Popular Posts

Thursday, November 10, 2011

College students are rioting in the streets; throwing rocks at police and overturning vehicles!

And I'm not talking abut the “Occupy Wall Street” protestors. No, there's actually something going on that makes the Occupy Wall Street “movement” look almost noble. You are not going to believe this but they are rioting at Penn State University because the head football coach got fired for failing to report an alleged homo-sexual rape of a 10 year old child that occurred in the showers of the Penn State football facilities.

For nine years Joe Paterno sat idly by with the knowledge that an alleged homosexual rape had never been reported to authorities, much less investigated. In Joe Paterno's mind he had effectively covered his ass by reporting this hideous offense to one of his co-workers who he considered to be a school authority. Sorry Joe, that does not cut it. You are fired!

Not only was Joe Paterno aware that a homosexual rape had probably occurred, he continued to allow access by that very same alleged homosexual rapist to those very same showers right up until this despicable cover-up was exposed by a grand jury investigation last week! That's nine years from the time Paterno found out about this rape until something was finally done about this!

I don't care if it turns out the accused rapist is innocent (though, with 8 victims & 40 counts against him...), Joe Paterno showed a complete lack of maturity, character, and morality by choosing to protect his friend and former employee and to avoid any personal inconvenience over protecting potential victims of a homosexual rapist; a reckless and irresponsible disregard for the safety and well-being of others.  A choice that, for me, completely defines this man's core character.  How can it not?

What I find more disturbing is the willingness of so many to run to the defense of this jerk. How can somebody be more worried about anything over and above the obvious problem here?  How can anybody put any consideration above the issue that is at the heart of this story: All those innocent children who were brutalized in the most unspeakable of ways?

Paterno was the one who Mike McQueary, who was a student at the time, went to with his eye-witness account of the homosexual rape of a 10 year old child in the shower-room of those above-mentioned football facilities. He was the first and only school authority to whom this was directly reported. I don't care how many people say he fulfilled his legal responsibility in this matter, he clearly did not.

Some are going so far as to praise Joe Paterno for being so honest to the grand jury that was finally investigating this. OK, so now the standard for praiseworthy behavior is NOT lying to a grand jury about something that should have been volunarily reported to police nine years earlier? If that's the case, we're in trouble gang.

As far as I'm concerned, Paterno should be arrested and charged with obstruction of justice and conspiracy after the fact. Getting fired immediately should go without saying.  How many kids were raped while he waited for someone else to go to the police?  But, apparently in today's world, a lot of people think Joe Paterno didn't do anything wrong.

Makes me want to vomit!

"The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." (Edmund Burke)


 

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

CenturyLink Sucks! ...So I wrote my congressman about it.

11/10/11

Dear Representative Platts,

I hate to bother you about something so trivial when you are faced with so many serious problems in Washington today, but this has really become a bur under my saddle.
Back in July of 2010 I tried to “port” my home phone number from our local phone service provider, CenturyLink, to Vonage. Although I followed all instructions from both companies my original phone number was never “ported”.
Vonage informed me that they had done everything they could to get CenturyLink to release my phone number but that CenturyLink refused to do so. After getting nowhere with CenturyLink myself, despite several attempts, I became frustrated and threatened to file a complaint with the FCC. CenturyLink's response to that threat could best be described as taunting. They encouraged/dared me to file a complaint as they referred to the person I would be dealing with at the FCC by her first name, “Sharon”.
Sure enough, “Sharon” was less than sympathetic to my plight and took CenturyLink's side without any clear explanation of why CenturyLink should be exempt from the Phone Portability Act or why the provisions of said Act would not apply to me & my phone number.
I was provided with the option of taking this all to the next level which, Sharon informed me, would involve a filing fee. Well, I wish I had taken it to the next level but I didn't and now the time limit has expired on that option.
Now, to add insult to injury, I recently called CenturyLink to see about changing my phone service back to them because of problems with Vonage and they wanted $90 from me to “port” my current phone number back to them!
I've included letters I got from CenturyLink and the FCC for reference. They seem to assert that I didn't have a phone number with CenturyLink to be “ported”. That, of course, is absurd and can be quickly refuted by my own records (see included documentation).
Anyway, I just think that any money that we, the taxpayers, are spending on the enforcement of the Phone Portability Act is being wasted. The most disturbing element of this experience was the obviously cozy relationship between the people at CenturyLink and Sharon Bowers at the FCC. So, if you could possibly have her fired, that would be great and I will vote for you forever.

Friday, October 7, 2011

BTW: THE STREETS ARE FILLED WITH COMMUNIST PROTESTORS!!

I don't know if you've heard, but there is a communist uprising in the streets of America:

New York, Washington DC, Miami, Boston, Providence, Chicago, Denver, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, “...the movement has spread to at least 147 cities in the U.S. and 28 overseas.”1 They are called “Anti-Wall Street Protests” but they are nothing less than a communist uprising in the streets of America. All you have to do is look at their signs or listen to their rhetoric calling for an “End to Capitalism” and a “New Economic System.” They are now putting less effort than ever into disguising their true nature. In other words, the masks are coming off!

Personally, I live in a small town far removed from the city lights and I bet 9 out of 10  people around here haven't even heard about this. I watch FOX News, so I at least get the watered down version of the story.

Everybody thinks FOX News is some kind of front organization for the Tea Party or something. Truth is, FOX News is closer to the other end of the spectrum than they'd like you to believe. Listening to the bemused commentary on these “Anti-Wall Street Protests” you'd think they're no more sinister than a Cub Scout Jamboree.

The response is a little different overseas: From the publication In Defense of Marxism in London: USA: Wall Street rocked by anti-capitalist protests – time to build a labor party!:
“At least 39 unions and community organizations joined Wednesday's march in New York, including groups like MoveOn.org and the Coalition of the Homeless. But by far and away the most powerful were the unions: the United Federation of Teachers, the Communication Workers of America, the United Auto Workers, the United Healthcare Workers, the Public Employees Union DC37, and many others.”3 You can throw in: the Obama administration, George Soros, Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Jessie Jackson, Acorn, SEIU, and the Teamsters...kind of like a Who's Who of the far left.  Like Andy Stern, the head of the SEIU, said in June of 2007 during a television interview, "'Workers of the world unite' isn't just a slogan anymore, it's a way we're going to have to do our work."

Predators and disease always attack the weakest first. Communism infects our children, our poor, the mentally ill, the politicians and the artists in our society like a disease. Communism intends to leverage that influence into an authoritarian and oppressive “new economic system” where bureaucrats replace free-market forces as the final arbiters of success and failure. They infect and cripple the capitalist system with progressive programs and regulations and then claim that capitalism has failed because it is a flawed system. They complain about the corruption of capitalism and in the next breath propose a system that has corruption as its foundation. Just ask anybody who has ever had a business in a communist country, you cannot do one thing without paying off some public official. They are partners in every aspect of your business forever, contributing nothing but protection from the destructive power of the state.

Like Satan himself, Communism cloaks itself in harmless looking disguises so as to trick its way into the hearts and minds of the weakest and most gullible among us. Make no mistake, Communism desires nothing more than to completely separate us from God and send us all to straight to Hell. We ignore these "protests" at our peril.

“Marx's call to eliminate the next world by establishing a utopia on this one was taken up with a vengeance by Lenin and a host of communist leaders who followed him. These despots established atheism as state doctrine in the Soviet Union and other Marxist regimes around the world. In the last hundred years these regimes, led by people like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Nicolae Ceausescu, Enver Hoxha, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-11, and others, have murdered more than 100 million people. Even Bin Laden, in his wildest dreams, doesn't come close.”2

More than 100 million people! More than the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean War and Vietnam combined! Try to get your head around that!

Communism has robbed many more of the hope, dignity and freedom that true capitalism, not only affords, but requires. Instead of delivering on its promise to deliver Social Justice and enrich the poor, every time communism is tried, it leaves everybody, except a few of the ruling elite, worse off than before. 

The nature of communism is the nature of evil.  It seeks to trick us into believing that we are like gods and that we can control everything that affects us, that we can create a godless utopia on earth.  As with the abandonment of faith for atheism, only disaster and despair await those fools who abandon capitalism for the false promise of communism..

But, hey, it's just a bunch of innocent kids expressing themselves.  Isn't that cute.  (sarcasm)




2) Dinesh D'Souza. Life After Death: The Evidence (pp. 188-189). Kindle Edition.

TSA Saves Us Again (sarcasm):

Police Question Saudi Man Accused of Attempt to Break Into Plane's Cockpit

Abdulaziz Mubarak Alshammari,  a 20 year old Saudi citizen who had just arrived in this country, attempted to enter the cockpit of an American Airlines flight en route from New York to Indianapolis yesterday.  Even though Abdulaziz's story about being a student at the University of Indianapolis turned out to be false, no charges were filed and he was almost immediately released.  Apparently a check of watch-lists failed to turn up his name.

Remember these two incidents from May 8th of this year that TSA also failed to prevent?  
What do all three of these incidents have in common?  No, they weren't all Saudi citizens.  One was from Yemen and one was "from" Burbank.  I put "from" in quotes because the Yemen citizen was listed as being "from" Vallejo, Ca.  So, I can't say for sure that all three weren't foreign born. In all three incidents though, it was not some TSA agent or even an air marshal that subdued the potential terrorist. No, it was freshly groped U.S. citizens who saved the day in each and every instance.
Read more: http://www.fox43.com/news/nationworld/chibrknews-flight-passenger-tries-to-open-door-plane-diverted-20110508,0,1099302.story


Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Amanda Knox: Cat Killer


I've been asking people around here what they thought of this story. The response was unanimous, Amanda Knox was innocent! But, I wasn't so sure.  So, I decided to take a closer look at the Amanda Knox story.


In the first article that I pulled up, I found out a cat got killed too!!  "There was blood on a wall in the downstairs apartment, determined to be that of a black cat.”  Wow, never heard that in the mainstream news reports. I found that on a pro-Knox site,  by the way.


That same article points out that there are 24 Masonic Lodges in Perugia Italy, the town where this murder took place.  It is a well known fact in Italy that some Satanic-Masonic rituals include removing one shoe and leaving feces behind (sorry) and are generally performed on Thursdays.  The crime scene had bloody left shoe prints and one bloody bare right foot print, and “there were un-flushed feces in the toilet (sorry again), and there was blood on a wall in the downstairs apartment, determined to be that of a black cat.” 1  Also, this crime was committed, not just on a Thursday, but on the Thursday immediately following Halloween, a day of special significance to Satanic-Masonics.


All of that is interesting and gross, but it doesn't really speak to the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox.  What it does do is explain why the press in this country was so quick to run to the defense of Knox and how she was able to effectively discredit the prosecution and police.


Apparently, Italy has something in its history similar to the Salem witch trials about which Italians are still very sensitive and defensive.  The chief prosecutor, therefore, was advised not to mention anything about the Masonic witchcraft thing, however, he talked about the possibility of a ritualistic “game” anyway.  This played right into the hands of the defense by incurring the self-righteous disdain of the all-seeing press.  There is nothing the press loves more than the opportunity to oppose a “witch-hunt,” all the better if the defendant really is a witch.


After the cat blood, the next thing to catch my attention was the absence of any sympathy for the victim or the victim's family in any of Knox's comments.  Yes, she mentioned the victim, but only incidentally as she cried about how traumatic the whole thing was to her, “She was killed in our house, and if I was there that night I could have been killed,” and "I've lost a friend in the worst, most brutal, most inexplicable way possible, I'm paying with my life for things that I didn't do."  She talked about her and the victim being friends in a carefully worded way so as to remove questions about motive.  Everything was about how Knox suffered and worded to imply that Knox didn't do it.  I did not see any comments by Amanda Knox that were pure expressions of concern or sympathy for the victim or the victim's family.


Speaking of the victim's family, THEY think that Knox is GUILTY:   “The victim' family had pressed for the court to uphold the guilty verdicts passed two years ago, and resisted theories that a third man convicted in the case.., had acted alone”2 ...and so do a lot of the residents of Perugia, Italy:  “At 5pm , armed with a new passport, Knox and her family walked out of the jailhouse and into the street -- to a mob chanting, 'Murderers!' and 'Shame!"3


Also, the way she went about claiming that she was innocent didn't sound quite right to me.   “I am not what they say I am. I am not perverse, violent, disrespectful toward life (or) people -- these things do not apply to me, and I have not done the things that have been suggested,’’ said Knox  What about, "I didn't do it! ?"  Maybe it was in there somewhere but, you know what, if I had been falsely accused of slashing someone's throat, I'd be saying “I didn't do it!” every other sentence.  I wouldn't be going on about how I was a good person.  Who cares if I'm a good person or not?   And what about the other accusations  that, even if she didn't slash the victim's throat herself, she was involved in the murder or, at least, knew more than she was saying?  So, what about, “I didn't have anything to do with it and I don't know anything about it?”  That's what an innocent person who hadn't even been in her apartment on the night of the murder would have said.   I sure didn't hear anything like that.


Now, about the facts of the case: Following is a quote from Amanda Knox to police about the night of the crime:

"...I  went into another room and then I heard screams. ... Patrick and Meredith (the victim) were in Meredith's bedroom while I think I stayed in the kitchen. ... I can't remember how long they were together in the bedroom, but the only thing I can say is that at a certain point I remember hearing Meredith's screams and I covered my ears. ... I can't remember if Meredith was screaming and if I heard thuds but I could imagine what was going on."

Based on Amanda Knox's statement, "Patrick Lumumba, 38,  ...spent two weeks in prison before being able to prove that he spent the night of the murder talking to a customer in his pub...."4  Amanda Knox remained silent while Lumuba sat in jail for two weeks.

So, Amanda Knox initially said that she was in the apartment and that Patrick did it.  It later turned out that Patrick had an airtight alibi.  Again, she remained silent for two weeks while Patrick sat in jail.


Amanda Knox eventually settled on the story that she was never in her apartment that night and that she spent the night with her boyfriend, getting up around 10:30am. She says that they downloaded and watched cartoons and a movie. “But computer experts told the court that there was no activity on his laptop between 9.10pm on Nov 1, and 5.32am the next morning — the time frame in which the murder took place.”4  Anyway, “Records on her cellphone indicated she was elsewhere, and she was caught on a closed-circuit security camera entering her own apartment that night.”6


What I find even more suspicious is the fact that Amanda Knox and her boyfriend both turned their cell phones off right before the time of the murder: “Knox and her boyfriend turned off their mobile phones on the night of the murder, from around 8.40pm, and turned them back on at around 6am. The victim left a friend's home after eating pizza and watching The Notebook on DVD...She arrived home shortly before 9pm. At 8:56, she called her mother but her call was never completed.”5


Then there was the staged break-in: Knox & her boyfriend called police to report a burglary the morning after the murder. When police arrived they found a broken window and a room that appeared to have been burglarized with clothes and personal belongings dumped all over the floor consistent with a burglary. Problem was, the broken glass was on top of the items that were on the floor indicating that the window was broken after the items were dumped onto the floor. The bigger problem was that most of the glass was outside rather than inside, consistent with the window being broken from the inside. Also, no hair, no fibers, no blood, no DNA on the jagged alleged entry point.


“It is especially telling that when Knox's boyfriend called the police to report the "burglary" in two separate, recorded phone calls, he said nothing had been stolen -- despite the fact that (the other roommate who's room it was) had not yet come home. The only way (the boyfriend) would know nothing was stolen was if he had helped stage the burglary himself.”7


There were also inconsistencies and suspicious behavior associated with how Knox and her boyfriend behaved when the police came to investigate the staged break-in.  Knox's boyfriend tried to break through the victim's door prior to the arrival of the police but then, once the police arrived, he & Knox played down the issue of the locked door saying that the victim always kept her door locked.  Then the third roommate showed up and told police that the victim never locked her door.  Not, “didn't always lock her door” but  “never locked her door,”  whereupon the police immediately broke the door down and discovered the body.


But, here's what finally made me conclude that Amanda Knox is guilty:

“The owner of a supermarket, said Miss Knox had been in his (store) at 7.45 the morning (that Knox's roommate's) body was found. (The store owner) told the court he had seen her in the cleaning section of his...store just hours before (the body) was discovered...Police who searched (Knox's boyfriend's) house...days after the murder found a receipt for (bleach) from the shop where Miss Knox was allegedly seen. “8


This tells me two things: Amanda Knox was lying about the details of the night in question (but we already knew that) and she was cleaning something.


I found it telling,  not to mention deliciously ironic,  that Knox actually remarked about how naturally sloppy she was during her acquittal remarks.   A 20 year old who is naturally sloppy doesn't usually show up at a grocery store at 7:45am to buy cleaning products.   And, what are the odds, that, if she did,  it would just happen to be on the very morning that her roommate is found dead?  And then “Police found Amanda’s prints in one place only,  on a water glass in the kitchen.” 1


That means that somebody must have recently scrubbed every inch of that apartment!
The victim's mother said, after the trial, “...we do not understand how the decision of the first trial could be so radically overturned,” “Radically” because the DNA evidence, on which the acqittal was based, was just one part of the evidence against Amanda Knox. There remains a very clear picture of an obviously guilty individual getting away with murder
  1. Nina Burleigh, New York Post 2 Oct 2011
  2. Amanda Knox thanks supporters, heads for home CBS/AP 4 Oct 2011
  3. Jury’s verdict unlocks Knox, BOB GRAHAM in Perugia, Italy, and JEANE MACINTOSH in New York, New York Post 
  4. Nick Squires in Rome 12:52PM GMT 06 Mar 2009 The Telegraph - UK
  5. Rik Merchant http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2728107 amanda_knox_convicted_in_murder_of.html?cat=9
  6. A DREAM ENDS IN NIGHTMARE, ANDY SOLTIS New York Post 16 Nov 2007
  7. Ann Coulter, Amanda Knox: The New Mumia 7 Sep 2011

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Police arresting people for video-taping them

Following is a comment I posted in response to an article by Jacob Sullum on The Patriot Post that appeared in The Evening Sun today under the title "Shielding officials from scrutiny" (click on this link to read the article on which I am commenting):

 We ignore this at our peril. When the Nazis began rounding up and executing Jews, they made it a crime to watch. If our government succeeds in preventing us from being able to “watch” them, it will inevitably lead to increased misconduct, atrocities, and the loss of freedom. Also, if I am unable to record incoming phone calls to my home, then my ability to defend myself and my family against all sorts of threats is greatly compromised. The requirement that I must obtain the permission of people who are calling to threaten, harass, scam, or molest me or my children prior to my being able to legally record them is absurd. Are the police going to set up a wire-tap sting operation at my house to protect me from these type of threats? I don't think so.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Letter to Editor - Evening Sun - Global Warming Propaganda

Now, let me see if I got this right, according to Sunday's front page article on global warming:
1.  The debate is over. You may recite the “facts,” you may declare your allegiance to the “facts”, but you must not debate the “facts.”
2.  If it weren't for an evil capitalist conspiracy, we'd all be living in a Green Utopia right now with windmills, solar panels, and bio-fuels supplying all of our energy needs.
3.  If we don't do what the United Nations tells us to do, we're all going to die and, more importantly, so are those cute polar bears.
4.  Denialists like me don't care about the environment...and we're angry, mentally defective, racists. Like the carbon dioxide that we exhale, we are a threat to the very survival of this planet, and especially, those cute polar bears. Some of us even believe in God! (full-text version of article)
CO2 is a trace gas. The change in the amount of CO2 that Global Warmers allege is responsible for our impending demise, according to Sunday's article, involves 0.0089%, or less than 1% of 1% of our atmosphere.
All of the gases in our atmosphere have the capacity to absorb infrared radiation to one degree or another. The Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis hinges on the assertion that CO2 has a vastly greater capacity in this regard than do any of the other atmospheric gases.
I have looked at charts on specific heat capacities and discussions of infrared absorption rates till my eyes have glazed over and the only place where I found anything to suggest such magical properties for CO2 was in the United Nations and EPA sponsored charts, charts that use unique and indecipherable units of comparison and which seem to have been derived from impossibly complicated global climate models. Forgive me if I question man's ability to construct an accurate global climate model when we can't even predict the weather accurately from one day to the next!
They are right on one thing though: Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't just a theory. No, it's a dangerous agenda that will undermine U.S. sovereignty, further cripple our economy, suppress free speech and make Al Gore very rich.
Do we really want the U.N making and enforcing laws within our borders? The implications of Anthropogenic Global Warming represent a much more serious threat to our future than global warming itself does.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Local Newspaper's front page article on Global Warming

(Link to Article) The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why?  

Global warming advocates do not merely purport that the globe is warming. No, you cannot be considered truly compliant with the party-line unless you also believe that:

1) Rule #1 of Fight Club is...: You are not to debate, much less consider arguments against, the global warming theory.

2) It is mankind's or more specifically, greedy western capitalist oil companies', fault.

3) That an increase in CO2, a trace gas that comprises approximately 0.00369% of the total atmosphere, is the root of the problem.

4) That, if it weren't for a capitalist conspiracy among the oil companies, we'd all be living in a sparkling clean world with windmills, solar panels, and other "Green" technology keeping us warm, getting us to work, fueling our manufacturing, and lighting our way.

5) That if we don't do something drastic right now, we're all going to die and, more importantly, so are those cute polar bears.



6) That we must subjugate the sovereignty of the United States to the all-knowing and all-powerful United Nations and a myriad of one-sided restrictive international treaties. In other words, one world government baby!

7) People who don't believe in "anthropogenic" global warming (denialists) don't care about the environment...and they're mean, stupid, smelly, racists, etc. In fact, like the carbon dioxide that they exhale, they are a threat to the very survival of this planet, and especially, those cute polar bears. A lot of them even believe in God!

I seem to recall a story in the news a year or two back, a story that disappeared quickly but that I found quite interesting, about some emails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and some scientists at prominent academic institutions in the U.S.. There were multiple emails openly discussing "the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims" and there were multiple emails that discussed how to discredit dissenting scientists, publications, and institutions. These emails are now part of the public record. Since most of the scientists involved in the Global Warming "debate" depend on these same institutions and publications for their careers, reputations, advancement, funding, etc., I do not find it very compelling that there would be an "overwhelming consensus" among that group of individuals. I mean, just try to get a job as a climate scientist while openly challenging any tenet of the anthropologic global warming theory.



Ummm, without CO2, plant life as we know it would die off and atmospheric oxygen levels, not to mention food supplies, would dwindle to levels incompatible with human life! Your "consensus" maintains that CO2 is a deadly pollutant that threatens man's survival. That's seems like a funny way to talk about a gas that is so integral to our survival and produced naturally by our very existence.

The increase in CO2 from pre-industrial times, the more precise alleged culprit, represents 0.00089% of our atmosphere, and that's assuming pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 levels were measured accurately. That CO2 must be some powerful stuff!

Everybody loves to bash the oil industry as the root of all evil. Well, you know what, I kind of like being able to drive to the store and take trips to far away places and, while I may not actually enjoy driving to work, it sure beats walking to work. Deforestation was a much bigger problem in this country during the early part of this century than it is now. It wasn't until the advent of coal, oil, gas, and electric heat that we were able to begin re-foresting this great country of ours. And, speaking of deforestation, just think how many trees have been saved, not just by heating fuel, but by the myriad of petroleum based products that have replaced tree based products. And, how many lives have been saved, that's right saved, by medical products that would not have been possible without petroleum?"

Look, I'm all for doing everything that we reasonably can to protect the environment. Key word is "reasonably". I do not think it is reasonable to cripple our manufacturing sector or to impose punitive taxes on energy producers. Taxes, by the way, that will be passed along to consumers in the form of skyrocketing energy bills and fuel costs and that will show up in the cost of everything from tires to food.

Here's an idea. If you want to punish somebody with higher taxes, how about imposing import tariffs on countries that don't seem to be doing what they can to keep our planet clean? (China comes to mind) Oh, but that wouldn't go over very well at the United Nations, now would it?

The anthropologic global warming theory is designed to make us panic. It is nothing more than another artificial crisis designed to undermine the United States' position of world dominance, which, like driving to the store and taking trips to far away places, I kind of like.

 

 

Friday, September 23, 2011

My real name, the human brain and life after death

It’s funny how you wake up with answers to questions you had knocking around in your brain.  This time it was an answer to a question that I thought I had already answered.  I was pondering whether to use my real name on this blog.  My initial conclusion was:  Why risk it?  Why risk being harassed on-line or worse, pissing off some jihadist.  Then I thought,  “You chicken-shit, be a man.”  Then I thought:  “OK, if & when I try to start making money at this, I’ll put my name out there.  Why would I risk anything for nothing?” 

When I woke up, the answer and focus was different.  This post is as much about the answer to this question as it is about the awesomeness of the human brain.  Again, I wasn’t even thinking about this anymore.  Question had been asked and answered.  Then, a few minutes after waking, the question popped back into my head with an answer from a completely different perspective.  The reason that I didn’t want to put my name on my blog was that I was afraid of incurring the disapproval of my employer.  After that, I was afraid of my own government, the IRS primarily, because I point out from time to time the fact that the 16th Amendment was never ratified and I promote its repeal.

So, when I first thought about this concern, what popped into my head were bully-bloggers and suicide-bombers.  What I woke up with was the clear awareness of the fear of my employer and my government that was the true deterrent. 

But, you know what?  People have faced much greater risks throughout history for raising their voices...

But, again, the real point of this post is how neat it is that the human brain continues working on questions without our conscious awareness.  How many times have you been unable to recall someone's name or some other bit of information and had that name or bit of info pop into your brain later, long after you had moved on to other things?  This might suggest that the physical brain is separate and distinct from consciousness, and, if this is true, then the opposite must be as well.  And, if consciousness exists separately from the brain, might it also be conceivable that consciousness continues after we die?

Republican Candidates Debate 9-22-2011 (Rev 10-02-2011)

Best line of the night: “Not any type of sexual activity has any place in the military.” Rick Santorum on gays in the military.

Second best line of the night:  "You've got to put your air assets in the ground."  Rick Perry talking about how to secure the border.

Great news! My prediction about Rick Perry becoming our next president was wrong. Whew! That was close.

Rick Perry looked so bad that I felt sorry for him. He screwed up royally.., crashed & burned. He said that people who were against special taxpayer subsidized tuition rates for illegal aliens "don't have a heart."

Rick Perry put in place, as governor of Texas, a program whereby illegal aliens could attend schools in the Texas University System at a taxpayer subsidized discounted tuition rate unavailable to U.S. citizens in 49 of the 50 states. A lot of people compare this to the Dream Act, but it's not really like the Dream Act. The Dream Act is a proposed federal program that expressly prohibits students from receiving federal grants or subsidies. The Rick Perry plan is a state program that automatically provides state taxpayer money to illegal aliens.  I'm actually for the Dream Act....ONCE THE SOUTHERN BORDER IS SECURED!

Now, the last thing a conservative wants to hear from their representative is that they lack compassion. That's the same old tune that the liberals start singing every time that they want to expand government or create a new government spending program. And, it is insulting to both the intelligence and the character of the average conservative. And, we're getting really tired of being called racists and Nazis every time we express concern about out of control government spending and inappropriate government activities.

There was a new guy in the debate last night, the former Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson. He wants to cut our military budget by 43% and told a somewhat funny joke about his neighbors' dogs generating more shovel-ready jobs than Barack Obama. What was funnier than the joke itself was the fact that, as it turns out, he stole the joke from the Rush Limbaugh show. He's for the Fair Tax, which is great, but I didn't hear him say anything about repealing the 16th Amendment which opens the door to having a federal consumption tax in addition to the current income tax. And I don't think we need to be cutting our defense budget by 43% across the board right now with the world being the most unstable it's been since the Cuban Missile Crisis.


Mitt Romney looked real good and got the highest approval ratings in the post-debate discussions on TV but today there are some questions in the media about whether or not he may have lied about previously advocating Romney-Care as a potential national plan. Also, there's a book out now called Confidence Men that seems to implicate Romney-care as the inspiration, if not the blueprint, for Obama-care. I predict Romney will take the lead in the polls for a while, but I don't think he's going to be able to shake this Romney-care thing. I don't think that he will win the nomination.

There was a teenage kid who asked a question in the last debate about how much of the money that he earned he should be allowed by the federal government to keep. A couple of the candidates mentioned how they were going to cut and/or reform taxes and basically said that he'd get to keep more if they were elected president. I said at the time that it was a trick question. The question was designed to reveal the true attitude of the candidates about the money that we earn. Do we really have any right to the money that we earn or for that matter, the property that we “own?” Or, does the federal government really own everything and just allows us to keep what it deems a fair amount, essentially making us all slaves of the state?

Michele Bachmann, sensing a missed opportunity, tried to capitalize on this last night by saying that she wanted to tell that kid that “you get to keep every dollar.” The only problem is that, under our current unconstitutional progressive tax system, he doesn't. What she needed to say was that she was for repealing the 16th amendment (which was the real correct answer). Since she did not mention repealing the 16th Amendment, I don't really understand her response. Is she planning on reducing the income tax rate to zero? Is she planning on giving this kid some kind of lifetime tax waiver? Obviously she was just making some kind of clumsy attempt to capitalize on an obvious opportunity without any regard to actual facts.  But, I don't want to go too hard on her.  At least she has some instinct for the direction in which the correct answer lies. 


Ron Paul mentioned that he had risen in the polls to third place. That shocked me. I thought for sure that his statement in the last debate about 9-11 being America's fault, chickens coming home to roost and all, would be his death knell. Apparently, there are a lot of people in this country who think that al qaeda was justified in attacking us on 9-11 or who don't think al qaeda ever attacked us at all. I liked a lot of what Ron Paul had to say about the constitution and limited government and even had a quote by him on my facebook profile. But, after I heard those comments, my attitude towards him changed and I removed that quote.

Herman Cain did really well last night. Wants to abolish the current EPA and start all over. Herman Cain is looking better all the time.

Newt Gingrich remained the steadiest and most affable presence on the stage. If I didn't know about him divorcing his wife on her death-bed, he'd be my favorite.

Did I miss anybody...? Rick Santorum still thinks that we can “win” in Afghanistan...dangerous nut.

John Huntsman wants to bring the troops home from Afghanistan, repeal Obama-care, and reform taxes. Sounds great but, oh yeah, he's a global warming - cap & trade - one world government kind of guy.

So I guess, for me, it's down to Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann.  I guess I could I could hold my nose and vote for Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or John Huntsman if I had to. As for Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, I don't know if I could pull that lever even to get Obama out of office.  As for Gary Johnson, who cares?









Thursday, September 22, 2011

My 1st Real Post - Republican Candidates Debates

There is another Republican Presidential Candidates Debate tonight.

How can I talk about this after I just said that I'd try and keep it interesting? Geez, if you're not interested in who our next president is going to be when the real unemployment rate is close to 20% and the under-employment rate probably twice that and the stock market's down 300 points yesterday and another 400 plus points today while the current administration is actively abolishing American jobs in Tennessee (40 manufacturing jobs at Gibson Guitar), South Carolina (3800 manufacturing jobs at Boeing), and the Gulf of Mexico (17,000 oil industry jobs) not to mention how our current administration funded a foreign country's oil company and then allowed that same oil company to drill in the very Gulf where they've imposed a moratorium on our own domestic oil production, supplying Mexican drug gangs with 1700 automatic weapons and giving away billions of taxpayer dollars to “green” energy scam artists all over the place (I wonder who ends up with that money?) and....I could go on but, like I said, geez!

OK, that took way too long to write. Obviously, I'm taking this blog thing way too seriously. I mean, really, who's going to be reading this other than me? So, I'm interested in politics and what's going on in the world outside my little town. Life's funny, I used to ridicule people like me. Back then, all I was interested in....well, just in case somebody does read this, let's say it was “wine, women, and song.” That's not too far off actually. Now, I ridicule people like that. The older I get, the more I appreciate the irony of life. That's one of the things I will try to capture in this blog when I stumble upon it, the irony of life, that is. So two ironic things to start with:
  1. Usually, the more emphasis somebody places on having a good time, the unhappier they become.
  2. In general, studies have shown that we become happier as we get older.
OK, back to the debate, following are some of my comments on the last debate that I posted on Facebook:

Best line, by Newt Gingrich: (Paraphrasing) “Obama was talking a lot the other night in his Jobs Bill speech about closing all the tax loopholes that the oil companies get. Doesn't Obama realize that every “green” tax credit is a loophole. Everything GE is doing is a loophole.”
Not to mention all the Obama-care waiver loopholes he's been handing out left & right, 1472 waivers to date & counting. Oh yeah, but let's close those oil company loopholes. What do oil companies contribute to our economy anyway, the leeches. (sarcasm)

Weird moment #1: Michele Bachmann was doing pretty well as she accused Rick Perry of corrupt motives in issuing an executive order as Governor of Texas to add Gardasil®, a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer, to the list of required vaccinations for Texas school children since he had a former top executive from the company that makes Gardasil®as his staff manager and had taken a large campaign contribution from the drug manufacturer as well. But, then she went on to try and say that Gardasil®
was just like RU-486, “the morning-after abortion pill” because insurers were being forced to cover RU-486 under Obama-care.  (???)

Weird moment #2: Ron Paul ended all hopes of any additional political career, much less the presidency, with a politically suicidal tirade about how the 9-11 attacks were all our fault because we had troops overseas.

Weird moment #3: John Huntsman accused Rick Perry of treason for saying that you can't secure the border when all he said was that you couldn't build a physical fence along every single inch of the border. You could hear people in the background saying that they didn't remember Rick Perry saying that even before John Huntsman was finished talking.

But that did raise a question in my mind as to Rick Perry’s official position on this issue, so I looked it up.  Rick Perry stated clearly in the debate that he is against trying to build a physical fence or wall, but according to his official website, "Rick Perry will finally force Washington to fulfill its constitutional duty to secure our international borders.”  His plan for this is to put more “boots on the ground.” But, as far as a physical wall or fence goes, Rick Perry calls that idea “preposterous.”

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 resulted in the legalization of over 3 million formerly illegal immigrants in exchange for the promise to the American people that the federal government would finally do its Constitutional duty and secure the southern border. Now, 25 years later, we are still waiting on that promise to be fulfilled. Instead of seeing any serious effort by the federal government to control the border, we watch in horror as our federal government actively opposes and vilifies individual states like Arizona that try to step up border enforcement. And we react in disbelief to stories of our federal government actually supplyingMexican drug-running gangs with automatic weapons.

If I meet somebody who speaks English and loves the USA and believes in capitalism, the rule of law, personal responsibility, respect for others' rights, and the fight against socialism-communism, etc., …then I want that person to stay in this country and I will support that person's effort to do that.  Extraordinary circumstances may have resulted in that person being here illegally.  Maybe they were brought here by their parents or maybe they fled here to save their lives.  I like to think of myself as a compassionate person, as I think most people do, and I am all for that person getting a legal status.

Now, about that physical wall or fence that Rick Perry says is “preposterous:”  Mexico is unstable and impoverished..  It has a population of over 112 million people.  If you think illegal immigration is a problem now or if you think Katrina was a human tragedy on a monumental scale, just wait until the Mexican government completely collapses, or there is an earthquake, or there is famine in Mexico.  No amount of “boots on the ground” will be able to stem the human tide of refugees.  Without a fence or wall, any security force would be quickly overwhelmed.  What I think is “preposterous” is the idea that border patrol agents and electronic surveillance will be able, by themselves, to stop a flood of millions of refugees.  Would a wall or fence completely solve our illegal immigration problem?  Of course not.  But, without one we have a disaster waiting to happen on our southern border.

And wanting a fence is not uncompassionate.  Without a fence, Mexico's northern border becomes the desperate Mexican’s first response to catastrophe. Not only does that represent a standing threat to our sovereignty and survival here in the U.S., but it changes the dynamic of power and stability in Mexico itself.

As a side-note, I don't understand for the life of me why people of Hispanic origin who are here legally would oppose securing our southern border. The constant influx of drugs and criminals of Hispanic origin across our southern border is in no way beneficial to legal immigrants who are already here. On the contrary, it creates a stigma against all Hispanics. It's not even in the best interests of the illegal immigrants who are already here to keep the southern border unsecured because the citizens of this country are not going to accept any additional amnesty or “path to citizenship” until that border is secured.


Rick Perry thinks the idea of a fence or wall along our southern border is preposterous. Rick Perry is also against Arizona's effort to curb illegal immigration. In my book, these are two serious strikes against him. Also, he's a career politician with no experience in the private sector. That's three strikes.

In addition to John Huntsman misstating Rick Perry's position on the border, in the previous debate John Huntsman attacked Governor Perry for not believing in Global Warming or the Theory of Evolution. Here's my Facebook post on that:

Re: The Republican Candidates Debate: What I wish Rick Perry had said

Rick Perry was attacked by former Utah Governor, John Huntsman, during Wednesday night's debate for continuing to question 2 things: the “overwhelming scientific consensus” on global warming and the scientifically “proven” Theory of Evolution.  Rick Perry’s response was that he just didn’t feel like the “science was settled” on the Global Warming.  While I agreed with the position that Rick Perry took, I was disappointed in his response because it did not include any substantive argument.  
So, here’s what I wish Rick Perry had said::

“You say that 98%, of scientists agree with the official position on global warming.  The official position being that it is real and that man is responsible for global warming due to the increased CO2 emissions associated with his use of petroleum energy sources.  Since this “consensus” is the only argument that you cite in support of the CO2 Global Warming Theory, that is the first one to which I will respond:

 I seem to recall a story in the news a year or two back, a story that disappeared quickly but that I found quite interesting, about some emails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and some scientists at prominent academic institutions in this country, institutions that were primarily responsible for the creation and promulgation of the official Global Warming Theory in the first place.  There were multiple emails openly discussing “the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims”(1) and there were multiple emails that discussed how to suppress the publication of dissenting viewpoints and how to discredit scientists, publications, and institutions that dared to offer dissenting viewpoints.  These emails are now part of the public record. Since most of the scientists involved in the Global Warming “debate” depend on these same institutions and publications for their careers, reputations, advancement, funding, etc., I do not find it very surprising or compelling that there would be an “overwhelming consensus” among that group of individuals.

But, 98%? Are you sure? You didn't get that figure from the United Nations Panel on Climate Change did you? Cause even their own Mike Hulme, that's the same Mike Hulme that founded the University of East Anglia Climate Studies Department, (you know the University where they came up with the whole global warming thing in the first place) well, even he said that the actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts” and that The United Nations' “Panel on Climate Change misled the press and the public” and that the claim that “2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus...on the climate is disingenuous,”(2)

And global warming has not been occurring just on earth, global warming has been documented by NASA to be occurring on most of the other planets in this solar system, as well.  What are we supposed to do about that? Is Al Gore going to start selling Martian carbon credits next?

Now, many climatologists are saying that we are at the beginning of a general cooling trend that should continue for several years.  This is supported by the “theory” that the global climate is, and always has been, in a constant state of fluctuation. “The current level of global temperature in historical perspective is not unique. The average temperature of the Earth is now estimated at about 14.5 degrees Celsius. In our planet’s history there have been few periods when the Earth’s temperature was lower than the current temperature.”(3)

Without CO2, plant life as we know it would die off and atmospheric oxygen levels, not to mention food supplies, would dwindle to levels incompatible with human life!  Your “consensus” maintains that CO2 is a deadly pollutant that threatens man's survival. That's seems like a funny way to talk about a gas that is so integral to our survival and produced naturally by our very existence.

If you divide our atmosphere up into its constituent components of nitrogen, oxygen, H2O and all the trace gases of which CO2 is one, CO2 accounts for less than 400 parts per million parts of air. To put it another way, if air was $1,000 and you lost all your CO2, you'd still have more than $999.60 worth of air. That CO2 must be some powerful stuff! I mean fluctuations in such a small component having such dramatic effects on our climate? You expect us to believe that an odorless colorless transparent gas has such heat trapping power? I don't know, I have a hard time swallowing that one.

“Apparently, you want us to drive around in golf carts, read the paper by 25-watt bulbs, bathe once a month and go to the bathroom in an outhouse while Al Gore flies around the world in his jet selling his "carbon credit" scam to great and small alike.”(4)  Global Warming is just another manufactured crisis to push us towards that new world order of which Al Gore and George Soros dream.

And one last point, in defense of petroleum.  Everybody loves to bash the oil industry as the root of all evil and all that is wrong with the world.  Well, you know what, I kind of like being able to drive to the store and take trips to far away places and, while I may not actually enjoy driving to work, it sure beats walking to work.  Did you know that deforestation was a much bigger problem in this country during the early part of this century than it is now?  It wasn't until the advent of coal, oil, gas, and electric heat that we were able to begin re-foresting this great country of ours.  And, speaking of deforestation, just think how many trees have been saved, not just by heating fuel, but by the myriad of petroleum based products that have replaced tree based products.  And, don't even get me started on all of the marvelous life-saving medical innovations that would have been impossible without petroleum."

Anyway, that’s what I wish he’d said.

 As far as the evolutions thing…well, check this link out: Ann Coulter’s article dated Aug. 31, 2011, she says it much better than I can...(for now).  http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-31.html

  1. Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About 'Climate-gate' By John Lott Published November 24, 2009 FOXNews.com
  2. Progress in Physical Geography, Mark Hulme & Martin Mahoney
  3. The Cato Institute, A Few Notes On Climate Change: Andrei Illarionov 12-11-2009
  4. Climate change consensus By Jack Scott | Athens Banner-Herald | Story updated at 6:21 pm on 8/8/200
So, John Huntsman is a liberal nut a couple of times over. I don't even know what he's doing in the Republican primary. Who let him in?

And, remember, Ron Paul, who quite often says some great stuff, revealed his darker side in the last debate and is now just waiting for his poisonous words to take full effect.

Now, back to Michele Bachmann. This is a great example of what I talk about all the time. I see stuff on TV and in the news that just blows me away and nobody else seems to even notice. I haven't heard one comment, not one comment on Michele Bachmann trying to say that Gardasil® was just like RU-486, “the morning-after abortion pill”.  (see “Weird Moment #1” above )  At first, I didn't know quite what to make of that comment. But, then it was one of those things that I woke up thinking about. Something about it bothered me.

If you're not familiar with Gardasil®, it prevents cervical cancer by preventing HPV.   HPV is a sexually transmitted disease. “HPV is so common that at least 50% of sexually active men and women get it at some point in their lives. Each year, about 12,700 women get cervical cancer in the U.S. Almost all of these cancers are HPV-associated” (CDC).  Chances of a woman getting cervical cancer during her lifetime: 1 in 147.  Chances of dieing from cervical cancer if you get it...better than 1 in 3 (National Cancer Institute).

“As of June 22, 2011, approximately 35 million doses of Gardasil® were distributed in the U.S. There have been a total 68 reports of death, 1.95 deaths per million, among those who have received Gardasil®. There was not a common pattern to the deaths that would suggest they were caused by the vaccine. In cases where autopsy, death certificate and medical records were available, the cause of death was explained by factors other than the vaccine. ” (CDC)

So, while Michelle Bachman, claims that she is concerned about side-effects, including reports of deaths, associated with Gardasil®, I think that what she is really concerned about is sinners not getting punished. I'm having trouble understanding the moral difference between her position on Gardasil® and a Sharia-compliant Muslim's willingness to commit an honor killing on a family member.  If anything, Michele Bachman's position is worse, about 4,290 times worse (that's how many women will die this year from cervical cancer according to The National Cancer Institute).

So, I'm not for Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, John Huntsman, or Ron Paul. That leaves Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and new-comer Gary Johnson, though Rick Santorum is on thin ice for his weird Ronald Reagan – Wicked Witch of the West comparison in a prior debate. Herman Cain is the only one who is not a career politician which earns him extra points with me, though I don't think he has any real chance.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Coming soon...

So, here goes my first post on my first blog. Been trying to find the time to post something. Every time I sit down to write something, bill paying & my to-do list take over. How do people do it? Don't know much about blogs. I have a lot of questions. Is this like Facebook where I can “post” other people's articles that I like, or is that plagiarism? One of my co-workers (Kay) had to show me how to set this thing up. So, now I've got a blog. So, here goes....

Yeah, out of time.

When I do get started, I promise to try and keep it interesting, at least to me. 

For now, here's a link to one of my favorite authors' latest articles:  Ann Coulter