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) -