Parents Teach Your Children

How can you be sure you can send your children to a university that doesn't tolerate the viewpoints of the rabid right? After all, as a leftist, you want to be sure your children are taught the same values that you hold dear. You know in your heart of hearts the government has an obligation to make sure that everyone is equal and that every one adheres to the progressive doctrine of tolerance and diversity. After all, such values are the hallmarks of a civilized society, and it is the proper place of educators to pave the way by reinforcing in your children these progressive values by which you live your life and by which you have raised them.

Well, you need fear no more. If someone attempts to oppose the progressive agenda at your child's university, they can be banned, or maybe even prosecuted, for bullying.

It might seem harsh and unfair to some, but after all, we have to first and foremost make sure our universities maintain a healthy learning environment, where our children are free from the unscrupulous manipulation of those who would indoctrinate them against our most precious and heart-felt values.

Conservatives love America as it was in the past, despite its imperfections, and even love it for what it is now. Progressives see this as maudlin sentimentality and backward thinking. Progressives are more forward thinking and visionary. They love America for what it can be, once they succeed in remaking it in their image.

In other words, they love an America that has never existed.

And hopefully never will.

Healthy Choices

Obama looks poised to ruin the next holiday season, if n0t this one, by signing a bill into law that would severely limit school bake sales, or more specifically what kinds of foods can be sold at them. This is an initiative promoted by First Lady Michelle Obama to encourage healthier food "choices" on behalf of the nation's children.

Just how close is the First Lady to Bill Clinton anyway? After all, this is one of his pet projects. Well, him and Rachael Raye. Bill Clinton, Rachael Raye, Michelle Obama, and I think Mrs. Dennis Kucinich was brought in as a part of the deal President Obama made with Kucinich in return for his support for the Health Care Bill.

That's one hell of a cabal. The eating choices of schoolchildren determined by people who probably shouldn't be allowed within one mile of a school.

The Awful Truth

Whips And Chains (And Fuzzy Pink Handcuffs)

Andrew Breitbart might be on to a good idea here. Since the repeal of DADT, we now have the opportunity to utilize what might be our greatest possible weapon against Islamic radicals, such as Al Queda and the Taliban-homosexuals.

There is no single group of people who are more anti-gay than fundamentalist Muslims, which unfortunately seem to make up the majority of the religion's adherents, regardless of whether or not most of them can be legitimately classified as terrorists or terrorist sympathizers (although they are most certainly at the very least enablers).

This article from Der Spiegel relates just how bad homosexuals have it in Iraq. Oftentimes their genitals are cut off and their anuses stuffed with glue. And here is another post that relates how they are openly executed for the "crime" of homosexuality.

The most insane part of it is homosexuality between adult men and prepubescent boys is deemed acceptable. And even a man who dominates another man sexually is safe. It is only the passive partner who is deemed guilty of "effeminacy" and thus subject to a potential death sentence.

We may be on to something here. When some Islamic radical leader is captured, have him interrogated by two gays. One can be the "good cop", the other one the "bad cop". The bastard will probably spew out everything he knows before either one has to lay a hand on him.

Of course, liberals will object because that would be tantamount to "torture".

Run For Your Life

Best. Beatles. Cover. Evah! Not only that, this is better than the original. This guy is a frakin' genius.

Scenes FromThe Walking Dead

Above is a panel from the graphic novel The Walking Dead by Robert Kirkman, which is now a series on AMC and recently concluded its first season. I only caught the last two episodes of The Walking Dead, so missed the first four episodes. This is from the first episode.



This is the so-called "Bicycle Girl" scene, also from the first episode. If you have to meet a zombie, it should always be one with no legs. That scene alternates with one of a man in his home with his son, waiting for the opportunity to kill his now zombie wife. He has no trouble shooting the myriads of others that come into range of his rife, but when his wife comes into view, he can't seem to do it.



It's too bad this season only had six episodes, but in a way, its good. Its a sign that AMC probably wanted to invest heavily into top notch production values, but couldn't see their way clear to invest in more than six of them. Now that the series has proven to be a big hit, there will probably be more episodes next season, which unfortunately won't be until late next year, I think October.

When they return, I hope they put more emphasis on the zombie menace like they did in these two segments. In the last two episodes, which are the only ones I saw, they were more focused on the human survivors. This is understandable to a point, but the zombie action was still too sparse from my taste.

It was explained as some kind of virus that killed the personality of the original person, leaving them brain dead except for the brain stem, leaving them in effect more animal than human, dead but reanimated and acting solely out of pure instinct, with a ravenous hunger for living flesh.

That doesn't quite square with the little girl zombie in the first segment stooping to pick up her teddy bear, which would seem to hint some retention of prior human attachments. Oh well, dramatic license and all.

There's so many directions this thing can go. What if a woman gave birth to a dead baby, or it died in her arms while she slept and started gnawing on her? For that matter, what if it died in her womb?

How about a human-zombie love affair? It should definitely be living male human to zombie female. Sepsis as a sexually transmitted disease would just be wrong on every level.

I'm kidding, of course. Here's a run-down of the first episode.

And here is a review of the graphic novell on which the series is based.

And I just have to include this video by Kirby Krackle, called Zombie Apocalypse.

Austrian Man Fined For Yodeling (Hint-He Has Muslim Neighbors)

This is hard to believe, but a jury in Austria just found a man guilty of insulting the religion of his Islamic neighbors-by yodeling. They fined him 700 Euros, for yodeling while he was mowing his yard. He claimed the thought that he might have been insulting his neighbors never crossed his mind. He was just yodeling while mowing because he was in a good mood.

So in what way can yodeling be interpreted as an insult to Islam? Well, the Austrian's Muslim neighbors thought he was making fun of the Islamic call to prayer.

So, let's look at it. Here's an Austrian woman named Ernestine yodeling in a song-



And now, here's the Muslim call to prayer in Istanbul-



Yeah, come to think of it, there is a similarity, but I think its off the charts insane to fine an Austrian citizen, in Austria, for doing something Austrians have been doing for centuries, by deciding the man was obviously indulging in an old Austrian tradition to be provocative towards members of a group that have just recently moved to their country and gone out of their way to be obnoxious assholes, pretty much like these clowns do everywhere they go.

But hey, that's just me.

Must Be Santa

Any old hippy from the 1960's will tell you, half the fun of listening to a Bob Dylan song was wondering just what he was really saying. What was the hidden meaning behind those cryptic lyrics?

Well now, thankfully, Bob has taken the fun to a whole new level for the YouTube generation. In this video, something inexplicable happens that seems out of place to the general setting and mood of the song.

Now all those old hippies can gather at the local Starbucks and expound, theorize, and philosophize as to "what was Bob saying here?"

Or you can just enjoy the video.



H/T Maggie's Farm

Victory And Defeat

Ed Schulz on his execrable MSNBC program The Ed Show has taken to excoriating John Boehner, the Republican House Majority Leader soon to become Speaker of The House of Representatives, for his propensity to cry, notably during discussions of The American Dream. Schulz blames Boehner and the Republicans for the country's problems and for "throwing working families under the bus" even going so far as to say his crying during a recent Barbara Walter's interview is a sign of a guilty conscience. Walter's co-host on The View like to infer that Boehner is just emotionally unstable. And of course liberal Democrats fall in line behind this rhetoric, and excuse it on the grounds that conservatives would be worse if Obama or Pelosi were to break down in tears. Some even point out how conservatives were cruelly derisive of Hillary Clinton when she broke down and cried following her loss in the Iowa caucus during her 2008 run for the Democratic nomination.

I would like to point out a major difference between Hillary and John Boehner which should be mind-numbingly obvious to any with the brains of Ray Bolger's Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz.

Boehner cried when his party, not just him, made their biggest electoral gains in several decades.

Hillary Clinton cried when she lost. When she lost her first caucus.

When that happened, Hillary Clinton lost the first important test of her candidacy during a primary season, prior to which she had been hailed for about two years as the all-but presumptive Democratic Party nominee for President in 2008. It was but the first of a series of long, hard fought primary season contests that she would lose, leading to her ultimate defeat and the corresponding ascension of Obama as Democratic nominee. Hillary had to know that her first defeat in Iowa was but a portent, an ominous foreshadowing of what promised to be a long, hard fought and bruising primary campaign season, one in which she was no longer assured of the victory she had come to feel was hers for merely the asking.

When it looked as though she might also fall to defeat in New Hampshire, it was too much for her. For a few brief seconds, she lost her composure, the steely, hard resolve for which she was noted, and she was overcome with a sense of emotional insecurity that actually revealed her to be more human than many might have suspected. Ironically, it actually helped her. She ended up winning the New Hampshire primary, and went on to score other victories. But in the end, she lost, as she feared she might that night two years ago when she broke down for just a few brief seconds, and lost her composure.

But her tears, despite her stated anxiety about those things she feared she would never accomplish, seem based on disappointment at the loss of the opportunity to extend the Clinton legacy of power and influence through yet a third presidential term.

Contrast this to John Boehner, whose tears were not tears of disappointment in the face of a crushing defeat, but instead were tears of gratitude and humility in the face of an overwhelming sense of responsibility entrusted by the American people not just in him, but in the party of which he is a leader. John Boehner came up the hard way, through hard work and dedication, working at menial labor jobs and rising from there to become a successful, even a wealthy businessman. He doesn't just trust and have faith in the American Dream. He has lived the American Dream. He has experienced it first hand, and knows what it can do for a person who puts enough of his blood, sweat, and tears into pursuing it. He also knows there is always the possibility of failure. He wants government to not interfere with it. Unfortunately, John Boehner knows that the government, thanks to a series of ill-advised policies, many implemented in some cases with the best of intentions, has for far too many people made the American Dream measurably harder to achieve. In some cases, it has outright crushed that dream.

John Boehner knows full well that he has the power to do one of two things. As House Majority Speaker, he can be a major influence towards restoring the American Dream to its former level of greater attainment by those with the potential to strive for success. Or, he can accede to policies that will continue to strangle that potential for greater and increased success for greater numbers of people. That has got to be an awesome responsibility, an awesome weight to hoist upon ones shoulders. He knows it is going to be hard. He knows it is going to be one set of long, hard battles after another, with some failures, and maybe few victories.

But you see, John Boehner will fight those battles to the end, and he will do it with all the strength he can muster. Because John Boehner, unlike Hillary Clinton, is not just fighting for his own sense of entitlement, of self=aggrandizement, for ever greater personal power and influence.

No, John Boehner is fighting for something greater, much greater than himself, or for that matter, much greater than the Republican or Democratic Parties.

He is fighting to keep the Dream alive, and he knows its life might well depend on what he does. Or maybe on what he doesn't do, as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

If he breaks down and cries from time to time from being overcome with the emotion inherent in such an awesome responsibility, I can not only forgive it, I can appreciate it.

At least I know he gives a damn.

Sarah Palin's Alaska

I finally got around to watching a few episodes of Sarah Palin's Alaska the other night, and to tell you the truth its hard for me to fault Kate Goslin's performance for her guest-starring stint on the show. If you have never watched the show and decide to give it a shot, let me give you some good advice. You are going to want to make sure you are as close as possible to a soft, comfortable bed with the thickest, warmest blanket you can find.

Not because the show is so boring it will put you to sleep. Far from it. No, its because by the time you get through one episode you will be fucking exhausted just from watching it. And cold.

I have always imagined Alaska to be a land of scenic beauty and wonder, one of the last great nature refuge's on earth. And I'm sure it is, but you might not notice that from this series. Here, Alaska seems like a lonely, cold, and desolate place.

In one episode, Sarah and family visit a woman who lives in a large trailer way off somewhere in a secluded area, more than one hundred miles from her nearest neighbors. She related how one night when out foraging she was attacked by a bear which grabbed her by the head and dragged her off. As the Palin's felt her head and remarked on the evidenced left by the bear's crushing jaw, she related how she later sewed her head up by herself. Something's missing here, I thought. How did she get away from the bear? I never heard her explain, but I might have missed it running for the aspirin.

The main thing to remember about this show is-these people. Never. Stop. It's sunup to sundown activity. In an earlier episode, they went fishing, not with rod and reel, but to check their salmon nets. After one dry run, they went back the next day and took in a hefty haul. I shivered every time Todd or his partner reached into that frigid water to pull that thing in.

Todd is trying to train son Track to take over the family fishing business, but unfortunately, the Palin's son has-during his sojourn in Iraq-grown soft and lazy. He and his buddy neglected to clean up the tool shed, which they left in the biggest mess you could possible imagine. They were roused out of their sleep by little sister Piper some time after Todd and Sarah discovered the transgression and, sure enough, took it on themselves to clean up.

"No, please don't", I moaned to myself. "Please, take it easy. I can't take anymore."

But they just kept on. Not just Sarah and Todd, but the whole family. In that same episode, the middle girl, Willow, was up to her elbows in fish blood helping some of the other extended family members prepare dinner. And this, by the way, was on her birthday.

Her sweet sixteen birthday.

All of them were there, and all of them were working, constantly. This might sound like a put down, but its not. If anything, this show is proof positive that these people are the real deal. If Sarah becomes President, don't worry about her not being up for the job, or taking too many vacations. I seriously wonder if any of them even know what the word vacation means, in addition to other words, such as rest, relax, etc.

I am not exaggerating when I say that if I could go back in time one hundred years or so and tell the story of one of these programs around a campfire, by the time I was finished somebody would say "okay its my turn. Once there was this giant lumberjack with a big blue ox."

There are two different fallacies regarding Sarah Palin. One group thinks of her in negative terms, that she's a hick, or an opportunist, or that she's inexperienced and unqualified for high public office. One recent example of this is Aaron Sorkin, who recently penned a rant for the Huffington Post in which he criticized Sarah's apparent delight in killing animals, even though he admitted he himself was a meat eater. Apparently he thinks people that produce meat for supermarkets and restaurants wait until the animal dies of old age.

More to the point, these kinds of people are typical of the elitist, snobbish buffoons who like to portray themselves as the pillars of society. They know in reality that their lifestyle requires the hard work and sacrifice of other, and even the shedding of blood in some instances. They just don't want to have to know about it in detail, and in fact, they have a visceral reaction to the very people their very lives depend on. They want to pretend that they are too civilized, above all that, while people who live the life of the Palins are to their way of thinking too common, too crude, to regard seriously as their equals, when the fact of the matter is, people like the Palins are their superiors in every way that matters.

But there is another group of people who are just as deluded, and that is the people who think Palin is "just like us". Okay, in the sense that there are certain intrinsic values she might share, yes. But believe me, there is nothing ordinary or average about Sarah Palin.

The last thing I saw before I stopped watching was Sarah and an older in-law waiting to kill a caribou once it got in range, until it stopped and seemed to stare in their direction. "Something's wrong", whispered the older man.

Yeah, I think I know what that something was. That caribou stopped in his tracks and was thinking "Oh fucking dammit, I see a Palin at seven o'clock!"

I never saw how that turned out either. By that time my bones were so cold and sore, and I was so exhausted, I had to crawl off to bed.

Meow

No sooner do I get hooked on the new AMC zombie program The Walking Dead than the first season comes to an abrupt end, after only six episodes. Now I find myself in need of a zombie fix. Okay then-

Don't Ask, Don't Tell-Don't Tread!

Now that West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin has managed to derail the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, joining a filibuster with 39 Republicans, its probably a pretty safe bet the law won't be repealed for at least another two years. Manchin explained that he was not sure where his West Virginia constituents stand on the subject. I think he might have been kidding.

For my own part, I'm mixed on the subject, but Ann Coulter makes a great point when she decries the recent Pentagon poll as pretty meaningless as a gauge of military attitudes. That poll was skewed by the presence of non-military, non-combat related civilian branches and employees of the Pentagon. The actual military branches which would be most affected are dead set against repeal. This is especially true of the Marines, and it is a predominant attitude throughout the ranks. Asking the opinion of the Pentagon would be about as relevant as a poll of the members of Cirque du Soleil on this subject.

The military is politicized enough as it is. Democrats especially love to turn the military and its soldiers into political footballs, crying to the heavens about how they love and respect our men and women in uniform, yet insisting they go way beyond the call of duty to save civilian lives even at greater risk to their own, imposing unrealistic and outrageously strict codes of conduct against the most savage and barbaric of foes, and in myriad other ways limiting their success if not outright derailing it. They then use that lack of success as a political stick with which to whack Republicans up the side of the head. In the meantime, the bloody carcasses of our military casualties becomes a red meat they throw to their leftist base.

That is why we have not yet won in Afghanistan, and probably will not, and that is also why it took so long to achieve real progress in Iraq. I would personally discourage any young man or woman, especially a member of my family, from serving in any branch of the military. As a member of the armed forces you get unbounded respect from most of the general public, but you get next to none from the people who send you into harms way. This is especially true of the ones that have a "d" after their names.

The policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell is just another distraction from what is the real issue. Gays themselves are just another kind of cannon fodder to the Democratic Party, just another group of pawns the Democrats try to manipulate as cynically and as cravenly as the establishment Republicans try to manipulate Christian conservatives.

The real issue isn't should gays be allowed to serve openly in the military. The real issue is why would they want to serve openly or otherwise. The real issue is, why the hell would anybody want to?

I favor making the military a fourth co-equal branch of government myself, but that's a post for another day. For now I'll just suffice it to say they should have their own policies regarding who they allow to serve and under what conditions, and the civilian branch, the Pentagon and even the President and Congress should butt the hell out of it. They've done enough damage to our armed forces as it is, to say nothing of the psychological and physical damage to individual members of the military. They have served their country honorably at great sacrifice of life and limb. In some cases they will never recover from the mental and emotional turmoil to which they have been subjected, not only by foreign enemies but by mostly Democrat politicians who in some cases have enabled if not outright engineered their difficulties for political purposes, with tragic consequences.

For those same Democrats to then use the despair and tragedy they have wreaked upon our soldiers as a political issue and an excuse to even further oppose their missions while claiming out of the other side of their mouths that they only have their welfare and best interests in mind goes beyond the realm of insult. It's pure, unadulterated treason under the hypocritical guise of building a better, more just society and world. Its about time they were called on their bullshit, not allowed to hijack the legitimate interests of yet another poorly represented, leftist hijacked interest group as merely another political vehicle.

The military especially should be viewed as a sacred institution, something we depend on to secure the blessings of liberty and use respectfully only when deemed necessary with our full and wholehearted support. It should have a special places in our hearts and prayers, put on a very special pedestal, a place of honor. It should never be cynically manipulated for political gain by the likes of the craven politicians of both parties who have poisoned and perverted this nation's values.

Sanders Takes The Floor

Sanders clearly plans to take no prisoners.

About three hours ago, just as he took the Senate floor, Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) staff, tweeted: "You can call what i am doing today whatever you want, you it [sic] call it a filibuster, you can call it a very long speech..." And he's been speaking, almost uninterrupted, ever since.... Sanders has been decrying the Obama tax cut plan for bailing out the wealthiest people in America. "How can I get by on one house?" Sanders railed, sarcastically. "I need five houses, ten houses. I need three jet planes to take me all over the world! Sorry, American people. We've got the money, we've got the power."

Yeah, whatever you call it, he's got support from Democratic Senators Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), who have stood in for him at various intervals, which is a good thing. Sanders is such a profuse sweater, he's liable to shed five pounds or more as it is by Monday, the day the compromise tax cut extension measure is due to come to a vote on the floor of the Senate. Ironically, he is probably investing all that time and energy in a wasted effort, as the House Democrats have made it plain they will not vote for the bill. Practically every member of the Democratic House caucus is against the bill as it is written, save for possibly one member for now.

I was for the bill until I found out it included tons of pork that went beyond the parameters of the bill, which is supposed to extend all Bush era tax cuts for two years as well as unemployment benefits. Because of this, the bill should be defeated. The incoming Congress can probably forge a better deal and make the tax cuts permanent, as well as retroactive, with hopefully no pork attached, and with at least some spending cuts.

Let Obama veto it, or let the Democrats filibuster it, at their peril. But for now, let Sanders do his best, or for that matter his worse. He's only paving the way for a better deal.

Jaimie Alexander In The New Thor Movie Kicks Some Serious Ass-As Sif

UPDATE-I've just been informed in the comments that the video here, even though to the best of my recollection it was posted as a scene from the upcoming Thor movie, is actually from some other movie with Jaimie Alexander. Sorry for the confusion. Personally, I thought it was strange that the Goddess Sif might be portrayed as so adversely affected by a shot of cheap human whiskey. You have to be careful with some of these fan videos.

For what its worth, here's a scene from the upcoming Thor movie. This isn't the official trailer, and I'm not sure it hasn't been left on the cutting room floor, but in it, the goddess Sif has come to earth in search of Thor and has to fight off the advances of an unwelcome but insistent admirer. The role of Sif is played by Jaimie Alexander.



Its always good when films include voluptuous bits of eye candy like this. Natalie Portman is also on board in the role of Jane Foster, who in the original comic was for a while Thor's main squeeze in the mortal realm, before he was reunited with Sif.

Here's the full cast of Thor, which stars Chris Hemsworth as the God of Thunder, and also includes Anthony Hopkins as Odin, and Tom Hiddleston as the evil Loki, God of Mischief.

Rachel Maddow Misses The Mark

Last night on MSNBC Rachel Maddow interviewed Ugandan MP David Behati, who has recently authored a proposed bill which would impose life imprisonment, and in some cases the death penalty, for the "crime" of homosexuality. I want to say at the outset I don't support or condone any such law, and would hope that diplomatic pressure would serve to reverse this present course in the tragic African country that has seen more than its share of strife, bloodshed, and misrule over the preceding decades.

But Maddow went way off the mark into the realm of political correctness with a vengeance when she made the following statement.

"You're describing one of the foundational myths about how gay people have been slandered and attacked in every country," Maddow told Bahati. "The idea, this myth that gay people are recruiting kids. Assert it as if it is baldly true, and no evidence of it is ever ever ever ever put forward in any way that can be evaluated and every responsible authority who's looked into it says that it's a myth."

Rachel Maddow is of course so full of shit it actually seems impossible. But then I stop and remind myself, well she's not really wrong, she's just lying.

Child sex tourism is a big problem not just in Thailand and other parts of Southeast Asia, but in many other parts of the world, and Uganda is no exception.

There, like in so many other impoverished areas, life is cheap. It's not about gay men "recruiting" or "converting" innocent children into a lifestyle of casual gay sex for fun and pleasure. It's about putting food on the table. It's about survival. When you have a situation where children are recruited as soldiers, its really about clawing your way out of despair. If you can initiate a young child into a life of guerrilla warfare by inducing him to murder a close relative or fellow villager, you can pretty much convince him to do anything else. And when you have smooth-talking, well-connected members of NGO's purporting to offer aid and the hope of a better life to a desperate child who has no one else to whom he can turn, it can all too often set the stage for tragic manipulation and abuse. It has become such a problem in Madagascar there is now laws on the books to fight the sex trade industry in general. It is in fact the fastest growing area of the travel industry, in all parts of the world. But you don't have to take my word for it. The folks at International Sex Guide-Uganda will happily walk you through it. And where there is a burgeoning, prosperous sex industry, there will always be a subset of the species that will cater to the most depraved and perverted of predilections.

And as stated, you can easily disguise your intentions by going under the umbrella of an NGO. That way, you can at least pretend you are doing good by making a positive contribution to the welfare of the least fortunate of the world's population. Although I do not point fingers nor cast stones at any one NGO in particular, I just want to point out that the best of such organizations take on the risk inherent in accepting volunteers who might have, at best, mixed intentions. One such example is Hope Beyond Uganda, which advertises itself as a way of taking part in safaris and otherwise experiencing the beauty of Africa and its people while at the same time working to improve the lives of Ugandan children. In the meantime, their website is dotted with pictures of smiling, eager Ugandan children, predominantly boys, such as the following.



Again, I make no judgments as to the intentions of the site or the organization it represents, but as I mentioned earlier, there has been a problem with individual NGO members. The fact that they might well do good, admirable, even vital work can in some cases afford the best of camouflage. Another one that seems especially dedicated to educating the children of Uganda is Survivors, which bills itself as a project of the Emancipation Network. And I am sure they are dedicated to that cause. But again, this isn't about any one group, or any one person or group that works though them, it is the very real potential for abuse.

For Rachel Maddow to ignore this fact, this proven, demonstrable fact, is damnable on the face of it. Nor am I giving MP Behati a pass for his obvious intolerance, bigotry, and superstitious fear-mongering. He obviously either has a severe psychological problem with homosexuals, or he is pandering to the superstitious fears prevalent in his culture regarding them.

But whatever the case, Maddow missed out on the perfect opportunity to educate him, or more to the point, to educate her audience through him. The sex tourism industry is still one of the back burner issues of the day, always in the back of people's minds, raring its ugly poisonous head on occasion, but for the most part kept in the background, put off while other more immediately pressing matters are addressed.

And let's be clear about this. It is a serious problem. It's not all about consensual sex between adults, nor for that matter is it even a matter of allegedly consensual sex between adults and children. In some cases it certainly is, which in the case of children would still be criminal. But in a great many cases it goes beyond willing consent into the area of sex slavery, with children from all over the most destitute parts of the world sold in some cases by their own parents in the hopes they will have a chance at a better life, only to be sold as sex slaves and as common laborers working for a cot and just enough food to keep them working.

This is the thing Rachel Maddow should be pointing out. The second part of her interview with Behati will come about tonight. I might be wrong about her. Maybe she will broach the issue. But I seriously doubt it. She seems far more interested in separating the two issues of sex slavery/tourism (which she has thus far ignored in the context of this interview) and homosexual pedophilia and grooming, which she would have us believe is a complete myth. Yet, her protestations to the contrary, the two matters are, in this instance, immutably intertwined.

But of course, how can leftists such as Maddow be expected to acknowledge the root of the problem as it exists in Uganda when she and others of her ideological persuasion can't even bring themselves to acknowledge that it happens here, sometimes with an official stamp of approval that will make your head spin.

It hasn't been that long ago that Obama's Safe Schools Czar, Kevin Jennings, promoted a reading list for schools that encouraged homosexual behaviors between boys and adult males. And this list was approved by GLSEN, one of the premiere activist gay organizations of our day, and which is shown to be supported by pedophiles.

You can go to the blog Red Alerts, and read a page which is a category of posts pertaining to child sexual abuse. Although Rob Taylor, the owner of the blog, dislikes labeling pedophiles as either homosexual or heterosexual, regardless of their own particular preferences, they do have a predilection of one flavor or another, and sometimes both.

This is the problem Uganda seems to be faced with, and as I said, it is a problem faced by many poverty stricken countries with high mortality rates and vast numbers of orphaned and homeless children, waiting desperately for help and love, yet all too often taken advantage of. One such example is the case of recently deceased 39 year old Robert Vann Smith, who had earlier been arrested for molesting young boys in Mexico, along with 31 year old Nicholas Simmons. He was the member of no NGO of which I am aware, but he was a pedophile who referred to himself as an omnisexual-which means he would have sex with anything, of any gender of any age. Yet, he insisted he loved and only wanted to "help" his victims.

Or if that seems a little too obscure, who could ever forget the outrageous conduct of director Roman Polanski.

Ah, you say, but Polanski's crime was against a young girl, not a boy, so that's beyond the scope of your argument. Rachel Maddow was objecting to the "myth" that homosexuals groom children to become homosexuals.

But the point is, Polanski was an adult, and his victim was a child whom he drugged and raped repeatedly, someone whom he had power over. The sex of the victim is almost irrelevant, useful only as a means of identifying the preferences of any given predator. And as sure as night follows day, there are abusers who prefer the same sex, just as there are those who prefer the opposite sex.

And this is what is going on in Uganda, in Ugandan cities and more than likely in Ugandan schools, probably facilitated by many elder Ugandan men and women, and possibly teachers and other persons of some authority in the various towns and villages, as well as the larger urban centers, adult individuals who play the role of pimps to a large and growing number of the international idle wealthy, the demented sex tourists who do not respect the integrity of innocence, and to whom boundaries, like mountains, exist to be conquered.

As horrific as are the very real human rights crimes enshrined in Ugandan law by David Behati, due seemingly to religious fanaticism and ignorance, this actually pales into relative insignificance in comparison to the willful blindness and criminal disregard for the rights of abused children propagated thus far by Rachel Maddow, and by extension MSNBC, for nothing more than the sake of a political agenda.

Pigford Settlement Update-"If You Got A Potted Plant That Makes You A Farmer."

Pay close attention to this case, because sooner or later its going to blow up in a lot of faces. See my post just preceding this one. Better yet, follow Breitbart's coverage at Big Government. The mainstream media, as usual, is missing in action.

No damn wonder Michelle Obama is so devoted to her little garden at the White House. After all, she is entitled to her fair share of the reparations settlement as well.

If we ever get around to legalizing pot, a lot of the Boyz In Da Hood will make a killing out of that homegrown reefer. All that lighting, irrigation, and fertilization process is one hell of an expense, and there are security expenses as well.

Hang in there, homies. After all, they "owe it to you".

Don't Drink That Racist Coffee!

Thanks to the yeoman's work of Andrew Breitbart, maybe one of these days we'll all have a national dialogue about race that includes a little bit of intellectual honesty, one that doesn't involve unfounded charges of racism. That does seem unlikely, when any criticism of Democrats or the Obama Administration is usually met with such charges, such as when a crowd of Tea Party protesters were accused of hurling racial epithets at members of the Congressional Black Caucus. It does not bode well for race relations when a reputed hero of the Civil Rights movement, Congressman John Lewis, along with other members of the caucus, are proven demonstrably to have lied about the whole thing.

That was just the beginning. When Andrew Breitbart produced video evidence of the institutional racism that infests the NAACP, it led to the firing of USDA employee Shirley Sherrod. In response, Sherrod threatened a lawsuit against Breitbart, who was defended by none other than Chris Matthews during a segment of MSNBC's Hardball, in which it appeared that Matthews persuaded Howard Dean that Breitbart was being falsely and unfairly maligned. He did not present the video out of context after all. It was not Shirley Sherrod he was accusing of racism, it was the NAACP itself, whose Chairman, Benjamin Jealous, initially promised to get to the bottom of the blatant racist reaction of many of his fellow members. Even Sherrod, as Breitbart points out, took his side on the matter, before being co-opted by the Administration.

Incredibly, however, the segment was redacted from the program when it was re-aired-just two hours later. Someone had gotten to Matthews, or to somebody at MSNBC, and warned them to get back on message. Something was obviously amiss.

To make a long story short(er), Breitbart eventually found out that he had stumbled onto a story of rampant government corruption in the form of the Pigford II settlement. Without going into a lot of detail, Pigford was a case decided in favor of black farmers who had been victims of the FDA's prejudiced policies. These farmers were demonstrably shown to have been unfairly denied loans and other forms of assistance from the FDA to which they were entitled, something for which no one in the FDA has yet lost their jobs.

Unfortunately, the final settlement seems to have helped the lawyers who filed the suit more than the original relative handful of black farmers truly victimized by the FDA, which by the time the suit was filed seemed to grow to a greater number than the actual number of black farmers in the US. It turned into a staggering sum of money so great it was originally slated to be included in Stimulus Bill, apparently at the instigation of Obama and others in his administration. When the story looked to be in danger of going public, it was removed from the bill.

The suit was originally filed in part due to the advocacy of the Sherrod family, which as it turns out just happens to have been the largest single beneficiary of the lawsuit. Shirley Sherrod's firing by the Administration was due mainly to this, and the fact that she probably should not have been hired by the FDA to begin with due to conflict of interest. The controversy over the video released by Breitbart merely afforded a convenient excuse to get rid of her, something many within the Department had already been clamoring for. It was also possibly a way of sweeping this story under the rug before it got out but, as so often happens, they only managed to arouse suspicions-notably those of Andrew Breitbart, who had already had more than enough of being under the gun.

Now he's produced documented evidence of what might turn out to be one of the biggest outright scams by the federal government perpetrated against the American taxpayer of all time. It is also worth noting that the black farmers the settlement was ostensibly meant to help received very little of the money. This is more like the workings of an organized crime syndicate working ostensibly to impose a reparations settlement on the American people under the guise of what was originally a legitimate cause of action.

You can download the pdf concerning the case here-The Pigford Shakedown: How the Black Farmers’ Cause Was Hijacked by Politicians, Trial Lawyers & Community Organizers — Leaving Us With a Billion Dollar Tab

There is really too much to go into here-including the murder of a potential informant by a couple out to unfairly take advantage of the settlement and thus defraud the government, and by extension the taxpayers. There is also the heretofore little known fact that this in large measure explains the depth of support for Obama from the Congressional Black Caucus against Hillary Clinton in the primaries. He campaigned on the premise of increasing the numbers of those entitled to relief from the settlement to more than twenty thousand, from an original number of just around four hundred.

By the time all was said and done, the number of litigants approached more than ninety thousand, with a final settlement figure in the billions of dollars.

Take the time when you can find it to pour over the pdf, and ponder the implications, preferably over a strong hot cup of non-racist coffee.

The Love That Whirls

As if we didn't have enough problems.

Now the US has another group of foes who have come out of the closet, and declared war on us due to our environmental record. And in doing so, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change invoked the ancient Mayan goddess Lxchal, the Jaguar goddess. From The Anchoress-

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also “the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you — because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools.”…

“Excellencies, the goddess Ixchel would probably tell you that a tapestry is the result of the skilkful interlacing of many threads,” said Figueres, who hails from Costa Rica and started her greetings in Spanish before switching to English. “I am convinced that 20 years from now, we will admire the policy tapestry that you have woven together and think back fondly to Cancun and the inspiration of Ixchel.”

This came about at the latest round of what seems to be a perennial effort to address Global Climate Change on an international level, this one held in Cancun Mexico. Such a tone should really not be much of a surprise. There are various factions in the UN that wants to give that body regulatory power over member nations environmental policies, even to the extent of levying fines and issuing injunctions and filing lawsuits in the World Court-not only against offending nations, but against "climate deniers". That's right, they want to take you to court if you deny the "reality" of Global Climate Change as being caused or at least deeply impacted by human activity. The major targets here would be not only dissenting national leaders and bureaucrats, but journalists, pundits, academics, educators, scientists, captains of industry, and basically anyone who dares dispute the sacred script of fundamentalist, environmentalist buffoonery and whackery.

In fact, it has gone from a political movement based more on pseudo-science to what can only be described as a global religious cult based on a cold and harsh earth and nature worship, in which the most prosperous, developed nations are expected to give alms in the form of national and regional sovereignty, while the upper and middle classes will in effect sacrifice personal prosperity for what in reality seems to be the entitlement and empowerment of a high priesthood made up of a relative handful of global elites. We must in effect give up our way of life on behalf of a movement and philosophy that is based on and empowered by fear mongering for the future. They do this by at least greatly exaggerating the consequences, if not outright lying, if we do not accede to their fanaticism.

Here is the money quote from the UNEP paper on the subject-

UNEP has an important—indeed a critical—message, but it is delivering it in the wrong language to the wrong audience. It is attached to the wrong narrative. It will never position itself to do what is needed until it finds the right language and narrative. The force of this message cannot be over-emphasized. UNEP’s success depends on getting this right.

The environment should compete with religion as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity. To do that, however, it will have to make itself relevant well beyond the world of those already concerned with the environment, including very prominently its own formal constituency. Indeed, unless UNEP succeeds in recasting the debate, it is highly likely that the economic community will do it—badly, and on its own terms. It is already happening in the field of climate change

But at the Cancun Convention it was the delegation from Bolivia which struck the most decidedly strident tone against the US and the industrialized world. We are seen by Bolivia and others as the worst offenders, even though the environmental record of Bolivia is hardly attuned to the greater welfare of Mother Nature. This is true of most of these mismanaged countries, who typically and hypocritically try to portray the US as the biggest obstacle to the massive transfer of wealth from the US to the developing world positive change in the implementation of a unified world environmental policy. You can include not only Venezuela in this list, but Mexico as well, which is precisely why Mexican President Calderon, vociferous advocate of environmentalist Global Climate Change policy, was eager to host the summit at Cancun.

As you can see in the following video, a grand time was had by all-



And the band plays on. While Julian Assange's leaks of Pentagon and State Department memos are greeted by the left with yawns at best, similar leaks of the documents that came to be known as "Climate Gate" were met by them with howls of angry protests, demands for prosecution, and excuses for the contents of the leaked climate gate e-mails. The Left insisted that, in this case, the e-mails were being presented out of context. Anything to keep the scam going. Ironically, one of the Wikileaks documents details how the current EU President predicted the Cancun summit would be as big a disaster as Copenhagen. More to the point, it reveals that the entire Global Climate Change movement is seen as a big power and money grab. In other words, its one of the biggest con jobs in the history of mankind.

But these people won't give up that easily, as that is the nature of religious fanaticism. All that matters is keeping the faith. Nothing would please them more than to rip open the chest of liberty and display the beating hard to the rabid, maddened mob. Many of the environmentally ill will gladly attune with the spirit of the goddess Lxchel, including those here in America whose activist roots can be traced to the sixties and seventies. Here we see one of Lyxchel's beloved pet Jaguars engaging in one of the sacred pastimes, which the hippie environmentalists of modern days could certainly relate to-consuming a hallucinogenic plant.



I might invoke the goddess myself one of these days. As for the Global Climate Change activists, I really question whether these people truly comprehend the nature of the forces they invoke so casually, so carelessly, while so consumed with mainly their own self-aggrandizement and power.

If I Had A Hammer Factory

Even if I qualified as a small business, I would not want taxes raised on big businesses. Altruism has nothing to do with it. It's all about self-interest. As a small business owner, I am going to be dependent on the health and vitality of big business, somewhere down the line. If their taxes are increased, on top of their already burdensome regulatory requirements, they are going to pass that cost on to me. So I'm going to have to pay more for the equipment and supplies I depend on them for.

What to do? Well, I can find a cheaper supplier, probably from overseas, maybe or maybe not an American manufacturer who has relocated to China or some other foreign country, or it could be a business which is wholly owned by foreign entities. I won't care one way or another. All I care about is getting my parts as cheaply and still of as high quality as I can.

I can also refrain from hiring new employees. If things get too bad, I might even lay off one or two. Or maybe more. Let's face it, in this economy what workers I retain will gladly work overtime if needed, and even at time and a half it is cheaper for me to go that route than it would be to hire new people, with all the expense of training, new paperwork to file, other federal obligations to pay out for each new employee, etc.

Or, I can simply raise the price of my products, which means I am probably going to lose some customers, or in some cases where I retain some customers, I very well could cause other businesses to lose those customers patronage. If my services are considered more vital for some than dining out, or seeing a movie, or buying new clothes or household furnishings, sporting goods, etc., then those businesses in turn will have to make the same kinds of adjustments I will be making due to losing other customers who can, quite frankly, do without my services if necessary.

Or, if I want to be a nice guy, I can continue business as usual, and for all my trouble I can lose my shirt, which means all my employees lose their jobs.

Or, I can take less of my profits for my own personal salary, but that will probably not be enough to turn things around on its own, so I'd still need to make one or more of these other adjustments. In the meantime, I would have to plan on sending my kids to public school instead of the decent private school I've been shelling out the bucks for so they can have a decent, real education that involves actual learning as opposed to teacher's union approved leftist brainwashing. I have to trade my new car in for a used one for the cheaper insurance and property taxes. I might even have to sell my house and move to a cheaper house, or apartment, in a cheaper neighborhood for the same reason. I have to eat in all the time, and sparingly, and as cheaply as possible. Instead of The Gap, I buy my clothes at Goodwill and hope for the best.

But, I think I'll pass on all that, as I didn't go to school and work my ass off, save money, take out business loans which I'm still paying on and invest in a dream with no real assurance of success so I could live no better than my employees while working my ass off every day to make sure my business is solvent. Bottom line-in other words, fuck you that's not happening. Nothing against my employees, who would hopefully also live a pretty decent life on what I would be able to pay them, but let's face it, I'm their boss and if I don't have the chance to live in comfort and prosperity and give my family a top shelf life-yes, better than what I can afford to pay them-what am I wasting my time for? After all, I'm the one who was taking the risk in starting the business to begin with.

Now I'm being told taxes should be raised on "the rich", but "hey, don't worry, that won't affect you".

I think that's pretty much the equivalent of somebody pissing in your face and telling you its raining. This is an interconnected economy, and the negative impact of taxes and regulations on "big business" doesn't happen in a vacuum.

I'll Never Smoke Weed With Willie Again

I'll Never Smoke Weed With Willie Again - The best video clips are here