It never ends when you start taking "federal" money. Never mind that there's no such thing as "government money" or "federal money", it's really just your money sent to Washington, D.C., bundled up, and sent back to you with strings attached. If you are stupid enough to accept it then you have to live with ever increasing government intrusion forever and ever. Now, because $11 billion of taxpayer money is spent on school food programs, Senator Tom Harkin (Dem-Iowa) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (RINO-Alaska) have submitted legislation to allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to establish "common-sense nutrition standards" for food, beverages, and snacks sold in vending machines, school stores, or other outlets. That's politician speak for getting rid of junk food.
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.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Blog Entry About Torture
There's been a lot of news media coverage of memos released by President Barack Obama regarding Enhanced Interrogation Techniques used by the U.S. or what the clearly biased media calls torture. Unfortunately the average person has absolutely idea what torture actually is in the real world. The United Nations defines torture as:
"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)
Flaying/Skinning= Torture
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.
"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)
Flaying/Skinning= Torture
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
Diane Sawyer and 20/20 Anti-Gun Bias
When I was growing up I was told that journalists were people that reported the news in an objective, unbiased manner. I wasn't told that by my parents or even my teachers. I was told that by journalists on TV and in newspapers. It turns out that they lied to me. Did you know that news organizations like ABC's "20/20" and their star "journalist" Diane Sawyer don't worry about being biased? They have no problem providing only the information that helps their cause. Don't believe it? If you want proof all you have to do is see 20/20's special called "If I Only Had A Gun", a blatant anti-gun hit piece.
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.
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
National Home Foreclosures
In an online article CNNmoney.com staff writer Catherine Clifford broke down a RealtyTrac report regarding home foreclosures. The last paragraph said, "The national report also found that the worst of the foreclosures were centralized in a handful of worst-hit states. California, Florida, Arizona, Nevada and Illinois accounted for nearly 60% of the total foreclosure activity in the first quarter, with 479,516 properties received foreclosure filings in those states."
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?
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
Happy Earth Day - Please Don't Murder Anyone
Today is April 22nd....Happy Earth Day! Earth Day is a pseudo-holiday co-created by a murderer to honor the planet and to raise the consciousness of man’s effect on the environment. Yes, you read correctly. Earth Day was reportedly born from the mind of left wing environmental whack-job Ira Einhorn, aka the Unicorn Killer. Einhorn murdered his girlfriend and stored her dead body in a trunk in his apartment. You'd think he would have buried her in the Earth to fertilize it...Happy Earth Day.
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.
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
Someone In Congress Is Realistic
Want to see something interesting? The following is taken from Section 2 of HR 17 which is known as the Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009:
The Congress finds the following:
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.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:
- (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.’.
(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.
(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:
(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.
(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.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.
Obama The Rock Star? Yeah, Sure.
If you watch enough TV news you've no doubt heard that President Barack Obama is greeted "like a rock star" wherever he goes. Talking head after talking head salivate over Obama. They mention his star quality, and how a thrill goes up their leg. He's a rock star to them. Now, before you dismiss the "rock star" characterization by the press I'm going to say it's accurate in more ways than even the media hacks imagine.
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.
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
Antarctic Sea Ice Has Expanded
An April 18th article in The Australian newspaper says, "A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded."
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.
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
Is Janeane Garofalo A Liar?
Ok, so we all know that liberals just make stuff up. We know that because anytime you give them a fact that they can't dispute...they just start lying or calling you names. Apparently Janeane Garofalo, noted far-left liberal and former Air America host, has been caught lying about Rush Limbaugh.
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
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
What Janeane Garofalo Thinks Of Tea Party Participants
If you've been watching the TV series "24" then you've seen Janeane Garofalo as the computer geek at the FBI's headquarters. In real life she's a New Jersey born far left liberal who makes her living in comedy and acting in movies like "Mystery Men" and "The Truth About Cats and Dogs". Apparently her hobby is bashing other U.S. citizens who don't agree with her far left ideals.
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.
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.
Will Democrat Gun Banners Be As Stupid As Canada's?
Just when you think gun control gets to its most ridiculous you hear something new and more ridiculous...Canada is now asking gun owners about their love life when renewing gun permits. Yes, you read that right. George Jonas reports on Canada's nationalpost.com that "Before renewing his gun permit in 2007, the authorities decided to inquire into (Pierre) Lemieux’s bedroom history. Did he divorce anyone in the last two years? Did he break up with a girlfriend? If yes, use a separate sheet to explain." Explain? What does that have to do with a gun permit?
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.
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
The San Antonio Tea Party
Today is April 15th, Tax Day, and also the day people around the country take part in "Tea Parties". What is a Tea Party? Well, it's a gathering of like-minded people from all walks of life and various political backgrounds...Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents were in attendance and involved in the San Antonio Tea Party. What could bring all of those people together? What brought them together is a certain knowledge that the U.S. Government is far too large and unwisely spends far too much of the taxpayers money.
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
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
Hey Gun Banners! Do You Believe In Police Protection?
It's pretty predictable that at some point when the Obama administration really kicks their anti-Constitutional Rights gun banning program into gear that we'll all be told a number of things. The one I'm waiting to hear, because it always gets trotted out, is that individuals have no need to have guns since the Police will protect us. Oh really?
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.
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
Obama Administration Lies About Arms Smuggling To Mexico
Lie, Lie, Lie. That's what the U.S. media and the Obama administration have been doing regarding drug related gun violence in Mexico. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator Diane Feinstein, and BATF Assistant Director William Hoover have all been blaming United States citizens for illegally providing 90 percent of the weapons used by Mexican drug gangs. Just one problem...they lie like rugs. The real number is around 17 percent.
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.
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.
If Bush Had Done It
Anybody who says the U.S. media isn't biased in favor of Democrats is seriously demented. Every time President George W. Bush mispronounced a single syllable or made the slightest mistake the press went into a frenzy and late night talk shows showed no mercy. Apparently the press thinks President Obama can do no wrong. Any mention of a misstep is just that...a mention; then, you won't see it mentioned again.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Filtered Comment [show]
Findings are totally superfluous. Who gives a crap about all this? I know it's a practical argument, but any firearms regulation is immoral and unconstitutional.
Filtered Comment [show]
I agree with you, but...
Having worked in a legislature before, it is almost imperative that you convince your fellow legislators to vote for something. Often times you must make practical arguments as well as principled ones. This is also because in a bill (as opposed to the other method of passing a law, a Joint Resolution) has no preamble laying out the purpose of the bill.
Add A Comment