Good question. But for that, we have to go back into history a bit. I know that somebody somewhere is asking "why is history important?" ::blink::
History is important because it gives you a sense of where you as a people have been. It can help guide and shape the future and is directly responsible for the present. That sounds like a no-brainer, I know, but you'd be surprised to know that some people have no idea that the past is directly responsible for our present.
In this case, La Raza is important because of their views. They support illegal immigration, driver's licenses for illegals, suspension of efforts to deport illegals, among other things.
" As WND previously reported, La Raza was condemned in 2006 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."
" Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan – which sees "the Race" as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas. " (1)
It gets worse. In 2006, Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez (University of Texas at Arlington) said " "We have an aging white America ... They are dying ...We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him." " (2)
Let's distill that down to "We have got to eliminate the gringo ... we have got to kill him." That doesn't leave much room for misinterpretation, does it? But why is that important in this instance? Because Prof. Gutierrez is also the founder of the La Raza Unida political party.
Not convinced yet? Try a YouTube search for "la raza reconquista" and stand back. Far back. (**)
Still not enough? How about a Google search for the phrase "Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada." (For the race, everything. Outside the race, nothing) (***)
So why is any of this important? Think for a moment - if Judge Sotomayor becomes Justice Sotomayor is it possible that she'd advance La Raza's goals from the High Court? How about MEChA's?
There's one more thing to consider: as far as I know, Judge Sotomayor is still a member of La Raza. However, that could have changed since the ABA wrote that bio. For the sake of arguement, let's assume that she left La Raza at some point in the past. The obvious questions would be "why?" "Why did she leave? Why now? What (if anything) happened?"
(1) - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420
(2) - http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd180.htm
(**) La Raza does not condone this statement. However, a group that is affiliated with them, MEChA, does.
(***) NOTE: The National Council of La Raza has denounced this statement. In fact, they state they have never used this statement and unequivocally reject it outright. And they are correct, the statement comes from MEChA. Who are they? Google is your friend.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Countdown: Will the ABA scrubb its unflattering Sotomayor bio?
The link: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html
Yes, this is the page that shows that Judge Sotomayor is a member of the National Council of La Raza (literally - 'The Race'.)
Here's a screenshot:
Yes, this is the page that shows that Judge Sotomayor is a member of the National Council of La Raza (literally - 'The Race'.)
Here's a screenshot:
Here's the wording we're interested in:
" She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza. "
Note the tense. Not 'was' which is past tense, but 'is' which is present tense. Not she was a member of La Raza, but is.
Question: How long will it be before this page is scrubbed of the reference of La Raza? Or how long will it be before it's replaced with something like: "She was also a past member of La Raza."
OR: The page gets scrubbed and the Obama robots go into high gear saying that the page never stated she'd belonged to La Raza. The press reports will point to the scrubbed page and list "unsubstantiated rumors" or "an extreme right-wing smear campaign" or something like that.
Counting down 3...2...1...
"You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
That was an actual quote spoken by one of the New Black Panther party members who were "guarding" the polling location in Philadelphia. Honestly.
"You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker." Just remember that according to the liberals, this is not intimidation.
Here's the direct link to the .PDF file of the complaint: http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/bull-declaration_04-07-20092.pdf
And here is the link to Michelle Malkin's article about it: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/29/document-drop-witness-affidavit-in-nbpp-voter-bullying-case/
Remember when we got called "RAAACIST!" for quoting that African-American voter in Columbus Ohio who said "thug-thizzle" in regards to B. Hussein Obama; it's "RAAAACIST!" to point this out.
It's not "RAAACIST!" for those Black Panther Party members to call a white person "cracker," but it IS "RAAACIST!" to complain about it.
We heard all about "voter disenfranchisement" during the election: We know that ACORN pressured Freddie Johnson into registering to vote an astonishing 72 times. Can't have Mr Johnson "disenfranchised," but it's OK for Black Panther Party members to disenfranchise Philadelphia voters.
No double standard here.
"You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker." Just remember that according to the liberals, this is not intimidation.
Here's the direct link to the .PDF file of the complaint: http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/bull-declaration_04-07-20092.pdf
And here is the link to Michelle Malkin's article about it: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/29/document-drop-witness-affidavit-in-nbpp-voter-bullying-case/
Remember when we got called "RAAACIST!" for quoting that African-American voter in Columbus Ohio who said "thug-thizzle" in regards to B. Hussein Obama; it's "RAAAACIST!" to point this out.
It's not "RAAACIST!" for those Black Panther Party members to call a white person "cracker," but it IS "RAAACIST!" to complain about it.
We heard all about "voter disenfranchisement" during the election: We know that ACORN pressured Freddie Johnson into registering to vote an astonishing 72 times. Can't have Mr Johnson "disenfranchised," but it's OK for Black Panther Party members to disenfranchise Philadelphia voters.
No double standard here.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Article: "N.Korea fires short-range missile; may take more action "
The Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP396588.htm
" YEONPYEONG, South Korea, May 29 (Reuters) - North Korea test-fired another short-range missile off its east coast on Friday and said it would take "self-defence measures" if the U.N. Security Council punished it for this week's nuclear test. "
I have an idea: Why don't we as a nation do what our SpecOps soldiers did against the Somoli pirates? Remember them? The SEALs shot 'em ... killed all but one.
North Korea, headed by 'dear leader' and meglomaniac Kim Jong-il, has withdrawn from the 1953 treaty and states that their naval ships will attack ours.
Here's an idea: If they do shoot, we shoot back. Not to warn, but to kill. The rules of engagement permit that. Of course, the Obamessiah will say "No, just shoot to warn them. Hurt them ... but just a little."
" YEONPYEONG, South Korea, May 29 (Reuters) - North Korea test-fired another short-range missile off its east coast on Friday and said it would take "self-defence measures" if the U.N. Security Council punished it for this week's nuclear test. "
I have an idea: Why don't we as a nation do what our SpecOps soldiers did against the Somoli pirates? Remember them? The SEALs shot 'em ... killed all but one.
North Korea, headed by 'dear leader' and meglomaniac Kim Jong-il, has withdrawn from the 1953 treaty and states that their naval ships will attack ours.
Here's an idea: If they do shoot, we shoot back. Not to warn, but to kill. The rules of engagement permit that. Of course, the Obamessiah will say "No, just shoot to warn them. Hurt them ... but just a little."
Article States Prez Learned about US Agency at Burger Joint
The Link: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0509/In_which_the_president_discovers_an_American_intelligence_agency_at_Five_Guys.html
The Title: "In which the president discovers an American intelligence agency at Five Guys"
" On his trip to get a burger with Brian Williams at Five Guys this afternoon, the President appears to have learned of the existence of a Defense Department intelligence arm, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, from an agency employee also at the burger restaurant. "
Forgive me, libs, for asking, but shouldn't he have been briefed about this agency? Granted, I didn't know about it either until I read about it, but I have an excuse. I'm not the flippin' President! If he doesn't know what agencies he's got and what resources they have ... we're screwed. Of course, we're already screwed.
(H/T: Drudge Report)
The Title: "In which the president discovers an American intelligence agency at Five Guys"
" On his trip to get a burger with Brian Williams at Five Guys this afternoon, the President appears to have learned of the existence of a Defense Department intelligence arm, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, from an agency employee also at the burger restaurant. "
Forgive me, libs, for asking, but shouldn't he have been briefed about this agency? Granted, I didn't know about it either until I read about it, but I have an excuse. I'm not the flippin' President! If he doesn't know what agencies he's got and what resources they have ... we're screwed. Of course, we're already screwed.
(H/T: Drudge Report)
Article: "American capitalism gone with a whimper" - descent into Marxism
The link: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/
" 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. "
"...decent (should be 'descent') into Marxism..." happening "...against the back drop of a passive hapless sheeple..."
In other words, we have only ourselves to blame. And, they're right. I and other bloggers mentioned this numerous times ... only to have it fall on deaf ears. And then the Obamessiah's robots called us "RAAAAAAAAAACIST!"
" The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe. "
"Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive. "
We've mentioned this, too. I warned about this, too. Never mind what I was called for it, but I warned about it.
Is this the 'change' you wanted?
(H/T: Drudge Report)
" 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. "
"...decent (should be 'descent') into Marxism..." happening "...against the back drop of a passive hapless sheeple..."
In other words, we have only ourselves to blame. And, they're right. I and other bloggers mentioned this numerous times ... only to have it fall on deaf ears. And then the Obamessiah's robots called us "RAAAAAAAAAACIST!"
" The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe. "
"Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive. "
We've mentioned this, too. I warned about this, too. Never mind what I was called for it, but I warned about it.
Is this the 'change' you wanted?
(H/T: Drudge Report)
Article: "EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case"
The link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1
This is not World Net Daily, you flocking liberals, this is The Washington Times!
" Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.
The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms. " (emphasis added)
"Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago. " (emphasis added)
It turns out that they'd already had a default judgement against them. What does that mean? They were due in court to explain their actions and failed to show up.
You get one guess as to the identity of the person who appointed them: the Obamessiah.
This is not World Net Daily, you flocking liberals, this is The Washington Times!
" Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.
The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms. " (emphasis added)
"Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago. " (emphasis added)
It turns out that they'd already had a default judgement against them. What does that mean? They were due in court to explain their actions and failed to show up.
You get one guess as to the identity of the person who appointed them: the Obamessiah.
It's in the middle of the middle column and it's hard to read. But it says "JUSTICE DROPS CHARGES AGAINST BLACK PANTHER THUGS; WIELDED WEAPONS, BLOCKED POLLS..."
(H/T: Drudge Report
American Bar Association - Judge Sotomayor a member of La Raza
The link: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html
The damming statement that the mainstream media won't touch: " She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza. She has received many honors including, most recently, an award from the National Association of Women Lawyers. " (emphasis added)
This isn't World Net Daily saying this, libs. This is the American Bar Association.
The damming statement that the mainstream media won't touch: " She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza. She has received many honors including, most recently, an award from the National Association of Women Lawyers. " (emphasis added)
This isn't World Net Daily saying this, libs. This is the American Bar Association.
Article: "Obama tries to deflect criticism from Sotomayor"
The link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_sotomayor
" "I'm sure she would have restated it," Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that. "
Ok ... how can you be so sure Mr Obamessiah? You're telepathic now? Of course, now that he's said this, it won't be long before she stands somewhere and states that her choice of words was "poor" and that she "regrets" she said them.
What did she say? " She said in 2001: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The remark was in the context her saying that "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." "
In other words - racial identity?
" The quote in question from Sotomayor has emerged as a rallying call for conservative critics who fear she will offer opinions from the bench based less on the rule of law and more on her life experience, ethnicity and gender. That issue is likely to play a central role in her Senate confirmation process. "
No kidding. I think she herself has said it. "...wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences..." And as that article says "...who fear she will offer opinions from the bench based less on the rule of law and more on her life experience, ethnicity and gender." (emphasis added)
Of course, we're not supposed to notice that the American Bar Association lists Ms Sotomayor as a member of the National Council of La Raza (Literally "The Race")!!!!
A member of La Raza?!?!? The link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420
Now many people are going to say "Oh, this is World Net Daily and they're fill of shit."
Go to the American Bar Association's site and read for yourself: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html
" She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza. She has received many honors including, most recently, an award from the National Association of Women Lawyers. " (emphasis added)
Tell me, will she advance La Raza's goals from the High Court?
" "I'm sure she would have restated it," Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that. "
Ok ... how can you be so sure Mr Obamessiah? You're telepathic now? Of course, now that he's said this, it won't be long before she stands somewhere and states that her choice of words was "poor" and that she "regrets" she said them.
What did she say? " She said in 2001: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The remark was in the context her saying that "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." "
In other words - racial identity?
" The quote in question from Sotomayor has emerged as a rallying call for conservative critics who fear she will offer opinions from the bench based less on the rule of law and more on her life experience, ethnicity and gender. That issue is likely to play a central role in her Senate confirmation process. "
No kidding. I think she herself has said it. "...wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences..." And as that article says "...who fear she will offer opinions from the bench based less on the rule of law and more on her life experience, ethnicity and gender." (emphasis added)
Of course, we're not supposed to notice that the American Bar Association lists Ms Sotomayor as a member of the National Council of La Raza (Literally "The Race")!!!!
A member of La Raza?!?!? The link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420
Now many people are going to say "Oh, this is World Net Daily and they're fill of shit."
Go to the American Bar Association's site and read for yourself: http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html
" She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza. She has received many honors including, most recently, an award from the National Association of Women Lawyers. " (emphasis added)
Tell me, will she advance La Raza's goals from the High Court?
Article: "U.S. Inflation to Approach Zimbabwe Level, Faber Says"
The link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20603037&sid=avgZDYM6mTFA&refer=home
The hellish prediction: " “I am 100 percent sure that the U.S. will go into hyperinflation,” Faber said. “The problem with government debt growing so much is that when the time will come and the Fed should increase interest rates, they will be very reluctant to do so and so inflation will start to accelerate.” "
You can't imagine the vitriol I got in my email box the last time I mentioned hyperinflation, that it could actually happen in the U.S. Here are those links:
http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2009/02/thats-impossible.html
http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2009/01/bernanke-two-step.html
http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/11/seen-scene-in-starwars-galaxies.html
http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/10/play-hooky-on-election-day-obamessiah.html
http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamabiden-marxist-hyperinflation.html
And now, noted investor Marc Faber has said it. It could be coming. Just remember - you heard it here first.
The hellish prediction: " “I am 100 percent sure that the U.S. will go into hyperinflation,” Faber said. “The problem with government debt growing so much is that when the time will come and the Fed should increase interest rates, they will be very reluctant to do so and so inflation will start to accelerate.” "
You can't imagine the vitriol I got in my email box the last time I mentioned hyperinflation, that it could actually happen in the U.S. Here are those links:
http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2009/02/thats-impossible.html
http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2009/01/bernanke-two-step.html
http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/11/seen-scene-in-starwars-galaxies.html
http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/10/play-hooky-on-election-day-obamessiah.html
http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamabiden-marxist-hyperinflation.html
And now, noted investor Marc Faber has said it. It could be coming. Just remember - you heard it here first.
Michelle Malkin: "Document drop: The Truth about ObamACORN."
The link: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/29/document-drop-the-truth-about-obamacorn/
From part of the posting: " My column today returns to one of the Obama campaign’s big lies — that Barack Obama “never organized with ACORN” and that ACORN had nothing to do with Project Vote. They were joined at the hip back then and they remain joined at the hip today. "
(Links are Ms. Malkin's and are left intact.)
But it goes deeper: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/28/document-drop-what-nytimes-reporter-stephanie-strom-really-knew-about-obamacorn/
" Here are just a few of the exchanges between NYTimes reporter Stephanie Strom and ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief last summer and fall over the increasingly obvious links between ACORN, Project Vote, and the Obama campaign. (Both Strom and MonCrief used pseudonymous e-mail addresses while communicating). It was my blog post on the ACORN/CSI money-laundering scheme that prompted MonCrief to push the story with Strom. Thanks to MonCrief’s continued campaign to get the truth out and aided by investigative crowd-sourcing predominantly on the right side of the blogosphere (in addition to MonCrief’s testimony for Pennsylvania lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh), a plethora of documents and information continue to pour across the web. I’ll have much more on this tomorrow and in coming days. But read these and compare with NYTimes public editor’s smug dismissal of the “Tip that didn’t pan out.” " (Links are Ms. Malkin's and are left intact.)
That article has the actual emails. It won't convince the liberals (including, sadly, my sister) who swear that the Obamessiah really is "the one."
You'll remember that I wrote about that here: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-needs-to-come-clean.html
And here: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-suspected-acorn-fraud.html
Here is the main article that proves the link between B. Hussein Obama, ACORN, and Project Vote: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence/
Of course, we're not supposed to notice this. Of course, my own sister asked how I have "...so much hate in your heart."
Also, of course, that jackass (and the symbol of the Democratic party is indeed an ass (donkey)) politician Rep. John Conyers (Guess which party!!!) backed down from his pledge to investigate ACORN for fraud. In case it needs said: Democrat.
Methinks somebody got to him. Maybe the Obamessiah said "Now play nice with me John, and I'll throw more porkulus money your direction."
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
From part of the posting: " My column today returns to one of the Obama campaign’s big lies — that Barack Obama “never organized with ACORN” and that ACORN had nothing to do with Project Vote. They were joined at the hip back then and they remain joined at the hip today. "
(Links are Ms. Malkin's and are left intact.)
But it goes deeper: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/28/document-drop-what-nytimes-reporter-stephanie-strom-really-knew-about-obamacorn/
" Here are just a few of the exchanges between NYTimes reporter Stephanie Strom and ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief last summer and fall over the increasingly obvious links between ACORN, Project Vote, and the Obama campaign. (Both Strom and MonCrief used pseudonymous e-mail addresses while communicating). It was my blog post on the ACORN/CSI money-laundering scheme that prompted MonCrief to push the story with Strom. Thanks to MonCrief’s continued campaign to get the truth out and aided by investigative crowd-sourcing predominantly on the right side of the blogosphere (in addition to MonCrief’s testimony for Pennsylvania lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh), a plethora of documents and information continue to pour across the web. I’ll have much more on this tomorrow and in coming days. But read these and compare with NYTimes public editor’s smug dismissal of the “Tip that didn’t pan out.” " (Links are Ms. Malkin's and are left intact.)
That article has the actual emails. It won't convince the liberals (including, sadly, my sister) who swear that the Obamessiah really is "the one."
You'll remember that I wrote about that here: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-needs-to-come-clean.html
And here: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-suspected-acorn-fraud.html
Here is the main article that proves the link between B. Hussein Obama, ACORN, and Project Vote: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-1993/Vote-of-Confidence/
Of course, we're not supposed to notice this. Of course, my own sister asked how I have "...so much hate in your heart."
Also, of course, that jackass (and the symbol of the Democratic party is indeed an ass (donkey)) politician Rep. John Conyers (Guess which party!!!) backed down from his pledge to investigate ACORN for fraud. In case it needs said: Democrat.
Methinks somebody got to him. Maybe the Obamessiah said "Now play nice with me John, and I'll throw more porkulus money your direction."
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
Article: "Obama Offers Prime Posts to Top Campaign Contributors"
The link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=adfv4RHV3Kmk
" May 29 (Bloomberg) -- Louis Susman has one thing in common with many of his predecessors nominated to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom: money.
Susman, 71, a retired Citigroup Inc. senior investment banker, raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and another $300,000 for his inauguration. On Wednesday, Obama nominated Susman to the post formally known as the Court of St. James. "
Of course, a great many past Presidents have done this. Reagan did, as did both Bushes and Mr Clinton. But one of the Obamessiah's campain promises was "Change We Can Believe In." This is change? Continuing the practice of appointing as Ambassadors people who hadn't earned the spot, you could say they bought it. Of course, that should remind you of Mr Blagojevich, who allegedly attempted to sell the Obamessiah's vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder! Of course, the Obamessiah states he never knew about it. From the Wikipedia article about Mr Blago:
" He is currently the target of multiple federal investigations[10][11] and had historically low approval ratings within Illinois; at one time the Rasmussen Reports ranked him "America's Least Popular Governor"[12] even before the news of his corruption investigation broke. "
(Links are Wikipedia's and have been left intact.) But there's actually more to that story, which we won't go into here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich
To get back to the main article, yes, other Presidents have named as Ambassadors people who hadn't earned it. But the Obamessiah promised change ... I guess you could say he lied?
" Even with his pledges to change government, Obama is following the tradition of his predecessors by offering some ambassadorships to top campaign backers, including four of the 12 nominations this week. "
Remember that, according to my ex-wife, my math skills are none too good. You'll (I hope) forgive me as I do the math ... lesse ... 4 of the 12 nominations this week. Four divided by 12 equals ? 4/12 = .33333333333. We need this as a percentage, so we multiply by 100. .33333333333 (x) 100 = 33.333333333 Or 33 per cent ... one third. One third. This is change?
" On Jan. 9, when Obama conceded he wouldn’t abandon the practice, he said, “It would be disingenuous for me to suggest that there are not going to be some excellent public servants but who haven’t come through the ranks of the civil service.” "
Let's translate that: "I would be lying to you if I said that there are not going to be some excellent public servants who bought their appointments. There will be."
Liar.
(H/T: Drudge Report)
" May 29 (Bloomberg) -- Louis Susman has one thing in common with many of his predecessors nominated to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom: money.
Susman, 71, a retired Citigroup Inc. senior investment banker, raised between $200,000 and $500,000 for President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and another $300,000 for his inauguration. On Wednesday, Obama nominated Susman to the post formally known as the Court of St. James. "
Of course, a great many past Presidents have done this. Reagan did, as did both Bushes and Mr Clinton. But one of the Obamessiah's campain promises was "Change We Can Believe In." This is change? Continuing the practice of appointing as Ambassadors people who hadn't earned the spot, you could say they bought it. Of course, that should remind you of Mr Blagojevich, who allegedly attempted to sell the Obamessiah's vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder! Of course, the Obamessiah states he never knew about it. From the Wikipedia article about Mr Blago:
" He is currently the target of multiple federal investigations[10][11] and had historically low approval ratings within Illinois; at one time the Rasmussen Reports ranked him "America's Least Popular Governor"[12] even before the news of his corruption investigation broke. "
(Links are Wikipedia's and have been left intact.) But there's actually more to that story, which we won't go into here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich
To get back to the main article, yes, other Presidents have named as Ambassadors people who hadn't earned it. But the Obamessiah promised change ... I guess you could say he lied?
" Even with his pledges to change government, Obama is following the tradition of his predecessors by offering some ambassadorships to top campaign backers, including four of the 12 nominations this week. "
Remember that, according to my ex-wife, my math skills are none too good. You'll (I hope) forgive me as I do the math ... lesse ... 4 of the 12 nominations this week. Four divided by 12 equals ? 4/12 = .33333333333. We need this as a percentage, so we multiply by 100. .33333333333 (x) 100 = 33.333333333 Or 33 per cent ... one third. One third. This is change?
" On Jan. 9, when Obama conceded he wouldn’t abandon the practice, he said, “It would be disingenuous for me to suggest that there are not going to be some excellent public servants but who haven’t come through the ranks of the civil service.” "
Let's translate that: "I would be lying to you if I said that there are not going to be some excellent public servants who bought their appointments. There will be."
Liar.
(H/T: Drudge Report)
Email Tax - Heard on today's Huckabee Report
Today is Friday 29-MAY-2009 and I heard on todays "The Huckabee Report" about a proposed new e-mail tax.
For those of us who've been around the web for a while rumours such as this are nothing new. After all, unless you've been dead, you've heard about the dreaded "Bill 602b." That one was, of course, a hoax. It purported to levy a fee of $.05 per each email sent, and it was forwarded and forwarded ... and forwarded some more. And then somebody who hadn't seen it got it ... and it got forwarded again.
But Mr Huckabee today mentioned a new proposal to tax email which would be a fee of $.01 per email sent. In looking around the web today, I ran across this: http://ideas.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/the-case-for-taxing-e-mail/
That is, of course, a blog. But the title should chill you "The Case for Taxing E-Mail."
And then there's this one: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10764
The title? "We need an email tax."
My answer - rubbish. I will concede the fact that some 200 billion of spam emails are sent - per day. Not per week or month ... every day. Filters help keep some of it out of our email boxes, yet some of it gets through.
But while they're right that the volume of junk email will likely continue to grow, I seriously doubt that an email tax would help solve the problem.
Case #1: a junk emailer sets up operations on some small Caribbean island. He (or she) has his modem, a computer, and a program that can churn out thousands of emails in a flash. He (or she) sends out the email, packs up his computers and other equipment ... and then moves elsewhere.
Those who favour such a tax are, in my opinion, missing something. Our hypothetical junk emailer just blasted several hundred thousands of junk emails ... and then moved. How do you propose to tax him? His ISP would get hit by the tax, which they would then tack onto his bill. There's just one problem - he's nowhere to be found. The ISP would be forced to foot the bill, but don't think they'd be happy about it. They'd have to recoup their costs elsewhere ... and we all know what they'd do; they'd increase rates for the rest of us.
Case #2: A computer somewhere in the continental United States gets infected by a nasty trojan. This one updates itself and installs a junk email sender. For those people who are laughing at the thought of this happening - don't. It's happened already and the odds are that it will continue to happen. The victim, in this case an 86-year young grandmother of five, opens up the bill from her ISP and finds a charge of $815.27.
It seems that that trojan had indeed been busy. Oh, yes. Of course, she's not to blame, the problem started when her teenaged grandson went to one of "those" sites. Yet the ISP is going to insist that she pay it. Or at least a part of it.
Such things already happen with cell phones. Imagine being near the border of Mexico and using your mobile. The phone looks for the strongest signal it can get and will switch over as needed. Yet it's already happened where somebody who was physically in the United States had his mobile lock onto a Mexican tower. You can imagine what his bill looked like.
Many of these junk emailers are overseas, so getting them to pay for sending out junk is going to be hard. We've also seen where various digital nasties, an example being Klez, will fake sender's names.
I know that the money-hungry pols need to get more money to pay for the Obamessiah's spending spree, but this won't work. Proponents of this proposed tax say that it's a way to help reduce the deluge of spam and to pay for improvements, such as more bandwidth.
Rubbish. Pure and simple rubbish.
For those of us who've been around the web for a while rumours such as this are nothing new. After all, unless you've been dead, you've heard about the dreaded "Bill 602b." That one was, of course, a hoax. It purported to levy a fee of $.05 per each email sent, and it was forwarded and forwarded ... and forwarded some more. And then somebody who hadn't seen it got it ... and it got forwarded again.
But Mr Huckabee today mentioned a new proposal to tax email which would be a fee of $.01 per email sent. In looking around the web today, I ran across this: http://ideas.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/the-case-for-taxing-e-mail/
That is, of course, a blog. But the title should chill you "The Case for Taxing E-Mail."
And then there's this one: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10764
The title? "We need an email tax."
My answer - rubbish. I will concede the fact that some 200 billion of spam emails are sent - per day. Not per week or month ... every day. Filters help keep some of it out of our email boxes, yet some of it gets through.
But while they're right that the volume of junk email will likely continue to grow, I seriously doubt that an email tax would help solve the problem.
Case #1: a junk emailer sets up operations on some small Caribbean island. He (or she) has his modem, a computer, and a program that can churn out thousands of emails in a flash. He (or she) sends out the email, packs up his computers and other equipment ... and then moves elsewhere.
Those who favour such a tax are, in my opinion, missing something. Our hypothetical junk emailer just blasted several hundred thousands of junk emails ... and then moved. How do you propose to tax him? His ISP would get hit by the tax, which they would then tack onto his bill. There's just one problem - he's nowhere to be found. The ISP would be forced to foot the bill, but don't think they'd be happy about it. They'd have to recoup their costs elsewhere ... and we all know what they'd do; they'd increase rates for the rest of us.
Case #2: A computer somewhere in the continental United States gets infected by a nasty trojan. This one updates itself and installs a junk email sender. For those people who are laughing at the thought of this happening - don't. It's happened already and the odds are that it will continue to happen. The victim, in this case an 86-year young grandmother of five, opens up the bill from her ISP and finds a charge of $815.27.
It seems that that trojan had indeed been busy. Oh, yes. Of course, she's not to blame, the problem started when her teenaged grandson went to one of "those" sites. Yet the ISP is going to insist that she pay it. Or at least a part of it.
Such things already happen with cell phones. Imagine being near the border of Mexico and using your mobile. The phone looks for the strongest signal it can get and will switch over as needed. Yet it's already happened where somebody who was physically in the United States had his mobile lock onto a Mexican tower. You can imagine what his bill looked like.
Many of these junk emailers are overseas, so getting them to pay for sending out junk is going to be hard. We've also seen where various digital nasties, an example being Klez, will fake sender's names.
I know that the money-hungry pols need to get more money to pay for the Obamessiah's spending spree, but this won't work. Proponents of this proposed tax say that it's a way to help reduce the deluge of spam and to pay for improvements, such as more bandwidth.
Rubbish. Pure and simple rubbish.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
On the Drudge Report: "OBAMA TV:"
That is hard to see, isn't it? The article we're interested in is in the top right-hand corner under the picture. The text reads "OBAMA TV: White House officials produce own media report on event; Reporters Shut Out..." The DIRCT LINK to the article is here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/do-you-want-you.html"Do You Want Your OTV?"
At the end, they ask some serious questions:
"Do Obama White House officials think their media coverage isn't flattering enough?
"Is the goal to ultimately replace the pesky photographers who film what they want to and not what they're told to (not to mention the annoying reporters who ask uncomfortable questions about, say, detainee policy and bank bailouts)?"
(H/T: Drudge Report)
Video: "Is OBAMA the ANTICHRIST?"
The Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqgvAvjOB6E
From the video: "There are 19 prominent characteristics of the antichrist almost universally agreed upon by Bible Scholars that are found in these passages.
"Barack Hussein Obama meets 12 of the 19 BEFORE he even takes office."
See the video ... decide for yourself.
Is this the "change" you wanted? Note that I'm not saying he is the antichrist, others have also been called this. Remember Gorbachev? I'm not saying that the Obamessiah is the antichrist, but he does meet 12 of the 19 characteristics.
Creepy.
From the video: "There are 19 prominent characteristics of the antichrist almost universally agreed upon by Bible Scholars that are found in these passages.
"Barack Hussein Obama meets 12 of the 19 BEFORE he even takes office."
See the video ... decide for yourself.
Is this the "change" you wanted? Note that I'm not saying he is the antichrist, others have also been called this. Remember Gorbachev? I'm not saying that the Obamessiah is the antichrist, but he does meet 12 of the 19 characteristics.
Creepy.
Video: Obama - 7 strange coincidences
The link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UOKTNFMgQ8
I'm not saying anything else, I'll let the video speak for itself.
I'm not saying anything else, I'll let the video speak for itself.
Article: "Chief Justice publicly accepts WND's eligibility petition" (About Obama's Birth Certificate)
Sorry for the long title. Here's the link: http://freemenow.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/chief-justice-publicly-accepts-wnds-eligibility-petition/
It is a blog. I hope it's true, however. "A California attorney lobbying the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama’s qualifications to be president confronted the chief justice yesterday with legal briefs and a WND petition bearing names of over 325,000 people asking the court to rule on whether or not the sitting president fulfills the Constitution’s “natural-born citizen” clause."
You'll remember that Barack Hussein Obama has spent over $800,000 to avoid producing the 'vault-copy' of his birth certificate. He also won't release his medical records. Why? He could end the controversy and unite the entire country by doing so. So why won't he?
http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=627
It is a blog. I hope it's true, however. "A California attorney lobbying the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama’s qualifications to be president confronted the chief justice yesterday with legal briefs and a WND petition bearing names of over 325,000 people asking the court to rule on whether or not the sitting president fulfills the Constitution’s “natural-born citizen” clause."
You'll remember that Barack Hussein Obama has spent over $800,000 to avoid producing the 'vault-copy' of his birth certificate. He also won't release his medical records. Why? He could end the controversy and unite the entire country by doing so. So why won't he?
http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=627
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
2 + 2 = 3????
No, two plus two does not equal three. But some people are trying to get me to believe that. There are quite a few ways one can use to help determine the 'truth' of any espoused view. Google, in this case, really is your friend.
If you're going to try to get me to swallow that two plus two equals three, again, be careful. That's all I'm going to say.
If you're going to try to get me to swallow that two plus two equals three, again, be careful. That's all I'm going to say.
More Global Warming Hooha
Here's the link to the first article I wrote: http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2008/10/article-mit-scientists-baffled-by.html
In that, I wrote that the inner planets were also warming. That is, in addition to the Earth, Mercury, Venus, and Mars were warming. So is Jupiter (at the equator.)
But now comes this: http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/future/2007/04/global-warming.html
Note that this also appears to be a blog. Having said that, follow the links in that article, and you'll learn that the conclusions reached do fit the facts. And here are those facts:
Saturn is warming. (The planet, not the car company.)
Uranus is warming.
Neptune is warming.
Those are the "outer planets." So now we have Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune that are warming. I'm not including Pluto, since it isn't a planet anymore, it's a dwarf-planet.
But if we include the dwarf-planet, Pluto is also warming.
And then there's this: http://blogs.discovery.com/cosmic_ray/uranus/
Again, this is a blog. But the science still stands.
Mercury is warming.
Venus is warming.
Earth is warming.
Mars is warming.
Jupiter is warming.
Saturn is warming.
Uranus is warming.
Neptune is warming.
Pluto is warming.
Are you still going to tell me that mankind is solely responsible for the Earth's warming? Based on the facts, is it just barely possible that the sun has something to do with the Earth's temperature rising?
Be very careful with your answer.
In that, I wrote that the inner planets were also warming. That is, in addition to the Earth, Mercury, Venus, and Mars were warming. So is Jupiter (at the equator.)
But now comes this: http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/future/2007/04/global-warming.html
Note that this also appears to be a blog. Having said that, follow the links in that article, and you'll learn that the conclusions reached do fit the facts. And here are those facts:
Saturn is warming. (The planet, not the car company.)
Uranus is warming.
Neptune is warming.
Those are the "outer planets." So now we have Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune that are warming. I'm not including Pluto, since it isn't a planet anymore, it's a dwarf-planet.
But if we include the dwarf-planet, Pluto is also warming.
And then there's this: http://blogs.discovery.com/cosmic_ray/uranus/
Again, this is a blog. But the science still stands.
Mercury is warming.
Venus is warming.
Earth is warming.
Mars is warming.
Jupiter is warming.
Saturn is warming.
Uranus is warming.
Neptune is warming.
Pluto is warming.
Are you still going to tell me that mankind is solely responsible for the Earth's warming? Based on the facts, is it just barely possible that the sun has something to do with the Earth's temperature rising?
Be very careful with your answer.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Anderson Cooper sez ...
That his "teabagging" comment was a "...stupid, silly, one-line aside." Here's that link: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/anderson_cooper_says_teabagging_comment_was_stupid_silly_116894.asp
Of course (spit) Mr Cooper didn't mean to disparage the porkulus protesters. In a pig's eye.
If you're curious what "teabagging" means ... well ... I had to Google it, too.
But let's go further: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr02kshCZgA&fmt=18 This link is the video on how CNN and MSNBC handled it.
WARNING: Very bad and tasteless 'jokes.'
"It's going to be 'tea-bagging' day for the right-wing, and they are going 'nuts' for it. Thousands of them 'whipped' out the festivities early this past weekend and while the parties are officially 'tooth-less' ... "
But the lefties see MSNBC as a legitimate news organization. Sounds to me like we know where the announcer's mind was ... in the gutter.
And then there was MSNBC's coverage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAiXkw-7PxQ
Oh, so I'm a racist? I do know what the Boston Tea Party was about...thank you very much. But this WAS MSNBC ... so I don't expect fair, unbiased, true reporting.
I expect filth ... and they lived down to my expectations.
Of course (spit) Mr Cooper didn't mean to disparage the porkulus protesters. In a pig's eye.
If you're curious what "teabagging" means ... well ... I had to Google it, too.
But let's go further: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr02kshCZgA&fmt=18 This link is the video on how CNN and MSNBC handled it.
WARNING: Very bad and tasteless 'jokes.'
"It's going to be 'tea-bagging' day for the right-wing, and they are going 'nuts' for it. Thousands of them 'whipped' out the festivities early this past weekend and while the parties are officially 'tooth-less' ... "
But the lefties see MSNBC as a legitimate news organization. Sounds to me like we know where the announcer's mind was ... in the gutter.
And then there was MSNBC's coverage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAiXkw-7PxQ
Oh, so I'm a racist? I do know what the Boston Tea Party was about...thank you very much. But this WAS MSNBC ... so I don't expect fair, unbiased, true reporting.
I expect filth ... and they lived down to my expectations.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Article: "Dems red-faced over veteran imposter."
The link: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12373595
"WASHINGTON — Rick Strandlof, executive director of the Colorado Veterans Alliance and the man most colleagues knew as Rick Duncan, was front and center during the 2008 political campaigns in Colorado. "
There was just one problem: He was never in the military. He had been, however, a patient in a mental hospital in the past.
He supported mostly Democratic candidates, who, of course, lapped it up.
"But there were also plenty of signs during much of the time Strandlof was working on behalf of candidates for anyone watching carefully."
You don't say. Do you notice the pattern here? B. Hussein Obama had problems coming out of his ears. He's spent $800,000 to avoid producing the vault copy of his birth certificate, he is pals with real domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and his wife, he had problems with his ministers ...
And now the article says "...there were also plenty of signs ... for anyone watching carefully."
I guess you could call that a "duh" moment.
Duh. If the Dems can dig up dirt on Joe the Plumber, if the Ohio Dems can pilfer his records ... why the hell can't they properly vett such people? Duh.
(H/T: Drudge Report)
"WASHINGTON — Rick Strandlof, executive director of the Colorado Veterans Alliance and the man most colleagues knew as Rick Duncan, was front and center during the 2008 political campaigns in Colorado. "
There was just one problem: He was never in the military. He had been, however, a patient in a mental hospital in the past.
He supported mostly Democratic candidates, who, of course, lapped it up.
"But there were also plenty of signs during much of the time Strandlof was working on behalf of candidates for anyone watching carefully."
You don't say. Do you notice the pattern here? B. Hussein Obama had problems coming out of his ears. He's spent $800,000 to avoid producing the vault copy of his birth certificate, he is pals with real domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and his wife, he had problems with his ministers ...
And now the article says "...there were also plenty of signs ... for anyone watching carefully."
I guess you could call that a "duh" moment.
Duh. If the Dems can dig up dirt on Joe the Plumber, if the Ohio Dems can pilfer his records ... why the hell can't they properly vett such people? Duh.
(H/T: Drudge Report)
Article: "Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load 'Unsustainable.' "
The Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJsSb4qtILhg&refer=worldwide
"May 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries. " (Links are not mine, but have been left intact.)
No kidding, Mr Obama. It is unsustainable, and here you are adding to it. I'm sorry to quote more from the article, but this next is important:
"Earlier this week, the Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously. "
Deficit for this year, $1.84 Trillion. That's $1,840,000,000,000.00. That's a lot of money, but that is for only this year. Fiscal year 2010 will be $1.26T (deficit). Oh, and next year's budget will be $3.59T.
But let's switch gears here. I wrote a while back that you'd start seeing things from Imprimis in this blog. And, here we go.
BUT FIRST, here's the blurb: "Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: "Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College." (At the end of this posting, I'll give their URL and a way to request your very own free copy of Imprimis.) ((This is the April 2009 edition, Vol 38, No 4.))
From Mark Steyn's article "Live Free or Die!" "After the President unveiled his budget, I heard Americans complain, oh, it's another Jimmy Carter, or LBJ's Great Society, or the new New Deal.
"You should be so lucky. Those nickel-and-dime comparisons barely begin to encompass the wholesale Europeanization that's underway.
"The 44th President's multi-trillion-dollar budget, the first of many, adds more to the national debt than all of the previous 43 presidents combined, from George Washington to George Dubya. [emphasis added]
"The President wants Europeanized health care, Europeanized daycare, Europeanized education, and, as the Europeans have discovered, even with Europeanized tax rates you can't make that math add up.
"In Sweden, state spending accounts for 54% of GDP. In America, it was 34% -- ten years ago. Today, it's about 40%. In four years' time, that number will be trending very Swede-like.
"But forget the money, the deficit, the debt, the big numbers with the 12 zeroes on the end of them. So-called fiscal conservatives often miss the point. The problem isn't the cost. These programs would still be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them each month.
"They're wrong because they deform the relationship between the citizen and the state. Even if there were no financial consequences, the moral and even spiritual consequences would still be fatal. That's the stage Europe's at.
"America is just beginning this process."
That's it. That's very important because a lot of people have been saying this, and we've been called many things for it. But here it comes. Socialism. Is this the "change" you wanted?
That should scare the crap out of you. It should also mobilize you to action. It's past time to get up off the couch and make your voices heard. It's time to kick the pols out of DC ... all of them ... take a broom and sweep it up. It's time to take back our country. As "Benedict" Arlen Specter proved, they're there simply for the money. He knew if he stayed Republican, he'd get his butt kicked in the next election. So to protect his paycheque, he switched.
Is this the change you wanted?
About Imprimis. Imprimis is a publication of Hillsdale College. Hillsdale takes no federal or state monies, so the feds can't tell them what to teach or how to teach it. You can get your very own FREE copy of Imprimis at http://www.hillsdale.edu/. Or, you can email them at imprimis@hillsdale.edu, or by phone at (800) 437-2268.
And again for that full disclosure thing. :) There is no relationship between Hillsdale College and myself, other that I receive Imprimis. They did not ask me to begin quoting from their publication, in fact, I approached them.
(H/T: Drudge Report, Imprimis)
"May 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending “unsustainable,” warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries. " (Links are not mine, but have been left intact.)
No kidding, Mr Obama. It is unsustainable, and here you are adding to it. I'm sorry to quote more from the article, but this next is important:
"Earlier this week, the Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year’s budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously. "
Deficit for this year, $1.84 Trillion. That's $1,840,000,000,000.00. That's a lot of money, but that is for only this year. Fiscal year 2010 will be $1.26T (deficit). Oh, and next year's budget will be $3.59T.
But let's switch gears here. I wrote a while back that you'd start seeing things from Imprimis in this blog. And, here we go.
BUT FIRST, here's the blurb: "Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: "Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College." (At the end of this posting, I'll give their URL and a way to request your very own free copy of Imprimis.) ((This is the April 2009 edition, Vol 38, No 4.))
From Mark Steyn's article "Live Free or Die!" "After the President unveiled his budget, I heard Americans complain, oh, it's another Jimmy Carter, or LBJ's Great Society, or the new New Deal.
"You should be so lucky. Those nickel-and-dime comparisons barely begin to encompass the wholesale Europeanization that's underway.
"The 44th President's multi-trillion-dollar budget, the first of many, adds more to the national debt than all of the previous 43 presidents combined, from George Washington to George Dubya. [emphasis added]
"The President wants Europeanized health care, Europeanized daycare, Europeanized education, and, as the Europeans have discovered, even with Europeanized tax rates you can't make that math add up.
"In Sweden, state spending accounts for 54% of GDP. In America, it was 34% -- ten years ago. Today, it's about 40%. In four years' time, that number will be trending very Swede-like.
"But forget the money, the deficit, the debt, the big numbers with the 12 zeroes on the end of them. So-called fiscal conservatives often miss the point. The problem isn't the cost. These programs would still be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them each month.
"They're wrong because they deform the relationship between the citizen and the state. Even if there were no financial consequences, the moral and even spiritual consequences would still be fatal. That's the stage Europe's at.
"America is just beginning this process."
That's it. That's very important because a lot of people have been saying this, and we've been called many things for it. But here it comes. Socialism. Is this the "change" you wanted?
That should scare the crap out of you. It should also mobilize you to action. It's past time to get up off the couch and make your voices heard. It's time to kick the pols out of DC ... all of them ... take a broom and sweep it up. It's time to take back our country. As "Benedict" Arlen Specter proved, they're there simply for the money. He knew if he stayed Republican, he'd get his butt kicked in the next election. So to protect his paycheque, he switched.
Is this the change you wanted?
About Imprimis. Imprimis is a publication of Hillsdale College. Hillsdale takes no federal or state monies, so the feds can't tell them what to teach or how to teach it. You can get your very own FREE copy of Imprimis at http://www.hillsdale.edu/. Or, you can email them at imprimis@hillsdale.edu, or by phone at (800) 437-2268.
And again for that full disclosure thing. :) There is no relationship between Hillsdale College and myself, other that I receive Imprimis. They did not ask me to begin quoting from their publication, in fact, I approached them.
(H/T: Drudge Report, Imprimis)
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Article:
The Link: http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=2745
I'm only going to quote a bit of this article, but in my opinion this article is a must read. It's also quite long, but it is that important. You're not going to be reading any of this in the MSM since they've decided that you cannot question 'the one.' You simply can't question the Obamessiah.
Does anybody remember my mentioning the Wikipedia article about "Cult of Personality?" Well, here's a screenshot of what the page looked like before it got scrubbed:
I'm only going to quote a bit of this article, but in my opinion this article is a must read. It's also quite long, but it is that important. You're not going to be reading any of this in the MSM since they've decided that you cannot question 'the one.' You simply can't question the Obamessiah.
Does anybody remember my mentioning the Wikipedia article about "Cult of Personality?" Well, here's a screenshot of what the page looked like before it got scrubbed:
As I mentioned, the article has been scrubbed. There has been quite a bit of debate about whether or not it belongs on Wikipedia. I believe there to be more than enough anecdotal evidence to state that there is indeed a Cult of Personality around 'the one.' Of course, you can't mention that on Wikipedia without being labelled a troublemaker ... or worse.
Well, before I get into the article, I need to add this: Mr Obama is not my Messiah. He's not even my messiah with a small "m." In the same vein, he's not my Saviour. He's not even my saviour with a small "s." He's just a man, folks. He's just a man, yet the MSM has made this messianic complex about him. And as you could see from the previous posting where he spoke about his next 100 days, Mr Obama appears to be buying into it.
So now, let's get to the main article that I'll be referencing. As I said, this is a must read ... at least in my opinion. Here's the link again: http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=2745 The title? "From Anthrax to Zawahiri, searching for answers"
"11 May 2009: Does anything about the events of the last few months strike you as odd? How about the last few years, or the last few decades? If you’ve been paying attention to Western politics and world events, and if you’ve been closely following politics inside the United States and have become thoroughly confused by the policies, actions and responses of the United States, then you will undoubtedly reply “yes” to that question.
"There is an ever growing list of actions, reactions, and policies that just simply don’t make any sense -at least not until they are viewed through the prism of an “alternate reality,” or an agenda of an elite few who are not acting in the best interests of the United States. Such a list would include matters of national security, health and welfare, immigration, and economics. That list would also involve our leaders from both Republican and Democratic sides of the political aisle."
Now I know that somebody out there is going to be saying (or shouting) "another conspiracy theory!" But how many times have I proved that some of these "conspiracy theories" are in fact ... facts? Mr Hagmann and Mr Taylor have their facts straight in this article. Again, the MSM isn't going to be reporting this, they've decided that Mr Obama is their "Messiah."
And at the end of the long, well-written article, we find this:
" So what’s the point in voting? In fact, although the state electors are supposedly committed to vote for the candidate of the party that chose them, nothing in the Constitution requires them to do so. This explains the presence of the Kenyan born Muslim in the White House right now.
" He is an insert, a Manchurian Candidate of sorts that has strict instructions to drive the US into an economic depression that will leave no alternative other than to unite with other countries as one, including Islamic countries. He is the destructor of sovereignty. He is the stripper of civil rights. He is the catalyst by which Muslims can infiltrate the government at all critical levels. This explains his hobnobbing and back slapping with enemies of the United States. He is supposed to be the one that brings everyone together at the Globalist Table, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
"Beware of this person. Meanwhile, our investigation continues."
Beware of Barack Hussein Obama. He might be the liberal's and the media's "Messiah," but he is not mine.
Remember that song I referenced? "
"And he's [Mr Obama] the reason Mr Lincoln let the slaves go free; And he told Hillary Clinton "Girl you don't know me."
And he chased away Katrina with a wave of his hand; and let the people of New Orleans walk across dry land.
And he could decimate poverty in a single bound; I searched the whole wide world and I finally found
Obamessiah."
More From the White House Correspondents' Dinner
But first, a song on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4zELim7KN0&fmt=18 (The "&fmt=18" forces it into high quality stereo.)
Yes, a song about the Obamessiah.
But to get back to the dinner, what was it the Obamessiah said? " “During the second 100 days, we will design, build and open a library dedicated to my first 100 days.” And: “My next 100 days will be so successful, I will complete them in 72 days. And on the 73rd day, I will rest.” "
Yes, the Obamessiah has spoken. the one has said he can complete 100 days in only 72. He'll rest on the 73rd. Tell me, did the Obamessiah create light? I had thought God did that.
Yes, this is the same dinner where Ms Sykes said that she hopes Rush Limbaugh's kidneys fail. Of course, if anybody were to dare to say that about the Obamessiah... but there I go again, making too much sense.
Yes, a song about the Obamessiah.
But to get back to the dinner, what was it the Obamessiah said? " “During the second 100 days, we will design, build and open a library dedicated to my first 100 days.” And: “My next 100 days will be so successful, I will complete them in 72 days. And on the 73rd day, I will rest.” "
Yes, the Obamessiah has spoken. the one has said he can complete 100 days in only 72. He'll rest on the 73rd. Tell me, did the Obamessiah create light? I had thought God did that.
Yes, this is the same dinner where Ms Sykes said that she hopes Rush Limbaugh's kidneys fail. Of course, if anybody were to dare to say that about the Obamessiah... but there I go again, making too much sense.
Monday, May 11, 2009
"Free Speech for ME, but not for Thee."
Have you noticed that that appears to be the way the Democrats and liberals are behaving? If a Republican or a conservative (a TRUE Conservative, not Juan McAmnesty) were to stand up in front of a college crowd, those "educated" people would shout the speaker out, create a ruckus, and chalk it up to "free speech."
Granted, you might not like what the speaker is saying, but don't they have just as much right to speak?
Consider Wanda Sykes and her "performance" at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. If anybody had said that about his holiness (in his own mind) the Obamessiah, well. The DHS, the OSI (Office of Special Investigations), the NSA, the IRS, the FBI, and the CIA would have been investigating her as being a potential "domestic extremist."
So what did she say? "You know, you might want to look into this Sir, because I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker (on Sept 11, 2001) but he was just so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight."
Could you imagine a Conservative saying that about the Obamessiah? That Conservative would never get out of legal trouble. Every three-letter government agency would look at our hypothetical Conservative. But Ms. Sykes is a Democrat, and a liberal, so what the hell, right?
But that's not all she said: "Rush Limbaugh 'I hope the country fails' - I hope his kidneys fail, how about that?"
But let's correct this: Mr Limbaugh said that he hopes the Obamessiah's policies fail, something that I also believe he should not have said. Why? Because if they do fail, then this country will be in an even deeper hole than the Obamessiah has dug for us. And yes, that could be taken to mean that Mr Limbaugh hopes the country fails.
But then Ms Sykes says "I hope his [Rush Limbaugh's] kidneys fail, how about that?" Again, she's a liberal Democrat, so what the hell right?
Let's take our hypothetical Conservative saying the same thing. Remember the OKC man who had his anti-Obamessiah sign taken away, and his house searched (with his permission, and the anti-Obamessiah sign was returned later.) What did that man's sign say? "Abort Obama." That could be taken as a death threat, you see. This is something that the Department of Hussein's Sycophants takes very seriously. And if our hypothetical Conservative were to wish the Obamessiah's kidneys would fail...well. Every government agency would investigate our hypothetical person. A new one would be created just to track him (or her.) He or she would get their own satellite.
But Ms Sykes, this liberal democrat, hopes that Mr Limbaugh's kidneys fail. But this is not a death threat, you see? Nor is it wishing Mr Limbaugh ill. She's a liberal Democrat, so what the hell, right?
What the hell, right?
Sen. Kennedy: "Free Speech for everyone, Al; regardless of ideology." "...regardless of ideology." Yes, that stalwart of liberalism, Mr Kennedy himself said that. "...regardless of ideology."
But if a Conservative paints a sign that says "Abort Obama," he gets harassed. If we disagree with the Obamessiah's porkulus, we get labelled "potential extremists."
Free speech? Only if you're a liberal.
HEY - DEPARTMENT OF HUSSEIN'S SYCOPHANTS, INVESTIGATE ME! I'm speaking out against his holiness (in his own mind) the Obamessiah!
And if you don't like it: "Free speech for everyone, Al; regardless of ideology." If you don't like it, well. Remember that movie Major League? It was that one scene inside Lynn's boyfriend's apartment when he tells Tom Berenger's character "Stay away from her (meaning Lynn.)" And Tom Berenger's character replies: "Suck my d*ck."
And I don't mean duck, or deck, or dock.
Granted, you might not like what the speaker is saying, but don't they have just as much right to speak?
Consider Wanda Sykes and her "performance" at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. If anybody had said that about his holiness (in his own mind) the Obamessiah, well. The DHS, the OSI (Office of Special Investigations), the NSA, the IRS, the FBI, and the CIA would have been investigating her as being a potential "domestic extremist."
So what did she say? "You know, you might want to look into this Sir, because I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker (on Sept 11, 2001) but he was just so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight."
Could you imagine a Conservative saying that about the Obamessiah? That Conservative would never get out of legal trouble. Every three-letter government agency would look at our hypothetical Conservative. But Ms. Sykes is a Democrat, and a liberal, so what the hell, right?
But that's not all she said: "Rush Limbaugh 'I hope the country fails' - I hope his kidneys fail, how about that?"
But let's correct this: Mr Limbaugh said that he hopes the Obamessiah's policies fail, something that I also believe he should not have said. Why? Because if they do fail, then this country will be in an even deeper hole than the Obamessiah has dug for us. And yes, that could be taken to mean that Mr Limbaugh hopes the country fails.
But then Ms Sykes says "I hope his [Rush Limbaugh's] kidneys fail, how about that?" Again, she's a liberal Democrat, so what the hell right?
Let's take our hypothetical Conservative saying the same thing. Remember the OKC man who had his anti-Obamessiah sign taken away, and his house searched (with his permission, and the anti-Obamessiah sign was returned later.) What did that man's sign say? "Abort Obama." That could be taken as a death threat, you see. This is something that the Department of Hussein's Sycophants takes very seriously. And if our hypothetical Conservative were to wish the Obamessiah's kidneys would fail...well. Every government agency would investigate our hypothetical person. A new one would be created just to track him (or her.) He or she would get their own satellite.
But Ms Sykes, this liberal democrat, hopes that Mr Limbaugh's kidneys fail. But this is not a death threat, you see? Nor is it wishing Mr Limbaugh ill. She's a liberal Democrat, so what the hell, right?
What the hell, right?
Sen. Kennedy: "Free Speech for everyone, Al; regardless of ideology." "...regardless of ideology." Yes, that stalwart of liberalism, Mr Kennedy himself said that. "...regardless of ideology."
But if a Conservative paints a sign that says "Abort Obama," he gets harassed. If we disagree with the Obamessiah's porkulus, we get labelled "potential extremists."
Free speech? Only if you're a liberal.
HEY - DEPARTMENT OF HUSSEIN'S SYCOPHANTS, INVESTIGATE ME! I'm speaking out against his holiness (in his own mind) the Obamessiah!
And if you don't like it: "Free speech for everyone, Al; regardless of ideology." If you don't like it, well. Remember that movie Major League? It was that one scene inside Lynn's boyfriend's apartment when he tells Tom Berenger's character "Stay away from her (meaning Lynn.)" And Tom Berenger's character replies: "Suck my d*ck."
And I don't mean duck, or deck, or dock.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
The Book: "Animal Spirits"
CORRECTED at 21:25pm on 7-MAY to correct spelling of "trillion." Also corrected figure which was "one-half of one per cent" which I incorrectly stated was 0.05. In reality, this figure should read 0.5
Before I begin, I do know that Native Americans have Animal Spirits, also called "Spirit Guides," and that these Guides come to them in dream or trance-like states. I am not refering to these Animal Spirits.
No, I'm referring to the book, which had its 2nd printing back in the 1920's. Here's a link: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/02/animals-spirits.html You'll notice that the title is "Animal Sprits, The Economy, Propaganda."
I think you should read this book. Why?
Because Barack Hussein Obama's White House is. Seriously.
The book is about the theory that there is a sure-fire way to control something that is otherwise un-controllable. And that is controlling the economy through the use of propaganda. If you think I'm "...making shit up..." for my "...worthless blog..." well, you're about to be proven wrong yet again. Google it, you'll find it.
Controlling the economy through propaganda. All you need to do is say something like what's on the Drudge Report right now, that we've hit bottom. Note that Mr Drudge did not say that, he linked to a story that said it. All you have to say is "Yes, we can!" and that things are getting better because the Obamessiah has said so.
And if you buy into that, that's akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as she's sinking beneath the waves.
But let's take another example, shall we? OK. The Obamessiah's budget is $3.4 trillion. Here's that number - $3,400,000,000,000.00 This was after he "saved" is 17billion. So before his "savings," that number would read $3.417 or $3,417.000,000,000.00 He says it's a lot of money, and it is. But let's look at the percentage, shall we?
0.5% Seriously.
But do you remember back during the start of the 2008 election? The Democrats (including you Mr Barack Hussein Obama) were saying that President Bush's budget was "unsustainable." You yourself said this Mr Obama.
To bring your porkget into a "sustainable" area, you'd have to mulitply your "savings" times 40. Honestly.
17billion times 40 = $680,000,000,000
or $680 BILLION. You yourself said this Mr Obamessiah.
Now I know I've been telling the truth and saying very unflattering things about you Mr Obamessiah. Perhaps you'll tell Janet Napolitano to have some of her people from the Departmant of Hussein's Sychophants label me a "potential extremeist" ... in other words a domestic terrorist. Perhaps you'll have her have them arrest me for telling the truth.
I'll make it easy for you (and her) - You have spent over $800,000 in lawsuits to avoid producing the vault copy of your birth certificate. That is a fact.
Now you, Mr Obamessiah, can convict me for revealing state secrets.
To those reading, I'm going to say this again: My problem with Mr Obama is not the colour of his skin. I think it would be wonderful to have an African-American President. Alan Keyes, however, didn't win. Neither did J.C. Watts. General Colin Powell wasn't running. Dr. Condolezza Rice wasn't running either, and since she's a woman, that would've removed the gender card from play as well.
My problem is the Obamessiah. We're not sure he's even eligible ... remember that $800,000 he's spent so far to avoid producing the vault copy of his birth cerficiate? Guess where a portion of that money has come from? Google it, you'll find it.
I guess that makes me a potential domestic extremeist.
BUT...remember the book "Animal Spirits?" What was one of the ways to control people?
Propaganda. We're certainly seeing that, aren't we?
Which brings us to disgraced Hillary fund-raiser Normal Hsu, who just plead guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, and guilty to ten counts of mail and wire fraud.
Take a guess who was the #4 recipient of Mr Hsu's funny money? That'd be you Mr Obamessiah. Here's that link: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pI5QkfhRBwUgAiaAQVTXffw&gid=0
Oddly enough, Ms Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State, who refused to investigate ACORN after they dumped 600,000 "questionable" voter registrations ... received $3,000 from Mr Hsu. Mr Obama, you'll remember, was once part of ACORN.
The money really don't fall far from the tree, does it Mr Obamessiah?
Before I begin, I do know that Native Americans have Animal Spirits, also called "Spirit Guides," and that these Guides come to them in dream or trance-like states. I am not refering to these Animal Spirits.
No, I'm referring to the book, which had its 2nd printing back in the 1920's. Here's a link: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/02/animals-spirits.html You'll notice that the title is "Animal Sprits, The Economy, Propaganda."
I think you should read this book. Why?
Because Barack Hussein Obama's White House is. Seriously.
The book is about the theory that there is a sure-fire way to control something that is otherwise un-controllable. And that is controlling the economy through the use of propaganda. If you think I'm "...making shit up..." for my "...worthless blog..." well, you're about to be proven wrong yet again. Google it, you'll find it.
Controlling the economy through propaganda. All you need to do is say something like what's on the Drudge Report right now, that we've hit bottom. Note that Mr Drudge did not say that, he linked to a story that said it. All you have to say is "Yes, we can!" and that things are getting better because the Obamessiah has said so.
And if you buy into that, that's akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as she's sinking beneath the waves.
But let's take another example, shall we? OK. The Obamessiah's budget is $3.4 trillion. Here's that number - $3,400,000,000,000.00 This was after he "saved" is 17billion. So before his "savings," that number would read $3.417 or $3,417.000,000,000.00 He says it's a lot of money, and it is. But let's look at the percentage, shall we?
0.5% Seriously.
But do you remember back during the start of the 2008 election? The Democrats (including you Mr Barack Hussein Obama) were saying that President Bush's budget was "unsustainable." You yourself said this Mr Obama.
To bring your porkget into a "sustainable" area, you'd have to mulitply your "savings" times 40. Honestly.
17billion times 40 = $680,000,000,000
or $680 BILLION. You yourself said this Mr Obamessiah.
Now I know I've been telling the truth and saying very unflattering things about you Mr Obamessiah. Perhaps you'll tell Janet Napolitano to have some of her people from the Departmant of Hussein's Sychophants label me a "potential extremeist" ... in other words a domestic terrorist. Perhaps you'll have her have them arrest me for telling the truth.
I'll make it easy for you (and her) - You have spent over $800,000 in lawsuits to avoid producing the vault copy of your birth certificate. That is a fact.
Now you, Mr Obamessiah, can convict me for revealing state secrets.
To those reading, I'm going to say this again: My problem with Mr Obama is not the colour of his skin. I think it would be wonderful to have an African-American President. Alan Keyes, however, didn't win. Neither did J.C. Watts. General Colin Powell wasn't running. Dr. Condolezza Rice wasn't running either, and since she's a woman, that would've removed the gender card from play as well.
My problem is the Obamessiah. We're not sure he's even eligible ... remember that $800,000 he's spent so far to avoid producing the vault copy of his birth cerficiate? Guess where a portion of that money has come from? Google it, you'll find it.
I guess that makes me a potential domestic extremeist.
BUT...remember the book "Animal Spirits?" What was one of the ways to control people?
Propaganda. We're certainly seeing that, aren't we?
Which brings us to disgraced Hillary fund-raiser Normal Hsu, who just plead guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, and guilty to ten counts of mail and wire fraud.
Take a guess who was the #4 recipient of Mr Hsu's funny money? That'd be you Mr Obamessiah. Here's that link: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pI5QkfhRBwUgAiaAQVTXffw&gid=0
Oddly enough, Ms Brunner, the Ohio Secretary of State, who refused to investigate ACORN after they dumped 600,000 "questionable" voter registrations ... received $3,000 from Mr Hsu. Mr Obama, you'll remember, was once part of ACORN.
The money really don't fall far from the tree, does it Mr Obamessiah?
Article: "White House Cheat Sheet: Sifting Through the Specter Damage"
The Link: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/cheat-sheet/050709white-house-cheat-sheet.html
I'm only going to quote this small bit: "While most party switchers are almost certainly guided by personal political concerns (what politician isn't?), most don't come right out and say it because it is a turnoff for voters who want to believe that their politicians believe in, well, something."
The writer means, I think, other than themselves. We've seen where "Benedict Arnold" Specter's priorities lay - in keeping his fat arse in Wa$hington, the Di$trict of Corruption. Whatever happened to going to Wa$hington to ... oh ... serve the people that put you there? Call me naive if you must ... and that that doesn't happen except in only a perfect world.
Tell me that, and I'll tell you that you are part of the problem for accepting the situation the way it is. The pols won't change as long as they know you'll sit on your butts and say "well, that's just the way it is."
I'm only going to quote this small bit: "While most party switchers are almost certainly guided by personal political concerns (what politician isn't?), most don't come right out and say it because it is a turnoff for voters who want to believe that their politicians believe in, well, something."
The writer means, I think, other than themselves. We've seen where "Benedict Arnold" Specter's priorities lay - in keeping his fat arse in Wa$hington, the Di$trict of Corruption. Whatever happened to going to Wa$hington to ... oh ... serve the people that put you there? Call me naive if you must ... and that that doesn't happen except in only a perfect world.
Tell me that, and I'll tell you that you are part of the problem for accepting the situation the way it is. The pols won't change as long as they know you'll sit on your butts and say "well, that's just the way it is."
Article: "Computer hard drive sold on eBay 'had details of top secret U.S. missile defence system' "
Sorry for the long title. Here's the link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1178239/Computer-hard-drive-sold-eBay-details-secret-U-S-missile-defence-system.html
Before I dive into the article itself, I have to ask: Just who is wiping these hard drives, if anybody? Elmer Fudd?
From the article: " The disk also contained security policies, blueprints of facilities and personal information on employees including social security numbers, belonging to technology company Lockheed Martin - who designed and built the system. "
OK...this should really make you wonder. But if it's any consolation, disks from the UK, France, and Germany were found to have other sensitive information. Information was found from a nursing home which, according to the article, included "...pictures of patients and their wounds."
Also, according to the article, 34 per cent of the disks had " 'information of either personal data that could be identified to an individual or commercial data identifying a company or organisation.' "
I guess that would be another "duh" moment?? Just who is wiping these things, if anybody?
By wiping, I don't mean deleting, I mean wiping such as is done by a low-level format. Deleting typically just deletes the first few bytes of the file. This "erases" the file from the disk's FAT (File Allocation Table). The file (including whatever information was included) is still there, it's just that the hard drive thinks it's gone.
When you do a disk wipe, you overwrite every bit on the drive and rewrite them with either gibberish or 1's and 0's. That includes the FAT and the partition table!
This really isn't rocket science, folks. It really isn't. There are any number of programs out there (some of them are free!) that will securely overwrite the disk. This is not rocket science.
Yes, it takes time to securely overwrite a disk. If you do it correctly, it could take several hours to several days. But it's worth the effort.
Before I dive into the article itself, I have to ask: Just who is wiping these hard drives, if anybody? Elmer Fudd?
From the article: " The disk also contained security policies, blueprints of facilities and personal information on employees including social security numbers, belonging to technology company Lockheed Martin - who designed and built the system. "
OK...this should really make you wonder. But if it's any consolation, disks from the UK, France, and Germany were found to have other sensitive information. Information was found from a nursing home which, according to the article, included "...pictures of patients and their wounds."
Also, according to the article, 34 per cent of the disks had " 'information of either personal data that could be identified to an individual or commercial data identifying a company or organisation.' "
I guess that would be another "duh" moment?? Just who is wiping these things, if anybody?
By wiping, I don't mean deleting, I mean wiping such as is done by a low-level format. Deleting typically just deletes the first few bytes of the file. This "erases" the file from the disk's FAT (File Allocation Table). The file (including whatever information was included) is still there, it's just that the hard drive thinks it's gone.
When you do a disk wipe, you overwrite every bit on the drive and rewrite them with either gibberish or 1's and 0's. That includes the FAT and the partition table!
This really isn't rocket science, folks. It really isn't. There are any number of programs out there (some of them are free!) that will securely overwrite the disk. This is not rocket science.
Yes, it takes time to securely overwrite a disk. If you do it correctly, it could take several hours to several days. But it's worth the effort.
I Stumbled Across "Channel 103" Last Night
What is Channel 103(*), you ask? It it some new posh dance studio in towne? Well, no.
Is it some type of retro dance-hall, then? Nope.
Karaoke? Um ... NO!
Channel 103 is a radio station located on and in Jersey. No, not the US state of New Jersey, I mean the Bailiwick of Jersey(**). The radio station itself is located on St. Helier (which is also the patron Saint of the Bailiwick.
I found the station while I was researching something which I thought had absolutely nothing to do with Jersey. Hmph. You learn something new every day. :) They stream audio through their website and I must say I like the mix of music they offer. It got me through another night of not being able to sleep. :)
* - Channel 103 - http://www.channel103.com/
** - Bailiwick of Jersey - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey
Is it some type of retro dance-hall, then? Nope.
Karaoke? Um ... NO!
Channel 103 is a radio station located on and in Jersey. No, not the US state of New Jersey, I mean the Bailiwick of Jersey(**). The radio station itself is located on St. Helier (which is also the patron Saint of the Bailiwick.
I found the station while I was researching something which I thought had absolutely nothing to do with Jersey. Hmph. You learn something new every day. :) They stream audio through their website and I must say I like the mix of music they offer. It got me through another night of not being able to sleep. :)
* - Channel 103 - http://www.channel103.com/
** - Bailiwick of Jersey - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey
Monday, May 4, 2009
Sen. "Benedict Arnold" Specter and the liberal Super-Majority
Sen. "Benedict Arnold" Specter was elected in 1980. Previously a centrist Republican, he joined the Democrats on 28-APR-2009.
Why? Well, for that reason, you need to understand a few things about him. First, in spite of what his constituents said, he voted for President Barack Hussein Obama's porkulus. That's right, he didn't do what the people he "represented" wanted him to do.
He wanted, instead, to curry favour with the Obamessiah. He voted for the porkulus, and the people he "represented" got angry. He received numerous boos and cat-calls when he tried to speak, and knew that he would not get re-elected as a Republican.
So, instead facing the music, he did the political thing and switched sides. A keen politician, yes. A man who votes his conscience? Apparently not.
Instead of doing what his constituents told him to do, he voted for the pork in order to gain favour with the Obamessiah. Google it, you'll find it.
This is especially troubling because it now gives the Democrats a super majority. It's now 60 Dems and 40 Republicans. It's now fillibuster-proof.
I'll be blunt in that one of the other reasons I took a break is that I got tired of the vitriol in my email box. The threats, the name-calling, all of it. Apparently, I'm so full of shit that I'm pathetic and a waste of flesh. But I and others told you that the liberal super-majority would be coming. Here it is.
Look for every pet project that the libs want to get funded. And now the Obamessiah is going to be picking a new Supreme Court Justice. True that Justice Souter is liberal, but it's also true that according to sources, the Obamessiah's picks aren't good. I don't have the sources that Ms. Malkin does, that's true, but the scuttlebutt is that she's dead-on this time. Here's the link to what she wrote: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/01/obamas-choices-gird-your-loins/
I'll let my record speak for itself. Yes, I've been wrong before. It's also true that I've been much more often right. I told you this was coming ... and here it is.
Is this the "change" you wanted?
Why? Well, for that reason, you need to understand a few things about him. First, in spite of what his constituents said, he voted for President Barack Hussein Obama's porkulus. That's right, he didn't do what the people he "represented" wanted him to do.
He wanted, instead, to curry favour with the Obamessiah. He voted for the porkulus, and the people he "represented" got angry. He received numerous boos and cat-calls when he tried to speak, and knew that he would not get re-elected as a Republican.
So, instead facing the music, he did the political thing and switched sides. A keen politician, yes. A man who votes his conscience? Apparently not.
Instead of doing what his constituents told him to do, he voted for the pork in order to gain favour with the Obamessiah. Google it, you'll find it.
This is especially troubling because it now gives the Democrats a super majority. It's now 60 Dems and 40 Republicans. It's now fillibuster-proof.
I'll be blunt in that one of the other reasons I took a break is that I got tired of the vitriol in my email box. The threats, the name-calling, all of it. Apparently, I'm so full of shit that I'm pathetic and a waste of flesh. But I and others told you that the liberal super-majority would be coming. Here it is.
Look for every pet project that the libs want to get funded. And now the Obamessiah is going to be picking a new Supreme Court Justice. True that Justice Souter is liberal, but it's also true that according to sources, the Obamessiah's picks aren't good. I don't have the sources that Ms. Malkin does, that's true, but the scuttlebutt is that she's dead-on this time. Here's the link to what she wrote: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/01/obamas-choices-gird-your-loins/
I'll let my record speak for itself. Yes, I've been wrong before. It's also true that I've been much more often right. I told you this was coming ... and here it is.
Is this the "change" you wanted?
Well, it's been a while
Hasn't it? I've had quite a bit going on in my personal life, so I haven't given much thought to blogging. But things are, thankfully, quieting down so I'm back at it. Hopefully, I'll be here a while.
I'm going to be putting up some new posts ... commenting on things happening, and generally making a pest out of myself. Those "tolerant" liberals who were saying that I should be shot will have to put up with me again. That's their tolerance for you ... they disagree with you and their only option is to shoot. Oh, those tolerant liberals. Free speech guys, regardless of ideology. Sen. Kennedy (yes that one) himself said that. Well, actually, his exact words for "Free speech for everyone, regardless of ideology."
It means "I will not submit/surrender." It also means I won't shut up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
