Thursday, April 30, 2009
Yeah, nobody wants kids to eat more junk food but who in hell do they think they are? I don't know about schools in your area but I can't find a single school in San Antonio (other than on military bases) built on federal land. I can't find one school designed or built by the federal government. Never saw a school bond issue by the federal government...they've all been local. The teachers, administrators, secretaries, and janitors are not federal government employees. The students are not subjects of an almighty federal king. So, where do they get off telling local school districts what they can and can't do, and telling you what will and will not be available at your kid's school? It's the money you send them that they send back to you that lets them in.
In the U.S. Constitution the federal government is not given any authority over education. Check it out if you think I'm wrong, but you'll find I'm right. The senators proposing this legislation know they have no constitutional authority but they still want to ram this down everyone's throats. Why? Because it increases their power by expanding government. How do they get away with it? We let them. I propose we don't let them anymore. Schools are local not federal. Call Senator Harkin and Senator Murkowski to tell them to keep their noses out of your local business.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."
While that definition is as clear as mud to most people, others would like to know what actions actually constitute torture. So, as I so often do, I'm going to make it easy for people. I'll do this by listing a number of activities that are and are not torture:
Panties On Head = Not Torture (done in College hazing)
Red Hot Poker in Eye or Orifice = Torture
Caterpillar In Room = Not Torture (they don't bite)
Staked to Ant Hill Covered in Honey = Torture
Sensory Deprivation = Not Torture (people pay for this)
Stress Positions/Long Standing = Not Torture (did this in Little League)
Flagellation/Whipping = Torture
Belly Slap = Not Torture (drinking game)
Impalement = Torture
Waterboarding = Not Torture
Knee Capping = Torture
Shirt Grabbing = Not Torture
Public Stoning by Taliban for Playing Music = Torture
Sleep Deprivation = Not Torture (most Americans are sleep deprived)
Being Next In Line After Jihadists Behead Your Friend = Torture
Forced Isolation = Not Torture (even in Liberal courts)
Tried, Convicted, Stoned/Whipped for BEING RAPED by your Uncle Achmed = Torture
Listening to Eminem's "Slim Shady" or Britney Spears = Not Torture (unpleasant I'll admit)
Listening to Self-Righteous Know-It-All Liberals Blather On and ON and ON= Torture
I hope this partial list has been helpful for you. God Bless America.
Friday, April 24, 2009
I didn't watch the show the Friday night that it aired but due to the miracle of modern technology I got to watch it on ABC's website (thanks to Al Gore or Ira Einhorn). I got to see it, rewind it, and see it again. I have a headache.
The major portion of the show was devoted to convincing the public that there's no way to defend themselves with a gun. They did this by conducting an "experiment" that was rigged right from the beginning. The producers of the show recruited university students and gave them a couple of hours of training with a handgun. The object? The students were to sit in a classroom attending a lecture while carrying a concealed pistol they're supposed to use to defend themselves. In the experiment an attacker armed with a handgun bursts into the university classroom, fires two shots at the teacher in the front of the class and then turns his gun directly on the very student with the concealed gun. The attacker doesn't really try to gun down any of the unarmed students and succeeds in "killing" the armed student each time. Well isn't that all very convenient.
I have a few problems with the experiment. First, the "attacker" is a highly trained Police Firearms Instructor, not some untrained or poorly trained whack job wanting to commit mass murder. Second, the students with the concealed handgun are made to sit front row center in each run of the experiment and the attacker apparently knows this. Third, "for safety" the students are wearing helmets and thick padded gloves which hinder them from drawing their handgun. In the real world outside the bias of ABC and Diane Sawyer the attackers are seldom (maybe never) an experienced police firearms instructor, the person with the concealed handgun wouldn't likely always be front row center with a helmet and padded gloves hindering the draw of the weapon. The students were set up to fail. Lastly, they didn't try that BS with someone that has good training and experience...any idea why?
At no time did Diane Sawyer or anyone else mention that in the U.S. people do successfully defend themselves, their property, and their loved ones 2.4 million times a year with their own guns (Source: U.S. Congress). In fact I've made a couple of entries containing reports of people that successfully defended themselves at: entry 1, entry 2, or entry 3. You can find even more examples of people using guns to defend themselves on John Lott's Blog, Clayton Cramer's Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog, or the Armed Citizen section of the NRA's website.
Another segment of this anti-gun show was about how horrible the "gun show loophole" was and how it was a way for criminals to get guns. How? Well, the story goes that there is a loophole in the law that allows criminals to buy guns at a gun show without a background check. A lie by omission. All gun dealers are required to perform background checks at gun shows just as they do in their stores. Only private individuals selling their privately owned guns are exempt from the background check requirement. However, they tried to prove their point by getting the brother of a woman killed in the Virginia Tech killings to go to a gun show and buy guns without showing an ID. Of course he succeeded in buying quite a few guns without a background check because he bought them from private individuals, not gun dealers. Imagine that, people selling their personal property to someone. No crime was committed.
What the show failed to mention is that a U.S. Justice Department survey of 18,000 state prison inmates showed that less than one percent (0.7%) had obtained their gun from a gun show. Some loophole.
There was more anti-gun bias exhibited but like I said earlier...it gave me a headache. The show aired to coincide with the anniversary of the Columbine High School and Virginia Tech shootings, but I think there's more to their anti-rights bias. Sure there was an anniversary but there's also an anti-gun President in office they worked very hard to get elected. So, to support their guy they have to get people to believe a few things that aren't true including:
Lie 1. Guns kill people all by themselves without human intervention;
Lie 2. Guns are mysterious machines that you can't possibly understand well enough to use in your own defense;
Lie 3. The bad guy is always going to be a better shot;
Lie 4. There's an evil loophole in the law that helps criminals buy lots of guns and we need to curtail your rights to fix it;
Lie 5. Criminals will be defeated by the next new gun law even though they don't follow the thousands already on the books.
If enough people believe the lies it will be easier to take away their rights. Don't believe the lies.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Hmm, all of those states, excluding Arizona, were "Blue States" in the last Presidential Election. Also interesting is that the "National Leadership" is from three of those states. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is from California, Senate leader Harry Reid is from Nevada, and President Obama is from Illinois. Sure, John McCain is from Arizona but he might as well be a Democrat. I'm not saying it's because of Democrat leadership but it's interesting that the people saying they have the answers are from the areas hardest hit. They didn't do much for their home states did they?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
What does that have to do with anything? Well, a couple of things. First, if Adolf Hitler had founded Earth Day would you celebrate it? No? But it's ok if a woman beating murderer started it? Also, it just seems weird that so many left wing environmental, animal rights, anti-war weirdos care so little for humans. It's also strange how so many of them make the same grandiose claims....Like Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore, Einhorn also claimed to have invented the internet. Happy Earth Day.
In the interest of disclosure I have to say that the other co-founders of Earth Day did write a letter claiming that Ira Einhorn had nothing to do with Earth Day. They wrote this letter despite his 30 minute appearance on the stage during the first Earth Day. They did this in 1998, 28 years after the first Earth Day and not very long after the fugitive Einhorn was found living in France. Sounds like CYA to me. Happy Earth Day.
Anyway, I just thought you should know about this stuff and I'm gonna leave you with a thought.....two "environmentalists" claim to have invented the internet and the internet uses more electricity generated by coal and oil than just about any other electrically powered system ever devised. Happy Earth Day, Please Don't Murder Anyone.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
The Congress finds the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Add A Comment
- (A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: ‘[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.’.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Add A Comment
Add A Comment
(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
Isn't that interesting? If you read the whole bill you'll see it's pretty much like the "Castle Doctrine" we have here in Texas. Let your Members of Congress know you want this to pass.
First, Rock Stars are often really screwed up people that have some combination of broken homes, abusive parents, drug habits, depression, suicidal or homicidal tendencies, embarrassing relatives, and delusions of grandeur. President Obama is surely a Rock Star in this regard. Rock On!
Second, Rock Stars are often self-centered narcissists. They make everything about themselves. When at the Summit of the Americas, President Obama sat through Daniel Ortega's 50 minute speech about a "terroristic" U.S., did he defend his country? Did he show any displeasure? No. He said, "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old." Way to go Rock Star!
Third, no matter how popular the Rock Star is they are only really popular with a small segment of society as a whole. You can be a Rock Star by selling fewer CD's than Ralph Nader got votes in his presidential campaign. You can be a Rock Star recognized by millions that is really only popular with fringe weirdos. In his niche Obama's a Star. To many others he was the only thing on the radio. Rock and Roll!
Last, Rock Stars have been known to frequently express or agree with, anti-American sentiments. To them the U.S. is the problem with the world and Rock Stars like to tell us how great it is everywhere else - even though they refuse to stay where they think it's better. You know the type..."not God bless America, God Damn America". If we judge President Obama by his friends then he meets this test of being a Rock Star. Rock Me!
So, when the media says President Obama is like a Rock Star don't get mad. Just smile.
Monday, April 20, 2009
What? How can that be? According to Al Gore all the Arctic and Antarctic ice is melting due to man-made global warming and will soon swamp a coastline near you. However, someone with better scientific credentials than Gore, a government major in college, has actually studied the Antarctic ice and found more than before. According to the article "Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head (Dr.) Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica." Yes, you read it right. Ice increases in one sector of East Antarctica are more than the decreases in West Antarctica....so we have MORE ICE in Antarctica NOT LESS. Tell me again how that means the climate is warming.
More Antarctic ice hints at cooling instead of warming. Man-made global warming is a hoax and it's an expensive one. European countries are already collecting taxes related to gases supposedly related to global warming including bovine flatulence and BBQ's on the weekend. Tell your government representatives that you are against taxes to defeat global warming. Do it now because the U.S. Congress is set to pass legislation to "combat climate change" and that's going to mean you pay more for everything for no good reason.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
You see, she's now appearing in the TV series "24" which is a favorite of Mr. Limbaugh's. Being a well known media figure Mr. Limbaugh has, on occasion, been a visitor to the set of "24". That's where things get interesting. It's gleefully reported by Simon Vozick-Levinson on Entertainment Weekly's website, ew.com, that Ms. Garofalo snubbed both Rush Limbaugh and Lynne Cheney when they visited the set. Garofalo said, "When somebody came to me privately and said 'do you want to meet them?', I said absolutely not." To which Vozick-Levinson said, "Good for her!" Ok, I'll grant that ew.com is an entertainment site and I don't expect them to actually verify stories....but The Washington Times online did check into it.
The Washington Times' Kerry Picket reports that hearing Ms. Garofalo's statements made Radio Equalizer's blogger Brian Maloney curious. He emailed Mr. Limbaugh, who responded with a devastating fact. "The last time I visited the set of '24,' [Ms.] Garofalo had not been hired to appear in the series. She was not there, she was not a member of the cast the last time I visited." and "The last time I visited the set, Kim Raver was still in the cast and CTU was the primary 'location' of the show. This current season, seven, has been in the can since last summer or fall and I have been nowhere near the '24' set for any shoots for this season, which is this lunatic's [Ms. Garofalo's] first season".
The Washington Times story also reports that Ms. Garofalo could not be reached for comment. Too bad, I was hoping she'd try to defend herself with facts...or maybe some creative lies.
Read The Washington Times story Here
Friday, April 17, 2009
This Thursday (4/16) she took her hobby to Keith Olbermann's show on MSNBC. Thankfully, someone was actually watching MSNBC (I didn't know it was still on) and found Garofalo commenting on Wednesday's Tea Parties saying, "Let's be very honest about what this is about," she said. "It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks." Of course Keith Olbermann was fine with her characterization of fellow Americans even though she couldn't have been more wrong.
She was clearly wrong but, in the interest of fairness, I do want to point out she was right on one point...it wasn't about bashing Democrats. There were Democrats at the San Antonio Tea Party. As for the rest of her hateful statement it's just plain wrong. It was about taxes and the out of control government spending. Also, I'm very well aware of what the Boston Tea Party was about and if she wants to challenge my historical knowlege - bring it on. It definitely was not about hating a black man in the White House although it was partially about having a Marxist in the White House taking the country farther into debt. And racism? Who was the racist at the San Antonio Tea Party? Just the white people? The large number of hispanics? The blacks who were there? Nothing said at the Tea Party even mentioned race and those in attendance were from all races. Lastly, now that I've looked up the term and know what it means, I can tell you there was no teabagging.
Like other far left liberals she's clearly not interested in facts and neither was her enabler Keith Olbermann. You can do your part by calling out people like Garofalo and Olbermann and making sure the facts become known.
Now, you might think "oh, it's just Canada" but you have to remember that President Obama and the Democrat Congress have more in common with the Socialists in Canada than with right-thinking, logical, gun-owning, freedom-loving Americans. He has previously supported a rights rationing bill in Illinois that would limit law abiding citizens from buying more than one gun a month. Obama and Democrats like Nancy Pelosi support local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities despite evidence violent crime increased after bans went into effect. Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition creating an economic barrier to a citizen's self-defense. Obama and the Democrat Congress want to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban. And, the President and Democrat Congress support gun owner licensing and gun registration. So, how far down the road are questions about your love life and erectile dysfunction here in the U.S. under Obama's administration? How stupid will it get?
Make sure you act now to preserve your rights. Join the NRA and make sure you contact your representatives...and if your representatives don't support your rights - make sure they become unemployed. Stop stupidity now.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
And, before you allow yourself to be convinced otherwise let me tell you something...I was there...the Tea Party was non-violent. It was non-partisan. It was not "right wing" (like CNN said), nor was it "left wing". It was not started by Fox News or any talk show host - it's a true grassroots effort. It wasn't a protest against President Obama nor any one person in particular. It was a declaration that this is still our country and we are unhappy with how the over sized, overbearing government is over spending OUR MONEY. It's recognition that the U.S. Government is addicted to deficit spending and growing a debt so large it will take generations to pay.
Generally, the sentiments of people attending the San Antonio Tea Party lead me to believe that all in attendance would agree with a couple of my favorite quotes from Thomas Jefferson, "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." and "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Maybe you agree?
The Tea Party was a great start on the path to correcting the problems in our increasingly UnConstituitonal government. The Tea Party is a statement by the people that government is responsible to us, not the other way around.
For more information about the San Antonio Tea Party Click Here
Monday, April 13, 2009
I know a lot of Police Officers and I do believe they do their best to protect our lives and property, but all of them will admit it's just not possible for them to be everywhere and protect everyone. However, let's set that aside for the moment and ask a different question. Do the Police even have an obligation to protect the individual? Seems like a no brainer since the anti-rights gun banners assure us that's what the Police are for....they're wrong....AGAIN. It turns out that "Police are under no legal obligation to provide protection for any individual." Courts have ruled the police have an obligation only to society as a whole. (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 1981 ). Surprised?
Self Defense is your birthright and unless you're the world's foremost Kung-Fu Master who is capable of beating a criminal gang single-handedly while dodging bullets and swords, a gun is still your best bet. Furthermore, if Police are under no legal obligation to protect you then whose obligation is it? That's right, it's yours.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
I know you're thinking "why would they lie?" Easy, they don't believe in the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment...and this is an effort to diminish the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. It's a guilt trip designed to get the gullible to go along with new gun control measures.
Fox News reported there are a variety of sources for the weapons used by Mexican Drug Gangs:
"-- The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.
-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.
- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.
-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.
-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.
-- Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America's cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town."
Read the whole story Here
Don't be taken in by the Obama administration's lies. Don't put up with media that aids Obama by repeating his administration's lies. Don't give up your rights.
Do you think I'm wrong? How about an example? On March 17th, St. Patrick's Day, President Obama was having a party to celebrate the day and had invited the Irish Prime Minister. During the opening of the party President Obama began to read the Irish Prime Minister's speech from the teleprompter and went so far as to thank himself for the invitation to the party. First, who brings a teleprompter to a party? Second, how can he go that far into someone else's speech without recognizing it isn't his? Third, how come the media didn't start calling him an idiot like they would have if it had been Bush? Easy, they're biased.
Another example? Do you remember when President Obama became the first sitting U.S. President to appear on a late night talk show - The Tonight Show with Jay Leno? Do you remember how President Obama made a remark about Special Olympics? Did the media go after Obama as they would have Bush? Of course not. You know Bush would have been compared to every evil figure throughout history...Hitler, Stalin, Dr. Mengele and Fu Manchu.
How about the latest gaff by the Obama administration? The press was supposed to be on a conference call today with officials traveling with President Obama in London at the G20 meeting. When they made the call they were connected with a phone sex line. If President Bush's people had made that mistake he'd be the anti-christ.
What does all this mean? It means you can't trust the media to provide a truthful, unbiased account of anything President Obama does. And, the reasons are simple. Media members are apparently liberals, socialists, marxists, and communists who don't mind working in the propaganda department.