Sunday, July 31, 2005

That wacky Right Wing Supreme Court

Howard Dean is back in the spolight again.

"The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is," Dean said, not mentioning that until he nominated John Roberts to the Supreme Court this week, Bush had not appointed anyone to the high court.

Dean's reference to the "right-wing" court was also erroneous. The four justices who dissented in the Kelo vs. New London case included the three most conservative members of the court - Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the fourth dissenter.

The court's liberal coalition of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer combined with Justice Anthony Kennedy to form the majority opinion, allowing the city of New London, Conn., to use eminent domain to seize private properties for commercial development.

"We think that eminent domain does not belong in the private sector. It is for public use only," Dean said.

If a lie is repeated enough....

Admitting Defeat

This is a touchy subject, because I tend to talk about things only I know for sure, so as this subject is somewhat foreign to me, I can still talk about it from my side which is making people admit they are wrong more often. Now, as I said already, I do not like to talk about things of which I have little or no knowledge of. For example, I don't talk to people about movies I haven't seen, or I don't talk about riding a motorcycle as I have never rode upon one before. That being said, I have run into a fair amount of people who love to talk about things they have never before dealt with, studied, or even tried to comprehend in their lifetime. Also fitting into this category are the people who assume because they have read one website, one book, or heard one person lecture about it, that they are some kind of expert in this subject. One of the most recent coversations where this happened was about Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. I saw the movie and was discussing it when someone said that the ending "held true to the book." Having read the book and watched the original movie I was quite perplexed because Charlie and Mr. Wonka both went on an adventure at the end of the book in the glass elevator which lead to the second book, Charlie and the Glass Elevator. Voicing these concerns and stating how the book ended someone promptly told me, "Thats not how the movie ends." Fair enough "That is not what I said." They then prompty explain to me exactly how I am wrong and that they did not go in an adventure in the glass elevator.

Now it has been quite a few years since I read those two books, but I was very sure it is how it ended. So I traveled to wikipedia and to get the information I needed. The two sources confirmed my assertion and blatently disproved his. Upon giving them this information, the back pedaling starts. "Oh, well I didn't know you were talking about the book," because I had only mentioned the book 3 seperate times.

This same person also was the one telling me that it is absurd to launch the space shuttle with only 3 of the 4 fuel gauges working, of which I agree that it would be absurd, however all 4 fuel gagues were working perfectly. He comes back with an article from a news source I have never seen before, written 2 days AFTER the launch saying that only 3 gauges were working, when both the AP and the Washington Post both say that everything went fine. He then proceeds to tell me that it is his "opinion" that the 3 gauges were working and that I shouldn't assault his "opinion" on the matter.


Of course, he wouln't admit to being wrong, that he wasn't informed, even that his news source was full of shit...His response "ok, whatever you say." The point is this, when I am wrong, I will admit it. I will usually hide my head in shame for being wrong, but it happens so rarely. If I am wrong in anything, if someone brings it to my attention I correct it, but I see increasingly from especially younger people the belief that everything they say is an opinion. There is no more black and white, no more yes and no, right or wrong, left or right, lie or truth. They simply believe that if they are wrong it is their "opinion" and no need to learn or grow, simply that you are an asshole for pointing out that they are retarded.

If you are wrong, ADMIT IT! If you are wrong, it gives you the ability to learn and grow. It makes you a better person. When you play a game, you don't learn anything from doing the same thing over and over again, you learn from new things, new ideas, to strategies. Trying to best the other person and that competition is key to the survival of the human race and your idiocy that it is your "opinion" when you are clearly wrong is almost as stupid as cutting off your foot because you stubbed your toe.

Grow up and learn a little.

Saturday, July 30, 2005

Truer words, never spoken

Carter Gives Aid and Comfort to the Enemy

For whatever reason, Jimmy Carter decided that it was in America's best interests to, while abroad, tell the terrorists it is OK if you attack America.

BIRMINGHAM, England -- Former President Carter said Saturday the detention of terror suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Naval base was an embarrassment and had given extremists an excuse to attack the United States.

"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," he told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England. "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."

"What has happened at Guantanamo Bay ... does not represent the will of the American people," Carter said Saturday. "I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people."

What!? Terrorism is "justified"!? Karl Rove said:

Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." "Conservatives," he said in the speech to the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Now, tell me again why Karl was wrong?

Friday, July 29, 2005

How it works

Suppose you are robbed. You give a very detailed description of a black gentleman, in his mid 30's, and has a gang symbol tatoo'ed on his hand. Would you as a police chief instruct your officers to examine everyone and question everyone, not involved, not matching the description? Of course not. So why are we searching people not matching the description of Arab terrorists and people who quite obviously do not fit that description are being searched?

Thursday, July 28, 2005


This is just for Luke.

One odd thing I have noticed is that many many MANY people get on people who "pirate" movies, music, or games online. I was confronted with two arguements today that I shall proceed to debunk now.

The first arguement was that somehow because of "illegal" downloads, music stores who dealt exclusively in CD's went out of business, and CD sales slumped. That makes about as much sense as saying that VHS tapes sales slumped because people rented DVD's from blockbuster instead of buying tapes from Best Buy. It isn't the activity related to it that is causing the business slump, it is the new technology. Invariably when a new technology arises the old equipment fades out and people who dont change go out of business. Ask the people who made: Asbestos, Vinyl Records, Chalkboards, Typewritters, Commodore's, Radio Sitcoms.....All these things are gone now because new and better products are available and the same is true with CD's. In fact, most industry studies show an INCREASE in digital download sales (like itunes) comparable to what they had from CD's. The difference is that people are buying the songs they like instead of the whole craptacular CD. Most CD's have about 12-15 songs. On any given CD 8 of them are pure crap, 2 are ok on rare occasions as the minimum, sometimes it's even higher. People now buy 2 or 3 songs and pay $4 instead of getting them all, hating most of it and paying $20. Why buy the cow when you get the milk for way less?

The second is the ethics of it. Is it stealing? If downloading content that is copywritten is a crime (or un-ethical) then the very computer you are sitting on is a hotbox of lawsuit material. Your computer saves every web page browsed and everything on it. You have tons of copywritten material on your computer saved there, and some may not be from it's original author or site! Aside from the fallacy of trying to make one copyright infringement a crime and others not, this is something bought by someone (or seveal someones) and shared with the masses. Radio does the exact same thing, they pay more for the song but get unrestricted rights to play it. Now, I could record straight off the radio a song and save it, am I now breaking copyright law because on a public airwave I recorded a song? Am I thief? Hardly.

Now if that wasn't enough, people who regularly download music BUY MORE music than people who don'. The ratio is about 1.25 to 5.50 in British pounds. Switch that to American currency and you are talking about $2.50 to $11.00, almost 5 times as much. People sample the music before they buy it and since we only hear 1-2 songs on the radio, we as consumers dont want to pay for a song and then hate it.

The solution here is to embrace the new technology like we embraced the automobile, the VCR, the computer....We grab it and use it to it's fullest, there is no limit to what we can possibly accomplish with peer to peer networks operational.

Looking Back Part 2

Now, up to this point I had held a few commons beliefs that I still hold today. Everything needed to make logical sense, there should be some benefit to everything I do, and that questions should be answered to adhere to the previous 2. So far most religions just didn't do it. I returned to christianity in a brief time where I was working my way through the different groups. For example, the mormons who follow the teachings of Joseph Smith Jr....The man who re-wrote the bible and added things that God only allowed him to see and no one else. Next. I liked Catholicism however the praying to Mary and the saints to me is a clear violation of the comandment "You shall have no other gods before me." So I settled into a small variant from there of Lutheranism. I quickly learned of 2 main Lutheran teachings in Minnesota. The first is the synod of Missouri. The more liberal of the two, they often preach not what the bible says, but what you FEEL the bible says. They allow to change their rules and principles without regard for what the bible says. Unless God comes down from on high and tells you something different, a religion should never change it's stance, especially on something such as a sin.

The other synod is the WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod). The more conservative of the 2, they hold firm to stances and policies and take a literal meaning of what the bible says. Many questions I had were answered in a way that made sense to me and the logical think that I put myself through all the time was quite satisfied.

What really gets me is that from here is not where I get my political views. In high school I was an avid reader of all things, I especially caught on to books of a political nature. One thing I noticed was that people always seemed to make irrational statements and then back them up by feelings. This simply would not do. I read things that made sense and things that didn't, and even to this day I am growing, feeling out new areas, and above all trying to make sense of senseless arguements. Typically those senseless arguements are made by liberals or democrats. I want to restore some sanity to the political process and as soon as I have the opportunity to run for office I will, come hell or high water.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Looking Back Part 1

Tonight I assess things I have done in the past to realize where I am today that I was not previously. I thought I might share some of the personal paths that have taken me where I am today. I grew up in a household that one might describe as moderately conservative, barring the fact that my parents voted for Jesse Ventura, they have pretty much stuck to Republicans and the ideals that they stand for. As a child I grew up in the public schools and made a turn, like most children do, away from my parents. Not a openly defiant youth, I did things in secret, testing limits and borders and much like a Mexican, sneaking across where I found that it was easy to and avoiding the areas more heavily guarded.

My family was not very religious, my dad I cannot remember attending a Church service at any time, and my mother who was quite set back by several faiths had one that we attended regularly but eventually stopped. I can't remember why we stopped but I know that I particularly didn't like some answers that I received from questions I asked. At that point, although I couldn't say it in so many words, I would have considered myself agnostic. As I spread my interests out I found I liked the sciences a lot. Fascinating studies of chemicals and biology and what not I enjoyed that as my primary fascination and along with that came Star Trek which held a deep rooted hold in science.

From this I grew to an atheist. My belief in a higher power was no more than science and a begining and evolution. This carried my interest and based a lot of my own personal feelings. Of course as an atheist I pulled a lot of liberal beliefs. I was never violently anti-gun but I supported tight restrictions, welfare was good, capitalist bad, environmentalism good, greed bad et cetera. After a few years of that, I pondered life and the end and realized that something wasn't quite right that we would live a short period like this and dissapear. I had started into the odd sciences (aliens, bigfoot, the occult) and took a brief stint into the culture of the druids, masons, and wiccans. None of these answered questions I had though provided some much needed life reflection. I then proceeded to Hinduism which offered some consolance but didn't make too much sense to me.

I pulled one day to to Buddhism, Taosim and the teachings of
Confucius. Now these teachings interested me and caught my attention but didn't answer many questions I had about life and after-life which stopped me from following them. Judism was my next stop on this line. Somehow this quenched a good portion of my thirst but still left questions unanswered. After hearing about Islam back in the late 90's I thought that maybe Islam could be a good thought. I did a fair amount of research and realized that Islam, althought it held a lot of answers, the answers could not be right. The entire text is comprised of death to anyone not complying with Islamic beliefs, and even then there was a strong anti-American movement which I could not subscribe to.

I pushed myself back to Christianity to see if another demnomiation could take on the challege that I presented.

Continued tomorrow...

Single Issue

As I listen to people support nominee Roberts, I feel that somewhere something has been lost. Real conservatism has been dropped in favor of one subject. We know that he is staunchly anti-abortion, but where does he fall for other issues? Does no one else find it distubing that Hilary Clinton is supporting him and will vote for him? We cannot single out abortion as the sole subject or we will lose and lose big.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Freedom of speach my ass

My condolences to anyone who loses a family member in any circumstance. Even if it is for something I disagree with whole heartidly. The left however, does not put this kind of respect on anyone apparently.

Vandals torch 20 U.S. flags, car
Neighbors rally around family that just buried son-in-law soldier

FAIRFIELD - American flags, lining the lawn of the mother- and father-in-law of fallen U.S. Army Pfc. Timothy Hines Jr., were heaped in a pile early Saturday and burned under a car parked in front of the home - less than 24 hours after Hines was buried in Cincinnati's Spring Grove Cemetery.

Jim Wessel, Hines' father-in-law, said he thinks that the fire was a random act of vandalism.

The flames totaled Sara Wessel's car.

Sara is Hines' sister-in-law and Jim Wessel's oldest daughter. She had been staying at the house on Sando Drive since the family returned last week from Washington, D.C., where they were visiting Hines at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Hines, 21, was buried Friday after more than 400 people mourned his passing and celebrated his life at the Vineyard Community Church in Springdale. He was buried with full military honors, leaving behind a pregnant widow who expects to give birth in about two weeks and a 2-year-old daughter.

These people need to be round up and summarily executed. I'll let people defile the flag all day even though I hate it, but to take gifts given from a funeral of someone in the ground less than 24 hours is unforgiveable. I wonder sometimes if people think before they act, but then I am reminded of this site, where idiots display their anti-American views in a destructive nature and realize again, these people have the intelligence of algae.


Minimal effort

To an insane world and an equally insane people, I wish you all the best. Wandering thoughts of what people would do if things were not so easily spelled out for them shocks me sometimes. For example, the people who use hair dryers in the shower. Now from a young age, we are taught not to bring electrical devices into water and aside from that, what moron is going to try to dry ANYTHING while getting wet? Do people bring towels into the shower while bathing? Luckily Karl figured out that people need clear and concise instructions on what to do with their lives.

Democrats still have yet to figure this out. Hoping from issue to issue with no clear message is like handing a moron in a shower a blow dryer. Not quite sure what to do with it they take it and get fried. Karl told them to get out of the shower first and you wont get hurt before using it. I sometimes wonder if the dem's will ever get someone like Karl who has some brain power to run a successful campaign, but I realize that anyone with a brain really cannot be a democrat.

Sorry democrats

Monday, July 25, 2005

Learning from mistakes

Of course it is my interest that the President pick someone that isnt a Souter, however he appears to have made that very mistake. He has picked someone who isnt controvercial but instead someone who will pass without much question. We already know the court liberalizes everyone appointed so why pick someone who is wishy-washy to being with?

Too Early

As I sit here preparing myself in my morning rituals, I remind myself exactly how much I hate waking up at 5 in the morning. I caught myself saying "Never in the morning again..." until I realized, if I persue a political career this is how it will be every morning.


Sunday, July 24, 2005


To all the parents in the crowd, when you child starts screaming and whining about a toy, game or whatever they may want, what do you do? Do you get it for them, give in to their demand to shut them up? Of course not, you tell them to stop and if they don't you punish them. Breaking them of the habit is needed or else they learn that you will give in every single time to satisfy them. If they learn that you punish them when they do it they stop asking.

Terrorists are a lot like children. During the 90's we ran a campaign of giving in to them. It started with Somalia. We gave in to Aideed by pulling our troops out after a remarkably successful campaign where we lost a few soldiers. Clinton made the ultimate mistake of pulling our troops and allowing the general to run the country and take over. Bin Ladin then realized we can bleed and the smalest amount of blood causes us to run in fear. Fast forward to the embassy bombings, the Cole, and 9/11. Every single attack on the US resulted in nothing. Bin Ladin would hit us and we buried our dead, he would laugh and rejoice at the deaths he caused. 9/11 changed all that. We finally took the parental action of making these assholes pay. For 2 years we had them running, made them rethink their strategy and then the Spanish do the unthinkable. They capitulate to the terrorists. What happens? They get a dramatic increase in terrorist activity, more threats, more attacks.

The british were recently hit, they did nothing. Stay the course, do not change. The terrorists took the typical child approach. They attacked attacked again. Nothing. The children got a spanking that they will soon not forget and we need not worry about fulfilling these murderers wishes and give them the spanking they diserve.

"You do your worst, and we will do our best"

Democratic Party Missing: Feared Dead

As much as I love the idea of the Dem's removing themselves from the spotlight, I do miss the ability of them to put up some sort of a fight. What makes this somewhat hurtful is that a formerly once strong party, a party of ideals and solutions has become a back seat member and when we do hear something from them all they do is obstruct a working plan. When the house started working to make the PATRIOT Act permanent, the democrats, rather than give an alternative, something of any substance, said no it doesn't work scrap it. We advocate the evil and dreaded "profiling" for muslims and you get a big NO from the other side, even though it works a whole lot better than "random" searches and targeting we get nothing to do something equally as well. Think about it in terms of a dartboard. If you aim carefully at the bullseye you aren't always going to hit it, however putting a blindfold on spinning in circles the odds of you hitting a bullseye increase 100 fold.

Democratic Party Missing: Feared Dead is from American Dad, a new show on FOX and it sums up the party quite well.

Saturday, July 23, 2005

To support an already popular belief

I ran across this today and wasnt really shocked but at least I know someone is speaking the truth.

Egyptians support more attacks:

During September 11, 2001 attacks on NY and Washington, I received phone calls from some Egyptians rejoicing over the attacks on the US. And they were not poor or uneducated.

Four years later, July 7, 2005, there was no change in some of the Egyptians’ reactions. Some Egyptians are still waiting for more attacks on the western civilized world, which means that the regime of Egypt had never joined the world to stop terrorism and sadly will never. What did the government and the regime do four years after 9/11 to stop sabotaging the peoples’ minds and empower people with enlightenment? The answer is nothing. There is more terrorism and hatred towards the values of life in mass media and education programs. Welcome to the new budding generation of terrorists who will be so ready for AlQaeda recruitment.

It is getting worse and Al-Qumni is the evidence to the victory of terrorism. The problem is that the world will find very tight mechanisms to fight terrorism because the free world is so serious about it. What will happen in Egypt is that fundamentalist Islamists will start killing the freedom of other Egyptians because this will be their only haven to kill more innocents whom their only sin is believing in freedom. The result will be very bloody, and another groups of Taliban will be ruling Egypt. There will be no opposition as the seeds of the ideology of hatred are sowed, thanks to Mubarak Regime.

Friday, July 22, 2005


The ACLU is fighting with the government to allow pictures from Abu Ghraib to be shown to the American people citing:

"We obviously express skepticism about the latest move on the government's part to withhold information the public is clearly entitled to," said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the ACLU.

Somehow I do not believe they will be showing the picture of Nick Berg's head being cut off side by side with it.

I saw on one comic that I printed out and put on my office wall at work. It shows the Senate building with a voice saying "Why exactly do we need a prison at Guantanamo Bay again?" and a plane barreling straight at the building. It seems in the age of instant gratification, we have somehow lost the pictures of 9/11, the terrorists killing innocent civilians in cold blood, torturing them with decapetation with a dull knife. Let me link some of them here so you people can remember, then stop asking me why this shit happens and realize that we didn't start this shit but we damn well are going to end it!

DO NOT MESS WITH THE USA. ACLU go home to communist China and leave America to Americans you scum.

Thursday, July 21, 2005


I know a lot of people probably have a bad taste for this but looking back at the internment of people whos cultures attacked America, unprovoked, was a very successful campaign. Not pleasant for those in the camps, but safer for them. Look at the 9/11 attacks and the rage taken out on muslims afterwards. The people attacked may or may not have been involved, but they were targets of people angered by what many in their religion consider right and just.

Now, after the UK bombings we find that these bombers were born citizens. They were corrupted in the country of their birth! How do you combat people who are so naive that they allow themselves to hate their country? How do you protect a country against people who hate it and are citizens? I propose 2 things. First is a re-emergence of internment. Anyone who shows hatred of the country in such a way, is involved in organizations that are anti-American, terrorist, or otherwise need to be put in a place where they cannot harm other people. The second option is a renouncement of citizenship and a tax-payer paid ticket to any country in the world that they want to go to. While interned we will give them access to apply for citizenship, apply for asylum and we would glady give them up to the other country where they could escape. However I doubt many civilized countries would take these people, although I am sure Cuba, China, Iran, and North Korea would love to get these people.

Monday, July 18, 2005

Recount This

My new favorite game in the whole wide world. Recount this Albert!

Sunday, July 17, 2005

Karl Rove has spurred a bunch of radio ad's across the country in which they attack him and accuse him of things that have already been disproven, so aside from the libel they at the end say "Karl starts with a K, just like the Klan."

Wow, anyone with half a brain should be able to see exactly what they are comparing him to. Trying to link the KKK to republicans which are quite more in line with democrats. But let us recap the link between democrats and the KKK. Democrats have Robert Byrd, former clansman who was one of the chief obstructionists to the civil rights amendment. More democrats voted NO on the civil rights amendment than republicans and it was a republican who lead to the clearing of the filibuster. Now they want to accuse Karl Rove of being a klansman? Give me a break

*UPDATE* This has been proven as a parody, but has duped several people. A worthy parody because it sounds quite real.

Thursday, July 14, 2005


Today I want to touch on something. Perception is reality. This phrase has been popularized by many people as a means to distort what reality is. For example, the fact and hard reality is that Bill Clinton cheated on his wife with Monica Lewinsky, his perception is that he didn't "I did not have sexual relations, with that woman, miss Lewinsky." Was the reality then that he didn't actually have sexual relations with that woman even though the fact of the record quite clearly shows that he did?

Perception is not a means by which to escape guilt or move beyond, but it has become one. People percieve that someone is insulting them, harassing them, bossing them, whatever it may be even when they are not. Shit happens, your feelings will get hurt, such is life. You need to deal with it like a grown adult and not fall on the floor kicking and screaming because someone made you feel bad. Do you think that a terrorist is going to stop from blowing a building up because it might hurt your feelings? Do you think a robber is going to not break into your house because you might feel bad? If you are a depraved liberal, probably, but for those of us with a brain we all know the answer is no.

Perception is perception, reality is reality...The two will never mix

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Now where have I heard this before?

A truly great post by a fellow blogger who deserves some recognition for his efforts.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

No civilians

The following are excerpts from interviews with the director of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies, Dr. Hani Al-Siba'i. The first aired on Al-Jazeera TV on July 8, 2005; in it, Al-Siba'i discussed the London bombings. (To view this clip, visit ) It is followed by an interview he gave on AMB TV which aired on February 22, 2005. (To view this clip, visit

Host: "The question, in short, is whether the religious scholars... Sir, the religious law assembly in Mecca at the end of last month issued a fatwa forbidding the killing of civilians. Should we follow it or Osama bin Laden?"

Al-Siba'i: "These assemblies resemble the assemblies of the Church. These assemblies forbid young people from going to Iraq to fight the Jihad. These assemblies... The Higher Religious Authority [in Saudi Arabia] are the ones who allowed the presence of Crusader forces in the Land of the Two Holy Places (Saudi Arabia). These assemblies..."

Host: "Mr. Hani, make no mistake. The same assembly ruled that Jihad in Iraq is allowed against soldiers. Even Sheik Osama [sic.] Al-Makdisi, Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi's mentor... Okay. Abu Hani, okay... He asked Al-Zarqawi not to kill civilians and to attack only the Americans... I mean, only soldiers..."

Al-Siba'i: "The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr. Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I'm familiar with religious law. There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not.

I wish there was something to comment on here, but there isn't anything I can add.


Monday, July 11, 2005

A nation without a culture

I found something interesting as I read a lot of the news reports and the history in London. Several people, several muslims, don't even consider themselves British! They praise the terrorists and blame the Jews for the bombings. "But this is a nation of peace!" screams the liberals, who don't think that terrorists exist. These same people think it is fair to screen only everyone instead of the people (muslims) who are causing bombs to explode and kill people. What sense does it make to screen people who are not typically the mold for terrorists!?

But on from there, we are facing the same type of sentiment in America. Look at the Mexicans that run across the border freely. When they get here, rather than assimilate into the culture of the US, they congregate together to try and turn us into Mexico. We simply cannot allow these people to continue to change America to Mexico. I certainly do not want a country like Mexico.

There are only a couple options that we could exicute without killing our country. The first is to secure the border. Not with guards, not with moats, not with patrols...I am not saying that we won't still need them, but they need to be a suppliment. The first thing we need is a very large, concrete wall. It worked in Israel and it would work here. It needs some suppliments though, such as a large moat behind it, about 30 feet or so deep with nothing but cement walls. With some ingenuity they could make it past both of these, so the final fail safe is automated turrets along the border will eliminate anyone trying to push beyond that. Border patrol would only be responsible for maintenence of these areas and responding to failures cause by actual attacks on the border. Nothing else is going to stop these people from coming through.

The second part of the plan is taking care of the ones here. We couldn't round them all up overnight and deport them. My plan would be to tighten down on every business and law enforcement agency. Every time you apply for anything, your Social Security number is run through a computer. Driver license, bank account, home loan, car title, insurance, job, credit card...Every single time they run it against a database. You will always be approved but if your flag as illegal then INS comes and visits you. If INS is unable to get ahold of you for questioning then ALL your SS tied items are immeadiatly frozen.

Illegal immigrants CANNOT be allowed.

Sunday, July 10, 2005

The "religion of peace" strikes again

Somehow I find this quite interesting...

AL-QAEDA is secretly recruiting affluent, middle-class Muslims in British universities and colleges to carry out terrorist attacks in this country, leaked Whitehall documents reveal.

A network of “extremist recruiters” is circulating on campuses targeting people with “technical and professional qualifications”, particularly engineering and IT degrees.

Yesterday it emerged that last week’s London bombings were a sophisticated attack with all the devices detonating on the Underground within 50 seconds of each other. The police believe those behind the outrage may be home-grown British terrorists with no criminal backgrounds and possessing technical expertise.

A joint Home Office and Foreign Office dossier — Young Muslims and Extremism — prepared for the prime minister last year, said Britain might now be harbouring thousands of Al-Qaeda sympathisers.

Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan police chief, revealed separately last night that up to 3,000 British-born or British-based people had passed through Osama Bin Laden’s training camps.

Now maybe I dont quite get it, but how is it this easy for a religion to "recruit" people for their cause? I know if someone came to me and said "Dude, the bible says that God really wants you to slaughter innocent people in his name or you will go to hell" I might end up slaughtering him. Which makes it really confusing that anyone who claims that Islam is a religion of peace could be swayed to violence so easily. Now one must assume that they do fail with some intelligent people, which leads me to the next question.....WHY HAS NO ONE REPORTED THESE PEOPLE??? The blood of many Brits is on these assholes hands. Not just the bombers, but the people who KNEW that someone was trying to recruit them for a terrorist organization and didn't report them to the police to be arrested.


Saturday, July 09, 2005

Suing for Karma

Somehow I thought that no one could ever think of something so absurd, yet someone did...

MOSCOW (AP) - NASA's mission that sent a space probe smashing into a comet raised more than cosmic dust - it also brought a lawsuit from a Russian astrologer.

Marina Bai has sued the U.S. space agency, claiming the Deep Impact probe that punched a crater into the comet Tempel 1 late Sunday "ruins the natural balance of forces in the universe," the newspaper Izvestia reported Tuesday. A Moscow court has postponed hearings on the case until late July, the paper said.

The probe's comet crash sent up a cloud of debris that scientists hope to examine to learn how the solar system was formed.

Bai is seeking damages totaling 8.7 billion rubles ($300 million) - the approximate equivalent of the mission's cost - for her "moral sufferings," Izvestia said, citing her lawyer Alexander Molokhov. She earlier told the paper that the experiment would "deform her horoscope."

NASA representatives in Russia could not immediately be reached for comment.

Scientists say the crash did not significantly alter the comet's orbit around the sun and said the experiment does not pose any danger to Earth.

I don't quite understand the thought process behind this, but I hope someone will see to it to throw this out.

Friday, July 08, 2005

The redcoats.....erm muslims are coming!

"USA watch your back, Osama is coming back" and "Kill, kill USA, kill, kill George Bush". They also chanted "Bomb, bomb New York" and "George Bush, you will pay, with your blood, with your head".

Now, I bet you are wondering from where that comes from. Was it Iran? Pakistan? Iraq? France? No, this was London after the false story about Qu'ran abuse came from newsweek. THOUSANDS of muslims in London converged to chant these slogans. Rather than lock these people up, they were all let free. Yesterday, we saw a culmination of these peoples threats with the loss of British lives. Now even though I detested Saddam and his policies, I never stood outside the Iraq embassy shouting "Kill kill Saddam!" Unfortunate as these bombings are, they are quite preventable.

"Well you must not be suggesting..." YES, I am! Who was the last woman to blow up a commercial ariliner? Or the last Christian to blow up a subway in the name of God? Who is the leader of the group that attacked us on 9/11 or 7/7? Was it an Protestant White Irish guy? I realize that not all muslims believe this, but if you believe that the lives of millions of people are less important than the inconvience of scutiny over some people, then you are crazy. If I were a muslim, I would gladly put myself under a microscope to prove my innocence. However after 9/11 the only thing that muslims hurried to do was make sure they weren't blamed. Not that the attacks were bad or reprehensible, but to protect their "rights".

In a world where terrorism exists, we cannot worry ourselves with trying to protect the terrorists.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Why things happen

Now, as appalled as I am at the terrorist attacks today, I feel much more worry than I do anger. Not worried about my safety or the safety of anyone else…Ok maybe that hits a little bit of it, but I am more worried that the attacks are going to spawn something similar to the Madrid bombings of about a year ago. What do I mean by that? Well fortunately the UK held an election not too long ago, but there could grow a segment of the population that decries their involvement in Iraq as the reason for the attacks.

People fail to realize that their involvement in the Iraq war has nothing to do with this at all. In fact it is probably one of the furthest reasons for these attacks. This will not stop the hate filled “peace” activists from causing as much trouble as they can to try and blame America, blame the UK, and blame all the victims of terrorism for the crimes committed against them. Understand this now, we are hated because we are not them. They hate us because we do not conform to their religion, because we do not salute “Allah” as our god.

I want all British Citizens to rise up in arms against these people who pretend to care for human life. I want you all to rise up against the terrorists. You need to stand strong, stand united, and stand against global terrorism, not through flower power, but through the power of a fist and a gun. Bombs are what these terrorists understand and I think it is time we speak their language.

Monday, July 04, 2005


Today we celebrate the liberation of America from British occupation. Where we now have the right to religious freedom, wait no......Ok, we have the right to own our own property! Oh, nope.... Well we have the right to keep and bear arms? Apparently not...So why exactly did we fight king George again?

In a world where people fail to study history, we are doomed to repeat it. It would appear to me that every democrat in the entire US Congress has failed to study history. It would also appear that several court justices have all gotten an F in history too. We need to put an end to the democrats iron fist hold on these so called "progressive" ideas. We FLED from a socialist monarchy to make something better, do we really need to revert to a socialist monarchy again before the good people of America do something? Lets keep this a 2 party system, vote Republican, vote Libertarian and NOTHING further left than that.

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Speaking of 8

When I was in College (stop snickering in the back) one day on my walk accross campus I walked through a normally large stone area with a few benches to see a bunch of boxes and a couple tents propped up on the front steps to the library. There were about a dozen or so people, dressed fairly warmly as it was October, with a table and some fliers. As I drew closer I heard a very malnourished campus student raise his voice "Homelessness Awareness Week!" he shouted. Now I don't know about anyone else, but I am quite aware of homeless. I know of their existance and although I am quite perplexed as to why anyone would want to remain homeless I acknowledge that they exist. This particular demonstration caught enough of my interest to stop me from trudging over to the commons area for lunch for a few minutes to talk to these people.

Now I went up to what appeared to be the leader, a young college student who was quite good looking, short curly hair and dressed in quite expensive clothing. Now compared to me he was quite well off and it never really occured to me until just now but he probably enjoys a much richer lifestyle than I did, in fact, I will guarentee it. Anyways, I inquired as to the purpose of this drive. He wanted to raise awareness of the homeless problem in the area to get local politics to take notice and do something, or at least along those lines. There was no press coverage, there was no true caring even for the quite liberal campus that it is. In the end this handful of people suffered through a quite cold night and ended with nothing except an inflated sense of pride thinking that they actually did something.

I have been to homeless shelters and helped real people. I wonder if the young man or anyone else there has actually been to a place like that. They all appeared as if they have never worked a day in theirs lives and it amazes me that they spent the night outside even. I cant say for sure that they actually did spend the night out there as I didnt live on campus so they might have called it a night at midnight and garnered an even more false sense of pride.

Tomorrow, there is a "Live 8" concert. The purpose is for a bunch of multi-millionaires to get together and get people motivated to get people out to pressure their government to forgive African debt. Putting aside that most African countries are ruled by thug dictators who dont give a damn about their people, and the fact that the "Live AID" concert did very little to help the continent of Africa, and aside from the fact that any country who would abolish debt is just a tad insane, this whole concert means nothing.

First, debt relief is only worth while if the money that they were paying to other nations was for humanitarian goods. With the fighting going on and the wars on the continent we are quite assured that this is not the case.

Second, any government in the world who holds a debt over another is not going to forsake that debt as it is a guarenteed source of money for them. That would be like asking the bank to forgive your mortgage and not take your house. No matter what dire straights you may be in, it simply is not going to happen.

Third, if anyone truly believes that the world listens to rock stars, movie stars and any "famous" people, this is best described by the last presidential election. All these people were against Bush yet he garned over half of the popular vote in one of the biggest elections in US history.

If live 8 actually achieves its' goals, I will personally embrace socialism. This is a pretty safe bet that I will remain a freedom loving capitalist.

Friday, July 01, 2005

And then there were 8...

Today I want to touch on something that hasn’t been an issue for 11 years. A presidential appointment to the Supreme Court. Now I don’t pretend to know exactly the in’s and out’s of the Supreme Court but I at least expect 3 things from the sitting congress.

The first thing that needs to be done is find someone who at the very least understands the constitution. For example, when the constitution guarantees people the right to property it doesn’t mean that government can come in and take it to resell it for the governments profit. Or for example when the constitution forbids the federal government from usurping the states power (which is everything not mentioned explicitly in the constitution), that does not give congress the right to go in and remove the states rights under a clause meant for commerce.

The second thing that will be done is obstruction. Now don’t get me wrong, there needs to be bumps and stops in the appointment process but a filibuster is not a constitutional option. In fact it is not even enumerated in the original rules of congress. Congress simply did not want to make people have to cut off debate so they allowed unlimited speech, it was not until years after the first congressional delegation that the filibuster made it’s appearance by someone who wanted to stop the bill by not stopping for a vote. Now we need that to change, we need a real filibuster. Currently all that happens is that the senator in question says “I’m going to conduct a filibuster” and then a cloture vote is held, if it fails then the bill is scrapped, and if it passes then the bill is passed. We need to eliminate this announced filibuster and make these people stand up and speak for hours at a time. Earn your wages congress!

The third thing I expect is a removal of “moderate” judges from any decision on the court. This simply is not acceptable way of appointing justices because as the voters showed last election, we have a mandate, a rather large one too. People want us to take charge and if we don’t do that the odds of us staying where we are is slim.

Only one thing I would like to see, an impeachment of the 5 justices that voted to shred the constitution and give away my property to the highest bidder.

Take it away

I was watching the news this morning when it was reported that a man who had shot a bouncer at a bar was also a holder of the new (now court rejected) conceal and carry permit. It was a jab at the permit as their next story was about the “tough” battle over the permits and how “hard” it will be to get them re-instated. Now, I was thinking about how guns are classified by some people in society. People seem to think that a gun causes columbine style incidents without any involvement on its own, while at the same time denying any actions by the owner UNLESS it pushes an agenda.

Consider this, the typical argument after you boil down the entire base of it is that people say someone, somewhere, sometime, somehow could possibly kill someone with a gun, thus we should ban them because someone might get hurt. People die from water every day, should be ban water because it might harm someone? No obviously not since we need water to live. What about fire? We don’t need fire to live anymore now with technology that we have, fires should be banned. Cars kill more people every year than guns do yet we don’t need them to live and they are legal and easier to get than a gun. Medical accidents kill more people than guns each year. There are numerous other things that one should worry about before they worry about a gun.

Aside from when I hunted with my dad as a child, I have never seen anyone beside myself my dad and a couple of my dad’s friends wield a gun outside a shooting range. Well, I have seen a cop with a gun I don’t really count that because it is standard for a cop to have a gun, nothing abnormal. However I have never seen a robber, I have never seen a murderer with a gun, nor have I ever been exposed to a gun outside TV and my own rifle range experiences.

Yet people seem to have this phobia about guns. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. To say someone is a “homophobe” is much a lie. No one fears gays, much in fact they hate them. An irrational hate is a not a phobia. However if I called someone a firearmaphobe I would be looked at with contempt and hatred. Guns are as much a part of society as cars, fast-food, water, and politics.
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by