Thursday, July 30, 2009

Obama to be on Time's Cover For 12th Time

For the 12th time in as many months!!!

Of course, quite a few of us bloggers believe there to be a bias in the media towards Mr Obama.
(H/T: Drudge Report)

STUPID: "Driver texts, talks, hits car, crashes into pool"

The link:

You read that title correctly. This particular bonehead was texting on one phone and talking on another when this happened. He was using two cell phones.

If you've been reading this blog for any length of time you'll know that I'm no fan at all of a cell phone. It's true that I do have one. It's also true that I allowed the service on it to expire. I do carry it with me, but that's only because you have to - by law and agreement - be able to dial 911 even on a phone with no service. If it weren't for that, I wouldn't have it with me.

I've stated on this blog that I think they should be banned in restaurants. Yes, I've gotten vicious emails because of it, but I honestly don't give an overweight rat's rectum.

I honestly don't give a damn about hearing your phone conversation. I honestly don't care to hear somebody else on a person's phone because he has the volume so dammed high. I know he's not hearing impared because after he gets off the phone, he talks to others around him in a normal tone of voice ... just as they speak to him.

I'll be honest in that I used to talk on the cell and drive at the same time. That stopped when I very nearly plowed into the car ahead of me. Frankly, my refusal to talk and drive at the same time drove my ex-wife nuts. And she wasn't happy when I asked her to concentrate on the road instead of on her conversation.

Yet this particular idiot takes the perverbial cake: Texting on one phone, talking on another - and trying to drive at the same time. Maybe that's why Rasmussen Reports is reporting that 39% believe there should be a complete ban on driving while using a cell phone. Here's that link:

Had that texting, talking, and driving numbskull hit me, I'd have been tempted to either bash the cell phones into itty-bitty bits, shove them so far up his nether regions that they'd never see daylight, or turn them over to Tom Dickson (you know him as "The Blendtec Guy" from the "Will it Blend?" You Tube videos.)

(Time for that full disclosure thing again. This is no relationship between me and Blendtec, nor between myself and Mr Dickson. In fact, I found his videos by following a link in a comment about the "Is it a good idea to microwave this?" videos.)

I think my personal favourite "Will it Blend?" episode is where he blended an iPhone and got iDust.(*) Or iSmoke as it's also been called. He then sold the iSmoke/iDust on eBay ... and got enough money to purchase a new iPhone. iSeriously.

Of course, there was also the episode where he blended the camera crew's cell phones ... all of them. (**) (The flash of light at 50 seconds in was due to one of the batteries being blended.)

And then there was the time he blended the iPhone 3G (***) More iSmoke.


(*) -
(**) -
(***) -
(****) -

Article: "Poll: Obama loses ground on health care"

The link:

" WASHINGTON - Despite his public-relations blitz over the past two weeks to promote his plans to reform the nation's health-care system — including holding two town halls on Wednesday — President Barack Obama has lost ground on this issue with the American public, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. " (Link is MSNBC's and has been left intact.)

No doubt that Obama's lost ground on this issue. Why? Those nasty bloggers. You know, those of us whom Janeane Garofalo call "RAAACIST" because we disagree with "the one." Odd, and I thought liberals tolerated dissenting viewpoints. But I digress.

But for this, we're going to go right back to the non-partisan, impartial Rasmussen Reports. Here are their numbers:

47% are in favour of the "health-care" reform
49% are opposed. (*)

But let's break this down into those who are strongly in favour and those who strongly oppose:

25% strongly in favour
41% strongly oppose. (*)

There are more telling ... and damming ... numbers included in this poll, but I won't post them here. Let's just say they're not too good for Mr Obama.

(*) -

Obama's PAI Score -12

(Image courtesy of and Copyright by Rasmussen Reports.)
-12 PAI (Presidential Approval Index). That's the lowest it's ever been. This number, you'll recall is determined by taking the number of people who strongly approve of his performance from those who strongly DISapprove.
28% Strongly approve of Mr Obama's job performance
40% Strongly DISapprove
This is where the -12 comes from. It should be noted that his first NEGATIVE PAI score was on 22-JUN-2009 when it was -2. It went back into positive territory briefly, and has been on the decline since 30-JUN-2009. (*)
This is in stark contrast from the numbers on his first day in office:
44% Strongly approve
16% Strongly DISapprove. That gave him a PAI of +28, but it wasn't his highest recorded. That happened the next day (22-JAN-2009) when it hit +30.
It is also important to note that the overall trend has been downward. True, it has gone up and down frequently, but the overall trend has been down. It's quite telling that as news of what he's been doing has gotten out (not by the MSM, but by us bloggers ... you know the "potential domestic extremists") his numbers have been overall south.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Claim: Hawaii Officials Destroyed Obama's Birth Certificate

You'll notice I put this as a "claim" because there appears to be a great deal of confusion about this. Google "Dobbs Obama birth certificate destroyed" and then stand back.

For reference, this is the link I'll be referring to:

Now you'll notice, I hope, the URL of '' which means it's from a Conservative point of view. But you'll also notice, again I hope, the word at the end - 'scam.'

Quoting a bit: "After CNN's Lou Dobbs last week demanded Obama's original birth certificate, CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein apparently has told staffers of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" that the issue is a "dead" story.

" Any such public announcement would of course have the effect of making the conspiracists even more certain that the truth is being suppressed by the media . . . but it gets worse.
According to Media Bistro's TVNewser webblog:

" Klein asked CNN researchers to dig into the question of why Obama couldn't produce the original birth certificate. The researchers contacted the Hawaii Health Dept. and confirmed that paper documents were discarded in 2001 when the department went paperless. That reportedly includes Pres. Obama's original birth certificate. " (links are theirs and have been left intact.)

Granted, there's a lot there, so let's distill this down:

The US President of CNN, Joe Klein, asked his researchers to find out why Obama couldn't produce his original birth certificate. For reference, this is also referred to as the "long form" or "vault copy" of his birth certificate. (You'll also notice that I've referred to them both as long form and/or vault copy. I've used these terms interchangeably, and in this instance at least this is a perfectly acceptable thing to do since they are the same thing.)

It turns out that officials there in Hawaii confirmed that paper documents were "...discarded..." in 2001 when the department went paperless. And, reportedly, it included the "president's" birth certificate.

My next question is this: discarded how? We've all heard by now about how documents that were supposedly "shredded" later turn up mysteriously whole and none the worse for wear. So "discarded" how? Burned? Ecologically very unwise.

Shredded? Makes sense from a privacy standpoint, assuming the shredder is a fairly good model and makes really really small bits of paper - if not powder. (Don't laugh. I've actually seen shredders that made powder out of what they shredded. These were all classified documents so I can't say where I saw them or what they were, but after going through the shredder, they literally were powder. You can purchase these models of shredders, but they are very expensive.)

Granted, this particular site then states that " "any paper data prior to that still exists," Health Department spokeswoman Okubo said.

" Okubo would not say where Obama's original birth certificate is, but said "we have backups for all of our backups." "

And, truth be told, I've also seen this too. I've seen various buildings with paper copies of older documents all kept in a climate-controlled area; since it turns out that heat, cold and humidity are natural enemies of paper documents. These paper (or "legacy") documents are left in paper form and are only converted to "paperless" (electronic) form as the personnel have the time to convert them. Some of them are so degraded that they can't be converted. Scan these particular documents all you want, but you won't get much readable out of each particular scan. Granted, you can post a composite image from each "good" scan, but that won't satisfy those with an agenda - because it could literally take 15 different "good" scans to get a readable document in electronic form.

And yes, I know where quite a few people's minds just went: "...15 different "good" scans..." Well, time for that full disclosure thing again: Yes, it COULD take up to 15 "good" scans to get a "readable" document in electronic form - and this would be a composite image. No 'conspiracy theorist' would ever accept that as truth.

So the question remains: Where is the vault copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate? If they have backups of backups (which makes sense from a security point of view) why not simply produce that?

After all, the vault copy/long form of a birth certificate is an important thing, and it seems to me that you'd be very careful to preserve that. After all, you never know if a child that's born on a certain day will turn out to be Adolf Hitler, or Barack Hussein Obama.

Article: "SURPRISE! NEWSWEEK Reporter Joins Obama Administration"

The link:

" The revolving door between the media and Team Obama continues to rotate. Some journalists on the campaign trail were infatuated with Obama, and that’s certainly true of the Newsweek reporter who covered Obama in-depth (with the promise that nothing he learned would be revealed until after the election). Philip Klein on The American Spectator’s blog reported: " (link is Newsbusters' and is left intact.)

That, however, should be very very telling. Wasn't it just recently that a Time reporter left to join the Obama "team?" And after all those flattering pictures of the Obama's on Time's cover. Makes you wonder.

And now a "reporter" from the drooling media sycophants joins Obama's team.

Do I really need to ask the obvious? Just suppose for an instant that it were Mr McCain in the White House and that the "reporters" were jumping ship to work in his administration. You know full well that the liberals - both those in and not - in Congress would be screaming. The Daily Kos folks would probably all have heart attacks. The Huffington Post folks would be up in arms as well. And, they should be.

But here we have those "reporters" leaving to join "team Obama." Where is their outrage now?

Franky, and here's that full disclosure thing again, I'd be up in arms if "reporters" left to join the hypothetical McCain team. They're supposed to be reporters, not drooling sycophants. I guess I'm the only one that realizes that, however. The GOP can't bring themselves to mention it. The lefties can't bring themselves to realize that it might just possibly be a bad idea. This really reminds me of that line in Aliens:

"What, did IQs drop sharply while I was away?"

Debt Skyrockets During Obama's First 100 Days

The link:

The graphic on the page actually is from which is the site of the Republicans in Congress ... so bear that in mind.

Article: "Obama blasts NEWSWEEK for 'The Recession is Over' cover"

The link:

Yeah. Big blue balloon proclaiming that it's over. But wasn't it just a few short weeks ago that Gaffetastic Joe Biden said it was worse than they'd thought?

Guess they really don't know what's going on...

Article: "The Associated Press: SPIN METER: 'Help Wanted' counting stimulus jobs"

Sorry for the long title... :) Here's the link:

" PORTLAND, Ore. — How much are politicians straining to convince people that the government is stimulating the economy? In Oregon, where lawmakers are spending $176 million to supplement the federal stimulus, Democrats are taking credit for a remarkable feat: creating 3,236 new jobs in the program's first three months.

" But those jobs lasted on average only 35 hours, or about one work week. After that, those workers were effectively back unemployed, according to an Associated Press analysis of state spending and hiring data. By the state's accounting, a job is a job, whether it lasts three hours, three days, three months, or a lifetime. "

Ok..that's the first two paragraphs of the article, which goes on quite a bit longer and in more detail. But it's the first two paragraphs that I'm the most interested in. There was also something on Drudge about the Democrats returning to a tried-and-true tactic, bashing Bush. More on that later.

But let's return to this. In Oregon, the Dems are taking credit for creating 3,236 new jobs in three months. On the surface, it sounds wonderful, doesn't it? Imagine creating 3,200+ NEW jobs that last a lifetime, provide meaningful employment with plenty of room for advancement and pretty good health insurance.

Turns out that that's not the case. On average, these "jobs" lasted 35 hours ... or about one week. That means that they're probably not technical or highly-skilled jobs. Indeed, the picture with the article shows a man painting a wall.

While I'll agree that the wall needed painting, and that even 35 hours of paid work is better than no work, I'm not sure these should be counted as "jobs created" or "new jobs." After all, according to the article, they were effectively unemployed again after the 35 hours.

I remember going through six WEEKS of on the job training at one of my jobs, and that was before we were allowed to help Customers. Six WEEKS, and some of it got downright geeky.

I'm sorry, but we simply can't count these "new jobs." Unless you wanna use Fuzzy Math.

Tea Party - Columbus, Ohio

On this Saturday 1-AUG-2009 between 1 and 5pm. Be sure to tell the damocrats (er...dumbocrats ... er Obamacrats ... politicians) what you think of Obama's "health care reform" bill.

Note that the mainstream media has typically 1) not covered these or 2) slanted them to appear "RAAACIST!!" (thanks to Janeane Garofalo and MSNBC)

Be sure to point out the facts ... and then expect the liberal press to spin, spin, away.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Currently on Drudge Report

Lesse ... $541,119 to install a traffic signal. Was it gold-plated?

$1,444,100 to repair a door on building 5112. A million dollars to repair a door?? I guess it must've been the Leona Helmsley model, right?

And my favourite: "Purchased 760,000 Lbs of ham at cost of approximately $1.50 per pound"

Lesse...remember when President Bush was ridiculed because he didn't know the cost of a loaf of bread? The libs in the press "feasted" on it (pun intended)

Yet Osama's (er ... OBAMA's) goons don't know the cost of a pound of ham? WAIT! What does it say under that?

"FOOD LION: $.79 Lb" Oh. I guess it was the "organically fed" type?

Had enough of the waste yet?

Obama's PAI Score -7

30% - Strongly Approve
37% - Strongly DISapprove

This gives him a PAI (Presidential Approval Index) of -7. This is one point higher than the lowest point ever recorded for him of -8.

63% of liberals strongly approve of his performance
60% of conservatives strongly DISapprove of his performance
The difference is most telling when colour is included.
41% of white voters approve of his performance
59% of white voters DISapprove of his performance.
97% of African-American voters approve
03% of African-American voters DISapprove (Note at this point that we've not sure if Freddie Johnson was polled or not. He was, you'll remember, the young African-American man that ACORN pressured into registering an astonishing 72 times in Ohio.)
Also, we're not sure if they polled any of the 6,000 bogus registrations in Seattle Washington. Or the 20,000 in Florida (all of these were gathered by ACORN and all registered as Democrats. But I digress.)
It's going to get worse when the Democrats ram through national same-day voter registration. In other words, you walk into the polling place on election day and tell them you want to register to vote. BANG. Just like that, you're registered to vote. Same-day means there's no time for background checks or to see if you're registered elsewhere.
And since a federal judge has ruled that park benches are acceptable locations for a "registrant" to "live" I can just see somebody walking into the polling place and asking to register.
"What is your address?"

"Well, I live on the park bench in Central Park. You know, the one near the foot trail?"
"And how long have you been there?"
"Just last night. I move around alot."
"What is your name, please?"

"Watchem Gro." (NOTE, this name actually was used on a "voter registration.")

Article: "Larry Summers cites Google search as progress"

The link:

" Of all the statistics pouring into the White House every day, top economic adviser Larry Summers highlighted one Friday to make his case that the economic free-fall has ended.

" The number of people searching for the term “economic depression” on Google is down to normal levels, Summers said." (Links are Politico's and are left intact.)

This is telling for a number of reasons. First, they're trusting Google as a source. But if we go to the Wikipedia discussion page for "Cult of Personality" (The link: It's under the section "Wikipedia as an example" Here we learn that Google hits (or searches) don't account for much.

Granted, I am paraphrasing, since I don't have the author's permission to quote. But the gist is there. Well, if it's good enough for the White House....

I just did my own Google search for "Economic Depression" and got 948,000 hits.
"Cult of Obama" got 43,500 hits, including this one:

This includes a quote from Obama: " "... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama" - Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.January 7, 2008. "

Here's the question and answer:

And yes, Barack actually said that. The lap-dogs, of course, won't mention that.

Two More Soldiers Question Obama's Birth Claim

The link:

" A controversial suit brought by a U.S. Army reservist has been joined by a retired Army two-star general and an active reserve Air Force lieutenant colonel. "

After Ms Gordon's other article, I wrote to her asking if it was just barely possible that Mr Obama might not be a natural born Citizen. Here's part of what I wrote:

" Ms Gordon, he could end the controversy in five minutes ... yet he hasn't. Why? Is it just barely possible that he might be a Usurper? Be very very careful with your answer. Anybody with a fair and unbiased mind would be willing to at least entertain that possibility and would not immediately dismiss it. Which did you just do? Be honest. "

To date, I haven't gotten a reply. But, also to be honest, I finished my letter with: " I await what will, in all probability, be an echoing silence. "

I certainly got the echoing silence. But the next part of her article states the identity of the two soldiers who are about to be vilified by the Obama lap-dogs in the press:

" In a pleading revised after the revocation of Cook’s orders, Taitz argues that the application for preliminary injunction is not moot and that retired Maj. Gen. Carol Dean Childers and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff have joined the suit “because it is a matter of unparalleled public interest and importance and because it is clearly a matter arising from issues of a recurring nature that will escape review unless the Court exercises its discretionary jurisdiction.” "

I wish I could be confident that we'll get the straight skinny on this. Frankly, however, my pessimism has kicked in full-force. I honestly don't expect anything other than an Obamawash.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Sez...

That under Osama's (er...Obama's) new "health plan", the cost will be $1.5 trillion. Additionally, 121 million Americans currently with health insurance - fully half of all Americans with health insurance - would lose their private insurance and be forced into the government plan.

But you haven't heard that in the MSM. You also haven't heard what the exact cost is going to be. The $1.5 billion I quoted is a guesstimate. But the liberals have, by the CBO's own words "hidden" some of the costs, which itself is a violation of the law.

Not that the Obamabots care.

Also, in a recent poll, fully a THIRD of American Businesses are stating that if the health "care" bill is passed, they'll be forced to lay off workers.

Let's see ... a third is 33.3% Additonally, another 27% are saying that their workers would have to take pay cuts.

Let's see 33% plus 27% = 60% of Americans would be adversely affected.

Mad enough to get involved yet?

Read it and weep. And then get involved.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Article: "Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez"

The link:

" A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment
to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office. "

" "We won! We won before we even arrived," she [his attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz] said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!" "

Well, sort of. Yes, you won. They, however, swept it under the rug. You see, by revoking the illegal order they save the embarrassment of a trial during which time Obama's having spent $800,000 in lawsuits to avoid producing his birth certificate would come into question - and out into the open. If he really does have a vault copy of his birth certificate, why spend nearly a million dollars to avoid having it see the light of day?

That is what they're guarding against, a trial. That $800,000 (some of which appears to have come from CAIR) would come right out into the open. And that would lead to a slew of questions. Questions that they don't want to answer - let alone have asked.

Of course, MSNBC labeled it thusly: That's the link to the story. The title was "Soldier dodges duty with bogus birther claim."

Hey fuckhead Olbermann, you're supposed to be a reporter. A reporter. That means you report the news without distortion or concealment - and without your opinion. Of course, you are a democrat ... and we all know that the symbol of the Democratic party is the donkey ... also called an ass. Mayhaps you are the ass?

UPDATE: "The CEO of Simtech, Inc., Larry Grice, explained to Plaintiff over a series of four conversations within the next two hours, that he had been terminated." (Plaintiff is Maj. Cook)

" Grice explained that he had been in touch with Defense Security Services (an agency of the Department of Defense[1], with regional offices located in SOCOM Headquarters at McDill Airforce Base in Tampa, Florida), and that DSS had not yet made a determination whether Plaintiff Major Cook’s clearances would be pulled, but Grice made clear to Cook that it was DSS who had compelled Cook’s termination. " (Link is Dr Taitz's and is left intact.) (source: )

THis is in direct violation of the Whistleblower Act. Not that the Obamabots care.

Article: "Pack of smokes? That'll be $23 quadrillion please."

Honestly. The link: (Sorry for the long link, I dunno why it did that.)

" Anyone who thinks smoking isn't a costly addiction should ask Josh Muszynski, who went to purchase a pack of smokes at a local gas station and wound up with a $23 quadrillion charge on his debit card -- and a $15 overdraft fee to boot. " (Link is Walletpop's and is left intact.)

I'd call that an "oops."

Article: Obama's Healthcare makes private insurance ILLEGAL

The link:

" Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal. " (emphasis and colour added)

" It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

" "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law. "

Meaning that if you currently have coverage you'll be able to keep it ... but not change it. And if you leave that company for any reason, your only option will be the government solution. This is "choice?"

" What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law. (emphasis, colour, and size added)

" The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs. "

Written right into the bill as quoted earlier. Kiss your healthcare goodbye.

Mad yet?

Consider this: When foreign leaders (especially those with a government-run health care system) need medical help, where do they come?

Right here to the United States.

But not any longer. This is Osama's (er...Obama's) change.

It stinks.


Note to DHS (Department of Hussein's Sycophants), "oust" in this instance means to force Barack Hussein Obama out of office. I am not advocating violence against him or anybody else. I am talking about political pressure to force him from office, an office he is not qualified to hold.

"Yes We Can!" became a rallying cry used by Barack Hussein Obama. (Remember, by his own admission, using "Hussein" is now politically correct.)

Well, yes we can. We can oust the Usurper. How? Well, online petitions are all well and good, but truth be told they're next to useless. Buying "Impeach Obama" merchandise, such as bumperstickers (which must then be affixed to your vehicle) help, if only to get the word out. But as far as really working? Not really.

No. Those are simply feel good measures. You've "expressed" your opinion in the safe way. Setting up a website is, in my opinion, another safe way. After all, you could use a service such as Domains By Proxy so that if somebody does a WHOIS lookup, they'll be identified, not you.

And as much as I might not like it, a blog is not the best way either. Granted, I put my real name on mine, but to be truly effective, this also doesn't cut it.

No. There are things you can do, but they're going to require more than lip service and feel good measures.

You can go to Obama's rallies (and that's what they are, really ... rallies) with "REMOVE OBAMA" signs. We can't actually impeach the son of a bitch, because he's not actually the President - he's a Usurper. The Obots (Obama robots) won't take kindly to it, naturally. Expect the press to call you "RAAACIST" or some other nonsense. Personally, I would have no problem with an African-American being the President. Gen. Powell, however, wasn't running. Neither was Dr. Rice, and since she's also a woman, there go the liberal two favourite playing cards.

Now since we've all seen and heard Bushitler during the former President's term: Simply imagine those people as Obama supporters (or officials) and those flags as his symbol.

Next, you can write to your elected officials, but I don't see that helping either. The Dumbocrats have their heads so far up Obama's a$$ that I'm surprised they haven't suffocated from oxygen deprivation. And the Rebooblicans are so disorganized they couldn't find their way out of an outhouse.

I wrote to my Rebootlicken Senator and got a flocking form letter back that didn't address a single one of my concerns.

You can also mail the White House, call the White House switchboard and demand that either Barack Hussein Obama produce the vault copy (also called long form) of his birth certificate, or step down.

Yeah, it'll get you noticed by the Deparment of Hussein's Sycophants, and might even earn you a visit from the Secret Service, but think of it this way: You've been silent all this time and things that you don't like have been happening.

Unless you get up off your ass ... now, you're going to be raped by this man. It's past time to take a stand. It's past time to stand up for our Country.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

It's here - 5.4% surcharge on rich

The link:

Got buyer's remorse yet?

Now it's 5.4% not 5% and not 3%.

Let's see....1,000,000 x .054 = $54,000.

Remember this is a surtax, which means it's on top of what they're already being taxed.

Article: "SKorean police: Hackers extracted data in attacks"

The link:

" SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - Hackers extracted lists of files from computers that they contaminated with the virus that triggered cyberattacks last week in the United States and South Korea, police in Seoul said Tuesday. "

Lists of files, not the files themselves. This is getting more and more worrisome. At this point, I have to wonder if they've found the virus' entire payload. Suppose it used a zero-day exploit to install something else?

I can easily imagine why somebody would want lists of files, and that is because you'll never know what you'll find on a computer.

" The finding means that hackers not only used affected computers for Web attacks, but also attempted to steal information from them. That adds to concern that contaminated computers were ordered to damage their own hard disks or files after the Web assaults. "

This is going to sound strange, but it actually makes sense. After all, IP logs only go so far in determining whence the infection came from. At some point in the investigation, you'd need to have physical access to one of the contaminated computers in order to forensically examine it. This, obviously, becomes much harder if the hard disk were to become damaged.

At this point, I know that somebody's going to say "Just turn on Windows Update, the Windows Firewall, another firewall and a good anti-virus program and you're set."

Well ... no. Granted, that will deter a number of people. But if people are determined enough to get into your computer, odds are they'll find a way to do it. And it might not be your computer that they're interested in ... it could be your IP address. Think of it. Somebody hijacks your computer and uses it to spray 250,000 junk emails. As far as anybody knows, it was you that did it.

Or when your machine gets corrupted, it attempts to install malicious code onto other's computers. Again, the villain walks away. As far as anybody knows, it was you. It'll take somebody to examine your drive to determine that your machine had been compromised.

Article: "Fliers get advice on Internet etiquette"

The link:

I honestly don't know which worries (or, rather, concerns) me the most about this:

" Tip #134. "The lavatory is not your personal conference room." "

To me, this is yet another "duh" moment. And with a capital, bold, italicized "D." As in, this should be a no-brainer.

Yet they included it. I understand their reasoning, however. It means that they're concerned about this happening (and given people today, it's very possible - if not likely) or it's already happened.

Given that any number of corporations are worried about proprietary and/or confidential and/or sensitive material being displayed on people's laptop screens, I can understand that some "executive" would take their laptop into there and participate in a meeting to discuss a new product launch. But I wouldn't want to be that "executive" when I run into the person who really needed to use the lavatory, but couldn't. Just imagine that poor person who had needed in there had instead gone in his trousers. Talk about a mess ... and smell.

And it's not just business people either. You could quite easily make a case that some politician had received a rather raunchy email from his mistress and went into the lavatory to ... you know what. Or they're "sexting" over Instant Message while he's staring at a scantily-clad picture of her which he'd set as his wallpaper. Assuming she's clad at all.

And then there could be the person out in seat 28F which was playing a loud shoot-em-up game with friends over the Internet. Except she hadn't brought her headphones (they were in her checked luggage) and she just had to have the sound on so that she could tell if somebody was sneaking up behind her. Let's take that scenario one step further ... her boyfriend in the seat next to her is also playing the same game (with the same friends) and he didn't have his headphones either. Oh, and he's got his sounds on for the same reason. Possible?

Granted, the ping rate would be horrible and you'd suffer from massive packet loss, but I'm willing to bet that somebody would try it.

" "Any time we have a new way to spend time on an airplane ... it's a good idea to think about how it affects those around us," says Anna Post, an etiquette expert and spokeswoman for the Emily Post Institute. "14B is not your office. It's an airline seat. Treat it as such." " (Link is's and is left intact.)

All of that, however, doesn't begin to address another issue - that being security. By now, we all know that WEP is badly, horribly broken. There are tools out there now that can break this in under a minute. Yet I'm willing to bet that some IT guy at some airline is going to stick with WEP because that's what they're familiar with, and learning WPA takes too long.

Your laptop locks onto the Wi-Fi signal, but unfortunately, there's also a trojan running in somebody else's computer. (It's not their fault, they don't know it's there.) Suddenly, your computer gets infected. Unfortunately, since you also plug this computer into the LAN at work ... your corporate LAN could now be at risk. I just hope it doesn't install a keylogger or packet sniffer.

And while it's true that WPA hasn't been hacked, yet, there is a significant vulnerability with it. That being, of course, the password. How many times have we heard that we need a strong password? Yet you'd be surprised how many people's password is "password." Even changing upper and lower-case letters "PaSsWoRd" really won't help save this one.

And then there's the person that will use an obscure word in a dictionary. While it's not bad against your common person, it's useless against a brute-force, dictionary attack. While better than no password, a weak one isn't much of a defence. And you could still end up with an infected computer.

" "I'm praying cellphones don't get approved," she [Anna Post] says. "It will be anarchy." "

Oy, I don't even want to think about that one. I still think the things should be banned in restaurants.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

"What Did You Think Would Happen?"

Interesting question, ne?

Before I begin, I need to explain some backstory. Some of my friends and I meet at a local coffee shop every Friday. Sometimes it's in the wee hours of the morning, sometimes it's in the afternoon, and once it was after 6pm. (But only once.) But no matter the time, it's Friday.

We sit, drink coffee (OK...time for that full disclosure thing again, they drink coffee, I drink Mr. Dew) and talk about current events. Since the place has wifi, they bring their laptops. I would if I still had one...but I digress ... so I use theirs.

As has been happening frequently lately, our discussions turn to politics. Not one of our group likes Mr Obama. Frankly, we believe he's ruining the United States.

Yesterday, one of the other regulars at the coffee shop came up to our group and asked if he could sit down. He'd been listening to us rail against Mr Obama repeatedly over the past months, and he wanted to know exactly why we disliked him.

It turns out that he didn't know about the $800,000 that Mr Obama has spent in lawsuits to keep the vault copy of his birth certificate from being revealed. He didn't know about Mr Obama's ties to Project Vote and ACORN.

But he found out yesterday. We showed him Ms Thatcher's comments about socialist states (see my previous post about it here:

His jaw dropped. Bill turned to him and asked "What did you think would happen? He'd wave a majic wand and fix our economy just like that?"

We showed him this:

"- 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.) "

We showed him the Black Panthers at the voting place:


Indeed. What did you think would happen?

Friday, July 10, 2009

Remember when...

I said that taxes would have to go up? Here's one such instance:

" Now let's look at Mr Obama saying he's going to give people tax cuts. He can't do it. Why? Because of all of the spending that they're going to be doing on their nanny state, taxes would have to go up. They'd simply have to."

Which brings us to this:

The title is "Max Baucus on how to pay for health care" (Max Baucus (D-Mont) is the Senate Finance Committee Chairman)

Here's how he wants to pay for the nanny state's health care spendulus:

" — Broaden the 1.45-percent Medicare tax on earned income to “passive income,” which could include money from capital gains, rental properties and businesses that do not require direct participation. This could raise $100 billion.

— Levy a five-percent surtax on individuals who earn more than $500,000 and couples that make $1 million.

Tax health benefits at a higher level than had been considered. Two scenarios are in play. Taxing plans worth more than $20,300 for a family and $8,300 for an individual could raise $240 billion. Increasing the cut-off to plans worth more than $25,000 would bring $90 billion.

— Capping the tax break on itemized deductions at 28 percent, as President Barack Obama had proposed, or freezing the top deduction rate at 35 percent when the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. The first scenario would raise $168 billion, while the second would collect $90 billion.

— Issue tax credit bonds to pay for the proposed Medicaid expansion, raising $75 billion.

— Charge fees to pharmaceutical manufacturers, bringing in as much as $20 billion, and insurance providers, raising $75 billion.

-- Raise taxes on sodas and sugary drinks. A 3-cent hike could pick up $30 billion, and a 10-cent hike could make $100 billion. This one already appears out of favor: Many senators have specifically ruled out the sugar tax, and a Senate Democratic source said it was the one option that was clearly not gaining traction with committee members. (All links are Politico's and are left intact.)

The 5% surtax is interesting. Let's use the $1 million example. If I make 1 mill a year, I'd end up paying an additional $50,000 in taxes. (1,000,000 x .05) "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." - Karl Marx. Certainly seems that way, doesn't it?

Getting "Buyer's remorse" yet?'s_remorse

Just remember ... I and others like me (the Department of Hussein's Sycophants refers to us as "potential domestic extremeists") did warn you.


Article: Barack " his inner Bill Clinton..."

The title? "PRESIDENT OBAMA CAUGHT LOOKING AT WOMAN'S BUTT DURING G8 ADDRESS." Sorry for the all caps, but that's the way it is. :)

ABC news, of course, is saying "No he didn't." But let's take a look at this. I've watched the video that ABC provided, and I will definitely agree that Mr Obama wasn't as leering as Mr Sarkozy. There's no question about that. The question is, however, was Mr Obama looking.

In my opinion, he was. Granted, that is my opinion, and therefore by no means a provable fact. But in my opinion, he was. ABC news states otherwise, but again, let's take a look at this:

" "ABC News has more than earned the title of the All Barack Channel, they have recklessly fought to achieve it," Media Research Center President Brent Bozell stated in a press release today.

" The network had promised to deliver a health care presentation that would "not be ‘slanted' in any way - much less a ‘day-long infomercial' or ‘in-kind free advertising'," but not a single expert was offered to counter President Obama's plan to nationalize the nation's health care industry. " (*) (emphasis added)

That's a "balanced" view? Not a single dissenting viewpoint? How much more proof is needed before people begin to realize that ABC, indeed, the majority of the mainstream media is firmly in the tank for "the one?"

Let's also consider this:

" Many fear objective and balanced coverage of the president controversial health care plan will be the casualty of "ABC day" at the White House. The transformation of a major news network from watchdog to Obama lapdog would threaten the very nature of an independent press that is vital in maintaining liberty and a civil society.

" Co-opting corporations, especially media giants such as ABC News, to promote his policies appears to be part of Obama's political strategy. General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt, for example, is a member of the president's Economic Recovery Board (PERB) and the company's media units NBC News, CNBC and MSNBC frequently advance Obama's energy policy through its programming and news coverage which would also benefit GE's investment in green technologies. " (**)

I loved that. "...from watchdog to Obama lapdog..." How many times have I said that the majority of the mainstream press were lap-dogs? (Or lapdogs, I've used both.)

Indeed, do a Google search for "All Barack Channel" and you'll get "Results 1 - 10 of about 19,000 for "All barack Channel". (0.07 seconds) "

Nineteen Thousand. No liberal bias here.

- (*)

- (**)

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Article: "Media Still Supports Obama"

The link:

" Apart from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, both owned by News Corp., the media "remains very supportive of him [Obama], perhaps not of all of his policies," Murdoch told Stuart Varney of Fox Business Network. "

Remember that the media is supposed to be impartial and unbiased? So why is it that only Mr Murdoch's assets (Fox News & WSJ) are pointing out the problems? Yes, libs, those two also did point out the problems during the Bush years. And yes, they both took Bush to task. The difference is that they didn't enjoy it.

At this point, I'm strongly reminded of something Mika Brzezinski (of MSNBC's Morning Joe) said: " More recently, she criticized the way some journalists are infatuated with President Obama and his wife Michelle, stating "I still don’t think it’s right to be in love with him ... and to be acting like a little girl at a Beatles concert.” " Honestly.

The only thing that surprises me is that it was Ms Brzezinski that said it. It's a given that I don't agree with most of what she says, but I believe her to be 110 per cent on the mark with this one. The majority of the American media is in love with the Obamessiah. I wonder how he felt when he went to Russia and there were no drooling sycophants in their press corps. Of course, he had the love and adulation of the American press lap-dogs who went with him.

But there's something else that I'd like to point out ... something else Ms Brzezinski said: " At the same time, she criticized members of the media elite with trying deliberately to "bring down" Sarah Palin: "Members of the network media elite, as well as members and people who worked for the New York Times when Sarah Palin first came on the scene, and this is what they knew about her: She was a woman, she was pro-life, and she had some very, very conservative views on other issues" ...And all I could hear from my friends in the network media elite was, ‘Let’s bring her down. I hope these rumors bring her down'. . . . They did not know her. They didn’t know anything about her. But they wanted to bring her down.” She has continued her support for Palin even after her resignation saying Palin represented the views of "real Americans."

Telling, isn't it? According to this, the network media elite were trying to bring down Sarah Palin. They certainly did that, didn't they? Shame on them.

At this point, I'm just waiting for somebody to scream "RAAACIST!!!" at Ms Brzezinski in 3...2...1...

Currently on Drudge Report

Is a picture of Barack Hussein Obama staring at a woman's behind. Forgive me for saying this, but I had thought those days were gone when Mr Clinton left office. Or orifice. Whichever.

Article: "More Web attacks, North Korea Suspected."

The link:

" SEOUL (Reuters) - A fresh wave of cyber attacks that slowed U.S. and South Korean websites this week hit more targets on Thursday, a Web security firm said, while the South's spy agency has said the hacking may be linked to North Korea.

" The impact of the attacks, aimed so far at dozens of sites including the White House and the South's presidential office, was seen as negligible, experts said, but served as a reminder that Pyongyang has been planning for cyber warfare. "

I'm not an apologist for the Communist state of North Korea, and will say it could be them. But let's also face facts: It's a fairly trivial thing to obfuscate (falsify) exactly where the attack is coming from.

You can munge the IP address or go through a service that makes it impossible to track. You can bounce the attacking packets through numerous other servers, and make it appear to come from point A, while in fact it came from point Z. It's a fairly trivial thing to do - after all, script kiddies (who have no real idea of what the software they use is capable of doing) do it daily.

Granted, these attacks are certainly being carried out by more sophisticated hackers who know exactly what they're doing ... and know what steps the authorities will take in tracking them.

It certainly could be state-sponsored by North Korea. But it could also be a herd of elephants using their laptops in a Starbuck's in Montana.

Margaret Thatcher on Socialism

The link:

So what did Ms. Thatcher say?

" I would much prefer to bring them down as soon as possible. I think they've made the biggest financial mess that any government's ever made in this country for a very long time, and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them. They then start to nationalise everything, and people just do not like more and more nationalisation, and they're now trying to control everything by other means. They're progressively reducing the choice available to ordinary people. Look at the trouble now we're having with choice of schools. Of course parents want a say in the kind of education their children have. " (emphasis added)

Boy, that sounds exactly like what's going on in the United States doesn't it? But, believe it or not, but Ms Thatcher wasn't talking about our current situation. That interview took place on 5-FEB-1976!!! And she was talking about the Socialist Labour Party.

But she's described Barack Hussein Obama's administration perfectly, hasn't she?

Article: "OHIO: Black teens attack white family on 4th, shouting "It's a black world"

The link:

" Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation. " That's the first sentence.

The victims, numbering six, were apparently set upon by a group of up to 50 teens ... all of them black. No hate crime here.

Remember this one:

From the Wikipedia article: WARNING: GRAPHIC DETAILS


" He was shot in the back of the head, the neck, and the back, and his body then set on fire. Christian's death would come only after hours of sexual torture, medical examiner Mileusnic-Polchan testified. Christian suffered horrific injuries to her vagina, anus and mouth. She was not only raped but savaged with "an object," possibly a broken chair leg, the doctor testified. She was beaten in the head. Some type of chemical was poured down her throat, and her body, including her bleeding and battered genital area, likely scrubbed with the same solution - all while Christian was alive, the forensic expert said. She was then "hog-tied," with curtains and strips of bedding, her face covered tightly with a small trash bag and her body stashed inside five large trash bags before being placed inside a large trash can and covered with sheets. Christian died slowly, suffocating, the medical examiner said.[5] " (Link is Wikipedia's and has been left intact)

The victims were both white, their attackers black. No hate crime here, either.

Remember the Obama supporter saying "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker?" That's not racist?

No racism here. Move along, please.

Article: "Billions in aid go to areas that backed Obama in '08"

The link:

" WASHINGTON — Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year's presidential election. " (Link removed)

Let's contrast that with what B. Hussein Obama's mouthpeice Robert Gibbs had to say:

" "There's no politics at work when it comes to spending for the recovery," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says. "

" Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college. " (Link removed)

So, Mr Gibbs says that there's no politics involved. Now we know that he's a liar too.

This is the change you wanted, America?

(H/T: Drudge Report)

Barack Hussein Obama's Numbers Go South

Ok...screenshot of the Drudge Report as it currently is. The title is telling "WRONG WAY."

Of course, those of us who disagree with B. Hussein Obama are called "potential domestic extremeists" by the DHS, but these numbers are telling.

The link "WRONG WAY" leads to Rasmussen Reports. Now, again, this is not some right-wing site, or some site that has a political axe to grind. This is the impartial Rasmussen Reports.

And the numbers are damming: 32% of voters strongly approve of the way Mr Obama is "...performing his role as President." Now that's a direct quote. If you've read this blog, you'll know that I don't consider him my President. I consider him a usurper.

SO - 32% strongly approve. 37% strongly DISapprove. That gives him a PAI (Presidential Approval Index) of -5. This is Osama's (er...Obama's) lowest number yet.

To make it easier to read:

Strongly approve: 32%
Strongly DISapprove: 37%

PAI: -5

Total approve: 52%
Total DISapprove: 48%

The total number of those who approve (strongly, slightly, etc) is now at 52%, and those total who disapprove are at 48%.

This is quite telling, because on 22-JAN-2009 the numbers were very different. Here's the link for where I'm getting the numbers:

You'll notice (again) that this isn't some right-wing site, this is the impartial Rasmussen Reports.

As of 22-JAN-2009 those numbers were:

Strongly approve: 44%
Strongly DISapprove: 14%

This gave him a PAI of +30.

As of that same date, 22-JAN-2009, the TOTAL approve/disapprove was:

Total approve: 64%
Total DISapprove: 29%

And now his PAI is -5??? Again, according to numerous people, I'm none too bright with math, but from where I sit, his PAI has dropped 35 points. ::blink::

Perhaps people are finally beginning to see the threat that our Country is facing. The threat isn't from "potential domestic extremeists" it's from Barack Hussein Obama.

(H/T: Drudge Report)