Submarines Forever

Trojan Horse Redux

2011-04-13T12:18:00.012-04:00

With Donald Trump throwing his hat into the ring for the 2012 Presidential election campaign, it looks as though there is someone who might have the strength and notoriety to beat Obama. Trump is playing it up to full tilt, and saying things that have been up to this point dismissed. But because of Trump’s notoriety, he gets full play in all the mainstream media, which gives it the appearance of legitimacy that it never had before. Trump’s call for Obama’s birth certificate is a win-win for him. It may provide him the ammo he needs to win. If he loses the race, then it’s given him more notoriety, he still doesn't lose because it will benefit his show and any other endeavor he embarks in. I believe that while there are legitimate questions about Obama’s nation of birth, we are not going to find out before Obama leaves office. And it’s dubious that we will find out after. He has the power of the Presidency behind him, and he knows how to wield it. The progressive statists have a vested interest in keeping it permanently hidden. If it’s revealed and he is truly not a US citizen, then every bill he signed, every executive order he issued will be nullified. It would destroy everything the leftists have worked for, and could even cause irreparable damage to our government. How would we deal with all the nullified spending bills and the taxes that went along with it to pay for all those systems that were put into place? That being said, I still think we should pursue the birth issue, but after Obama's out of office.

But I digress.

The main issue here at hand is the effect Trump will have on the outcome of the election. Trump has already said that if he does not win the GOP nomination, he will run as an independent candidate. If he does so, there is little likelihood Trump will win. Furthermore, it will do to this election what John Anderson did for the election in 1976 and what Ross Perot did for the election in 1996. In Anderson’s case, it helped a weak, liberal “nobody” win the election without a majority. In Perot’s case, he aided in Clinton getting re-elected. Arguably, Clinton, who only received about a third of the vote, wouldn’t have been reelected had votes to the GOP candidate been siphoned off by Perot. Trump, a wealthy business man with a penchant for straight talk, and an outrageous character is very similar to Perot. Look at the similarities here, and I think you’ll see my point. It's likely that if Trump runs as an independent, he'll siphon off GOP votes. Trump worries me even further because I’m not sure I believe his claims to be a conservative. He has given quite generously to Democrats in the past, so it makes me wonder why he is changing his allegiances so blithely. To make matters worse, it appears that there are no strong Republican candidates to oppose him.

Here’s where my conspiracy theory kicks in. The statists want Obama to remain in office so they can continue to implement their plans to expand and consolidate their power. They know he is weak, and has been damaged by his actions to implement their plans through the office of the presidency. If an election were held today, it is doubtful Obama would remain in office. So, they bring in a Trojan Horse. If you recall, the Trojan Horse was used by the Greek army to secretly infiltrate the Trojan fortress. It lulled the Trojans into a false sense of security; a gift was left behind as a peace offering, and the threat of an invading foreign army was apparently gone. Perot was the progressive’s Trojan Horse for the ’96 election. He lulled us into a false sense of security that he could beat Clinton. I think Trump is the Trojan Horse for the 2012 election. His candidacy will lull the conservatives into a false sense of security, while the rest of the GOP votes for their man. The right wing vote gets split, and the Democrat lands on top. You may argue as to why a guy as rich and powerful and famous as Trump (or Perot for that matter) would need to be the president. Obviously they couldn’t offer him money, so how did they do it? The answer? Ego – and more power. Guys with power like even more power. The likely theory is that someone stroked Trump’s ego, and planted the seed in his mind to run for president. Now, with Trump announcing he is seeking to become President, he threatens (likely unknowingly) to give Obama another term.

If that happens we can pretty much seal our fate as a nation as we presently know it. We will never be the same. Even if we win a majority in the Senate, I think Obama will have so much political clout in D.C., that he will be nearly unstoppable.

I may be off the deep end on this… and I hope I am.

The Other Foot

2011-03-23T22:17:00.000-04:00

The shoe is on it. The Left screamed for Bush’s impeachment because of his invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Now they have to step up to the plate in holding President Obama responsible for attacking a country, or be found as hypocrites. Libya was no clear threat to us, and, more importantly, Obama did not seek or obtain any permission from Congress to attack. On the other hand, whether you agree with what he did or not, Bush asked Congress for permission to use military force, which is admittedly a bit weasely, but some argue that there is no formal verbiage specified in the U.S. Constitution for a declaration of war. The Left vociferously called for his impeachment despite that. But now, President Obama has, without any sort of permission from congress required by the U.S. Constitution, has ordered attacks upon a foreign country. He is acting hypocritically, as he stated during his campaign that the President has no authority to unilaterally attack another country that poses no threat to the United States.

The Constitution states that the President can be impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. What exactly might they be? His High Crime is his blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution, and his misdemeanor is his dereliction of duty by leaving the country during these attacks. Some may disagree that he has, but what exactly are we looking for? Bush was described as committing war crimes. Has Obama not committed an even more egregious offense by attacking Libya? In light of that, I must ask the question; where is the cry for Obama’s impeachment from the left? Biden said if Obama did what Bush did, he’d make it his business to impeach Obama. Now he is silent. What about the media? Why are they mute? What about Code Pink? Where is Cindy Sheehan? Louis Farrakhan criticized him, but only as far as Obama was attacking a Muslim country. Only a few politicians on the Left have called for his impeachment. And Ralph Nader.

The truth of the matter is this: the Left doesn’t really care about war. It’s merely a tool to further their agenda. That’s why you won’t hear a call for impeachment from them. If it serves their purpose, they’re OK with it. In truth, it’s all about power for them. They blasted Bush so violently that they were able to shift the balance of opinion so far that they obtained their goal of a veritable triumvirate of holding the entire legislative branch and the White House. Their man is in the White House, and he is aggressively pursuing the implementation of their agenda. These attacks on Libya do not concern the Left because they are where they want to be.

The World is on Fire

2011-02-21T19:17:00.000-05:00

In the wake of the revolt in Egypt, fully agitated by the Obama Administration, revolution is spreading across the Middle East like wildfire. Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, and Jordan are in revolt. I find it difficult to believe that this is all spontaneous, separate and isolated to each country. It could be that those who chafe under these regimes are emboldened by the examples of the other nations. Perhaps its the tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood are slithering across the Middle East, toppling regimes that are not favorable to their cause. Some say that through the inactions and stumbling missteps of the President's weak Middle East policy and lack of strategy has ignited the whole region into conflict. It has indeed strengthened the Muslim Brotherhood, and they know that we will do nothing. They may very well achieve their desired caliphate. Indeed, in response to the crisis, the President made this statement;

"I am deeply concerned by reports of violence in Bahrain, Libya and Yemen. The United States condemns the use of violence against peaceful protesters in those countries, and wherever else it may occur.

The United States urges the governments of Bahrain, Libya and Yemen to show restraint in responding to peaceful protests and to respect the rights of their people.

These are not "peaceful protesters". These are not 60's style "sit-ins". These are deadly serious revolts against established governments. Statement like this from our government are either just plain incompetence, or calculated to spur on the violence. Given what I know of Obama's radical leftist ideology, I would not make incompetence my first guess.

The world on fire, and Obama fiddles while it burns.

Singularity

2011-02-13T23:02:00.000-05:00

The Singularity is coming.

Throughout modern history, we have banned certain technologies for the safety and stability of human civilization, or just to lessen human suffering. We, referring to civilized nations, have shunned the use and development of nerve gasses and bacteriologic agents. We have deemed these technologies as too horrendous, causing great suffering amongst its victims. We have discontinued the use of land mines because these weapons last long after a war is over, killing and maiming innocent people – frequently children. Though we could theoretically try to develop "smart” mines; mines which disarms themselves or become inert after a specified time, we choose not to because it has been deemed that this it is too horrible a weapon. While not entirely outlawed, most civilized nations and non-governmental organizations decry experiments in cloning and fetal stem cell research because it is offensive to our sense of humanity. Finally, we attempt to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons because the consequences of their use are just unspeakable in the scope of death and human suffering their use would bring.

So, it can be argued that we do allow for some technologies to be shunned and not pursued, if not outright banned. But there is a technology that we are pursuing with all abandon, celebrating every advance, which may prove to be even more horrific than nuclear weapons. What technology is this, you ask? Its the very technology that allows me to write this, and for you to read it. Computer technology. And it threatens all mankind with extinction just as powerfully as an asteroid striking the Earth.

The Singularity means the end of human civilization, if not humanity itself. Crazy talk, you say. Perhaps, but let’s explore the Singularity. The Singularity is defined as “the technological creation of smarter-than-human intelligence”. Moore’s “Law” gives us an idea of how its happening. Moore’s “Law” states that the amount of transistors that can be put on a chip doubles about every 24 months. Following this, every other computer related statistic has also increased exponentially, in step with Moore’s hypothesis. History itself points out that major events are happening faster and faster. Life first arose around three and half billion years ago; it was only eight hundred and fifty million years ago that multi-celled life arose; only sixty-five million years since the dinosaurs died out; only five million years since the hominid family split off within the primate order; and less than a hundred thousand years since the rise of Homo sapiens in its modern form. Agriculture was invented ten thousand years ago; Civilizations appeared about five thousand years ago, Socrates lived two and half thousand years ago; the printing press was invented five hundred years ago; powered, heavier-than-air flight was invented just over a hundred years ago; the computer was invented around sixty years ago. At some point, as technology continues to expand at this exponential rate, we will inevitably reach a point where machines will be “smarter” than humans, reaching what we currently refer to as “Artificial Intelligence”. Or it may be a brain-computer hybrid, or any other ideas that have been floated out among science fiction movies of the last half century or so. This is not my idea, and I haven’t been watching too many movies. Well, perhaps I have. Yet there are a community of scientists, engineers, philosophers, and futurists who believe this. Where I differ from them is that I believe there are a danger in what they acknowledge is going to happen. They see it as the next step in human evolution, akin to our ascent from hominids. But to achieve this step in human “evolution” we may be dooming ourselves to extinction.

They say that we must continue to progress in computer technology, that to do so is dangerous, and tyrainnical, that it’ll be forced underground. This is ludicrous because it takes mounds and mounds of money to research and develop this technology. Gone are the days of inventing this stuff in your garage. We recognize that there are dangerous technologies. They say they will be able to incorporate safeguards into the emerging technology, to protect us in the event that the AI becomes dangerous. It’ll never happen, and they are just fooling themselves. There’s just no way to guarantee that the machines will follow Asimov’s Three Laws once they become sentient. Or the machines could take it to the ultimate opposite extreme, and imprison us “for our own good”. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it’ll never be put back in. Just as it is with the nuclear genie. We have never been able to successfully safeguard this technology, and it threatens us over 60 years later. Have we learned anything from allowing this technology to spread and grow?

Don’t get me wrong. I am no Luddite. I am indeed thrilled with the advance of technology. It is amazing to me. While I can see the benefits of certain medical technologies, I don’t think all of it is good. Am I saying we should stop researching and developing more advanced technologies? No – and maybe. There is no way of knowing what will happen when the first computer becomes self aware. There are also endless philosophical, ethical, and theological questions this will bring about. If it is self aware, does this mean it has a soul? What if we come to a point where we feel we need to destroy it? Will it try to stop us, or even retaliate in some way? Remember that all the while, technology will continue to advance at an exponential rate. At some point, it’ll become so super-smart, we will not even be able to comprehend it.

Amongst the futurists, they see many technologies coming together, technologies headed in the same direction. We are currently working on brain-computer interfaces that allow the human mind to control a computer. But who’s to say it won’t create a technology that works in the opposite direction. We are working on artificial intelligence, where a computer will be as smart as, or likely smarter than a human. But what’s to say a smarter than human computer won’t find a way to treat us the way we treat chimpanzees. Or worse. Nanotechnology promises to cure all diseases, or even make us immortal. If our perception of time speeds up as we age, what will our minds be like after 200 or even 500 years? As we perceive the years to speed by like days, would we be able to maintain our sanity? Could all of these create a “trifecta”, so to speak? Too much of anything is often a bad thing, and the same can be said for the convergence of these technologies. Furthermore, do we really believe that those who are advanced will help those who are not, that they’ll use their power for good? For those with a more pragmatic (or even pessimistic view of the world) we find that hard to swallow. Human history is full of examples of one person or group seeking to dominate their fellow man. With super intelligence in the hands of a select few, it is entirely conceivable that the rest of humanity could be enslaved.

There are so many “what ifs” its mind boggling. But let’s look at it from a positive perspective. Maybe none of these bad things will happen. Maybe the Singularity will usher in a great event in human civilization like the invention of the printing press did for literacy. Maybe, with the power of our minds melded into computers, we’ll be able to solve problems that have plagued human civilization for millennia. Maybe we’ll find a way to cure disease and poverty, find limitless energy, and reach out to the stars. Maybe we’ll be able to raise our minds to such heights that we’ll be able to perceive solutions to problems in ways we cannot even imagine now. With everyone’s minds connected in a new type of Internet, all of the differences we have that divide us will be erased, as we find we all just want the same thing; to be happy and to seek fulfillment. And we’ll help each other do so, because we’ll all understand each other.

Still, those “what ifs” keep haunting me. Why? Because I believe it alludes to something very important; our humanity. The things that are predicted by these futurists; transferring the consciousness into machines, becoming one with machines, becoming immortal by proxy, etc. are offensive to the dignity of a human. By merging ourselves with machines, we turn ourselves into tools. We are allowing ourselves to become less than human. We are no longer fully human. It’s one thing for us to unwittingly create machines that become so-called self aware, and perhaps even dominate the human race. It’s another thing entirely for us to allow ourselves to distort our humanity into something unrecognizable.

I’m not saying we should halt all tech development and research, and not progress in our knowledge or technology. I don’t have the answers. But if I saw you headed down a road, and I knew the bridge ahead was unsafe, it would be irresponsible of me to say nothing. What I am saying is that I trying to warn us that the technological bridge we’re about to cross may not hold our weight.

In Remembrance of My Mother

2011-01-27T17:18:00.000-05:00

Carolyn Nunley: 1941 - 2011

I rarely post about personal stuff, but I'm making an exception for this. Some of you who are my facebook friends have already heard.

On January 11, 2011, my mother passed away due to COPD resulting from emphysema. I won't go into the details, but I will say she suffered greatly, struggling for every breath. It was very difficult to watch. Watching her die that way makes me want to grab every smoker I know (and each of you smokers who may be reading this), and beg you to do whatever it takes to stop. Do this not just for yourself, but to spare your family the anguish of a slow and lingering death. I had to make some hard decisions, and make tough calls, and I hope I never have to do it again.

With that out of the way, let me tell you about the wonderful person she was. She was a registered nurse, and I have always been proud of the fact that she graduated from Yale University School of Nursing, where she attended on a scholarship. She worked at many hospitals, including the Norwich State Hospital. Anyone who has been stationed in Groton, CT knows what that was. For those of you that don't - it was what is referred to as the "nut house".

A funny story goes along with that. She was working there when a coworker, who's husband happened to be the Bull Nuke on the Patrick Henry (my dad's boat), introduced them. While my parents were dating, and afterwords, whenever she told someone she met that she worked at the State Hospital, my dad would quickly chime in with "Yeah, and I'm one of her patients!". She never thought that was as funny as the rest of us did.

She specialized in geriatrics and was the Director of Nursing in several nursing homes before she retired. She was a consummate professional in her career. She was always proud of the fact that her patients rarely ever had bed sores, and that she would do whatever it takes to make sure they didn't. She always said there is no excuse for bed sores. So if any of you has a loved one in care, don't let them bullshit you about "it can't be helped". It can, and anything else is neglect.

It was hard growing up as a nurse's kid. I could rarely ever fake being sick! I would tell her I wasn't feeling well. She would take my temperature, look down my throat (she would use a wooden spoon handle for a tongue depressor), listen to my chest, and palpitate my stomach and my throat. Her reply would be "You'll live. Get ready for school." Damn. Life was tough, I tell you. She was as unwavering in her principles as my father. There was no compromise, and backtalk was certainly not tolerated. I could never get away with a lie, either. She always expected my best in my schoolwork. Excellence in my education was paramount, with proper manners a close second. God help me if I was anything but polite and respectful. She was disappointed when I brought home anything less than a "B", and an "A" was the goal for next semester/test/project. If she hadn't been as firm as she was, I doubt I would be the man I am today.

Everyone she knew said she was the most kind, giving, and caring person they had ever met. She was always willing to help someone out. Her neighbor, Beth, had breast cancer, and needed a nurse to give her the chemo injections every day. Unfortunately, Medicare wouldn't cover it, but they covered the medication. Go figure. Anyway, my mother gave Beth those injections every day for months. Beth told me at the funeral that if it wasn't for my mother, she would have died. My mother gave her time selflessly to many church organizations, and was a devotee of the Rosary. She was very generous to me and my family. Something wonderful was to see her many friends, old and new, come from far and wide to pay their last respects. All of her Legion of Mary friends from church came to say goodbye. At one point, they had the funeral parlor packed. I turned around and there was an ocean of blue hair! How awesome is that?! She was dearly loved by all who knew her. How could you not?

The hallmark of my mother's life was service. Not just in volunteer work, but in her professional life as well. She cared for countless thousands of sick and elderly, helping them regain their health, or giving them comfort in their final hours. After she retired, even though at times she was in great discomfort, she still came out for her church volunteer organizations. She reached out to people with warmth, and though they may have only been part of our life for a few years, made strong bonds of friendship that time and distance never faded. Service was her whole life, and she touched so many lives through it. If we are going to do something to honor my mother's memory, I think the best way would be is to serve others.

My mother was indeed all of those things, and much much more. She was incredibly smart, beautiful, wise, totally devoted to my father (I've been told "they made a great team"!), tough when she needed to be, strong enough to do the hard things, and loving and caring always. Her faults? I do not recall any now. I will miss her all the rest of my days.

The Middle of the Middle of Nowhere

2010-12-12T13:26:00.002-05:00

I have located the middle of the Middle of Nowhere - it's known the rest of us as the White Sands Missile Range. I just came back early Friday from nearly two weeks out there doing work for the THAAD program. Nothing interesting, just validating repair procedures for the system's diesel generators. I guess being outdoors all day really got the best of me, because I slept nearly all day Friday. That and just the rigors of airline travel really saps you.

The air was really dry there, of course. But, unless you've been there, and up until now, I hadn't, you really can't grasp just how dry. The dry air wreaks havoc with your sinus, and they get as raw as if you'd jammed a q-tip with 30 grit sandpaper up your nostrils. My sinus were filled with blood clots like I'd never had before, not even on the boat. I think the only thing that kept them from bleeding out right was the dust. To get some relief, I used a couple different sinus sprays. First, a saline wash, and then a sinus lubricant.The saline wash helps wash out the dust, and soften up the clots. You have to be careful not to use too much, because it can dry your sinuses out, rather than moisturize. The sinus lubricant acts like Chapstick for your sinuses. I highly recommend both, not just for the desert, but for the dryer air in the winter.

The site was very remote. This will give you an idea of just how remote.


"Close-up"

Includes the entrance gate to the base at the bottom

Includes El Paso, TX at the bottom

Black Mountain from WSMR

There was no cell phone coverage once you got on the road to the base from Rt 54. There was nowhere to go to eat without having to drive for at least a half hour. Orogrande, NM the closest town (if you can call it that) actually had a burger stand.

Yours Truly at the Ladybug Grill

It takes all of 30 seconds to drive through the town at the speed limit. Bag lunches and bottled water were the order of the day. Fortunately, my hotel, in El Paso, TX, had a really nice breakfast buffet. I especially liked the bacon. It was absolutely the best I've ever had. A good breakfast made a good start to the day.

I ate at some really nice restaurants while I was there. Unlike other trips I've taken, I was there with others from my company that enjoyed dining out as I do. The best place we ate was Cattlemans, in Fabens, TX. Its to the lower left of the Middle of Nowhere. Along with steaks on the menu four times out of the 11 days I was there (after all, it is Texas), we ate at a Mexican restaurant. It was the spiciest food I've eaten in years. My lips were absolutely on fire by the time I was done with my meal. But it was delicious, I have to say. I know the trick to eating spicy/hot foods. Dairy will neutralize the acid that makes hot foods hot. A glass of milk during the meal will help immensely. But I didn't expect my meal to be that hot. So, at the end of my meal, I had a nice soothing bowl of ice cream. I did this also because I knew if I didn't, I'd be a hurting unit as the meal made its way through my digestive tract. It helped quite a bit, but it didn't stop the second round of burning at the opposite orifice. Other meals were Barbecue (of course), Chinese, and Italian. A fairly well rounded mix of comestibles I should think.

I also visited Carlsbad Cavern while I was there. It was fantastic. I really enjoyed it, but it was quite exhausting. It was a 1.5 mile walk around and there were some pretty steep inclines. The rock formations were quite interesting, but it was hard to get good photos in the dark with my cheapo camera digital camera I bought at Walgreen's. Here are some of the better ones.

A stalactite over a stalagmite

Looks like frosting on a cake

Rock of Ages

My favorite rock

On the way there from El Paso, you pass through the Guadalupe Mountains. There were some very spectacular mountain views. But what really caught my eye was this:

El Capitan, Guadalupe Mountains

El Capitan was a spectacular crag. It appears as you round a bend, going up into the mountains. I took several pictures, but this one was the best. I had a great time, over all. It was good to get out and do a bit of sightseeing.

Going through security was not the hassle I had expected. Because of the protests leading up to Thanksgiving, Big Sis has suspended the Nude-O-Scope usage in most airports, despite what you may hear in the media. I went through traditional security on my flights out and home again. No groping, either. The machines at Providence were shutdown, and only one was in use in El Paso, at the far end of the security chokepoint. I went to the far opposite end in the hopes that time distance and shielding would work to my favor.

I have some things I do that helps make the traveling experience on the lower end of the torture scale. Slip-on shoes, or at least loosely-laced shoes are a must. I've discovered that the small metal tip on the Navy uniform belts will not set off the metal detectors. So, I just unclasp the belt buckle, and stick in my carry bag. When I get through, I easily reattach the belt buckle. I do not put any of my valuables in one of the bins. I see people place their wallets, keys, cellphones, jewelry, etc., in the inspection bins in plain sight. Things get ripped off so easily, especially when you can't keep an eye on it 100% of the time. I put everything in my carry bag, deep inside so it makes it hard to grab them if some miscreant is doing a quick snatch-and-grab. Nothing I can do about the laptop, however. Its gotta come out.

Once you get onto the aircraft, maneuvering through the narrow aisle with your carry-on can be quite punishing on your shoulders and hazardous for the other passengers. I see people fighting with their carry-on as they try to roll it down the aisle. Its an exercise that would challenge a contortionist. You have to twist your upper body down and your shoulders nearly parallel with the aisle to roll your bag. The same goes for a shoulder bag, but you don't have to twist down, except under the weight of the bag. I see most people cram too much crap into their carry-on. With the shoulder style bags, you are now bashing people in the cranium as you head towards your seat. Most people realize this, but you always get those one or two obliviots per flight who don't realize they're a menace to those around them. Then there's trying to heft your bag in front of you, while trying to make your elbows touch. It may be the least dangerous, but its more awkward than the other ways. So, what do I do? I have a backpack, or a daypack, if you will. I got one specifically for laptops. I use it everyday in fact. It allows me to stroll comfortably down the aisle. When I get to my seat, I simply turn my back to my seat (I always get an aisle seat if i can), loosen the straps, and set my bag in the seat. That is the system I use for making travel more tolerable, but it may not work for everyone or what someone else may prefer.

My flight out to El Paso were tolerable. I had some credits which got me upgraded to 1st Class. I still had to fly cattle class on the way home, though. I've learned a few tricks towards making flight more bearable. I read that if you give the flight attendants a tip or some type of confectionery treat, it makes a big difference towards the type of treatment you receive. So, I picked up some Ghirardelli dark chocolate, one for each leg of my flight. I picked some up for myself, too (it's good for you.; lots of cancer fighting anti-oxidants, raises serotonin levels, etc.). During my flight out, after the beverage services, I got up went forward to the flight attendant station and presented my little gift and... nothing. I got thank-yous of course, but no "special treatment". I wondered if I gave it to them at the wrong time, or maybe they were used to that sort of thing. I decided to give it a different tack. On my final leg from Atlanta to Providence, I gave it to them during the beverage service, when they got to my row. That was it. They went absolutely bonkers! I got the entire can of soda, and was offered another. They offered to comp me a snack box, that normally goes for $7. Every time they came by my seat, it was "Nom nom, fank oo fo da chockwat! Its so dewishus!" I declined, of course. I got my reward just from the attention.

But next time... yeah... I just moved up to "1st class" for $2.87.

Muddling Missile

2010-11-11T01:01:00.002-05:00

The mysterious missile contrail is muddling the media and the masses. We are now being told that this unknown trail of smoke/vapor is not from a projectile, but from a jetliner, and it just looks unusual due to the height of the camera.

Bullshit.

I have seen plenty of SLBM/SLCM launches – and that contrail looks exactly like one of those contrails. Or more like exhaust plumes, to be exact. No passenger jet contrail I have ever seen looks like that, nor should it be, legally I might add, that close to the ground.

We have the technology to track every single scrap object in orbit around our planet. Yet, they (the powers that be) expect us to believe they have absolutely no idea what it is? But it’s not a missile. So, if it (and it almost certainly) is a missile, where did it come from? Why is the source being denied? A couple of reasons are plausible, or not so much. You decide.

1. It’s a CHICOM SLBM. This is my pet theory. Why? The CHICOMs have their knickers all in a knot over Obama’s trip to India to court them as our new financial “partner”. China is really pissed off, so, in a display of power, they let one go. The government is covering it up because a) at best it would be a monumental embarrassment to our military capability, and b) it would at worst send the country into a blind panic. The markets would crash due to fear of China’s next move.

However, it would have been the biggest blunder any country could have ever made in all of human history, because it had the potential to collapse the entire world economy and everything else for that matter. It would be the Apokyclips. Everyone, including them, loses. The only thing saving us is the government's willingness to cover it up. And I can't imagine the Chinese as being that stupid.

2. My next (im)plausible theory is that one of our SSNs inadvertently launched a TLAM. Why the cover up? If word got out to the press that those things could let go accidently, the backlash would be so strong that every single one of our TLAM loaded boats would be ordered into port so fast it would make the Road Runner’s head spin. The National Security ramifications are terrifying. Imagine what it would happen if all the cops in any big city stayed home one night. It would be like that, except it would be, well, like, global and stuff. If this is true, expect to see a PACFLEET boat skipper get relieved “for cause” or some other vague reason in the next week or three. And the investigation would be forgotten about. To do this, however, would require a significant amount of threats and NDAs to keep the crew from ever saying anything.

But, here again, I know from first hand work that there are so many safeguards built into the Combat Control System that it would take a lot of people not paying attention/giving a shit for this to happen.

I have a couple other theories, but I can blow even bigger holes in them than these to the point where they can’t pass the smell test. I will say one thing, and that is my former WEPS from the USS PA SSBN 735 thinks its a missile, too, as well as several other submarine qualified guys.

What do you think? Anybody else on the same thought patterns as me on this (if so that would be pretty damn scary)?

Why?

2010-11-07T23:55:00.000-05:00

I don't get it. Can somebody explain to me in some sort of twisted convoluted Navy logic that even I can't fathom, why this was necessary?

Sports

2010-11-03T10:49:00.000-04:00

I’m flabbergasted. I am now firmly convinced that people here in New England are complete and utter morons (not including those who read here). For the last eight some-odd years, I’ve listened to my fellow Connecticut residents and my co-workers in Rhode Island complain bitterly about the condition of their respective state economies and political climate. Yet, last night, we re-elected the same Democrat party assholes back into office.

On a sidebar, unbelievably, Massachusetts re-elected one of the most corrupt and detestable politicians, and one of the primary architects of our current economic mess, Barney Ffffffffwank.

Apparently, we’ve been inoculated against the anti-incumbent fever that has swept the nation. The only thing I can figure is here in CT, they love their handouts and their precious unions. In RI, the state legislature is hopelessly corrupt. So much so it’s the state joke. I just don’t get it. It’s not for lack of information. In this electronic age, you can go to dozens of sites and find all the information you need to make an informed choice. They’re more than happy to complain, but not passionate enough to change anything. I’ll tell you one thing they are passionate about here. It’s the one thing I hear discussed almost to the exclusion of all else. Spo-ahts. It’s all about spo-ahts. Spo-ahts, spo-ahts, spo-ahts. If my fellow New Englanders are going to stay glued to their televisions all year and not participate in your civic duties, do the rest of us a favor and stay home on Election Day.

The one bright spot in this election is that the rest of the country got it right. We have a solid majority in the House of Representatives, possibly even a veto-proof margin provided they can sway enough fence sitters. While we did not gain a majority in the Senate, they can’t steamroller us anymore. We can now safely filibuster any further harmful legislation. And, in just two short years another third of the Senate is up for grabs and it’s likely that there will be conservative gains then, too, maybe even enough to get that super-majority.

Maybe by then, when the rest of the country is starting to prosper again, and we’re still sucking, New Englanders will gain some IQ points, do their civic duty, and turn off the “spo-ahts”.

Get the Party Started

2010-11-03T10:30:00.000-04:00

It's catching on all over.

Groupthink

2010-08-30T15:02:00.001-04:00

Many of us have fallen into a groupthink trap. We can’t seem to get outside of that thinking box that elections are ineffectual. You hear a lot of it. “There’s no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats”, or “The Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats”. “No matter who we vote for, they do whatever they want, anyway”. “My vote doesn’t count”. Another theme you hear a lot lately is about term limits, but more on that later. All of this is a very dangerous way of thinking. It’s fatalism - or at least complacency. Every election is our voice. It sends, or at least should, a message to our representatives on the job they are doing. Why do you think they scream so much, and sling so much mud every two, and four years? They’re fighting desperately for your vote, even if you don’t know what (or who) you’re voting for. We’ve allowed them to tickle our ear, to tell us what we want to hear or give us to get elected. But that isn’t working so well anymore. We’re realizing that they can’t give us something without the rest of us paying for it. We’re starting to realize again that we do indeed have power, and it scares them.

All it takes is a little effort to pay attention to what our representatives are doing. There’s no need to be fatalistic, or feel hopeless. Your vote does indeed count. How many close elections have we had around the country for the last few years, where it came down to a few hundred votes? Tell me those few votes didn’t count. You know what I’m telling you is true by how many times they had to re-count those votes.

Believe it or not, just like our employers hold us accountable for our performance, we can hold our representatives accountable. We don’t need term limits to do it, either. Term limits are already built in to the system. It’s called the ballot box. We can limit a representative’s term every two years, or every senator six years. But for it to work, we have to be vigilant. We need to pay attention to what they’re doing. They’re certainly not going to tell us.

I know it goes against the common groupthink these days, but here’s why term limits are a bad thing. On the top of the list is we’ve limited the number of terms a person can serve as President. It has certainly not gotten us better presidents – just more of them. Next, however many terms we limit our representatives to, if they serve for all the terms they’re allowed to, their lame duck term will absolve them of any responsibility to uphold their oath of office. They’ll be able vote for all the unconstitutional bills they like because there will be no more terms to hold them accountable. They’ll be more apt to give preference to lobbyist influences because of that “immunity”. What if you’ve got a good representative? He/she is upholding their oath of office; they’re rejecting unconstitutional bills, they’re rejecting undue influence of lobbyists, etc. Can you keep them? Nope. After X number of terms, out they go. And there’s no guarantee that their replacement will be just as good. You’ll have to wait for two years to find out, and then the damage is done. You’ve screwed yourself because of artificial term limits. Term limits also destroy the experience a legislator gains that will aid their constituents when they end up being a victim of some bureaucracy, or their ability to maneuver through the intricacies of subcommittees for getting good bills onto the floor for a vote.

Granted, the name recognition of an incumbent does have a lot of power, and it’s only natural to want to clamp down on what we see as “too much power” with term limits. But term limits are inherently lazy. They allow the electorate to be more or less complacent until by law the representative has run out of terms. I think we’re smarter than that, though. We don’t need to have a crutch to do our job as an electorate. We have the power – the power – to limit their terms now. Or not, if they’re doing a good job. It’s very simple, too. All it takes is for us to stay informed and activated.

This Says It All...

2010-07-06T22:36:00.001-04:00

This is a Q and A session with Dennis Prager at the University of Denver back in May. Someone asked him what the true danger to America is. His response is quite compelling.

Time, Distance, and Shielding

2010-06-23T13:57:00.002-04:00

Two seemingly unrelated incidents; the corruption trial of Ron Blagojevich and the possible of withdrawal of Rahm Emmanual as the Obama Administration Chief of Staff. Blago is on trial for trying to sell Obama's former Senate Seat. For Rahm-bo, it is rumored that he will step down to spend more time with his family and possibly run for mayor of Chicago.

But are these situations unrelated? Let's see how we can link them, shall we?

Blago has submitted approximately 100 subpoenas in his defense for his corruption trial. Included are President Obama, and... Rahm Emanuel. All of these people are intended to be part of Blago's defense, but its not hard to figure out that he'll also to take them down with him if they throw him under the bus. So what? There is a big "so what". The potential that something will come out during the trial that may implicate Emanuel, or perhaps even Obama in some type of criminal action is quite possible. If that were to happen, with a sitting White House Chief of Staff, it would bring down the Obama White House. The scandal will be worse than Watergate and the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.

So how do you fix it? We all know that Obama will never testify, but it'll be very hard for Rahm-bo to wiggle out of the subpoena. But with the Creepy Ballerina stepping down before the trial heats up, it puts time, distance, and shielding between him and the White House. That's the only thing that may save the Obama Presidency from impeachment.

United States of Apologies

2010-06-22T20:45:00.000-04:00

There are those that speak the truth, and there are those who prefer that the truth be unsaid. To not speak the truth allows the Left to continue to unfold their plans to transform this nation into a Socialist dystopia. If the truth is spoken, the speaker is soundly thrashed, publicly humiliated, turned upon and betrayed by his colleagues, and forced to apologize. Personally, I am sick of the forced apologies from those that speak the truth. From Representative Joe Wilson loudly and boldly proclaiming the truth from the halls of Congress that Obama is a liar, to Representative Joe Barton apologizing to BP for being shaken down by Obama, and everything in between, we have become a nation of apologies. But this latest "apology" has cost us all dearly.

General Stanley McChrystal is the epitome of the Spartan Warrior, a steely-eyed snake eater wearing a Ranger tab. A true leader, standing shoulder-to-shoulder on combat patrols with his men. He's a plain talker, who doesn't mince words and speaks his mind. As a true leader should. So, by some accident, the General is interviewed by one of the most liberal, anti-military, America-hating rags in the country, Rolling Stone. Sadly, it has proved to be his undoing. As a result of his candid, forthright remarks, he has been called on the carpet. His job is at this moment, in question.

But this isn't the first time in our history that a straight-talking General has been forced to apologize. Some of the more notable incidents were General George Patton had to apologize for slapping a soldier who was thought to be goldbricking. One of the greatest generals of our time, General Douglas MacArthur, was removed from command because he believed, as he should, that there is "no substitute for victory".

In a world where the hand-wringers and Perfumed Princes dominate the upper echelons of today's military, McChrystal is a beacon of light from a bygone generation of true military men. And the Left and Obama hate him. They hate him because they don't understand him, and they hate him for what he stands for.

Fishy Business

2010-06-21T08:32:00.001-04:00

My chuckle for the day, especially the part about "blowing ballast"... They wouldn't really be checking out the beach, now, would they? That's "uncommon".

Yeah? How the hell would they know?

You Won't Like the Answers

2010-06-05T18:23:00.001-04:00

Here's a bit of trivia for you....

1) Who is the first President to earn a Masters of Business Administration?

2) Where did he earn it?

3) What was his wife's profession?

The answers:

1) George W. Bush

2) Harvard School of Business

3) Laura was a Librarian

Harvard Business is arguably one of the toughest business schools in the country. According to those who've attended, there is no slack in that curriculum, and as in most post-graduate programs, the grading system is A, B, C you later.

This is just sad.

"After the last eight years, it’s great to have a President who knows what a library is."

Paul McCartney is usually a class act. So when he, a foreign national with no degree of his own, insults the former President - in the White House, no less, it's definitely a no-class moment. Sorry, Paul, but being a Beatle, and having more musical talent in your little finger than most rock-n-roll artists put together, doesn't give you a pass for making baseless insults at a President.

Doing something like that calls into question your entire character, and maybe you're not the nice person everybody makes you out to be. Maybe you're just another clueless liberal idiot, as you're statement seems to demonstrate.

Furthermore, Bush has been out of office for almost 18 months. Why does every liberal seem to forget how to read a calendar? To a liberal, everyday is January 20th. The last eighteen months includes Obama. He has had 18 months to do something to fix this mess of an economy. Barry has done nothing - except make it worse.

Oh, and Paul, you ended your sentence with a preposition. Maybe you need to go back to school. 7th Grade English would be a good place to start.

I Will Not Forget... LCDR Barton S. Creed, USN

2010-05-31T12:01:00.003-04:00

First off, a very sincere apology to those who read my blog and left comments. I had started to get spammed, turned on the moderation, and forgot I did so. I was wondering why I hadn't gotten any comments. So, again, my heartfelt apologies to you.

Now, most importantly, Ii would like you to meet someone very special to me. I have never met him, but his name is on the steel band bracelet I wear every day, wherever I go.

LCDR BARTON SHELDON CREED, USN. Lost in Laos, 13 March 1971.

"We were young. We have died. Remember us. ... We have done what we could But until it is finished it is not done. ... We have given our lives But until it is finished no one can know what our lives gave. ... Our deaths are not ours, They are yours, They will mean what you make them. They say, Whether our lives, and our deaths were for peace and a new hope Or for nothing We cannot say. It is you who must say this. ... We leave you our deaths, Give them their meaning." --Archibald MacLeish, American poet, writer and the Librarian of Congress

--Archibald MacLeish, American poet, writer and the Librarian of Congress

God Bless you all, and have a safe, happy Memorial Day. Please take a few moments to remember those who can't be with us.

STS1(SS), USN (Ret.)

Quintuple Bypass

2010-05-03T10:19:00.003-04:00

Here we can see an interesting little illustration of Obama's rule by fiat. If he doesn't get what he wants, he goes through the backdoor. Sometimes he just bashes down the front door.

1. Cap and Trade. It didn't pass in the Senate, so the EPA is trying to warp the Clean Air Act to regulate green house gases.

2. Net Neutrality. It failed in both the House and the Senate. It was taken to the Courts and was defeated again. Undeterred, the FCC is now trying to reclassify the Internet as a telecommunications service (like the phone company instead of an information service), where it can then control it completely.

3. Union Secret Ballots. The Senate failed to pass the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act". Obama nominated Craig Becker, who he knew would try to implement many of the bill's objectives without Congress. The Senate rejected him, but undeterred, Obama used his recess appointment powers to put Becker in place anyway. John Bolton, US Ambassador to the UN, was appointed by Bush during a recess, and was soundly castigated for it. No complaints from the Democrats for Becker, however.

4. Debt Commission. The Obama Debt Commission is another backdoor around congress' budgetary powers. When the Senate didn't pass it, he passed an executive order creating one anyway. The "bipartisan" panel members were heavily weighed in favor of the Democrats, with 12 of the 18 members selected by congressional Democrats and Obama himself.

5. Offshore Drilling. Congress lifted the drilling ban in October of 2008 (and Bush rescinding the executive order). Obama has placed so many regulatory hoops and restrictions that it is unlikely that any new drilling will take place. In an amazing feat of Orwellian doublespeak, Obama took credit for lifting the ban, while simultaneously placing new restrictions on drilling.

Can anyone deny that Obama is subverting the checks and balances of the Constitution? Other presidents have done so in the past, but where is the outcry from the liberals now? I'll answer that question. There won't be any because they're hypocrites. Obama is skirting the law in favor the issues that appeal to them, and that just suits them fine.

For a nice interactive version that summarizes each box on the chart, go here.

Two Way Street

2010-04-26T22:36:00.001-04:00

Liberals are afraid of dissenting opinion. So much so, they deluge the "airwaves" with all kinds of fear mongering claims that the Tea Party protesters, conservative talk radio, and the internet are close to inciting insurrection, even violence. Yet, when liberals engage in this type of speech, we better not hinder them in any way, shape, or form, because it's censorship and suppressing their civil rights. They accuse us falsely of the very same things they actually do (here, here, and the worst one here).

Well, read what this liberal icon has to say about distinguishing protest from incitement.

Free speech is a two way street my friends. You can't have it both ways.

And you won't.

Illegal Illegal Immigration Laws

2010-04-23T19:25:00.001-04:00

I am enjoying seeing the states starting to assert their rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a controversial bill that seeks to crack down on illegal immigration.

The sweeping measure will make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It will also require local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are in the country illegally.

It takes effect 90 days after the current legislative sessions end in the next several weeks. Before signing the bill, Brewer called the measure 'another step forward in protecting the state of Arizona.'

She said the bill 'represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis that we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix -- the crisis caused by illegal immigration.'"

Earlier, President Obama called the bill "misguided" and said it could violate people's civil rights. He said he's instructed the Justice Department to see if it is legal. (emphasis mine)

What should bother us all is Barry the Zero using whatever arm of the government he chooses to go after those who oppose his policies and agendas. This particular incident also illustrates the President's ignorance of the roles of the three branches of government. It is the job of the Executive branch to enforce laws. It is the job of the Judiciary branch to determine a laws constitutionality - it's legality, if you will. The Justice Department (under the Executive branch) clearly has no authority to determine a law's "legality". That has to be determined by challenges to it in the courts.

For all you liberals out there, who wailed about Bush violating the Constitution (oh so subtly), how do you feel about your hero blatantly shredding it? I thought he was supposed to "set everything right" everything that Bush did wrong? What do you think about Obama warping the government almost beyond recognition? What are you going to do when he finally warps it against you?

Cameron's Lament

2010-04-20T15:31:00.000-04:00

Yes, it's a shame that other points of view get to be heard. Censorship is OK as long as it fits the leftist point of view.

What's the Difference?

2010-04-02T16:30:00.001-04:00

Here are two similar events for you to ponder.

The setup: A severe storm ravages a state, the worst in decades. Widespread power outages, sewage overflows into the flooded zones, and untold millions upon millions in property damage. Thousands of homes are flooded out, and even more thousands of residents are displaced. People barely escape with the clothes on their back. Some are likely to never return to their homes.

In the first instance, many die as they refused to obey evacuation orders. The President does not visit the area immediately, but does so two days after the storm. The media decries the delay in the President’s visit, and he subsequently makes more in the days following the storm. It remains in the headlines for weeks following the storm. There are many major media interviews of local citizens crying for government help. His first visits are by aircraft, about which the media complains. He is called a racist by at least one celebrity. An aircraft carrier is dispatched to the region to aid those affected by the storm with food and water. Despite the President declaring a state of emergency for the area, a Democrat Senator from Illinois criticized the President for responding to the crisis with a "spin operation" but no apparent sense that the government had failed its people.

In the second instance, there are no reported deaths. Most obey evacuation orders or leave on their own. Just three days after the storm, stories of the storm and the flooding are relegated to “the back pages” in the major media outlets. The President visits the Emergency Management Administration facilities of a neighboring state, mere hours away from the major affected area by car travel. He declares a state of emergency, but declines to visit the most heavily devastated areas, not even by aircraft. Instead, he sends a member of his Cabinet. There are few, if any, major media interviews of local citizens crying for government help. There are no accusations of racism against the President. No aircraft carrier comes to the region. Some lawmakers say “We don’t need the President; we just need the federal funds.” Barely any mention of his refusal to visit is heard from in the main media outlets, or from other officials or lawmakers.

These are the facts as plain as they could be. The question is what is the difference between the two events? I think we all know the answer to that.

Not A Good Idea

2010-03-25T13:52:00.004-04:00

I will say that in some small way the Democrats brought these threats upon themselves. After all, they denied the people their voice in passing the socialized medicine bill. I totally sympathize with their frustration. When do the citizens say "Enough is enough?" and take other avenues that are the right of a free people to secure their liberty? I don't have an answer to that question. Our founders had to ask themselves that very question.

That being said however, I do not in anyway, shape, or form condone these types of acts. Beyond the most important point that it's just plain wrong to threaten anyone, it will only play into the totalitarian's hands.Often times throughout history, especially so during the 20th Century, dictators have used this very type of thing to bring down tyranny upon the citizens. These acts of violence upon our lawmakers are reckless at best, murderous at worst, and only serve to further erode our remaining freedoms. In my conspiracy theory-addled brain, I can see this as the master plan of those who wield power behind the scenes to bring about despotism, and enslave us. They guide the Congressional leadership, and the President to push through a major bill against the majority will of the people. The people get mad and lash out. The government responds by sending out troops to quell the violence, which, in turn, only escalates, and the cycle repeats until... But that's just me.

Whatever the case might be - from shadowy masterminds, to wackjob kooks, to just frustrated citizens making bad judgment calls, continuing these types of violence is unwise. If any of you who may read this are contemplating such acts, please rethink. Despite our great opposition to Congress' recent actions, they are human beings, too, with families and other loved ones. They do not deserve to have their lives - or their families and coworkers lives threatened, or worse, ended.

Though Congress puts us in a state of fear and hostility through draconian laws, we don't need to sink to their level. There is still hope that we can restore our full freedoms, and there are other ways to deal with this situation. As I have said time and time again, we, the electorate need to be vigilant, informed, and active. We're just starting to do that now, and I think that as long as we maintain our momentum, we will emerge victorious over those who would see us enslaved.

In Memoriam

2010-03-24T04:00:00.004-04:00

ET1(SS) Robert W. Nunley, Sr., USN

July, 22 1940 - March 24, 2001

Here is an essay I wrote about my father, a man I truly admire and love. The passage below was originally on Yahoo Geocities, but was shutdown. Luckily, I was able to recover it.

He's been gone nine years now, and it seems both like forever and yesterday. I can still hear his voice, with its Kentucky drawl, "Hey, Kee-id.".

My dad was a Navigation Electronics Technician who served aboard the USS Patrick Henry (SSBN-599) completing 8 strategic patrols out of Holy Loch, Scotland from 1962 to 1968.

How is a man to be measured? What makes one man stand out among others? Most would say what makes a man great is the mark he leaves upon this world. Though many people aspire to greatness all their lives, they never achieve it, no matter how hard they struggle. They desire, perhaps through fame and fortune, or through politics and power, that they will be remembered in the annals of history. But there are others who never achieve this notoriety, and yet are still great. One does not have to be famous, or a celebrity, to have greatness. Some of the greatest men there ever were lived their lives in relative obscurity, who lived seemingly ordinary lives, yet they exude this greatness with every fiber of their being, and it is recognized by all who know them. My father, Robert W. Nunley, Sr., was such a man. A truly great man. A man's greatness can be measured by how many others wish to be like him. Every one I know who knew him admired my father, and in some form or another would like to possess some of his qualities. The same is especially true for me.

For me, it started when I first met him when I was very young. Though I was not his child by birth, he took me into his heart and his life as his very own. He gave me his name, as well. For all intents and purposes, I am as much of his blood as I could ever possibly be. For that, I am eternally grateful. I learned from him very early that being the best was important, and that being anything else was unnacceptable. All of this was somehow tied to being a submarine sailor, as far as my young mind could grasp. So, very early on, I had decided I would be a submarine sailor, just like my father. He set standards that he never wavered from, his tremendous integrity and sense of responsibility would not allow him to. And he held me to these same standards. As much as I hated it while I was growing up, I am grateful now that he never backed off. I would not be the man I am today, and I only hope that I measure up to those same standards.

To my father, there was never any question as to what was right and wrong. And there was certainly no hesitation in doing what was right, no matter the consequences. In this day and age of situational ethics, and doing "what is right for me", he stood out like a beacon of light in the darkness. There is so much depth to his character that it would fill volumes. He seemed harsh and unbending while I was a child, but what I didn't understand at the time was that he loved me so dearly that he always made sure I did what was right. Now that I am a parent myself, I understand, and I strive to pass those standards to my children, as they were taught to me by my father. He was incredibly wise, always seeming to know just what to do in any situation, but always waiting for the right time before offering his sage advice. With his wisdom came great humility; he never blew his own horn because he never had too. His actions spoke volumes for themselves.

But sadly now, he is gone. Much, much too soon. And with his passing, he has left a great void in our lives, because he has made such an enormous impact on them. But despite this void, he lives in our hearts and memories, vibrant and full of life. We who are left behind to continue living, live on in the hope that we will see him again, trusting his soul to the incomprehensible mercy of God. I have tremendous faith that he has finally entered into his rest with the Lord, who has said to him, "Well done, good and faithful servant...".

I, STS1(SS) Sean W. Nunley, USN, (Ret.), his son, pay tribute to my father and shipmate, in the hope that others will know how truly great he was. The world is a decidedly sadder, duller place without him. He is sorely missed.

My vision of him now is him wearing his Dress Blues, young and strong, whitehat in hand. He is striding towards a group submarine sailors, standing in ranks. As he approaches them, they part to allow him to pass, revealing the Throne of God, and then form up behind him. A ship's bell is rung three times, the gathered men salute, and you hear the Boatswain cry..."

"ET1(SS) Robert W. Nunley, United States Navy;

Shipmate, departing.

"Rest your oars, shipmate, and be welcomed by your brothers on Eternal Patrol. Take your deserved place amongst our heroes and honored dead. Welcome home."

Slaughter House Rules

2010-03-17T13:08:00.003-04:00

The Constitution is in danger of being massacred by Dem. Congressman Louise Slaughter. Her proposed rule, known as a "self-executing rule," the House could simultaneously approve the Senate bill while voting on a package of changes to it. This would "deem" the Senate bill to be passed, without compelling members to vote for it directly. Some call it "deem and pass", I call it "deem and scheme".

This is incredibly dangerous. Passing this bill in this manner is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 7 is very specific about how a bill is to become law.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively (emphasis added). If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Does anyone else see the dangers here? No Yeas and Nays, and no recording of names. It'll just be sent to the President for him to sign. That's exactly what's about to happen under the Slaughter rule. But the Supreme court will shoot it down, right? Don't count on it. If this socialized medicine bill makes it to Dingle Barry's desk in this manner, what's to stop any bill from being passed like this in the future? Not a damn thing. Gun confiscation - you bet. Curtailing freedom of speech - why not? Excessive government intrusion into every aspect of our lives (even more so) - that, too. Rounding up of the "problem" people who dissent from the government, holding sham trials, indefinite imprisonment/internment. Granting of emergency powers to the President in a time of "national crisis" - well, that's never happened before, has it.

There are so many parallels in history where situations similar to this have opened the doorway to tyranny and oppression. Is this just scare tactics? You should be scared - your liberties are being threatened. Am I just being alarmist? Well, if the house is on fire, shouldn't someone pull the alarm? The smoke is creeping into your bedroom, America. What is it going to take for you to wake up? It's almost too late, but not quite. We can still defeat it if we keep up the pressure. Keep calling/email/writing you representatives.

Vroom Vroom

2010-03-05T08:35:00.005-05:00

This is something you don't hear everyday...

A Navy inspector general report says four witnesses described the race off of Okinawa between the guided missile cruiser USS Cowpens and destroyer USS John S. McCain. But the witnesses differed on how close the two came to each other before the race was halted.

The report was part of a larger probe into allegations against the Cowpens commander, Capt. Holly Graf. The racing incident took place in February of 2009 and the inspector general's report was finished in December. A Navy official speaking on condition of anonymity says Graf was relieved of her command in January for cruelty and maltreatment and for conduct unbecoming an officer.

As soon as I read that first sentence, I knew it had to be her. How does someone like this get command of a ship, let alone make Full Bird?

A Two-Fer Today

2010-02-13T09:25:00.000-05:00

I'm actually glad the Army didn't court martial her. This woman had good advice and got a civvy attorney. I'll bet that general who "graciously" decided to just give the mother an OTH discharge knew for certain that it would indeed be "disruptive" to the Army. I can imagine the black eye the Army would get in the press for court martialling a single mom who had no one to care for her child.

But the bigger question is "Where is the father?". A dead beat for sure.

An even bigger issue that this demonstrates is why having babies before marriage is a bad idea, to put it mildly for those of you who don't like the word "sin".

Just another reason why women shouldn't serve in the military - or at least combat support units.

This'll get some howls for sure...

This is Just Sick

2010-02-13T09:04:00.000-05:00

Maybe you can stomach this.

I found this over at Fox News. I just couldn't get past the part where it said gay (read sodomite) uncles "care and nurture" their siblings children.

Maybe everyone could use a gay uncle: A new study found that homosexual men may be predisposed to nurture their nieces and nephews as a way of helping to ensure their own genes get passed down to the next generation.

Disgusting.

Getting the Boot

2010-02-03T13:03:00.003-05:00

I like this guy, Oscar. Read on...

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said during a hastily called news conference that Obama is no friend to Las Vegas and would not be welcomed here if he visits.

"I'll do everything I can to give him [Obama] the boot," Goodman said. "This president is a real slow learner."

Too Little, Too Late

2010-01-25T09:38:00.001-05:00

Let me dust off my virtual soapbox... Haven't been here in a while, you know? [ whisk whisk] [whisk whisk]. There. All set.

Now, on to business...

The Dems seem to have gotten the message from the American people. Seems. In reality, if they were to get a Navy Eval, they would be graded 2.0 on Knowledge - they know the correct answer when told. They should have gotten the message before they got into office. But, its now clear to anyone half paying attention the only thing they had on their mind was shoving their Marxist ideology up our asses, no matter what the people they served said. Many of our elected officials said as much - and quite plainly.

I'll have the Mao enema, please - extra large. Throw in a side of Communist colonoscopy, too.

My question is, after this blatant display of elitism, how can the everyday liberal stomach it? Especially after they railed against Bush for eight years for being just that.

After getting pounded in the Massachusetts' Senate race, the Libs realized that Americans didn't want that monstrosity of a socialized medicine bill that Obam-ination and crew were trying to cram down our throats. Scott Brown won on an Anti-anything&everything-Obama campaign and won. 2.0 knowledge. Brown's election sent a powerful message loud and clear. And the Libs hear us now. Now they understand what the people want. Its jobs, didn't you know? It's the economy, didn't you know?

Like its their damn idea!

Obama and the Libs have learned a hard lesson, but it may be too late. And it isn't "all about jobs". They were pushing their Marxist agenda just as hard as they possibly could, believing they had the strength and numbers behind them to transform this country into a Socialist Utopia. One in which the poor get poorer, and the elite consolidate their power and privilege. But they went too far. They misjudged the innate spirit of freedom that lays dormant in the American people. Most Americans generally, on a day-to-day basis, take their freedoms for granted. But they can sense when there's a true threat. Most times the threat is very small and not easy to recognize, but when the Enemy takes too big a step, pushes a little too hard, we sit up and take notice. The fight is on*. Of course we are rightly concerned about jobs and the economy. But in truth, this election was more about defeating the socialized medicine bill, than the economy.

Now the Dems are doing their typical routine spin, telling us they recognize "its about the economy". And its not just that they're being weasily about it (and they are). They're saying this to purposefully deflect attention from what they know full well the message of this election - we don't want socialized medicine. And yet they still sneak in a word about their true agenda. "We hear the People, and they're concerned about jobs and we'll still give them "health care" somehow later when they're not looking."

The Dems are still trying to win the battle to remain in power and grow their tyranny and oppression. And they will keep trying - like the Japanese soldiers fighting to the last man on the islands of the Pacific. But the Libs didn't recognize in time that the spirit Minute Man lives on in us average Americans.

Yet, there is no room for complacency and forgetfulness with the election of Scott Brown to the Senate. We must remember in November.

To Arms! To Arms!*

*figuratively, in an electorial sense, not in any way to meant imply viloence of any nature.

Spare me a thought...

2009-11-11T08:19:00.008-05:00

For all who serve...

Bush or Obama: The Quiz

2009-11-09T10:16:00.008-05:00

Here is an interesting quiz I found over at American Thinker. Answers willl be posted in the comments.

1. President Bush was famous for lacking "intellectual curiosity," while President Obama has been called "the smartest guy ever to become President." Who reads more books: Bush or Obama?

2. Bush was often considered to be in the grip of Big Oil. In contrast, Obama is a Harvard-educated lawyer. Which industry contributed more than five times as much as the other to politicians: the oil & gas industry, or lawyers/law firms?

3. Bush's Christian faith was at the core of his political identity, and he was considered to be in the grip of the "religious right," while Obama is considered more open-minded. In fact, Obama has said, "my faith is one that admits some doubt." Which one refers to Jesus more in public speeches?

4. Bush was criticized for excessive federal spending and running up huge deficits. Bush's deficit in 2008 was the largest in history. In fact, President Obama said,

"It's a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they've presided over a doubling of the national debt ... What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place."

Whose deficit was more than triple the size of the other's: Bush's in 2008 or Obama's in 2009?

5. While Obama criticized Bush for "a doubling of the national debt," the federal debt held by the public went from 35.1% of GDP in 2000 to 40.8% of GDP in 2008 -- an increase of 16% as of fraction of GDP. What is it expected to be in 2016 under Obama's budget plan?

6. Obama criticized Bush for Guantanamo, military tribunals, wiretaps, troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and "signing statements." Which one of these Bush practices has Obama ended?

Legendary

2009-11-03T14:46:00.004-05:00

Bomb Disposal Hero Killed in Afghanistan Just Days Before Leave:

A British Army explosives specialist who became a legend by risking his life to defuse more than 60 Taliban roadside bombs was killed in Afghanistan during his final mission before he took leave, the Times of London reported Tuesday.

Staff Sergeant Olaf "Oz" Schmid, 30, died instantly Saturday when an improvised explosives device he was trying to disarm blew up.

It was his last job before a planned two-week break, his widow Christina Schmid told the newspaper.

“Oz was a phenomenal husband and loving father who was cruelly murdered on his last day before two weeks off after a relentless five-month tour," she said.

The bomb disposal expert's exploits were described as "legendary." He defused one in every 19 IEDs found by British troops since his tour in Afghanistan began last June...

It's a Right, Right?

2009-09-24T10:50:00.005-04:00

Health care is a right. You should be provided health care, regardless of cost.

That's the train of popular thought these days.

But, what exactly, is my obligation to pay for your health care? What is your obligation to pay mine? How far does this obligation go? Can you just go knock on your neighbor's door and say "I'm having some blood work done, so I'm here to collect money to pay for it."? What would you say if one of your neighbors came came knocking on your door asking you the same? What if, in performing this "obligation", I can't pay for my own health care? Would my neighbor, who can't pay for his own, and had to come looking to me to help pay for it, help me? How much do I pay? How much should my neighbor pay? What if I can't pay? Do I go to jail?

Now, step in the authority of the government to forcibly take money from me to pay for the health care of others. They tell you that since health care is a right that all people are entitled to, then you have to pay up to make it happen. Does that seem like a right to you?

Let's contrast that with a few of the actual, codified rights we have in our country.

I have a right to defend myself, but no one is saying I have to be provided a gun. I have to buy my own gun.

I have a right to express my opinion, but no one is giving me a newspaper, or a radio station, or a TV station, or an Internet website. I have to provide a venue for myself.

I have right to worship as I choose, but no one is going to build me a church. I have to find a church for myself.

Do I have a right to food, shelter, clothes, or water? Should the government force you to give it to me by taking the money you earned to provide those things for yourself?

So, back to my original question, is health care a right? If we're going to say that health care is a right, then logically, it would follow that food, shelter, clothes, and water are a right. If so, why do I have to go out and work for these things if its just going to be given to me anyway? If that were the case, why would you work? If we're all being fed, watered, clothed, and housed, and none of us are working, dare I ask who's paying for it?

The ultimate right we have is to be able to make our own lives for ourselves as we see fit. We have a right to keep what we've earned as the fruits of our labor. Amongst civilized men, we institute governments whose purpose is to protect our rights and property. That is the sole function of government. It cannot manufacture rights and then force it's citizenry to pay for them. If any of these things were rights, the government would be protecting them from being taken away, not forcibly taking it away from you to give to another. When that happens, government is in reality infringing upon your right to keep what you've earned. Government should not be in the business of charity.

I'll let you off the hook on these questions, because I already have the answers.

Food is privilege, not a right.

Shelter is a privilege, not a right

Water is a privilege, not a right.

Health care is a privilege, not a right. I shouldn't be forced to pay for yours, and I certainly don't expect you to provide medical care for me. If you think still otherwise, then I suggest you tell your neighbor he needs to pay for your next round of blood work, and see what he says.

The Bottom Line

2009-09-18T11:19:00.011-04:00

When you go to the voting booth, what do you look for? Most of us look near the top because that's where, for most of us, our candidate of choice, Republican or Democrat usually is on the first or second line.

But have you ever taken a look at who last on that list? Usually that's a lesser known party, like the "Green Party", or the "Social Democrat Party", or "Populist Party", etc. You may have even heard of a few of these because they were able to get in a news event in some form or another. Or maybe through the Internet. Whatever the case, who they are and what they stand for is pretty vague in most people's minds.

So here's a hypothetical situation. What if, the next time you go to vote (this would probably apply better to a national election) you bypass those at the top. What I'm saying is you vote for the person at the bottom of the list. Or anybody but Republican or Democrat. Good or bad. Just send the lot of them packing home. And it doesn't have to the bottom of the ballot. What do you think would happen, insofar as our elected representatives performing their responsibilities? Before I explore that, I think that if that did happen, the fallout of that hypothetical election would be absolute chaos. And it would be so much fun to watch all those entrenched politicians - and those in their hip pockets, draw a vacuum on their sphincters.

Here's the thing. Many of these politicians are deeply entrenched, and no matter what they do, they get re-elected. All the lobbyists and special interests make sure of it so they get what they want. Not that special interests groups are a bad thing - James Madison favored the idea of "factions" as part of the political process. Its just when they have enough power to actually control a politician's votes is when its a problem. A lot of politicians get re-elected just because they're the incumbent at the top of the ballot. People make uninformed choices and go with the easy or familiar. The good ones, the ones who have integrity (and they are out there - I'm talking to you Mr. Wilson (R-SC)), principles, and who try to honor their oath, unfortunately, get their arms twisted and have to compromise those principles. They try, all right, but its not enough. Something needs to change - a complete wiping of the slate in our federal legislature.

That's not going to happen as long as we keep voting at the top of the list. If we all voted for someone other than an "R" or a "D", that would do the trick. Imagine it for a second. There would be no major party hold in either house of Congress. None of these bills that are getting rammed down our throats would pass because there'd be no consensus, and no parties lines to make the fence sitters toe. Things would be pretty chaotic, in fact. The conservatives/populists/libertarians would balk at the Greenies trying to introduce mandatory tree hugging ceremonies in schools. The Social Democrats would put the brakes on any excessive defense spending from the conservatives (Yes, I'll agree that it can be excessive, a la a $500 toilet lid). I think it'll all balance out in the end and only the most essential of government functions will be funded. Maybe even just the ones that are constitutional. Yes, there'll be some gridlock, but I don't think that's a bad thing. Its better that, than to have bills quickly passed before the effects of it can be fully analyzed. Like socialized medicine. for example.

And we already have term limits - its called the voting booth. Every two years. Once this bunch of guys start driving off the road, we replace them too. And it doesn't matter how much money the Republicans and Democrats spend on their campaigns. We're not beholden to vote for whoever raised and spent the most money. All that matters is what box we check, or what lever we pull. We can do it for whomever we like, whether they spent $1M or just $1. We just have to walk into the voting booth with a mind of our own.

I'm tired of the status quo. We keep recycling the same jackasses into office. No matter who's in charge, things never get better. We, as the electorate, need to change our way of thinking and our voting habits. I say, its time to look at the bottom line.

You Might Be a ‘Radicalized Right-Wing Extremist’ If…

2009-09-14T14:45:00.013-04:00

If you're a member of an active conservative group that opposes abortion,
...you might be a ‘radicalized Right-Wing Extremist’.

If you favor strict immigration enforcement,
...you might be a ‘radicalized Right-Wing Extremist’.

If you lobby to protect Second Amendment rights,
...you might be a ‘radicalized Right-Wing Extremist’.

If you protest big government,
...you might be a ‘radicalized Right-Wing Extremist’.

If you advocate federalism,
...you might be a ‘radicalized Right-Wing Extremist’.

If you reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority,
...you might be a ‘radicalized Right-Wing Extremist’.

If you oppose profligate federal spending and endless taxpayer-funded bailouts,
...you might be a ‘radicalized Right-Wing Extremist’.

If you peacefully attend Tea Party events, or support other patriotic grass-roots organizations,
...you might be a ‘radicalized Right-Wing Extremist’.

If you peacefully voice your protest against government run health care at a Town Hall Meeting with your elected U.S. Representative,
...you might be a ‘radicalized Right-Wing Extremist’.

If you're a member of the veteran's rights group American Legion and favor immigration enforcement,
...you might be a labeled a member of a "hate group" by the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

If you're a veteran who believes in any of the above,
...you might be a ‘radicalized Right-Wing Extremist’.

Now that you know who you are, get out there and turn your neighbors into ‘radicalized Right-Wing Extremists’.

Confused

2009-09-04T08:51:00.009-04:00

Mixed signals.

That's what you're getting if you follow the news, especially about the economy. Here's a quick smattering of the latest economic news. You'll see what I mean.

OECD: Global Recession Ending
PARIS--The global recession is coming to an end faster than thought just a few months ago and may already be over, according to forecasts published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on Thursday.

US jobless claims remain stubbornly high
The number of US workers claiming unemployment benefits fell back last week but remain stubbornly elevated, adding to evidence that the US could be facing a “jobless recovery” from the recession.

Food stamp list soars past 35 million: USDA
More than 35 million Americans received food stamps in June, up 22 percent from June 2008 and a new record as the country continued to grapple with the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Biden: Stimulus plan is working faster than hoped
WASHINGTON (AP) - Defending a costly plan to revitalize the economy, Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday said the government's sweeping stimulus effort "is in fact working" despite steady Republican criticism and public skepticism.

Stocks Kick Off September With a Thud
Stocks started September, a typically bad month for the market, with a sharp selloff amid worries about more bank failures and the fact that the market may have gotten ahead of the recovery.

Weekly Jobless Claims Fall 4,000 to 570,000
Initial claims for unemployment fell for the third time in the past five weeks, according to Thursday’s report from the Department of Labor. However, continuing unemployment claims rose for the third time in five weeks.

Banks Lead Decline in U.S. Stocks on Concern Over More Losses
Sept. 1 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stocks fell for a third day, the longest losing streak for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index since June, as concern banks will post more losses overshadowed manufacturing and housing data that topped economist estimates.

FOMC Sees Growth Resuming in Second Half of Year
Members of the Federal Open Market Committee said at their meeting last month “incoming data and anecdotal evidence had strengthened their confidence that the downturn in economic activity was ending and that growth was likely to resume in the second half of the year” according to minutes of the meeting released Wednesday.

Stocks Decline, Trimming S&P 500’s Sixth Straight Monthly Gain
Aug. 31 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. stocks extended a worldwide drop, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index trimming a sixth straight monthly gain, amid concern the global rally in equities has outpaced the prospects for an economic recovery.

Meltdown 101: Why banks' struggles have worsened
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Despite signs of an improving economy, the nation's banks are still struggling -- in fact, the pace of bank failures has accelerated.

US Unemployment Rate Jumps To 26-year High Of 9.7%
WASHINGTON - The U.S. unemployment rate jumped to a 26-year high of 9.7% in August as nonfarm payrolls fell by 216,000, the 20th consecutive monthly decline, the Labor Department estimated Friday.

Poll: 57% don't see stimulus working
WASHINGTON — Six months after President Obama launched a $787 billion plan to right the nation's economy, a majority of Americans think the avalanche of new federal aid has cost too much and done too little to end the recession. (Hint: if poeple don't see it working, then its not.)

Economic Stimulus
... Six months after the passage of the stimulus plan, economists said it had helped in limited but discernible ways. They said that the punch from increased government spending has helped the economy begin to bottom out faster than it would have otherwise. The tax cuts included in the plan, economists said, have had less of an impact because people tended to save the money or use it to pay down debt rather than spend it.

Its enough to make your head spin - the economy is improving, its getting worse, its improving, its getting worse...

My skeptical, cynical, morose, conspiracy theory-riddled mind tells me that the real data is in the more pessimistic reports. But that's just me. Take all this with a grain of salt, because I concede I may be wrong.

I sure hope so.

Who Turned Off The Internet?

2009-08-30T06:53:00.006-04:00

Posting will be light for a while. I've started college full time under the Post 9/11 GI Bill. Yes, I'm still working. Yes, I'm insane.

But here's something about another bill giving the President the power to cut you off from the internet. There was screaming and wailing and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments over the Patriot Act. So where's the outcry from the libs over this? There won't be, because its the one media outlet they can't control (yet).

C'Mon In!

2009-08-18T12:35:00.007-04:00

The Fox is guarding the Hen house...

I gotta ask... Why didn't they call in Border Patrol Agents from other areas? Or perhaps the Nation Guard?

Maybe I shouldn't ask these questions.

Land Of A Thousand Czars

2009-08-13T07:29:00.005-04:00

Or, at least 32, anyway.

'The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States.'
-- Sen. Barack Obama, March 31, 2008"

Hypocrisy, thy name is Barrack Hussein Obama.

Even Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), has something to say about all of these new Czars.

Byrd, in his February 23 letter, specifically referenced the creation of new White House Offices of Health Reform, Urban Affairs Policy, and Energy and Climate Change Policy, noting that “the rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate confirmed officials.”

If a die-hard liberal racist like Byrd is concerned, then that should tell you something. Are you libs paying attention out there? Its your freedoms, too.

Scrapped

2009-08-11T08:31:00.007-04:00

Crews to begin dismantling Russian submarine: "PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- The dismantling of the Soviet submarine that sank to the bottom of the Providence River in a torrential rain storm in 2007 is slated to begin today.

Crews from Rhode Island Metals Recycling will begin picking away at the former K-77 Soviet submarine, turning the former waterfront museum into manageable portions of scrap metal.

After the sub sank, it spent more than a year at the bottom of the river before Navy and Marine salvage experts helped raise the sub. The damage was too costly to repair, according to museum director Frank Lennon."

Disappointing. I had hoped to visit once it re-opened. What a shame - a bit of Submarine History lost. Maybe they'll salvage some of the equipment for a museum...

Shut Up

2009-08-08T12:21:00.009-04:00

Obama wants those of us who express our dissent to his socialized medicine plans to shut the fuck up and get out of the way.

I guess our God-given right to Freedom of Speech doesn't mean anything to Barry.

How much more of this crap are we going to take?

Joke

2009-08-03T13:27:00.005-04:00

Do I look like a guy with a plan?

Surprise!

2009-08-02T22:40:00.005-04:00

I told you so...

2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up - Yahoo! Finance: "WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul."

Thank you everybody who voted for Barry (zer)O. I hope you like your higher taxes - those of you that pay any.

And what "exploding budget deficit"? I thought Obrahma had fixed that?

This Says It All

2009-07-21T13:32:00.008-04:00

This is what the Mayo Clinic has to say about Obama's socialized medicine plan.

"Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill – including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects – the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite.

In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient focused or results oriented. Lawmakers have failed to use a fundamental lever – a change in Medicare payment policy – to help drive necessary improvements in American health care. Unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good patient results at reasonable costs, the promise of transformation in American health care will wither. The real losers will be the citizens of the United States."

Tells you something, doesn't it?

I've read portions of the bill. Section 201 provides for the sunsetting of private plans. Even worse, Section 401 provides for fines, called "taxes", unless you're enrolled in a "qualified health benefit plan. That's not including any of your dependants who are not on the "right" plan. you'll be fined for them, too.

Call your congressman right away. Unless you don't mind health care rationing.

Transparency?

2009-07-06T08:27:00.004-04:00

What was it that ZerObama said his administration was going to be?

CNSNews.com - White House Won’t Reveal How Much Michelle Obama’s European Vacation Cost Taxpayers:

"America may be in the midst of a deep recession, and the nation may be facing unprecedented deficit spending and debt, but the White House will not reveal the cost to taxpayers of the European vacation that first lady Michelle Obama and the president’s two daughters, Malia and Sasha, took last month."

This is transparent? What do you liberals have to say about Barry, now?

The Organized Few

2009-07-04T01:30:00.005-04:00

It was a bright, clear, but cool July day in Philadelphia that year. 56 men had come together to draft a letter. This letter would change the world as they knew it, the Unanimous Declaration. We know it today as the Declaration of Independence, signed in 1776. In a land of millions of inhabitants, they organized themselves, and influenced the thinking of all those people. Out of that came freedom the world had never known before. Just a few years down the road, they would be a free and sovereign people, governed not by a King, or some other tyrant, but governing themselves under a Rule of Law.

It only took 56 organized men to change the world.

If we compare our land of today to the time of the Declaration, it would appear that the grievances they held against England have returned with a vengeance. They have, indeed. The Founders wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Today, in this country, we have inequality. Not one of a nobility ruling over a lower class, but by a division of society and cultures. Affirmative action has nearly destroyed the American ethic of making your own success by your own two hands. Instead it is doled out due to race, gender, and whatever other minority classification. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is nearly gone. Babies are denied the right to life in the womb. A fear of speaking your mind has crept into us as a result of thought stifling political correctness. Even I sometimes find myself thinking "I shouldn't think that!" Why? The pursuit of happiness has been damaged by confiscatory taxes and straight jacket regulations.

Some of their grievances are so very similar to what we suffer under today.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

Today we are weighed down under an alphabet soup of regulatory agencies, some with their own courts of law that are often far above what an ordinary citizen is capable of to mount an appeal. The EPA, FDA, FAA, FTC, FCC, FEC, HHS, IRS, ICE, HUD, SSA, etc., that eat out our substance. Nothing in our lives doesn't fall under control of one of these agencies. Furthermore, we pay hidden taxes to these organizations, businesses even more so, whenever we have direct dealings with them.

They also chafed under the taxes that were imposed upon them unwillfully.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

The tax rate of the colonies at the time was only about 12.5%. Ours today is about 17%, or more. That's just what we see come out of our checks in FICA, Medicare, and SS. That doesn't take into account state and local income taxes, licences, inheritance taxes, highway tolls, property taxes on our homes and vehicles, administrative fees for whenever we do business with town hall or the DMV, sales taxes, taxes for utilities and other nickel and dime fees in our bills that add up over the course of a year. All this is estimated to be closer to 46%-48%. I can't imagine what kind of spending power I would have if I had that back. These taxes hurt the poor most of all. If our Founders were to time travel to our day, they would be horrified that we have become so acquiescent about how much we're taxed. All that money you pay in social security? It'll all be spent by the time you're eligible to collect, and what you do get will never equal out what you've paid in, and your family is not entitled to a dime of it. Bernie Maddof's got nothin' on the SSA. The money that we "give" them, is not theirs to give away as hand outs and pork barrels projects, or "earmarks", or "entitlements", or whatever obfuscation these things are named.

But, those wise European white males taught us a lesson that we can still learn today. The organized few can make a difference. If enough of us, and it doesn't have to be a lot, learn to inform ourselves, then raise our voices and take action, we can change our nation for the better. There are still enough people of good will and principle in this country that, if activated, can affect change. I firmly believe that.

If the small but vocal left-wing loony moonbats - the gays, the animal rights people, the environmentalists, and the racist hate organizations can be heard enough to change laws, then we, who far outnumber them, can do even more. All that is needed is vigilance, and action on our part. Its even easier than before in our electronic age.

The President doesn't matter. Congress is the key - because they hold the purse strings. If we can influence our congressmen to vote in accordance with the Constitution at least 75% of the time, we can repair the damage that's been done to our country. As I said, we have to act. Most important in all of this is we have to get to the ballot box - the true and best term limit solution. If the Representative is doing his 75% or better, you keep him. If not, he loses his job, and you replace him with someone who might do better. Its work, keeping track, but its really so little when it comes to our freedom.

Our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause of freedom. They fought, shed blood, sacrificed their wealth, and some even died. All we have to get up off our asses, turn off American Idol, and do what we need to do. Otherwise, all our freedoms will be usurped, and we will be slaves, not with chains, but with shackles of tyranny all the same. If that's all our founders had to do to procure our freedom, they'd have turned cartwheels.

All it takes is a little time to research what is going on. talking with friends, family, and colleagues, writing emails to your Rep, letters to the editor, and emails to friends. Just a few hours a week can make the difference. Its so easy, America. If we simple get organized and active, we who are many can restore our freedoms as the Founders gave them to us.

God bless, and have a blessed, safe, and happy Independence Day.

Most Intelligent Quote(s) of the Day

2009-07-02T08:43:00.016-04:00

Gwyneth Paltrow says Spain changed her life:

'It is so different from the United States. It seemed to have a history, and the buildings are years and years and years old. Here in the United States an old building is about 17 (years old)...'

Wow. At 25 years old, my home must be really old to her. Years and years and years and years old (that's with one more years than her). And what about my Aunt's home, which has to be close to 150 years old? That must be prehistoric. Like 1.0 x 10E26.5 years old, by her calculation of old. We do have a history, Ms. Paltrow. It doesn't go back to 500 B.C. (which is actually Roman history, not Spanish history), but it does go back about 500 years.

Oh, and guess what other epiphany she had?

"...Also, the way people live over there. They seem to enjoy life a little bit more. They aren't running around as much as in New York. They enjoy time with the family. They don't always have their Blackberries on."

I don't think her brain is on.

My father-in-law traveled to Spain frequently during his career as a chemical engineer/patent attorney for his company. He became very close friends with the plant VP over there, and our familes have had a relationship with them for over 30 years, well before I came along and conscripted his daughter as a Navy wife. Though retired now, my F-I-L still travels to see them once a year or so. I've gotten to know them myself, and speak with them when they've come to the States to visit (don't call their money pesos - it upsets them). I've never been to Spain myself, but I've visited other parts of Europe (and Australia) enough to see a culteral overlap. I have a fair idea of what life is like, I think.

She has a point about our Crackberry addiction. We are a nation of work-a-holics. Their work ethic is different than ours. I think its why Europe is in decline - no motivation. The government will take care of us and tell us when to work and when to play. In essence, what her Blondeness speaks of is true, but she doesn't have a clue as to why, despite all the time she's spent there. If so, she wouldn't enthuse over it as she does. Why? That's because in Spain, like all of Europe (and Australia, too, I found) have about a month (or more) of government mandated, government paid holidays. They've got ass-tons of government holidays, some of which include Catholic holidays. Then there are the regional holidays.

Of course, its a double-edged sword. They have more time with their families, but they're taxed out the ass for it. If Americans were taxed less, with that extra boost to our bank accounts we might have more time to spend with our families, too. Its the way life should be, without the government interference. If the money was there, I think we could make the time.

The Good News And The Bad News

2009-07-01T13:39:00.013-04:00

California. It was once a land where dreams were made. Today, its an economic nightmare. Taxpaying citizens and businesses are leaving in droves (and have been going on for decades) due to oppressive taxation and regulation. Its no wonder that its income tax revenues are the the lowest they've been since the Depression. They're being replaced by non-taxpaying "benefit" recipients, some of them fraudulent - and many of whom are not even citizens. Nobody is turned away from the government teat. And it continues in an ever-downward spiral. As a result, California can't pay its bills. They can no longer afford to give money away and fund its pet projects. They're looking at closing schools, government offices, and even prisons. They must cut $24B in spending in order to get their heads above water.

The California Republicans want to the do the sane thing and cut spending deeply. They do not want to raise taxes. But the Democrats, who still haven't figured it out, want to increase taxes in order to continue funding the handouts that got them their in the first place. Of course, the Demorons try to use their same old weapons of temper tantrums, threats, guilt, and hyperbole to get their way. They're going to have to come to reality soon. A reality that they just can't support everyone, make sure they are educated, healthy, and fed, by funding it all on the backs of the taxpayers. They just can't bring themselves to deport the illegal aliens crowding their prisons because they have family here.

Something that liberals don't understand is that food, shelter, medical care and education are not a God-given rights. That sounds harsh to some, but its a fact of life. These things cost money, and that money has to come from somewhere. A right is something that you have inherent and separate to yourself, that nobody else can provide for you. You have a right to life, a right to express your opinion, a right to worship as you choose, a right to obtain property and keep it, and a right to live your life as you choose. If there was no government to give it to you, how would you obtain food, shelter, medical care, or an education? We certainly should try to save everybody who is truly unable to care for themselves, but it should come from the charity of our hearts - not from the government who has the power to remove our freedom should we decide we don't want to do it their way.

We Americans should take a look at what is happening in California, and what they are doing to fix it. The same thing is happening here in Connecticut. Its happening in other states as well. Our state government budgets are collapsing, and possibly, probably, the federal government along with it. Its going to happen to the rest of us unless we act now. It may be too late to ride out the tsunami heading for us.

California's implosion is both good news and bad news. It's good news because its a vindication of what we conservatives have been saying all along - that socialistic handouts are self-destructive. maybe California can once again be an example for the rest of the country. California will now be forced to make reasonable, even frugal spending decisions. But its a hollow victory. The much worse bad news is that the people who will suffer the most from it will be the two groups of people who have been most dependant upon it; the people receiving the handouts, and the people who's job it was to hand it out because their jobs will be gone.

Grinding Slow, But Sure

2009-06-29T10:06:00.041-04:00

Get ready for a cold, cold winter. I hope you have nice warm socks and a nice heavy flannel or fleece so you can lounge around your home. Yes, that's what you'll need because you won't be able to afford the "carbon credits" to heat your home to an even semi comfortable level. And forget about going anywhere, you won't be able to afford gas, even if you had a job. Because you won't. Oh, it won't happen immediately; the wheels grind slow, but they grind sure.You have Congress to thank for that - through the Cap-and-Trade bill just passed Friday by the Pelosi Gang, twisting arms and breaking knees all the way. Congressional smoke and mirrors through the CBO says it'll "only" cost taxpayers $165 per year. However, the CBO report does not examine the economic impact of imposing billions in new operating and production costs on virtually every industry in America. and you can be certain they'll pass that along to us, the consumers/taxpayers. The CBO also left out the direct cost to local, state, and the federal government of complying with the new federal energy regulations.

The WSJ reports:

The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

[...]

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

[...]

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming.

The language used to sell the bill is sick. It's as if you get a choice in the matter. Businesses and producers are "allowed" to purchase credits for exceeding the regulated carbon emission limits. That's like saying "you're allowed to pay more taxes". What if my employer exceeds the limit, but doesn't want to buy the credits. Do you think the gummint is going to say just say "OK"? If you believe that, well, there's this nice property down in Florida, see... They admit that it will hike the price of energy... but, it won't hit us in the wallet because we'll just use less. It doesn't matter that we have to get to work and shopping, and heat our homes to anything above 56F. That's how screwed up their logic is. It's a sickness, I tell you.

The WSK continues:

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing.Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates theaverage family there is paying nearly$1,300a yearin green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.
Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality

So, riddle me this, Dems... how do you feel about this added tax burden on yourselves? Would you be happy about the high unemployment because it's "saving the environment"? Or would you be happy that the poor will only get poorer under this added tax on energy because it reduces carbon emissions? In your compassion for these poor people, would you be willing to "trade" (or even donate!) your carbon credits so those underprivileged folks can heat their homes?For the rest of you not suffering from liberalism brain damage, I urge you to contact your senators - preferably by phone - and let them know you don't care for this stinking pile of crap.

Loopholes

2009-06-23T09:40:00.018-04:00

Update:
Another Dem fails to deliver.

It should not surprise any of us that know better that the Southside Stooge is a hypocrite of the highest order. He has broken his promise of a "transparent administration". He broke it willingly, knowingly, when he crafted a loophole into his own policy. How scheisterly can you get? How Orwellian can you get?

Now, I know that some of us Americans voted for him because they didn't like McCain, and hoped that Obama's promises would be the thing this battered nation needs. However, in reality, he's giving us more of the same... just whole heaping, steaming, reaking piles of it, stuffing it down our throats.

He broke his promise, as he has others, and he will break more. Let's take a look at his broken promises, shall we?

Make it “Impossible” for Congressmen to slip in Pork Barrel Projects (it looks like Congress has done the impossible - other than act like complete idiots).
Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public (where's the schedule of these meetings?).
No more secrecy (if he means the secrets that keep us and our troops safe, he's kept that one).
Public will have 5 days to look at a Bill (nobody has sent me a bill to look at except for my utility bills).
We will put every pork barrel project online (where's the "pork barrel.gov" webpage?)
Corporate lobbyists will no longer sett the agenda in Washington (with exceptions of course).
His Administration would end all the bipartisan fighting. (He let Nancy Pelosi do it for him).
Etc.

So, what do you libs think about Obama breaking his promise? And justifying it by saying Bush did it doesn't count because Obama ran on a "higher moral ground" stance. Can you give me an excuse for it? Can you explain the loophole?

Fail

2009-06-03T14:31:00.017-04:00

The government that brought you the retiree's utopia (Social Security) that we all have to look forward to, has made our poor and elderly the healthiest on the planet (Medicare/Medicaid), and created the most efficient passenger rail system (AMTRAK) ever seen, is about to bring you the most exciting car models seen since the Yugo (Government Motors).

Fail.

I don't know if I can contain my glee any longer living in Barry's worker's paradise.

If you think that the problem is so big that the government is the only one who can solve it, let me remind you of this - its the government is who got us here in the first place (that's both Dems and the GOP). They haven't been able to, or willing to, fix Social Security. Or Medicare. Or AMTRAK. The best thing to do in this situation with GM is to let them go into bankruptcy, and then dig themselves out - if they can. They will come out stronger, leaner, and more responsive to the consumers. Or somebody who thinks they can do better will take their place. Of course it will be painful, very painful. But like an infected tooth that needs to be pulled, it's unavoidable. It's the only way the healing process can begin.

What do you libs think about this? Do you think it'll work? If you think it is the answer, how do you answer for all its previous failures that I've pointed out above? Or do you just blame it all on the Republicans? If you do point the finger at the Republicans, do you have a solution? I would like to hear it.

If this bothers you, then there is hope for you yet. You are starting to see the Truth of conservatism, and why the gov't shouldn't run things that are better left to the private sector and the markets. Socialism (or government capitalism) doesn't work. It's been tried time and again.

Fail.

Fail.

Fail.

Misjudged

2009-06-02T20:54:00.018-04:00

I think it's all a ploy. I think Obama is tossing out this stinking piece of fish, referring of course to Judge Sonia Sotomayor, so that when we all gag on the stench, he'll throw out something slightly less nauseating. And we'll accept it because our nostrils will still be so filled with the stench of this stinky SCOTUS nominee that we won't be able to tell the next one stinks, too. Cheezy Charlie Schumer says she's "almost filibuster proof". But, we'll see what happens. She seems pretty teflon right now, but we can always hope for what may come out of her confirmation hearings. If we act.

I don't think she's as smart as she is being made out to be. If so, she wouldn't have made those controversial statements that she would later have to answer for. A judge should know better to carefully measure her words, right? I don't care if she tried to play off her "we make policy not law" statement as a joke. It was a Freudian slip. Her ruling in the Ricci v. DeStefano case was baffling at best. She acknowledges she made a poor word choice when she said a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." For you libs out there, what's up with that? You lefties just turn your head at that blatantly racist remark (made at a notoriously racist organization gathering - La Raza, of which she is a member), yet rale like a tuberculoid if a white man had said something similar. Why is that? Why is this ignored, pushed under the carpet, dismissed by the left. We all know the reason why. The Left are hypocrites of the highest order - no one can be a racist unless you're a white conservative. And, as a minority, if you reach a high enough level in society, you can say anything you like and get a pass. I'll tell you what the real deal is - it's really about the accumulation of power into their hands. Pure and simple.

But I digress.

Her judicial philosophy comes from the liberal school of touchy-feely "empathy", that "her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through, that will make her a good judge." Um, hey, I have a question. What about how applying the Constitution to the law making one a good judge? This belief that her "life experience" makes her better qualified to be a SCJ is bullshit. Maybe there's someone out there with a "better" life experience. Maybe a black, or an Asian. Or even - gasp! - a white man, dare I even think it! I think my life experience as a disabled veteran makes me just as qualified as Sotomayor. They don't seem to care too much about her judicial record, so my lack of one shouldn't matter, should it?

It may seem like an insurmountable obstacle, but I am ever the optimist. I believe that if enough people raise a stink that they'll have to throw that fish overboard. I urge everyone who reads this to not only contact your senators, but Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have.

She's made several misjudgements, just from first glance. We would misjudge her to believe her to be a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court of the U.S.

Heil To The Chief

2009-05-20T16:33:00.005-04:00

I just couldn't resist.

In context, the Obamination was trying to do something loosely liturgical during the blessing of the students at Notre Dame... but it just came off as looking like, ummm..., something else.

And my, doesn't he look smug about it.

H/T to The Cave Man.

Closed

2009-05-18T23:00:00.006-04:00

I'm referring to my mind.

In regard to the topic of abortion.

Or so Obama would say all reasonable people should have.

I don't want to be "reasonable". I will not have an "open heart" or an "open mind" on abortion. Abortion is intrinsically evil, and I will not compromise on that position. I would rather die. There are no fair-minded words that will make the murder of unborn innocents something to be accepted. If there was one issue on which there could be no negotiation, abortion is it. There is no way you can explain away the killing of a baby, a human being in his mother's womb. The teaching of the Church on abortion is pretty clear.

I have to give Obama credit. He is very clever, and crafty with his words. More so than even Bill Clinton, I would argue. Obama makes it sound like agreeing to disagree is civil, and even noble when it comes to the abortion debate. He confuses and muddles, and uses high sounding key words and tricky phrases, like "reasonable", "good faith", "common ground", and "friendship, civility, hospitality and ... love". Why would I look for common ground with a murderer? "If you can agree that perhaps some people should be murdered, then all would be right with the world".

He says that it's such a "heart-wrenching decision", as if he cares. It's especially heart wrenching for the baby, who's heart is being wrenched from it's tiny chest. He obfuscates the "debate" further by deflecting the issue; stating we should have more adoptions. Smoke and mirrors.

The fact that he gave such a speech, though loathsome, is not surprising. He thinks that bringing a baby almost completely out the womb, and then cracking her skull open and sucking out her brains is perfectly fine. What's absolutely scandalous though, it is that he gave it at one of the most prestigious Catholic universities in the country - at the request of it's president, a Catholic priest.

God have mercy on this country.

Some May Call Them Thongs...

2009-05-17T10:16:00.002-04:00

But most of us just call them flip-flops.

Which is what the Obamanoid has done on some key Bush policies that Obama claimed were some of Bush's worst policies during the election campaign.

Jennifer Rubin over at Commentary magazine has put it all together quite nicely, from the military tribunals, to closing GITMO. There are other things she doesn't mention, but this is a good start in showing the public that maybe Dubya was right...

George W. Bush must be smiling. He’s not talking in public about the Obama administration, but he can’t be displeased: his harshest critic is adopting most of his national security policies, albeit grudgingly and with a whole lot of spin. But not even the White House spinners can conceal what has happened.

The New York Times has figured it out:

Faced with the choice of signaling an unambiguous break with the policies of the Bush era, or maintaining some continuity with its practices, the president has begun to come down on the side of taking fewer risks with security, even though he is clearly angering the liberal elements of his political base. . . But the bottom line is that Mr. Obama’s course corrections have real-life consequences. Mr. Bush kept saying that he wanted to close Guantánamo Bay but could not find an effective replacement for it. So he never acted. Mr. Obama began with that action, and now discovers it is more difficult to accomplish than it seemed a few months ago.

The Obama team is loathe to admit this. So they dress up the decision to utilize military tribunals as a entirely different sort of approach than Bush. Rubbish. Like most observers who bother to look at the details and compare, the Wall Street Journal editors aren’t buying Obama’s tale that his are any different than Bush’s. Nevertheless the editors conclude:

Mr. Obama deserves credit for accepting that the civilian courts are largely unsuited for the realities of the war on terror. He has now decided to preserve a tribunal process that will be identical in every material way to the one favored by Dick Cheney — and which, contrary to the narrative that Democrats promulgated for years, will be the fairest and most open war-crimes trials in U.S. history. Meanwhile, friends should keep certain newspaper editors away from sharp objects. Their champion has repudiated them once again.

Perhaps the key test will be when that deadline on closing Guantanamo comes along and there is still no adequate alternative. ”Can’t close Guantanamo” is going to be pretty hard to spin as anything but confirmation of Bush’s detention policy.

The Left is apoplectic about all this. And conservatives are conflicted. (Does Obama get “credit”? Is this a change of heart or political convenience?) But it doesn’t really matter what Obama’s motives are. The reality is that on one national security decision after another he has come to conclusions strikingly similar to his predecessor. That likely makes George Bush happy. But more importantly, it makes us all safer.

Time to Leave Jeb Behind

2009-05-09T08:00:00.009-04:00

You really have to wonder what these guys are thinking sometimes. Jeb Bush recently opined that "it's time for the Republican Party to give up its "nostalgia" for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats ". He and all the other RINOs have infected the Republican Party with their own brand of liberalism-lite mental deficiency. It's that way of thinking, trying to beat the Demotards at their own game, that got the Republicans in this mess to begin with. I'm referring to how his brother's administration spent like a Democrat, and tried to co-opt their platform on social issues.

They don't understand what Reagan was about. You can see it in how he defined his terms, as compared to Obama. It's subtle, but significant. Obama campaigned using the same words Ronny used, "hope", and "change". But the meaning of them was different between the two men. The Gipper spoke about hope and change in a way that appealed to our sense of pride in our country, honor, and patriotism. He told us America was great, because we were a great people. He told us we can change things for the better ourselves, without the "help" of an intrusive government. He told us he had hope for America because of our greatness. Did he follow through on all he said? No. There were liberals who stood in his way, doing their damnedest make sure he failed.

Obama spoke of hope and change, too. But he never outright defined what he means. You have to really listen to what he says. He talks about "reforming" the government. Into what? Our problem is not our form of government, its that none of our leaders are following its form - the Constitution. He says we shouldn't just change the players, but the game, as well. There is nothing wrong with the game as long as the players follow the rules. If the players aren't following the rules, you don't change the game to to suit the players. When he talks about "sharing the benefits of our free market more equitably", he is referring to the redistribution of wealth. He is giving hope - false hope, to people that the government will take care of them. He refers to that as "investing".

He talks about government doing this and doing that. He portrays government as a positive force. That is incorrect. Government is a negative force, it's supposed to protect your property and your rights. And that's all. It's not supposed to provide services, like your health care, or taking care of your college tuition, your mortgage, or your next tank of gas.

These principles of socialism are what The "O" Word believes. That's not what Reagan believed. He believed in people retaining the fruits of their labors, not being forced to give it to others who didn't earn it. And if that's what Jeb & Co. think we should leave behind, and embrace Obama socialism, then Jeb Bush should be kicked in the behind.

Do It In Chunks

2009-05-02T08:31:00.032-04:00

Like I've learned with trying to do my expense report covering almost eight weeks, I've realized that I should have blogged in chunks because there's just so much I can't do it all at once. So I'll just tell you about it in an overview and my impressions.

I visited Australia to conduct training for the RAN Submarine Force, based at HMAS Sterling, at the Submarine Training and Systems Centre. Located on Garden Island, it is just about an hour south of Perth.

In a lot of ways, Australia is much like the US. I found myself sometimes forgetting that I was in a foreign country (I was there for 11 weeks), and that I wasn't hearing their accents I was growing so accustomed to it. I am sure a lot of that has to do with Australia being an English-speaking country. But you just can't say "no worries" with an American tongue and make it sound "right". With the exception of my family not being with me, I felt comfortable there. I am glad to be home though. As much as I enjoyed my stay in Perth and surrounds, eleven weeks was a long time, and I am glad to be home.

I did a lot while I was there, yet I didn't do as much as I like do to work constraints. But I was able to accomplish my highest priority. Hit the beach(es) and get a tan. Mission accomplished. I have been making my coworkers envious showing off my tan lines - on my wrists. The beaches are all very nice. I went to Scarborough Beach, Cottesloe Beach and City Beach. I recommend them all. Cottesloe has a nice hotel and restaurant right across from the beach. Although it was smaller than I was expecting, my fillet Mignon was very delicious.

I also headed out to Swan Valley, home to many vineyards with my corporate Australian counterpart, his wife, her sister and her husband (On a sidebar, and not to be diminished, Aussie hospitality is as true as the legends say, and more so). We tasted a great many wines, and had a nice lunch. We even hit a brew pub in that area. A place called Feral's (feral - as in wild animal). We tasted a few beers there, and it was good. We then went back to another vineyard, a smaller one, and tasted some of their wares. At this point though, I had had enough booze, and I didn't think it was wise to drink anymore, especially because I'm on medication.

I visited Rottnest Island, which used to be a prison for Aborigines. Now it's a resort. Native to the island are these wallaby-like creatures called quokkas. The name of the island comes from them. when the island was discovered by the Dutch, the quokkas were thought to be a type of giant rat. Rat in Dutch is "rott". Thus Rottnest. Quokkas are very tame, having no fear of people. They'll eat right out of your hand, and are frequently picnic "guests". There is also a game that you can play with them, though they may not be quite willing participants. It's "quokka socca". You have to say it in Aussie,, because saying "quokka soccer" just doesn't have the same flow.

I went to the Fremantle Maritime Museum. They have an Oberon class submarine in full dry dock, but I missed my opportunity for a tour. I never had a chance to go back. It's not a big museum, but it's very well done. I wanted to see the Fremantle Prison, too, but maybe next time.

I also took a trip to King's Park, a botanical garden right there in the city. It was splendid, hundreds of acres of land filled with lovely parks and plant specimens from all over Australia. There are many paths, including an elevated walkway through the treetops. It was quite gorgeous, all of it. There were many grassy open areas quite suitable for sunning or picnicking, or just relaxing.

My counterpart, a fellow US contractor, and a friend went on the obligatory pub crawl one evening. I had a good time, and drank in moderation. Seriously. My cohorts and I were easily 15 - 20 years older than most of the patrons at this one bar we went to. We were responsible; we took cabs or walked everywhere. One thing about that night bothered me, though. I was disturbed to see many underage teens drinking in these establishments. Since the drinking age is 18 there, and due to lack of attentiveness of the bar staff, it makes it easy for them to get in. I guess it's not a concern to them so much. I know I certainly did a bit of drinking as a ten, and nothing was thought too much of it then - until they raised the drinking age to 21. It didn't seem to be a cultural concern, so I reserve judgement. It may be that I have become so indoctrinated by political correctness that these things seem disturbing to me. We Americans are extremely hypersensitive to a lot of things. Aussies seem to not have been infected by that so much, and freely drop the f-bomb as easily as you please, and aren't afraid to speak their minds, using whatever words they like. They don't act like they're seven-year-olds who just got called a name. In this regard, I wish the US was more like Australia.

Coolest of all, and another one of my goals, was to see some real live wild kangaroos. Check that box. My host for the trip has a farm out in the "country", not the out back, but certainly very rural. He has a few sheep that graze on his land. As do kangaroos. They come in just around dusk and dawn. They don't let you get too close - they are very wary of humans. Even though I wasn't able to get too close, it was still way cool to see them out in the open.

Their school buses are luxurious, compared to the tin torture boxes we make our kids ride in. They're very similar, if not the same as, their mass transit buses.

My biggest disappointment was going to see The Who. It was a great show, from what I could hear. I had a very poor seat, and do to some physical limitations, I could barely see the show on the big screens. I was so pumped to see them, but in the end, I came away a bit dejected. I'll go see them again when I can get better seats. If they're all still alive.

The one thing about "Oz" that I had trouble getting used to wasn't the driving on the left, as you might expect, it was the food. In many ways, again, it's much like the US. There were Italian places, and Chinese place, and pubs, and sandwich shops. But there was always something just a little bit different that I wasn't quite prepared for when my food arrived. Or, there would be something on the menu's description of a particular entree item that I had no idea what it was. And prawns. Prawns are plentiful - and popular there. Thus, they are in a great many of their dishes. This eliminated a lot of my menu choices, sadly. I had to be careful, because I am allergic to seafood, and sometimes they would come in a dish and it wasn't listed on the menu. Another one of my goals was to have kangaroo. It was at a micro-brew pub called Little Creatures in Fremantle, and it absolutely delicious! I went back to that place and had it again. It tasted like a well seasoned, prime cut of beef, and it was incredibly tender.

One of the not-so-fun events of my trip was I came down with a serious sinus infection. I was feeling like a bag of smashed crabs starting Thursday, with chills and sweats. By Saturday evening, I was in the Royal Perth Hospital with an IV in my arm and a fever of 102F. They took good care of me, and gave me a course of amoxicilin and their equivilant of tylenol with codeine. My fever lasted the rest of the week, and though I had to work, I was happy that I was in between courses and didn't have to teach.

As I mentioned earlier, and most importantly, Aussie hospitality lives up to it's legendary heights. I was immediately made to feel welcome the first day I was there. My counterpart, Brad, right off the bat, invited me to family events and dinners, where they all were just as warm and friendly as can be. It was very heartwarming to see the young families with small children, and especially so to see the parents very attentive. You don't see like you do here; toddlers/pre-schoolers tagging along 20-30 feet or so behind the parent in store parking lots while the parent is completely oblivious because they're gabbing away on their cell phone. My counterpart, his extended family, and friends all went out of their way to make sure that I was completely comfortable. And they made sure, or they tried anyway, to make sure I got "properly pissed" (drunk). As the proverbial stranger in a strange land, I will forever be grateful to them for their hospitality.

I've ended my two-plus month hiatus from blogging. Please hang around as I gather steam and point out stupidity and error for your amusement and edification. Thank you for being patient. I look forward to your comments.

Reaching The Bottom

2009-02-28T09:00:00.003-05:00

1. If the Brits want to use cardboard boxes, let them...

2. What are you supposed to do if you run out?

3. Lastly, all those damn sheep will be the end of us.

Just read them. You won't believe that these are serious articles. Does anyone else see how ridiculous this shit is? No pun intended...

Oh yeah. I'm still in Perth, Australia. It's awesome here. I've had more pints in my 5 weeks here than I've probably had in the last two years. I've also been working on my tan. It's coming along quite nicely, in fact.

No worries...

No Worries!

2009-01-26T04:01:00.030-05:00

That's what they say here in warm, green, sunny Perth, Australia.

I got here Saturday (Friday back in the states). I am here on business, for about 11 weeks to provide training for the RAN submarine force. I am looking forward to working with my submarine counterparts. Maybe they'll hook me up with a tour of a Collins Class boat.

I left home Thursday morning for an afternoon flight, which took me from Providence to D.C., then a 15 hour flight from D.C. to Johannesburg. I had a three hour layover there, and then a nearly 9 hour flight to Perth.

Travelling is such an adventure [snark]. All of my travel arrangements had been made months in advance, including electronic visas. I got to my South Africa Airlines gate, and gave them my passport and travel itinerary. Would you be surprised that I had no visa? The woman at the counter, who spoke heavily accented English, told me she needed some kind of paper. I had no paper, I told her, my visa is electronic. She replied that it was electronic, and that she needed a paper with the visa number on it. WTF? I didn't have anything to give her, and I was completely bewildered. So, she gave me directions for the airline guest lounge so I could make a phone call. The guest lounge was very hoity-toity, decorated in a combination of art-deco/70's modern style. Totally sterile and unimaginative. I hated it. I called my company travel office, and they re-applied for the visa - bing bang boom, it's done. I go back to the gate. I told her that I had a new visa and she should see it now. Again, the "I need a paper - There's no paper, it's electronic" routine. So finally, she prints out my boarding pass, and takes me over to the gate door. Amazing [snark], the machine accepts my pass. I am ushered off to Business Class.

Here's a cupla photos.

I flew on an Airbus A340-600. Business class on these aircraft is more luxurious than any First Class flight I've ever had. They really spoil you. It was so over the top, I felt uncomfortable. And, if you look at the photos, those protruding stalk-thingies are personal lights. And did I mention these seats fully recline into beds? Or in any other position your heart desires? Needless to say, it was absolutely luxurious. They pampered you beyond anything you could think - for a commercial airline flight. It made me a little uncomfortable, but I suffered through it.

The flight was very long, and I slept on and off after dinner. I woke up a while before breakfast, which they serve about 90 minutes before arrival. When I arrived, I was very surprised to find all the signage and advertisements in English. The airport was like any you might see in the United States, but had a very commercialised African theme - lots of "authentic" African items in the shops. I suppose that I should have bought a little something, but I wasn't interested. I had enough to carry, and I didn't want any hassle from customs on the other end. Good thing, too. A lot of things from Africa are banned in Australia, especially objects made of wood. I would have wasted my money. I made my way to baggage claim, expecting my luggage to not come off the plane. I was right. My baggage never made it to the carousel. Now, the announcement on the plane and at the airport was that if you were going on to an international flight, you would have to collect your bags and go through customs. When I didn't get my bag, I went to the baggage claim office. They checked my info, and I was quite surprised to find out my baggage had been checked all the way through to my next flight. I was still skeptical, but relieved at the same time. I made my way out to look for my connection. I had to go through the passport desk to get it stamped. Then security. At least I didn't have to remove my shoes. Then another passport check. Then I was out in the open area of the airport, amongst the throngs of people heading wherever. A uniformed and badged porter, an African, stopped me. He asked me where I was going next. Perth I told him, and showed him my itinerary. He bade me to follow him, which I did. I ended up going completely out of the airport, down the sidewalk, and up an escalator to the departure section. About halfway there I got my wallet out to give him a tip. I pulled out a $5. He said $50, that he made only tips. We haggled a bit as we went along. I said $25. He said $50 again. I protested, so he came down to forty. I decided to make his day and give him the $50. I knew he was trying to hustle me, and I very easily could have just let it go at $5. I can be quite an asshole when I want to be, and I can haggle quite well. Ask any car salesman I've ever bought a car from. But I was feeling generous, and he was nice to me. After all, he did help me get to where I needed to go a lot quicker than if I had tried to myself. So I gave him the $50, even though he was down to $40. You should have seen his face light up, and he pumped my hand vigorously. I moved onto my gate, and again through passport control and security. What a pain in the ass. I made it to my gate, and about an hour later, I was off to Perth.

My flight to Perth was just under nine hours, and was pretty much a repeat of the flight to "Jo-berg". My next hurdle was making sure I didn't wreck making my way to my hotel. I've never driven on the left before, so this promised to be a challenge. I did quite well, if I do say so myself. Now, whenever I've travelled in the past, the rental car office usually printed out a set of directions off of google maps or mapquest. This guy just said "Yeah, go out the airport, turn left at the light, and follow the signs to Perth. Then, where the highway splits off in about 10 different directions, don't go there, just follow the signs to Perth. You right there". He showed me a map very quickly to show me where the hotel is located, but it was hardly the step by step I had hoped for. As a result, I got all turned around and got lost for about two hours before I found my hotel. Pretty funny, right. I was so glad to finally get here. I was so looking forward to getting a shower and lapsing into a coma. But, according to company policy, I have to do "work" as soon as I get there. Nobody had been able to nail down what exactly was the definition of "work" was, so my PM said if I checked email, and let everyone know I had arrived safe, that'll qualify. That all ended up being about three hours. I also oovooed home. I have to highly recommend it. Its way better than any of the other messenger apps out there. I've used most of the major ones to keep in touch with home when traveling. It all depends on the speed of the connection, and the quality of the camera of course. But if you get a decent camera, you'll do fine. Then, I luxuriated in a long, hot shower, and hit the rack.

I missed breakfast on Sunday, but I did get some lunch. Just a simple "beef burger" and chips (french fries). I went to Mass, and then had dinner at a nice, but bustling busy restaurant. I had chicken parm, and it was average. One thing I noticed was that the portions here are much smaller than in American restaurants. I guess that's a good thing. I had room and a taste for some dessert, so I ordered the strawberry fran. Its basically strawberry shortcake, but the cake part is shaped like a pie crust. A little bit of ice cream on the side, and it was a nice top off to my meal. I fought off another night of jet lag, and I feel pretty good today. I'm ready to go to work tomorrow.

Today was Australia Day, one of their biggest holidays. I asked many of the folks I met what Australia day was all about. Most didn't know for sure, some thought it was kind of like our Independence Day. One guy said it's the day Australians figured out they can eat kangaroo. That I liked, but most of them looked at it simply as a day to party. That's all, just a day of wonderful celebrations, fireworks, and all other types of activities. I have a nice view of the Swan River, and the view of the fireworks from my balcony was quite good. Some of it was obscured by the palm trees, but again, I survived the horror. One strange thing. My car is parked just across the street in a disabled parking space (I have my permit from home, and it's legal here). I can see it quite well from my window. This morning, my car was surrounded by cones, and the handicrapped sign was removed. I left my car there. I went to lunch, and then to the pool. I came back, looked out to see if my car was still there. I swear somehow my car was moved a couple spaces forward. I wonder how. The hand brake was set and its in park. They must've gotten a "buncha blokes", and lifted it. I've done it before when I was a young man, we moved a buddy's VW bug. One time we turned it upside down. so, since it's an econo-box Hyundai Elantra, I'm sure that about six guys could pick it up and moved it.

Tomorrow, it's off to HMAS Stirling for further adventure.

No Apologies Necessary

2009-01-22T10:08:00.006-05:00

So, if I "apologise" to the government for not paying my taxes, does this mean I qualify for a government job, too?

How Much Longer...

2009-01-11T22:34:00.005-05:00

Before we see his face on our money?

All this media shlobbing of The zerO is making me ill.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

2009-01-02T17:16:00.008-05:00

Israel, in a humanitarian gesture, and at the request of the do-nothing-hand-wringing UN, and some other aid groups, opened up some border crossings along the Gaza border. This was to allow some vital supplies to be delivered to some Palestinian villages. So how did Hamas repay this kindness? They attempted to plant some bombs at those border crossings. Then they killed the Israeli soldiers who tried to stop them. According to Hamas, they are the victims. Right. What are we to believe they were doing? Excavating the border crossings?

And, of course, the conflict escalates, as it frequently does over there.

But this time, it seems different. Although world leaders are pressuring Israel to re-establish the cease fire, Israel doesn't want to hear it. At cease fire discussions in Egypt, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak "Enough is enough. When there's shooting, there's a response. Any state would react that way."

And rightly so. Israel has the absolute right as a sovereign nation to stomp the ever-lovin' shit out of anyone who threatens them. We do no less, right? I hope Israel totally annihilates Hamas to the point that everyone says "Hamas who?". They should bomb Hamas back to goat herding. I applaud Israel's gnishkes (pr. ga-nish-keys) to go after them with full force. Good riddance to bad rubbish to Hamas I say. Hamas is cowardly and a bully, and the only way to deal with a bully is to stand up to him. Israel should do so, and I hope that everyone will take notice when they pound Hamas into a greasy stain on the pavement. It was totally predictable that Hamas would do something like this once the borders were opened up. In an ironic turn of absurdity, the UN has asked them both to restore the cease fire, otherwise world opinion might become adverse. It seems to me that they started this whole mess. Maybe they'll write Israel an angry letter, telling them to to stop.

Meanwhile, I hope Israel sticks to their guns. Literally.

It's True

2008-12-29T18:55:00.011-05:00

This doctor says liberals are mentally ill. I believe him. I'm buying his book.

I took an unintended leave of absence from the blogosphere, for a number of reasons. It has nothing to do with Obama winning the election if that's what you were thinking. I just had a heavy work schedule; we had a big program review and delivery with our customer through the holidays, and then there was shopping, and decorating, and with all that I was exhausted. That was on top of my normal work exhaustion that comes from an 11 hour day. There were many occasions that I would hear something in the news and say "That's good blog material.", but when I'd sit in front of the computer, I just didn't want to spend mental capitol like liberals spend taxpayer dollars.

Here's a good example of liberal mental deficiency. Over Thanksgiving, we were visiting family in another part of the Northeast. My wife's uncle is a retired professor who lives in Manhattan, in an apartment off of Central Park. The very heart of liberalism on the East Coast. Rabid liberal, but we love him dearly - he's really a likable guy. He does his earnest best to start an argument at every opportunity. I mean a screaming, shouting, fist-pounding-on-the-table argument. He does all the angry screaming, we scream just so we can be heard. I repeatedly asked him to just state his argument calmly and rationally, and maybe we could come to understand his point of view. Nope. He used the typical liberal tactic to shout down your opponent because deep down you know your argument can't hold water.

Every argument is circular and/or contradictory. For instance, at one point he argued that gays should be permitted to have their gay pride parades, and do whatever they want because that's they way they've been doing for years. It doesn't matter that it violates numerous decency laws, forget the fact that it's just plain disgusting. It doesn't matter if you decided to walk down the street in your birthday suit, you'd get arrested. However, in the parade it's okay to commit acts of sodomy in public in front of children and grandmothers. Just go the other way. Yet, if conservatives want to have a family pride parade, they shouldn't be allowed to because it violates the imaginary "separation of Church and State". After all, the government can't endorse any religion. When I pointed out that some people worship hedonism, or those that participate are atheist, and that the parade is part of their erstwhile religious views, he got this perplexed look on his face for a second, then went back to yelling. Let's not even talk about gay marriage.

See what I mean?

Later, when we were telling him that the homosexuals had a radical agenda to desensitize/recruit in the public schools, he didn't believe us. Until we showed him the evidence through the pamphlets they distribute, and the "Day of Silence" programs that schools bludgeon the kids with. Once he saw the evidence, he was appalled. For a New York minute. Then he was all for it. "They should do what they want, its their right.".

Needless to say, when we caught him in his contradiction, he denied it, despite that there were about four of us that all heard him say it. Denied he said it to the end.

This is just a typical example of the mental deformity the mind is twisted into when the owner embraces liberalism. Their sociopathic mentality creates this desire to coerce others into this infantile thought process, where the individual doesn't matter. Your individuality is subsumed by the group, and you have no identity. Your worth is only what those who yield the power of political correctness say it is. If you are a white male of generally European decent, you are loathed. Followed by males in general. Liberals group people into arbitrary groups based on race, color, gender, whatever. It's a method of control. Its retarded. Its as if we've gone back to the third grade, and we see another group of children on the playground. Then someone shouts, "Run! It's the fourth graders!" even though all the children are at most only a year apart. We've been conditioned at an early age to accept arbitrary groups, as opposed to letting everyone stand or fall on their own merits and character. Hmm. I seem to recall a great leader saying something about not being judged by the color of one's skin, but by the content of their character. Or was that just a dream. That doesn't seem to fit the current liberal philosophy, where the color of your skin is paramount, and character counts for nothing.

So now, we grow into adults and buy into the idea that someone owes us something, and if we don't get it, we're a victim. Now that the Obamanation is going to be President, libs everywhere think he's going to bail out their bad mortgages. You can be sure that they're going to crank up the whaahmbulance when he doesn't. Don't tell me that people don't think that - I saw that video clip on TV after the Mighty O was elected. "They should give me...". Fill in the blank, it doesn't matter. I was in the doctor's office the other day. I picked up a copy Reader's Digest because it's the only thing I can stomach between the usual liberal rags and the opera magazines. I look at the letters page, and someone writes that the government should move all the people who own homes along the coastal cliffs of this one section of California because the cliffs are eroding. The government should do it. At taxpayer expense, of course. It doesn't matter that these people chose to build/buy homes in that spot. It doesn't matter that the insurance companies didn't discourage the construction companies from building there because of the risk. Nope, no personal accountability at all.

To round it off quite nicely, they deem you unfit to run your own lives, by deciding for you what's best for you. Millions of tons of fruit and vegetable go wasted every year because it doesn't meet the FDA's size and quality standards. It can't even be given to the poor. We are forced to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets (I would wear mine even if there wasn't a law, at least now that I'm older). Our 18-20 year olds can vote, get into debt, and die for their country before they can ever let a drop of alcohol pass their lips at 21. We can't discipline our children as we see fit, or we'll be reported to DCF and possibly have our children taken away from us. You can't choose how to best invest for your retirement. They take a chunk out of your paycheck and give you and IOU for that supposedly wonderful day. I know I won't see my money. Social Security will be bankrupt by the time I can collect in 2032. All of my money will have been given to the welfare mothers because they're "entitled" to it (my money).

How is that rational? How is any of that logical and reasonable? It just befuddles me that people have voluntarily warped their brains. Well, it must be nice to live in a world where you don't have to be accountable for anything (Blagojevich). Meanwhile, the rest of us have to live in the real world.

It's About Time

2008-11-12T06:37:00.000-05:00

The Bishops are now finally taking a principled and strident stand against abortion favoring politicians - Catholic and otherwise. They would rather see the Catholic hospitals close than to be forced to provide "services" in exchange for federal funding. I agree with that position. However it makes me wonder if the funding they're getting is that large of a chunk of their budget that they couldn't operate at some reduced capacity.

They are also making stronger public statements against Catholic politicians who support abortion. They're beginning to understand what the liberal agenda is all about - squashing of First Amendment rights. They are finally seeing that if they're forced to provide abortion services, then they'll lose their right to speak against it in the pulpit, and thus lose their tax-exempt status. There are many other issues that will dovetail into this, but this is the most important.

An observation has been made that if Catholics had not voted so overwhelmingly (wrong) for Obama, we wouldn't need to have this conversation right now.

Change is Coming...

2008-11-11T16:20:00.005-05:00

Obama's promises of change are not the change we are thinking he promises. How can we tell? Let's look at his appointment of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. He is not change insofar as he's a new face in the Washington scene, he's a recycle from the Clinton Administration, known as an experienced D.C. insider. A deeply far-left partisan, he is also known for his intolerance for anyone who crosses him, and his temper. He is not known for his bipartisan attitude, and is occasionally prone to over-the-top fits of anger. Liberals are "bulldogs" if they have a temper, but if a Republican (McCain for instance) has a temper, he's scorned for being volatile. Emmanuel will not work to bring unity, but to institute this fundamental change Obama seeks without consideration of anyone who may disagree. In the Obama Administration, class warfare will be the order of the day; poor against rich, black against white. Rahm Emanuel will help foster this, as he is an ideological brother to Obama. Which is why Obama picked him right off the bat. As well as the rest of the bozos he's picking, fellow travellers all.

Before you libs start whining that I'm being "mean-spirited", let me remind you of all your "fairness". I don't want to hear it. Paybacks are a bitch. All your talk of "bipartisanship" is a lie. I'll let the facts speak for themselves. I hear a lot of Republicans and some conservatives say "Oh, well, let's give him a chance. Let's see how it goes. We need to help him succeed, because if he succeeds, we succeed." That's a negative. There is no working with the libs. Obama means to fundamentally change America, and we should resist it with all our strength; our basic liberties are at stake. You may say that Bush did the same thing with the Patriot Act. I would agree that the Patriot Act is a bad law, and violates the Constitution on many levels. However, despite the Patriot Act, the Constitution is intact, and provided that our elected officials follow it, its still in effect. However, in Obama's opinion, it's fundamentally flawed, and he means to change it. Fundamentally.

Once he is sworn in, he will have the power to make those changes. He's already lining up a slew of Executive Orders to shove down our throats. Get ready, change is coming. And I don't think we're going to like it.

"That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain..."

2008-11-05T09:15:00.001-05:00

It is done.

Barack Hussein Obama is the next President of the United States. Many of the pundits last night, and even Obama himself spoke about it being a historic occasion for African-Americans. I would have to agree. However, I could think of a few African-Americans who have greater integrity, morals, and principles than Obama. But this is what we got.

What we've got is someone who rose blindingly swift from obscurity to the most powerful office in the country, if not the world. Someone whose religious, business, and political associations are questionable. Someone whose ideology is diametrically opposed to the principles upon which this nation was founded and has flourished under for nearly two and a half centuries. Someone who the terrorists and the dictators supported. Someone who's written an autobiography before he was a somebody.

Yet, despite all these negatives, enough of us thought enough of him, had enough faith in him, to believe he can restore our once bright image to the world, and "heal our wounds". The coming months and years will tell the true story. Then we'll have to ask ourselves if we are better now than we were. We'll have to ask our selves if we're happy where we are, and do we like where we're going. Are we freer? Can we pursue our happiness to the fullest measure? When that day arrives, we have to be brutally honest with ourselves, and painfully objective. Looking into my crystal ball, I would have to say that most of us will regret the choice we made on November 4, 2008, and will not like the change to which we have been subjected.

But then, it'll be too late, and lamentably, the damage will be done. The only question then will be can we recover.

Damned if We Do, Damned if We Don't

2008-10-30T13:30:00.003-04:00

Yesterday a story broke about a skinhead plot to assassinate Obama.

First and foremost - I do not condone, approve of, or otherwise favor in any way shape or form any action such as this, or any attitude of racism in any form. In fact, I believe that racism is a form of class warfare, and is a tactic used by Marxist agitators. It has no place in America, where a person born in the poorest of conditions can rise to levels of great success. America is full of such stories, and that is her strength and glory, why all people of the world want to come here.

Now, I pose a question to you. Is racism still a problem in America?

While I have no problem agreeing that there are indeed pockets of racism, I would say it is not a problem of any significance in this country. Why? Because we have people of all races serving in the highest levels of society and government. We have African-American military commanders (one of the best COs I ever had was CDR Mel Williams (USS Nebraska), an African-American, who is now a three-star), Secretaries of State and other Cabinet positions, Supreme Court Justices, congressmen, doctors, lawyers, corporate CEOs. The list goes on. Now, as much as I dislike Obama on all points of his politics, I am proud that we have a black man running for President, and thus show our best face to the world. Look how far we've come! Who would have imagined it 100 years ago? I posit that if there was a stream of racism still present in this country, African-Americans would have never have had the opportunity to rise to the levels of success they have, let alone run for the highest office in the land.

Yet this story about the plot bothers me on deeper levels than just that someone was plotting to kill Obama. It's because it is so close to the election, and because there's racism involved. I find these coincidences rather discomforting. I don't particularly believe in coincidences, but I won't go so far as to say it was a conspiracy.

Also, I am surprised the mainstream media hasn't run this to the ground. I totally expected them to take this story to the frontlines, and use it to their fullest advantage. I am also somewhat at a loss to come up with a plausible explanation. Maybe they thought that in so doing, they would have overplayed their hand and utterly exposed them for the frauds they are. They are dangerously close now (see my last post).

Yet, I still think they will still try to play that frayed, wrinkled, old worn out race card. If Obama should lose the election, I fully expect the media to bring up the race issue. Then, I think, is when they might bring up the skinhead story to bolster their argument. As a result, we'll have shit along with the egg on our proverbial world opinion face. But, if Obama should win, we'll be in deep shit.

Either way, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

Truth Be Told...

2008-10-29T20:30:00.005-04:00

Michael Malone, a self-described liberal journalist over at ABC News, tells the truth about the mainstream media bias towards Barack Obama. It's so bad, that he claims he is embarrassed to tell people his profession. I'll let you read his column for yourself. It's about five pages.
I want to emphasize a few points he made in his article.

The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling.

If he says that, then there has to be something wrong. Further on he observes:

Meanwhile, I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and
soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.

Also, later in the piece, he says he thinks that all the journalistic SWAT teams sent to Alaska was completely acceptable. I would agree if the same had been done to Obama - but it hasn't. He does admit that he vehemently objects to the lack of equal coverage, however. He goes on to make some good points about questions that should have been asked of Obama:

"No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had
the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so."

"Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize?"

He also raised some alarms at the media savaging of Joe the Plumber for his temerity to ask Obama a tough question. Others in the media have also noticed this severe bias, but lack the strength to go against the flow. The media no longer stands up for the little guy, or makes those in power uncomfortable enough to keep their integrity in check. The Founders codified protections for the press, so that differences of opinion could be protected, and government abuses could be checked. But when the media obscures government abuses, it ceases to be a protector of the people, and thus serves the oppressor. It serves to mold opinions, so that the oppressors can maintain and gather power. It becomes a blunt instrument, used to perpetrate evil, enforce oppression, and enslave the people.

We are now on the very brink of starting down the path that history time and again has shown us is gravely dangerous. Do we have the will to stop here, or will we just blindly go in that direction because that's the way we are facing?

The Coming Liberal Supermajority - Revisited

2008-10-26T19:45:00.002-04:00

I am not in the habit to rehash previous posts, but this has been weighing on my mind lately, and I feel this particular subject can't be overstated, it is so serious - for us all.

Imagine this if you will. A filibuster proof Democratic Senate, a strong Democratic majority congress - enough to prevent Republican opposition on nearly all legislation, and an Obama administration.

Now, throw in one of Biden's predicted "tests" for Obama, and you've got a potential recipe for some type of extra-constitutional "emergency powers". Just like the ones given to Hitler after the Reichstag fire in 1933. The only safeguard of our constitutionally protected rights is the Supreme Court. The makeup of the court right now is shaky. An Obama Supreme Court would certainly be the Trifecta on all three branches of government.

Is any one scared now?

This is not hyperbole, or some fevered conspiracy theory. This is a very real concern, and potential repeat of that terrible moment in history in our own country.

You liberals will say "Oh, that'll never happen.". But it did. And six million Jews paid the price for Germany's complacency and complicity. Who will pay the price of our complacency and complicity? And if the U.S. should become a repeat of Germany, who among the nations of the world can stop us?

Need I Say More...?

2008-10-24T11:55:00.002-04:00

I created this little gem myself...

While we're on the subject of Obama related art, here's a few samples.

Creepy. Do they have a familar look to them? How 'bout this?

The similarity of image styles is disturbing.

Anybody else see it?

Here's one more to roll around in the old brainpan...

I guess The Zer"O" is pretty sure of himself.

If I hadn'r seen it with my own eyes, I don't think I would've believed it.

Votive Early, Votive Often

2008-10-22T08:37:00.004-04:00

Yes, this is what you think it is.

I think I'm gonna hurl.

I haven't seen this kind of idolatry of a President since JFK, where people had little shrines of him on their mantles.

I guess Obamaniacs can have a Barry candle all their own to place in their shrine to The One.

Show Me The Money

2008-10-21T20:55:00.003-04:00

Obama, living with his maternal grandparents in Hawaii, attended the Punahou School, an exclusive private school. Where did his mother and/or grandparents get the kind of money to attend that school?

After attending Occidental college in Los Angeles, Obama transferred to Columbia University in New York. Did he get a scholarship? Nothing that I have found indicates that. Where did he get the money to attend Columbia?

Later, he went to Harvard Law School. Granted he was doing a little work between Columbia and Harvard, but could he have earned enough for a full ride to Harvard? Where did he get the money to attend Harvard?

Now he's running for President. What more could a man dream for, right? So, running for President means raising some money for campaign expenses. Okay, fine. So, what kind of money are we talking about here? Oh, how does $150M sound - for September? He's raised $600M since he's started his campaign. $200M of those are "small donations", and don't have to be reported. So, I have to ask... Where did he get all that campaign money?

To My Worthy Opponent, Reddog...

2008-10-19T13:15:00.005-04:00

This is so much fun. I love a good debate.

Reddog's frothy-mouthed, unhinged response to my last post has inspired me to provide an entire blog to respond to it, just because of the wealth of information so easily found to provide a rebuttal.

Here is his response to my previous post:

If there is a Democratic super majority, it will be in response to the autocracy Bush/Cheney enjoyed during Republican control of both houses until 2006. Fairness toward the minority is in everyone's interest.
Unfortunately, while liberals mostly whine and kvetch when they feel left out, Fundos go right for the sniper rifles. Barry will be dead in a couple years. No conspiracy though, of course. Deranged loner. Oswald, Sirhan, Earl [James Earl Ray, to whom I presume he's referring - sonarman].
They'll give him a nice funeral. Give Michelle and the girls something nice to remember.

Hmmm... creepy.

Anyway, I respond to my Worthy Opponent. I shall start with a history lesson...

Here's some questions for all the rest of you out there. They're two-parters, so it may be tricky for some of you libs. But not to worry, libs, I'll give you the answers. You can't fail, lest your fragile psyches and self esteem are harmed.

Q: Who was the last president to be shot at, and to what party did he belong?

Ans. Reagan, a Republican.

Q: Who was the president before that who had an assassination attempt, and to what party did he belong?

Ans. Ford, a Republican.

Q: Who was the first President to assassinated, and to what party did he belong?

Ans: Lincoln, a Republican

Bonus question:

Why was he assassinated, and by whom?

Ans: Because, against the opposition of the Democrats, he sought to end the slavery of African-Americans; John Wilks Booth, a Southern Democrat and slavery supporter.

Supposed "fundos" all, right?

One last question. Its a true or false style, so the odds are 50/50 you'll get it right.

True or False: The last two Democrat Presidents had assassination attempts against them.

Ans. False

A correction to some of the "facts" presented above by Reddog. Two of the assassins he mentioned did not kill a president. That would make a score of 33.3% on a history test; definitely a failing grade of "F". Those Dems sure try hard to rewrite history.

Our history lesson is over, class. Now lets discuss reality, as opposed to the tired old unfounded lunatic ravings of predicted assassination attempts against those beloved sainted Democratic Presidents.

Where has the "fairness to the minority" been for the Republicans since Pelosi and her thugs took control? She promised that her congress would be "the most honest, open and ethical congress in history." Lets see how true that is, shall we folks? Lets look at the long list of broken Democrat promises. My source url is at the bottom.

Murtha went over to the Republican side of the aisle and told Rogers that he would never, ever get another earmark in the Defense Appropriations bill. This was a direct violation of rules Democrats sponsored and promoted.” – "Names in the News Can Be Divided Into Heroes and Villains,” Roll Call Column by Norman Ornstein, May 22, 2007.

218 Democrats voted to excuse Rep. Murtha’s ethics violation and shield him from an official House reprimand. – Roll Call Vote #402, H.Res. 428

"Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They’re also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls.” – “Lobbying Reform Losing Steam in House,” Associated Press, May 11, 2007

Majority Whip Clyburn voted “NO” on H.Res. 452, a resolution to force ethics committee action on Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) after his indictment on charges that include racketeering, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. – Roll call Vote #430 on H.Res. 452, June 5, 2007

"As the decision to dump the promise of an open process to muscle through the first 100 hours agenda shows, it’s a lot easier to vow fairness to the oppressed minority when you are it.” – “Hard Work Begins Now for Democrats,” Washington Post Column by Ruth Marcus, January 20, 2007

“Democrats are wielding a heavy hand on the House Rules Committee, committing many of the procedural sins for which they condemned Republicans during their 12 years in power. So far this year, Democrats have frequently prevented Republicans from offering amendments, limited debate in the committee and, just last week, maneuvered around chamber rules to protect a $23 million project for Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).” – “Dems Bend Rules, Break Pledge,” The Politico, May 17, 2007

“But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.” – “Democrats to Start Without GOP Input,” Washington Post, January 2, 2007

"Democrats this year have brought a greater percentage of bills to the floor under a totally closed rule that prevents members of the minority from offering amendments…” – “Dems Bend Rules, Break Pledge,” The Politico, May 17, 2007

“Next year, members of the House will be expected in the Capitol for votes each week by 6:30p.m. Monday and will finish their business about 2pm Friday,’ Hoyer said.” – Culture Shock on Capitol Hill: House to Work Five Days a Week,” Washington Post, December 6, 2006.
Of the 21 weeks in session through June 22, 2007, only six have included full five-day work weeks. – Office of the (Congressional) Clerk.

“Floor votes should be completed within 15 minutes. No vote shall be held open to manipulate the outcome.” – Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) “A New Direction For America,” Page 24;
“Asked Wednesday night whether Democrats would keep the time limit [on the Iraq supplemental vote], Hoyer paused, then pointed out that many votes can run a few minutes longer for various reasons. ‘I won’t guarantee it,’ Hoyer replied.” – “Hoyer Won’t Rule Out Extending War Vote,” The Politico, March 22, 2007.
But in fact Democrats have held open votes to change the outcome. On June 26, House Democratic leaders held open the vote on an amendment by Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) to allow a Democrat to change his vote and secure the necessary votes for passage. – Roll Call Vote #574, June 26, 2007

The contrast between old and new is less evident in the way Congress goes about its lawmaking. In the first three months of the new Congress, the House frequently circumvented committees and adopted closed rules preventing floor amendments. Procedural shortcuts often limited the minority party's participation in the deliberative process.” – “Is Congress on the Mend?” New York Times, April 28, 2007
It would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. House Democrats, having chafed and screamed for years about being frozen out of decision making by Republicans, are starting out their rule by … freezing out Republicans.” – “The Wrong Start,” Roll Call Editorial, January 4, 2007

Now that Republicans have shown they can use new House rules against the new Democratic majority that wrote them, the Democrats want new rules. Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said Tuesday that during the upcoming two-week recess he will craft changes in the pay-as-you-go spending rules adopted in January (H.Res. 6) so that the GOP can no longer blindside the majority … ‘We don’t think that is appropriate,’ Hoyer said. ‘We don’t think that serves the legislative process, and we’re going to address that.’” – “House Democrats Will Move to Curb GOP’s Use of Motions to Recommit,” Congressional Quarterly, April 10, 2007

Rules Committee Democrats, led by chairwomen Louise Slaughter (D-NY), refused to comply with the Committee’s customary and longstanding practices in refusing to withdraw a proposed amendment from Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) on the delegate voting bill at his request and then refusing to provide a copy of Kirk’s letter – a committee record – to the minority. As The Hill reports: “When the issue of the withdrawal of the amendment was being debated by the committee, the ranking member (David Dreier, R-Calif.) attempted to obtain a copy of the letter [asking to withdraw the amendment] ... and the majority willfully refused to produce a copy of the letter after repeated requests.” – “Dust Up Over Delegate Voting,” The Hill, January 25, 2007.
House Democrats condoned these practices in voting against a privileged resolution calling on the Rules Committee to prevent future occurrences. – Roll Call Vote #54, January 24, 2007

Here is my source. Note the dot-gov domain.
http://republicanleader.house.gov/brokenpromises/index.html

Here is another good one.
http://tomprice.house.gov/ots/press.cfm

Can anyone out there dispute the sources above?

In all fairness, the Republicans did fuck it up while they had majority for 12 years. They drifted away from the conservative values that got them their in the first place; family, faith, country, integrity. They got greedy; they pandered to special interests; they spent, spent, and spent; and they committed felonies involving unethical acts. They acted like, well... Democrats. They just didn't get away with it because the lamestream media is a liberal lapdog.

These are just a few, but significant examples of Democrat "fairness to the minority" tactics, which had they been employed by Republicans, would have set liberals nation wide howling. You see, Reddog, all of those supposed violations of the Republicans are in your head, and the real party of tyranny and oppression is the Democrats. And as I pointed out in my last blog, we have only to examine recent history to see what we have to look forward to in a Democrat supermajority government.

The Coming Liberal Supermajority

2008-10-19T01:25:00.002-04:00

Here is an interesting opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal. You might call it a prognostication of what may happen if the Dems have control over the White House and congress.

If so, this will be the most significant change in government alignment since the Great Depression. Most Americans won't realize or understand what is happening, largely due to the mainstream media. They'll will be like the proverbial frog in the frying pan. They won't move until it's too late.

A supermajority of Dems in the Senate means that the Republicans will have no power to filibuster. Whatever the Dems want, they get. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.

- Medicare will open to everyone of any income. As U.S. health-care spending flows into the government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both.

- The business climate will worsen. Many industries can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. The danger is that the economic downturn could last longer than it otherwise would through regulatory overkill. Windfall profits tax on oil will return, along with the same in other industries.

- Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Democrats, under Obama, would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. An Obama administration might also impose an un-repealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- There will be a green revolution. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This will make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide. The Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. Talk radio and other voices of political opposition may be severely limited, or squashed altogether.

- Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

The only hope we may have is the Supreme Court, and that's shaky, at best. With the unlikelihood of Breyer, Ginsburg, or Stevens stepping down prior to the inauguration (provided a new Justice can be found and confirmed before the lame duck Senate leaves office), the balance of power will certainly shift to the left. With no constraints from any branch of government, it will change to a more activist one, and likely to do everything in it's power to solidify and maintain it's hold.

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism.

Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

Elimination of Dissent

2008-10-13T09:24:00.007-04:00

Here is a sample of the "open-minded" liberals of New York City. Their idea of peace and unity are the same as Pax Romana, a relative peace established under the hegemony of one power, or of an idea.

A Good Question...

2008-09-30T15:10:00.003-04:00

Pelosi made a good show of pointing her finger at the Republicans for this economic mess we are in. They've had two years to fix it, and have done nothing, if not add to the problem.

I have a question: If the Republicans and the bankers are so much to blame, where are the hearings? Where are the investigations? Where are the reporters digging up the dirt on the congressional Republicans and they're cronies?

Answer: A pointed finger always turns back to it's owner in the end.

And that's what the Demo-tards fear the most.

.

How Low Can The Libs Go?

2008-09-24T19:00:00.001-04:00

Biden Dropping Out? Rumor Thrives on Internet.

Yeah, but if they do, it'll probably backfire on them. The entire campaign will be thrown i disarray, and everybody will see them for the pandering fools they are. They'll lose the election, and they'll have no one to blame but themselves.

Unless You're A Serious Catholic, Don't Read This...

2008-09-21T08:50:00.003-04:00

It's bound to piss you off.

I'm talking to you Catholics, specifically, and to all other Christians, in general.

Many of you Catholics, especially here in the liberal infested North East, think it's OK to vote for a candidate that's pro-abortion, but is acceptable in other areas they are concerned about. You liberals are hypocrites. You push for more and bigger government, yet when it comes to abortion, you cry "We don't want government in a mother's womb!".

If you think it's okay for a candidate to favor abortion, you are wrong - especially if you're Catholic. What I can't stand the most is the cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose the Church teachings they like, and discard the ones they don't. Usually it's the pro-life teaching.

There are five non-negotiable issues that, as a Catholic, you must vote in accordance with Church teaching, or you risk grave sin. That's a mortal sin, for those of you who don't remember, or who were never taught. They are:

Abortion
Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Human Cloning
Homosexual "Marriage"

On abortion, the Church teaches that it is wrong to take part in any propaganda campaign in favor of abortion, or to vote for laws that favor it.

On euthanasia, the Church teaches that it is a form of murder, and intrinsically evil.

Embryos are human beings. The Church teaches that respect for the dignity of all human beings excludes the experimental manipulation and exploitation.

Creating a human being through cloning, or any other method outside of sex, is contrary to moral law, since it is a crime against the dignity of both human procreation and of the conjugal union.

So-called homosexual "marriage" undermines true marriage, and encourages homosexuals to continue in immoral acts. Catholic lawmakers have a moral duty to express opposition to such laws publicly, clearly, and to oppose them. To vote in favor of those laws is gravely immoral.

So, if you're a serious Catholic, what are you to do? Let's look at the don't first.

DO NOT base your vote on your party, how you've voted in the past, or family tradition.
DO NOT vote for a candidate based on appearance, popularity, or
"media savvy".
DO NOT vote for a candidate just because they say they're
Catholic.
DO NOT vote for candidates who are "correct" on other issues, but
vote wrongly or favor the five non-negotiables.

Now you know what not do. What you should do is this:

Examine each candidate with a real chance of winning, even if unlikely, stands on each of the five non-negotiables. Rank each candidate to how closely they align with the five non-negotiables. Give preference to those candidates who do not propose positions contrary to the five non-negotiables. Where every candidate stands in opposition to some of the five non-negotiables, evaluate which one that takes the fewest such positions. In cases where the all candidates endorse positions in opposition the five non-negotiables, cast your vote for the one that, again, will do the least harm. That should be your voting criteria.

Subvet has already said what a Catholic's (and any other Christian's) choice should be, so I won't repeat it. And based on what was stated above, it couldn't be clearer. As for the rest of you sick bastards, take a look at this, and this. If you dare. Then, tell me how you justify supporting Obama's position on abortion.