Friday, May 29, 2009

American Idol and AT&T. It does matter.

I remember when my mother got me hooked on American Idol. It was the year that Chris Doughty was the hands on favorite to win. I came in with there was 6 contestants left. Needless to say I was among the shocked when Chris finished fourth. It was beyond having a bad day. Simon when asked what went wrong his response was that the viewers must have had their volumes turned down during his performance. It was written off as his fan being too complacent to vote and he fell behind. Then the rumors of the phone lines being busy and people not being able to get through to cast their vote for Draughty. My mother was among those that couldn't get a vote in for him. The rumor that the phone company hosed him because his line was tainted. Nobody paid much attention to the rumors and accepted the complacency theory.

Then came the next year. I was glued expecting Dolittle, Latisha or Sparks to make the finals. Then came Lanisha defeat when Blake, who made it to the finals did one of the worse rendition of the Bee Gee's feeling like dancing that made me wish I went to a karaoke with a bunch of drunken Hell's Angel's because they could have had a better performance of the cacophonous display that Blake put on. To my disgust he survived while Lanisha lost. Then Dolittle a week later. After remember what happened to Doughty, the rumors flew again with the same complains and I started to get weary of the voting system because Blake never should had been in the finals. Never should had gotten close. He had is quip hip hop style, but it was extremely old at this point and was no way more talented that the top 3 women. The rumor was that Dolittle and Lanisha were going to have careers so they were going to give the title to someone that wouldn't. What we got was the worse fiasco from a Idol winner. A complete flop of a CD and does anyone know where Sparks or Blake is today? Neither do I and I don't really care.

Then last year. Cook was in the bottom three 3 times. Yet in the end, he blows the other David whose name I'll butcher if I try to spell it by 12 million votes. This was the last straw for me. I knew the voting wasn't legit. Now way was cook 12 million votes better. I knew at this point that the voting was rigged. What did we get? A bigger flop than Sparks. And then we get this year's fiasco.

This year show was absolutely the worse. The talent they selected was horrible. I rather pull my own teeth out with no Novocain than to watch the pathetic display that was American Idol this year. Then when the favorite, the first time in 4 years, get to the final, he loses to an extreme underdog. I mean was anyone surprised? Then AT&T admits that they gave cell phones in Arkansas to their hometown favorite with the ability to power text and give multiple votes to what would be the eventual winner. So AT&T admitted they gave the winner an advantage in the voting. Basically, admitted that they rigged the vote, but AT&T and AI determined that the vote was fair because the advantage that was given didn't effect the final outcome. We'll never know since they didn't deterimined how many phone were issued or how many voted and how many times.

I say to that BS. This show had too many suspicious voting irregularities and phone problems to favorites in the past. This admission just added fuel to the fire of suspected voting that was plaguing the show. Given how most are sick of Paula's drunken tirades that nobody can understand, the new judge that put us to sleep and had the show run late 3 times, and Simon departure, this will be the end of American Idol. I can't believe Americans are going to be so stupid to believe any results they get after this. I have no faith or credence that the voting is being fair or unbias. I question any results now because AT&T got caught with their pants downs and now using the old saying what are you going to believe, me or your own eyes. Well, I find the show dull and predictable now. The talent bland, and the credibility gone. If I have to hear Seacrest rip Simon again, I'm going to pimp slap him because he's a moron and irritating to listen to and gives no real incite to the show. He's just an image that does nothing for the show.

The rating this year wasn't that great, people weren't tuned to these idols and the talent base is getting worse. Worse of all, we know the voting isn't reliable and is tainted or at the very best questionable. As we seen in too many elections, voting irregularities have lead to apathy that has broken down the faith in the electoral process. If you make a vote worth less than other, people stop participating. When you rig votes and show bias to favor one candidate over another, people will just stop participating since the fix is in. When the 9th season of AI begins, I find it hard to believe anyone will take any of it seriously now. After all AT&T and AI, it does matter. When you find voting fraud, and that was these cell phones were being used for in the voting, and you write it off as being meaningless, it is really the process that becomes meaningless. Pretty much what I think of AI after all this.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

The real danger of Sotomayor.

Well, Bo has his first attempt to mold the Supreme Court to his image. Given by his first choice, he again is showing his true colors and nature. Seems the only things about this judge is that she's 1, a Hispanic (though any non white person would do), 2, a woman, and 3, a racist, and 4, a sexist. The fourth one was a surprise that I didn't think he had anything against males, but then again, a lot about the man surprises me. This is by far the most radical and extreme nominee every brought up to the supreme court and that's saying something given Ginsburg. What makes this dangerous is the political football that is being played out and given our government's history, we're going to be setting up one dangerous precedence.

This woman has stated that a woman of her race and gender is naturally wiser than a white male that hasn't gone through her experiences. Well, that's a bit of a stupid statement. Men and women are different, no matter what the feminist say, so they're going to have different experiences and have different reactions. To expect judges, who are human, to have experiences and bias that will determined how they think and judge goes without saying. That's human nature. However, when I read the definition of racism it states a belief or ideal that one is superior to another simply based on race. Well, if what she said isn't racist, as well as sexist as well, then what is? How much more bigoted can you get? This woman, especially after her opinion on the New Haven Fire Fighter case doesn't show her bigotry, then we are lost as a nation and what's ahead is going to get frightening.

This woman has been overturned in 60% of her decisions by the Supreme Court. In fact, her case against the white firefighters because the test are too unfair because not enough blacks aced them (never mind none of them actually studied for the exam, they were expected to be promoted based on race) then the test aren't fair, nobody will be promoted (unless black or Hispanic) is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court. We may have the irony this woman may rule on her own case or have it overturned while going through the nomination hearings. This woman as been chastised by CLINTON appointees as being a braggart, loud mouth, having no respect for the law or lawyers that oppose her views. A true activist judge. She doesn't believe in state rights unless it benefits the minority bigot. She makes Ginsburg look like June Cleaver in comparison and I never thought I live to see the day that could be even conceived as possible, much less see it for myself. Many on the left find her to be too extreme of the left. She as unqualified to be on the Supreme Court as Ginsberg's was with her radical views, perhaps more so.

Though she has one heck of a personal story, that doesn't make her qualified for the highest court. I was hyperactive, in Special Ed, poor, a child of a single mother. Doesn't mean I should be on the court, though I could do a better and be more judicially fair and balanced than she ever could be. If you think I have a thing against Hispanics, my life long best friend of 32 years is Mexican. I have nothing buy love for him and his family of 2 other brothers, his sister, and his mother who was a single mother. I frankly could care less about her race and gender, I only care how well will she respect the Constitution and the rule of law and her records show she respects neither. This will radically tip the court to be more towards the left than it already is because Souter, as liberal as he is, has some basis for the respect of rule of law. It's how it's to be carried out that I differ with him with. This woman makes Souter look like a Boy Scout in comparison.

Here where it's going to get dangerous. She's actually a test by BO to see if he can get a radical through this senate and onto the court. If she gets through and becomes the next Supreme Court Justice, then you can bet the next one will be even more radical. This man wants to change the court from one that respects the rule of law and the Constitution to a racial leftist communist supporting court. This way he can change our country to the Communist state that he's envision. What's worse, he most likely will get his wish. Republicans in the past have never put up a fight against radical leftist nominee. Look at Ginsburg. Supreme counsel to the ACLU, believes in international law over ours. Basically, beliefs what the laws in France say should supersede our own. Thinks the age of consent should be 12, believes prostitution is constitutionally protected, that terrorist have constitutional rights (guess it's good when it's our enemies that's being protected) and all this was revealed during her confirmation hearings. What was the final vote? 95-3. Look at what happened when Clearance Thomas was nominated. The media and dems had a cow. Got a Anita Hill to lie about sexual harassment. Her testimony and supporting witness contradicted themselves so much (two of them had the so called incidences happening months before she even met the man) and what was the final vote of that nomination? 50-50. Dan Quale broke the tie by voting for his confirmation. There was nothing in the man's background to support that we wouldn't do anything but interpret the Constitution and hold those powers as written therein and the dems still voted against him. The democrats don't care about our Constitution or rule of law. Given if Al Frankan succeeds in stealing the final senate seat, they will have a filibuster proof senate and will sail in any radical BO puts out there. However, given the Republican's history on radical nominees, I don't even think it will matter and this court will be radically changed. After all, just last fall, by a 5-4 vote, the court ruled we have the right to bare arms. Souter was one of those that voted in favor (Roberts was the traitor voting against). Now they can review it again and the vote will now be 5-4 in favor of rescinding and God only knows what else after that.

We need judges that can over come the bias of the party lines and make fair and impartial judgement based on rule of law, not personal vendettas. We're on the verge with racial tension being as they are. If we get racial bigotry in our courts and legal system, then we should all take a trip to the Balkans. The tribal and racial hatred has plagued that region for 1300 years. We'll be just bringing that bigotry and racial hatred to our system of law and bring about more balkanization of our country. Frankly, I've seen enough of it. I like to get us on the path that brings harmony to our country. I thought that was the hope and change that BO promised. Or is it, the hope and change he was promising is the hope and change the racists here wanted: to balkanized and eliminate the white race. Well, this appointment will be a step in that direction.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

The fate of "Plus 8" dad and why I married a foreigner.

Seems I have been hearing a lot about the father from the show Kate and Jon plus 8. Frankly, I have only seen the show once and completely hated it. Though the show had a wonderful premise: how two parents are going through the challenges of raising 8 children, all there own, age of 5 or under. Given our society's hatred of children, or at least of families in general, when my wife found out about the show it seemed like a heart warming series. After one episode, we couldn't take it. Instead of a heart warming story, we got grossly overwhelmed. What's going on with the father, Jon, comes as absolutely no surprise and I could had predicted it after that one episode. In fact, I did as my wife will attest to. It wasn't too difficult.

The reason why we couldn't stomach the show after just one episode was really simple: we couldn't stand his wife Kate. In the episode we saw, and from what I'm reading about it we weren't wrong about her, is that she was lazy, self centered, disdainful of her husband and her children, power hungry and just a verbally and emotionally abusive bully. It took 45 minutes before I was stating this man is going to cancel this show or have a break down because of the abuse of his wife. She insulted his commitment, his intelligence, his manhood and that's after just 45 minutes. I stated if this man has an affair, as much as I oppose them because I had just as abusive, if not worse, wife and I managed to avoid having any affair despite it because the damage it would had done to my two children, I wouldn't blame him. I did predict she would before he would but it looks like from the tabloids I was wrong on that one. Like Jon, and unlike Kate, I can admit and own up to my mistake.

What's worse, though no surprise, was how American women praised this woman for keeping her man in his place and being a strong woman. Having been enslaved to motherhood, it seemed just that this man was being exposed as the sexist pig that he was having her be a stay at home mother. We wonder why Americans can't produce enough children to keep our society growing and need immigration to increase our population. We wonder why divorce is so high, mainly filed by these "strong" women. This man does everything this witch asked, got punished for it, love his children when so many men would run to the South Pole than take such an overwhelming responsibility and the women of this country bash him for it. She constandly undermined his authority calling him being mean to their children while entrenching her power of the children and him. Women here wonder why so many men are marriage phobic.

This one episode allowed me to demonstrate to my wife, a native Filipina, why I deliverablely went searching for a wife overseas. Oh, I'll hear the hatred and insults the feminazi's will hurled at me. I got news for them, I take it as a badge of honor considering the source. Why she will never have to worry about me having an affair at all, much less from an American woman. Kate is what I call a typical AAB (arrongant American B*tch). There's a good reason when it comes to the "Mail Order Bride" system that American men are the most desired. American men have the reputation (though I wonder for how much longer given the hip hop pollution of our culture) of making the best husbands. They tend to respect their wives while treating them as equals unlike in their own country where they are 2nd to 3rd rate citizens. Their men run around and cheat on them and their culture accept it while if they did like wise, they lose everything. Oh sure, some are trying to escape poverty, to improve their lives. You're telling me Americans don't. What's worse, American women only get marry for empowerment. They use sex as an exercise of power, not for love, not for intimacy. I'll make an addendum to my statement. American women have a reputation that's rightfully earned in that they make the worse wives. You don't see foreign men seeking American women do you? Unless they're a terrorist seeking to establish a sleeper cell here, who would want them?

This show demonstrates whats wrong with American woman and why marriage is such bad shape in the US. The divorce rate has been going down lately but only because now men and women here no longer bother to get married any more. It's impossible to have a divorce when there is no marriage. K-3's applications are breaking all time highs every year because the secret is out for Western men. They are seeking foreign wives by nearly 100,000 a year and growing. What's shocking to the AAB's, the divorce rate is 20% and that's over the lifetime (for the 30 years that statistics that exist) not the rate of one given year. Women are the barometer of the happiness in a marriage (contrary to the propaganda by the feminists) and foreign wives will make you happy if you treat them well unlike Americans that are self centered and so hungry for power that will never be satisfied. Jon is going to get badly abused by the media, and the feminist here as a prime example how evil men are here and why they need to have laws making it difficult to near impossible for American men to have foreign wives through laws like IMBRA. Ladies, you're so bad and make life so miserable for everyone involved, including the children, I would move the Philippines to be with my wife if it came to that then to being married to an American again. I believe most men would too because as Kate demonstrates, a marriage to a bad woman is a hell that no 3rd world country can compete. If the feminist say good bye and good riddance to me, I say the feelings are mutual. I'll leave infuriating them with my smile on my face. I'll be sure to take Jon with me if he's willing as well.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

California is 2 for 2 (shocking).

Last week I blogged about how California voters got it right to deny any more tax increases during our special election finally telling our overtly spending state that enough was enough. Now the California Supreme Court has California 2 for 2 in one week. The court ruled upholding the properly and democratic Amendment to our state constitution was valid, fair, and proper and upheld Proposition 8. To many that don't live in the state, they were watching what this court ruled in this case. There are many states that have the same addendum to their constitutions and the gay mafia is pulling out every gun to shoot down these provision because they truly hate democracy. Their behavior and desires are in a small minority and a democracy, the laws and constitutional provision are based on a majority vote. Even in an ultra liberal state like California and an insanely liberal city like San Fransisco, they can't get these measure to pass by the ballot box. A dozen states was looking at this ruling because as the saying goes, where California goes, the country soon follows. The ruling had more at stake than most people realized because they thought this was a ruling of a single issue: gay marriage. The truth is that this ruling was a ruling about democracy. Does a small minority have the right to cancel or nullify the votes of the vast majority? The state ruled in favor of the will of the people.

There are two arguments that are tired and bogus that the hate mongering gay right activist are using to usurp the will of the people. I do use hate mongering because go to one of their protest (right now as of this writing, traffic is getting backlogged worse than the usual rush hour because of the protesters at the capital over the ruling) and see how much hate, anger, slander, aggression, and baiting that goes on during these protests. They were hoping that the courts will be the instruments to have the same techniques used in the political area. They wanted to used the courts to promote the hate, anger, slander, aggression and baiting against their enemies that far outnumber them. They wanted the courts to shove their views and beliefs down our throats and accept by force if necessary.

The first argument is that gay marriage is a fundamental right that can't be determined by the tyranny of the majority. They see it as if there is 3 men and 2 women and there's a vote to make rape legal, the men will out vote the women 3 to 2 and rape the women. That's how they see the will of the people over this issue. That some things can't be determined by a simple majority vote because of racist and bigot attitudes will super cede human rights. The court rules that the civil service and benefits of marriage is a privilege, not a right under the law. That's an accurate assessment. I can't demand the right to marry my cat if I choose. There's no benefit to society, say like issuing driver license so we're all driving on the road under the same rules and creating wrecks. By marrying a cat, there's no benefit to society or the cat for that matter. Marriage was designed to benefit society by enacting laws and safeguards to ensure the procreation of children so the society will continue. Gay marriage doesn't provide that. Some heterosexual marriages don't, but given the nature of heterosexuality, it is natural for children to be procreated vs the other where it is not unless it's done by artificial means or adoption. These are other ethical and civil matters that should be determined separately as well debated and analyzed for their benefit to humanity. So stating that it's a fundamental right doesn't follow just from the laws of nature itself.

The other is if everything was left to the voters, blacks wouldn't have the right to vote. So is the same for gay marriage. They try to use good old fashion bigotry as a reason why people can't be trusted to make the correct choice as by their standards. First of all, many whites did die and fight for the rights for blacks to vote. Anyone heard of the Civil War? White men died by the hundreds of thousand to put the final nail in the coffin of legal institutionalized slavery. The statement is a racist statement by those that want to enslave whites as a means of reparations. Not to mention many white stood and fought among African Americans during the civil right movement during the 60's. People for the most part when the chips are down will try to do the right thing and make the right choices. It's not always the case, but for the most part will. It's usually a very small minority of people that are hard core will not because someone is different that will oppress and attack them. During the 60's it was a handful of senators that kept the bills delayed and give the go around to prevent their passage. Interesting part is they were nearly all democrats. So say this is being voted this way because of hatred and bigotry against gays is just plain specious at best. It is those of us that supported Proposition 8 that are getting the death threats, having our businesses boycotted and vandalized, losing our jobs in some cases, and having our beliefs under assault.

The wrap is democracy won in the state supreme court today. Letting a small minority to intimidate us to cram their ideology down our throats would had been a major coup and a threat to our teetering republic. Now to be diligent so they don't do an end around in the federal system where they have a lot more sympathy and a President and congress all to willing to capitulate and take the will of the people away. For now, for this week at least, I can be proud of being a Californian. We're currently on a path to maintain and preserve our democracy.

The left's hate for self defense.

Everywhere we go in the body politics, we see the left undermining everything American. We're an evil nation, we torture like what the enemy does is warm and fuzzy and not members of the Geneva Conventions, we're imperialistic, we promote death, hate and depots, we're racist, just fill in the blank. When was the last time a liberal said anything positive about America? They didn't even say anything positives when BO got elected. They stated he got elected in spite of America. Seems libs have no regards for Americans except themselves. The rest of us can be damned.

What got me on this rant? It's an article that's assaulting the 2nd Amendment. It was about how "Justifiable Homicide" was skewing how evil guns are because they're not included with the murder stats. The left wants to be the only people with guns. They think they're the only ones good enough and discipline enough to use them righteously. They want those murder stats to be as high and horrific as possible to make their case that people are just too evil and violent (never mind they're the one's often arguing that the nature of man is good except Conservatives). The article gave 4 example of how a cold blooded murder happened but the evil police sided with the killer and called it "Justifiable Homicide" and didn't count on the tally of the out of control gun violence that these machines cause people to hate life and take it.

What I noticed is three of the four case were of direct self defense. I'm still confused what the point was unless that self defense is murder of the attempted murder. Two of the cases has to do with what I thought feminists, or feminazi's as I call them, would be all up in arms in support of: domestic violence. In Florida, where conceal permits are legal for all citizens that have no criminal record or record of mental issues, the claim of domestic violence is higher than most as far as the use of a gun is involved. I often wonder why this argument isn't used by the left to promote their anti-gun propaganda. Then I found out way, most of them are women defending against their abusive men. So, no outrage. So when this leftist newspaper here made this their claim, I found it to be hyprocitical of them. I guess anything to promote the cause.

The third had been shot at by some gang members trying to murder a family, so they fired back killing one of the gang members. So some thugs break in a house, start shooting, and the person doing the shooting back is considered wrong by these people? Like killing a murderous thug bent on your death is immoral. The article did state this that it's immoral to kill even if someone is trying to kill you so the shooter should had been booked for murder. I know in the Bible you are allow the right to self defense, but in the liberal minds, the murder has just as much right, if not more, to life as the person he's trying to murder. How this this writer get so fuzzy on this issue? We have the right under the law to self defense if we're attacked. I guess when the 2nd Amendment is at stake, the rules change.

The last one is the only one where I thought the writer had a point. A gang did a drive by shooting up a house that fortunately missed everyone inside. However the police wasn't able to do anything since nobody cooperate about who did the shooting and word got out they were going to come back and do it right this time. The victim went to the gang member's house and shot him first putting an end to the threat. This man went down and hunted down the perpetrator and saw to it that he killed him first. The police, knowing that his man was threatening the victim and knew that he would go through with it but lacking the necessary evidence to arrest him, found the shooter in this case to have justifiable reasons. Some thought it was a cold blooded killing. The community with their code of silence made this no win situation for both side. So long as communities are going to let gangs run things, then they are going to be responsible for the consequences. This situation can only escalate because the victim's homeys are going to seek retaliation and nobody is going to do anything to stop it. However, to use this against guns and not the hip hoppers that these thugs worship with their motto of snitches end up with stitches in the ditches that promote this code of silence, we're going to be fighting the wrong battles.

In the end, the left, other than themselves, don't want the word out how guns are effective for self defense and often are used to for defense. We don't know if we're throwing the baby out with the bath water because the numbers either aren't kept on those shootings of self defense, or is lumped up with all gun deaths. If one is going to make an argument for their case, one needs to have data to back it up. However, with the stat methods we're using today, those facts are going to be difficult at best, specious at worse. However, as this article has made clear, the left doesn't want us to have the right to self defense. One needs to ask the question as to why? The argument of protecting life from a needless death is incomplete at best because of the lack of consideration for those done in self defense which they don't seem to believe in. On that basis alone, the left should concern anyone that is fighting to preserve life.

Friday, May 22, 2009

The new faith of prisoners.

Recently in New York, a plot to blow up a synagogue was foiled. It wasn't really news that it was a group of Islamic fanatics. That part of the story is a tired and true segment that's in the news of nearly every conflict that's going on in the world. After all, of the major 16 conflicts in the world, 15 are Muslims that can't get along with their neighbors. The one exception is the Protestants/Catholic conflict in Ireland which has been going on nearly 900 years. Seem old hatreds die hard. What made this cliche attack stand out. It was who attempted the attack. It wasn't die hard Middle Eastern radicals. These men were home grown and . . . they were all paroled or released prisoners.

Islam's greatest appeals isn't happening in the streets of America, but in her prisons. When one takes a objective look at the facts, it only make sense that Islam appeals so well to the prison population here in the states. What is it about Islam that makes it so popular to the prison population? Look at what landed the criminal in prison in the first place: violence.

I have not deterred from my stand that I have no love for Islam. Just read from their evil book the Koran and it's fill with hate and the divinity of violence, hatred, death and murder. Any infidel is to be converted or killed. They're the Borg of our time. So, if you're a violent criminal and an lunatic Imam comes to you and state that his God loves and appreciates your perpetuation towards violence, what would you think. Islam takes the hate and violence these prisoners have and give them Divine blessings for them. They're taught that they're righteous and the American system that they oppose or that bringing down the man is a divine fight worthy of Allah's praise and blessings. The appeal only makes sense. It's a faith that they can be themselves and have God's blessing all the while justifying their bigotry against the society and her citizen that they committed their crimes against.

What is getting worrisome and anti-American is how our political body is supporting this. In prison, official must, by law, respect and provide the means and services for Islamic converts. They are required to let them have a mosque, provide Korans, and not infringe on their right to assemble and worship on public grounds. What happened to the separation of church and state that I hear from the ACLU? I guess mosque and state isn't included. Try doing that with a reformed and peaceful Christian faith in the prison and you'll end up being an inmate at that same prison. The war against Christian is now including the indoctrination of the enemy faith in our prisons now.

After 9-11 and the numerous attempts here on our soil, that the political body would wise up and realize that the faith is a contributor to the hatred and violence that's perpetrating these attacks. Too many think that it's the impoverished and desperate that do these attacks, hence why they are recruiting from our prisons so effectively. Take a look at most of the suicide bombers and perpetrators of the attacks are and you're in for a shock. Most are well educated (in Islam that is) but usually comes from middle class families. All of the 9-11 terrorists were well to do. None were impoverished, but the attackers of terrorism in Islam does seem to have one thing in common: criminal records.

There's a segment of Islam that's never talked about and without an understanding of it, you'll never understand the motive behind the suicide bombers and the terrorist attacks. Anyone that's study philosophy will get a study in freedom vs. fatalism. It's the fatalistic element of Islam that motives so many terrorist to be terrorists. Fatalism is the belief of predestination. That everything about one's life is predetermined. Fatalism literally means "it is written". In Islam, your fate is written, predetermined by God (Allah) before you're born. Everything that happens is all God's will. We have no choices, just puppets in God's design. The only choice we have is to choose if we will go on a jihad, or a holy war, and be willing to sacrifice our self to Allah. By making this choice, you can change God's will and be accepted into paradise after being chosen for hell. In Islam God has decided if you're going to hell or not before you're born. Now how do you know which one?

In Islam, since you're predestined to eternal paradise or damnation, how does one knows what that choice is? Simple, by how well your life goes. If you're living in mansions, have wealth, prestige, then you know you're one of the chosen ones. If you're living in poverty, left handed, an infidel, or A CRIMINAL, then you know that you're one of the damned. All 19 terrorist on 9-11 had criminal records. Strangely enough, 14 of them were convicted of homosexuality (I'm not going to make this an anti-homosexual argument, it was their "crime" that motivated them, not their orientation). So, you're in prison condemn to hell for eternity and Bin Laden's mouthpiece comes to you and gives you an option that will get you out of God's damnation list because of your crime to his paradise list. What choice would you be making?

So we have this kind of mentality and brainwashing going on in our prisons. Now they're being given a faith that not only allow them to continue their violent tendencies because they're not wrong or criminals in the eyes of Allah but to go on as before, just change their targets. To go on a jihad and they will receive God's grace. In the Middle East, it's criminals from middle to upper class prisoners who go on the rampage to regain their family's honor usually. I know this from my wife's aunts and uncles who in the past have pressured her to do likewise and her only crime in their eyes (until she converted to being a Catholic) was she was left handed. One of those curses (the biggest headache I have in my marriage is she still believes that she's cursed by God, just that it isn't Allah, but Jehovah). Islam is giving prisoners a means of rehabilitation without having to rehabilitating any of their behavior. In fact, in many cases, it makes them even more aggressive and violent.

So with Islam egging on what got them into prison in the first place giving rehabilitation without any responsibility to change for the betterment of society, or even to respect the society, it's no wonder why Islam is becoming so popular in our prisons. What are we getting once they're released? More and more anti-Semitic attacks and who knows what's next. Who know what sleeper cells are out there from these prisons and the teachings they've received while in prison. I hope that I'm wrong. I just know the 3 to 5% of those that end up in prison do enough damage to our society and only about 1/3rd of them are violent. I can only fear what will happen when the worse of the worse are released on a holy jihad. This policy of letting Islam spread while Christians are locked out need to be either stopped or go both ways. The ACLU and CAIR should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it too. Otherwise we become no different than the banana republics of the Middle East. I do know, attacks like those attempted in New York are going to continue and escalate.

The myth of homophobia.

I've read some crazy law enforcement and court rulings, but this may take the cake on absurdity and should really get us riled up against the homosexual mafia that has seen to take a hold in our body politics. If that makes me a homophobic, you got it wrong because a phobia is an unreasonable fear (see my blog about Islamophobia) of something. I have no fear against gays. In fact, I've found that I get along better with them than many heterosexuals, but I have no such desires. I've often have determined that their behavior, as long as it's kept in the privacy of their own home, doesn't harm me in any way, so I have no ill will or malevolence against them. What I do have a problem with is that I should by force accept their behavior as normal and allow them to display it if I own a Christian business or in my church. I don't believe in dictating what they do in the bedroom, that will be between them and God, but when they do force their beliefs on me outside their bedroom, I have a problem.

In Britain (seems a lot of crazy laws and rulings are coming from England lately) a man has been convicted of a hate crime, the crime of homophobia because some were "feeling" threaten by this man. One claimed that he fear that this man is going to come out and stab him. What was it this man was doing? He was video taping them in a public park where his children often play in and turning it in to police as evidence as lewd acts are being done in public which is an actual crime in Britain. Well, the English aren't seeing it that way. Even though the only thing this man is armed with is a video camera that's set on record, they find this is an act of hate against these people because of their sexual orientation. So now this man faces years in prison for the act of being vigilant to keep sexual acts being done in public so his children won't have to be a witness of it.

In this case, I would say what they do in the privacy of their own home is none of our business, but these guys are doing it in public. Though recording prostitutes in the act isn't considered a hate crime, provided it's a heterosexual act that's being preformed. I could argue that's a hate crime under this reasoning because it's sexaphobic. After all, aren't prostitutes allow to have the right to make a living? Perhaps, I'm not going to debate the morals of prostitution (though I do oppose it, you're not going to stop it either) so what boundaries are we going to accept as acceptable and reasonable. Last I checked, I could go out naked, play with myself and say I have a right to privacy. The public sexual exhibitionist are making that claim and that the only reason they're being target is their homosexuality, so this man should go to prison. Well, it doesn't work for me taking care of my own business in public and this argument is spacious. It's an attempt of making anyone that opposes anything on morals grounds, especially Christian moral grounds, as being a hate crime and silencing them. Freedom of speech, especially against homosexuals and Islamic hate mongers, is gone. Now this man just trying to have the decency laws of his community enforced is now is looking to be the sacrificial lamb for the enemies of free speech and the homosexual mafia that has plagued the western world. I'm all for privacy and keeping my nose out of it. It should go the same the other way around. A man shouldn't go to prison for doing the right thing because a group just doesn't like their views but that's seems to be the mentality in England today. What we should worry about is that the US is next. If you think I'm crazy, just look at what happened to Mrs. California and she was just expressing an opinion that she was asked directly about. No acts, no obtaining evidence, or even "harassing". The left here went berserk calling her a hate monger and a few other names I can't repeat here. How long til it will be a crime for how you think, even when there's no malevolence? Freedom is dead in England now, and soon the US if good people are going to continue to do nothing. We don't accept hetrosexuals performing sex acts in public, why are we allowing homosexuals?


Wednesday, May 20, 2009

California Voters Got It Right (For Once).

The big news in the state of California is the overwhelming defeat of the tax increase propositions that were on the ballots in the special election on May 19th. By a 2 to 1 margin California voters told the extremely liberal state congress and Arnold that we're not paying any more taxes. The govorinator is quoting "Californians wants expensive state services yet don't want to pay for them." This from a governor who's citizenry is already the most taxed Americans in the union. Now he doesn't get why we don't want to pay anymore? I guess those Hollywood types really do live protected lives. Here's why Mr. Govorinator why your propositions were soundly defeated and why tax and spend liberals (yea, he's a Republican, but in the end he's another RINO) got soundly defeated.

First, this notion that we want expensive state services. What gave him that idea? I'll go over the list he quoted. About cutting education, don't get me started on this one. I was a teacher for a year and anyone that's read my previous posts know I am no fan of the public education system here. I'll go over why: CORRUPTION! Most voters are working families or divorced parents that have to deal with the effects of the public education system. My ex wife, an ultra liberal herself, has finally had enough of the insane corruption that's put the education system in total decay. If I was Governor, or at least the head of the Board of Education in the state, I could put a dent out of the spending insanity with just two policies but can do enough savings with the biggest one: 12 administrators for every 100 teachers. The public education system have 112 administrators for every 100 teachers and those administrators make 3 to 5 times more than what teachers make. It's doesn't take a math teacher to figure with 57% of those in education accounting for nearly 3/4 of the spending and they have nothing to do with educating the students of the state, well imagine if one was to cut the saturated deadwood by 93% would do. That would put spending in education to 1/2 of what it is now, with no cuts to the number of teachers in the classroom. In fact, you could put more teachers in the classroom as well as more supplies. However the teacher's union that support these administrators have too much power over the democrat party that controls over 65% of our government. Now they don't get a raise at our expense and the voters know it.

Next, he complains that we don't want to cut medical care. Well, I like to know what voter gets medical care provided by the state? This one could be dramatically cut by one policy change and one that is such a hot political football for reason I still can't comprehend: Illegal Immigration. 80% of the spending by the state for medical care is for the care of illegal immigrants, mainly from Mexico. My wife is a legal immigrant and can't get this free care, nor can I and I'm a native Californian. I wonder if I could get free medical care in Mexico (and even if I could, would I even want it?)? The cut to medical is desired by the California except to needy CALIFORNIANS, but that's not how the federal mandates as well as the state policies work. It's not that Californians don't want medical care cut, it's the illegal political lobbyist interest groups that don't. Since most Americans are too timid to stand up to these racist invaders and their legal groups, the state will pony up the costs and blame the degrading of our access and abilities to the unwilling tax payers.

The last one I just couldn't believe he actually said it. We complain about cutting law enforcement. I don't know about you, but when I'm in trouble by criminal thugs, I'm calling a cop, not the ACLU, La Raza, or the Teacher's Union. The only real function that government is suppose to provide is the protection of life and property. Perhaps protections from fraud, but I consider that protection of property. If we're going to cut that from the budget, then what's the point of having a government at all? That statement from the governor shows his complete ignorance of what his job is and unfortunately it's too late, but should be grounds for his recall. Anyone government official that doesn't get that their main function is to protect life and property of their citizens isn't fit for office.

So governinator and your leftist cronies in the assembly and senate got a rude shock. We the people are sick and tired of being taxed to death to pay for special interest and illegal non citizen at the expense of our safety. What shocks me is that they're actually surprised. They thought we were willing to cough up more money in a state where jobs are leaving in droves because of the high costs of living here and excessive taxes and regulations. Our unemployment rate is approaching 11% (given the way government juggle numbers of bad news, it's more likely 22%) while giving up what little money we have left to give to them. The voters by 2 to 1 finally had it and said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! And truth be told, if I could leave here, I would. Now that this government was finally given the word they're not used to hearing NO!, will they heed to the will of the people and finally do the right thing for this state or will we go with the status quote of bypassing the will of the people by legislation by the bench through the courts. Given the history of this state, I'm not optimistic. For now, I'll give my praise to my fellow Californians which is something I don't often because I don't think well of the people's intelligence here. For once, you got it right. Now be diligent and stick to our guns so the politicians don't take us to cleaners through the courts.

The high costs (and Tax) of Transporation.

One of the great freedoms we have in this country is often the one we most take for granted. We all know about freedom of speech which is under assault, freedom of religion which is under assault if you're a Christian, freedom to choose our Representatives, freedom to be educated, or the freedom to choose our own path and destinies. However, one freedom that never gets any mention or credit: our freedom of movement. Look at what happens in totalitarian states, how often does a person have a right to move about to other countries, within their own country, or even within their own city? Must movement is often restricted. Just take a look at some sections of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan where women not only forbidden to drive cars, but can't even show their faces (literally) in public without a male escort. The ability to move about without any infringement of the powers to be is a freedom that should be guarded. However, here in the state, we have taken that freedom for granted and now our lack of vigilance is about to hit us and most likely in ways we never would had envisioned.

Our current administration had created two policies that will infringe on this freedom and nobody really is taking noticed. The first is the war against global warming, pardon, I mean global climate change. After all, when the cultist need to cover his rear end when his illusion is exposed so he can keep his fraud going. We're going to regulate the co2 that's produced to combat this climate change. Never mind that the proof of our contribution which is about (remember, I know how to analyze statistics) .3% of all the so called greenhouse gases that's produced. The rest is created by nature and geological means like volcanoes that produce about 93% of all the greenhouse gases. So we're going to basically going to destroy what's left of our manufacturing base to regulate a gas which benefits will be insufficient at worse, suspect at best. How they're planning to regulate this gas should have all of use sipping tea: taxes.

The plan is to sell ration cards like those that were used during World War 2 to conserve energy. Saving energy is a worthy cause, however why are we rationing a resource we're not short on while we're not at war on a global scale, not like in World War 2. We have enough supply to provide our needs. Now BO and company, for the sake of the earth of course, is going to have us have to BUY the right to use any energy all in the name to regulate the co2. That means you're going to have to buy ration cards, which goes to the government's general fund so it's a value added tax, so you can just USE the energy. That means when you go to pay your electric bill, you will need these ration cards or the electric company will have to turn off your power. So using your computer to read this is going to require you give your tribute to Uncle Sam. The gas you use to heat your house is going to require you to contribute more to Uncle Sam. The gasoline you put in your car is going to cost you because you're going to have to have those pesky ration cards. Even a flight will cost more because the airline, as well as you, are going to have to purchase the limited carbon credits. Now, soon, we're going have to choose having the lights on vs. heating the house vs being able to get to work (if there's still a job left to go to). So our freedom of movement is going to be infringed by this tax. Not to mention staying in the 20th century. What's more insulting: the government, as usual, will be exempt from these policies, so they can still suck up as much juice, use as much gasoline, and heat up the building as hot as they like. That goes for agencies as well as personal. How fair, heh?

The other infringement is the regulations they're putting on the auto industries. We're hearing about the gas mileage, which I personally have no beef against. I've been driving smaller more efficient cars all my life because I don't want to contribute to the wealth of the oil companies as much as anybody else and they full fill my transportation needs. However, what BO is planning is we're going to go the way of Europe in the ridiculously small tin cans on wheels that nobody will want to buy (thus we'll be forced to). Those that need heavy duty vehicles for the ranch, farm, or the construction they work for will be out of luck. I can only imagine what this will do for the construction industries. Perhaps they'll join a government branch to get the exemption that will be needed. Many of these regulations, especially the "going green" regulation are just unrealistic. As I do my studies of mechanical engineering, I'm learning the difficulty of "green" power. Mainly it's a source that can't be stored or needs a massive volume of storage room. They're not economically viable at this time and BO's attempt to force it down our throats isn't going to make it happen. All it's going to do what regulating supplies always does: create scarcity. Soon nobody will be able to go anywhere and we're all going to be in a great deal of confinement.

The wrap is that the path to hell is paved with good intentions. The flames of hell are heated hotter when the good intentions are layered with unrealistic expectations. What we got is an administration thinking of a good intention, eliminating co2, with unrealistic expectation, we can go green if we force everyone to do so, and the result will be catastrophic not to mention a restriction on our ability to move about. If one thinks walking or biking will be the wave of the future, remember China already does that and they're the biggest greenhouse polluter on the planet and will not be a part of this reduction of the greenhouse gases. So in the end, what are we going to be giving up a good deal of our freedoms for and how sufficient affect will it have. Seems given the current technology, seems we're going to be giving up a lot to gain a very minimal, if any, benefits. That's not change I support and I doubt people voted for. In third world countries the lack of mobility is the greatest impediment to the citizens there. And for us, it won't just restrict our movement, but anything that uses fuel. Even mowing our lawn will be problematic. So Godspeed all.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Democrat Hypocrisy.

BO has broken so many promises it's hard to keep track of them all. I'm sure he can't keep track of them as well since he never intended to keep most of them in the first place. One of those promises that he's broken is the closing of Gimto with the continuing of the military tribunals. Normally I would be delighted about the president actually doing the right thing. However, two things about this broken promise should disturb us with the biggest being downright hypocrisy.During Bush's reign, the media and the left totally hammered Bush over the so-called unconstitional detaining of the enemy combatants by having them held at Gitmo. The outcry of tyranny over this was deafening by the media and the Democrats in Congress. They were seeing these detainments as violations of human rights. Like the animals being detained are being detained there are human or at least worthy of "human rights". The people, and I use that term loosely in this case, are among the worse of the worse of terrorist that were captured in the battlefield. These men would cut their own mother’s throat if it served their purpose. They would hesitate to cut your mother’s or child’s. Just ask my wife who had seen what they’re capable of twice. The left including the evil ACLU and the terrorist legal team of CAIR with the complicatedness of the media spewed propaganda of civil and humanitarian right violations over the Bush administration over this policy. As much I wasn’t a fan of Bush because he was more of leftist liberal than a conservative, this policy was the right thing for our protection and the likes of the ACLU and CAIR would rather see you dead than these evil monstrosities.

Now that BO is holding the reins and he’s decided that closing Gitmo and proceeding with the military tribunals isn’t such a bad idea, saddening the media is spinning as an act of patriotism and sound leadership. So a leftist Socialist like BO is doing the “human rights” violations saddening everything is good and right. So Bush was evil and wrong while BO is righteous and proper. This reeks of so much hypocrisy that it should make a reasonable person disgusted. This is the case of what goes on in backward Islamic countries. They mainly fight for which thug is in power and will try their enemies for doing the exact same thing they’re doing. Since it’s their guy that does it, it’s right. When the other guy does it, it’s blasphemy. I thought we in the US were beyond such petty and stupid dichotomy. I guess I was mistaken. Had the left and the media admitted they made a mistake or was using the Gitmo football for political reason, I could have respected them for coming clean about it. Instead, we get the same lame brine that comes from the left.

The second thing that should disturb us was the one part of the policy of the Bush administration that I completely didn’t agree with: the detainment without cause. Under the policy, which was started by FDR during World War II, were the presidential powers to hold, detain without charges, assert military tribunals, and the execution of enemy combatants. An enemy combatant was a term drawn up during the Geneva Convention to define a terrorist. So having the war of terror, oh, pardon, oversea contingency operations, being too vague in the first place. During World War II we knew who our enemies were and once caught committing acts out of uniform they fit this definition of enemy combatant. The same was done during the occupation of German against the Wolf packs of saboteurs and terrorist that still supported the defeated Nazi’s. However, with this vague war on terror during the Bush’s administration, anyone that was viewed as a potential terrorist was classified as an enemy combatant. Under FDR someone must had committed or attempted an act that was defined as being fighting out of uniformed to commit terrorist acts. There was clear definition of what an enemy combatant was. Under Bush’s doctorate, anyone could be defined as a “potential” terrorist simply because the government doesn’t like them. Other than those out of uniform committing acts of terrorism, there were no clear guidelines. Given the now repealed memo of those potential right wing terrorist, this administration could easily decide those that don’t tote the party line, are in the military, protect us from those the government send loose on the population as potential terrorist. Heck, they view anyone that part of a 3rd party (which I’ve voted for in the past because of my dissatisfaction of the two party system) is a radical and potential terrorist. Those of us in 3rd parties are tired the same ole, same ole. We want reform to have our republic response to represent those that sent them, not to special interests and having it in reverse. This administration has shown that it views anyone with opposing views of the status quo as being dangerous even though nobody because they were a 3rd party support ever advocated acts of violence.

Given this party’s paranoia about their opposition and their lust for power, this power had the potential for great abuse and was why I was never a supporter. Now that the hypocrites have control of it makes me more fearful for the future of this country. Worse yet, many of the voters, hypocrites themselves it seems by the lack of accountability and outrage of this flip flop, are looking to be all to willing to let us slip down this slope. Just as long it’s their guy that’s doing it. Seems the terrorist have won. We’re starting to think and behave just like them just as long as we have our thug running things.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Who will rule: those seeking redemption and the righteous or the greedy and corrupt.

I often watch sci-fi shows. They often make me think about ethics, morals, the direction of humanity, and consequences of actions that most in the major media outlets as well in politics and academia often tend to overlook and just want to ignore as unnecessary or worse, as just plain wrong. Seems in the world of right and wrong everything is shades of gray. Moral relativism, as stated previously, has a stranglehold in our political and academic bodies here in the western world. Even the religious schools are starting to follow suit and we wonder why so many are turning their backs to God and morals.

The episode was from the show of The Outer Limits called Heart's desires. It's of four outlaws (cattle rustlers and murders) in 1872 Oregon that are granted by an alien (why does OL always have aliens in it?) disguised as a preacher that gave these criminals the ability to turn matter into energy. Basically the power to disintegrate anything they wish as well as any weapons or projectile, say bullets, to be useless against them. To they have the power of complete destruction. Well, you know what they say about absolute power. Three of them use their new powers for evil. Rob, steal, and murder. One is seeking redemption because he doesn't like what he's became before the power was granted to him. For one of them, he realizes how evil his partner is when after a posse tried to kill them and realizing they can't touch them, he kills one of them anyways. The man killed simply because he could not because the men were a treat. This leads him to turn on the partner but not as adept, he's killed instead.

Two of men are brothers. One of the brothers is the one seeking redemption. They're feuding over how he wants to put an end to his crime spree and start anew. The older brother wants nothing to do with it using his past as grounds that what he seeks is no longer possible. The brother are betrayed over money stolen from his by the other two (now one) and seeking revenge (the evil one scarred him). They get into a brawl that leads the older brother to kill the surviving partner and then turn on his brother when we refuses to continue having the alien who's witnessing this spectacle, to take the power back from him (in fact, he never uses it). The older brother proceeds to finish him off while the younger brother ex girlfriend (why he wants to redeem himself) tries to shoot him. The experiment for the alien is over and he takes the older brother's power and the girlfriend kills him.

So what was the alien reasoning behind all this? The alien is a conquer and they test a planets threat to them not by the best that the society has to offer, but by the worse. He was witnessing what our malcontent will do and see if they will be a threat against their invasion or not. Given that in the end, friend fought friend, brother fought brother, the alien figured that we will annihilate each other before we even built our first interstellar engine. His conclusion: we are not a threat to them and most likely they don't need to invade the planet. Just wait til we kill each other off first then can just waltz in.

So what was the main moral of by the writer of this story. The author asks the question: who will rule us? Those that seek redemption and righteousness or the greedy and corrupt? Over 100 years later, the outcome is still in doubt. What a heavy dose of thinking there. As I look at what's going on around the world, the outcome is nowhere near in doubt. Just look at the rulers of today with all our technological advances. We can convert matter into energy today. That's how a nuclear device works. What good is coming from that? Only MADD has kept it in check so the corruption of our own self interest has kept that power in check, but for how long? Most of the world is ruled by kings and dictators. The western powers are falling into decadence with the corruption and greed by the representatives in their congress or Parliaments. Then there's the UN. The most corrupt and greedy institution ever created by man. Can anyone really find a leader that's concern with the betterment of their citizens over their own greed and corruption? If you can, I sure would like to see it. Because as long as we're overwhelming being ruled by greed and corruption, we're going to be an endangered species and our time of reckoning maybe sooner than we think. Al-queada terrorist are just 60 miles from obtaining nukes, or perhaps just a year away from developing them themselves. Once that happens, all bets with MADD are off. These people greed and corruption is rewarded through death and destruction. There's nothing to keep them from wanting to use these weapon and we will be on the verge of total self annihilation. Thus the alien antagonist in this story will be right and they will have nothing left to fear from us. In the end we will do their dirty work for them all the while doing nothing to prevent. The good people need to stand up and stop this. Otherwise we will all suffer the fate of greed and corruption: death.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Gender Selection.

The abortion issue is taking horrid and frightening turns. The latest ruling in Sweden should be of concern for everyone, but most are taking the side of the abortionist and the reasoning behind it should scare any freedom loving person. In fact, I'm starting to fear for the survival of the human race from the reasoning coming from this group. I think Hitler would be pleased with the tide that coming from this leftist position.

So, what was the ruling and why it should bother us? The ruling was that pregnant women have been seeking to find the gender of the baby they're carrying so they can decide to keep it or abort it. Basically, the Swedes are aborting boys. Feminists have emasculated men so badly now that any potential parent now are deciding to be rid of the evil males before they're born. The ruling was that gender selection is legal and can't be infringed. Wonderful. The legalization of genocide based on gender. Basically, they've allowed the death of a person because of their gender. I believe the feminazis have a word for that: sexism. They have legalized female sexism and grant them the right of life and death based if the child is a male.

The ruling is based that a woman has a right to choose and just because the choice is based on gender doesn't give the state the right to infringe on that right. Really? Well, Hilter wanted the right to exterminate people based on their race, social, or financial status. Heck, even the handicap and homosexuals were targeted. So how is this any different, other than the decision is based on what individuals wants which is basically girls. I know of the argument that they can make the same decision for boys, but lets face it, they're not. If they were, this ruling would had been completely reversed over that it's genocide against girls and it's signing a death sentence against girls. Basically, this ruling was made because boys are viewed as being naturally evil while girls are naturally good. The ruling would had been in for the protection for the girls and society in general because a society can't survive without their women. I guess the same doesn't apply to males.

Now that so called free countries, or at least the European socialist, have determined that boys are expendable, who's next? If women decide they don't want any Caucasian in their child will that be OK? I think it will. Now, what if they don't want any black, Asian, blue eyes, brown eyes or red hair? When would it end? At what point will people realize that by having absolute freedom over life and death will eventually cheapen all life to the point that nobody will be interested in preserving it unless it's their own? We all seem to think that once a person is born, then it's established that it's a living person worthy of protecting, but take a look at history and current events, you would know that's not true. At least in parts of the world.

In Africa, where most everyone is black, tribes are trying to exterminate each other. Arab Muslims think they have a right to exterminate black Muslims in Dafur. To take the classic, in South Africa, blacks have a right to kill whites if they wish as long as they claim it was caused by public mayhem. What person that doesn't want to go to prison or be executed isn't going to claim public mayhem. The Abu Sayyaf will exterminate any fellow Filipino if they're not Muslim (and still may if they are). There are many examples of life being cheapen even after they're born. To make excuses to exterminate because of certain traits will just exasperate these physcotic reasoning of those that would kill because they don't like someone, their race, their faith, their gender, pick a reason. It's a deadly fight to have any morals to protect life and property in the living world and it's an never ending and difficult fight that always threaten the survival of the human race. The last thing humanity needs now is continue reasoning and a accumulated list of reason why to terminate them before they're even born. I fear humanity can't survive this level of destruction. Let's face it, this is eugenics and humanity can't survive eugenics.


Tuesday, May 5, 2009

U.K is K.O'd

So, are you here to read about my view on the fight were, to my wife's delight as Pacman is a big hero in her home country. Well, sorry, but that is not what this blog is about. Turns out England has shown their surrender to their principals today when they exposed a list of 16 people that they are banning from the country which include: an Imperial Wizard (don't blame them there), the head of Hamas (well, they are a group of terrorist thugs), the Hezbollah terrorist that was released by Israel that murdered a 4 year old girl by hitting her head with a rifle butt. Basically a lot of horrible people. However, the one name that's garnering the most attention, and I think the real reason behind this list, is a radio talk show host: Michael Savage.

Seems strange that Savage, who I have listen to since he debuted 15 years ago and one of the few that I can stand to listen to consistently, though at time I think the man needs to take a chill pill because his angry overtones can be a bit to handle, he's the only one that consistently speaks his mind. You get to know this man because his biggest draw isn't the political commentary, though that does garner a lot of attention, but his life stories. He's the man in the street that we could meet in real life, not many of these phony baloney's that claim to be conservatives then turn their backs on us when the heat is too hot in the oven. He's the number 3 syndicated show (behind Rush and O'Reily) and could easily take number one if he truly wanted it. He's humble enough to know if you're number one you've got no place to go but down.

Seems lately, he's been in the cross hairs of both parties because this man is an independent conservative. He doesn't just tote the party lines like the two parties in control often do. He speak independently of his own opinions. As he says often, if anyone from the UK ever listen to his show, just one man's opinion. His motto is his support of Borders, language, and culture and how the political body have been assaulting the borders, language and culture, which what makes a nation and form their sovereignty, and holds no barge on exposing those that corrupt and break down our nation's sovereignty.

The biggest issue that seems to get Dr. Savage (He has a Ph'd from the University at Berkley in epidemiology) is his stance on illegal immigration. His very first show was on his study (which was published by the way) on immigration and the spread of diseases. When the swine flu hysteria was at it's zenith, he vehemently criticized the BO administration for not closing the borders with Mexico where the flu epidemic had originated. As done in history, when a outbreak starts, one tries to contain the outbreak and keep it from infecting the healthy population. When the administration made their stupid comment of can't do it because it's like closing the barn after the horses escaped. Well, the dumbness is that there are millions of horses still in the barn, he just rather let them all get sick than to offend the racist Mexican base. This sparked a tirade form Rep. Stephen Israel (D-Hampton's) that called MS a hate monger, a liar and needs to be pulled from the air because he is fragmenting hate against Mexicans. Now, no more than a week later, UK does and using the same stupid and downright lie that Israel used. Almost quoting him verbatim. This raises my suspicion that as the Administration work to shut down talk radio, Micheal Savage, the one who will fight against it to the bitter end is now targeted by the UK. Seems like a first step, since the liberals are internationalist to use this as a legal presence to shut him down. If you're thinking I'm a comspirialist, just look at the work of Stephens and Ginsburg in the Supreme court. They have tried to used such reasoning in their court rulings and this wouldn't be that far of stretch. If the UK find this hate speech, why aren't we?

Folks, liberals and conservative alike, should be outraged that Michael Savage have been made equal to terrorist and mass murders. To quote that his presence would incite hate and "disrupt public policy" is doublespeak. Given how the mosque do way more than anything he's ever done while screaming in the street of going to hell, we will cut your throat and we're going to convert and kill you all is protected, but saying closing the borders to stop the spread of Swine flu is hate speech, England has got some serious issues and they're all perverted. If a man can be banned because of the way he thinks, then who's next? Who will decided what thinking is in the best of "public policy"? This is step towards tyranny and I don't find it a coincidence that this Brit uses the same language and only empathize Michael Savage and how what he says and think, though it never had lead to any violence, needs to treated the same as terrorist tells how this government doesn't get the war that's right in their own back yard. The UK made a huge mistake. He's not going to go down and unlike the check suit Republicans, he will fight them and he will sue this defamer and most likely will win. If not, then we have a lot more to fear now than swine flu. We will have to morn the death of the freedom of speech.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

First Mate of Pirated Hijacking calls Rush a racist, but not pirates.

When I look over why we're not only losing the war on terror, oh I mean the oversea contingency against man made disasterists. I try to say that seriously, but just really can't take it seriously. I'm going to stick with the War on Terror because that's what we're at war against: terrorists. BO's soft selling the evil that these monsters promote doesn't make it less evil and makes BO more evil because he's trying to sell that we the US are the true terrorist and evil ones for fighting them. BO is on their side so is fighting the fight as they have: with propaganda. It seems that it's having the desire effect as the first mate of the hijacked freighter has come out against one of BO's staunchest critics: Rush Limbaugh.

I used to be a listener of Rush. A ditto head. However, I found the man to be too much a blow hard and supported issues that I just plain didn't agree with and that he was nothing more than a promoter of himself and only interested in his bottom line, not the American people. I stopped listening to him over 16 years ago because I couldn't stand listening to him support Clinton and his support of NAFTA which I felt was Ronald Reagan's biggest mistake by opening up trade that would open up our borders worse (which at the time we had 3 million illegals in country and the medical and social warfare components of our society was starting to feel the strain especially for the lawsuits that were building at the time). After 3 weeks of this, I couldn't take it anymore and stopped listening. However, I could tell you from the 7 years I was a listener, to call Rush a racist and race baiter is way out of line. The man is all for personal responsibility and we're responsible for our actions and we are to work for the betterment of the whole, and the country. Bigotry destroys societies (just ask the Confederacy) and he never has and never will accept racist attitudes. Anyone that makes such a claim is either a bigot themselves or just plain hasn't listen to his show and taking things out of content by listening to his enemies only.

So what was it that got his goat? That Rush talked about how the President did the right thing by taking out those black Muslim teenagers. Well, I like to know what was inaccurate in that statement. They were black, they were teenagers, and given how the racial Wahhabi Muslims control the feudal states that dominate the country since the centralized government collapse decades ago, I like to see the evidence that they weren't Muslims. After all, it's the Muslims that are behind the overwhelming majority of piracy all over the seas. There was nothing unreasonable in the statement. I would tend to agree with the first mate that I don't personally care if they're black or not or what their religion is. His statements though shows his ignorance in what's going on and he saw evil in the eye and instead of calling the Muslim pirate evil, he's calling those that criticise these animals as the evil ones.

First, calling Limbaugh as a race baiter. What in his statement was baiting. Sure, he see bait as something that you use to catch fish, but what does that have to do with his comments. What was he trying to instigate? A fight against these pirates? Is that the bad thing? If it is, then this man is not only naive, but stupid. He saw what these "teenagers" are capable of. He was held at gunpoint by these pieces of human debris, but he sides with them and attacks Rush. The first mate claimed had Bush done the same thing, he would had been seen as a hero as well. This show how this young man doesn't have a clue what's going on. The Administration is looking at criminal charges by BO because they "tortured" detainees that were no way in danger of taking their lives. I shutter to think if Bush had gave this order that did kill three of these worthless parasitic monstrosities. He's just plain wrong. The press would had been all over Bush claiming the killings were racially motivated and didn't give diplomacy a chance.

And lets add another fact to this equation. What do you think these "boys" would be doing with the ransom should they had gotten it? Buying fancy cars and jewelry to show off to the homeys at home? They are financing weapons to expand their war. They have been fighting a feudal war in their country for decades. You see, in Islam, they don't fight for freedom (they're against it) or from persecution (they actually believe in it). They fight mainly for one cause (other than Islam itself) and that is for their thug to be in charge. They fight for political and economic power. They're gangster basically. So the money they're getting is going to be put to use for one of two reasons: Promote the war for Islam and to entrench their leader's power hold at home. Not for a steak dinner or a night out at the movies. That statement of how they're looting these ship to feed their family just made me want to take him and give him back to the pirates. Then perhaps he would wake up and smell the coffee of the true nature of these groups and why they're pirates in the first place.

This is all too indicative of why the war on terror is lost. We don't even believe there is such a war or that our enemies are even terrorist. We keep buying in the propaganda of Rosie O'Donnell of how they're just poor dads just trying to feed their families. They're better than us because they're fighting for what we take for granted. My gosh, if a sailor who see the evil and hatred in their enemy's eyes and still doesn't get it. Still think it's about just basic humanitarian needs, not the root of the problem: Islam and her prejudices. Then not only the war is over, we're just waiting to see what terms they want to accept our surrender is. I can tell you this much, it isn't going to be pretty and when their terms are delivered to us in the river of blood as often it is promised to us one thing is becoming overwhelming clear. We're going to blame ourselves and help promote those terms upon ourselves. After all, when you see it for yourself and still in denial about the nature and goals of your enemies, they not only won, they're going to use you for their own perversion and enjoyment. So when the nuke goes off here, be prepared for our government to protect the terrorist, blame the victims, and promote more of the same. What saddens me is how too many are going to accept it. Even at the costs of their own lives.