, did the rest come from?

"Jan. 20 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. financial losses from the credit crisis may reach $3.6 trillion, suggesting the banking system is “effectively insolvent,” said New York University Professor Nouriel Roubini, who predicted last year’s economic crisis.

“I’ve found that credit losses could peak at a level of $3.6 trillion for U.S. institutions, half of them by banks and broker dealers,” Roubini said at a conference in Dubai today. “If that’s true, it means the U.S. banking system is effectively insolvent because it starts with a capital of $1.4 trillion. This is a systemic banking crisis.” " (link comes from Bloomberg and is left intact.)

This should scare the crap out of anybody reading this. It should. If Roubini is accurate and the banking system starts with $1.4 trillion in capital, we're sunk. Dead. Finished. Over. And we can place the blame at the feet of the politicians, their lobbyists, and the fat people on wall street as well as their lobbyists. And, at our own feet too, for being more worried about what trouble Ms Spears is getting into than worrying about what the politicians are doing with our money. Sorry, Mr Knollenberg, but it is our money. And I don't mean to single out Ms Spears; it could be any "celebrity," including Brad Pitt and Matt Damon. I personally couldn't give a flip about them, except when they take to the airwaves and pontificate about their "cause" du jour (of the day.) That's when they do just enough 'research' to be dangerous. The American people believe them because they're a "celebrity." Therefore, they simply must know about what they're espousing, right?


Not exactly. But the American media is willing to give them a free pass because they're a "celebrity." If it sounds like a vicious circle - it is.

But let's go down the right-hand side again. Let's concentrate on the third listing: "GM official says cash could run out by March 31..." ::sigh:: As Michelle Malkin wrote (and yes, she was called quite a few nasty things for this one) "Where does it end?"

Good question. After all, we've seen how many news articles about businesses, and even small towns, lining up for their slice of the bailout pie? Is anybody else reminded of the ABBA song "Gimmie! Gimmie! Gimmie!" Granted, the rest of the title is "A Man after Midnight." Or is it just me?

He vows an era of responsibility? In an era of tax and tax, spend and spend? We cannot spend our way out of this - that's what got us into this mess!

Yet, once again, I'm going to take a step back and ask anybody reading this to take a moment to pray for Mr Kennedy, who was suffering convulsions from "simple fatigue." Yes, he's a liberal democrat. Yes, he's one of the problems that caused this mess - but he's also human. He's human and in spite of whether or not we agree with him, he needs our thoughts and our prayers as does his family.

I hope you get well soon, Mr Kennedy. (And yes, this is in direct contrast to those "compassionate liberals" who were asking that Tony Snow die when they learned he was fighting cancer. Isn't it, Daily Kos?

But I'm going to end this particular entry with this: " 'You Feel God is Speaking to You,' Inaugural Attendee Says..."

Some of us have been calling him "the Obamessiah."

Now would anybody else care to tell me there's no "cult of personality" around "the one?"

Friday, January 16, 2009

Cross-Link to Rorschach


Sadly, Rorschach might be right. the Obamessiah has already said he's going to talk to HAMAS, to Hugo Chavez, even Fidel. It might come to the point where Israel has to attack Iran.

But if they go nuclear; look out. If they attack even with conventional weapons; look out.

But do they have any other choice? We've all seen by now that the American MSM is truly in the tank for those "...poor, disenfranchised, Palestinians..."

The sheer bias shown by the American MSM should make you wanna spit. Of course, they were firmly in the tank for the Obamessiah. ::Sigh::

Israel probably will be forced to attack. And then the Arab world will respond with nuclear weapons. And America, thanks to our engineered financial meltdown, will only be able to stand helplessly by.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

An Angry Email

I received from a certain person has lead me straight to the archives.

If you remember, on 19-NOV-2008, Rep Joe Knollenberg actually said this:

NC: "Where do you draw the line with our money?" (He's talking about the endless string of bailouts which he predicted (correctly!!) would follow)

JK: "It is not your money."

I left the emailer my reasons for leaving the Republican Party and going Independant. But for the record, I didn't leave the GOP: The GOP left me.

"Congressman, I'm just telling you there's a line of people behind you who are going to make a similar arguement. I hope you're ready for it."

Prophetic words.

Thankfully, this particular numbskull lost his bid for re-election.

One down. Far too many to go.

"It is not your money." Yeah, right. Where does the tax money come from?

Wednesday, January 14, 2009


It's going to get COLD! And snowy. This this is winter, so it's going to happen. 3...2...1... "DUH!"

The only reason I'm writing about this is the large number of vehicles I saw off of the road today, or heard about on the radio.

The rules for winter driving. For those of us who drive defensively, this is definately going to be one of those "duh" articles. Such as "Well ... duh." Or "He really needs to write this? Everybody knows this crap!"

Apparently, not everybody.

1) Reduce speed. IE: SLOW DOWN!! If the road is wet, icey, or just plain snow covered, SLOW DOWN! At higher speeds, it's easier to lose control and harder to regain it.

2) Increase following distance. IE: Don't tailgate!! The general rule of thumb is one car-length for each 10mph of speed. So if you're going at 30mph, you should allow 3 car-lengths of distance. On snow-covered or icey roads, however, feel free to double that distance.

3) Drive safely. This one's harder to explain, but in general terms it means don't do anything to increase your risk. If you're on a two-lane road and the left lane is snow-covered but the right lane is clear, drive in the right-hand lane. It probably will take longer to get where you're going, but if you're travelling slower, you have a greater chance of not being involved in a crash. Also, make sure your vehicle's tires aren't balding. Replace them if you need to. Bald tires greatly increase your risk on bad roads.

4) Don't drive distracted. (OK...this is supposed to say 'Don't drive impared" but that's next.) Don't be distracted. Granted, if you have young children in the car; good luck. But you can be less distracted: Turn the radio/tape/CD off. Don't fiddle with the station settings ... and put the damn cell phone away!

5) Don't drive impared. Yes, another 'duh' moment in an article full of 'duh' moments. Don't drive impared. You shouldn't do this to begin with, frankly. If you do it when the roads are icey or snow-covered ... there are those that would argue that you deserve what happens.

Sorry about the "duh" article. :)

"Just" a "Conspiracy Theory?" Or True Story?

Sadly, it's a true story. The link:

"Call this a case of liberalism via central planning gone wild.

In one of the most politically left-of-center cities east of Berkeley, Calif., ideas put forth at city hall in Madison, Wis. would dramatically limit free enterprise and personal liberty, all in the name of environmental sustainability."

As Rush would say "STOP THE PRESSES!!!" Does anybody remember when people, including me, mentioned this? We were told we were "...making shit up..." for "...worthless blog[s]..." or that it was just a conspiracy theory and that it could never happen.

Alex Jones got called quite a few things. Now I'll agree that Mr Jones (yes, that one) is a "...blowhard..." He seems to enjoy shouting others into silence, from a few examples of him on Coast to Coast AM, including a "round-table" discussion hosted by Mr Noory. It ended when the other panelists, tired of being interrupted by Mr Jones, left. Frankly, I was ready to dress Mr Jones down. Anybody who's tried that with me over the phone or in person has quickly learned that that crap doesn't fly. As even those who don't like me but who know me in person will tell you "Nobody interrupts him twice." Frankly, I'm too damn old to put up with it. I don't have to, and I don't. Well ... time for that full disclosure thing - there is one person who can interrupt me anytime he wants. My Pastor. But that's about it. But he's too polite.

Anyway, getting back to the article: "10. Zoning should adapt to meet the demands of climate change; use zoning to address or mitigate effects, or adapt to climate change; remove any barriers to mitigating the effects, adapting to climate change (trees, green space, mobility, renewable energy, land use)."

Ok...what about the increase output from the sun? Remember when I wrote about Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter (at the equator) and Europa were all warming due to the sun's increased output? Granted, Europa's warming is also probably due to the tidal and gravitational forces it's exposed to, but still. Europa is also warming due to the sun's increased output.

Again, no cars on any of those bodies. No coal-fired plants; no methane from cows or other livestock, either. Yet all of those bodies are also warming due to the sun's increased output!

Could global warming be at least partially due to the sun's increased output? If you haven't read what I wrote about it earlier, please do. The facts are there:

Yes, the Earth is warming. No, mankind is not solely responsible.

Obamessiah's Swearing-in to be most expensive in US History

Seriously. Here's the link:

Again, this is a UK publication, because the US media won't pick it up. How dare they question or complain about "the one." He's the Obamessiah, dammit!

"Barack Obama's inauguration is set to cost more than £100m making it the most expensive swearing-in ceremony in US history."

But let's go back to 2005 when this happened:

"Four years ago, the Associated Press and others in the press suggested it was in poor taste for Republicans to spend $40 million on President Bush’s inauguration. AP writer Will Lester calculated the impact that kind of money would have on armoring Humvees in Iraq, helping victims of the tsunami, or paying down the deficit. Lester thought the party should be cancelled: “The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?” " (emphasis theirs) The link:

You gotta love the title: "AP Slammed Bush's 'Extravagant' Inaugural in '05, But Now It's Spend, Baby, Spend."

Just remember, there's no double-standard here. He's the Obamessiah! He's "the one!" How long until my sister or other lefties scream RAAAACIST!!!

For pointing out facts? That's racist? In US dollars, the £100m comes out to about $45m. Remember when the lefties were outraged about President Bush's $40m bill? And of course, that is too much.

Yet the Obamessiah is going to be spending more than that ... and not one mainstream American "news" source will pick it up. They're too busy congratulating themselves that they got him elected.

Do you still think there's no double-standard? And for those who are saying "Yes there is but ..." no buts.

It's past time to do something about it.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Junk Email ... Again

Part 301,816 This time it was from - a site which went active on 08-JAN-2009. A WHOIS lookup returned a valid address, according to the US Postal Service. However, the phone number given in the record doesn't match.

Oops. The mail actually included this line: "We demand that you take 3 minutes out of your online experience and renew your records to avoid running into any future problems with the online service." ::Snort::

Ok, according to WHOIS.NET, the registrant of is a person named Jeff. I won't post his address or his invalid phone number. Although the address actually exists, nobody named Jeff lives there. To be completely honest, we don't even know that "Jeff" is the person's real name. But at least the address physically exists, unlike some of the addresses given in ACORN voter "registration" cards.

Another oops.

There were a number of easy ways to tell this mail was a fraud, but I won't go into them. Methinks that, the site's host, needs to start checking their registrants.

It took me all of three minutes.

Article: "George's Bottom Line"

The link:

The title? "Obama Calls for 'Grand Bargain' on Economy: 'Everybody's Going to Have to Give' "

Ok...what about those wallstreet jerks that brought us to this near depression? Are they going to have to give? How about that idiot Bernard Madoff who absconded with $50 BILLION of his victim's money?

He should be thrown in prison for the remainder of his miserable life and forced to work a chain-gang. He'd learn the value of an honest day's work. I'll be willing to bet he never got his hands dirty. We already know he has no remorse, no sense of morality or ethics ... which explains why he didn't commit seppuku (a Japanese form of ritual suicide by disembowelment.) But you gotta hand it to him; he done Charles Ponzi proud. Well ... that's not true. If he had any morality or ethics he wouldn't have done what he's accused of doing. $50 BILLION, Mr Obama.

But what about them, Mr Obama? Are the people who brought us to the brink of a depression going to have to "give?" Or is it just those people who lost money and their savings?

Plenty of people lost plenty of money when those wall street bastards caused the market to tank. Haven't they "given" enough? But hey, the fat cats on wall street made out and got rich, so what the hell, right?

What about the others who lost even more? Haven't they "given" enough? People lost 35-40% of their accounts, including some that were their nest-eggs for retirement. What about them, Mr Obama?

But I've changed my mind about that jerk Madoff. He should be found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging. He should be hung from a tall building on wall street as a demonstration that people are fed up and p*ssed off.

People have "given" enough, Mr Obama. It's past time to make those morally bankrupt wall street bastards pay. If you want to clean house, start there.

Article: "Wedding Zinger: Waiter's Gag Disrupts Jewish Ceremony"


"A waiter who shocked guests at a Jewish wedding by playing a recording of a crowd chanting in Arabic has pleaded not guilty to a felony harassment charge."

He should've been charged with a hate crime. You know as well as I do that if a Jewish person had played a Hebrew chant during a Muslim ceremony that CAIR and the ACLU would show up in .0 (^29) 1 seconds. For reference, that's 0.0 with an additional 29 zeros before the "1."

But again, there's no double standard here!

"Buttafuoco's lawyer says it was an accident. He says his client only meant to play the tape for a friend and didn't realize it was being amplified."

Yeah, it's really hard to hear the blaring chanting. It's very hard to tell when something is being amplified. If the idiot were deaf it would be forgiveable, or at least understandable. But he's not, so we can't pull out that card. And since he disrupted a Jewish ceremony, it's not a hate crime - at least in today's PC world.

Apparently, he made the recording at a rally opposing the Israeli actions in Gaza, according to investigators. Um....yeah.

You don't say.

I Was Wrong Again

We got a total of three inches and then sleet and freezing rain. ::sigh:: So I bought my friend a cup of coffee when we were out this afternoon. I was wrong and I admit it.

That doesn't, however, negate the fact that the Weather "Service" blows more forecasts than I do. :) It just means I was wrong this time. I've never said I was perfect; I know I'm not. The last perfect person to walk the face of the Earth was murdered if I recall correctly.

But I just wanted to let everybody know that I blew my forecast. :) It happens.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Weather "Service" Changes Forecast ... Again

Steeeeeeeeeerike two! Remember my last post, when I wrote that the "forecast" had changed? yet another example that the Weather "Service" can't get it right, here's their new "forecast"

"Freezing rain...sleet with a chance of snow. Snow and sleet accumulation of 2 to 4 inches. Additional ice accumulation of less than one quarter of an inch. Highs in the lower 30s. Northeast winds 10 to 15 mph. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent. "

Um...yeah. Whatever.

My forecast stands. We'll get nada. Zilch.

Somebody remind me, again, why the National Weather "Service" took away our weatherguy from the airport?

Their "forecasts" are usually just plain wrong now. But I's to save money. Right. Save money and deliver a product that doesn't pan out.

Got it.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Weather Service About to miss AGAIN??

I dunno. Sure looks that way, though.

The reason I'm writing this is because every time so far this year, and all but one time last year that they've said we're about to get blasted by a winter storm, we've gotten ...

...nada. Zilch. Zero.

And now they're saying it again! The last "forecast" said 3-5 inches of snow on Friday night, and an additional 3-5 inches of snow on Saturday.

And NOW they've changed it! Maybe snow tonight, maybe an inch total. Then on Saturday, 4-8 inches.

You'll notice that the DAY of the snowfall changed, as did the amount.

And now for my "official prediction." Tonight: Snow flurries likely. Around an inch of accumulation possible by morning. Saturday (tomorrow): Snow likely. Total accumulation around 1 inch by night. Saturday night: Snow flurries. Little if any additional accumulation.

There you have it. I'll bet you that we get less than an inch total. The last time I had a bet about the weather I didn't bother to write it down. This time I did. I'm willing to bet that somebody owes me a cup of coffee (cream and sugar please!).

OH...and this includes SUNDAY as well!!! Because the last time, they pushed it back to SUNDAY, saying that THAT was when we'd get blasted.

So, just to be clear here; the bet is that we get less than an inch of snow TOTAL by Monday (12-JAN-2009) morning.

Just to be clear. :)

Tonight on the Dr. Roth Show ...

...I have no clue what they'll talk about. But tonight's (today's?) guest will be Mr Douglas Hagmann, the Director of the Northeast Intelligence Network.

Before I go further, here's more of that full disclosure thing: I do trade emails with Mr Hagmann whom I've found to have a wickedly sharp sense of humour which is, thankfully, rather like mine. However, he did not ask me to write this and neither did Dr Roth.

I've been listening to the Dr Roth show since 2006, so I've been "On board" for quite a while now.

As I said, I've no clue what they'll talk about, but I can guarantee a few things:

1) You won't read and/or hear about it in the liberalized PC mainstream media.
2) You'll get a sense of their sense of humour.
3) You might need to download the .MP3 version of the broadcast and listen to it again, but you'll learn quite a few things.

You'll note that the first thing is that I said you won't hear or read about what they talk about in the liberalized Politically Correct mainstream media. Indeed, some people on the conservative side have accused Mr Hagmann of needing a "tin-foil hat" due to "conspiracy theories."

And a correction about that: Dr Roth is not a conservative. Nor is she a liberal. She is an independant, as am I. That means that if any politician on either side of the aisle deserves a thrashing, they're gonna get one. Dr Roth most assuredly does not pull punches. Nor does Mr Hagmann.

As I said, neither Dr Roth nor Mr Hagmann have asked me to post this: but the Dr Roth show remains one of my all-time favourites.

LINK: The Dr Roth Show:
LINK: Northeast Intelligence Network: NOTE: This is NOT affiliated in any way, shape, or form with the Department of Homeland Security. THEIR website is
LINK: Security NOW!

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Article: "Survey - Reporters Dropped Ball Covering Meltdown"

The Link:

"NEW YORK (AP) - Signaling a look inward that echoes critiques of the media's performance in the months before the Iraq War, some of the nation's top financial journalists believe reporters dropped the ball as the nation's economy tumbled toward crisis mode. "

You don't say. Truly, this is really one of those 'duh' moments. The media didn't properly cover the economic meltdown? I wish I could say I was surprised, but if you've read this blog for any length of time you'll know that I'm not going to lie.

No, I'm not in the least surprised. Know why? Well, if we read a bit further, we find this: " "I blame myself in part," one reporter said. "I wrote about many of the components of the bust, including the opacity of derivatives (where does the risk go?), the extremely low interest rates that fueled housing, and declining lending standards. But I failed to put it all together and see how really, really bad things would get." " (emphasis added)

To be fair, the liberal media does not bear the entire blame for what happened. Honestly, they don't. After all, I don't think anybody has a crystal ball that would've told them how bad things would get. But let's also be fair about this: There have been a plethora of studies, some of them done by reporters no less, that show that there is a liberal bias in the media. This goes beyond a "conspiracy theory" at this point in that we have study after study after study that shows a liberal bias in the media.

But for them, the financial reporters, to miss the "...low interest rates that fueled housing..." as well as the "...declining lending standards..." is troubling.

But then, we need to factor in one other piece of this puzzle. Exactly whom pressed for those "...declining lending standards...?" Well, we know of at least one group - ACORN. You can also bet (do a Google search on this and you'll find it) that other minority groups - some would go so far as to call them 'pressure' groups - said that if the lending institutions didn't lower the standards they would conduct "strikes" against them.

So why mention ACORN by name? Read on: "ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is a community-based organization that advocates for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues." (links by Wikipedia and are left intact.) So they work for voter registration for low and moderate income families.

Such as Freddie Johnson, who ACORN pressured into registering 72 times in Ohio? Do a Google search for his name and you'll find it.

Such as the Dallas (TX) Cowboys who ACORN registered in Las Vegas? Such as Mickey Mouse, another ACORN registrant? How about Doodad Pro, or Watchem Gro? How about them? How about Seattle Washington?

This next link does go to Michelle Malkin's site, but if you follow her hyperlinks, you'll get all the juicy details. Also, just search my blog for the details.

To make a long story short, ACORN handed in the names of 1,800 new "voter registrations." In spite of the threat of an ACORN lawsuit, they checked those registrations.

Out of 1,800, a total of 6 were valid. Here's THAT link:

But WAIT: It gets worse: "ACORN is a non-partisan organization. However, it often advocates for policies championed by liberals." You don't say. Here's THAT link:'

So what does that have to do with realtors and "...declining lending standards...?"

Here's what one realtor had to say: "Instead of maintaining the basic standards for new borrowers, the NAR is asking them to lower them.

To me this seems like an act of desperation and foolish to boot. We all know that lower rates and lose lending standards created the mess we are in now. It is not rocket science. But to now ask the federal government to step in and continue these practices that have been proven not to work is madness. " (emphasis added) Link:

So, we have left-leaning groups like ACORN pressing for lower lending standards. We have the liberal media cheering it all on and then posting Op-Ed articles that say if they don't lower the standards they're ... gasp ... RACIST!!!

The other day I was watching some sports show and they were commenting on an African-American QB not getting some kind of award. It, instead, went elsewhere. The commentator immediately reached into his deck of cards and drew out the ...

...wait for it...

RACE card. Yes, if African-American QB's don't get an award is RAAACIST!! Never mind that there could be other QB's out there that are ... gasp ... better? SAY IT ISN'T SO!!

If lenders don't lower the standards for lending money it's ... gasp ... RAAACIST!! Tell me, how many of those that defaulted the first time on their house loans defaulted the second time after they were given the 'grace period?'

I don't have the figure in front of me, but I remember hearing that it was around 50%. Now, granted, I don't have the figures in front of me. So at best, this is hearsay, and at worst, I could've made that figure up. But for those who've been reading this blog, they know better. I don't make "...make shit up..." for my "...worthless blog."

There ... I don't have a crystal ball, and I've connected those mysterious dots for you. And I don't have a fancy degree in journalism, I'm just a blogger.

And yet, I've connected those annoying little dots. Don't you feel stupid now? All your layers of fact-checking.

Also, for the record, I'm not in my pajamas, nor am I in a basement. You "reporters" need to start reporting the news instead of trying to create it.

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Article: "Islamic Fanatics Name Alan Sugar, Mark Ronson and Lord Levy in a hit list of Britain's Leading Jews."

Sorry for the long title, but there you go. First, the link:

"FEARS grew last night that hate-filled Islamic extremists are drawing up a “hit list” of Britain’s leading Jews — bringing the Middle East conflict terrifyingly close to home. "

HOLD THE PHONE! Or as Rush Limbaugh would say "STOP THE PRESSES!"

"...hate-filled Islamic extremists..." Yet to listen to Hamas and Hezbollah, the Israelis are the ones that are hate-filled. To listen to others, anybody who says one bad thing about radicalised Islamists are "hate-filled."

But...but... what was that I just read? "On the Ummah site, “Saladin1970” asks for help compiling “a list of those who support Israel”.

“Abuislam” asks: “Have we got a list of top Jews we can target? Can someone post names and addresses?” " (same link)

Remember what was on the Drudge Report recently? (Screenshot)

It's midway down the right-most column. It says "Pro-Palestinian demonstrators in Florida scream for Jews to 'go back in the oven'..."

Here's a direct link to that article:,2933,477450,00.html

And what, pray tell, does it say?"But as the protest continued and crowds grew, one woman in a hijab began to shout curses and slurs that shocked Jewish activists in the city, which has a sizable Jewish population.

"Go back to the oven," she shouted, calling for the counter-protesters to die in the manner that the Nazis used to exterminate Jews during the Holocaust.

"You need a big oven, that's what you need," she yelled. "

Just remember ... that since this was an anti-Israeli woman shouting this, that it is not hate-speech. Take a guess what would've happened had an Israel supporter shouted something like this. CAIR would show up in .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds and so would the ACLU. You see, they would've violated the civil rights of the Palestinian supporters if they'd [the Israel supporters] had shouted something like that.

If it had happened in Seattle, you could bet that the authorities would have already beefed up the security forces to protect...

...the mosques. This actually happened. A Jewish centre was defaced in Seattle and their authorities beefed up security around the Seattle area mosques. No double standard here.

Perhaps that's why Islam is sometimes referred to as a "religion of pieces." (Do a Google search for this, you'll find 50,400 hits.) But what's the Urban Dictionary definition?

" "A mocking reformulation of President Bush's absurd declaration that Islam is a "Religion of Peace."

Despite CAIR's best efforts to mislead world opinion, federal prosecutors concluded that Islam is a religion of pieces. " (emphasis theirs.) Link:

Quick, CAIR! Not a second to waste! Sue 'em!!

Wikipedia Article Changed ... Colour Me SHOCKED!

I truly am shocked. Some months ago now, I was trying to get people to recognize that it might just be barely possible that there might possibly be a CoP (Cult of Personality) forming around "the one."

You'll notice the way I'm writing this "...might just be barely possible that there might possibly be..."

That's nowhere near the same as saying "There is a CoP forming around Barack Obama." I was asking "Is it possible that there might be one forming? If so, shouldn't it be discussed on the main page. True, it's just a theory - but it happens to fit the available facts." I was told it was a conspiracy theory.
And now.... (Screenshot...)

Colour me shocked.

The man does, after all, have his own votive:

This is not a Cult of Personality, dammit! He's "the one," the "Obamessiah!"

Wait! What's that my sister is shouting???


Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Michelle Malkin: "About that Israeli strike on the UN "school" Updated"

The link:

I'm going to quote from one sentence of her article (which is a must read, by the way.) Be sure to follow the links to the video clips that she gives for context; and you'll see more of those "...poor, disenfranchised, Palestinians..." firing mortars from schools - in deliberate violation of International Law!!

"Hamas and other terror organizations in Gaza make deliberate use of civilians living in populated areas as human shields." (emphasis added)

Yes, this is one of those "duh" moments. But the question is this: why does the mainstream media continue to allow itself to be used as a Palestinian propaganda machine?

Remember what that brilliant writer Mr Malone wrote??

"The hotel I was staying at in Windhoek, Namibia, only carried CNN, a network I'd already learned to approach with skepticism. But this was CNN International, which is even worse.

I sat there, first with my jaw hanging down, then actually shouting at the TV, as one field reporter after another reported the carnage of the Israeli attacks on Beirut, with almost no corresponding coverage of the Hezbollah missiles raining down on northern Israel. The reporting was so utterly and shamelessly biased that I sat there for hours watching, assuming that eventually CNNi would get around to telling the rest of the story … but it never happened. " *1

"...utterly and shamelessly biased..." That's Mr Malone's opinion, and in my opinion, he's right on the money.

"But ... but ... but ... we're not biased! Nobody in the media is biased!"


"In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election." *2

Really? "...some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election."

And let's not forget "Rathergate" ... the controversy over the authenticity of the "documents" that Dan Rather used in his story. *3 Indeed, some people have referred to Rathergate as "... [an] all-but-obvious and rather (pun intended) poorly-orchestrated attempt to throw the 2004 election." *4

But to get back on topic, it could be argued that the mainstream media is cheering the Palestinians on. Neither Ms. Malkin nor myself are the only people to question the apparent bias in the media. Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, who is by her own admission a liberal, said that MSNBC was "...out of control." I would assume that she's meaning their "...lopsidedly liberal..." coverage of the election. In fact, she and her husband worked on short promotional films for General Wesley Clarke and for Hillary Rodham Clinton! *5

And if she, as a liberal, says that MSNBC was "...out of control" that really doesn't leave too much doubt, does it?

So we know the press is liberal in their coverage of certain stories. Study after study has shown this. Some would say that Dan Rather proved it. And now we have the "unbiased" (just ask them!) media blaring that the Israelis are killing children, yet somehow forgetting to report that the rockets were fired from within residential areas. And according to International Law, if you're fired upon from an asset within a residential area, you are permitted to return fire.

But the mainstream media won't report on where the rockets are fired from. No liberal bias here. Move along, please.

*1 - Source:
*2 - Source:
*3 - Source:
*4 - Source: Personal email sent to me. Quoted with permission.
*5 - Source:

Article: "Hamas: Israel Has Legitimised The Killing of its Children"

The Link:

" “They have legitimised the murder of their own children by killing the children of Palestine,” Mahmoud Zahar said in a televised broadcast recorded at a secret location. “They have legitimised the killing of their people all over the world by killing our people.” "

A few questions are in order here: First, is it allowable under the conventions of warfare to hide or place war materiel in residential (civilian) areas? The obvious answer, of course, is it's not. Placing war materiel inside residential areas is a direct violation of the rules of warfare.

But not, apparently, if you're Hamas or another terrorist group or individual. They have placed - deliberately placed - rocket launchers and other materiel inside residential areas. Of course, this was also done in the former Yugoslavia, and resulted in the "International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia." *1

But these are the "...poor, disenfranchised, Palestinians..." that we're talking about. Never mind that their "refugee camps" were actually self-imposed. *2

Here's the next question: Given that the Palestinians and the groups Hamas and Hezbollah voluntarily and purposfully place war materiel inside residential (civilian) areas - in direct violation of International Law - how does this justify purposfully attacking residential (civilian) areas?

The answer, of course, is that it doesn't. You're not allowed to wantonly attack residential areas. You are, however, permitted to return fire if fired upon from assets within the residential areas.

But that doesn't matter if you're Hezbollah. Remember what their three main goals as listed in its 1985 Manifesto were? *3

1) "putting an end to any colonialist entity" in Lebanon, and
2) bring the Phalangists to justice for "the crimes they [had] perpetrated," and
3) "the establishment of an Islamic regime in Lebanon."

Oops. But it gets worse: "Hezbollah leaders have also made numerous statements calling for the destruction of Israel, which they refer to as a "Zionist entity... built on lands wrested from their owners."[12][13] " (*3 - same source. Links left intact and come from Wikipedia.)

But that's actually quite telling ... that Israel, again according to the Palestinians was "...built on lands wrested from their owners." But what, pray tell, does wrested mean? Well, we go to the dictionary for that. There are four definitions given for this, but let's use the second. Wrested:

2) "To usurp forcefully: wrested power from the monarchy." *4

To "...usurp forcefully." So what on Earth does usurp mean?!? Again, let's go right to the dictionary for the definition. This time, there are seven definitions given, but for our purposes, we're going to use the first one. Usurp:

1) "to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: The pretender tried to usurp the throne." *5 now let's rewrite that sentence. Here it is again, before the rewrite. "...built on lands wrested from their owners." Now for the rewrite: "built on lands taken by force and without legal right by their owners."

Except, of course, that that's not what happened. The United Nations gave part of the land to form the State of Israel, and gave the other half to the Palestinians. The Jewish people said yes, and the Palestinians said no ... that the Jewish people didn't have a right to any of the land. So the Palestinians left! They self-imposed their "refugee camps" upon themselves!

As Glenn Beck said, "Wah ha ha! If I can't have all of it, I don't want any of it!" *2

So that's where we stand. The Palestinians broke International Law when the refused the lands that were offered them by the United Nations. They break International Law by deliberately placing war materiel inside residential (civilian) areas.

And we believe their propaganda ... why, exactly? Remember, we have gun-camera footage of rockets being fired from within residential areas! *6

The simple truth is that the Israelis have been going out of their way to reduce civilian deaths. The simple truth is that according to International Law, you are permitted to return fire if fired upon ... and this includes from places within residential areas.

The simple truth is that the Palestinians have doctored and staged photographs and entire scenes to be used as propaganda tools. *7

And we believe them, why? To be honest, the Israelis have undoubtedly done the same thing on occassion...doctoring photos.

*1 - link:
*2 - Source: Glenn Beck Programme: "Glenn Beck Explains the Middle East" Copyright 2002.
*3 - Source:
*4 - Source:
*5 - Source:
*6 - Source:
*7 - Source:

Sunday, January 4, 2009

I Hate To Say I Told You So...

...but I told you so. The link:

"TEHRAN, Jan 4 (Reuters) - An Iranian military commander called on Islamic countries to cut oil exports to Israel's supporters in response to the Jewish state's offensive in Gaza, the official IRNA news agency reported on Sunday."

Another Arab Oil Embargo?

" "Pointing at Westerners' dependence on the Islamic countries' oil and energy resources, he (Bagherzadeh) called for cutting the export of crude oil to the Zionist regime's supporters the world over," IRNA said, referring to Israel."

Mmm....dependence on oil. How many times have I written about this? How many times have I written that we need to get off of foreign oil; indeed, off of oil completely? How many times have I written that they have us by the testicles?

Another Arab Oil Embargo?

Granted, it hasn't happened yet. All they're saying is that an Iranian commander has stated they should cut exports.

Another Arab Oil Embargo? "...oil weapon...?"

Do you still think I'm "...making shit up..." for my "...worthless blog?"

I hate to say I told you so...
...but I told you so.

Thursday, January 1, 2009

The Automotive Bailout

Which should not have been. At least, not with the TARP funds. But then again, politicians are stupid. I'd like to quote from a conversation on Coast to Coast AM between Dr. Michio Kaku and Art Bell. This took place during hour two of the show dated 30-NOV-2007. The reason I'm quoting is because both Mr Bell and Dr. Kaku said something profound.

AB: "If you go back to the 70's, we had the oil shortage ... I was part of that where we all stood in line ... you know, waiting for gas; it was horrible. Fist fights broke out, it was, you know, disruptive."

MK: "Right."

AB: "At that point, Detroit began to make smaller cars, copying the Japanese, but the moment oil eased ... there was nobody looking ahead another 10 or 20 years, 30 years; nobody. And so we went right back to making big cars again, SUVs all the rest of it, and now here we are again - same deal."

MK: "Yeah, and this time there's no bailout for General Motors, or for Ford..."

AB: "Yet."

MK: "Because two reasons: One, people know that high-tech is huge and we don't necessarily rely on automobiles to keep the economy going any more, right? And second of all - like I said; they bungled it. I mean, General Motors and Ford, they made the mess, right? They are to blame for the fact that they ignored all these warning signals; they ignored all the moods of the consumer, they have the least energy-efficient cars of any large automobile maker; they hold the rear on every single measure of safety, quality, and especially fuel-efficiency. And that's just to take a small example." there is a lot there. But a few profound things were said ... and dare I say it ... prophetic things. First, we know that immediately following the Arab Oil Embargo, Detroit began to make smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. They did this in response to Japanese sales going through the roof, as well as the soaring price of oil. However, as Mr Bell pointed out, the moment that the oil began flowing more freely again, Detroit went right back to making the bigger, less fuel-efficient models. It was as if the lesson, if it had been learned at all, was promptly forgotten. Fuel prices went back down, and the American people went back to their old ways. Again, it was as if the American people had learned their lesson, it was promptly forgotten.

Fast forward to 2007-2008. As the oil prices began to rise, the American people became more concerned about fuel-efficiency. When oil prices peaked at near $147 per barrel, the result was that people again began to purchase more fuel-efficient cars.

But let's go back to what Dr. Kaku said: that General Motors and Ford made the mess. Now, we can argue that the American people are also to blame for this. After all, we could have gotten off of oil 30 years ago if only we'd have had the political and social will to do so. Now that crude oil is trading at $39.02 per barrel, the fuel prices are also dropping. Although, I'd be willing to bet that we will not see $1.00 per gallon petrol again.

But there's another reason for this particular posting. If you remember, the oil embargo was placed upon the United States, Great Britian, Western Europe, and Japan for their support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War (which the Arabs, lead by Egypt and Syria, started by the way). In fact, from the Wikipedia article on the Embargo:

"August 23, 1973—In preparation for the Yom Kippur War, Saudi King Faisal and Egyptian president Anwar Sadat meet in Riyadh and secretly negotiate an accord whereby the Arabs will use the "oil weapon" as part of the upcoming military conflict.[8] " (Wikipedia's hyperlinks left intact.) Link:

Two words are critical here: oil weapon. Let's examine part of the reaction of the Embargo: "The British, French, and Japanese reversed their previously pro-Israeli policies as a result of the Arab oil embargo, and became more pro-Arab in the following years." Link:

But it gets worse than that. As stated earlier, fuel prices are falling, as are oil prices. And, the American people might go back to their old ways and ... you know the rest.

The problem is that many people are believing that Barack Obama will abandon Israel in favour of talks with the Arabs. But you need to understand the Arab mind-set to know how this will play out. They'll take it as a sign of weakness, and I firmly believe that the current fighting between the terrorists of Hamas and Israel will intensify.

Will there be another Arab-Israeli war? At some point, almost certainly. This year, 2009? Possibly.

But remember what I said earlier - people are thinking that Barack Obama is going to abandon Israel. I believe it as well.

I think we're in for more trouble than we ever imagined.