Modern Laws in Yesterday's Culture

THANK YOU Representative Joe Wilson!!!

Just sent this eMail to Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC):

THANK YOU. I can't say it loudly enough in eMail, but thank you for standing up to the outright blatant lies that President Obama is willing to feed to us. He knows the media will not expose his lies, so he continues to say them. He started during (and even before) the campaign, saying things like "I did not know Reverend Wright believed those things" {even though I went to that church for 20 years}. How stupid does he think we are? Apparently very.

Representative Wilson, I know it was "improper", but were I in your situation, I couldn't help but think that I would have done the same thing. I probably would have taken it further, found a microphone, and spoke directly into it, calling him out on all his lies, and EXACTLY how he was lying, then outright resigned my position, stating "This is no longer a Constitutional Republic, you blatantly ignore the Constitution which DOES NOT give you the authority to do these things, so why should I respect your position when you ignore the document that created that position?"

Absolutely brilliant (no not really)...

You and I are spending... no, wait a minute... we're not spending, the Federal Mafia has stolen $1 Billion out of our pockets (and our kids pockets), and is giving it away to... to do what? To crush over 200,000 perfectly good automobiles, sell the scrap to China, and sucker people into buying an overpriced new car that will lose 70% of its value in a few short years. Absolutely brilliant, our government at work.

These folks haven't followed the Constitution for well over a century now, so why are states required to abide by their agreement to submit to the Federal Government's decrees? The Constitution is the document that holds this nation together, and it is wholly ignored. If I were the governor of a state, I would tell the Federal Government that until they start following the Constitution, and ALL their regulations are within Constitutional guidelines, we will be ignoring the Federal Government laws, and will not be giving a dime of our citizens' money in the form of income taxes or otherwise.

Maybe that'd wake them up.

test 2

test

Irony abounds in today's age...

Read the following article, and tell me if you see something rather ironic:

http://www.kcsg.com/news/local/42031997.html

After you've read it, read below:

I'll give you a hint, the ironic part is in a sentence that starts with "KCSG decided to dig a little deeper..."

Do you find it funny that when someone turned in gold coins, their response was "How did something so valuable end up in the bank?" For those of you who may be irony-challenged on this one, the bank is full of money that is supposedly valuable, but anyone who sits and thinks about it realizes that our fiat currency is absolutely worthless in the grand scheme of things. If you held $100 trillion in federal reserve notes, and everyone else out there said "eh, I'm not really interested in buying those things", you are left with piles of paper that are just as valuable as blank injket printer sitting on the shelf at your local Office Max. Actually, probably less valuable, because they're all marked up and you can't print anything on them.

Nobody finds it strange that the federal government can pass multi-trillion dollar spending packages without having the money to back them up? How do you think they get the money to pay for those things? I'll give you one hint:

Gesetz über die Hitlerjugend law (aka the "GIVE act")

Why is it the ultra left calls conservatives "Nazis" and "Fascists"? Their own leftist actions are more in line with Fascism than anything else in existence today. Fascism is basically "Sure, you can own your own private property, but we're going to tell you what to do with it". For example: "You want to own your own business? That's fine, but you have to hire X amount of women, Y amount of minorities, you have to pay them at least $x.xx per hour, you can't replace them if they go on strike with a union (even though there's a line of 10,000 people waiting to take their job at half the pay), oh, and by the way, if you happen to be a medical doctor who's pro-life, and someone wants an abortion, you have to perform it or we'll remove your 'license' to practice medicine".

But I digress... the original point of this post is to discuss the Gesetz über die Hitlerjugend law. No, that's not its real name, that's just what they called the same thing in Nazi Germany. Its real name here is the "Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education act" (aka the "GIVE act"). This has been one of Barack Obama's top priorities upon assuming office, mandatory participation in government-run programs like this. I don't have time right now to explain why this is a horrible idea, but if you can't come up with those reasons on your own, you need to do a little reading about history...

Straight Talker

Flags in the trash, guess where?

So I don't update this thing much, it just gets my blood boiling. But I got this one in an eMail and it's too sad to not tell. It was hard enough to find a flag at this particular location (unless of course the primetime TV cameras were rolling), until they searched the trash bags, then, guess what they found...

Flags in the trash can

Che Guevara flag flown by Barak Obama?

The man whose track record as a lover of America isn't very good, apparently also isn't very good about covering up his true intentions.

Anyone with two nickels to rub together upstairs knows that wearing a shirt with the image of Che Guevara makes you one of two things:
1) An ignorant moron who thinks that's cool to wear a shirt of a murdering communist
or...
2) A lover of a murdering communist.

Now, if you're the frontrunner for the Democratic Party nomination for president, you're intelligent enough that we can't assume #1 for you, so we must assume #2. And not only that, he wasn't spotted wearing a shirt of Che Guevara, it was something much more telling: One of his main campaign offices has a Cuban flag with a picture of Che Guevara on it, and NO American flag (that I saw anyhow). (Another office has the same Cuban flag with Che Guevara on the left, next to an American flag in the middle, and a hippie peace flag on the right).

So, this from a guy who doesn't fly the American flag on his campaign plane, won't wear an American Flag pin, and thinks the American public is dumb enough to believe that in 20 years of going to that church, he didn't know that Reverend Wright believed those mean nasty things. Yeah, right... And I've got some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you too.

See a picture of the flag at the link below:
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28915&only&rss

Shooting at Virginia Tech

In a sick sense, it seems that my post on March 15th was simply a foreshadowing of what was to come. It was only a matter of time before some crazed nutjob went on a shooting rampage where there were no off duty police officers who randomly happened to be in the area. Unfortunately, it happened on April 16, 2007 on the campus of Virginia Tech.

At present count, at least 30 people were killed on Monday when a lunatic went through the campus of Virginia Tech with what I believe to be two pistols and a vest full of spare clips. He went first through the dorms, then to random classrooms, opening the door and murdering people, firing 30+ shots at a time into a room as students ducked for cover, then moving on. Eventually the rampage ended when the gunman killed himself, only after leaving 30+ people dead.

Unfortunately, unlike the recent rampages in Utah and Manhattan, there was no off-duty police officer with a gun nearby. And due to the highly restrictive laws on posession of a firearm on a school property or in a public building, there were no students with a gun in those rooms either. Do you know what that means? That means our "good willed" liberal friends bear a large part of the responsibility for the deaths of those 30+ students and faculty members, and the wounding of many more. But you'll never hear that on the news.

Just look at this typical liberal spouting off about guns in the classroom, in posession of an off-duty police officer no less. I bet Mr. Brandon Wilson is swallowing hard right now, except that he's so blinded that he doesn't see how a gun in the hands of HONEST citizens could have stopped this rampage cold.
>No guns in the Classroom

The really stupid thing about this is, as the world reacts with horror they say "Oh those lax gun laws in the US caused this". Give me a freaking break. Oh, great idea, let's ban the guns, then nobody will have them (except all the criminals). If a person wants to get a gun, they will get a gun. They've been around since the 1600's. They can freaking MAKE a gun on their own if they wanted. It might not be highly accurate, but it'll work. What are you going to do next? Ban steel because people can machine it into a firing chamber? Oh, how about we ban bullets too!! Then we can ban brass so people can't form them into bullets. Oh, then we can ban Potassium Nitrate, so they can't make gunpowder!!! Not like people haven't been making that on their own for centuries...

This is all ridiculous. Liberals have been trying forever to explain away why supposedly "good" human beings do bad things, by saying it's not the person's fault, it's their environment (aka it's the gun's fault. Just like it's the spoon's fault that Rosie O'Donnell is fat). They assume that human beings are by nature good, which is one of the fundamental flaws in their belief system. For the best example of this, just look at kids. I love my kids like no other, but they're a perfect example of the "evil" nature of human beings. By their very nature, until we teach them different, they are selfish, greedy, lazy, etc... I mean, just watch them... Tell them they need to give the neighbor kid's toy back... Or even worse, explain it to them, and then when they don't listen, you have to take it out of their hands... What's their response? "NO!!!! {WHACK}... MINE!!!!!"

You get the point. Liberals (and funny enough, socialists, anarchists, communists, evolutionists, and a host of other "ists") also believe that humans are good by nature. Unfortunately, it doesn't jive with anyone's experience.

An absolutely awesome article (hint: it's not about what you think)

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

One victory, and two validations of the right to bear arms

Recently it was reported that the US Court of Appeals for District of Columbia ruled against the city officials of Washington DC, and struck down their handgun ban. City officials (like typical liberals, claiming the collective state has more rights than the individual) claimed that the right to bear arms only applied to state militias. In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia." Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority on Friday. "There are too many instances of 'bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense." {SCORE!!!} Someone finally gets the constitution.

And, the winner of the biggest idiot of the year award, coupled with the "worst excuse in history award", we congratulate Judge Karen Henderson, who dissented, because she says "the Second Amendment does not apply to the district because it is not a state." Um... DC is LESS than a state, it's given less power than a state, so... um... Anyhow, let me explain... Now, you all understand the constitution. The constitution is written such that God gives power to Man who gives power to Government. So government has no privledges unless Man gives them to government. And our constitution is such that Man gives power to the States, which give power to the federal government. Basically meaning the federal government has no power that the states don't give it. And Washington DC is NOT a state, it is the territory wherein our federal government resides, and is the only federal property in the country (besides military bases, federal parks, etc...). So this judge basically said something similar to "My boss isn't powerful enough to do this, but I'm more powerful than my boss so I can..." Anyhow... see the full story here.

Second, there's been two (that I can remember) recent shooting rampages by some crazed lunatic. There was the one in Utah I think it was, and was just another one I think yesterday in Manhattan. Now, we all know that if someone wants to get a gun, no gun control law in the world is going to keep it out of their hands, they'll get one somehow. So, with that understood, the end of these rampages is what gives validation to the right of the ordinary citizen to keep and bear arms. Both of these shootings resulted in the deaths or serious woundings of numerous people, but they would have been far worse if something didn't happen. In both instances, an off duty police officer happened to be near, and the off duty officer in both situations pulled out their gun and shot the person who was going on the rampage. Now, it's not an ordinary citizen who stopped it, but if there were no off-duty officers, and instead there was an ordinary, trained citizen with a firearm, he or she could have done the same thing and put an end to the mess. But worst of all, what would have happened if there were strict bans of the posession of guns in those cities, and there was no off-duty officer near? We just might have forty, sixty, eighty, maybe a hundred dead people as a result of one crazed idiot going on a rampage in a busy section of town.

And so, I hope you see the folly of gun control laws, they serve to endanger the general public much more than they ever could hope to "protect" them.

Global Warming Truth

With all the fury over global warming lately, I thought I'd put together a post to discuss the truth about global warming, and dispose of some of the not-quite-true's.

First of all, if global warming is being caused by humans, should we do something? Absolutely. But if it isn't caused by man, or man's role is nearly insignificiant, should we still do something about it? To some extent, sure, but if it's going to cost us an arm and a leg to do it, then absolutely not. Why? Because imposing strict regulations on the use of fossil fuels for the sake of global warming WILL cost us: Lives, technological advances, any sort of global stability, untold amounts of money (probably hundreds of trillions or more), and have a number of other effects.

Imagine the problems that would occur if an international organization got together and decided that every country on the planet is going to have to implement these changes. Who's in charge of enforcing it? And what do you do when a "rogue" nation refuses to comply, yet is pumping out pollutants that supposedly will kill us all at an unprecedented rate? There's only two answers: 1) Voluntary implementation or 2) Force them to implement it "for all our sake". But what happens if one country, say China, says "forget it" and doesn't implement it, and the international body says "BUT YOU HAVE TO!!!" and China says "no we don't", and the international body eventually gives up. What does India do then? Wow, well if they don't have to, then we're going to not bother either, and save our money... And on, and on... so basically, it's either be prepared to use force (war), or don't even bother. So before we risk war by doing anything about global warming, we'd BETTER darn well make sure we're right on this one.

Also, currently, there are billions of people around the planet that count on fossil fuels (or some other sort of polluting energy source) in some manner to perform their daily lives. And a few billion of those people are right on the brink of "not quite making it" to tomorrow. Now, it would be a VERY cruel thing to do to those people, to go to them and say "Well, I know you're only barely making it by, but we're going to more than quadruple the cost of the electricity you use to keep your fridge running, and your kids' food from spoiling." Or go to someone who works in a factory in India making a couple dollars a day and tell them that factory is shutting down because it can't afford to implement the new environmental regulations on its air exhaust. Or tell an old widow in southeastern Europe that her costs of raw materials for the clothing she makes by hand is going to triple, making her products so expensive that nobody can buy them anymore.

Now, is the earth getting warmer? Yes, there's plenty of scientific (real science, hands-on measurements, not extrapolation) that shows an average temperature increase. Is this cause to be alarmed? Maybe, it depends on both the source of the warming, and how the earth has reacted to temperature changes in the past. "In the past?" you ask? Yes, believe it or not, we can actually make a pretty good estimate of the earth's temperature as far back as a couple thousand years ago. More on this later... BUT...

First of all, have you ever noticed, on a sunny day, that it is REALLY really much warmer than on a cloudy day (during the same season of course)? Even better yet, have you ever been out in the sun (maybe on the golf course, since I do that from time to time) walking around feeling nice and comfy in your shorts and shirt, then all of a sudden a cloud comes by and you feel a little chill? I know I'm appealing to common sense here, but that seems to be all-too uncommon when it comes to climate change.

Now, if the climate suddenly starts getting colder (like it was doing right up until the 70's or so, and according to scientists, we were "all going to die" because of an ice age), then wouldn't it make sense to start looking at the LARGEST variables first? And that variable is... dun dun dun.... the sun. (Oh, and a short note... when we start looking at the largest variables as far as greenhouse gases, the largest variable by far is... What is it? You'd think it's carbon dioxide and other emissions caused by fossil fuels, wouldn't you? But it's not. The largest variable by FAR is water vapor. And when I say "by far", I mean like water vapor is responsible for 96-99% of the greenhouse effect, yet it's routinely left out of "scientific" global warming studies).

Anyhow... getting back on point... the sun. Now, you may not realize it (or don't fully understand it, after all, I don't fully understand it all yet), but the sun goes through cyclical phases. And those phases have a very significant impact on our global temperature. One of those is the length of the solar magnetic cycle. And the shorter the solar magnetic cycle, the more active (and thus more bright) the sun is.

Look at the picture at the link below:
Sun Cycles and Temperature

The blue line I believe is the length of the solar magnetic cycle (only measured once every few years apparently by the number of data points), and the red line I believe is the Northern Hemisphere temperatures (the colors may be the other way around). Notice how the two correspond almost exactly? So there's good evidence to suggest that the solar magnetic cycle (which signifies a more active, and thus more bright sun) is a good indicator to global temperature. This suggsts that the sun is a large source for determining our global average temperature. More accurately, it apears to be the primary source for determining our global average temperature.

If you really want to get technical, temperature measurements differ depending on where you're measuring it from. If you're measuring it from a satellite, taking lower atmospheric temperatures, you can get a pretty good measurement. But if you're measuring it from ground level, you've got these huge 500+ square mile chunks of urban and suburban areas called cities (and their suburbs) that generate local atmospheric heating in that area. And when we look at satellite-based measurements, there was a cooling period from 1979 to 1997, right in the thick of the "worst" of manmade CO2 emissions.

And I'm sure you noticed this too, but I have to say it anyhow, we've got all these people crying about shrinking arctic ice, because it's getting "so bad" that it's revealing TREES frozen under the ice.

{pause}

{pause some more...}

Did you get it?

Trees.

Under the ice.

Which means WHAT? It means that there was A FOREST where that ice used to be. And that means... dun dun dun... it used to be WARM there. Much warmer than it currently is. Hmmmmm...

Here's how you deal with terrorists...

I'm surprised there's nobody reporting on this (actually, no I'm not, because it crushes every argument the mostly liberal media has been putting forth...) Sheikh Nasrallah of Hezbollah has unwittingly confirmed what conservatives have been saying all along about dealing with terrorism. He said in an interview "Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it".

***TA-DA!!!*** and there you have it folks... if the terrorists start crap, none of this "oh we're sorry we offended you, here, let's talk diplomatically..." No... you stuff it right back in their face and utterly crush them. Sooner or later they'll get the hint. But you know what? It only works if you've got a stronger military force than they do, and are fully capable of utterly crushing them.

The lesson? Thank you Mr. Clinton for crippling our military to the point that we are still struggling to fight a long term war against a ragtag bunch of knuckleheaded fundamentalist muslims who think that blowing themselves up (along with a school bus full of children) will get them into paradise.

Story below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5291420.stm

Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has said he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war.

"Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it," he said in an interview on Lebanese TV.

He added that neither side was "heading towards a second round" of fighting.

More than 1,000 Lebanese died in the 34-day conflict which left much of southern Lebanon in ruins.

The Israeli offensive began after two Israeli soldiers were seized during a cross border raid by Hezbollah militants on 12 July.

Annan visit

"We did not think that there was a 1% chance that the kidnapping would lead to a war of this scale and magnitude," Sheikh Nasrallah said.

"Now you ask me if this was 11 July and there was a 1% chance that the kidnapping would lead to a war like the one that has taken place, would you go ahead with the kidnapping?

"I would say no, definitely not, for humanitarian, moral, social, security, military and political reasons.

"Neither I, Hezbollah, prisoners in Israeli jails and nor the families of the prisoners would accept it."

Sheikh Nasrallah was speaking on the eve of a visit to Beirut by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to discuss the expanded UN peacekeeping force to be deployed in southern Lebanon.

A force of 15,000 soldiers, 7,000 of them from European Union states, will be deployed to maintain the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.

The UN hopes to have some of the troops on the ground within a week, although the foreign minister of Finland - which currently holds the EU presidency - has said it will be two to three months before the whole force is deployed.

The force will be led by France until February, at which time Italy will take command.

Speaking in Brussels on Friday, Mr Annan said the plan would only work if the enlarged UN force, called Unifil 2, was "strong, credible and robust".

Mr Annan said the force offered the possibility of a "durable ceasefire and long-term solution" to the Middle East crisis.