Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Media reports that economic downturn has lead to decrease in having children is basically a half truth.

There's recent numbers showing that Americans are having less children during this economic downturn. It would come as no surprise as more and more Americans are making less and less money all the while what little they have are losing more and more purchasing power. It's the argument that the cost of having children is the reason behind this decline. Though there is a degree of truth behind the "if you can't feed them, don't breed them" mentality, the truth is that the economic strength is really an insufficient element to our declining birth rate. The truth is the birth rate in the country was declining long before the economic downturn and the reason is one of the biggest cover ups in the media and education system.

The big comparison was that before the recession started in 2008, Americans were having children at a rate of 15.8 per 1000 people, or about 1.58%. Now the rate is 14.2, or 1.42%. The comparison that should had raised some flags that something more is going on here is when they make the comparison to the birth rate during the great depression: 20 per 1000 or 2.0%. Seems that the birthrate before the economic recession or depression, depending on what numbers you look at, was nearly 50% lower than during the great depression and these numbers weren't all that different during the boom years of the 90's, so it seems that the economy is playing a very small role. What's worse, the birthrate has been in decline for nearly 20 years. Only because of immigration, and much of it illegal, has the birth rate maintain a minimal rate and increase of the US population. So what's the core of why Americans, other than naturalized citizens, are having children?

Actually, my wife hit it on the head when she stated to me, "One thing about Filipino women, we sure do love our babies. American women only seem to only love themselves." It was at that moment I had an epiphany about one of the hard core reasons why America is dying (The other is the corruption of the voters), we hate America so much and we're so narcissistic now, we no longer want to procreate. I don't mean we don't want to do the horizontal mambo, but we don't want to have off springs. The movement that has done the most damage to our culture in our desire to procreate has been the modern feminist movement.

When was the last time feminist supported family, procreation, or even America for that matter? They're good at fighting for the right for women to be able to pursue their dreams. Be free to choose for themselves. What's often left out is they're really for oppression: of men and children. You see, they're for pursuing their dreams, as long as their dreams don't involve a man or children. They're all for choice as long as that choice is for abortion or career. Why do they go ballistic over any restriction of abortion as a method of birth control? Never mind the rare cases of criminal activities or health. Seventy percent of abortions are used as the PRIMARY means of birth control. The other 27% is when the optional other method fails. So why the RIGHT to terminate? It's the war against the family. This is why so many are lesbians and fight for "gay rights" especially gay marriage. It's to demean and desecrate the family.

You see, feminists think anyone can be a mother. Even the stupidest and most useless female, thus only stupid and useless females should procreate. They have a derogatory term for them: breeders. Those that have smarts, those that have "real value" can make a difference by advancing themselves in the job market. It's through works and their career advancement that a woman places their worth. Geesh, they say men have bad egos. Children, you see, interferes with this changing of the world and their careers. After all, no woman worth anything should ever relay on a man to support her. Hence why those that have a dream involving a man or children are disdained. It's demeans the value of their cause. Thus, more and more women are choosing not to have children over their careers. Not to say one shouldn't if they so do choose, but why is so much of their value as women placed on how much they make. That's what men tend to do. Last I check, one of the most important job is raising the next generation to competently take over when the current generation ages. The leftist baby boomers, including these feminists, are about to learn how valuable.

With the hatred of men, family, American values it seems, the feminist that gave the females these liberties are about to face a major crisis. They're going to retire shortly and far too many, because they were either too stupid or lazy, are going to completely rely on Social Security for their retirement. The problem is that there are so few workers now to support what will become a glut of retirees, that the Ponzi scheme of SS is going to collapse. Seems everyone think the government will bail Social Security out, but with what? IOU's? Oh wait, that's what's in all the SS accounts. Worthless printed paper money? That will make what little they get all the more worthless. Import more workers? By the time this debacle manifest itself, even the 3rd world won't want to come here any more because we will become too much like where they are now. The time for reaping what they sow will come and then and only then will they realize the error in their thinking. They changed the world, but not for the better and now the most important job in the world was so badly desecrated, that there's nobody to support them when they needed. I'll say too bad now lay in the bed that you made for yourself.

When you get down to it, this movement was a symptom of a far larger problem and a sub sect of a far greater movement: the socialist destruction of America. Look at what this movement has led to. The emasculation of men, the perversion of morals, moral relativism, a war on truth, the debasement of our education system. Think I'm being sexist and ignorant or just plain misogamist, take a look at our media and education system for the last 40 years when the movement started. Can anyone watch a show where men aren't portrayed as stupid, dysfunctional, or only think with their small head over their big one? Even children are given more intelligence than grown men. Can anyone in the university state obvious differences (other than the sexual) between men and women without getting censored for downright expelled. Just ask the EX Chancellor at the University of Colorado when he stated that men excelled in the science and engineering while women in the arts and languages because perhaps their is something in our DNA that propels the genders to the said fields. Oh you would had thought he called for the sacrifices of virgins and puppies by the reaction. Can men do anything unless women are allowed to do so or more? Why are women getting into and graduating college two to one over men? Are men that stupid or is the system bias against them? Heck, men, as a group make more money, 22% more but only because they work 39% more hours and yet we're still discrminating against women in the work place though per hour worked, they make 17% more money. After all, if women are twice as educated as men, does anyone really think they'll take being paid less than an uneducated man? How are warriors and protectors portrayed? Men as evil brutes, women as defenders. The police can't even sneeze without a threat of a civil rights lawsuit. Can anyone name the last woman officer sue for civil right violations? Do they even serve and protect or pander and coddle? I could go on, but it's a sketchy picture of how things have "progressed" and now we're a country that won't (I won't say can't, we have the means, just not the will) defend itself because we believe that the traits of those that protect and defend are something to be ashamed of or downright evil as the wars against terrorism have demonstrated. Remember the group that got the most attention in opposition of those wars til Obama was elected. Don't remember? Code Pink.

Thursday, August 26, 2010

Thank you people of Arizona for showing my lack of faith in the American Voter isn't misplaced.

With all the talk about the Ground zero mosque, and better yet, Zero's opinion of it while lecturing us about the rights of Muslims to their religious freedoms (whatever that may be since they're the antithesis of religious freedom), there were some primary elections going on in the country for party members to select their candidates to go to the congress or other local and state position. The one that caught my eye and was going to be telling to me whether the tea parties were going to be a sufficient force to be reckoned with or just another group of paper tigers was answered and regrettably, the voters have disappointed and demonstrate it's going to be the same old dysfunctional mentality that's going to dominate.

The conservatives, or those registered as Republican, have overwealmly voted for McCain to be the Republican candidate for their senior senate seat. What a joke. If anyone has forgotten, though I don't know how, Arizona was the state that passed the bill that mirrored federal law to crackdown on the illegal aliens of that state. Remember the backlash, especially by the negligent federal government, that got a quasi victory by having the criminal part of the law struck down, but not the crackdown and reporting part. The illegal alien invasion in Arizona is so bad, that certain parts, a NATIONAL PARK no less, are forbidden for Americans to go to because Mexican invaders from the drug cartels have commandeered those section of the state (and frankly federal land within the state borders) and have threaten to murder anyone, including law enforcement officers, that interfere with their drug smuggling activities. Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the world only behind the Philippines (and mainly from the evil Islamic cult of the Abu Sayyraf [father of the sword in Arabic]) and the murder rate there has skyrocketed from the invasion of the Mexican drug cartels.

Yet, what do the Conservative voters of the state do. Remember, now, this is the conservative party. Illegals don't vote here because they register as Democrats, so their interest isn't involved in this primary election. They vote for McCain. This man is the front runner for the rights for illegal alien to gain amnesty now that Ted Kennedy is in . . . well, I don't want to take 3 guesses where he is and the first two don't count, I'm going to say dead. McCain is the biggest champion for the call to decriminalized the people that has made Arizona such a hell hole, and I don't mean from the heat. This man opposed his state's own illegal alien law, opposes everything about what that law represents. His stance is clear. When it comes to his conservative view, on illegal aliens, he's all on their side to grant them amnesty. Yet, the Conservatives and tea parties, those that claim they see what this invasion has done to their state,vote for him to represent the state in the Senate. What a travesty. They just voted for the biggest opponent to empowered the state to protect them against these invaders. If you were a member of one of these Mexican drug cartels, would you really take what the state of Arizona says or does seriously now? I know I wouldn't.

It should be mentioned how poorly he performed during the Presidential campaign. His choice for Veep was terrible. I know Palin talks a good game and is popular among conservatives. But she's a narcissist and no better than Obama. It's that she's our kind of A hole, but an A hole none the less. I trust her as much as Obama and she's not much more experienced. Every time he, McCain, gained in the polls, he did something to sabotage his efforts, the last straw being when he supported the bail outs for the financial institutions that created the financial crisis (only to have Obama escalate it once in office). The man is no longer in touch with the American people, yet the Conservatives and tea party members voted him back. In God's good name, I have to ask why?

I've been stating that if people think the Democrats are going to get hit and hit hard this midterm election, I fear you're going to be grossly disappointed. Now I have proof that I'm right. With McCain getting re-elected by the conservative, the same old stupid mentality has manifested itself again: Hate the congress but love my congressman. People know that our congress is the most impotent and corrupt perhaps in the country's history. The 9% approval rating demonstrates this. However, 94% are going to get re-elected. Other than the conservative districts that voted Democrat because they were so ticked off at Bush and his failures, they're vote back conservative, but that's not going to be enough to take the house. The senate is more vulnerable, but Americans have short memories. They're forgetting already and now more in survival mode than anything not paying much attention to what's going on in the political arena. Perhaps with so many out of work, they'll take their frustrations out with the current party in power, but I wouldn't bet on it. I do know one thing, if the Democrats keep both houses, our Republic is going to die. If we're so stupid, and Michael Moore summed it up and I have to wonder if he's right: Americans are the dumbest people on the planet. When it comes to their voting record, it does support his hypothesis. After all, if the people of Arizona who's seen how bad the invasion from Latin American illegals can be is willing to vote for one of their biggest supporters back for another term, then Arizona deserves what coming to them. As for the rest of the country, I can only hope they're wiser and paying more attention than those so called conservatives in Arizona, but I won't hold my breath on it.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Could the state of California get any dumber?

I know California, filled with freaks, stoners, and illegals with no allegiance to America, can come up with some dumb and downright bewildering laws, but this is getting beyond silly. Here, where selling of pets, use of plastic bags, and prosecuting illegals for their crimes are out, while hemp brownies, Russian military, hostile business environment to the likes of over 13% unemployment are in, we have a new law that defies the mind. The fire Marshall of the State of California is going to have 3000 gas station be prosecuted for what he see as a dangerous practice, pump locks. Yeap, there are 3000 gas station that have locks on the pump so people can pump their gas hands free. You see, after 40 years that these locks have been on pumps, there have been 13 accidents of over pumping that lead to one man being injured when he got gas in his eyes. So now we're all going to have to pump our gas manually. What next? Be like Oregon where it's illegal to pump your own gas? No word what the fine is to individual that dare to pump their gas hands free. Oh, BTW, dumb asses that support this stupidity, those malfunctioning pumps would still had malfunction if the person was manually pumping the gas as well, so I don't see what this has to do with anything but to maintain the government's belief that people are too stupid to choose anything for themselves and they need Big Brother.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Daisy Khan should change her name to Ganghus.

I've inserted a clip from a recent article from NY Post about Daisy Khan and her views about her victory mosque and the opposition. All my comments will be in Bold.

The defiant wife of the cleric behind the planned mosque near Ground Zero vowed yesterday to go ahead with the project -- calling it a "history-making moment" in the fight against "Islamophobia." A phobia is an Irrational fear, not a buzzword for anyone that oppose your bigoted view. What's unreasonable in fearing a cult that has made it clear that anyone that oppose them are to be put to death? I guess in your faith, fearing death is unreasonable.

Daisy Khan, who founded the project along with her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, said the increasing opposition -- which she blamed on Republicans -- has only caused organizers to become more committed. Muslims, like sharks, get aggressive when they smell blood. They can taste that huge victory and the symbol of their victory. This demonstrates how they love the anger they're getting out of the infidels.
"There is too much at stake, constitutional rights like the ones they like to destroy like deaths to infidels, removal of clitoris, women being less than cattle, silencing those that oppose Islam, and most importantly, no tolerance of other faiths, where in the constitution are these "rights"?, the development of the Muslims here like in Dearborn and Islamictown?, how the world is watching the United States I'm sure itching to celebrate like they did when the towers were hit. I remember how those "moderate" Muslims were dancing in the streets. We tell people America upholds religious freedom. We should not compromise those values Which the Muzzies demand we do once they dominate an area," she said in an interview with The Washington Post.
Daisy Khan, wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the moving force behind the planned mosque near Ground Zero, had strong words about the project yesterday. The furor surrounding the planned mosque and Islamic cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero has "only strengthened our supporters Yes, they smell blood and victory. None of them have caved. They are circling the wagons around us. They know they could be next". Yea, like they're really worried that our weak leaders are going to come down on them.
"We have too important a moment to back down VICTORY!. We have to take our opponents and transform them You mean convert or die?. We have to convince people that not all Muslims are extremists," she said. Then start acting like it. Everywhere in the world, the worse crimes and atrocities are being committed by Muslim that can't or just plain refuse to get along with their neighbors and in the most savage of ways. Beheadings, bombings, stoning, and burying alive. You want to convince people that first, there are such things as moderate Muslims even thought experts from the area state there are no such thing, and the faith isn't extreamist when everywhere they predominate, there's nothing but violence from them.
"We have to educate them on being able to distinguish between us and on the issue of Islamophobia." First, since you don't condemn evil terrorist groups like Hamas, what are the differences? Another, there's no such thing as Islamophobia, all fears are reasonable.
Khan spoke out about the mosque while her husband is in the Middle East on a goodwill trip sponsored by the US State Department. Why isn't Hilary and Obama being brought up on charges. This is clearly a violation of the establishment clause as passed down in court rulings by the ACLU. Yet when it's Muzzie's being promoted as a state religion by the government, chirp chirp chirp. Throughout the interview with columnist Sally Quinn, Khan repeatedly stressed the importance of moving forward with the project, which has stirred debate all over the country. Why is this so important as there are 100's of mosques throughout New York? Ask why there's such a debate and how she and her hubby are contributing."What gives me strength [is that] we are in a history-making moment. Too late, Muhammad Atta beat you to it. The only history this will make is it will mark a victory for his works. Our ideals must prevail. Which ideals are those, convert or die, Allah Akbar, Sharia Law? I like some clarity here. Otherwise I say, no they don't. We have to fight for a bigger society," said Khan. Bigger for whom? Democracy or Theocracy?
She states that she and her husband had received death threats and have informed the police. I like to hear that evidence. Muzzies are always making that claim, but no evidence to back it up. Khan said the organizers "will have a dialogue" with the families of 9/11 victims, but added about the mosque site: "It is private property. Typical Muslim double speak. They smile to your face while cursing you in their hearts. They claim in one statement of having a dialogue while making it clear no matter, they 're going to build where they want rather the victims like it or not. To walk away without taking everything into consideration would be irresponsible." Complete fabrication. They have considered everything, they don't care what others feel. They're going to have their victory mosque rather we like it or not. Instead of creating enemies, she said, she hopes this controversy will help people better understand Islam. By bring confrontational and defiant they hope to create friends. My what strange bedfellows they are. People are getting a much better understanding of Islam I have to agree there.
"We are debating about having a healing dialogue, building bridges, and this whole thing has turned into the opposite of what we have envisioned," she said. Well, Duh! what did she expect? Americans to be so weak and stupid that we would let them just waltz in and celebrate over our dead. . . again? Khan said she is completely taken aback by the opposition. Oh, that answers my previous question. She expressed surprise that "a community center for everyone in the neighborhood, to scale up and build up people of all religions, has become so skewed." Because we're wise that Muslims are the biggest liars and most intolerant people on the planet as their actions around the world have demonstrated. The only thing skewed here is her naivete in thinking we would be so weak to just let it happen without a fight. The clamor around the mosque has become so deafening, she said, she's afraid to turn on the TV. Good, the people are making their voices heard. "It's hard to see yourself portrayed this way daily. But to me, it's an indication that the post-9/11 controversy is not finished. It's not over and neither is the healing. This is a teaching moment. A healing moment," she said. By giving the victims and the people of this country the finger, and I know from a Muzzie it's not America is #1, you expect healing and closure of the worse terrorist attack on our soil? This woman is either stupid or insane. She blamed partisan strife for stirring up people's emotions. Yea, try looking in the mirror for who's partisan strife. "It's hard for us to imagine we are in the thick of a controversy like this. The Republicans are really going after us," she said.
The uproar over the mosque, said Khan, shows that "there is still healing that needs to happen. Still shocked that anyone would oppose and must be the Republicans? Heck, Howard Dean, who isn't a very bright bulb to begin with, and the corrupt Reid are even opposed to this, so don't go with the racist Tea Parties or Republicans. There are bigger issues here and it's also about how Muslims are perceived. When will Muslims be accepted as plain old Americans?" News Flash, when you start acting like "plain old Americans" and not raving lunatics like in Dearborn."This is a bigger fight. This is a defining moment for us." Duh, why we're fighting against your evil cult. Addressing one of the more controversial aspects of the project -- who will pay the big bucks for its completion -- she said that the fund-raising has not begun yet. Bull crap! They have $120 million already and nobody knows were those funds are coming from. How else does a man that was a Waiter just 2 years ago come up with the money to buy the property and in New York, property doesn't come cheap and especially in this economy?"On the advice of our attorneys, we wanted to clear the civic hurdles first," she said.
Khan said that she and her husband have been talking to Muslims all over the United States about the project. Wait, I thought this was a community center for everyone. Why are you only talking to Muslims only? "It's a major concern of the Muslim communities because it has sparked anti-Islam and anti-mosque feelings everywhere. Six mosques have already been prevented from being established. The way the governments bend over backwards to please these animals, I like to see the evidence. Again, more "woe is us, we're so discriminated against, we're victims of a bigoted society without proof. Please, is such events were happening, there would be riots in the street and just ask anyone in England or France. We have to be careful about every step we take. There are huge stakes in this," she said. They wouldn't want their real intentions to be inadvertently revealed it seems. She claimed that there has been little interest in her project from Muslims outside the United States, but said that might change since her husband began his tour of the Middle East. Who is she kidding, that money didn't come from the US. How stupid does she think we are? Perhaps the same sources that contributed to Obama campaign. Surely I'm just being paranoid, right?
A State Department spokesman said that Rauf might speak about the mosque during the tour.
"I wouldn't be surprised if he talks about the ongoing debate within the United States, as an example of our emphasis on religious tolerance and resolving questions that come up within the rule of law," said department spokesman P.J. Crowley. Rule of law? From Muslims? Are you kidding. You know damn well he's going to promote this mosque, it's a symbol of victory over the infidels as they do thorough out their history when they conquer a infidel's land. Rauf -- who has been on several State Department tours, including two under former President George W. Bush -- is not allowed to fund-raise on the trip. Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/mosque_big_holy_defiance_HR2fQapcVGmWfBW2kNqVHO#ixzz0xDqmLDkF
Yea, but this administration hasn't care for the law so far.

This woman talks about community center, healing, and building bridges and all their actions have shown quite the contrary. If it wasn't for ground zero and the Islamic victory symbols, I wouldn't even care, but it's clear this is step towards increasing their propaganda against the US and the West. There's no evidence that they're seeking healing and building bridges when one of the first thing they're doing is dividing and pouring salt into the wounds. Be sure, if there's a mosque in this "community" center, infidels won't be allowed as to upset Muslim sensitives and I would bet the farm that five years after it's completion, they'll rename it the "Mohammad Atta Community Center" and by then, telling you we told you so will be too late.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Why I don't miss Bush.

I see a lot of Bush T-Shirts that say "Miss Me Yet?". My answer is NO! and it isn't ever going to change. You see, I'm a real conservative and Bush was a traitor to conservatives and their causes. Other than National Security which he didn't go far enough by making our borders more porous and letting Muslims in at will, taxes, and Court appointees, he was the biggest liberal ever in office til Obama. All Obama and company and their policies are just Bush on steroids. Bush started this mess and Obama has put it on overdrive. This is why when I ask liberals why the hate Bush so much since he did more for liberal causes than Clinton could ever hope for in his wettest of dreams, they say he was too conservative. That's like the Abu's hating the Moros because they're too humane (they're both ruthless, evil terrorist organization, just the abu's are more public with their murders). This is why I think the midterm elections are much ado about nothing. I don't think the voters are smart enough to see what's going on nor will vote their conscious. Even if the Dems lose the House, or Senate, or even both, the Republicans started this mess to begin with and their man Bush is who set out the path before them. So NO, I don't miss Bush, and I'll miss Obama even less.

California corruption does it again.

Well, just when California gets to a point in her corruption that you think she can go no lower, she does. As any Californian can tell you, we're the prelude to Obama's horrid overspending and over taxation. The state is on the verge of financial collapse, and as of this writing, it's gotten so preposterous, that the legislature and Govinator, are still arguing over a budget that the governor doesn't think will happen til after he leaves office. One of the biggest sticking points is the funding for the public schools which here are a national disgrace. We have the worse test scores only behind Mississippi and DC and it doesn't take a genius as to why if anyone has read my previous posting. Minority (except Asians) don't take education seriously and find it a betrayal of their race to do so. However, that's not the direct point of the latest act of disgusting waste that has come to put this state in a $20 billion hole.

If anyone knew of the waste that goes behind the schools, there would be riots in the street here. To give how bad it is, take the costs that boggles the mind as we pay the 3rd highest per student in the country at about $12000. Take a class which now averages about 35 students. That mean the cost to the state for this one class is $420,000. OK, a teacher teaches 5 classes a day, but I'm demonstrating the total real costs and an average for a classroom with a teacher that teaches 5 classes will suffice. Take that the building is paid for (and falling apart most likely), that's $420,000 for every classroom and teacher. Teachers are paid, on average, 52,000. That's leave $368,000 to fund the class. Where does that money go because when I was teaching, I didn't see as much as a fraction of that kind of money towards my classroom and I was paid substandard as I was an intern at $36000. Used books that are falling apart, so it's not for books, buildings that are falling apart, so it's not for renovation, no computers or technology that could animate and visually stimulate (as most students respond to visual stimuli) so it's not for updated equipment, my class got cleaned by the janitors only twice FOR THE WHOLE YEAR, so it's not maintenance. My equipment was substandard (many vets had smart boards, I was using old fashion chalk and board), desk that were dangerous and falling apart (I lost two pair of pants to exposed sharp mental as well as two student got serious cuts but my complains and concerned fell on deaf ears), I had two boxes with 10 reams of paper for the while year for 5 math classes (about $40 total there) which limited my ability to do practice worksheets and write up independent lesson on the subject matter that many said they would had been interested in trying, and 10 calculators. So, that's leave $367,800.

Most of that money goes to the higher ups that don't do anything to educate our children and for social programs, like my all time favorite, La Raza outreach, multicultural rallies, ESL, Islamic awareness and other nonsense. But the greatest waste goes to administrators that make up now, 59% of the staffing of the public schools here. Compare that to private schools that only have 9% of their staff administrators. With the average salary of over $100,000 each, it becomes clear why the schools are in such shoddy shape and learning doesn't progress. That and the students have more rights than the teachers.

School districts all over the state have been laying off teachers, librarians (not that the students here read that much anyways), counselors (not they want guldens much as well) and the sports programs. Administrators have been keeping their jobs however. Now the federal government, thanks to more of Obama's infinite wisdom, has given the state an extra $1.2 billion stimulus to protect the teachers from layoffs. First of all, this kind of money doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the cost of the public school system here. The cost is over $60 billion, so 1.2 billion isn't really going to make a big dent. What's worse, the districts have no interest in keeping teacher's jobs. They just want to shove more students in already overcrowded classrooms, and allow the brilliant administrators to keep their overpaid and under worked jobs. You see, the districts are going to take that money and still lay off the teachers and spread to other more worthy programs. This nearly floored me, even here in California. All in the name of next year's budget is going to be worse and need to preserve these administrative projects (whatever that may be) to keep the schools from losing critical leadership positions.

Are you kidding me? We have way too many chiefs, and too few braves. We waste on average $369,800 for each classroom we use. The federal government throws us a bone and we just give it to administrators and other worthless causes that don't give the children of this state any education other than Political Correctness, class warfare, and ethnic division. No wonder California is in the state she's in. We can't waste money fast enough, and now the Democrats want to increase the spending as well as create more Chiefs to oversee and create more stupid and worthless programs that won't work to combat the problem. Frankly, you could give the school system here the National Debt and it would be the same story. The government, stymied by corruption and rigged election districts that guarantee 65% control to the Democrats and no real competition politically, there's are no incentive to make any changes. The only thing going wrong for the Dems isn't just the budget shortfall that they created, but a Governor that has nothing to lose nor have any other real interest to advance further in state politics that is standing up and fighting but the stalemate has the state in financial purgatory and all the money in the world from the Feds isn't going to cure that.

The fact is that our schools are over funded and over runned with overpaid administrators. You give them a surplus and they refuse to spend it where it's most helpful, in the classroom, on the schools, on new and more efficient technology. No, they will waste it on themselves. How much more are we willing to take before we say enough is enough? This is why I have no faith that the public school system can survive. There's too much corruption, waste and top heavy administration. A system can take on only so much weight before it collapses from it's own weight. No amount of free money can ever change that.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Federal Court rules that priates aren't priates til they succeed as Pirates.

I've read a lot of stupid legal rulings, and here in California, you can make a career mocking the laws we have on the books. After all, we ban plastic bags, happy meal toys and sales of pets while trying to decriminalize pot, promote the baking of hemp brownies (SF even have pamplets telling you how) and embrace and protect the most violent and evil illegal alien. However, the latest ruling by a federal court has to be one of the stupidest rulings I've ever read.

Anyone remember those pirates we captured last year when they took on one of our navy frigates thinking they had a nice easy freighter? Six animals were capture in their attempt and brought to America for trial. Well, the judge threw out the case. He stated that the US government didn't prove their case that they were actually pirates. You see, when these men, who were just floating along in speed boats with guns and RPG's tried to force their way on board the navy ship only to realize "OOPS!", these aren't unarmed civilians, but military men, it can't be assumed they were committing piracy while they were easily routed and captured. Yes, you heard that right.

Now follow the legal ruling this traitor, for stating this person as a judge would be an oxymoron, stated, that since the "definition" of piracy is the forceful taking of a ship and robbing it. OK, so the pirates failed to take over the ship and rob it. It was more than clear that it was their attempt since who goes floating around armed and raid a ship. What, they were trying to sell pita bread? Since they fail, they walk as it doesn't prove they're pirates. OK, granted, it proves they're BAD, STUPID, and INCOMPETENT pirates, but by this moron's reasoning, failure is grounds for acquittal. I have to wonder now if we'll release the Time Square bomber or Fruit of Kaboom as well since we really can't proved they were committing acts of terrorism. What was needed, by this standard, was for the military men to let the pirates take the ship, rob them and then the military men to retake the ship afterwards. Excuse me, but doesn't this strike anyone as being completely stupid, insane, unnecessarily dangerous and downright making excuses for the terrorist pirates? Does that mean if I pull a gun and try to rob a store but fail I'll be release because I technologically didn't "rob" the place? Or is that for Islamic pirates only?

It's becoming clear why terrorists don't fear us any more. In fact, after this ruling, they would be stupid and foolish not to be laughing at us. Now that these six Somali pirates are being freed, and in the US no less, where are they going to stay? In Dearborn, the most radical Muslim municipality in the US? You think we've heard the last of them? One lesson is for sure, attack US ships only and should you meet resistance, surrender and get a free ticket to their Brethren in Dearborn. We refuse to shoot them down, we refuse to fight them because of their human shields, we cower in the public forum and we let the UN walk all over us. If I was fighting an enemy as weak and stupid as the US, I wouldn't be afraid either and now we have this judge to thank for making it even more apparent.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Obama's worse hypocrisy

Now that Obama has basically give the middle finger to Americans, then again when doesn't he since he's been doing so since taking office, by his support of the GZ mega mosque, his reasoning just boggles the mind. He's claiming religion freedom as the ground that this evil symbol of victory shall be allowed to build. This outrage should be the final straw that demonstrate what this man is about and when he stands for: Islamic supremacy. To claim this is about religious liberty is just nonsense and dangerous nonsense as well. You see, Obama, like too many Muslim, is being disingenuous. This is more of what Islamics do: smile in our faces while cursing us in their hearts.

First of all, what does religious liberty mean? The concept of one being able to practice one faith anywhere? I see? I think the ACLU will have issues with that, provided it isn't Islam, as we're not allowed to have any such symbol of faith in public areas. Just ask the Alabama Supreme Court about as the federal government came and had the statuette's of the 10 commandments destroyed. No public display of Christian or even Jewish faith aren't allowed. That's why the crosses and Star of David's are being destroyed at war memorials. The ACLU has made is sure that the separation of church and state is an absolute though it's not in the constitution. However, when it comes to separation of Mosque and state, the ACLU is nowhere to be found. Otherwise this trip by the radical Imam to raise funds for this evil monstrosity by the State Department would be challenged. Too add insult to injury, the federal government is getting involved in the gay marriage debate and there's only one real reason the left would want this: to force those faiths, other than Islam, to accept gays as equal to heterosexuals and force "God" to accept them as same as well. If this isn't an assault on religious liberties, then what is? Remember, as Obama makes this disgusting claim, as he's such a supporter of religious liberties, why is it when he goes to college campuses to make this stupid and boring speeches, he has the Christian symbolism either removed or covered? Is it because he doesn't believe in the religious liberties of Christians? Has he made such demands of Muslims? Heck, he bows and kisses their hands (I'll wager that's not all he's kissing). This man is a liar when he says it's about religious liberties as he's shown no respect for such liberties in the past.

This hypocrisy is based on the Islamic command of smiling in the faces of the non-believers while cursing them in their hearts. Muslims, which I believe Obama is one as he says so in his books, are MANDATED by Allah to lie, deceive and even murder infidels. So to make this claim is just another one of his long list of chronological lies. Someone once said, "Assume a Muslim is lying at all times and you won't be disappointed". Can anyone, that isn't drinking the Kool-Aid, tell me this statement doesn't apply to Obama. Frankly, I don't think the man can tell the truth to save his life. I thought Bill Clinton was bad, but this man puts him to shame. Now are we to take at this words, when his action, as well as his administration, shows the contrary? We are to trust what a Muslim that think Hamas, the evil group of terrorist that believes launching rockets into civilians neighborhoods (remember, there are no civilians in Islamic thinking) to kill as many women and children where Israel's extinction is in their charter, isn't not a terrorist organization, but a group of freedom fighters. Worse, this Imam that's masterminding this "building" think all the terrorist attacks on the US, and the West in general, are the fault of the US and the West for their "ignoring the Muslims and their plight". How the ACLU has no problem with the State Department financing this man's trip to fund raise for this mosque is beyond me because our government is promoting the faith of Islam. Precisely the very thing they wanted to prevent.

Obama is all entitled to his opinion, but like so many of his opinion, it's just plain wrong and he's lying. This isn't about religious liberty, but national security. The constitutional freedoms aren't absolute. I can't scream a bogus fire claim in a crowded theater and create a panic, get a group of people together to form a lynching, slander or libel, nor sacrifice virgins or murder those that think different from me in my faith, yet Islam supports all of these and it's their FREEDOM that Obama is fighting for? While those that live in peace and have tolerance are attacked and muzzled. Last I checked this is the kind of totalitarian thinking that the founders were placing checks and balance against. To allow this mosque to be build will be viewed as a huge victory symbol by our enemies and will encourage more jihad against the US as it's being rewarded. And lets note something here. The Muslim have become more bold and are expanding their evil faith and actions far more now that one of their own is now in the White House. Can we really believe this mosque will bring outreach and healing? Remember what this Imam definition of outreach and healing is. As for Obama, this support of this evil man and his shrine to the terrorists has demonstrated the worse hypocrisy I've seen in his 20 months in office.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Bloomberg and the left need to learn the difference between Islam and the other religions of the world.

Bloomberg has really gone from being offensive to downright evil. He's out there basically telling those of us that oppose this assault and the spitting of the graves of 3000 Americans in the name of the death cult called Islam to shut up and that we're enemies of the freedom of religion in this country really either doesn't understand the differences between Islam and the other faiths of the world, or just plain is so either stupid, evil, or corrupt that he doesn't care. Let's take a look at this, at least from my prospective from the observation and what I've studied on the subject matter and see what it is he's really telling us.

1. Islam, unlike Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and other faiths is NOT based on love. Unlike many here, I've actually read some of the Koran. I did a word search once because I was disturbed by a common theme in that disgusting book: there's no mention that Allah actually loves his subjects. The truth is, he doesn't. Look for the word love in the Koran and you're left with a bitter and rude surprise: it isn't there. Nowhere does the word love appear in the Koran. Think of what this means. No command for husbands to love their wives, no command to love your neighbor as yourself, no divine motive that for so loving the world that he gave his own begotten son to save the world. This explains why there's so much hate, anger, apathy and downright evil in this faith.

2. Islam is fatalistic unlike others that promote free will. Islam is the only major faith in the world that preaches fatalism. For those that never took a philosophy class, it means that all things are written. Thus, in the Islamic faith, Allah has written everything that will come to pass. That all that happens because it's the will of Allah. We have no free will, we're all puppets to Allah. This should show the hypocrisy of the Islamic faith, because if all is because of Allah's will, then how can anyone be responsible for anything, including being an infidel? After all, we had no choice, it's all God's will. This is why they're at war with the West. Concepts like freedom, individualism, free thought is repugnant to them. Thus why they hate free speech, religion, press, or anything to do with free will. Hence why everything about Islam is incompatible with the West. It flies in contempt with their concept that Allah controls all, not us. What's worse is that whether you go to paradise or hell is predetermined as well. So if you're poor, uneducated (as 80% of Muslims in Muslim countries are illiterate), or lacking political clout, it's because Allah has decided you're one of those going to hell. This is why they have no trouble murdering women that are raped or that dishonor them, because it was Allah will they be exposed as an adulter. Why they have no problems beheading innocent people, it's Allah's will. Why they'll blow up buses with children, it's Allah's will. The only free choice is martyrdom. Thus why they're so willing to kill themselves and us with them. This explains why most of the big time terror attacks are done by wealthy Muslim. If you have the signs of being chosen, yet you've committed some crime, like with Mohammad Atta's case, homosexuality, how do you justify the choice? Oh, I must be destined to jihad against the infidels. As most Islamic are too stupid or lacking in resources to go on such jihads, unless someone like Bin Laden supports them. So the argument that suicide bombings and jihadism is created by proverty is nonsense since the ones that most often do such attacks are the elites.

3. Most other faiths have had their reformations, Islam hasn't. Most faith has had their share of bloodshed and mayhem, but they go through a reformation that we're to convert with love and sharing of the truth than warfare. Islam does no such thing, and given the fatalistic nature of Islam, it's highly unlikely that a reformation will ever happen. No Muslim is going to challenge the will of Allah. This is what make the "moderate" Muslim so dangerous. There's no such thing. Either they're practicing Muslim and thus totally submitted to the will of Allah, or you're not. If there was a norm that was in between, the terrorism that is so prevalent wouldn't really exist. Bin Laden would had been turned in for the $25 million bounty, but to the faithful Muslim, their faith is worth more than money thus why we can't find him. Bringing more in will just bring more of this support for the Jihadists.

So Bloomberg thinks those of opposing that shrine to the terrorists (just watch, 5 years after its construction, it will be renamed the Mohammad Atta Community Center) and their victory over the infidel will being outreach from the Muslim world, just not the kind we were hoping. A faith with no love, no freedom, and really no integrity. All they care about is conquest and establishing a world wide Islamic empire. These are people that don't respect human live as Allah doesn't. He doesn't even love his own people for crying out loud, do you think they're going to show any love for infidels? This is why Islam, and using freedom of religion to support them, is a violation of the said freedom of religion. This group doesn't respect life, doesn't respect freedom, doesn't respect tolerance, heck really doesn't respect peace. Freedoms are not absolute. I can't have a faith that allows me to sacrifice virgins, or humans or endangered children (just ask Christian scientists with their faith healing or Jehovah Witnesses and their refusal on blood transfusions) or I can't go to a crowded theater and scream fire to cause a panic or get a group of people together to lynch someone. Freedoms have a price and that price is that one can't impugned another's freedom.

Islam is all about submission, not freedom. Their outreach isn't about love, but conquest. They're not about upholding the constitution and the freedoms they contain, but its destruction. If this isn't a case to REFUSE Muslim to exercise their so called faith as they are at war against the very foundations of the country, then we're making the constitution a suicide pact. It makes as much sense as Israel being demanded to allow Nazi's in and follow their "faith". Oh wait, they are with the so called "peace accord" and look at the rewards they get. This is what's coming to America if we allow the Muslims to have their victory Mosque at ground zero. That is what Muslim do, they destroy a cultural icon (like the twin towers were) and build mosques to demonstrate Islamic supremacy over the conquered.

So Bloomberg, I say F*** Y*** and your mosque. You're a fool and a traitor. If you think this is going to bring peace and outreach, then you've either haven't been paying attention and are ignoring 1400 years of history, don't know who you're doing dealing with the Muslims, or just plain don't care. We will not shut up. Frankly, it is we that are fighting to keep religion freedom in this country because it's clear the Muslims are here to destroy it. It is not we that don't like freedoms for all, it's them. If you don't like it, Bloomberg, then take your billions and move to the Middle East. Last I checked, the constitution wasn't a suicide pact and Sharia law hasn't been established yet and still a free country. However, it won't be for long with traitors like you.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

What marriage really is.

There's a lot of commentaries coming from the federal ruling about California's Proposition 8. A lot of "equality under the law" and "What they do in their bedroom does no harm to me" arguments. Not once have I read anything about what marriage really suppose to be and how all this legal wrangling got started in the first place. As I learn in higher education, without a proper definition, one can't even begin to progress as we can't have a common standard to which base the subject at hand, thus can't progress.

If you're to ask a 100 people on the street what the definition of marriage is, I'm sure you'll get 100 different answers. Seem everyone has an OPINION what marriage is, but what is the legal definition? After all this is the heart of the debate. I go the oldest source, the Bible. In the 2nd chapter of Genesis, the first human couple were married by God himself and were told to be fruitful and multiply. So if one was to use this source, marriage and procreating seem to be completely intertwined. Over the next 5000 years this general definition of marriage, a union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation seemed to suit the societies that evolved just fine. Then came the 20th century.

However, this also demonstrated something else that has been lost in the argument: that marriage is a SCARED promise. Now a days, it's just another promise human beings make to each hardly worth the air that spoken nor the paper it's written on. What the question should start to focus on is how did the promise that was spiritual and religious become a sacrament to the states as human history if filled that societies and their government have laws and regulations when it came to marriage, most them carry much of the same ideals.

The state got involved over the years because they realized those couples in such family units were the most fruitful and procreated the most. They allowed their populations to grow and prosper. It is in the state interest to have people contracted to a commitment to provide, nurturer and grow a family as it preserve the culture and keeps the society alive. The best definition of marriage is laws, rules and regulations that creates a union between a man and a woman to protect, nurturer and grow families as so the human race can maintain itself and grow.

However things changed in the 20th century. An evil was implanted in the minds of man that has grown like a cancer and creating the death and destruction of societies and cultures most all over the planet: moral relativism. We now have the brilliant idea now that if anything feels good, we should do it. That there are no absolutes, no black and white, and everything is shades of grey. So follow a death cult that believes in death to infidel is on the same moral grounds as those that follow the Savior that says forgive them for they know not what they do. Where parasite are on equal grounds with the productive, where death of innocents is equal to the advancement of women rights, and those that have a lifestyle that promote no procreation to that lifestyle that embraces procreation. In logic, moral equivalency equate P with Not P and make them equal in value. We call this in logic a contradiction, but we have been promoting this thinking for nearly a century now. Heck, today we view procreation as something evil and destructive now.

Since gay couples can't procreate by their own devices, why on God's green earth do they even want to marry in the first place? The laws, contracts, and regulations are for the most part meaningless since their are no families to be created. Their claim is equal protection under the law, but what protections are they talking about since they can't have no family of their own unless by artificial means?

They claim they want the right to benefits and legal addresses that married people have. With civil union they were getting them. In fact, short of the family laws, and there are other laws in place for adoption so they don't need marriage for that, it all comes down to two things really: money and making God accept them. They want the financial convenience that married people have. Heck, just change the laws in regards to these benefits, which many state were doing anyways. Why gain them through marriage? No, the biggest reason why is this moral relative crap. They want to equal under the eyes of God and want to force the churches (but not mosques for some reason) to hire, promote and accept them as normal and equal under God's eyes. This is concept that gains the most conservancy and emotions. To make their "marriage" equal to those of heterosexuals and just as right by the laws of God as man. The only thing is, what is equal about it. One doesn't procreate, doesn't keep the species, culture, growth going, the other does. Frankly, God makes his own rules, our rules don't mean much to Him. By forcing his subjects to accept what he doesn't won't change Him and it sure isn't going to change the final judgement. If you don't believe me, just look at history and all societies that openly accepted homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality. They were gone within 2 centuries and the rate we're going, we're not even going to last half that long.

Monday, August 2, 2010

No meaning anymore.

As I see more and more evil being accepted and embraced as the virtue of humanity, I have realized we have necessitated the elimination of another word as well: traitor. The PC police have so badly decayed our language, that certain words have no real meaning any more. Right, wrong, moral, immoral, righteousness and evil. In a world that no longer have absolutes, it becomes more and more apparent, some words may as well be eliminated from the lexicon, and I fear in the future, we just may see it.

Take the Mega-Mosque at Ground Zero. Had Japanese descendants had tried to place a Shinto Shrine at Pearl Harbor to be opened on December 7th, 1951, I don't think that person would had seen the time of day of getting it done. Islam, being a far greater, and perverse, evil, and it's because of this evil that this stupid thing is being considered as it's becoming no problem for Bloomberg and company. How much grease is being palmed. This kind of evil and corruption is so bad now, we don't even notice, much less get shocked. You see, just because people want to kill you because you're not like them, makes them enlightened. Tell me what enlightened means in this case?

Take the Rangel and Water's case. I knew when I heard that evil, vile woman Water's was being charged with ethics violations, I knew what was coming. You see, to the politically correct, it's not that these two, and God only knows how many more, are having their palms greased and taking bribes, taking contracts or real estate holdings, as in Rangel's case that was meant for the working poor, and pocketing the money for themselves (and refusing to pay taxes on it, but I thought that was a litmus test for being a democrat) or forcing contracts to go to institutions that will benefit themselves personally (conflict of interest) or a relative (conflict of interest, fraud) . Nope, by the PC definition of all morals are relative, and in this case it's relative to their skin color, it's because they're black. The truth is it's because they're black they'll be argued and being prosecuted, but in reality, it's because they're black they'll get away with it (or at least think they will) because they'll play the race card. If statistics are any indication, one of them is going to succeed. You see right and wrong aren't absolutes, for those that are Black, they're more good when they're being evil.

In fact, take the whole intelligentsia that believes in moral relativism. Since there are not right and wrongs, only shades of grey, then why are those that say there are rights and wrongs the only group to be scorned? Isn't that a value that a shade of grey? The truth is nobody that doesn't toe the leftist and socialist lines are failed or greatly antagonized. I know, I went through it and learned in a hurry to bury much of my faith and beliefs because they are not welcome. The biggest is the concept that some things are just plain wrong, absolutely, like murder (as defined as the murder of an innocent). Now we see Che being revered, by our President no less, or Mao who was responsible for more people killed than any other one person in human history, but the president of Iran is trying to take that record. Yet these people are revered and heroes and revolutionaries. What, the murder of 100 million people just by the communists (socialists by murder) isn't enough? Or as Stalin said, when you kill one man, it's murder, when you kill scores of men, it's a revolution?

With everything skewed and now defined so "grey", what is the point of certain words now? Right, wrong, good, bad, heck up, down, left and right? Since we can define anything as we want, one word for sure no longer applies to anyone: Traitor. To be a traitor you would have to go completely against an ideal or government and since loyalty is one of those relative words, and since that's all grey, you can't have the darkness in the meaning of traitor. There are a lot of traitors to humanity out there, Iranian President, the UN, jihadis, communist guerrillas, cultist extremists, the US media and unless they have the signature of Jew or Christians, nobody will even flinch as the worse of atrocities are spun as provocateurs of peace. When it said and done, when one wins the war, nobody cares if you told the truth. That was what an evil dictator named Hitler said. Turns out now, you don't even have to go to war.