That's right, according to Michael Moore, when Obama wants to engage in war hostilities in Libya its different than when Bush went to Iraq. Obama wanted to prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians, but Bush, well he was just determined to get Saddam and made the CIA "find" the evidence he needed to justify it.
Missing from the discussion is the fact that Saddam murdered tens of thousands, at least, of his own civilian population and was a financial supporter of global terrorism, including Palestinian terrorists. By contrast, Libya's Colonel Qaddafi had actually disavowed terrorism, going so far as to voluntarily dismantle his own nuclear program and was aiming to improve relations with the West.
But hey-why let facts get in the way of making excuses for Obama on Keith Olberfaggot's premiere broadcast of Countdown With Keith Olbermann on Current TV?
Friday, June 24, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
In Defense Of Mitt Romney And Herman Cain-Aborting Future Democrats In The Womb Just Makes Good Business Sense
Mitt shows good business sense. So does former CEO Chairman Herman Cain. These men are entrepreneurs who deserve the appellation "Captains of Industry". And when they speak out on economic matters, regardless of how you feel about their overall political stance, you know they deserve to be heard.
As such, I feel it is very unfair that men such as these have been criticized just because Romney and Cain refuse to sign the Pro-Life Pledge. These men, men who have headed corporations which employ tens of thousands of people, men who have been responsible for turning around failing and anemic companies and making them successful, certainly understand the economic impact of a country with too many progressives.
As such, they are more than aware of the fact that, the more future democrats you abort the better off the country will be. It's just too bad that Michelle Bachmann, a successful businesswoman in her own right, can't see the wisdom of that. But I guess that's just the difference between a person who is or has been a small business owner as opposed to an executive of a large corporation. When you're in the position of a Romney or a Cain, you learn to put less stock in sentimentality and in doing so you are more likely to see and appreciate the big picture.
Taxpayer funding of abortion might well be unconstitutional from a conservative or from a federalist perspective. But from a purely business or economic standpoint, its money well spent.
As such, I feel it is very unfair that men such as these have been criticized just because Romney and Cain refuse to sign the Pro-Life Pledge. These men, men who have headed corporations which employ tens of thousands of people, men who have been responsible for turning around failing and anemic companies and making them successful, certainly understand the economic impact of a country with too many progressives.
As such, they are more than aware of the fact that, the more future democrats you abort the better off the country will be. It's just too bad that Michelle Bachmann, a successful businesswoman in her own right, can't see the wisdom of that. But I guess that's just the difference between a person who is or has been a small business owner as opposed to an executive of a large corporation. When you're in the position of a Romney or a Cain, you learn to put less stock in sentimentality and in doing so you are more likely to see and appreciate the big picture.
Taxpayer funding of abortion might well be unconstitutional from a conservative or from a federalist perspective. But from a purely business or economic standpoint, its money well spent.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
The Killing-Who Killed Rosie Larsen
Tonight's the season finale of the AMC series The Killing, without a doubt the best show on television right now. It follows the investigation of the murder of a young girl. If you've been following the series then you might want to add your two cents as to who killed Rosie Larsen.
I decided to put forth my own theory but ran into a snag when I looked over the list of suspects. My rather suspicious problem is, my suspect isn't listed in the cast of characters, even though he is a fairly important character and presence in the show.
He's the Chief of Police, and rather than repeat myself, I'll just copy and paste my post from the website forum linked above.
I think its the Chief-Of-Police, can't think of his name. But he was the one who put Sarah on the case to begin with and insisted she put off going away for her wedding until she was finished. Then, suddenly, sometime after mid-season, he's pushing her to finish it up and to get on with her plans, a complete 180 degree turnaround. I thought that was suspicious, as well as his adversarial attitude towards Stephen, even though Stephen had uncovered a lot of clues. Or maybe that was the reason for his attitude?
As far as why, it could have something to do with him wanting to derail Richmond. Maybe he's afraid Richmond as Mayor will dig up some crooked stuff in the Department he doesn't want brought out. It could have something to do with an association with Janek, or Drexler, etc. If he was having Richmond spied on and somehow Rosie kept turning up he could have taken advantage of the opportunities that presented. If he had simply exposed Richmond's flings with the "escorts" he might have risked exposing some of his own shady partnerships and activities, so he just killed Rosie. The only thing left to explain is how he got hold of one of the campaign vehicles, but that could be explained by him having a mole working for the Richmond campaign. By the way, why is the Chief not listed as a character?
Well, that's my theory and I'm sticking to it. The series finale airs tonight on AMC at 10:00 pm.
UPDATE-LAME! Continued to next season. Boy are they ever going to be hearing it! This story should have been resolved and a new one started next season. But no, AMC has to milk the shit for all it's (they think) worth. I can almost promise you, when it returns, Belko will not kill Richmond, more than likely won't even shoot him, and the newly revealed corrupt cop wasn't really a surprise either.
If they're going to keep this shit going until next season the least they could do is have a demoniac entity to keep things interesting.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
The Other McCain Interviews Director Of Sarah Palin Film "The Undefeated"
Robert Stacy McCain of The Other McCain was lucky enough to get to attend the Right Online conference in Minneapolis where he was able to view a screening of the soon-to-be-released Sarah Palin documentary The Undefeated.
Afterwards, he scored an interview with the director, Stephen Bannon, who went into some detail about why he made the movie and what he hoped to accomplish, in the following video.
McCain by the way is not a Palin supporter for President. He has made no secret of his support for Herman Cain, ending each post about the Republican candidate and former Godfather's Pizza CEO with, to paraphrase "Isn't it about time you joined the on-line grassroots group Citizens 4 Cain?"
Nevertheless, McCain was duly impressed with the Palin film, saying it "will change the way you think about Palin."
Judging by that alone, it looks like Bannon has accomplished what he set out to do-make a film that will make people think about Palin-her talents, abilities, contributions and qualifications-in a reasoned, thoughtful way. As he said himself in the interview, he did not make the film for Palin devotees. He made it for people who maybe don't really know her that well outside the media hype, be it positive or negative. In other words, it like any good documentary strives for historical accuracy and basic truth.
My only question is if it will find its target audience. Or rather, will its target audience find it? As I said in a comment on the post at The Other McCain-
It won't change the way her more ardent supporters or detractors feel, but it might change the way moderates and independents feel about her, which is what's important. The key though is getting them to see the film. That's the problem right there. People that have mixed feelings about her unfortunately might not care enough to make the effort to see it.
I hope I'm wrong about this. Palin has been the subject of an obscene quantity of negative propaganda from not only rabid progressives and Democrats, but also from corrupt establishment RINO Republicans and, perhaps worse of all, from a disparaging press determined to bury her career in an avalanche of skewed and hateful coverage and manipulated data, even outright lies.
This film is a chance to see a true history of the woman and her career. Anyone who has any preconceived notions about her should make the effort to see it. It's not so much that they owe it to Palin. They owe it to themselves.
Afterwards, he scored an interview with the director, Stephen Bannon, who went into some detail about why he made the movie and what he hoped to accomplish, in the following video.
McCain by the way is not a Palin supporter for President. He has made no secret of his support for Herman Cain, ending each post about the Republican candidate and former Godfather's Pizza CEO with, to paraphrase "Isn't it about time you joined the on-line grassroots group Citizens 4 Cain?"
Nevertheless, McCain was duly impressed with the Palin film, saying it "will change the way you think about Palin."
Judging by that alone, it looks like Bannon has accomplished what he set out to do-make a film that will make people think about Palin-her talents, abilities, contributions and qualifications-in a reasoned, thoughtful way. As he said himself in the interview, he did not make the film for Palin devotees. He made it for people who maybe don't really know her that well outside the media hype, be it positive or negative. In other words, it like any good documentary strives for historical accuracy and basic truth.
My only question is if it will find its target audience. Or rather, will its target audience find it? As I said in a comment on the post at The Other McCain-
It won't change the way her more ardent supporters or detractors feel, but it might change the way moderates and independents feel about her, which is what's important. The key though is getting them to see the film. That's the problem right there. People that have mixed feelings about her unfortunately might not care enough to make the effort to see it.
I hope I'm wrong about this. Palin has been the subject of an obscene quantity of negative propaganda from not only rabid progressives and Democrats, but also from corrupt establishment RINO Republicans and, perhaps worse of all, from a disparaging press determined to bury her career in an avalanche of skewed and hateful coverage and manipulated data, even outright lies.
This film is a chance to see a true history of the woman and her career. Anyone who has any preconceived notions about her should make the effort to see it. It's not so much that they owe it to Palin. They owe it to themselves.
Friday, June 17, 2011
The Casey Anothony Murder Trial-A New Look
The Casey Anthony trial in Florida has attracted so much media attention its surprising that spectators haven't been barred. Many more incidents like the below free-for-all that transpired after two men tried to jump line (and got their asses kicked by some women waiting in line) and it could result in everybody that isn't directly involved being banned from future proceedings if they don't have a vested or legitimate public interest, such as the media.
Yeah, its been a real circus. Worse, its been like going to Wal-Mart on Black Friday.
Fists fly at court house as people wait for Casey Anthony trial tickets: MyFoxORLANDO.com
In the meantime, the trial itself seems so open and shut its a wonder anybody is interested enough to want to sit it out. After all, its not like there's any big mystery to be solved. While some defend Casey Anthony and insist she is innocent, most people are convinced the woman killed her daughter, end of story. The only real question seems to be, was it intentional or accidental? And how exactly was she killed?
But is it really all that cut-and-dried? The prosecution in the case seems to think so, otherwise they wouldn't be so adamant about seeking the death penalty.
I do have one question though. And that is, if Casey Anthony did murder her daughter Caylee-either intentionally or accidentally-why did she leave the body in her car long enough to leave such a strong, horrible odor, before she finally got around to disposing of the body?
I have an idea that would probably be impossible to prove, but I think the timeline of events might well bear me out. Casey allegedly was so hooked on the party life, the sex and probably drugs that go along with it, that she used chloroform to knock her daughter out long enough for her to go party down.
Now for some reason, Casey decided she couldn't take the risk of leaving her alone in their apartment. Maybe Caylee was adjusting to the chloroform and waking up earlier. It might have required stronger doses to keep her out longer with repeated use, and this could well be what killed her. But remember, there had been a problem between Casey and her mother, probably over the party lifestyle. So for whatever reason, she could not leave the kid with her parents. This is where my theory comes into play.
Not being able to find a baby-sitter, what if Casey Anthony doused the kid in chloroform one night and took her to the party, locking her in the trunk of the car? It was night, she had enough air in the trunk, so as long as she stayed asleep all would be well. And if she woke up early, the duct-tape over her mouth would prevent her from attracting attention by screaming and crying out for help.
Let's move on into the club with Casey, say two or three hours later. Casey is stoned to the gills. Who knows, maybe she's even been drugged. Maybe she has even left the club with one or more men. She is brought back to the club a few hours later, possibly mid-morning, only to see her car is gone. Maybe its been stolen. Or maybe in her drunken state of mind, she has actually loaned the car to somebody, possibly someone she barely knows, having forgotten all about the kid in the trunk. The car is gone. And so is Caylee.
When it occurs to her what she's done, and what has happened, she goes completely nuts. She doesn't even know who has her car. Or maybe she knows them vaguely but doesn't know how to get in touch with them. Days go by, maybe one or two weeks, before the car is abandoned. It is very conceivable that the people who had the car for one or two weeks never knew Caylee was in the trunk. It is also very understandable that by the time Casey Anthony found her car, where it had been towed in after it was abandoned by whoever might have had it, the poor kid Caylee was long dead and in at least the intermediate stages of decomposition.
There could be another explanation, but this makes sense and explains why the body was in the car for so long. Granted, its conceivable Casey herself could have abandoned the car, with the body in the trunk, possibly to lay the groundwork for claiming the car was stolen and Caylee kidnapped. But it sounds to me more like she freaked when she realized her car was gone with Caylee in the trunk and was terrified of calling the police and the truth coming out about her locking the kid in the trunk after knocking her out with chloroform. All so she could just go out and party, and maybe get laid.
The child wouldn't have lasted long. One day in that hot Florida sun-remember, this was the middle of June-bearing down on the trunk of that car and its doubtful she would have lived through the first day. Ironically, she might have been afraid to make a noise in the trunk of the car when it might have done her the most good. Who knows what she might have heard in that car from whoever the people were who were driving it?
Another irony-these people might not even realize what they done. By the time this became news, Cassey Anthony might have been a vague, drunken memory. Who even knows if that was even the name they knew her by.
All Casey could do at that point was make up some crazy story that might get her off the hook. After she disposed of the body, of course.
The only question is, did anybody help her after the fact. Even though it is known now that Caylee's father was not Cassey's father, or Casey's brother, whose to say she didn't threaten one or both of them by threatening to reveal the secret knowledge of past sexual abuse, possibly even telling her own brother that he was the father even though she knew he was not. This might explain why the body ended up so close to the Anthony home. It also explains why in the opening day of the defense case, the jury was informed that there were allegations that Casey's brother had fathered the child. It might have been simply laying the groundwork for strengthening their case that the death was accidental, and that Casey's brother had helped cover it up. The reason? He was afraid DNA testing would reveal he was the father.
There are a lot of things in this case that don't add up. Chief among these is the length of time the body was in the car. If the truth ever does come out it probably won't be enough to keep Casey Anthony out of prison for the rest of her life. But it might keep her off death row.
If I were her I don't know that I'd care that much about that.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
The Truth Is Not Racist, It's Just Reality
Leave it to a Democrat to want to raise taxes for programs that benefit criminal gangs, which seems to be the unintended(?) effect of Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn's gang intervention program. It was supposed to go toward hiring convicted criminals as "gang specialists". Instead, the money was used to actually subsidize gang activities. The truth came out in 2009, along with federal indictments.
Even the New York Times took notice-
Federal agents announced criminal indictments for 24 high-ranking gang members, along with a prominent gang intervention specialist who associated with city politicians and routinely raised money from Hollywood’s elite.
The specialist, Alex Sanchez, director of Homies Unidos, a gang outreach organization in Los Angeles for more than a decade, was arrested and charged with a federal racketeering count for his alleged role in the assassination of a man in El Salvador in 2006.
Now Hahn is running for Congress, to replace the retiring Jane Harmon, and is opposed by Republican Craig Huey. In opposition to Hahn's campaign an independent political group has produced the following video.
The Daily Caller calls it the most offensive ad ever, but let's face it-sometimes the truth is offensive. And when a US Congresswoman funnels taxpayer funds to a criminal street gang, the truth is something that's hard to sugarcoat when that truth involves the use of said funds in the furtherance of the same criminal activities they were ostensibly meant to combat.
The Other McCain has the video and a different take on it, while providing an explanation from the video's director which makes use of the Congresswoman's own words, to wit-
Before you charge racism at the ad, consider her one line in the video: “It takes a different kind of person to speak the language.” By that she means, it takes black people to talk to black people. It takes gang members to talk to gang members. They have their own language, we should coddle them. They’re not responsible for their actions if they murder someone, rape someone. They’re a minority.
Spot on. Democrats take a passive aggressive stance towards the minority groups they keep down and under their thumb while yelling racism at everybody that opposes their lunacy. Same story different day. The only thing missing is the Klan robes. The Democrats haven't changed, they've just substituted the rope for a welfare check.
The video was funded by Turn Right USA which is an independent political action group not affiliated with Democrat Janice Hahn's Republican opponent Craig Huey. Here is their mission statement-
Turn Right USA is a Federal Non-connected, Expenditure Only Political Action Committee (SuperPAC) organized to execute Independent Expenditure campaigns by a group of American citizens who are:
unrepresented by the political class of this Country;
nauseated by the laughable stupidity of professional politicians;
outraged by their liberal benefactors like George Soros, and
angered that their opposition is too cowardly to fight back!
Turn Right USA’s mission is to expose and lampoon the typical politico’s microscopic brain through cutting-edge viral videos with guts and humor!
Unfortunately for Hahn's defenders, the fact that the gang receiving her taxpayer-funded largesse is black is not a reflection on the overall African-American community, who in fact are the community that suffers the most from the influence of these kinds of criminal gangs-and the Democratic Party and its members who support and enable them.
Even the New York Times took notice-
Federal agents announced criminal indictments for 24 high-ranking gang members, along with a prominent gang intervention specialist who associated with city politicians and routinely raised money from Hollywood’s elite.
The specialist, Alex Sanchez, director of Homies Unidos, a gang outreach organization in Los Angeles for more than a decade, was arrested and charged with a federal racketeering count for his alleged role in the assassination of a man in El Salvador in 2006.
Now Hahn is running for Congress, to replace the retiring Jane Harmon, and is opposed by Republican Craig Huey. In opposition to Hahn's campaign an independent political group has produced the following video.
The Daily Caller calls it the most offensive ad ever, but let's face it-sometimes the truth is offensive. And when a US Congresswoman funnels taxpayer funds to a criminal street gang, the truth is something that's hard to sugarcoat when that truth involves the use of said funds in the furtherance of the same criminal activities they were ostensibly meant to combat.
The Other McCain has the video and a different take on it, while providing an explanation from the video's director which makes use of the Congresswoman's own words, to wit-
Before you charge racism at the ad, consider her one line in the video: “It takes a different kind of person to speak the language.” By that she means, it takes black people to talk to black people. It takes gang members to talk to gang members. They have their own language, we should coddle them. They’re not responsible for their actions if they murder someone, rape someone. They’re a minority.
Spot on. Democrats take a passive aggressive stance towards the minority groups they keep down and under their thumb while yelling racism at everybody that opposes their lunacy. Same story different day. The only thing missing is the Klan robes. The Democrats haven't changed, they've just substituted the rope for a welfare check.
The video was funded by Turn Right USA which is an independent political action group not affiliated with Democrat Janice Hahn's Republican opponent Craig Huey. Here is their mission statement-
Turn Right USA is a Federal Non-connected, Expenditure Only Political Action Committee (SuperPAC) organized to execute Independent Expenditure campaigns by a group of American citizens who are:
unrepresented by the political class of this Country;
nauseated by the laughable stupidity of professional politicians;
outraged by their liberal benefactors like George Soros, and
angered that their opposition is too cowardly to fight back!
Turn Right USA’s mission is to expose and lampoon the typical politico’s microscopic brain through cutting-edge viral videos with guts and humor!
Unfortunately for Hahn's defenders, the fact that the gang receiving her taxpayer-funded largesse is black is not a reflection on the overall African-American community, who in fact are the community that suffers the most from the influence of these kinds of criminal gangs-and the Democratic Party and its members who support and enable them.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Right And Wrong In Yemen And Libya-The Arab Spring And The Coming Internationalist Downfall
There is good and there is bad, and sometimes, you have your in-between gray areas where you don't really know what to think. You just try to muddle through and hope things work out for the best. That's the situation right now in the Middle East, where let's face it, there's almost never any good news, so why start now?
The so-called Arab Spring is something I have been wary of from the start, just like I am of any alleged "pro-democracy" movements among the Arab/Muslim states. We have already seen the result of President Bush's insistence that the Palestinians be granted free elections. That turned into a fiasco which haunts us, and the Israelis, to this day. True enough, it resulted in the removal from power, in Gaza, of the corrupt Fatah organization, but it was replaced by the insanely and fanatically evil Hamas.
Proponents of the Arab Spring revolts throughout the Middle East, which started in Tunisia and spread first to Egypt, and then throughout the various countries of the Middle East with varying degrees of intensity, insist that it is a mostly secular movement. They might be right to a degree, but scratch the surface and it doesn't take long to smell the rancid, stinking odor of fanatical Islamic fascism, already taking strong root in Egypt, resulting in attacks on the minority Coptic Christians.
But so far, the most violent and dangerous disruptions have come about in Yemen, where the presidential palace was attacked and the President seriously injured. The place is in all but name a failed state, where a significant percentage of the people are either loyal to or terrorized by the local Al-Queda group, Al-Queda in Yemen. This is especially significant in that one of the most influential leaders of this group is a transplanted American who is deemed responsible for the Fort Hood Massacre.
It's also important to note that Obama, while expressing sympathy for the insurgents throughout the Arab world-after all, they only want the right to self-determination and freedom, supposedly-kept a generally hands off approach. He was criticized for this, and for his inconsistencies when it came to the status of our former ally, recently deposed President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. He has also been taken to task for his lack of support for the anti-Assad factions in Syria, just like he was condemned, generally, for his lack of involvement with the anti-Qaddafi forces in Libya.
It was good that Obama was criticized, but it was all for the wrong reasons. In reality, Obama is in this up to his eyeballs. The State Department, various socialist factions within the EU and the UN, in conjunction with disparate leftist organs, including organized labor activist and progressive activist groups such as Code Pink, have engaged in a coordinated effort to inflame tensions in the region.
And when some people do point this out, they also err in casting aspersions related to the influence of Islamic radicals. The perpetrators here are not the radicals, but pro-democracy forces who are by no means republican in orientation, but of a progressive, socialist cast. These are the people Obama, the State Department, the EU and the UN, as well as international labor and progressive activists want to use to recast the Middle East, in a socialist, parliamentary democratic image. The problem is they fail to see the danger posed by the Islamic radicals in the event their schemes are initially successful. This is a blind spot of the ideological progressives, one that could induce them to lead the whole region over a cliff.
Why there haven't been demands for a Congressional investigation is beyond me, but on the other hand, conservatives wasted too much time and energy making political hay out of Obama's seeming lack of involvement, when the reality was quite the opposite of the perception he was purposely manifesting.
Obama has learned well the political lessons of the last few years. No matter what he does he will be attacked. And he would obviously be excoriated if he openly sought to throw the Middle East into the kind of turmoil that it is now experiencing. He would be criticized not just by the GOP, but worldwide. Few Democrats even would support him.
This might go a long ways towards explaining the recent involvement of NATO in the Libyan insurgency. The problem is, the US is expected as usual to contribute the lion's share of money and resources, and Obama is pressured daily by NATO elements to provide "boots on the ground".
For once, criticism of Obama is justified, and not misdirected. He has, in jumping on board the NATO bandwagon, defied established US protocol. Such actions should first go through Congress and gain congressional approval. Bush did this when he went to war in Afghanistan and then Iraq. He sought and received bi-partisan support. Obama, when it comes to the Libyan theater, acts like it is beneath him to even answer congressional queries concerning his actions.
Yemen, however, is an altogether different matter. Yemen has been our ally, at least officially, in the War on Terror. Our troops have been stationed there. We have an already vested interest in what happens there. Plus, we are at war, not just ideologically but in point of fact, with Al-Queda in Yemen.
Therefore, when people criticize Obama for his assault on the insurgent forces and Al-Queda in Yemen, they are off the mark and out of bounds. This is especially true of the charge that he is doing this without congressional approval. Of course we have congressional approval. We have had that approval, implicitly, ever since our troops were stationed there, ever since we had an agreement with the Yemeni government.
Sometimes it pays to step back and take a deep, long hard look at everything that's going on. Oftentimes if you just take the time and make the effort to peel back the layers, you might find things are not so simple as they might appear at first glance. And, sometimes they are even more simple.
There are some things that are just not appropriate venues for political grandstanding no matter how much or even how rightly you dislike the target of your attack. Obama should be investigated as to what his real role in the Arab Spring insurgencies. I might be wrong, but if I am right, he should be impeached and tried on that, among some other things.
But his attack on the insurgents in Yemen is not only justified, it is appropriate.
The so-called Arab Spring is something I have been wary of from the start, just like I am of any alleged "pro-democracy" movements among the Arab/Muslim states. We have already seen the result of President Bush's insistence that the Palestinians be granted free elections. That turned into a fiasco which haunts us, and the Israelis, to this day. True enough, it resulted in the removal from power, in Gaza, of the corrupt Fatah organization, but it was replaced by the insanely and fanatically evil Hamas.
Proponents of the Arab Spring revolts throughout the Middle East, which started in Tunisia and spread first to Egypt, and then throughout the various countries of the Middle East with varying degrees of intensity, insist that it is a mostly secular movement. They might be right to a degree, but scratch the surface and it doesn't take long to smell the rancid, stinking odor of fanatical Islamic fascism, already taking strong root in Egypt, resulting in attacks on the minority Coptic Christians.
But so far, the most violent and dangerous disruptions have come about in Yemen, where the presidential palace was attacked and the President seriously injured. The place is in all but name a failed state, where a significant percentage of the people are either loyal to or terrorized by the local Al-Queda group, Al-Queda in Yemen. This is especially significant in that one of the most influential leaders of this group is a transplanted American who is deemed responsible for the Fort Hood Massacre.
It's also important to note that Obama, while expressing sympathy for the insurgents throughout the Arab world-after all, they only want the right to self-determination and freedom, supposedly-kept a generally hands off approach. He was criticized for this, and for his inconsistencies when it came to the status of our former ally, recently deposed President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. He has also been taken to task for his lack of support for the anti-Assad factions in Syria, just like he was condemned, generally, for his lack of involvement with the anti-Qaddafi forces in Libya.
It was good that Obama was criticized, but it was all for the wrong reasons. In reality, Obama is in this up to his eyeballs. The State Department, various socialist factions within the EU and the UN, in conjunction with disparate leftist organs, including organized labor activist and progressive activist groups such as Code Pink, have engaged in a coordinated effort to inflame tensions in the region.
And when some people do point this out, they also err in casting aspersions related to the influence of Islamic radicals. The perpetrators here are not the radicals, but pro-democracy forces who are by no means republican in orientation, but of a progressive, socialist cast. These are the people Obama, the State Department, the EU and the UN, as well as international labor and progressive activists want to use to recast the Middle East, in a socialist, parliamentary democratic image. The problem is they fail to see the danger posed by the Islamic radicals in the event their schemes are initially successful. This is a blind spot of the ideological progressives, one that could induce them to lead the whole region over a cliff.
Why there haven't been demands for a Congressional investigation is beyond me, but on the other hand, conservatives wasted too much time and energy making political hay out of Obama's seeming lack of involvement, when the reality was quite the opposite of the perception he was purposely manifesting.
Obama has learned well the political lessons of the last few years. No matter what he does he will be attacked. And he would obviously be excoriated if he openly sought to throw the Middle East into the kind of turmoil that it is now experiencing. He would be criticized not just by the GOP, but worldwide. Few Democrats even would support him.
This might go a long ways towards explaining the recent involvement of NATO in the Libyan insurgency. The problem is, the US is expected as usual to contribute the lion's share of money and resources, and Obama is pressured daily by NATO elements to provide "boots on the ground".
For once, criticism of Obama is justified, and not misdirected. He has, in jumping on board the NATO bandwagon, defied established US protocol. Such actions should first go through Congress and gain congressional approval. Bush did this when he went to war in Afghanistan and then Iraq. He sought and received bi-partisan support. Obama, when it comes to the Libyan theater, acts like it is beneath him to even answer congressional queries concerning his actions.
Yemen, however, is an altogether different matter. Yemen has been our ally, at least officially, in the War on Terror. Our troops have been stationed there. We have an already vested interest in what happens there. Plus, we are at war, not just ideologically but in point of fact, with Al-Queda in Yemen.
Therefore, when people criticize Obama for his assault on the insurgent forces and Al-Queda in Yemen, they are off the mark and out of bounds. This is especially true of the charge that he is doing this without congressional approval. Of course we have congressional approval. We have had that approval, implicitly, ever since our troops were stationed there, ever since we had an agreement with the Yemeni government.
Sometimes it pays to step back and take a deep, long hard look at everything that's going on. Oftentimes if you just take the time and make the effort to peel back the layers, you might find things are not so simple as they might appear at first glance. And, sometimes they are even more simple.
There are some things that are just not appropriate venues for political grandstanding no matter how much or even how rightly you dislike the target of your attack. Obama should be investigated as to what his real role in the Arab Spring insurgencies. I might be wrong, but if I am right, he should be impeached and tried on that, among some other things.
But his attack on the insurgents in Yemen is not only justified, it is appropriate.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Celebration For Mentally Challenged Special Olympics Athletes Disrupted By Leftist Zombie Infestation
Ann Althouse, who lives in Wisconsin and has provided extensive coverage of the protests in Madison Wisconsin, has a video of a recent appearance by Governor Scott Walker. The governor was speaking in commemoration of the accomplishments of Special Olympics athletes. The minute he walked to the podium to speak, however, he was rudely interrupted by a group of pro-union protesters dressed as zombies.
I wonder if any of them considered how it would look to protest an event held in honor of mentally challenged athletes by appearing as a group of brain dead monsters.
In other words, as themselves.
Althouse is as usual mystified by the lack of tact and diplomacy on the part of these protesters. She regularly points out how they hurt their own cause in the eyes of the general public with their antics.
What she doesn't seem to get is, they don't care about the general public to begin with, in part because they think most people are basically on their side, but mainly they feel the courts will back them up, as in fact was most recently the case when a liberal activist judge declared that the recent law passed by the Republican legislature, and signed into law by Walker, could not be implemented due to the lack of input by the Democratic legislators-who had actually left the state in order to forestall a quorum for a vote they knew they would lose.
So they have held the state hostage and will continue to do so. No one or no group is safe from their disruption. Not even mentally challenged athletes who perform in the Special Olympics. These ersatz zombies purposely walked in between Walker and the attendees in order to block their view of Walker. It was supposed to be the athletes special day, a day to be honored for their contributions. Instead, their day was hijacked by a bunch of union thugs and leftists.
To tell you the truth though, it wouldn't be much of a surprise if these union jackass thugs and leftists actually do have a hunger for BRAAAAA-INS!! They do seem to be sorely lacking in that regard.
But the worse thing about the whole ordeal?
At the end of the day, they were still very much alive.
I wonder if any of them considered how it would look to protest an event held in honor of mentally challenged athletes by appearing as a group of brain dead monsters.
In other words, as themselves.
Althouse is as usual mystified by the lack of tact and diplomacy on the part of these protesters. She regularly points out how they hurt their own cause in the eyes of the general public with their antics.
What she doesn't seem to get is, they don't care about the general public to begin with, in part because they think most people are basically on their side, but mainly they feel the courts will back them up, as in fact was most recently the case when a liberal activist judge declared that the recent law passed by the Republican legislature, and signed into law by Walker, could not be implemented due to the lack of input by the Democratic legislators-who had actually left the state in order to forestall a quorum for a vote they knew they would lose.
So they have held the state hostage and will continue to do so. No one or no group is safe from their disruption. Not even mentally challenged athletes who perform in the Special Olympics. These ersatz zombies purposely walked in between Walker and the attendees in order to block their view of Walker. It was supposed to be the athletes special day, a day to be honored for their contributions. Instead, their day was hijacked by a bunch of union thugs and leftists.
To tell you the truth though, it wouldn't be much of a surprise if these union jackass thugs and leftists actually do have a hunger for BRAAAAA-INS!! They do seem to be sorely lacking in that regard.
But the worse thing about the whole ordeal?
At the end of the day, they were still very much alive.
Stand By Your Weiner Night
I would like to announce that I am now promoting a special night for all supporters of New York Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner to show solidarity for the beleaguered Congressman. To all of you who insist on defending him, I have one thing to say to you-talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words ever could.
With this is mind, Stand By Your Weiner Night is really a simple concept. On Saturday Night, Midnight, June 11-12 2011, all Twitter followers of Representative Anthony Weiner should tweet a dic-pic or, if a woman, a pussy-pic. It doesn't necessarily have to be a bare naked shot, it can just as easily be one taken of your self in your underwear, with an emphasis on the crotch, though preferably the outline of your sexual organs in a state of arousal would be appropriate for the occasion. If a man your the outline of your dick should be prominent. If a woman, the crotch of your panties should be suitably moist.
You should do this on Twitter at the stated time, using the hashtags #WeinerYes and #CollateralDamage.
I invite all of you to help me get the word out to all followers of @RepWeiner. Tweet the message early and often so we will get a big crowd standing in solidarity with the Weiner.
Let's not let our Weiner down.
With this is mind, Stand By Your Weiner Night is really a simple concept. On Saturday Night, Midnight, June 11-12 2011, all Twitter followers of Representative Anthony Weiner should tweet a dic-pic or, if a woman, a pussy-pic. It doesn't necessarily have to be a bare naked shot, it can just as easily be one taken of your self in your underwear, with an emphasis on the crotch, though preferably the outline of your sexual organs in a state of arousal would be appropriate for the occasion. If a man your the outline of your dick should be prominent. If a woman, the crotch of your panties should be suitably moist.
You should do this on Twitter at the stated time, using the hashtags #WeinerYes and #CollateralDamage.
I invite all of you to help me get the word out to all followers of @RepWeiner. Tweet the message early and often so we will get a big crowd standing in solidarity with the Weiner.
Let's not let our Weiner down.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
GOP Strategist Ed Rollins Attacks Sarah Palin-On Behalf Of Michelle Bachmann
Michelle Bachmann might have made a fatal mistake in hiring long-time GOP strategist Ed Rollins as a campaign adviser for her fledgling presidential campaign. For his first day on the job, Rollins attacked potential Bachmann opponent Sarah Palin, calling her unqualified, and not a serious candidate. As you might imagine, this has Palin supporters in an uproar, and rightly so.
I wondered where I had heard of Rollins before, and then it occurred to me. I had a lot to say about him here, where he came across as more of an Obama supporter who was actually worried about Obama looking bad. Of course, come to find out, originally Rollins was a Democrat, so it makes sense that he would fit in with the establishment, RINO wing of the GOP.
But his salvo at Palin was beyond the pale, and potentially an embarrassment for Bachmann in yet another way-no longer ago than this last January Rollins said the exact same things about Bachmann.
Professor Jacobson, he of Legal Insurrection, seems to think that hiring Rollins was a rookie mistake on Michelle's part, though it definitely calls into question her decision making abilities. Many have wondered openly whether Michelle might actually be a stalking horse, for some other candidate, in an attempt to drain Tea Party votes from Palin in the event Sarah decides to run.
It makes sense to me. Bachmann tried to get an appointment to a committee chair following the 2010 mid-term elections but was turned down. Maybe this is a way of proving, to somebody like for example Speaker of the House John Boehner, or maybe even House Whip Eric Cantor, that she is capable of being a team player. Believe me, there is nothing the Party leadership would like better than to derail any hopes of a Palin campaign. But would Bachmann go that far? Doesn't she believe in the same things as Palin, more or less? Aren't they both Tea Party favorites?
I don't know, and I'm not making any accusations, just asking questions. But the hiring of Rollins should have set off alarm bells before he ever opened his mouth. The man has a checkered history at best. Legal Insurrection commenter Trochilus contributed some links to an old story that tells a sorry tale indeed.
Rollins was at the center of a big controversy in New Jersey during the election of Republican Christine Todd Whitman as Governor. He alleged that Whitman's funds went to suppress the black vote. He later admitted he made the whole thing up. It later turned out there was indeed an attempt to suppress the vote, but the Democrats were the guilty party. By the time the truth had come out, some months after the initial allegation, Whitman's administration had been seriously hampered by the charges and the resultant official investigation and bad publicity.
So I don't know, Rollins might just be a stupid man who hasn't caught on to the fact that the political strategies of the seventies and eighties, and even the nineties, no longer works in the modern internet age where people have far greater access to fact-checking resources and where past history and records are an open book, accessible in fact at the click of a mouse.
Or maybe his presence is more nefarious. Maybe he is actually trying to sew discord among the conservative factions of the GOP with the goal of derailing not only Palin, but ultimately Bachmann as well. In the meantime, if Palin stays out of the race, Bachmann can drain more votes from the rising star that is Herman Cain, and maybe also knock out Pawlenty in Iowa. Seen in that context, hiring someone like Rollins makes sense if Bachmann is culpable in such an attempt.
Otherwise hiring Rollins was really a stupid mistake on Bachmann's part, one she needs to rectify immediately. I never thought it was a good idea for her to run a national campaign this early in her congressional career. I am sure she would be a good president-though I sincerely doubt she would be a great one-but there's the matter of getting there. I just don't think she's ready for the rigors of an electoral campaign for national office, especially for the highest office in the land. It stands to reason it would be tempting for her to jump at the chance to have somebody with the reputation of an Ed Rollins.
Unfortunately, she seems to have focused solely on his selling points and elected to ignore the more inflammatory aspects of this man's history. In doing so, she might have done a lot of damage to her credibility with the very base of support she's trying to cement.
I wondered where I had heard of Rollins before, and then it occurred to me. I had a lot to say about him here, where he came across as more of an Obama supporter who was actually worried about Obama looking bad. Of course, come to find out, originally Rollins was a Democrat, so it makes sense that he would fit in with the establishment, RINO wing of the GOP.
But his salvo at Palin was beyond the pale, and potentially an embarrassment for Bachmann in yet another way-no longer ago than this last January Rollins said the exact same things about Bachmann.
Professor Jacobson, he of Legal Insurrection, seems to think that hiring Rollins was a rookie mistake on Michelle's part, though it definitely calls into question her decision making abilities. Many have wondered openly whether Michelle might actually be a stalking horse, for some other candidate, in an attempt to drain Tea Party votes from Palin in the event Sarah decides to run.
It makes sense to me. Bachmann tried to get an appointment to a committee chair following the 2010 mid-term elections but was turned down. Maybe this is a way of proving, to somebody like for example Speaker of the House John Boehner, or maybe even House Whip Eric Cantor, that she is capable of being a team player. Believe me, there is nothing the Party leadership would like better than to derail any hopes of a Palin campaign. But would Bachmann go that far? Doesn't she believe in the same things as Palin, more or less? Aren't they both Tea Party favorites?
I don't know, and I'm not making any accusations, just asking questions. But the hiring of Rollins should have set off alarm bells before he ever opened his mouth. The man has a checkered history at best. Legal Insurrection commenter Trochilus contributed some links to an old story that tells a sorry tale indeed.
Rollins was at the center of a big controversy in New Jersey during the election of Republican Christine Todd Whitman as Governor. He alleged that Whitman's funds went to suppress the black vote. He later admitted he made the whole thing up. It later turned out there was indeed an attempt to suppress the vote, but the Democrats were the guilty party. By the time the truth had come out, some months after the initial allegation, Whitman's administration had been seriously hampered by the charges and the resultant official investigation and bad publicity.
So I don't know, Rollins might just be a stupid man who hasn't caught on to the fact that the political strategies of the seventies and eighties, and even the nineties, no longer works in the modern internet age where people have far greater access to fact-checking resources and where past history and records are an open book, accessible in fact at the click of a mouse.
Or maybe his presence is more nefarious. Maybe he is actually trying to sew discord among the conservative factions of the GOP with the goal of derailing not only Palin, but ultimately Bachmann as well. In the meantime, if Palin stays out of the race, Bachmann can drain more votes from the rising star that is Herman Cain, and maybe also knock out Pawlenty in Iowa. Seen in that context, hiring someone like Rollins makes sense if Bachmann is culpable in such an attempt.
Otherwise hiring Rollins was really a stupid mistake on Bachmann's part, one she needs to rectify immediately. I never thought it was a good idea for her to run a national campaign this early in her congressional career. I am sure she would be a good president-though I sincerely doubt she would be a great one-but there's the matter of getting there. I just don't think she's ready for the rigors of an electoral campaign for national office, especially for the highest office in the land. It stands to reason it would be tempting for her to jump at the chance to have somebody with the reputation of an Ed Rollins.
Unfortunately, she seems to have focused solely on his selling points and elected to ignore the more inflammatory aspects of this man's history. In doing so, she might have done a lot of damage to her credibility with the very base of support she's trying to cement.
Romney Must Be The Republican Nominee-Because Gallup Says So
HIP HIP HOORAY for The Romneylan. He comes in as the number one pick to win the Republican nomination for US President in 1968, ahead of Richard Nixon. Romney is favored by 45% of the general public, ahead of Nixon who garners 41% according to a poll conducted by the Gallup organization on March 1st, 1967.
Well by golly I guess that just settles that, huh?
Well by golly I guess that just settles that, huh?
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
The Triumph Of Civic Virtue
The below neoclassical statue by Frederick MacMonnies has been standing outside Borough Hall in Queens New York since 1942. Guess who recently started an initiative to have it taken down and sold on Ebay, saying it was sexist and out of touch with the current time and culture?
You might not be shocked to learn it was none other than New York Democrat Congressman Anthony "Dic-Pic" Wiener.
The semi-nude, muscular male figure is a symbolic representation of "Civic Virtue". The two women, lying prone at his feet, are supposed to represent the twin sirens of Vice and Corruption. This strong, masculine male figure has conquered these two shameless hussies. So of course, it was offensive to feminists, and therefore by proxy, to the Weiner. Look at the artwork in totality, and you be the judge.
I can understand how some would be put off by this. After all, in our modern age Civic Virtue would be represented by a multiracial person with a limp wrist and a vaguely non-sexual appearance, while the twin sirens would probably be distinctly white males in rich attire, carrying guns and Bibles.
That is to say, that might be the officially sanctioned artistic view, but in reality, Civic Virtue is on life support, hanging by a thread. He's been showing remarkable improvements over the last few years, but he has a ways to go and his improvement thus far is tentative.
As for Vice and Corruption, they were last seen skulking and slithering around the corridors and alleyways of Washington, still going strong-down for sure, but by no means out.
After all, for every man or woman who strives to live up to the ideals of Civic Virtue, there will always be an Anthony Weiner drawing on the hypocrisy and the promise of Vice and Corruption while hiding in plain sight.
H/T The Other McCain
You might not be shocked to learn it was none other than New York Democrat Congressman Anthony "Dic-Pic" Wiener.
The semi-nude, muscular male figure is a symbolic representation of "Civic Virtue". The two women, lying prone at his feet, are supposed to represent the twin sirens of Vice and Corruption. This strong, masculine male figure has conquered these two shameless hussies. So of course, it was offensive to feminists, and therefore by proxy, to the Weiner. Look at the artwork in totality, and you be the judge.
I can understand how some would be put off by this. After all, in our modern age Civic Virtue would be represented by a multiracial person with a limp wrist and a vaguely non-sexual appearance, while the twin sirens would probably be distinctly white males in rich attire, carrying guns and Bibles.
That is to say, that might be the officially sanctioned artistic view, but in reality, Civic Virtue is on life support, hanging by a thread. He's been showing remarkable improvements over the last few years, but he has a ways to go and his improvement thus far is tentative.
As for Vice and Corruption, they were last seen skulking and slithering around the corridors and alleyways of Washington, still going strong-down for sure, but by no means out.
After all, for every man or woman who strives to live up to the ideals of Civic Virtue, there will always be an Anthony Weiner drawing on the hypocrisy and the promise of Vice and Corruption while hiding in plain sight.
H/T The Other McCain
Monday, June 06, 2011
How Many Weiner Pics Did The Weiner Prick Send If The Weiner Prick Did Send Weiner Pics
Surprise, surprise, surprise! It is starting to look more and more likely that New York Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner has sent quite a few intimate photos of himself, and not just to Gennette Nicole Cordova. It seems that he might have sent them out to other young ladies and, as fate would have itsome of them are coming forward.
We already know he's in tight on Twitter with a porn star named Ginger Lee. But that's just the beginning. He has also been a follower of a high school girl from Delaware who goes by @maggiehenning. It also bears mentioning however that in addition to being followed by @RepWeiner, Maggie Henning is also followed by none other than New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer. Odd, to say the least. But is it proof of anything shady?
No it is not, and in fairness I should relate that I have seen it explained by another of Weiner's mutual followers that if you want Weiner to follow you on Twitter, you just need to send him a tweet with the hashtag #WeinerYes.
By the same token, where there's smoke there very often is, in cases like this, a conflagration, and I find it very, very doubtful that the Weiner Dic-Pic with which we are so familiar is his first and only foray into the shady world of internet cyber-sex and porn, if you want to dignify Weiner's little Weiner pic with such an appellation. But let's face it-you wouldn't really call it "soft-porn". Then again, you wouldn't exactly call it "hard-porn" either-
But the question remains, how many of these things, or other similar kinds of things, has Weiner sent out there, and who did he send them to? And what can be, and should be, done about it, particularly if it turns out he has sent inappropriate communications to underage girls? Or for that matter, to anyone?
What is the true extent-and depth-of his connection to porn star Ginger Lee, who it turns out is suffering from the disease Lupus, which she talks about quite openly on her web-site.
Was this the reason for her initial interest in the Congressman? I ask this because it goes to Weiner's potential MO. If Ginger Lee reached out to Weiner for aid and assistance, urging him for example to support and champion research into a cure for Lupus, did this turn into a cyber friendship, and if so, from where then did it lead? Is this an example of a man elected to national office using his power and authority to manipulate and take advantage of a woman who might be vulnerable?
And if he would do that to a porn star-who, say what you will, would know how to attract attention and publicity-is it really that much of a stretch to think he might do it to somebody he might think is just one of those little people who don't really matter, who no one would believe?
Previously-
The Dic-Pic Seen Round The World
Jon Stewart Mad At The Weiner
We already know he's in tight on Twitter with a porn star named Ginger Lee. But that's just the beginning. He has also been a follower of a high school girl from Delaware who goes by @maggiehenning. It also bears mentioning however that in addition to being followed by @RepWeiner, Maggie Henning is also followed by none other than New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer. Odd, to say the least. But is it proof of anything shady?
No it is not, and in fairness I should relate that I have seen it explained by another of Weiner's mutual followers that if you want Weiner to follow you on Twitter, you just need to send him a tweet with the hashtag #WeinerYes.
By the same token, where there's smoke there very often is, in cases like this, a conflagration, and I find it very, very doubtful that the Weiner Dic-Pic with which we are so familiar is his first and only foray into the shady world of internet cyber-sex and porn, if you want to dignify Weiner's little Weiner pic with such an appellation. But let's face it-you wouldn't really call it "soft-porn". Then again, you wouldn't exactly call it "hard-porn" either-
But the question remains, how many of these things, or other similar kinds of things, has Weiner sent out there, and who did he send them to? And what can be, and should be, done about it, particularly if it turns out he has sent inappropriate communications to underage girls? Or for that matter, to anyone?
What is the true extent-and depth-of his connection to porn star Ginger Lee, who it turns out is suffering from the disease Lupus, which she talks about quite openly on her web-site.
Was this the reason for her initial interest in the Congressman? I ask this because it goes to Weiner's potential MO. If Ginger Lee reached out to Weiner for aid and assistance, urging him for example to support and champion research into a cure for Lupus, did this turn into a cyber friendship, and if so, from where then did it lead? Is this an example of a man elected to national office using his power and authority to manipulate and take advantage of a woman who might be vulnerable?
And if he would do that to a porn star-who, say what you will, would know how to attract attention and publicity-is it really that much of a stretch to think he might do it to somebody he might think is just one of those little people who don't really matter, who no one would believe?
Previously-
The Dic-Pic Seen Round The World
Jon Stewart Mad At The Weiner
Jon Stewart Mad At The Weiner
By now you would have to have been spending the last ten days on some deserted island or some similarly secluded spot to not know the story about New York Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner and The Dic-Pic Seen Round The World.
Comedy Central's Jon Stewart certainly knows about it, and evidently he doesn't think its a laughing matter. How mad is he? He is so mad he has told him flat out "if you did this you gotta go".
No big deal there. People might interpret this as some kind of indication of Stewart's sense of morality and ethics, but I wouldn't go that far. Of course Jon Stewart is mad at the Weiner. Why wouldn't he be? The question is why is he really mad at him.
I say Stewart's just mad because Wiener makes all liberal dicks look like the little pricks they all really are.
Comedy Central's Jon Stewart certainly knows about it, and evidently he doesn't think its a laughing matter. How mad is he? He is so mad he has told him flat out "if you did this you gotta go".
No big deal there. People might interpret this as some kind of indication of Stewart's sense of morality and ethics, but I wouldn't go that far. Of course Jon Stewart is mad at the Weiner. Why wouldn't he be? The question is why is he really mad at him.
I say Stewart's just mad because Wiener makes all liberal dicks look like the little pricks they all really are.
Sunday, June 05, 2011
Obama Loses Key Ally In War On Terror
Now that Al-Queda is rampaging through Yemen, I guess we'll get to see now just what are the real implications of the "Arab Spring".
The country's president, Saleh, was wounded seriously in an attack on the presidential palace and had to be flown out of the country for medical treatment. Although he did not officially abdicate his position, leaving the country in the hands of Vice President Hadi, many observers doubt that the president will ever return.
Now we have a situation where Yemen is swiftly spiraling out of control and on the verge of becoming a failed state and terrorist haven. In the meantime, across the Red Sea, we have Somalia, also a failed state and a terrorist haven, and which is infested with pirates which regularly threaten international shipping.
Time to bring out the nukes.
Oh wait, that's right, Obama's president.
Time to wring our hands.
The country's president, Saleh, was wounded seriously in an attack on the presidential palace and had to be flown out of the country for medical treatment. Although he did not officially abdicate his position, leaving the country in the hands of Vice President Hadi, many observers doubt that the president will ever return.
Now we have a situation where Yemen is swiftly spiraling out of control and on the verge of becoming a failed state and terrorist haven. In the meantime, across the Red Sea, we have Somalia, also a failed state and a terrorist haven, and which is infested with pirates which regularly threaten international shipping.
Time to bring out the nukes.
Oh wait, that's right, Obama's president.
Time to wring our hands.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
How Could Anyone Possibly Think Progressives Are Antisemitic?
Progressives in San Francisco only want what is best for young infant boys, and to that end have initiated a ballot measure which would ban the ancient Jewish practice of circumcision. In order to build support for the measure, someone has produced a comic book starring the blond, blue-eyed, unabashedly Aryan looking super-hero known as "Foreskin Man".
As for the villain of the comic book, take a look and see if he might seem somewhat familiar.
This is blood libel of a most profoundly incredible nature. Amazingly, I have no doubt that many of the people involved in this political initiative, as well as the comic book, are probably secular Jews, in this case of a particularly self-loathing variety. I just can't conceive of any group having the temerity to produce something like this for mass consumption-in pursuit of political aims, at that-without their input.
For what its worth, the foreskin has outlasted its usefulness from the days before mankind started wearing clothing, when it probably served a protective function. The only reason evolution has not eradicated it is probably because it still serves a protective function of some kind in the womb.
Otherwise, not only is it useless, it is actually detrimental. Like wall to wall carpet, which at least serves some useful purpose, it serves now only as a repository and incubator of germs, bacteria, and viruses. It is not unheard of for a foreskin to contribute to penile cancer, necessitating the removal of more than merely the foreskin. It can also increase the contraction and frequency of other diseases.
If anything, there should be a law requiring circumcision, not banning it. Of course, the main reason given for banning the procedure is the lack of input of the child, who has no say in the removal of something which, because it contains nerve-endings like any other part of the body, can contribute to the enhancement of sexual pleasure. Like everything else the left pushes, they use such bullshit scare tactics while insisting the procedure should be put off until the child has a say.
Yeah, let's imagine a potential father-son talk-
Dad-Son, your mother and I would like to have the foreskin of your penis cut off.
Son-Huh? Why?
Dad-Well, its what God wants. Plus there's good health reasons to have it done.
Son-Will it hurt?
Dad-Well, yes, for a few days it will be awful sore. But it won't last more than a few days.
Remember this is an eight or nine year old boy we're talking about here. And in the case he does give his consent, you can bet your bottom dollar the very same leftists who are saying now to "wait until the child has a say" is going to be raising the roof about parents "coercing" their sons to do something they don't really want to do.
There probably aren't many Muslims living in San Francisco. If there were this ballot initiative would have never seen the light of day. And if a sizable number of them moved there today, the cowardly leftist pukes would be falling all over themselves to have this insane initiative taken off the ballot on the grounds of religious insensitivity.
H/T AceofSpadesHQ
As for the villain of the comic book, take a look and see if he might seem somewhat familiar.
This is blood libel of a most profoundly incredible nature. Amazingly, I have no doubt that many of the people involved in this political initiative, as well as the comic book, are probably secular Jews, in this case of a particularly self-loathing variety. I just can't conceive of any group having the temerity to produce something like this for mass consumption-in pursuit of political aims, at that-without their input.
For what its worth, the foreskin has outlasted its usefulness from the days before mankind started wearing clothing, when it probably served a protective function. The only reason evolution has not eradicated it is probably because it still serves a protective function of some kind in the womb.
Otherwise, not only is it useless, it is actually detrimental. Like wall to wall carpet, which at least serves some useful purpose, it serves now only as a repository and incubator of germs, bacteria, and viruses. It is not unheard of for a foreskin to contribute to penile cancer, necessitating the removal of more than merely the foreskin. It can also increase the contraction and frequency of other diseases.
If anything, there should be a law requiring circumcision, not banning it. Of course, the main reason given for banning the procedure is the lack of input of the child, who has no say in the removal of something which, because it contains nerve-endings like any other part of the body, can contribute to the enhancement of sexual pleasure. Like everything else the left pushes, they use such bullshit scare tactics while insisting the procedure should be put off until the child has a say.
Yeah, let's imagine a potential father-son talk-
Dad-Son, your mother and I would like to have the foreskin of your penis cut off.
Son-Huh? Why?
Dad-Well, its what God wants. Plus there's good health reasons to have it done.
Son-Will it hurt?
Dad-Well, yes, for a few days it will be awful sore. But it won't last more than a few days.
Remember this is an eight or nine year old boy we're talking about here. And in the case he does give his consent, you can bet your bottom dollar the very same leftists who are saying now to "wait until the child has a say" is going to be raising the roof about parents "coercing" their sons to do something they don't really want to do.
There probably aren't many Muslims living in San Francisco. If there were this ballot initiative would have never seen the light of day. And if a sizable number of them moved there today, the cowardly leftist pukes would be falling all over themselves to have this insane initiative taken off the ballot on the grounds of religious insensitivity.
H/T AceofSpadesHQ
Christine O'Donnell Cleared Of Ethics Charges
She was accused of violating election laws that restrict coordination between candidates and outside political organizations, the group in this particular case being the Tea Party Express. She was cleared by the Federal Elections Commission, which decided that the suit brought against O'Donnell was frivolous.
But the damage has already been done. O'Donnell was targeted from the beginning of her campaign for the US Senate from Delaware by those who went out of her way to make sure she would not, could not be elected. Since that time they have gone out of their way to make sure there is not a repeat performance.
Shame on those Democrats, you say? Well actually, in this case, the true culprits were not the Democrats but the Delaware State GOP. They were the ones who opposed her in the 2010 GOP primary, which she went on to win against Mike Castle. They were the ones who refused to support her in the general election against the ultimately victorious Democrat candidate. And, finally, they are the ones who brought this suit.
Like I keep saying, the Republican Party establishment is the worst enemy of Republican voters, and the best friend the Democratic Party could ever hope to have. They don't care so much about beating Democrats as they care about holding on to their piece of the pie, their own specially carved out territories. And candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, Nikki Haley, and Jim DeMint, to name just a few, are the true natural enemies of the Republican Party establishment.
If Barak Obama goes on to win his bid for re-election in 2012-not at all impossible-you will have them to thank for it.
Facebook Trashing Conservative Groups
That's what many conservative Facebook group administrators are afraid is going to happen once Facebook implements its new upgrade, which will archive all old groups but eliminate the lists of members. This would cause the administrators to start rebuilding their groups from scratch, even in those cases where some groups might have tens of thousands of members. In order to prevent this from happening, Facebook groups will have to ask for a new, special software key which will enable users to upgrade their page.
It may sound akin to a wild-eyed conspiracy theory, but it has been pointed out that of all political donations that went to political campaigns from Facebook employees, 98% went to Democrats. And it is well-known that Mark Zuckerberg himself is a supporter of Barak Obama, with whom he recently appeared at a forum discussing the economy. Zuckerburg was noted here for his support of the President's economic policies, including Obama's express desire to raise taxes on "the rich".
When you add all of these factors together, Facebook Groups administrators have a right to be concerned that their groups might be purposely targeted for-well, let's just call it what it is-elimination.
This is especially true when you consider that some liberal groups have seemed to experience no undue difficulties with the upgrade-
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence got the upgrade for its 1,000-member group. “We changed over very smoothly,” said David Churchill, the network-manager at the D.C.-based gun-control group. “We just basically clicked the upgrade button, checked it over, and we have a tremendous increase in participation,” he said.
This could be a way to simply eliminate groups that don't meet Facebook standards by targeting specific instances of what the company decides is "intolerance", or "hate speech".
You know, like for example making such racist statements as "I oppose Barak Obama because of his liberal, progressive policies."
It may sound akin to a wild-eyed conspiracy theory, but it has been pointed out that of all political donations that went to political campaigns from Facebook employees, 98% went to Democrats. And it is well-known that Mark Zuckerberg himself is a supporter of Barak Obama, with whom he recently appeared at a forum discussing the economy. Zuckerburg was noted here for his support of the President's economic policies, including Obama's express desire to raise taxes on "the rich".
When you add all of these factors together, Facebook Groups administrators have a right to be concerned that their groups might be purposely targeted for-well, let's just call it what it is-elimination.
This is especially true when you consider that some liberal groups have seemed to experience no undue difficulties with the upgrade-
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence got the upgrade for its 1,000-member group. “We changed over very smoothly,” said David Churchill, the network-manager at the D.C.-based gun-control group. “We just basically clicked the upgrade button, checked it over, and we have a tremendous increase in participation,” he said.
This could be a way to simply eliminate groups that don't meet Facebook standards by targeting specific instances of what the company decides is "intolerance", or "hate speech".
You know, like for example making such racist statements as "I oppose Barak Obama because of his liberal, progressive policies."
Joe Biden Not Worth Killing According To Bin Laden
For once me and the late Al-Queda chief are in total agreement. Some people are saying this was because in Bin Laden's opinion at the time he wrote this in his diary, the office of the Vice President was just not important enough to worry about. Therefore, his advice to Al-Queda operatives was that they should leave Joe Biden alone and concentrate on killing Obama, or other high ranking officials such as the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Maybe, but I for one have an idea he didn't have such a cavalier opinion about killing Dick Cheney. Let's face it, our Vice President is a clown, and everybody knows it.
The only thing I can't figure out is why he would want to kill Obama, who is over time going to do more to destroy the US than Bin Laden could ever hope to accomplish in his wildest dreams.
H/T LibertasLogos
Fair Warning To The GOP-I Will Not Vote For The Romneylan
To the Republican Party-
Many of you among the party elite are promoting Mitt Romney for President. I see it all the time, people like Charles Krauthammer on Fox News being just the first and most obvious example I can think of off the top of my head.
Why are you doing this? Not only will this clown lose, he will drag the down ticket Republican races down with him.
First he defends his foray into socialized medicine, which as Governor of Massachusetts he implemented via RomneyCare, on the grounds of federalism, swearing he would never support that on a national level. But he just didn't defend government controlled medical care at the state level, he went that extra mile and defended the mandate policy wherein everyone is forced to purchase health insurance. That, or face fines and possibly even a jail sentence. Well, I'm sorry but there's not enough free riders in the universe to justify that on constitutional grounds.
But even that is almost negligible in comparison to his recent statement in support of a government policy to control what he insists is man's contribution to global warming.
This guy just wants to lower taxes. Fine, but what good is that if he is going to maintain the current regulatory regimes that are the real villains choking the life out of the American economy? In fact, in this case he might even make things worse than they already are.
But let's face it, the Republican Party establishment wants somebody that isn't going to rock the boat too much. They want a conservative, but they want a big government conservative, who will lower everybody's taxes but at the same time maintain the status quo that allows the big corporations to maintain their hold on the economy. After all, its regulations, more even than taxes, that kills competition in the market. They are crony capitalists who only pay lip service to the concept of free markets when it helps them advance their cause.
And I for one am not going for it.
But give the Romneylan credit for one thing-if he runs like a RINO in the GOP primaries, you know he's not going to turn around and govern any differently if he were to win.
Many of you among the party elite are promoting Mitt Romney for President. I see it all the time, people like Charles Krauthammer on Fox News being just the first and most obvious example I can think of off the top of my head.
Why are you doing this? Not only will this clown lose, he will drag the down ticket Republican races down with him.
First he defends his foray into socialized medicine, which as Governor of Massachusetts he implemented via RomneyCare, on the grounds of federalism, swearing he would never support that on a national level. But he just didn't defend government controlled medical care at the state level, he went that extra mile and defended the mandate policy wherein everyone is forced to purchase health insurance. That, or face fines and possibly even a jail sentence. Well, I'm sorry but there's not enough free riders in the universe to justify that on constitutional grounds.
But even that is almost negligible in comparison to his recent statement in support of a government policy to control what he insists is man's contribution to global warming.
This guy just wants to lower taxes. Fine, but what good is that if he is going to maintain the current regulatory regimes that are the real villains choking the life out of the American economy? In fact, in this case he might even make things worse than they already are.
But let's face it, the Republican Party establishment wants somebody that isn't going to rock the boat too much. They want a conservative, but they want a big government conservative, who will lower everybody's taxes but at the same time maintain the status quo that allows the big corporations to maintain their hold on the economy. After all, its regulations, more even than taxes, that kills competition in the market. They are crony capitalists who only pay lip service to the concept of free markets when it helps them advance their cause.
And I for one am not going for it.
But give the Romneylan credit for one thing-if he runs like a RINO in the GOP primaries, you know he's not going to turn around and govern any differently if he were to win.
Friday, June 03, 2011
RIP Kevorkian
A lot of people didn't like Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and I can certainly understand that. He isn't exactly the first person who would be on my party list. The very mention of his name, after all, invokes the aura of death, almost as though he were the Grim Reaper incarnate.
But a lot of objections to him were political as well as religious. He felt he had a mission in life, to ease the transition to death in the case of those who simply no longer wanted to live. Although he concentrated his practice on those who were suffering through debilitating illnesses, he himself felt neither the federal government nor states should intervene whenever anyone wanted to end their lives, whether or not they suffered from an illness from which they stood no realistic chance of finding a cure or any kind of substantial relief from the agony it caused. To him, the state just did not have the right to make that call. In the case of states that allowed euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, he generally complained their laws were too restrictive.
When he was finally prosecuted successfully by the state of Michigan, he had performed in close to one hundred assisted suicides by his own admission.
The state was right to prosecute him. The law is the law. Nor do I necessarily think euthanasia is a good practice or that it should be sanctioned by the state or codified into law. I don't, in fact, because it could be, and doubtless would be abused.
Still, I'm in awe of the man, and always was. He never backed down, right or wrong, even when it would have been to his advantage. He protested against what he considered an unjust law by breaking it. It was his own private foray into civil disobedience.
No matter what one might think of the man and his actions, he did help people die in peace and relative comfort. He saved them years of agony. Many people who live on for years in states of severe illness and incapacitation have nothing but misery to look forward to and their families have years of exorbitant medical expenses that can drain their finances and ruin the futures of their children and grandchildren.
He helped many people avoid these sufferings. He helped them to rest in peace. May he do likewise.
Zombie Jesus
He rose from the dead. He wants you to eat his flesh and drink his blood. And all he wants in return is for you to turn your life over to him completely. He wants your heart. He wants you mind. He wants your soul. He wants your-
BRAAAAAAIIIINSSSS
BRAAAAAAIIIINSSSS
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Questionable Timing In Soutthworth Murder Arrest
As I posted earlier here, Lexington Police have arrested Donald Southworth for murder, presumably for the murder of his late wife Umi Southworth, who was beaten to death June 16th of last year in a case that led to widespread criticism of police misconduct and the initiation of procedural changes. The police waited five hours after finding Southworth, battered in the bushes of her Meadowthorpe Lane property, before they called an ambulance because they didn't realize she was still alive. She died some hours later at the hospital.
It just so happens that husband Donald had earlier yesterday filed paperwork to make himself the executor of the late Umi's estate, in preparation for filing a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of himself and the couple's daughter Almira Fawn.
Southworth's lawyer questions the timing of the arrest, which occurred late last night. As do I.
There's nothing worse, and more dangerous, than official incompetence married to corruption, and it looks like that might well be what we are seeing here. It almost beggars belief, but as of now it looks like the Lexington Police Department is trying to cover themselves by engaging in malicious prosecution based on circumstantial evidence. If Southworth was guilty of the crime, I find it difficult to understand why the police would not have long ago arrested him. It should not have been that hard to gather the necessary evidence for such a brutal, bloody crime.
Two things for sure-
1. I'm glad I don't live in Lexington Kentucky.
2. If I did I wouldn't be writing this post.
UPDATE-The story just gets more bizarre. According to the LPD, Southworth murdered his late wife Umi Southworth by hitting her over the head with a piece of wood. Okay, so in so many words, not only do they not have a murder weapon, they don't even know what the hell the murder weapon was. All they "know" is that it was some kind of wooden object. I don't know, maybe they found splinters in Umi Southworth's head, or the nature and extent of her head injuries was somehow suggestive of wood as opposed to metal. Some enterprising investigative reporter should ask them if they have the object in question locked away in their evidence, or if they at least have some kind of general idea what it was. It's always possible they are keeping it secret for some reason but I seriously doubt that. They need to accede to some level of transparency here. Otherwise if this ever does go to trial, its going to be like a three ring circus-the part where the clowns pile out of the tiny little car.
UPDATE II-I covered the Southworth murder not long after it happened in June of last year. Owing to these latest developments, it might be worth your time to read A Murder On Meadowthorpe, in which I detailed the reasons why in my opinion it was unlikely-certainly not impossible, but unlikely-that Donald Southworth was the killer of his wife.
It just so happens that husband Donald had earlier yesterday filed paperwork to make himself the executor of the late Umi's estate, in preparation for filing a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of himself and the couple's daughter Almira Fawn.
Southworth's lawyer questions the timing of the arrest, which occurred late last night. As do I.
There's nothing worse, and more dangerous, than official incompetence married to corruption, and it looks like that might well be what we are seeing here. It almost beggars belief, but as of now it looks like the Lexington Police Department is trying to cover themselves by engaging in malicious prosecution based on circumstantial evidence. If Southworth was guilty of the crime, I find it difficult to understand why the police would not have long ago arrested him. It should not have been that hard to gather the necessary evidence for such a brutal, bloody crime.
Two things for sure-
1. I'm glad I don't live in Lexington Kentucky.
2. If I did I wouldn't be writing this post.
UPDATE-The story just gets more bizarre. According to the LPD, Southworth murdered his late wife Umi Southworth by hitting her over the head with a piece of wood. Okay, so in so many words, not only do they not have a murder weapon, they don't even know what the hell the murder weapon was. All they "know" is that it was some kind of wooden object. I don't know, maybe they found splinters in Umi Southworth's head, or the nature and extent of her head injuries was somehow suggestive of wood as opposed to metal. Some enterprising investigative reporter should ask them if they have the object in question locked away in their evidence, or if they at least have some kind of general idea what it was. It's always possible they are keeping it secret for some reason but I seriously doubt that. They need to accede to some level of transparency here. Otherwise if this ever does go to trial, its going to be like a three ring circus-the part where the clowns pile out of the tiny little car.
UPDATE II-I covered the Southworth murder not long after it happened in June of last year. Owing to these latest developments, it might be worth your time to read A Murder On Meadowthorpe, in which I detailed the reasons why in my opinion it was unlikely-certainly not impossible, but unlikely-that Donald Southworth was the killer of his wife.
Trump Might Run For President As Independent If Republicans Nominate A "Stiff"
He made it pretty plain that he thinks the GOP is flirting with disaster, and blames first of all the Ryan Plan, pointing out the recent loss in the special election for the House seat of New York-26. That race saw a Democrat win a seat that has been a safe Republican seat for decades. The Republicans, according to Trump, have a death wish.
He further warned that if the GOP nominates a "stiff" he might run as an Independent. His meaning is clear enough. He plainly means Pawlenty or Romney, two of the biggest stiffs on the political landscape. Obviously New York Democrat Anthony Weiner doesn't count (sorry, couldn't resist).
At the same time, Trump seems to be impressed with Sarah Palin, who he says he likes, calling her a friend, and a patriot who loves America. It is starting to look as though the recent Pizza Summit between Palin and Trump in New York might have been a potential lead to a Palin endorsement by Trump. Trump stopped short of that last night on On The Record with Greta Van Sustern, but then again, he claims not to know whether Palin is running, saying he's pretty sure she hasn't yet decided.
It looks like Trump, if he does run, might well be the first person to openly run as a spoiler. Most people think that would hurt the GOP more than the Democrats, but I have to wonder about that. Most of Trumps votes would come from Independents, and maybe some moderate Democrats who are unsatisfied (if not outright disgusted) with how Obama has governed (for lack of a better word) thus far.
I just can't see conservative Republicans voting for Trump in any significant numbers should he mount an independent bid, even if the GOP does nominate a "stiff", or another RINO. What moderate Republicans might vote for him would probably be more than offset by Democrats, and by Independents who might ordinarily tend to vote Democrat if they are unsatisfied with the GOP nominee, or who already lean towards the Democrats regardless.
Ironically, since Palin has low approval ratings among Independents, a third-party Trump candidacy might actually help her if she received the nomination, unless she manages to improve her numbers.
He further warned that if the GOP nominates a "stiff" he might run as an Independent. His meaning is clear enough. He plainly means Pawlenty or Romney, two of the biggest stiffs on the political landscape. Obviously New York Democrat Anthony Weiner doesn't count (sorry, couldn't resist).
At the same time, Trump seems to be impressed with Sarah Palin, who he says he likes, calling her a friend, and a patriot who loves America. It is starting to look as though the recent Pizza Summit between Palin and Trump in New York might have been a potential lead to a Palin endorsement by Trump. Trump stopped short of that last night on On The Record with Greta Van Sustern, but then again, he claims not to know whether Palin is running, saying he's pretty sure she hasn't yet decided.
It looks like Trump, if he does run, might well be the first person to openly run as a spoiler. Most people think that would hurt the GOP more than the Democrats, but I have to wonder about that. Most of Trumps votes would come from Independents, and maybe some moderate Democrats who are unsatisfied (if not outright disgusted) with how Obama has governed (for lack of a better word) thus far.
I just can't see conservative Republicans voting for Trump in any significant numbers should he mount an independent bid, even if the GOP does nominate a "stiff", or another RINO. What moderate Republicans might vote for him would probably be more than offset by Democrats, and by Independents who might ordinarily tend to vote Democrat if they are unsatisfied with the GOP nominee, or who already lean towards the Democrats regardless.
Ironically, since Palin has low approval ratings among Independents, a third-party Trump candidacy might actually help her if she received the nomination, unless she manages to improve her numbers.
The WHO Wants To Tax And Regulate Your Cell Phone Use
Otherwise, you might use it too much. Then you might end up with cancer. Cos, you see, there's just no available evidence to conclude that using cell phones will NOT give you cancer. Therefore, because there's an alleged link, we need more study. And that means money, and that means you need to fork over some more money to some bureaucrats so they can pretend to do something about it and stuff.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Umi Southworth Murder Possibly Solved-Police To Soon Announce Arrest
UPDATE-To all the people who might read this post over the next few days and weeks, I strongly suggest you read the following update post-Questionable Timing In The Southworth Murder Arrest
I don't know any names of details yet, but Lexington Police have just announced they have made an arrest in the murder of Umi Southworth, the mother of teen singer Almira Fawn, and will be holding a press conference in roughly thirty minutes, or about twelve midnight. Southworth was murdered the 16th of June of last year. She was beaten to death and died of blunt force trauma to the head. Some might recall that I covered the case not too long after it happened last year.
My goal in covering the story was to guard against the rush to judgement against Umi's husband by many in the Lexington press. I conjectured it might have been the work of of the underworld denizens or similarly unsavory characters known to frequent the music business in which Almira and Uni were both steeped in.
I never mentioned it, but Umi was an Indonesian immigrant, though I never heard whether she was a religious Muslim, though I doubt it. There is a sizable Islamic community in the Lexington area, and some mosques, so I have also wondered about the potential there.
I guess I'll find out soon. Whatever happened, I just hope the family, especially Almira and her younger sister, can find closure and even maybe some degree of comfort in the apprehension of their mother's killer, assuming they have indeed got the guilty party-or parties.
UPDATE: Looks like I was wrong, they arrested the father. But they are playing games about the whole thing. First the Lexington Police Department announced there would be a midnight press conference pertaining to the arrest in the Umi Southworth murder. Then around twelve thirty AM they said the case was under seal and they couldn't release any information at that time. They did confirm that Donald Southworth had been arrested for murder, but they couldn't say whose murder he had been arrested in connection with. All very strange. Of course he was arrested for the murder of Umi (they had already announced the arrest was in connection with her case) so its a lot of bureaucratic and legal "i" dotting and "t" crossing going on, I guess.
I don't know any names of details yet, but Lexington Police have just announced they have made an arrest in the murder of Umi Southworth, the mother of teen singer Almira Fawn, and will be holding a press conference in roughly thirty minutes, or about twelve midnight. Southworth was murdered the 16th of June of last year. She was beaten to death and died of blunt force trauma to the head. Some might recall that I covered the case not too long after it happened last year.
My goal in covering the story was to guard against the rush to judgement against Umi's husband by many in the Lexington press. I conjectured it might have been the work of of the underworld denizens or similarly unsavory characters known to frequent the music business in which Almira and Uni were both steeped in.
I never mentioned it, but Umi was an Indonesian immigrant, though I never heard whether she was a religious Muslim, though I doubt it. There is a sizable Islamic community in the Lexington area, and some mosques, so I have also wondered about the potential there.
I guess I'll find out soon. Whatever happened, I just hope the family, especially Almira and her younger sister, can find closure and even maybe some degree of comfort in the apprehension of their mother's killer, assuming they have indeed got the guilty party-or parties.
UPDATE: Looks like I was wrong, they arrested the father. But they are playing games about the whole thing. First the Lexington Police Department announced there would be a midnight press conference pertaining to the arrest in the Umi Southworth murder. Then around twelve thirty AM they said the case was under seal and they couldn't release any information at that time. They did confirm that Donald Southworth had been arrested for murder, but they couldn't say whose murder he had been arrested in connection with. All very strange. Of course he was arrested for the murder of Umi (they had already announced the arrest was in connection with her case) so its a lot of bureaucratic and legal "i" dotting and "t" crossing going on, I guess.
The First Transgender High School Prom Queen
It happened at McFatter Technical High School in Miami, where 17 year-old Andrew-or, as "she" prefers to call "herself", Andii-beat out fourteen others at the school where she had been bullied and tormented for years. At the advice of her counselor, she ignored the demands that she not be allowed to run. It seems as though nobody was as surprised as she was when she was named Prom Queen.
Andrew/Andii gets all the support she needs at home, including from her father, who admits that many of his co-workers have questioned his devotion to his son, saying things like "Oh,you didn't beat him up?"
Far from beating him up, Andrew's father, who works for a private garbage collection company in Fort Lauderdale, brought Andrew a gown, shoes, and make-up for the big night, and says he views Andrew as a straight female, as does his wife and Andrew's mother.
“I’ve always loved him unconditionally,” said Oscar Viveros, who still uses male pronouns when talking about Andrew. “I’ve told my other kids, they have to support him. He thinks he’s a girl in a man’s body. In school, he hears this and that, but I’ve made sure in our house he’s free to act and do whatever makes him comfortable.”
"He doesn’t consider himself gay. He likes men. I understand that. He’s just in the wrong body,’’ said Viveros, who recalls a young Andrew wanting to try on Cinderella’s dress at Disney World.
“I’d tell him, ‘You’re a boy,’’’ Viveros said. “He’d try it on anyway. He was happy.”
Below is Andrew alongside the night's "Prom King", who is also, no surprise here, gay.
Andrew/Andii gets all the support she needs at home, including from her father, who admits that many of his co-workers have questioned his devotion to his son, saying things like "Oh,you didn't beat him up?"
Far from beating him up, Andrew's father, who works for a private garbage collection company in Fort Lauderdale, brought Andrew a gown, shoes, and make-up for the big night, and says he views Andrew as a straight female, as does his wife and Andrew's mother.
“I’ve always loved him unconditionally,” said Oscar Viveros, who still uses male pronouns when talking about Andrew. “I’ve told my other kids, they have to support him. He thinks he’s a girl in a man’s body. In school, he hears this and that, but I’ve made sure in our house he’s free to act and do whatever makes him comfortable.”
"He doesn’t consider himself gay. He likes men. I understand that. He’s just in the wrong body,’’ said Viveros, who recalls a young Andrew wanting to try on Cinderella’s dress at Disney World.
“I’d tell him, ‘You’re a boy,’’’ Viveros said. “He’d try it on anyway. He was happy.”
Below is Andrew alongside the night's "Prom King", who is also, no surprise here, gay.
More Joyous Tidings From The Religion Of Peace
A teenage Muslim girl, pictured below, was stoned to death by other Muslim teenagers, her battered body dumped in a forest in the Ukraine. Her crime? She entered a beauty contest, which her attackers insisted was "against Shariah".
But hey-I'm not prejudiced. I think Islam should be treated just the same as any other disease.
But hey-I'm not prejudiced. I think Islam should be treated just the same as any other disease.
Monday, May 30, 2011
The Dic-Pic Seen Round The World
Here is the penis pic sent out over Twitter by New York Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner by way of a link to his yFrog account.
And here is the college student, Gennette Nicole Cordova, to whom he sent it.
Weiner is of course in denial, as is the young lady, one of a very few people who followed Weiner, and whom Weiner simultaneously followed on Twitter-along with a high school girl from Delaware and a porn star.
So what's going on here? I think Weiner sent the pic by way of DM (direct message) onTwitter, which is a private communication tool on the site. When she received it, it looks to me like she copied and pasted the DM onto a public tweet, and tweeted it off to her own specific followers, which would include Weiner, even going to the trouble of typing @RepWeiner on the tweet.
This is significant as, unless things have recently changed, the only way the @ appears next to your name on your Twitter timeline-or homepage-is if someone sends you a public tweet, or if they reply to one of your own public tweets.
Unfortunately, there was at least one person, probably the only person who followed both Weiner and the young woman in question. From the moment he saw the tweet, the fun and games began.
Gennelle furiously scrubbed not only her Twitter account, but all her other social networking accounts as well, including her FaceBook page. Even her by-line has been removed from The Horizon, the community college student newspaper she has worked for. Under the scenario I outlined, this could have been to prevent others from looking at her subsequent tweets as well as those of her mutual followers who would likewise have received the tweet with the link to the offending pic. Do note that as of this writing, none of Weiner's followers have stepped forward to comment as to whether they, too, received the dic-pic. Which is odd, considering that if it had been sent publicly by Weiner, tens of thousands of his followers would have received it as well as her. This makes it more likely that the recipients are limited to only her followers, probably a few hundred at most.
Weiner, in the meantime, has likewise scrubbed not only this but all his other pics from his yFrog account, while steadfastly claiming he is the victim of a hacker. Even if it were possible to hack into a Twitter account while the person who owns the account is actually on it (which I am told it is not) I would like to point out to those eager to cast aspersions on USAPatriot76 and even on Andrew Breitbart and other so-called #TCOT Bloggers that Weiner's Twitter account would be as likely, if not more likely, to be hacked by a fellow progressive or liberal Democrat as by a conservative.
Consider-
1. Weiner has been laying the groundwork to run for New York City Mayor for more than ten years now. Running for the NY Mayor's office will make you some bitter, determined enemies, mostly among your own party if you are a New York City Democrat.
2. The naturally combative Weiner was a supporter of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries, and at one time got into such a heated argument with Obama supporter Ben Afleck that people in the vicinity considered stepping in between the two of them before it turned physical.
3. Weiner, a Jew and unabashed supporter of Israel, was so determined to prevent the Palestinian delegation from appearing at the UN, he made the statement that they should "take their little Palestinian terrorist bags back to where they came from". That is a pretty intense, provocative statement, especially coming from a liberal Democrat.
The point being that Weiner has probably as many determined enemies among the left as he does the right, so liberals should think carefully before they start casting aspersions and making accusations.
But of course, its all bullshit. Nobody hacked Weiner's account. It looks to me like he made the mistake of getting just a little too friendly with somebody that was lacking the maturity to keep their private communications private. He has only one person to blame for that, and his name is Anthony Weiner.
As for Ginger Lee, the porn star that Weiner is following, her loyalty is perhaps more touching. She considers receiving tweets from Weiner akin to receiving them from the Buddha. And the high school girl from Delaware? She also locked up her Twitter account, but since the initial shock wore off, she's back on. She insists that she didn't do anything wrong.
And here is the college student, Gennette Nicole Cordova, to whom he sent it.
Weiner is of course in denial, as is the young lady, one of a very few people who followed Weiner, and whom Weiner simultaneously followed on Twitter-along with a high school girl from Delaware and a porn star.
So what's going on here? I think Weiner sent the pic by way of DM (direct message) onTwitter, which is a private communication tool on the site. When she received it, it looks to me like she copied and pasted the DM onto a public tweet, and tweeted it off to her own specific followers, which would include Weiner, even going to the trouble of typing @RepWeiner on the tweet.
This is significant as, unless things have recently changed, the only way the @ appears next to your name on your Twitter timeline-or homepage-is if someone sends you a public tweet, or if they reply to one of your own public tweets.
Unfortunately, there was at least one person, probably the only person who followed both Weiner and the young woman in question. From the moment he saw the tweet, the fun and games began.
Gennelle furiously scrubbed not only her Twitter account, but all her other social networking accounts as well, including her FaceBook page. Even her by-line has been removed from The Horizon, the community college student newspaper she has worked for. Under the scenario I outlined, this could have been to prevent others from looking at her subsequent tweets as well as those of her mutual followers who would likewise have received the tweet with the link to the offending pic. Do note that as of this writing, none of Weiner's followers have stepped forward to comment as to whether they, too, received the dic-pic. Which is odd, considering that if it had been sent publicly by Weiner, tens of thousands of his followers would have received it as well as her. This makes it more likely that the recipients are limited to only her followers, probably a few hundred at most.
Weiner, in the meantime, has likewise scrubbed not only this but all his other pics from his yFrog account, while steadfastly claiming he is the victim of a hacker. Even if it were possible to hack into a Twitter account while the person who owns the account is actually on it (which I am told it is not) I would like to point out to those eager to cast aspersions on USAPatriot76 and even on Andrew Breitbart and other so-called #TCOT Bloggers that Weiner's Twitter account would be as likely, if not more likely, to be hacked by a fellow progressive or liberal Democrat as by a conservative.
Consider-
1. Weiner has been laying the groundwork to run for New York City Mayor for more than ten years now. Running for the NY Mayor's office will make you some bitter, determined enemies, mostly among your own party if you are a New York City Democrat.
2. The naturally combative Weiner was a supporter of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries, and at one time got into such a heated argument with Obama supporter Ben Afleck that people in the vicinity considered stepping in between the two of them before it turned physical.
3. Weiner, a Jew and unabashed supporter of Israel, was so determined to prevent the Palestinian delegation from appearing at the UN, he made the statement that they should "take their little Palestinian terrorist bags back to where they came from". That is a pretty intense, provocative statement, especially coming from a liberal Democrat.
The point being that Weiner has probably as many determined enemies among the left as he does the right, so liberals should think carefully before they start casting aspersions and making accusations.
But of course, its all bullshit. Nobody hacked Weiner's account. It looks to me like he made the mistake of getting just a little too friendly with somebody that was lacking the maturity to keep their private communications private. He has only one person to blame for that, and his name is Anthony Weiner.
As for Ginger Lee, the porn star that Weiner is following, her loyalty is perhaps more touching. She considers receiving tweets from Weiner akin to receiving them from the Buddha. And the high school girl from Delaware? She also locked up her Twitter account, but since the initial shock wore off, she's back on. She insists that she didn't do anything wrong.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Finally, At Long, Long Last-A Much Needed Federal Government Program To Deal With The Insidious Problem Of Childhood Fidgeting
And so far, according to Sundries Shack, this early learning initiative its only going to cost a mere 500 million dollars.
And really, what else can you do. If you are Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health And Human Services, you know you have to tackle the problem at its source-those formative years starting from birth, which culminate in the manifestation of five year old children who fidget in kindergarten classes. Sometimes these unruly tykes just can't seem to sit still.
But thanks to the wisdom and munificence of the federal government, and by way of your tax dollars, there is hope. Your child can be reprogrammed.
Sundries Shack addresses the real problem here-
The telling word in the story is “problems”. To Sibelius and her fellow progressives, it’s a problem if 5-year-old children act like 5-year-old children. And in classic progressive fashion, her answer is not to alter our educational system to account for this but to “solve” the “problem” with an expansive and expensive government program to reprogram small children so they all act the way Kathleen Sibelius believes they should
I think I agree with Sundries proposed solution to the problem. Somebody needs a spanking.
We know this is folly, which is why we must pry their greedy and delusional hands from the levers of government power every chance we get. If we can’t manage it, we’re going to get more of these lunatic experiments and both we and our children will suffer.
Indeed, until discipline is restored in our school systems, they will continue to spiral out of control, until they are dominated by intellectually lazy and emotionally shiftless bullies who will continue to discredit our institutions of education at all grade levels. Our schools are already plagued with far too many of these immature and incoherent denizens of chaos who have turned our education system into a crumbling failure. By the way-I'm not talking about the students.
Our school system has degenerated to such an extent that, in some of the more extreme cases, by the time a student graduates, if he or she is lucky said student might have picked up some good coping and survival skills along the way to balance out the PTSD. Some of the more determined students might even learn to write their names.
But take heart. According to Kathleen Sibelius, its not really the fault of the school system. It's societies fault, for not taking charge of your fidgeting while you were in your formative years. But this 500 million dollar program should enable us to find ways to address this issue. Then again-
Here’s one last thing to ponder. How much of this $500 million will go toward actually educating children and how much will go into salaries for brand-new school administrators, high-dollar outside consultants, and more cash into the coffers of teachers’ unions?
A good question, but it doesn't really stop there. The real question should be, how long before the five hundred million dollars is increased to five billion dollars, and beyond?
If you ever wondered why there has been such an increase in known psycopaths and sociopaths over the course of the last four decades, you need look no further than America's school system. And its high time we actually did something about it.
This is not the time for fidgeting.
And really, what else can you do. If you are Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health And Human Services, you know you have to tackle the problem at its source-those formative years starting from birth, which culminate in the manifestation of five year old children who fidget in kindergarten classes. Sometimes these unruly tykes just can't seem to sit still.
But thanks to the wisdom and munificence of the federal government, and by way of your tax dollars, there is hope. Your child can be reprogrammed.
Sundries Shack addresses the real problem here-
The telling word in the story is “problems”. To Sibelius and her fellow progressives, it’s a problem if 5-year-old children act like 5-year-old children. And in classic progressive fashion, her answer is not to alter our educational system to account for this but to “solve” the “problem” with an expansive and expensive government program to reprogram small children so they all act the way Kathleen Sibelius believes they should
I think I agree with Sundries proposed solution to the problem. Somebody needs a spanking.
We know this is folly, which is why we must pry their greedy and delusional hands from the levers of government power every chance we get. If we can’t manage it, we’re going to get more of these lunatic experiments and both we and our children will suffer.
Indeed, until discipline is restored in our school systems, they will continue to spiral out of control, until they are dominated by intellectually lazy and emotionally shiftless bullies who will continue to discredit our institutions of education at all grade levels. Our schools are already plagued with far too many of these immature and incoherent denizens of chaos who have turned our education system into a crumbling failure. By the way-I'm not talking about the students.
Our school system has degenerated to such an extent that, in some of the more extreme cases, by the time a student graduates, if he or she is lucky said student might have picked up some good coping and survival skills along the way to balance out the PTSD. Some of the more determined students might even learn to write their names.
But take heart. According to Kathleen Sibelius, its not really the fault of the school system. It's societies fault, for not taking charge of your fidgeting while you were in your formative years. But this 500 million dollar program should enable us to find ways to address this issue. Then again-
Here’s one last thing to ponder. How much of this $500 million will go toward actually educating children and how much will go into salaries for brand-new school administrators, high-dollar outside consultants, and more cash into the coffers of teachers’ unions?
A good question, but it doesn't really stop there. The real question should be, how long before the five hundred million dollars is increased to five billion dollars, and beyond?
If you ever wondered why there has been such an increase in known psycopaths and sociopaths over the course of the last four decades, you need look no further than America's school system. And its high time we actually did something about it.
This is not the time for fidgeting.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Objective Media, Or Media Objective?
Tigerhawk makes an apt comparison of the media treatment of Sarah Palin to former Senator and VP/Presidential candidate John Edwards, now facing federal prosecution for misuse of campaign funds.
Edwards got a complete pass from the media for years, which avoided reporting the details of his illicit affair for as long as they could, which was until the National Enquirer released the news. Even then, the liberal Democrat base screeched that it was a personal matter, until the news surfaced that Edwards was paying his mistress hush money with campaign funds funneled through an adviser, a man who falsely claimed to be the father of the illegitimate child fathered by Edwards in order to protect the then presidential candidate.
The story eventually made its way into the mainstream press, which pursued it mainly for the human interest of Edwards wife Elizabeth going through this humiliation while simultaneously battling the breast cancer that eventually killed her.
Yet, even at this, the press was remarkably restrained and incredibly objective in reporting these details, and certainly did not dwell on them for an inordinate amount of time.
And this brings us to Tigerhawk's comparison to the Palin coverage.
I have long thought that the media's disparate treatment of John Edwards and Sarah Palin was the most powerful evidence of structural bias toward the left. Edwards was having an affair and the media turned a blind eye. Palin was pregnant by her husband, and the media accused her of faking it and swarmed Alaska with investigators. Edwards had no useful experience -- he was a trial lawyer, which is training for essentially nothing important, and a one-term Senator -- and nobody in the press questioned his qualifications. However one might weigh Palin's resume, she was no less experienced than Edwards (that would be difficult) and the press hammered her constantly for it. Edwards was vain as can be and the press did not even suggest that he was a narcissist (which he obviously is). Palin bought some better looking clothes for campaigning and the whole press pool jumped on it. Edwards could not make a speech without reminding us he was the son of a "mill worker" who had gotten rich and the media ate it up as evidence of humble beginnings. The Palins actually built a successful small business and the media mocked it as a stunt. One could go on.
The disparate treatment of Edwards and Palin is a warning to all Republicans, or at least Republican women -- the non-Fox mainstream media will pretty much do anything it can to destroy you.
Truer words were never spoken. In fact, its so obvious the media doesn't really even try to deny it anymore. Its almost as if they feel if you aren't with them, they don't give a damn what you think. That's the sign of a media that's brought and paid for. And that begs the question, who's writing the checks.
Edwards got a complete pass from the media for years, which avoided reporting the details of his illicit affair for as long as they could, which was until the National Enquirer released the news. Even then, the liberal Democrat base screeched that it was a personal matter, until the news surfaced that Edwards was paying his mistress hush money with campaign funds funneled through an adviser, a man who falsely claimed to be the father of the illegitimate child fathered by Edwards in order to protect the then presidential candidate.
The story eventually made its way into the mainstream press, which pursued it mainly for the human interest of Edwards wife Elizabeth going through this humiliation while simultaneously battling the breast cancer that eventually killed her.
Yet, even at this, the press was remarkably restrained and incredibly objective in reporting these details, and certainly did not dwell on them for an inordinate amount of time.
And this brings us to Tigerhawk's comparison to the Palin coverage.
I have long thought that the media's disparate treatment of John Edwards and Sarah Palin was the most powerful evidence of structural bias toward the left. Edwards was having an affair and the media turned a blind eye. Palin was pregnant by her husband, and the media accused her of faking it and swarmed Alaska with investigators. Edwards had no useful experience -- he was a trial lawyer, which is training for essentially nothing important, and a one-term Senator -- and nobody in the press questioned his qualifications. However one might weigh Palin's resume, she was no less experienced than Edwards (that would be difficult) and the press hammered her constantly for it. Edwards was vain as can be and the press did not even suggest that he was a narcissist (which he obviously is). Palin bought some better looking clothes for campaigning and the whole press pool jumped on it. Edwards could not make a speech without reminding us he was the son of a "mill worker" who had gotten rich and the media ate it up as evidence of humble beginnings. The Palins actually built a successful small business and the media mocked it as a stunt. One could go on.
The disparate treatment of Edwards and Palin is a warning to all Republicans, or at least Republican women -- the non-Fox mainstream media will pretty much do anything it can to destroy you.
Truer words were never spoken. In fact, its so obvious the media doesn't really even try to deny it anymore. Its almost as if they feel if you aren't with them, they don't give a damn what you think. That's the sign of a media that's brought and paid for. And that begs the question, who's writing the checks.
China, India, And Pakistan-The Possible Road To A Nuclear Rumble
Watch this leftist loon reading the news of China's defense of Pakistan and promises of support in the wake of the Bin Laden killing. Even though he's British, he hopes this will all somehow lead to the destruction of Britain, and the US, by way of nuclear attack. He's in love with somebody according to his YouTube homepage, but evidently is having a hard time convincing the girl in question he's the right man for the job. I'm reasonably certain this guy has never been laid, which would explain a lot. But in the meantime, as far as he's concerned, the US and Britain are responsible for all the world's ills.
Ironically, this is the kind of person who is most responsible for the downward spiral of both Britain and the US, but he and his ilk insist on projecting their suicidal impulses onto the rest of us in expiation of their obvious self-loathing. In this case, an unhinged man displays his lunatic evil for all the world to see.
He is referring of course to the recent announcement by China than any further encroachment on Pakistani soil, by the US or by anyone, would be interpreted as an assault on China itself.
In the meantime, China has been steadily strengthening its relationship with Pakistan, in terms of trade, mutual defense and international cooperation, including against India, as explained in the post from the Times of India, linked above-
In its zeal to protect Pakistani rulers, China even indicated it would not pressurize Pakistan to hand over the perpetuators of the Mumbai terrorist attack to India.
The most ominous sign therefore may not be how this applies to Sino-American relations, but to Chinese relations with bordering India, with whom both China and ally Pakistan have had a long and tumultuous relationship which has numerous times led to open warfare.
Now China has extra cause for concern, in that by any objective measurement the economy of India has substantially outgrown the economy of China.
As if it were not bad enough that they are therefore trade rivals, there is also the old border and territorial disputes, which also involves Pakistan to some degree, and which are significant, as they involve more than just a little bit of territory.
Then there is the recent acquisition by China of Gwadar, a Pakistani port on the Indian Ocean. The following paragraph sums it up-
Pakistan's Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar has said China is to take over operation of the strategically positioned port of Gwadar. The announcement has yet to be confirmed by Beijing, but if true it will see yet another addition to China's 'String of Pearls', a group of Indian Ocean ports that China has been developing, ostensibly for commercial use, but which could also have military purposes. CFW believes that a Chinese naval presence in Gwadar would greatly enhance Beijing's ability to project power into the Persian Gulf for the first time in the modern era, and would allow it to guard the western part of its crucial energy supply chain.
Note that this has strategic and military as well as commercial trade implications.
Bear in mind that these three countries together comprise almost one third of the population of the world, they are all three nuclear powers, and one is a sworn enemy of the other two, who are now seemingly joined at the hip in mutual cooperation on trade and defense issues.
Yet, the gravity of the situation seems to have escaped the attention of our government, for the most part. But it is an unfortunate truth that the US position has become so weakened over the years that the Chinese leadership knows they can do this with impunity, while publicly threatening our elected leaders with what can only be interpreted as a swift and strong response should we ever again deign to violate the sovereignty, as they see it, of Pakistani territory.
That means we are no longer evidently allowed to operate predator drones in the northwest territories without the express permission of the Pakistani authorities we have also supported financially, lest any forget, to the tune of billions of dollars yearly.
But more importantly, perhaps, is the implications pertaining to the long-running border disputes between the three nations. India will feel like its in a bind and must now negotiate from a weakened position.
Or at least that's what China hopes. It might not work out that way. I hope it doesn't. I hope the Indians stand firm and doesn't cave in to any demands or provocations, from either the Chinese, the Pakistanis, or both.
But I am certain the Chinese are right about one thing, at least-the Obama Administration will be less than useless to India, regardless of what happens.
In a sense, the man in the video is right about America and Britain's responsibility for all that's wrong with the world. Just not in the way he thinks he is.
Ironically, this is the kind of person who is most responsible for the downward spiral of both Britain and the US, but he and his ilk insist on projecting their suicidal impulses onto the rest of us in expiation of their obvious self-loathing. In this case, an unhinged man displays his lunatic evil for all the world to see.
He is referring of course to the recent announcement by China than any further encroachment on Pakistani soil, by the US or by anyone, would be interpreted as an assault on China itself.
In the meantime, China has been steadily strengthening its relationship with Pakistan, in terms of trade, mutual defense and international cooperation, including against India, as explained in the post from the Times of India, linked above-
In its zeal to protect Pakistani rulers, China even indicated it would not pressurize Pakistan to hand over the perpetuators of the Mumbai terrorist attack to India.
The most ominous sign therefore may not be how this applies to Sino-American relations, but to Chinese relations with bordering India, with whom both China and ally Pakistan have had a long and tumultuous relationship which has numerous times led to open warfare.
Now China has extra cause for concern, in that by any objective measurement the economy of India has substantially outgrown the economy of China.
As if it were not bad enough that they are therefore trade rivals, there is also the old border and territorial disputes, which also involves Pakistan to some degree, and which are significant, as they involve more than just a little bit of territory.
Then there is the recent acquisition by China of Gwadar, a Pakistani port on the Indian Ocean. The following paragraph sums it up-
Pakistan's Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar has said China is to take over operation of the strategically positioned port of Gwadar. The announcement has yet to be confirmed by Beijing, but if true it will see yet another addition to China's 'String of Pearls', a group of Indian Ocean ports that China has been developing, ostensibly for commercial use, but which could also have military purposes. CFW believes that a Chinese naval presence in Gwadar would greatly enhance Beijing's ability to project power into the Persian Gulf for the first time in the modern era, and would allow it to guard the western part of its crucial energy supply chain.
Note that this has strategic and military as well as commercial trade implications.
Bear in mind that these three countries together comprise almost one third of the population of the world, they are all three nuclear powers, and one is a sworn enemy of the other two, who are now seemingly joined at the hip in mutual cooperation on trade and defense issues.
Yet, the gravity of the situation seems to have escaped the attention of our government, for the most part. But it is an unfortunate truth that the US position has become so weakened over the years that the Chinese leadership knows they can do this with impunity, while publicly threatening our elected leaders with what can only be interpreted as a swift and strong response should we ever again deign to violate the sovereignty, as they see it, of Pakistani territory.
That means we are no longer evidently allowed to operate predator drones in the northwest territories without the express permission of the Pakistani authorities we have also supported financially, lest any forget, to the tune of billions of dollars yearly.
But more importantly, perhaps, is the implications pertaining to the long-running border disputes between the three nations. India will feel like its in a bind and must now negotiate from a weakened position.
Or at least that's what China hopes. It might not work out that way. I hope it doesn't. I hope the Indians stand firm and doesn't cave in to any demands or provocations, from either the Chinese, the Pakistanis, or both.
But I am certain the Chinese are right about one thing, at least-the Obama Administration will be less than useless to India, regardless of what happens.
In a sense, the man in the video is right about America and Britain's responsibility for all that's wrong with the world. Just not in the way he thinks he is.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Palin Wins Ace Of Spades HQ Straw Poll-Ron Paul Excluded From Poll
Despite the fact that she hasn't declared yet, Sarah Palin has not only won Ace's Straw Poll, but she did so quite handily, at 34.88% of the vote coming in over ten points ahead of her closest competitor, Herman Cain, who polled a respectable 26.08%. In third place was former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, with 23.5%.
Everyone else was left in the dust, including Mitt Romney, who polled a mere 4.56%, coming in fifth behind Minnesota House of Representatives Member Michelle Bachman with 6.29% in fourth place.
In sixth place, curiously enough, was former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson at 2%, polling ahead of former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum at 1.5%.
Coming in with less than one percent of the total was former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and, coming in dead last-Newt Gingrich, who might as well have hung it up before he ever got around to shooting himself in the foot while simultaneously cramming it in his mouth.
Now admittedly this is not a scientific poll, but I think its pretty accurate for a number of reasons. For one thing, Ace has a wide readership among conservatives and Republicans, and his site is in fact probably a bell-weather insofar as current Republican divisions and sentiment goes.
The second thing that makes this poll likely a credible reflection of GOP voter mood is that, although you can vote as often as you want in the poll, only the first vote is included in the final results.
Finally, the most fun part of the poll is the fact that the Paul-bots were excluded from skewing the results of this poll, as they have been so wont to do in so many others, in favor of their Messiah, Texas House of Representatives member Ron Paul.
Despair not, however, as if Paul was included and his numbers were an accurate reflection of his actual support, he would not move the numbers beyond what might well be classified (if this were a scientific poll) as the poll's margin of error.
And its always fun to make the Paul-bots fume and wack out, just for the comic relief, which is something we can all sometimes use.
In the meantime, since its starting to look more likely that Palin is getting ready to run, one can only wonder how her number will look when she does declare.
Everyone else was left in the dust, including Mitt Romney, who polled a mere 4.56%, coming in fifth behind Minnesota House of Representatives Member Michelle Bachman with 6.29% in fourth place.
In sixth place, curiously enough, was former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson at 2%, polling ahead of former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum at 1.5%.
Coming in with less than one percent of the total was former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and, coming in dead last-Newt Gingrich, who might as well have hung it up before he ever got around to shooting himself in the foot while simultaneously cramming it in his mouth.
Now admittedly this is not a scientific poll, but I think its pretty accurate for a number of reasons. For one thing, Ace has a wide readership among conservatives and Republicans, and his site is in fact probably a bell-weather insofar as current Republican divisions and sentiment goes.
The second thing that makes this poll likely a credible reflection of GOP voter mood is that, although you can vote as often as you want in the poll, only the first vote is included in the final results.
Finally, the most fun part of the poll is the fact that the Paul-bots were excluded from skewing the results of this poll, as they have been so wont to do in so many others, in favor of their Messiah, Texas House of Representatives member Ron Paul.
Despair not, however, as if Paul was included and his numbers were an accurate reflection of his actual support, he would not move the numbers beyond what might well be classified (if this were a scientific poll) as the poll's margin of error.
And its always fun to make the Paul-bots fume and wack out, just for the comic relief, which is something we can all sometimes use.
In the meantime, since its starting to look more likely that Palin is getting ready to run, one can only wonder how her number will look when she does declare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)