Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Chertoff got sweatheart deal on TSA scanners; Claim

The link:

Article: Man arrested after punching TSA screener in Indy

The link:

Here's the really laughable part:

" Jim Fotenos, spokesman for the Transportation Security Agency, said in an airport police report, "Our transportation security officers work on the front lines to protect the nation from a terrorist attack and physical violence against them is shameful. TSA will work with local authorities to see that appropriate action is taken." " (emphasis and colour added)

Apparently, they don't if you're a Muslim woman. Here's that link:

Now let's review.

The United States was attacked on 11-SEPT-2001 by people who crashed planes into the WTC and the Pentagon.

Were these people ... Catholic Nuns? Nope. But you sure can frisk them!!

Were these people ... Boy Scouts? Nope. But you can frisk them too.

Were these people ... Girl Scouts? Nope. But they've gotta be frisked also!

Were these people ... SCREAMING TODDLERS?!? (link: ) Nope. But they've gotta be frisked!

Can't frisk Muslim women, however.

Obama gives pass: NO TOUCH MUSLIMS' JUNK

Don't believe it?

Here's the link:

" However, Muslim women will not have to face such worries. has reported that Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — which is frequently tied to domestic terror plots — has been guaranteed that TSA officials will only pat down Muslim women in the head and neck area. " (emphasis and colour added)

Want more?

" Muslim women will likely opt for the not-very-invasive security pat-down, because most consider airports’ high-image body scans a violation of Islamic Shari’a law. CNS News adds, “In February, the Figh Council of North America, a group of Islamic scholars, issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, that full-body scanners violate Islamic law.” " (link is theirs and is left intact)

So, if you're a Muslim, you don't have to worry.

Now let's see ...

" Luckily, Muslim terrorists have no history of using female suicide bombers or hiding explosives in their underwear.

Consider this just another reason why one-in-four Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. " (links are theirs and are left intact.)

Now how about it, Ms Clownitano?

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

TSA LIED ... KIDS DIED!! No, nobody died.

But the TSA did lie, didn't they?

Remember when this was written:

" Since the rollout of the imaging scanners there has been controversy over the quality of the images, which show limited details of a person’s entire body, and the possible saving of the images – something TSA has denied is possible. " (emphasis and colour added)

The article is here:

But remember that Gizmodo article? "One Hundred Naked Citizens: One Hundred Leaked Body Scans" You can find it here:

Well, it turns out that this isn't the first time that the TSA has been caught in an outright lie. Honestly. We need only to go back to 9-AUG-2010, when this article was written:

" Body Scan Images Saved: TSA Full Body Scanners Controversy – A Federal agency has announced earlier this month that approximately 35,000 body images have been stored, after being scanned by body scanners. This is after being told by federal agencies this could not and would not happen. (the italicized part is as it was written in the article. The bold colour was added by me.)

Need more? Can we believe anything Ms Clownitano says at this point? (I especially like the photoshop that was done of Ms Clownitano.)

I know I'm going to be speaking to the wall here, but Ms Clownitano, do the honourable thing and step down. Immediately. Either that, or come clean about it.

Now waiting for my sister to tell me my heart is filled with hate ...3...2...1...

What a Difference a Day Makes!

Screenshot from yesterday's Drudge Report:

In case you can't read it (it is small, isn't it?) it reads "BIG SIS: 'We have an open ear' ... "

Let's fast forward to today, Tuesday, November 16, 2010:

There are two captions that we're interested in: the first one is big enough to be readable, so I won't repost it. However, it goes here: where we learn this:
" The TSA’s invasive new screening measures include officers literally putting their hands down people’s pants if they are wearing baggy clothing in a shocking new elevation of groping procedures that have stoked a nationwide revolt against privacy-busting airport security measures. " But the article goes further: Police State? Read on...
" Speaking with The Alex Jones Show today (video coming soon), Stone went further – noting how the TSA thug directly patted down his testicles, penis and backside while his hand was inside Stone’s pants. Stone was initially embarrassed to reveal the full scope of the groping but related the details of what amounted to nothing less than outright sexual molestation. " (emphasis and colour added)
That should do more than scare the hell out of you. It should make you mad. It should make you want to tell those TSA thugs "HELL NO!" when they try to grope you. (NOTE: Time for that full disclosure thing: When I was living in Texas I applied for a job with the TSA. However, I was never called for an interview and I never worked for them. But I DID apply for a screener job.)
Personally, if some TSA jackboot tries to grope my "family jewels" he'll end up in a shouting match. I do agree that extra security is needed, but this is overboard. GROPING?!? TSA, be sure you investigate me. And the last name is spelled B I R O S H. Think you can manage to spell that correctly? SUUUURE you can!
The second caption that we're interested in reads "UPDATE: Agency to investigate resister..." which leads here: where we learn this:
" The Transportation Security Administration has opened an investigation targeting John Tyner, the Oceanside man who left Lindbergh Field under duress on Saturday morning after refusing to undertake a full body scan. "
Yup. Sounds like the Gestapo to me. But something that the TSA a$$hat that anounced the investigation said is just plain wrong. Here's what the article said:
" Since the rollout of the imaging scanners there has been controversy over the quality of the images, which show limited details of a person’s entire body, and the possible saving of the images – something TSA has denied is possible. " (emphasis and colour added)
Oh, really? Read on:
The title of the article? "One Hundred Naked Citizens: One Hundred Leaked Body Scans" (link is theirs and is left intact)
Now how about it, TSA? Care to change your story?

Monday, November 15, 2010

Screenshot: The Terrorists Have Won

In case you can't see the TSA 'agent,' it is a female wearing the headscarf ... frisking a Catholic Nun. Could you imagine the uproar that would happen if a TSA 'agent' wearing a Crucifix had done the searching?
Just asking.

Friday, July 9, 2010

Maxell Corp.

Time for that full disclosure thing: There is no relationship between myself and Maxell Corp. However, I do use their DVD-RWs for backing up files and data.

Some years ago, while I was living in Texas, I purchased a 15 disc spindle of DVD-RWs at my local Wal-Mart. I purchased the RWs because it allows you to write, erase, and re-write. The 15 discs had all been working perfectly until my last attempted backup which was Thursday of last week. And then two of them flatly refused to work. The other 13, however, worked perfectly.

So, I called Maxell's Customer Support centre. I knew the media has a life-time warranty, so I was calling to ask about replacements.

Imagine my surprise when the gentleman I spoke with offered to ship me two discs at no charge, and without my returning the defective ones (which have since been broken into itty-bitty bits and thrown into the garbage.)

The two discs arrived yesterday (Thank you!) and are working perfectly.

Needless to say, the next time I need to purchase recordable media, it'll be Maxell.

Heard on Sean Hannity's Radio Program

I happened to catch part of the Sean Hannity radio program yesterday and today. Part of it because I've been doing other things.

For the past two days, Mr Hannity has been covering what Mr Shabazz said about "killing crackers."

If you remember, I wrote about it on 3-JUN

It's nice to Mr Hannity's covering it. When I first heard it I nearly fell out of my socks!

Saturday, July 3, 2010

A one-minute rant

One minute. Counting from now. ::ding::

You know something I really hate?? Unsolicited mail. Yes, US mail as well as the electronic kind. Give me more than 60 sec...


Oh, Sez you! ::climbing on the soapbox:: I really hate those "pre-approved" credit offers as well as those "other" offers that are "per-approved."

[Blogspot: "Now just one moment! You said a on..."
[Me: "I lied. Sue me later. I'm gonna climb on my soapbox!"
[Blogspot: "I'm gonna remember you said that!!"
[Me: "I'm sure you will. Now please allow me to post this, OK? I think you might like it too."
[Blogspot: "Are they xxx-rated pictures?"
[Me: "NO!!"
[Blogspot: "Damn you! But say what you wanna say. I'll find some way to get even with you later."
[Me: "I'm sure you will." ]

For instance, it wasn't all that long ago that a cat (yes, a CAT) was "pre-approved" for a credit card. Here's that link:

If THAT weren't bad enough, a tree (yes, a TREE) was offered his/her/its own credit card. Here's that link:

Yes, even a DOG was issued his own "pre-approved" card:

That should tell you something. But, and now I beg of you, please allow me to ask you a few questions:

Given what I'm about to tell you as a given, please consider the questions in this context:

1) Do the companies that send out unsolicited bulk US mail use recycled paper?
2) Do those companies know how much bulk unsolicited commercial US mail is sent per year?
3) Do those companies know (or care!) how much their unsolicited commercial mail is sent to the dumpster?
4) Do those companies care about how much petrol (gasoline) is used delivering their unwanted mail?

I just thought I'd ask...

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Wouldn't it be interesting...

Wouldn’t it be interesting?

When we go to work at a new place, we get presented with a “contract” of sorts. In other words, sometimes it’s an “Acceptable Use” policy.

For the record, I have no problem with this. I’ve worked at a number of places that provided Internet access to their employees, with the provision that the they (meaning the employees) did not violate the policy. In other words, employee agreed not to:

download music or video,
send or receive objectionable material,
send trade secrets,
send messages or anything else that is critical of the employer,
or various other things.

Again, I have no problem with that. The employer is providing the tools, therefore you (as the employee) must play by the rules.

My problem occurs when the employer figures that you don’t have any rights to anything else aside from what they “chose” to give you.

For example, I worked at a place that said the employees could not use their cell phones for personal use on company time. I agreed with this as it made a great deal of sense. My problem was when the training manager decided that the rules did not apply to her and made and received personal calls on her cell phone on company time. I pointed this out to my manager and then had to appear before an area manager when it was decided that I was “causing trouble” for pointing it out. I had to appear before said area manager again when the training manager got promoted. I was asked if I had a problem with it. I replied that no, I didn’t. However, apparently they (meaning the employer) had decided that the rules did not apply to managers. (And they capitalized the word “manager” but couldn’t be bothered to capitalize the word “Customer,” something else I was written up for pointing out.) You gotta love it.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could attach a “rider” of sorts to our “contract?”

“Read carefully as this is a legal, binding agreement between employer (hereinafter referred to as “you,” “employer,” or “Company”) and employee (hereinafter referred to as “I,” “employee,” or “me.”)

I agree to be bound by employer’s rules with the express provision that employer is to be bound by those same rules. Employer further agrees that any such penalties to be assessed against employee will also apply to employer.

Employee has agreed not to use employer’s assets for personal business under the express provision that employer is to be bound by those same rules. Employer further agrees that any such penalties to be assessed against employee will also apply to employer. (To wit: I agree not to use employer’s Internet connection for personal business except were as agreed to under “Acceptable Use Policy.” Employer agrees to this same restriction.)

Employee will not use any personal device for business use. Employer agrees to this restriction. Employer further agrees not to require employee to use employee’s devices for business use.

Employee does not have a Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, or any other social networking site and will not sign up for one due to well-publicized privacy concerns. Employer agrees to this restriction. Employer further agrees not to punish employee in any way, shape, or form for this.

This legal and binding document is not comprehensive, and can be changed at employee’s sole discretion. Due notice will be given in these instances.”

Wouldn’t it be interesting if we could do something like that? I’ve worked for a company that required that I use my cell phone for business use, but stated that since most plans had more than enough minutes that they need not reimburse me. Wouldn’t it be interesting if we could ensure that our employers actually are bound by the same rules they bind us to?

Wouldn’t it be nice?

Wouldn’t it be interesting?

Dissecting "5 Facts About [the] Anti-Reform Mob!"

Editor’s Note: Ms Pamela Miller ( was given three (3) separate chances to reply to this blog posting. All three were sent via email to her account and occurred on 14-APR-2010, 7-MAY-2010, and on 3-JUN-2010. To date, she has not replied. However, the posting at deserves a point-by-point rebuttal, and this blog posting will address this.

To repeat: Ms Miller was given three separate chances to add her voice to this blog posting. Regrettably, she has not done so.

However, as noticed the posting at the link above does require comment. So let’s comment on it.

The first thing that requires comment is the title: “5 Facts About [the] Anti-Reform Mob!” Specifically, two parts. Let’s start with “anti-reform.”

I’ve stated numerous times before the election and for the record that I was not anti-reform. I’ve in fact stated that reform is needed. So have many others in the “anti-reform” “mob.” Therefore, “anti-reform” is factually inaccurate. We’re not “anti-reform,” I, at least, am anti-ObamaCare reform. So “anti-reform” is wrong.

Next, we come to “mob.” It is true that many of the carefully scripted “town-hall” meetings got rather loud when ordinary citizens “dared” to raise their voices in opposition. Things got further heated when several elected officials told their constituents to shut up! Those elected officials work for their constituents, not the other way around. Several of them appear to have forgotten this. But “mob?”

What does say about “mob?” Of the definitions given, only 1 and 4 directly apply. (1) is “a disorderly or riotous crowd of people.” I can see where those who were in favour of ObamaCare would see ordinary Citizens “daring” to speak out as “disorderly” or “riotous.” After all, they’re daring to speak out against the Democrat’s “Chosen One,” the “Obamessiah.” And (4) is “the common people; the masses; populace or multitude.” Yes, that one definitely applies! The Common People, the masses have “dared” to speak! God Help us all!!

But then we come down to “-adjective.” “(10) directed at or reflecting the lowest intellectual level of the common people; mob appeal; the mob mentality.” Yes, as stated by the Liberals themselves, those of us who don’t agree with them simply don’t have the brains to comprehend what they’re trying to do. And I thought part of Liberalism was not to be condescending. Apparently, the rules they bound us to don’t apply to them. Gotta remember to ask why.

"...lowest intellectual level..." For reference, while the media has attempted to portray Tea Party activists as “kooks,” “small-minded people,” “racists,” and “teabaggers” among other things, I am a Tea Party activist. For reference, according to my fourth standardized IQ test within the past eleven months, my score averages out at 127. This is on the high end of “above average” and is three points shy of “gifted.” (A chart can be found here: ) And yet, I am a Tea Party activist.

I take the Open CourseWare from MIT which is located at . And yet, I am a Tea Party activist.

So, we’ve now disproven the title itself: “5 Facts About [the] Anti-Reform Mob!” Remember, we haven’t gotten past the title yet.

So now it’s time to get past the title. “The truth is, it's a sham. These "grassroots protests" are being organized and largely paid for by Washington special interests and insurance companies who are desperate to block reform. They're trying to use lies and fear to break the President and his agenda for change.”

I’m being organized and paid for by a lobbyist? I didn’t know that! Again, there’s the same lie “…desperate to block reform.” We’ve stated we need reform, that it’s ObamaCare we don’t need. And yes, our “Dear Leader” has change planned alright. Remember this article?

" It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people. "

The article goes on to place the blame where it is due; at the feet of the corrupt wall street people, at the Obamessiah, and at the American people as well: "Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. "

Well, the American people did vote for “change.” Somehow, I doubt the knew they’d get Marxism … even though quite a few of us bloggers were pointing it out.

But let’s get to their “Facts,” shall we? (And from this point on, I’m quoting the email I sent to Ms Miller about the above referenced “Facts” article.)

1. These disruptions are being funded and organized by out-of-district special-interest groups and insurance companies

This is catchy, but is not sourced and no references are given. And yet we know that Democrats are placing agent provocateurs among Tea Party protests, as can be sourced and referenced at Double standard?

You said “People are scared because they are being fed frightening lies. (Point 2)”

There is a problem with this one as well. Part of the bill still contains a provision that if you do not purchase insurance, you can actually be sent to prison and/or pay a fine! Here’s that link: Yet we also know in reading the bill that if you switch jobs and lose insurance with your old job, you’ll be forced to purchase the new insurance. I’ll leave it to you, Ms. Miller, to Google that one. But it is true, and is in the bill that Mr Obama signed. I’ll also leave you to Google this one: after five years at the same job, you’ll need to purchase the new insurance anyway. Again, it is true, is sourced, and is verified. But I’ll allow you to Google that one as well. Lies? Would you settle for “inconvenient truth?”

You said “Their actions are getting more extreme. (Point 3)”

You stated that Rep. Lloyd Doggett had seen his own tombstone. Ms. Miller, a Google search for “Lloyd Doggett tombstone” returned zero (0) pictures and a total of two sites … one of which was written by a Democrat, and the other which led to Ms. Maddow’s MSNBC show. Ms. Maddow, you might recall, was a liberal talk-show host on the liberal-leaning “Air America Radio.” If you’re going to repeat this, I’m going to request that you source it.

It should also be noted that during the Bush Administration, we were treated to taunts of “Bushitler,” pictures of the then-President being decapitated, a placard which said “Bush: The only dope worth shooting” and others. Indeed, a Google search for “Bushitler” returns about 16,500 hits and 6,270 images. And not one for Rep Doggett’s “tombstone.” Again, if you’re going to repeat this, I’m going to request that you source it.

Oddly enough, other Democrats were silent when that was happening. As they were silent when we saw this: “Voting for Bush is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you’re still retarded.” Yes, that one was brought to us by Rep. Fitzhugh (D-Tenn) A link is here: Ms. Miller, if you’re going to hold us to one standard, then I’m going to demand that you also hold that same standard.

You said “Their goal is to shut down legitimate conversation.”

You mean, like the ‘welcome’ that conservatives get when they attempt to speak at college campuses? As what happened when Ms. Coulter attempted to speak in Canada? Oddly, Democrats welcomed this. And, I’ll remind you that President Obama himself told his supporters to “get in their face.” Google it.

You said “Republican Leadership is irresponsibly cheering on the thuggish crowds.”

“Thuggish” crowds. You mean like the SEIU members who physically accosted people at town hall meetings? Google “SEIU assault” and you’ll get about 4,270 hits.

And President Obama himself told his supporters to “get in their face”

Ms. Miller, you and I are not going to agree on many issues. However, my not agreeing with you does not make me wrong, it makes me different. Different. But I think we can both agree that on our respective sites if we are to make claims, they must be:

Sourced, and

You’ll notice that on several of my points, I referenced my own blog which is located at The reason is simple: The bulk of what I post on my blog is verified and sourced. Granted, in my opinion, the Ford Focus is a bad idea, but that is my opinion and is presented as such. Opinions can have facts behind them, but they are only opinions.

Will you and I agree on several things?

There are extremists on both sides of the political divide.

These extremists on both sides attempt to shout down and disrupt those that they do not agree with.

These extremists on both sides are a hindrance to any meaningful discussion.

Only by all of us rising above the fray and attempting to better ourselves is there any hope to be had in either side reaching a lasting agreement.

Claims made by both parties on their respective sites must be properly sourced and verified.

Too bad Ms Miller couldn’t be bothered to reply, or to correct the above factual errors. But then again, they’re Democrats and they have an agenda (protecting Mr Osama (er…OBAMA) so what the hell, right?

Monday, June 21, 2010

Greg Birosh ... for President?!?

Me?!? As President?!? Could you possibly imagine a more bizarre idea? I’m not sure I could, and at this point I’m really trying.

But let’s examine this. Me as President. Well, it would be a great thing, wouldn’t it? For me, at least?

“Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States – Greg Birosh.”

Yeah, it has a ‘nice’ ring to it, but it’ll never happen. So, in this universe at least, it’ll only be a fantasy. But what a fantasy!

What would my position on some of the issues of the day be?

First, I’d be prepared to produce the vault-copy of my birth certificate (something our ‘Dear Leader’ Barack Hussein Osama (er…OBAMA) still hasn’t done. But he has spent over $1.8million in lawsuits to keep said document from seeing the light of day. Gotta remember to ask why. Oh, that’s right! That’s politically incorrect!! YOU RACIST BASTARD!!)

Next; illegal immigration. This is a hot-button topic right now, to be sure. First, if they’re here illegally, they’re breaking the law just by being here. I would not, could not in fact, favour amnesty for these people. I would favour the Arizona immigration law, (which Mr Holder who admits he hasn’t read yet still opposes) and would, in fact, appoint Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio as this Country’s ‘top cop.’ (Unfortunately, the man’s 78 right now, so he might not survive long enough. God knows we need more police officials like him.) That’s right, Mr Holder would be out on his you-know-what. Pity that.

Think of it this way: Yes, it could be argued that we are a Nation of immigrants. My own ancestors weren’t born here; some of them came from “the olde country.” Yet they didn’t demand that we speak their language. They didn’t demand that Americans print product packages in their language. They didn’t demand that we grant them “rights.” They learned English and became American Citizens, something that the Left would love to forget about. Gotta love the way the ancestors did it.

ObamaCare would have to go. No if’s and’s or but’s about THAT. Too many people on both sides of the ObamaCare debate were about ready to throw out that pesky Constitution that says that bills have to be voted upon and passed. They were ready to ‘deem’ it to have passed. And these are our elected “officials.”

I would favour term-limits for members of the House and Senate.

I would also favour a ‘code of conduct’ for the Senators and Congresspeople. Yes, Mr Etheridge, this includes you. If you’d accosted that young man on my watch, your fat ass would be out the door. You’d also lose every penny of your pension. You work for the American people you self-righteous son-of-a-bitch, they don’t work for you. And you sure as hell don’t have the right to accost them!

This also includes Governors. If a Governor were to travel to another country to be with his mistress on my watch, they’d be in deep guano. He’d have to pay every cent of the money that had been spent to get there back to his State’s people and he’d get a tongue-lashing. Gotta give that additional thought too, we might not keep him.

If you can’t tell, I believe that the time is long-past for our elected “officials” to remember that they are accountable to the American People, that they are not above the law.

This next would be hard, but I would take a long and hard look about how Justices to the US Supreme Court are nominated and selected. The whole damn process is too damned political in my book. ‘Justice’ is supposed to be non-partisan, remember? But, hey, Osama (er…OBAMA) got his “…wise Latina woman…” and just might get Ms Kagan as well. ‘Non-partisan?’ Remember the hanky-panky that went on during Justice Thomas’ Confirmation hearings?

SCIENCE. This is something else that is supposed to be non-partisan but which is, in fact, turning into yet another of the politician’s play toys. ‘Global warming’ and ‘carbon tax’ are all the rage right now, and if you look at the science objectively you’ll find that the science is not yet settled, despite those with agendas (such as the Goracle (Al Gore) who is going to make a MINT of money) stating otherwise. For now, let’s ignore the fact that he’s already made a mint of money. Yes, the Earth is warming. No, mankind is not solely culpable.

My science advisor if I were President would be Dr. Michio Kaku. His assistant would be Dr. Peter Ward. They’d simply have to learn to work together for the good of the Country. (Time for that full disclosure thing: I have no idea if Dr Kaku and Dr Ward know each other, or how their working relationship would be.)

Education. “If math were a color, it would be (fill in the blank,) because, (fill in the blank.)” That is an actual question from the “textbook” Everyday Mathematics. But let’s take it further. “If it (math) were a food, it would be (fill in the blank,) because, (fill in the blank.)” If it (meaning math again) were weather, it would be (fill in the blank,) because, (fill in the blank.)”

Those are actual questions for fifth-graders! We can’t teach kids mathematics, but we can sure teach them proper sexual techniques. We can’t teach them spelling and grammar, but we can sure teach them to ensure that they use a condom and be sure to “lube up.” If you can’t tell, I firmly believe that this sad state of affairs would have to change. I’d start by taking a long, hard look at the “textbooks” that our children being subjected to.

Oh, and the songs of praise for Barack Hussein Osama (er…OBAMA) or for any politician would be gone on my watch. Period. Teachers found teaching their children indoctrination songs would be fired immediately with no pension and no possibility of becoming a teacher again … in any state. School is supposed to be for education, not indoctrination.

By now I’ve pissed off everybody on the Liberal Left. But again, let’s go further. Let’s take the “Fairness Doctrine.” I’m going to point you right back to how MSNBC treated a Republican getting elected to fill the late Mr Kennedy’s seat. Here’s the link: " Watching coverage of the Massachusetts senatorial election Tuesday night, I wondered if MSNBC was getting ready to cut off its cable signal to the state. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, positively enraged that Massachusetts dared to elect a Republican, delivered two hours of nonstop bilious rage toward the state's voters, calling them "irrational" and "teabaggers," engaged in "a total divorce from reality," and hinting that they're vicious racists to boot. “

Yes, on my watch, we’d have a TRUE “Fairness Doctrine.” MSNBC would be forced to balance its reporting, not give folks like Keith Olbermann and Rachal Maddow carte blanche to do and say what they want. You want the “Fairness Doctrine,” liberals? Great. But it’s going to apply to you as well. Don’t like it? Too bad.

By now, I think I've pissed off quite a few people. But I do have some good points, right?

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Let's wait, shall we?

Read the previous posting, and you'll understand. Until then, what do you think the response from the Medina County [Ohio] Democratic Party will be? Anybody?

Waiting. 3...2...1...

Mr Obama's 'Justice' Department

The link:

This is important: make note of the caption under the photograph. It reads “Courtesy National Geographic Channel King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson, pictured last year for the National Geographic Channel's show "Inside," were accused of voter intimidation by the Justice Department.”

The caption is important as is the source: the National Geographic Channel’s program “Inside.” In this case, “Inside the New Black Panther Party” which aired on 11-JAN-2009. Why is this important now? (*1)

OK. It was last year. It was over 13 months ago, in fact. So why does it matter now? Because of something else that Mr Shabazz said. As far as is known, he didn’t say this at the polling place, but he said it on the NGC program. Here’s what he said:

“We didn’t come out here to play today. There’s too much serious business goin’ on in the Black Community to be out here slidin’ through South Street with White dirty cracker whore [expletive bleeped out] on our arm and we call ourselves Black men with African garb on! What the hell is wrong with you, Black man?? You had a [unintelligible (at least, to me. I didn’t understand it) ] with a white girl on your damn arm! We keep beggin’ white people for freedom! No wonder we’re not free! Your enemy cannot make you free, fool!”

And then, the most damming part. This is the part that the ‘Justice’ Department under Barack Hussein Obama appears to want you to forget about.

For now, let’s forget that his knight-stick wielding Panthers blocked the polling place in Philadelphia. For now, let’s forget about how one 1960s Civil Rights activist called it “ “ the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago. "(*2) For now let’s forget those things. Let's also forget that they'd had a summary judgement against them! In other words, they'd already been found guilty before Mr Obama's 'Justice' Department tossed the case out.

What did Mr Shabazz say? “Your enemy cannot make you free, fool! You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers [white people]! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies! Let us get our act together! It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up!” (emphasis added)

Now that is a direct quote (except for the part which I marked as ‘unintelligible’ since I couldn’t understand it) from the National Geographic Program “Inside.” Let me say that again: that is a direct quote.

You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!”

This, to the ‘Justice’ Department, apparently doesn’t rise to the level of a hate crime. But I’ll bet you my entire life-time’s salary that if a white person had said that (and used the n-word), the ‘Justice’ Department would be investigating in .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds, give or take .00000000000000001 due to orbital precession. (*3)

No double standard here, folks.

So why is this important now? Simple. Many people, myself included, believe it to be a microcosm of things to come.

If you’re going to hold one group of people accountable to one standard, you must therefore hold all other groups of people accountable to that same standard. Meaning in this case, that if a white person had said that about black people (and used the ‘n-word’) then the ‘Justice’ Department must hold the New Black Panther Party accountable to that same standard.

“You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!” If a white person had said that – replacing ‘crackers’ with the ‘n-word’ you can bet it would (rightly so!) kick off a fire-storm. But in this case, it doesn’t.

Expect more of this double-standard under Barack Hussein Obama’s watch.

So why post this now? This reminds me of a conversation that my now-ex wife and I had once. Frankly, it also reminds me of one my sister and I also had once.

We were arguing a point and I said something along the lines of “I understand their situation.” To which they both said “No you don’t. You haven’t been through what they’ve been through.” Or similar words to the same effect. Meaing, that unless you’ve been through what the others have been through, you have no hope of understanding their situation. I didn’t make the connection I’m going to make now back then, and I wish I had.

As stated, unless you’ve been through what the others have been through, you cannot understand their point or their situation. It appears that the liberals (and rightly so!) state this about “us” conservatives.

We must then therefore ask “Do you? Do you understand their point/situation? Be very careful with your answer. You haven’t been through what they’ve been through, so by your own reasoning, how can you understand? Is it just barely possible that this is hypocrisy? Is it just barely possible that you are also part of the problem? Now how about it?”


(*1) -

(*2) -

(*3) -

Wednesday, April 28, 2010


Do you know how very tired I am of reading and hearing that being said about me? I'm (still) told that the reason I don't like Barack Hussein Obama is because he's black. So ... again ... and (again) for the record:

I would have no problem with an African-American being the President. General Colin Powell didn't run. J.C. Watts did run, but didn't survive the primary. Alan Keyes also ran, but he didn't survive the primary either. All three of these gentlemen are African-American. This has been stated by me numerous times, and is part of the public record. Also, for the record, I would've voted for any of these three men. So, as has been proven, there goes the race card ... again.


I also hear this (still) by people who complain I that I stated, again on and for the record, that I would not support Hillary Rodham Clinton. I'm told I'm sexist because of this. However:

I would have no problem with a woman being the President. I think it would be wonderful. However, Dr. Condolezza Rice wasn't running. Since she's 1) a woman, and 2) an African-American, that takes both of the liberals favourite playing cards off the table.

Time to put those tired old cards away. What I've stated above are the facts ... and have not changed since well before the 2008 election. Now please deal with the facts.

Here are some other facts: The illegal immigration problem that now faces our country is a real problem. Of that, I don't think there's any doubt.

Mr. Obama and his water-carriers want to legalize all those who are here in the US illegally. But how, perchance, does Mexico deal with illegal immigration?

Well, those answers all right here:

That links to a .PDF document. And I'm sorry for the long link, but that's the link to it. But let's examine some of what it says:

* - all foreign visitors and immigrants must be in the country legally and they cannot upset the "equilbrium of the national demographics" (emphasis added) (direct quote) Can you say "Racial profiling?" Suuuure you can!

* - they must have the monetary means to sustain themselves economically (ie: the state won't do it for them)

* - they cannot be destined to be "burdens on society." (direct quote)

* - they must be of economic and social "benefit to society" (another direct quote)

* - of good character and have no criminal record

* - contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

Want to go there? Well then, you must provide the following:

* - a valid birth certificate (how about that, Barack Hussein Osama (er ... O BOW MA ... er ... Obama) where's yours?)

* - prove economic independence (ie: a bank statement)

* - pass an exam on their culture and society

* - provide their own health-care

But Mexico's law goes further. "Police State?" Read on:

* - immigration authorities must have a record of each foreign visitor. Those who do not have such papers are subject to immediate arrest as "illegal aliens." (That actually is their law. Read it.)

* - foreign visitors must not violiate their immigration status. First violation is one year in prison. Second violation is ten years in prison. (Yes, that also is their law.)

* - foreign visitors are forbidden from interferring in the country's internal politics (at the same time, their open-borders activists are waving signs and shouting up here. Gotta ask why if our "new policy" is supposed to be 'fair.')

* - those who aid a person in entering illegally are sent to prison.

Can't do that here, can we? Can't do what the Mexicans are doing because it isn't "fair." Fair to whom is the question we need to be asking.

So what does the Mexican government do with the illegals it catches coming across its southern border?

The title says it all "Mexico accused of abusing its illegals."

NOTE: This posting is a combination of four different sources:



3) Personal email sent to me dated 1-MAY-2006


Wednesday, April 21, 2010

MSNBC dumps Donny Deutsch for critisizing Olbermann

The link:
As the teens would text to each other "OMG!!" (Oh My God!!) This simply can't be!!! MSNBC dumped Mr Deutsch for criticizing Obama water-carrier Keith Olbermann?!?!?!?!?

But this is the same 'unbiased' network that this has been said of: " Some of the people said the decision suggests that criticism of MSNBC is not allowed on MSNBC, potentially a troubling development. Both CNN and the Fox News Channel show media criticism programs each weekend. " (emphasis added.)

Yes, in the "Age of Obama" critisizing anybody who dislikes the regime or their water-carriers is 'in.'

Mr Deutsch's statement is here:

It won't be too long before the FBI is here. Again. I'm in trouble for posting these links, you see. Shame on me. (very heavy sarcasm)

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Have You Seen This Man?

This man, Joe Kennedy, was my supervisor at Cingular Wireless in Wichita Falls, TX. His current whereabouts are unknown. He's not wanted for anything, other than I would like to touch bases with him again. Take a good look. Have you seen him?

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Article: "Global Warming Graph Attacked by Study"

The link:

(NOTE: Yes, the 'graph' they're referring to is the now infamous 'hockey stick graph.')

" A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as “exaggerated” on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming sceptics have been making for years. "

"Exaggerated." Hmm...let's try doing that for a college paper for one of our professors. We'd be in seven types of trouble and likely laughed off campus. I remember just such a paper for my Human Sexuality class. The professor there wanted data ... raw data. Hard, raw data that was cross-referenced, and that data needed its own references. But let's review here: The climate change 'raw data' can no longer be found because it was discarded!! " SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

" It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. " (*)

Oops. I'd call that a 'problem.'

But again; they have an agenda, so what the hell, right?

The Financial Times article goes on to say " The handful of errors found so far, including the exaggerated hockey stick graph and a mistaken claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035, were “isolated incidents”, he said. "

But let's also go here:

where we learn that the 'glacier' claims were based on two sources:

1) Anecdotal reports from mountaineers about the changes they were observing. Two problems with this: These cannot be taken as scientific measurements and therefore are invalid. Each person might see the same event differently and thus use different words to describe it. Again, it is not scientific.

2) The other source was a paper written by a geography student who was studying for the equivalent of a Master's degree.

Neither of these was peer-reviewed. And as already stated, it contained five factual errors in just the first paragraph.

All these problems, including the fact that the bulk of the raw data was thrown away, would lead me to question every single conclusion that has been drawn thus far. Indeed, a great many more scientists are doing just that.

Indeed, the arctic sea ice is due to increase, and hit 'normal' for the first time since 2001. That means it's increasing. (**)

Somebody tell Al Gore. This really is an 'inconvenient truth.'

(*) -
(**) -

Ouch. Responding to "TellerIP"

OK....first, I really wish that "TellerIP" had a profile so that I could contact him/her directly. Or, had this person been a Blogger and/or Google user, I could've just replied on their blog. However, since I can't locate an account for this person, I need to reply here.

I got a comment on my NPR article which said that Obama was "Kenyan-born." And while I don't believe I have the right to quote from the comment (which is still visible) I will paraphrase.
TellerIP stated that Hawaii no longer provides birth certificates and gave a link to a "Star Bulletin" article.

Well, I chose to go to the source ... the state of Hawaii itself. Their website is here: (Please note that if you're going to order anything from them that they will not accept personal cheques. One must use a cashier's cheque or money order.)

You can also go here: which is a LexisNexis company. This site is the only officially authorized remote ordering site for the State of Hawaii. (And while they do take personal cheques, it's recommended you pay with a credit or debit card.)

Next, the poster states that Obama was not born in Kenya. Yet the Kenyans themselves are stating that he was. " " If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion. " (emphasis added) For the source on that, see my previous posting.

In conclusion, I really don't know where Barack Hussein Obama was born, and I'm not sure I will any time soon. Remember that to date Mr Obama has spent $1.8m in lawsuits to avoid having to produce one simple peice of paper.

I'll leave it to you to Google that, but it is true, sourced, and verified. Obama has spent $1.8m in lawsuits to avoid showing his birth certificate. I don't agree with Dr. Manning on more than a few things, but I do on this. "Listen, Barack; if your birth certificate is what it is, what's the big deal?"
Indeed? Why the $1.8 million in lawsuits, Barack? Remember, Google is your friend.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

NPR: Obama "Kenyan-born" and "son of Africa"

Time for that full disclosure thing: You'll notice the URL goes to World Net Daily. But you'll notice, I hope, the screenshot for the article in question. The article has since been scrubbed but only after the story appeared on WND. Here it is if you don't want to follow the link above:

In case you can't read the blue part, it says "Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama." And that was from the NPR archives, again, before being scrubbed.
" As some continue to downplay the eligibility issue and affirm, without proof or substance, that Obama meets the requirements to hold the highest office in the U.S., it is interesting to note that minutes from a March 2010 meeting of the National Assembly of Kenya suggest otherwise:
" If America was living in a situation where they feared
ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man
born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of
America? It is because they did away with exclusion. "
That is a direct quote from the March 2010 minutes. " could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?"
Ann, care to comment?

Article: "Army to court martial 'birther' officer"

The link:

Article: "Incentives Not to Work"

The link:

"The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a 'reservation wage'—the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase [the] reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer." (NOTE: This opening statement was italicized in the article, therefore it is also italicized here.)

Any guess who wrote that? Milton Friedman, perhaps. Simon Legree? Sorry.

Full credit goes to Lawrence H. Summers, the current White House economic adviser, who wrote those sensible words in his chapter on "Unemployment" in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, first published in 1999.

Oops. "The one's" economic advisor stated that gov't assistance programs provide an incentive not to work. Granted, that's distilled down, but the full comment is above.

I ran into this once, years ago while I was working at K-Mart. I was talking in the electronics area of the store to another worker and his girlfriend and they were talking about going on welfare because they could make more that way.

Granted, hearing it here, this is third-hand information at best. But it did happen.

Let's jump to the end of the article, shall we?

" In any case, no one should be surprised that when you subsidize people for not working, more people will choose not to work. "

'Nuff said.

O Bow Ma Bows Again!!


Ford's "Fusion"

Before I start, I need to state for the record that there is no relationship between myself and Ford Motor Corporation. I do own and drive a 1998 Ford vehicle, however.

Having said that ...

In their "additional disclaimers" for the Ford Fusion it says twice "Do Not Drive Distracted." Twice. And then they give you a car that allows you to do just that. And in style, too.

To be perfectly honest, one could say the same thing about a CD player built in to a vehicle's factory stereo. "Don't play with the CD while driving!" You could also say that about the vehicle's tape deck (that is, if they still have tape decks,) "Don't play with the tape and try to drive! And then, as Jamie Hyneman (yes, the one from Mythbusters fame) would say "You heard him. Don't do it!"

And then they give you a vehicle that allows you to do just that. Here's one of their commercials from YouTube: (Well, the link to it anyway.)

The advert also says "Don't drive while distracted." But you know somebody's going to be doing just that...trying to drive while revising the playlist on the MP3 player.

Somebody's going to be driving while trying to carry on an argument with somebody. To be fair, they do this already. But they'll figure "Hey, my Fusion's handsfree, so I can cuss and give 'em the bird!" And you know somebody's going to do this ... again, because they do it already.

Personally, I'm waiting for some particular bone-head to be listening to the MP3 player and talking on the hands-free phone ... and moving to the beat of the music and not really caring about driving. Again, people do this already.

I'm probably the lone person on the planet that will be saying this, but this was not a smart move from the safety standpoint. and yes, they've got the "Don't Drive While Distracted," disclaimer ... several times ... but, c'mon. You KNOW that some idiot is going to do this. And I'll bet you their 'defense' will be "Well, if they thought it was that dangerous, they wouldn't have let me do it."

To be fair - it is possible to drive while not distracted. I've stated, several times, that I do have a cell phone. It doesn't have service, however. The only reason I still have it is because by law and agreement you have to be able to reach 911.

Even before I let the service expire I didn't talk on the phone much. That changed to at all after I nearly hit somebody ... and nearly got hit myself. "But what's the point of having the phone if you're not going to be using it?" somebody wrote to me. I wrote that person a book, which I won't rewrite here. Mostly.

When you drive, you should drive. You shouldn't be: (This is in my opinion only)

1) Talking on the cell about where you want to go out next
2) Purchasing tickets to the game using your mobile device
3) Redoing the playlist on your MP3 player
4) Texting
5) Talking on the cell phone
6) Using your cell phone to send/receive emails
7) Taking pictures using your phone or any other type of camera
8) Using any other type of mobile device
9) Doing your hair/nails
10) Reading the paper
11) Eating a bowl of cereal (which when he was done with it, he opened the door and poured out the milk from the bottom of the bowl. (The pouring out happened during a stop in traffic. And yes, I got pissed. But I figured "He probably thinks that he's the most important person on the planet so he figures no worries." ))

That list could be longer, of course. I saw on TV a while back about some "executive" who was talking on the phone and doing paperwork on the way to work. I wanted to reach through the TV and throttle him. Frankly, if he'd hit me I'd have given him a choice. "Are you alright? Good, good. Say, in looking in your vehicle, I see that you've got paperwork scattered on the floor along with your wireless device and your opened briefcase. Where you, perchance, doing paperwork while talking? You were? Fine. You've got a choice then: Which would you like me to shove up your stupid ass first, the phone or the briefcase? Don't worry, as hard as I'll be shoving, I promise they'll fit. Probably with room to spare."

But I think I reached my breaking point this past winter while I was on my way to the optometrist (eye doctor.) This was during one of our blizzards that dumped 14 inches on us. I'm a very safe driver, mainly because I DRIVE and not do something else.

So it was snowing, the wind was blowing, the drifts were forming and it was cold. And more than a few people were talking while trying to drive.

I need to get off my soapbox before I piss everybody off, but I really do think cell phones should be illegal to use in vehicles except in emergency situations. And ordering a pizza is not an emergency. Neither is texting (unless it's to law enforcement about something.) Time for that full disclosure thing: I have used my cell phone to call law enforcement while driving before. Several times, in fact.

But to return to the topic...I love many of the features of the Fusion. At least, those I've seen from the adverts or from the Fusion's webpage. I love the fuel mileage. I love the eco-friendly cloth seats, which are made from 85 per cent post-industrial materials. KUDOS to Ford for this.(*) But you can rip out the SYNC stuff. Frankly, there are too damn many distracted drivers out there already. Shame on you for giving them yet another distraction.

(*) -

Saturday, April 10, 2010

"Everybody Loves ... "

... you probably thought I was going to finish that with "Raymond," didn't you?

But let's examine this and other titles and phrases. "Everybody loves ... (some thing or person.)"

In this case: "Everybody Loves Raymond." I, then, must be a nobody. I saw a total of seven episodes and hated every moment of it. Well, time for that full disclosure thing: I welcomed the commercial interruptions during the show. I wouldn't have been watching at all, except for the person that I was in a relationship with at the time happened to love it. After I told her I really didn't care for it (she knew I was being kind) she told me that I didn't have to watch it. And, I never did again. (Time for that full disclosure thing again: she and I were dating but we were not living together. She would go over to my place or I would go over to hers and then we'd spend time together. During our relationship, we never slept together. (I can hear somebody saying "Gods, this guy's a NUT!" I'm not a nut, I'm different. Deal with it.)

Until two nights ago when I happened to be channel-surfing during commercials (go on, admit it: you probably do this too.) And there it was in reruns.

It nearly let it ruin my night. But I didn't because it was coming time to log into the network and blow stuff up in my favourite game. So a night that had been getting worse got much better.

But I digress. The point is that many people do this for various reasons. "But everybody's buying this!" or "Everybody's listening to (name of radio station here.)" 'Everybody?' Really?

"Don't be the last one to buy (name of thing here.)" They do this for a reason of course. The reason is that many people have fallen for the "Keep Up With the Jones' " syndrome. In other words, all the people that have bought (this) simply can't be wrong. They just can't be. Or, if you don't buy this ... well, there simply must be something wrong with you because 'everybody' else has bought one.

For the record, my not loving "(Nearly) Everybody Loves Raymond" doesn't make me wrong, nor does it make me stupid. It makes me different.

When I logged into the game, my 'partner in crime' knew that something was bothering me, because she sent me a PM (private message) asking why I was being so quiet. Well, I've never met her in real life, I only know her from talking with her in the game (and on voice chat in the game.) I told her.

Therefore, for the remainder of that evening, every kill that the squadron made was named "Raymond." Their ships were "Raymond," or their buildings (if it was a ground mission) were named "Raymond."

Christina (her game name) nearly made me fall out of my chair laughing that night. We'd just gotten our eleventh kill for the evening when she came on group chat and said "Damn. And I thought everybody loved Raymond."

The SL (Squadron Leader) chimed in with "We probably shouldn't have killed him then." To which she keyed up over me and said "If it's red (the colour for the enemy) it's dead."

To be fair, "Raymond" got revenge that night. He and several other "Raymonds" banded together and killed us. But we'd fought them before and knew them well in the game, and a good time was had by most of us. (Except for that dying thing. Not too many people really like that.)

But the point remains that not 'everybody' loves or buys 'everything.' Or Raymond for that matter.

Time for that full disclosure thing again; this time, it's about why this message is being posted. In the game, the writers recently brought back "decay" where if you use an item too much or too long it'll either stop working correctly or stop working altogether. This happens in real life as most of us know: How many of us (myself included) have had to purchase a new cell phone battery because the old one simply won't hold a charge? Or how many of us (myself included) have broken a headset?

Somebody (I won't mention his name) owes me the creds for a new ion converter. And no, not the new experimental model either, even though it does have a faster recharge rate and higher output ratio. I think even you'll agree (you know who you are) that in this particular game 'experimental' means "Well, the designers tell us this'll work, but we need you to test it. If it blows up, we need to know why."

And yes, I know you swear by it. The last 'experimental' model of something I had in the game, I didn't swear by ... I swore at. You can ask our tank. :)

NOTE: In this game, a player with the moniker of 'tank' is a good thing. 'Tank' in this game is not a derogatory term as it was in "Space: Above and Beyond."

In this game, a 'tank' is a player with a ridiculously high defensive ratio. (Time for that full disclosure thing again: There are players out there using exploits. Nobody in our squadron does, although we did once have one player who did. When we found out, she was banned. Not just from our squadron, but the GMs found out and she was banned from the server.) No, I mean a player whose shields or armour (or both) are so strong (WITHOUT USING an exploit) that while you're wasting your time pounding on him or her, you're getting your tail shot off. I should know: before I spent the creds to respec, I was a decent tank myself. (To be fair, according to the squadron I was 'exceptional' but in my book I was decent.) Being a tank isn't for everybody, however. As a tank you can take the damage, but you can't dish it out. As a tank you might possibly get a kill if your opponent's shields or armour (or both) are depleted. Otherwise, you can forget about it. Your opponent will just laugh at you (or swear that he or she can't kill you.)

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

A letter to my local radio station

Mr. Cates;

Having been a listener to your show for a while now I’ve tried to call in several times, but have been greeted each time by the dreaded “busy signal.”

Having said that, I have something I’d like to say. And while I’d love for you to read this on the air, I realize the odds of that happening are somewhere along the lines of the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) actually producing a black hole. It is possible in theory, but I shouldn’t like to hold my breath waiting for it. Yes, it could happen … in a few hundred trillion years or so. Give or take a ten billion.

The United States is facing a number of crises right now, and one of the most pressing is the crisis of apathy. You’ve met these people as you go through life: they are the people who will tell you that the politicians on both sides of the aisle are out of control … and then promptly do nothing about it.

Mr. Cates; this next is not for effect, I sincerely believe this. If I had a dime for every person who said that this ‘health care reform’ was a bad idea and then did nothing, I’d have several thousand dollars which I could put to good use.

Sure, talking to the radio (or screaming at it) has told your radio how you feel, but what have you actually accomplished? Is your radio going to contact those politicians and tell them how dissatisfied you are?

Not very likely.

The same goes for those people who only shout at the television or only tell their friends how they feel. Again, have you actually accomplished anything?

Mr. Cates, I wonder how many of those people who have called your show have actually called their politician? How many have actually written them? How many have emailed them? How many have written about it on their blogs or on a social networking site?

Not too many.

This, then, is the crisis of apathy. Mr. Cates, I realize that, unless we all live in caves, we’ve all got busy lives that we live. I’m no different in that regard in that I have my own life I need to live. But if somebody’s going to tell me they can’t spend five minutes emailing their representative or calling them or writing them, I’m going to tell them the same thing I told my supervisor at work when she told me she couldn’t cobble together 30 free minutes in a month.

I pulled her into a room, closed the door and told her “You’re a (goshdarn) liar. Now let’s try this again, only this time tell the truth. It’ll go much better that way.” (Only I didn’t say ‘goshdarn.’)

You might’ve noticed Mr. Cates that I’m not afraid to be blunt. Frankly, more people need to be … at least in my opinion.

The Founding Fathers said as much when they wrote this: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (emphasis added) (*1)

What does this mean in ‘modern’ English? Simple: It means that those who have the ability to make a change have the responsibility to do so. Now there’s a Politically Incorrect word: responsibility. Plenty of people these days can tell me (and you as it turns out) about their ‘rights,’ yet mighty few mention their responsibilities. Here’s a news flash: your responsibilities come with your rights. They cannot, they must not be divorced from one another.

Even our elected officials are to blame. How many of them were ready to use the “Slaughter Solution” and to ‘deem’ the health care legislation as passed without having to vote on it? Therein lies another “problem,” the United States Constitution.

Specifically Article I Section VII which reads in part: “Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it.” (*2) You’ll notice it didn’t mention that a bill was ‘deemed’ to have passed, yet many politicians were ready to throw away the Constitution until a number of people, myself included, made them aware of Article I Section VII.

What am I leading up to Mr. Cates? This: Those that have the ability to make a change (the People) have the responsibility to do so. If you can make it to a Tea Party protest, you have the responsibility to do so. If you have the ability to write or otherwise inform your representative (or Congressperson) you have the responsibility to do so.

As Martin Luther King once said: “There is a special place in Hell reserved for those who stand by and do nothing.”

And in my book, Mr. Cates, those that have the ability to do something … but through inaction do nothing have abrogated (*4) their right to complain.

People these days are too interested about sports. They’re too interested about who Tiger Woods is sleeping with. They’re too interested in who Jesse James is bedding. These are not the things we need to be worried about, Mr. Cates.

So if you’ve read this on the air, I’d be very interested to hear what your audience thinks.

It’s time to get off the toilet, folks. It’s time to stop complaining to the television.

It’s time to get involved.


(#1) -
(#2) -
(#3) -
(#4) -


Thursday, February 25, 2010

More snow?

Not likely. The current forecast says 1-3 inches tonight.

1-3 inches tomorrow (Thursday daytime)

1-3 inches Thursday night

Additional snow on Friday.

I wish.
I wish. I'd LOVE another foot.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Overheard on Bob Brinker's "Money Talk"

... that the Treasury Department is talking about (at this point, that's all this is ... talk) converting money from IRA and 401(k)'s into treasury annuities. They take all your money (again, this is just talk at this point, but they have opened the 'discussion' to take public comments) and then send you a monthly cheque.

Mr Brinker called this (correctly, in my opinion) 'confiscation.' Confiscation of all the money that you worked hard for, sweated for, perhaps bled for. Remember, all the money that you put into those accounts to take care of yourself in your older years and those in your family? Yeah, all that money. All that money (if this bone-headed plan goes through) won't be yours anymore, it'll be the government's.

Let's face it, these types of accounts have literally trillions of dollars in them. Trillions.

Do you honestly think the government would use that money to pay down the debt? Do you honestly think the government would use that money to pay for already-existing programs?


You and I both know they'd find new ways to spend this money ... new programs.

Here's the worst part of this: this wouldn't be an option, this would be mandatory. Mandatory; you'd have no say and no choice.

The sad fact is that Mr Brinker is right: there are two parties in this country when it comes to social issues, but there is only one party when it comes to financial issues.

And that is sad.


Mr Brinker said this had made it into the mainstream media (MSM) ... and here's the link:

UPDATE 2: The link Mr Brinker mentioned. Read it and weep:

And a note to Mr Brinker: Do you know what the meaning of the word 'teabagger' is? Please don't call the Tea Party Activists 'Teabaggers.' I had to look the sexual meaning of 'teabagging' and 'teabagger' up. I didn't know. Do you?

Please do better.

Monday, February 8, 2010

New Forecast

Tonight's and tomorrow's forecast calls for 8-12 inches of snow total by Wednesday night. However, the heavy accumulation should be over 70 miles north of here.

Personally, I'd love to get another foot.

But, and I could be "shooting myself in the foot again" but I don't think we'll get it. Five inches maybe. If we're lucky. (Personally, I'd love the foot.)

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Might We Get More Snow?

To believe the weather forecast, the answer is "quite possibly." As of this posting, Tuesday and Tuesday night say "snow likely" with "moderate snow accumulation" which is the same language that was used before they warned us of the foot of snow that we got.

Personally, I'd love another foot of snow. Like I said last time, BRING IT ON! They're not giving a total accumulation, however. But like I said, I'd love another foot of snow.

Granted, with my last "prediction" I was the one that failed ... and in rather spectacular fashion to boot. I wasn't just "off" I was way off. But - I don't know. I'd love more snow, but I don't know how much (if any) we'll get.

I've learned to be a skeptic. But I'd love another foot. Even 6-8 inches would be nice. :)

Article: "I thought of killing myself, says climate scandal professor Phil Jones"

The link:

" THE scientist at the centre of the “climategate” email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide. "

While I agree that the man should be reprimanded severely, he doesn't deserve the death threats he's getting. I think we can all agree that he shouldn't have crossed the line from scientist to advocate, but he doesn't deserve death threats. Duct taping his mouth shut and keeping him away from a keyboard, possibly.

" In emails that were hacked into and seized upon by global-warming sceptics before the Copenhagen climate summit in December, Jones appeared to call upon his colleagues to destroy scientific data rather than release it to people intent on discrediting their work monitoring climate change. " (emphasis added)

Another "oops."

Article: "The Great Global Warming Collapse"

The link:

" But the claim [that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035] was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF [World Wildlife Fund] itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change. "

Let's distill that down: That now infamous shock claim was based on an anecdotal report, not on peer-reviewed science. The head of the IPCC (the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) shrugged it off as a one-time error, a "one-off."

" “The global warming movement proposed a complex set of international agreements involving vast transfers of funds, intrusive regulations in national economies, and substantial changes to the domestic political economies of most countries on the planet.” " said Walter Russell Mead.

Does anybody else remember Alex Jones and others talking about the global carbon tax? The intrusion of UN rules into American politics?

It turns out that this wasn't just a "one-off."

" For example, it warned that large tracts of the Amazon rain forest might be wiped out by global warming because they are extremely susceptible to even modest decreases in rainfall. The sole source for that claim, reports The Sunday Times of London, was a magazine article written by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. One scientist contacted by the Times, a specialist in tropical forest ecology, called the article “a mess.”

" Worse still, the Times has discovered that Mr. Pachauri's own Energy and Resources Unit, based in New Delhi, has collected millions in grants to study the effects of glacial melting – all on the strength of that bogus glacier claim, which happens to have been endorsed by the same scientist who now runs the unit that got the money. Even so, the IPCC chief is hanging tough. He insists the attacks on him are being orchestrated by companies facing lower profits. "

" Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they're bailing out. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Even Britain's Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation. India says it will establish its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the IPCC. " (emphasis (and colour) added)


So let's review: Several of the IPCC's "shock" claims are based not on peer-reviewed science but on anecdotal reports, some of which came from the WWF, which has a conflict of interest if ever there was one.

The claim about the rain forests was made by a pair of climate activists, one of whom worked for the WWF. Another conflict of interest.

The leaked emails have shown that the global body kept contradictory evidence from being published, withheld information from skeptics, and made bad data appear to look better. All this from a body that was supposed to be based on rigorous scientific standards.

They look more like school-yard bullies.

I Was Wrong About the Snowfall

I was. You'll recall a previous blog posting where I said we'd get an inch ... tops.

I was wrong.

I just got done using the snowblower to remove 12.5 inches of the white stuff.

Don't get me wrong, I still love snow. And, frankly, I'm tickled pink that we got it. This is one time I'm thrilled to be wrong.

The forecast now is calling for more snow Monday night, Tuesday, and Tuesday night. It says "Snow likely" but doesn't say anything about accumulation.

Personally, I'd love to get another 5-6 inches of snow. But that's just me.

Thursday, February 4, 2010

What is an EMP and why should we care?

These are both good questions and both deserve good answers. Unfortunately, to correctly understand what an EMP is, you need to do a bit of reading. Links will be at the end of this posting.

What is an EMP?

EMP stands for Electro Magnetic Pulse (*1). It can be generated in a number of different ways, one is by a CME (Coronal Mass Ejection (*2)) from the sun, another is by the detonation of a nuclear weapon high in the Earth's atmosphere. A third way is by a Gamma Ray Burster (*3) that is within 8,000 light-years of the Earth and has its axis pointed at the Earth.

When a nuclear weapon is detonated it generates not only radiation, it also generates Gamma rays. This is a normal byproduct of such a detonation. But therein lies the problem.

Imagine the following scenario:

A Middle Eastern country attains both the knowledge and the money to build a nuclear weapon. These are then hidden aboard container ships bound for the United States. One arrives in Los Angeles, another in Baltimore, the third makes it into Detroit via the St. Lawrence Seaway.

The ones on the coasts get launched 200 miles into the Earth's atmosphere (and yes, a certain Middle Eastern country currently has this capability) where they detonate. The one in Detroit is also launched from the container ship.

At 200 miles, the Gamma rays create a disturbance known as the Compton Effect (*4). The effect is cumulative, sort of like a snowball being rolled and rolled until it's large enough to build the base of a snowman.

Everything that is electric gets fried. Resisters, capacitors, your computers, your car (pre-1965 vehicles might be OK but nothing past that date) everything electric gets fried.

That will, of course, bring down the power grid. Therein lies the other problem - our dependency on electricity.

You might think "OK...power's out for a while, no biggie. I've got a generator, fuel, and non-perishable foodstuffs, I'll be fine." Will you really? Exactly how long will your generator last on the fuel you've got ... and will it even work? Odds are, it might not.

Meanwhile, the food in your refrigerator spoils after several days, if your local water system is pump-fed you've got no water, and even then the wastewater treatment plant doesn't have electricity. (*5)

In 3 months, the United States is back in the Stone Age. 10% of her population is dead due to violence, the breakdown of law and order and diseases.

In one year, 90% of the U.S. population is dead. Those are the highlights. It gets much worse. (*6)

Our Government doesn't really seem to care about this threat; hell, they can't bring themselves to admit that Radical Jihadists want us dead. Remember the whitewash of the Pentagon's report on the Fort Hood mass-murder?

Instead of throwing massive amounts of money at the porkulus (aka the spendulus and the stimulus) or creating another entitlement program (Osama (er...OBAMA)Care) we should be using part of that money to harden our infrastructure. Try to get your Congressperson to admit to the problem - you'll be met with the 'deer in the headlights' look.

This really is a problem, a deadly serious problem that not many want to talk about. But it does exist and has the very real potential to kill 90% of the U.S. population after one year.


(*1) -
a) Starfish Prime -
b) Soviet Test #184 -

(*2) -

(*3) -
c) WR-104 NOTE: WR-104 is within 16 degrees of axis with the Earth. If WR-104 did go off and if it did produce a GRB and if it were directly on axis, nothing on Earth would survive. Not even bacteria.


(*5) Discovery Channel Program "Perfect Disaster: Solar Storm"

(*6) Electromagnetic Pulse Attack -
a) Effects of Hiroshima -

Forecast: 5 - 7 inches of snow

...but only if you believe the Weather Service. Personally, I don't.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have snow. I'd be happy with a foot of snow, if not more. Two feet of snow? BRING IT ON!!

But, frankly, the Weather Service's forecasts for our area have been abysmal at best. They've been laughable at worst.

Granted, predicting how much snow is going to fall and where it's going to fall (and when) is a difficult science at the best of times. Frankly, we don't understand a great deal of what goes on in the upper atmosphere. The short-range forecasts are usually somewhat reliable (except for precipitation for our area which they always seem to miss (and usually in rather spectacular fashion)) in terms of temperature and for cloudiness.

But then we come to precipitation. The past few years when the weather service has said we're about to get blasted by snow, I've said: "Yeah, right. I'll believe it when I see it."

Out of fourteen times I've been wrong twice.

Twice. Lesse ... 2/14 = 0.14285714285714285714285714285714 or 14.29% of the time I've been wrong.

So this time when they're saying we'll get five inches of snow (in some places up to seven) I'm putting out ... before the storm strikes this time ... that we'll get two inches total. Tops. At best. My personal forecast? Some scattered snow showers with little if any accumulation. And this is through Sunday night.

Currently, they're saying snow Friday through Saturday morning. The last number of times they've given time frames they've been forced to push them back. For example, the last time they said Friday through Saturday morning, it became Saturday and Saturday night, then Sunday and then only a dusting of snow.

Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE two feet of snow. Heck, at this point I'd be happy with five inches.

But we won't get it.

I'd LOVE to get blasted by two feet of snow.

But it won't happen this time.

I'd LOVE to get hit with between five and seven inches of snow.

But we won't get that either. Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to be wrong and get blasted by a massive blizzard.

But odds are I'll be right again.

And it sucks, because I love snow.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Article: "Scientists broke the law by hiding climate change data"

The link:

" Scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled.

" The Information Commissioner's office said University of East Anglia researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests from climate change sceptics.

" 'All we are trying to do is make the scientists follow their own professional rules by being open, transparent and honest,' he said. 'We are not trying to show that human beings don't affect the climate, but to show that the science is not settled.' "

That last sentence is telling, probably, at least to me, the most telling. "We are not trying to show that human beings don't affect the climate, but to show that the science is not settled."

Indeed, the science isn't settled, except to those with an agenda, or those who are going to make money through cap and trade or carbon tax schemes. These leaked emails really do contain several "smoking guns," all you need to do is read them with an open mind and without an agenda.

But I guess that an "open mind" only applies to certain people, right? It certainly seems that way to listen to some politicians and to some people on the far-left and the far-right.

And here I thought we were supposed to listen to all viewpoints.

Or was I wrong?