I read this article and felt ill. The link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6479203.ece
The title of it is "Woman who missed Flight 477 is killed in car crash."
Cruel twist of fate. She missed her flight, thankfully, which undoubtedly saved her life. Then she dies a few days later.
::shudder::
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
OPINION: Obamessiah Shreds US Constitution - MSM Ignores it.
I'm going to be pointing out a few things here which are going to get me into deep deep doodoo with the Department of Hussein's Sychophants: I'm going to point out the United States Constitution.
First, some of us are aware of the Tenth Amendment which states in part " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "
This is similar to a statement which appeared in the earlier Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
In plain English, the Federal Government is limited only to the power given to it by the Constitution. Remember that Pravda article which stated that he had the "...self-given power..." In other words, f*ck the Tenth Amendment if the Obamessiah says so. F*ck the Constitution, according to B. Hussein Obama.
Now we come to the Obamessiah trampling on the Constitution. First, we don't even know that he's a natural born citizen (which explains why he doesn't seem to give a damn about it) and then he took over GM ... giving it to Edward E. Whitacre Jr. ... whom by his own admission knows nothing about cars.
Hell, let's face it - since he's been an executive, he probably doesn't know how to drive one either.
" “I don’t know anything about cars,” Whitacre, 67, said yesterday in an interview after his appointment. “A business is a business, and I think I can learn about cars. I’m not that old, and I think the business principles are the same.” " Um....no they're not, you ignorant ass.
At its most basic stage, he is correct. A business is a business. But this jackass has never been in the auto industry so he has no ideas which mistakes NOT to make. He has no idea about how stamping plants work, no idea about the problems involved in the supply side of the automotive industry. Unfortunately, he's going to get a rapid education. You could call him a guinea pig. Hell, I think GM is the guinea pig. They really did get screwed over.
But then, the Obamessiah did "anoint" him. So we're forked. After all, the Obamessiah doesn't even know how many states there are.
Oh, and Osama's (er...Obama's) sycophants chose to close the GM stamping plant local to me. Why? I don't know.
I don't think they do, either. Our local stamping plant is one of the safest and most efficient stamping plants ... not just in this state, but in the whole damn country. This is the one that gets closed?
You are not breeding confidence Mr B. Hussein Obama.
First, some of us are aware of the Tenth Amendment which states in part " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "
This is similar to a statement which appeared in the earlier Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
In plain English, the Federal Government is limited only to the power given to it by the Constitution. Remember that Pravda article which stated that he had the "...self-given power..." In other words, f*ck the Tenth Amendment if the Obamessiah says so. F*ck the Constitution, according to B. Hussein Obama.
Now we come to the Obamessiah trampling on the Constitution. First, we don't even know that he's a natural born citizen (which explains why he doesn't seem to give a damn about it) and then he took over GM ... giving it to Edward E. Whitacre Jr. ... whom by his own admission knows nothing about cars.
Hell, let's face it - since he's been an executive, he probably doesn't know how to drive one either.
" “I don’t know anything about cars,” Whitacre, 67, said yesterday in an interview after his appointment. “A business is a business, and I think I can learn about cars. I’m not that old, and I think the business principles are the same.” " Um....no they're not, you ignorant ass.
At its most basic stage, he is correct. A business is a business. But this jackass has never been in the auto industry so he has no ideas which mistakes NOT to make. He has no idea about how stamping plants work, no idea about the problems involved in the supply side of the automotive industry. Unfortunately, he's going to get a rapid education. You could call him a guinea pig. Hell, I think GM is the guinea pig. They really did get screwed over.
But then, the Obamessiah did "anoint" him. So we're forked. After all, the Obamessiah doesn't even know how many states there are.
Oh, and Osama's (er...Obama's) sycophants chose to close the GM stamping plant local to me. Why? I don't know.
I don't think they do, either. Our local stamping plant is one of the safest and most efficient stamping plants ... not just in this state, but in the whole damn country. This is the one that gets closed?
You are not breeding confidence Mr B. Hussein Obama.
Article: "Terror Names Linked to Doomed Flight AF 447"
"Two passengers shared names of radical Muslims." (Waiting for CAIR to sue in 3...2...1...)
The link: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Terror-Names-Linked-To-Doomed-Flight-AF-447-Two-Passengers-Shared-Names-Of-Radical-Muslims/Article/200906215300405?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15300405_Terror_Names_Linked_To_Doomed_Flight_AF_447%3A_Two_Passengers_Shared_Names_Of_Radical_Muslims
(Sorry for the loooong link.) But you'll notice it's Sky News which is not based in the US. But this shouldn't be surprising, we all know that the American MSM is biased and has blinders on when it comes to discusing radical Islamists.
" Two passengers with names linked to Islamic terrorism were on the Air France flight which crashed with the loss of 228 lives, it has emerged. "
::GASP!!!::
Now let's contrast this with what Yahoo! News has to say about it: (First, the link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/brazil_plane) " But a senior French internal security official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the nature of her job, said French security "didn't find any suspicious names" on the passenger list. "That doesn't mean there aren't on a suspect list, but it's not ours," she told The Associated Press. "
Really? Then how do you explain that the French equivalent of MI6, the Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure, has those two names on not just one, but two highly-classified documents? How about it, American media?
How do you explain that they sent two agents to Brazil? How do you explain that " France has received numerous threats from Islamic terrorist groups in recent months, especially since French troops were sent to fight in Afghanistan. " (emphasis added)
How about it, liberal American media?
Folks, you won't get the truth from the American mainstream media. Remember how they responded to the Tea Parties? "Tea-bagging?" No liberal bias there. Remember the MSM and the Hollyweird liberals telling us that if we didn't vote for "the one (B. Hussein Obama)" it was RAAACIST!!!
If you want good news, http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/ (This is the Northeast Intelligence Network, and is NOT related in any way, shape, or form with the Department of Hussein's Sycophants (DHS. Their website is http://www.dhs.gov/ )
The link: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Terror-Names-Linked-To-Doomed-Flight-AF-447-Two-Passengers-Shared-Names-Of-Radical-Muslims/Article/200906215300405?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15300405_Terror_Names_Linked_To_Doomed_Flight_AF_447%3A_Two_Passengers_Shared_Names_Of_Radical_Muslims
(Sorry for the loooong link.) But you'll notice it's Sky News which is not based in the US. But this shouldn't be surprising, we all know that the American MSM is biased and has blinders on when it comes to discusing radical Islamists.
" Two passengers with names linked to Islamic terrorism were on the Air France flight which crashed with the loss of 228 lives, it has emerged. "
::GASP!!!::
Now let's contrast this with what Yahoo! News has to say about it: (First, the link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/brazil_plane) " But a senior French internal security official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the nature of her job, said French security "didn't find any suspicious names" on the passenger list. "That doesn't mean there aren't on a suspect list, but it's not ours," she told The Associated Press. "
Really? Then how do you explain that the French equivalent of MI6, the Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure, has those two names on not just one, but two highly-classified documents? How about it, American media?
How do you explain that they sent two agents to Brazil? How do you explain that " France has received numerous threats from Islamic terrorist groups in recent months, especially since French troops were sent to fight in Afghanistan. " (emphasis added)
How about it, liberal American media?
Folks, you won't get the truth from the American mainstream media. Remember how they responded to the Tea Parties? "Tea-bagging?" No liberal bias there. Remember the MSM and the Hollyweird liberals telling us that if we didn't vote for "the one (B. Hussein Obama)" it was RAAACIST!!!
If you want good news, http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/ (This is the Northeast Intelligence Network, and is NOT related in any way, shape, or form with the Department of Hussein's Sycophants (DHS. Their website is http://www.dhs.gov/ )
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
I Think I'm Going to Shock Somebody...
...and not with electricity either. I mean that this posting just might make somebody's jaw drop with an audible ::clunk::.
I'm going to be referencing the following article "U.N. environment chief urges global ban on plastic bags" which is located here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/69691.html
" WASHINGTON — Single-use plastic bags, a staple of American life, have got to go, the United Nations' top environmental official said Monday.
" Although recycling bags is on the rise in the United States, an estimated 90 billion thin bags a year, most used to handle produce and groceries, go unrecycled. They were the second most common form of litter after cigarette butts at the 2008 International Coastal Cleanup Day sponsored by the Ocean Conservancy, a marine environmental group. "
Ok...there is a lot there. The UN dude said that plastic bags have to go. Well - and this is where I'm going to shock somebody - I agree with him to a point. But I'm going to draw the same distinction that was drawn in the article: I'm talking about plastic grocery bags, not plastic trash bags.
This distinction is important because there are several varieties of plastic trash bags that are biodegradeable. Plastic grocery bags, however, for the most part are not. The majority of people bag their groceries (or have them bagged for them) and when they get home, they throw the plastic grocery bags into (what else) the plastic trash bag.
I'll be honest and admit (there's one for the politicians ... somebody admitting something!) that this is what I used to do. That changed when I got married. My now ex-wife had a cloth container that she (and I when I moved in) would stuff the plastic grocery bags into. When it needed emptied, we would take it to Wal-Mart and empty it in the large box that was inside the store.
Even though I'm not married any longer, I continue to do this. And I'll give my ex-wife credit for doing it as well. It was, and remains, an excellent idea. Frankly, although recycling of plastic bags is on the rise, it still is nowhere near the level it needs to be.
The reason that the stores switched over to these bags is actually two-fold. The first reason is the cost factor. Plastic bags are cheaper to produce than paper bags and cheaper for the store to purchase from their supplier(s).
The second factor is the space factor. Plastic bags take up less space than paper bags, therefore you can fit more of them into the same spot where you used to put paper bags. Another reason is that they weigh a lot less than paper bags.
But therein lies a problem: These bags for the overwhelming majority are not biodegradeable. They go into the landfill and they stay there. They also get into the ocean and break down into smaller and smaller pieces. (For more information about this, check out the links at the end of this posting.)
This, however, is only the tip of the iceberg. America has become, in a sense, a "throw-away" or "disposable" nation. Cloth diapers, once ubiquitous (common) in the United States are difficult to find. The switch from cloth to disposable is, again, two-fold. First, they're cheaper than cloth diapers. Second, you don't need to wash them. You simply throw them into the trash (or if you're like the people in this area, you leave them in the parking lot. Seriously.)
The other reason is that you had to use water and detergent to get the cloth diapers clean, and that factors into the cost of them (not when you purchase them, but over the lifetime.)
I'm not what some people would call an "enviro nit-wit" but I am concerned. Landfills fill up fast. Recycling does help, but it doesn't solve the problem. I'm sure that everybody reading this has heard the statement "Boy, they sure don't make things like they used to!" or words to that effect.
And, they're right. Things simply aren't manufactured the way they used to be. Why? Money. Think of it this way. You go to XYZZ Corp. and purchase a washing machine for your home. That washing machine isn't made to the same standards it once was. The new machine only has a lifespan of several years ... say five or so. However, there are still washing machines out there (that are working) that are over twenty years old. They were built to last. Unfortunately for the manufacturer, in the twenty-year life span of that washing machine, you haven't had to purchase a new one, and they've "lost" those sales.
This is also part of the problem. But we can all help.
We can all recycle those plastic grocery bags. Many stores now have receptacles in them where you can take them. Or, you can bring your own bag. Some stores sell reusable bags.
Next, we can purchase rechargeable batteries. I made this switch a decade ago. All of my electronic devices (camera, MP3 player, scanner) use rechargeable batteries. It is true that they cost more than normal batteries up front, but you can recharge them up to 1,000 times. Contrast that with having to purchase 1,000 new batteries. And think of the landfill space. You can also recycle rechargeable batteries as well as the "throw-away" types. Our local library has a receptacle for the "throw-aways".
We can reuse things before we throw them out. Coffee filters, for example, can be used twice without a problem. Some people do that with the actual coffee beans, but I'm not one of them.
For those of us who drink soda, we can recycle those aluminium cans. I crunch them down and toss them into a box. When I've got enough of them, it's off to the recycling centre.
* - Garbage Island - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/22/floating-toxic-plast.html
* - Recycling Batteries - http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/batteries.php
* - Recycling printer cartridges - http://www.freerecycling.com/
* - Recycling aluminum cans - http://www.recycling-revolution.com/recycle-aluminum-cans.html
http://earth911.com/blog/2007/04/02/benefits-of-aluminum-can-recycling/
I'm going to be referencing the following article "U.N. environment chief urges global ban on plastic bags" which is located here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/69691.html
" WASHINGTON — Single-use plastic bags, a staple of American life, have got to go, the United Nations' top environmental official said Monday.
" Although recycling bags is on the rise in the United States, an estimated 90 billion thin bags a year, most used to handle produce and groceries, go unrecycled. They were the second most common form of litter after cigarette butts at the 2008 International Coastal Cleanup Day sponsored by the Ocean Conservancy, a marine environmental group. "
Ok...there is a lot there. The UN dude said that plastic bags have to go. Well - and this is where I'm going to shock somebody - I agree with him to a point. But I'm going to draw the same distinction that was drawn in the article: I'm talking about plastic grocery bags, not plastic trash bags.
This distinction is important because there are several varieties of plastic trash bags that are biodegradeable. Plastic grocery bags, however, for the most part are not. The majority of people bag their groceries (or have them bagged for them) and when they get home, they throw the plastic grocery bags into (what else) the plastic trash bag.
I'll be honest and admit (there's one for the politicians ... somebody admitting something!) that this is what I used to do. That changed when I got married. My now ex-wife had a cloth container that she (and I when I moved in) would stuff the plastic grocery bags into. When it needed emptied, we would take it to Wal-Mart and empty it in the large box that was inside the store.
Even though I'm not married any longer, I continue to do this. And I'll give my ex-wife credit for doing it as well. It was, and remains, an excellent idea. Frankly, although recycling of plastic bags is on the rise, it still is nowhere near the level it needs to be.
The reason that the stores switched over to these bags is actually two-fold. The first reason is the cost factor. Plastic bags are cheaper to produce than paper bags and cheaper for the store to purchase from their supplier(s).
The second factor is the space factor. Plastic bags take up less space than paper bags, therefore you can fit more of them into the same spot where you used to put paper bags. Another reason is that they weigh a lot less than paper bags.
But therein lies a problem: These bags for the overwhelming majority are not biodegradeable. They go into the landfill and they stay there. They also get into the ocean and break down into smaller and smaller pieces. (For more information about this, check out the links at the end of this posting.)
This, however, is only the tip of the iceberg. America has become, in a sense, a "throw-away" or "disposable" nation. Cloth diapers, once ubiquitous (common) in the United States are difficult to find. The switch from cloth to disposable is, again, two-fold. First, they're cheaper than cloth diapers. Second, you don't need to wash them. You simply throw them into the trash (or if you're like the people in this area, you leave them in the parking lot. Seriously.)
The other reason is that you had to use water and detergent to get the cloth diapers clean, and that factors into the cost of them (not when you purchase them, but over the lifetime.)
I'm not what some people would call an "enviro nit-wit" but I am concerned. Landfills fill up fast. Recycling does help, but it doesn't solve the problem. I'm sure that everybody reading this has heard the statement "Boy, they sure don't make things like they used to!" or words to that effect.
And, they're right. Things simply aren't manufactured the way they used to be. Why? Money. Think of it this way. You go to XYZZ Corp. and purchase a washing machine for your home. That washing machine isn't made to the same standards it once was. The new machine only has a lifespan of several years ... say five or so. However, there are still washing machines out there (that are working) that are over twenty years old. They were built to last. Unfortunately for the manufacturer, in the twenty-year life span of that washing machine, you haven't had to purchase a new one, and they've "lost" those sales.
This is also part of the problem. But we can all help.
We can all recycle those plastic grocery bags. Many stores now have receptacles in them where you can take them. Or, you can bring your own bag. Some stores sell reusable bags.
Next, we can purchase rechargeable batteries. I made this switch a decade ago. All of my electronic devices (camera, MP3 player, scanner) use rechargeable batteries. It is true that they cost more than normal batteries up front, but you can recharge them up to 1,000 times. Contrast that with having to purchase 1,000 new batteries. And think of the landfill space. You can also recycle rechargeable batteries as well as the "throw-away" types. Our local library has a receptacle for the "throw-aways".
We can reuse things before we throw them out. Coffee filters, for example, can be used twice without a problem. Some people do that with the actual coffee beans, but I'm not one of them.
For those of us who drink soda, we can recycle those aluminium cans. I crunch them down and toss them into a box. When I've got enough of them, it's off to the recycling centre.
* - Garbage Island - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/22/floating-toxic-plast.html
* - Recycling Batteries - http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/batteries.php
* - Recycling printer cartridges - http://www.freerecycling.com/
* - Recycling aluminum cans - http://www.recycling-revolution.com/recycle-aluminum-cans.html
http://earth911.com/blog/2007/04/02/benefits-of-aluminum-can-recycling/
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Horror: NYC Cops Repeatedly Ticket Van with Body Inside.
The link: http://wcbstv.com/local/ny.vehicle.ticketed.2.1032503.html
Before I go any further I'm going to point out right here and now that I have the deepest respect for police officers and most law enforcement people. However, since the DHS labelled those of us who are against the porkulus as "potential domestic extremists" (aka; potential terrorists) I'm not including them. Granted, it could simply be Janet Napolitano's fault alone, but still.
From the article: "Jennifer Morales [the daughter of the deceased] said it should be a lesson to all traffic agents and police officers: don't ticket without looking inside. "
I have to agree with that. Our local police do look inside. Some of them I know and some of them I know personally. They're good people and they do their jobs. What's more, they do their jobs well.
It isn't that hard to look inside a vehicle that's parked and that you're about to ticket. Granted, had the body been under a blanket or tarp or something else, it would at least be excusable. However, according to the article George Morales' body was in plain view!
Plain view! ::shudder::
My heart goes out to Mr Morales' family and his daughter Jennifer.
(H/T: Drudge Report)
Before I go any further I'm going to point out right here and now that I have the deepest respect for police officers and most law enforcement people. However, since the DHS labelled those of us who are against the porkulus as "potential domestic extremists" (aka; potential terrorists) I'm not including them. Granted, it could simply be Janet Napolitano's fault alone, but still.
From the article: "Jennifer Morales [the daughter of the deceased] said it should be a lesson to all traffic agents and police officers: don't ticket without looking inside. "
I have to agree with that. Our local police do look inside. Some of them I know and some of them I know personally. They're good people and they do their jobs. What's more, they do their jobs well.
It isn't that hard to look inside a vehicle that's parked and that you're about to ticket. Granted, had the body been under a blanket or tarp or something else, it would at least be excusable. However, according to the article George Morales' body was in plain view!
Plain view! ::shudder::
My heart goes out to Mr Morales' family and his daughter Jennifer.
(H/T: Drudge Report)
Article: "A political pattern to stimulus tour."
The link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23379.html
" Since Congress passed President Barack Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus bill in February, administration officials have traveled to at least 66 events across the country to tout the massive spending program or hand out stimulus cash to grateful local officials. (Link is Politico's and is left intact.)
" But a POLITICO examination of the travel reveals a distinctly political trend line: Top officials have hosted events predominantly in states that Obama won in 2008.
" What’s more, the examination revealed that Obama officials all but avoided Southern states that Obama lost. "
Say it ain't so, Barry O! You'll remember that President Bush "...was criticized in 2004 for sending Cabinet officials on trips that critics said doubled as campaigning for the president’s reelection bid. "
Drawing on that same article, here are the numbers. There were at least 66 trips to tout the porkulus or hand out cash to drooling sycophants. Of the 66 trips, 52 were to states that the Obamessiah won outright, or that some people say ACORN "stole" like Ohio and Colorado.
Remember that according to my ex-wife, my math skills are deficient. Therefore, let's do the math: 52/66 = 0.78787878787878787878787878787879. Or 78.79% Yes libs, that's 3 out of 4.
But what about the other 14 states? Drawing from the same article, it turns out that the Obamessiah lost them narrowly. The Corruptocrats hope to win them in the next election.
The Osama (er...Obama) administration, of course, denies that there is any political motivation.
" ...As of mid-May, the administration had spent only 6 percent of the money Congress allotted for the program, and the White House says officials will continue to travel the country until all of the money is spent.
" The events generally come in the form of roundtable discussions, upbeat speeches and sweeping announcements of billions of dollars for local communities. Some have all the hallmarks of campaign events, featuring banks of television cameras, flag-bedecked stages and local politicians working the crowds. Many generate the kind of admiring local media coverage that politicians crave — and largely escape the attention of national outlets. " (Link is Politico's and is left intact.)
But that's damming in itself. First, the article says that the Obamestration officials will travel until the money is spent. Also, many of them have "...all the hallmarks of campaign events..."
Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes true? Propaganda?
Say it ain't so, Barry O!
Is it just barely possible that you might be a megalomaniac?
(H/T: Drudge Report. Speculation is mine.)
" Since Congress passed President Barack Obama’s $787 billion economic stimulus bill in February, administration officials have traveled to at least 66 events across the country to tout the massive spending program or hand out stimulus cash to grateful local officials. (Link is Politico's and is left intact.)
" But a POLITICO examination of the travel reveals a distinctly political trend line: Top officials have hosted events predominantly in states that Obama won in 2008.
" What’s more, the examination revealed that Obama officials all but avoided Southern states that Obama lost. "
Say it ain't so, Barry O! You'll remember that President Bush "...was criticized in 2004 for sending Cabinet officials on trips that critics said doubled as campaigning for the president’s reelection bid. "
Drawing on that same article, here are the numbers. There were at least 66 trips to tout the porkulus or hand out cash to drooling sycophants. Of the 66 trips, 52 were to states that the Obamessiah won outright, or that some people say ACORN "stole" like Ohio and Colorado.
Remember that according to my ex-wife, my math skills are deficient. Therefore, let's do the math: 52/66 = 0.78787878787878787878787878787879. Or 78.79% Yes libs, that's 3 out of 4.
But what about the other 14 states? Drawing from the same article, it turns out that the Obamessiah lost them narrowly. The Corruptocrats hope to win them in the next election.
The Osama (er...Obama) administration, of course, denies that there is any political motivation.
" ...As of mid-May, the administration had spent only 6 percent of the money Congress allotted for the program, and the White House says officials will continue to travel the country until all of the money is spent.
" The events generally come in the form of roundtable discussions, upbeat speeches and sweeping announcements of billions of dollars for local communities. Some have all the hallmarks of campaign events, featuring banks of television cameras, flag-bedecked stages and local politicians working the crowds. Many generate the kind of admiring local media coverage that politicians crave — and largely escape the attention of national outlets. " (Link is Politico's and is left intact.)
But that's damming in itself. First, the article says that the Obamestration officials will travel until the money is spent. Also, many of them have "...all the hallmarks of campaign events..."
Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes true? Propaganda?
Say it ain't so, Barry O!
Is it just barely possible that you might be a megalomaniac?
(H/T: Drudge Report. Speculation is mine.)
Grrr....
There goes my bloody formatting again. I tried to add spaces between paragraphs to the last post, but they didn't take.
I'm sorry, but that leaves it hard to read.
Sorry about that. :(
I'm sorry, but that leaves it hard to read.
Sorry about that. :(
Article: "Sotomayor Repeatedly Referenced 'Wise Woman' in Speeches..."
This is quite telling, actually. It really is. The reason it is is because when word of that statement first came out, the Obamessiah had this to say:
" I'm sure she would have restated it," Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that. " (*)
Remember, that was when it was first revealed that Ms Sotomayor had said "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." " during a speech in 2001. (*)
Well, as it turns out, that wasn't the first time she'd said that.
" Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivered multiple speeches between 1994 and 2003 in which she suggested "a wise Latina woman" or "wise woman" judge might "reach a better conclusion" than a male judge.
" Those speeches, released Thursday as part of Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire, (to see Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee click here and here) suggest her widely quoted 2001 speech in which she indicated a "wise Latina" judge might make a better decision was far from a single isolated instance. " (**) (Links are CQ Politics' links and are left intact.)
Yes, you read that correctly. It turns out that that now widely-quoted 2001 speech wasn't the first time she'd said that. "...Sotomayor delivered multiple speeches between 1994 and 2003..." (emphasis added) So it wasn't the first time Mr Obama.
But that brings us right back to something Mr B. Hussein Obama said when this first came to light. He said " "I'm sure she would have restated it," Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that. " (*)
The really damming thing for the Obama robots is this "...was far from a single isolated instance." (**)
If you remember, when the story first broke, I had this to say: "Ok ... how can you be so sure Mr Obamessiah?" (***) Are you sure now, Mr Obamessiah, now that we know that it wasn't a single isolated incident, but a pattern? How about it, Mr Obama? Do you wish to change your story?
Let us not forget that Ms Sotomayor is still a member of La Raza. (****)
But let's go down to the next link (still in the left-hand column in the screenshot.) It is hard to read, but it says "Gender and heritage a frequent topic..." (*5) The article has this to say:
" WASHINGTON (AP) - Sonia Sotomayor told the Senate on Thursday that the White House never questioned her about cases or issues she might have to decide as a Supreme Court justice, a disclosure gleaned from reams of documents that reveal she has spoken repeatedly about how her gender and Latina heritage affect her judging. "
That same article also has this to say: "They include more instances in which she said she hopes a "wise Latina" would reach a better decision than a man without that experience."
"...more instances." In other words, a pattern.
If you remember, Michelle Malkin had word of who was on the short list for Mr Obama's pick. At her column, she quoted from sources about Ms Sotomayor's record:
" “Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be very concerning given her hard-left record on the Court of Appeals, where she is recognized by practitioners as one of the more liberal judges.
" -Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.” (*6) (It was italicized on Ms Malkin's site, and was left that way here.)
Again, let's distill this down. Judge Sotomayor is recognized as one of the more liberal judges and that her personal views may cloud her jurisprudence, at least according to the source. And now that those documents have been revealed, we know that she's said that particular statement that caused the firestorm numerous times between 1994 and 2003.
Now that we know that "Gender and heritage [are] a frequent topic" is it just barely possible that Judge Sotomayor might possibly attempt to advance the goals of La Raza? How about it, Mr Obama?
How about it, libs?
(H/T: Drudge Report, Michelle Malkin)
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Michelle Malkin: "Document drop: The ObamACORN-Project Vote-NYTimes axis cont’d."
Long title, I know. The link: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/02/document-drop-the-obamacorn-project-vote-nytimes-axis/
I really don't have much more to add to what she wrote, so it would be wrong for me to quote a line or two and add nothing to it.
Let's just say that you won't be reading it in the New York Times. Journalistic impartiality? Not on this Earth. Then again, she does refer to the NYT as the "Official Fishwrap of Record."
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
I really don't have much more to add to what she wrote, so it would be wrong for me to quote a line or two and add nothing to it.
Let's just say that you won't be reading it in the New York Times. Journalistic impartiality? Not on this Earth. Then again, she does refer to the NYT as the "Official Fishwrap of Record."
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
Will the "Real" B. Hussein Obama PLEASE Stand Up?!?
I put real in quotes for a few reasons.
First, if you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you'll know that B. Hussein Obama has used a few names during his life:
Barry Soetoro, and
Barry Soetoro, and
Barry Obama.
Add to that Barack Hussein Obama and I'm to 3 names. You'll remember that on at least one form he listed his name as Barry Soetoro and gave his religion as "Islam."
You'll also remember that during "the one's" campaign, we were told that we couldn't mention his religion, that it was "off-limits," and if we mentioned it we were Islamophobes.
Today's Drudge Report: (Screenshot)
It's kind of hard to read but it says "OBAMA NEW TUTANKHAMON OF THE WORLD" and the banner is, of course, easy to read. But where does it lead?
::GASP!!:: Say it ain't so, Barry O!
" ABC News' Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report: The other day we heard a comment from a White House aide that never would have been uttered during the primaries or general election campaign." (Links are ABC New's and are left intact.)
What, pray tell, was the comment? Oh, that Mr Obama's father, Lolo Soetoro was a Muslim.
Couldn't say that during the election, but the article mentions that The White House and therefore by extension "the one" are becoming "...increasingly forthcoming about the president's roots. Especially when reaching out to the Muslim world."
Of course, this breaks yet another campaign promise - he's reinventing himself. I had thought one of his slogans was "Change We Can Believe In." Where is the change when he's reinventing himself - doing the same thing that other self-serving politicians on both sides of the aisle have done?
Help me out here, I'm really missing something.
I've said this about a hundred times before, but for all the Janeane Garafalo's out there who insist that the Tea Partys are "RAAACIST" and that the only reason I didn't vote for Barry O was that it's because I'm "RAAACIST" : Here are the facts:
1) I don't care that he's African-American. I voted against him due to his Marxist/Socialist policies. Don't forget that it was only just a few days ago that Pravda itself said this! (Yes, that Pravda - the mouthpeice of the Communist Party during the Cold War.)
2) I voted against him because it remains a strong probability that he is NOT a Natural Born US Citizen. He could end the speculation tomorrow by producing the vault copy of his birth certificate. It's that simple. Instead, he's spent over $800,000 in lawyer fees (some of which appears to have come from CAIR) to avoid producing it. Why? He could end the speculation tomorrow, folks. Tomorrow.
3) Also for Ms Garafolo; I would have no problem with a woman being the President. But Dr. Condolezza Rice wasn't running. As she also is African-American, that would take both of your favourite playing cards off the table. Time to think beyond the libs favourite talking points, love.
But then again, she is a liberal. I really don't expect much from them, and the consistantly come in below my expectations.
Monday, June 1, 2009
"The $24,000+ Date" on Drudge Report
The link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189893/How-Obamas-romantic-120-trip-Broadway-racked-45-000-bill.html
Now pay attention libs and Department of Hussein's Sycophants. This isn't some 'right-wing' 'potential domestic extremist' this is The Daily Mail ... in the United Kingdom! (Yes, libs ... England.)
" The romantic jaunt is estimated to have cost the taxpayer more than £45,000 in transport and security costs - because the date was in New York.
" The President used three planes, one to carry the couple and two to ferry aides and reporters all the way from Washington. (reporters. The Obamessiah simply cannot be without his drooling sycophants in the press. Can't have that.)
" The cost of each flight was thought to be nearly £15,000.
" The bill was pushed even higher with the use of two helicopters, one to take the Obamas to catch their plane in Washington and another to zip the party into Manhattan from JFK airport. "
" Police also shut down New York streets for the motorcade to pass through so they could get to their date on time. "
Simply can't have the Obamessiah be late. Remember the busload of children who got turned away from the White House because they were delayed by traffic? Can't ask the Obamessiah to "give" like they've asked us to, can we?
Remember that expensive ring you gave your wife? Exactly how much did that cost again?
Hey Obamessiah, why can't you give like you've asked us to? Can you say "hypocrite?" Suuuuuuuuure you can!
Now pay attention libs and Department of Hussein's Sycophants. This isn't some 'right-wing' 'potential domestic extremist' this is The Daily Mail ... in the United Kingdom! (Yes, libs ... England.)
" The romantic jaunt is estimated to have cost the taxpayer more than £45,000 in transport and security costs - because the date was in New York.
" The President used three planes, one to carry the couple and two to ferry aides and reporters all the way from Washington. (reporters. The Obamessiah simply cannot be without his drooling sycophants in the press. Can't have that.)
" The cost of each flight was thought to be nearly £15,000.
" The bill was pushed even higher with the use of two helicopters, one to take the Obamas to catch their plane in Washington and another to zip the party into Manhattan from JFK airport. "
" Police also shut down New York streets for the motorcade to pass through so they could get to their date on time. "
Simply can't have the Obamessiah be late. Remember the busload of children who got turned away from the White House because they were delayed by traffic? Can't ask the Obamessiah to "give" like they've asked us to, can we?
Remember that expensive ring you gave your wife? Exactly how much did that cost again?
Hey Obamessiah, why can't you give like you've asked us to? Can you say "hypocrite?" Suuuuuuuuure you can!
Article: "Blago talked to Durbin about Senate"
The link: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98I3UO00&show_article=1
" CHICAGO (AP) - Just two weeks before his arrest on corruption charges, then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich floated a plan to nominate to the U.S. Senate the daughter of his biggest political rival in return for concessions on his pet projects, people familiar with the plan told The Associated Press. " (Links are Breitbart's and are left intact.)
And further down the article, we find this: " Wiretaps made public previously show Blagojevich discussing a number of possible appointees, including one believed to be Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett, now a senior White House adviser. " (Link is Breitbart's and was left intact.)
And how I wished I'd taken a screenshot of the Drudge Report's banner headline when this was going on. It read "CROOK COUNTY."
Methinks Blago made the worst possible mistake (at least, according to the libs) : He got caught.
" CHICAGO (AP) - Just two weeks before his arrest on corruption charges, then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich floated a plan to nominate to the U.S. Senate the daughter of his biggest political rival in return for concessions on his pet projects, people familiar with the plan told The Associated Press. " (Links are Breitbart's and are left intact.)
And further down the article, we find this: " Wiretaps made public previously show Blagojevich discussing a number of possible appointees, including one believed to be Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett, now a senior White House adviser. " (Link is Breitbart's and was left intact.)
And how I wished I'd taken a screenshot of the Drudge Report's banner headline when this was going on. It read "CROOK COUNTY."
Methinks Blago made the worst possible mistake (at least, according to the libs) : He got caught.
Article: U.S. "...descent into Marxism..."
I've been warning about this since before the November election. You know the one; where ACORN pressured Freddie Johnson into registering to vote an astonishing 72 times.
If that weren't enough, this appeared on AOL's main screen: (screenshot)
You know the one; where, according to palestra.net, "unbiased" people who picked up minorities encouraged them to vote for the Obamessiah.
You know the one; where Obama spoke to Joe the Plumber and promised to spread the wealth around. And then the Ohio Obamacrats plundered Joe's records because Joe dared to challenge "the one."
The same election where this appeared on the Drudge Report (screenshot)
If that weren't enough, this appeared on AOL's main screen: (screenshot)Of course, Janeane Garafalo said that the Tea Party movement was "RAAACIST" and others told us that if we didn't vote for the Obamessiah, it had to be because of "RAAACISM!"
We simply didn't want the country to go Socialist. Of course, we were discounted.
It's very sad indeed when it's the Russians themselves who tell you you're descending into Marxism and Socialism. http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/
Take a look at the URL, everybody. That's not some 'right-wing' 'potential extremist' - that's Pravda, which was the official mouthpeice for the Communist Party.
" It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people. "
The article goes on to place the blame where it is due; at the feet of the corrupt wall street people, at the Obamessiah, and at the American people as well: "Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. "
You see, they've been through the hell of Marxism and Socialism ... and they're telling us that that is where we are headed.
They see it ... they've been there. And no, libs, "english.pravda.ru" does NOT mean it was written in the United States. It means its the English-language version of the Pravda website. The '.ru' tells you that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
