Home

Advertisement

President To Have Power To Disable Private Network Internet Access

  • Aug. 28th, 2009 at 2:02 PM
bull, rodeo, cowboy
The Senate Bill is S773 ... it failed to pass earlier this year because it would have given the President the power to "turn off the internet" in case of a "cyber emergency", but did not sufficiently define what such an emergency would be.  Never fear, communist sympathizers!  The bill is is being re-written and a new draft of it surfaced last night. 

If the government wants to protect our financial institutions and government networks, why give them the power to disable any network?  why not only those related to national security or the specific financial institution?

Some scenarios we, the citizens of the United States, could face if this were implemented:

- if our financial institution (or any financial institution) were under attack, our ability to access our own accounts (and therefore $$!) could be taken away for as long as the President/Government feels is necessary.  This is similar to locking & blockading banks to prevent "runs on the bank".  It's already annoying to be on vacation or at the gas pump or about to pay for a meal and suddenly the bank has put its own 'security hold' on your account ... imagine the chaos that would ensue should that happen to millions or billions of people at once? 
- the scarier scenario: our ability to access news and information.

would never happen, you think?  consider the following:

- the government has already asserted its power over controlling oil prices and thereby controlling our ability to travel by ground. 
- the government already controls, by way of an arbitrary "terrorist watch list", who can and cannot travel by air.  Perhaps a similar restriction to sea and rail travel is in the works?
- by forcing the switch from analog to digital, the government has made it incredibly difficult for "small guy" television broadcasts to exist, and has effectively shut out any citizen who was unable to afford the analog-to-digital switch requirements from receiving televised news.
- persons who subscribe to cable television, view television online, or use satellite already have their usage monitored "for programming purposes". How hard would it be for big brother to see what shows you normally watch?
- through the Patriot Act, public libraries are restricted in some materials they are able to make available.  At the time, you couldn't view a map of air currents, for example. (I'm not sure if that is still the case).  Your library records are easily obtainable by the government.
- As i reported earlier this month, the Obama Administration, manipulating and abusing what is known as "Fairness Doctrine" and having recently installed a "Diversity" Czar in the FCC is attempting to shut down network radio under the false banner of "promoting diversity" (the idea being that if there weren't syndicated programs on the handful of recently-increased available frequency bands, minorities would have more radio airtime).  As most radio-listening americans are well-aware, the REAL implications of this are that national news will be under government control and conservative talkshows, which make up the majority of syndicated shows, would be eliminated, removing 'competition' for the leftist government's dangerous policies. 
- Another bill is underway (may have already passed) that gives the president the power to declare an "emergency" that will authorize government agencies (including the newly created domestic army [1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division]) to surround, detain and isolate segments of the population and geographic locations for 'quarantine'.  This would effectively limit foot and bicycle traffic. 
- If the President or other government agencies suddenly have the ability to restrict or shut down all or parts of the internet, as is the fine-print aim of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, what methods remain to alert the citizens of rights violations, dangerous strategies of the government, or other news?   

There aren't any.

We should be paying attention to these things.  We should be watching what chavez is doing to Venezuela right now.  We should be refreshing our memory of history ... WW2 the nazis and our own illegal imprisonment of Japanese Americans. 

This urgency ... whistle-blowing ... 'paranoia' or whatever you'd want to call it is not solely against the work of the Democrats or Obama. In fact, it's not even our Presidents who are to blame completely.  These policies are written and accepted by many of our elected officials, and those who they appoint to work with them.  You can point fingers at Bush (Patriot Act) or Obama (just about everything else) all you want, but these men are just conduits or puppets or spokespersons for who or whatever is behind this movement, and singling one president or one party or one talk radio host, actress, corporation or religion out as the guilty party is simply a distraction that we can't afford. While we're pointing fingers, this snake of dnagerous constriction is slithering beneath us.  Yeah, i scream and yell about Obama a lot ... but that's because he's the figurehead of the current cloud of stupidity that is hanging over our nation.  In three years it will be someone else's fault.  It's really the same reason i defend Bush ... you can't spend eight years blaming Bush for everything and then suddenly pretend the universe is all good with Obama. We were on a downward slope, and now we're accelerating. 

Sources:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.773:
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/rockefeller.revised.cybersecurity.draft.082709.pdf
http://inforodeo.livejournal.com/46731.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/24/army/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-control-internet/

Tags:

Re-Post: Franken Victory Not Funny

  • Jul. 1st, 2009 at 11:42 AM
bull, rodeo, cowboy

I've got a lot going on this morning, but i wanted to archive (cut & paste) the following commentary, because i feel it points out some incredibly important issues and potential issues in our current balance of governmental power:

Franken Victory Is Not Funny
Commentary on CNN By John Feehery

 (CNN) -- The metric system is the kind of thing that you can expect from the 60-vote filibuster-proof majority Democrats now have in the United States Senate.

After the Watergate scandal in 1974, Democrats trounced Republicans in the mid-term elections, getting 61 seats in the Senate and 291 in the House.

In the Senate, they adjusted the rules to make it harder for Republicans to filibuster (reducing the magic number from 67 to 60 to invoke cloture, which ends debate). In the House, they passed all kinds of reforms to take power away from senior members and give it to junior members. And Congress mandated that the American people embrace the metric system.

The metric system idea never really caught on, and although the pain of Watergate afflicted Republicans for another two elections, they eventually pulled themselves out of their deep hole, with some good ideas and a charismatic leader, who promised to restore America to greatness.

Democrats have once again reached the magic number of 60, as Norm Coleman finally threw in the towel against the one-time joke writer for Saturday Night Live, Al Franken.

Republicans have little reason to laugh, though, as they look at their diminished ranks and wonder how they have put themselves in such a weakened position. It was only four-and-a-half years ago that the GOP was on the top of the world, and some of their more smug strategists were confidently predicting a permanent Republican majority.

This is a good time for such self-reflection. Republicans lost three top-notch senators in the last election -- Norm Coleman, Gordon Smith and John Sununu -- who lost not because they were bad senators, or because they had scandals, or because they had lost touch with constituents. All three lost because they were Republicans.

In other words, the brand killed them. And if you look at the latest polls, the GOP brand hasn't gotten any better in the last six months. In fact, according to Gallup, even 38 percent of Republicans have a negative view of the Republican Party.

But let's not throw in the towel yet, my Republican friends.

Just as in the mid-1970s, when Democratic overreach led to a Republican resurgence, the house that Franken has built will inevitably collapse on its own leftward-self.

A new Gallup poll shows that the American people are starting to catch on that Democrats are pushing the country to a place that it doesn't want to go. The poll "finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party's views as being "too liberal," from 39 percent to 46 percent. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party's losses in that year's midterm elections."

It is no surprise that Americans would have that impression of Democrats in the White House and in Congress.

When they passed a so-called stimulus bill that Republicans branded as pork-filled, they lost their credibility on fiscal responsibility.

When the president assumed control over General Motors, dictated terms to Chrysler, and then refused to allow some banks to pay back their TARP loans, independent voters grew nervous about the government's stepped-up intervention in the private sector.

And last week, when Democrats passed a climate change bill that Republicans insist will sharply raise energy prices for middle-class families, moderate Democrats started to jump ship. In fact, 44 Democrats defied intense pressure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and voted no.

Democrats are now making plans to intervene in the health care marketplace, with some liberals insisting on a government-run "public option" health insurer. In any event, many won't be satisfied until the government basically sets prices for health insurance and prescription drugs.

The arrival of the man from Minnesota will make the move leftward even for Democrats. He will not only be one more vote for the left, but one more loud voice for liberal policies. Because of his celebrity status, he will attract media attention, and because of his philosophy, he will use that attention to move Democrats further left.

When Franken first started in politics, he did so as the liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh. Imagine if Rush were the 60th vote for Republicans, with George Bush as president. Now, think how Franken will act as the 60th vote for President Obama.

Yes, Democrats will move left by more than a few kilometers, but they will do so at their own peril.

Another poll showed that while 40 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservative, only 21 percent think of themselves as liberal. The American people voted for change. They didn't vote for a liberal orthodoxy that promises more government, higher taxes, slower growth, more pork and a liberal social agenda.

In 1975, the newly dominant Democratic Congress sent President Gerald Ford a bill that declared that America was going to be metric, which he signed. When Jimmy Carter became president two years later, he signed a law that told Americans that they couldn't drive faster than 55 mph.

These measures made perfect sense to the liberal sensibilities of the time. But they didn't make sense to the American people, and are symbols of a philosophy that was out of touch with the people in the 1970s and is still out of touch with the lives of most Americans today.

Most Americans still don't use the metric system, and they certainly don't drive no more than 55 miles an hour. And while they may still like Barack Obama and still laugh at jokes written by Al Franken, they will eventually grow weary of the newly dominant liberals who now run Washington.

source:
Original commentary can be found at http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/01/feehery.franken/index.html

  • Wher'bouts:In Shock
  • Weather: distressed
  • Yodel:A-Mei

Tags:

GOVERNMENT CONTROL ...

  • Jun. 6th, 2009 at 8:30 AM
bull, rodeo, cowboy
 "Fascism is achieved through the merger of corporate and government powers." -- Benito Mussolini

This isn't going to be a very original post.  I really have little to say ... because it's all too glaringly obvious.  No insight needed to understand this one ...

Usually this quote is used to promote the conspiracy theory that "The government is run by Big Business".  They want you to live in fear that "big oil" companies and mcdonalds are lurking in the shadows, whispering orders to the army, the IRS, the police, or whomever. 

The truth is actually more benign in some ways, and more frightening in others.

We are protected by numerous laws from most intereference with our laws by "big companies".  A company cannot, for example, donate any money to a campaign or political party.  When you see politicians (like Hillary Clinton in 2007) having to give back money that was "donated illegally", it's usually related to some company trying to sneak money to a politician through a third party, and then they got caught. When you hear political ads warning that "so-n-so got most of his campaign donations from 'big oil'", it's usually a flat-out lie, or it's based on the thin fiber of truth that an employee or cousin of someone somehow tied to the company (a janitor, the 2nd cousin of the receptionist, etc) having contributed money.  There is even a maximum amount that any person may donate. 

This isn't to say there aren't ties between businesses and politics.  Obama himself was tied to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae long ago, and appeared at banquets they put on in his honor because of some low-level political wrangling he'd done for them in Chicago. His current administration is made up largely of people who were in his "line of business", working with low-income housing and minorities - though it would be an assumption to say he worked personally with all of them. In the early 1900's, infamously corrupt Tammany Hall was a den of democratic politicians "in bed with" business owners.  On the lighter side (sort of), the government officials are (mostly) elected by "the people", and when "the people" demand cleaner air, safer working conditions, equality between genders/ages/races in employment, more accessible healthcare, etc ... the government is the tool in which those changes are enacted - on businesses - and to be just, those businesses should be permitted some measure of presence in the debate to decide their own fate. When we elect any politician, we also have to remember that no matter how environmentally-friendly, 'down to earth' or 'progressive' the man, a lot of money was spent bringing his face to your television. Obama, for example, was elected on a magical pedestal that cost $195 Million for the television spots alone. His chief rival, John McCain spent $11 million. Obama had a lot of additional help from "non-profit" organizations who "independently" (on paper, anyway) promoted him and his party. MoveOn.org, DemocracyNow!, and others, supported by the Annenberg Foundation and Global opportunist millionaire George Soros. Politics will always have some sort of tie with businesses. 

As ugly as some of that sounded, that was the harmless part.

The Real ties between government and business that we need to be aware of are the numerous Government-Corporations.  Some were created by the federal government to serve some sort of purpose that benefitted the government, a sort of "shell entity". Some are "private" companies that the government has purchased shares in.  Others, were "purchased" by the government when they went bankrupt.  Some even started off as a government project, went independent, failed, and the government took over again.  Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are of that variety.

It is actually difficult to track down a comprehensive list of these organizations and their ties with the government.  Off the top of my head i would suggest NASA is one.  The Airlines are too, sort of.  Railroads. Power Companies.
A search online yielded the following list:

GOVERNMENT OWNED:
Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation dba "Amtrak")
Consolidated Rail Corporation
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation
Holdings of American International Group
Legal Services Corporation
United States Government Sponsored Enterprise
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Reconstruction Finance Corporation
Tennessee Valley Authority

GOVERNMENT SPONSORED:
Farm Credit System
Federal Home Loan Banks
Sallie Mae
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
American International Group (AIG)
General Motors
United States Postal Service
North Dakota Mill and Elevator

I want to be honest about this list:  I don't believe it includes everything, and I don't know the history or depth of connection between what is on the list and the government.  I haven't checked my "facts" yet, and this will be an area of further study, hopefully producing a well-documented and detailed list at some future date.

These companies seem pretty harmless.  What danger is posed by North Dakota Mill and Elevator, for example?  Or those loveable cuddly names, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?

While it is true that some have more weight in their potential effect on the nation than others, the primary danger is that a close mix of government and business cannot be fruitful for either. 
In order for a business to truly be successful, it needs to be able to stand on its own, and produce for the demand.  If the business is a failure ... mismanaged or unfruitful ... it needs to crumble so better businesses can rise in its place and fulfill the need better.

Often our country experiences devastating wildfires.  Wildfires, a "natural disaster", have existed since trees and lightning.  Some trees actually thrive on the fires - the heat being required to open their cones and ripen their seeds. 
These fires also serve a purpose: they remove the failed and diseased trees, and open the forest for new vegetation.  With too much of a forest canopy in this kind of climate, the trees which occur here naturally cannot get the sunlight they need to grow.  With all of the new growth being sickly, the entire forest would soon die. 
Darwinists might cause this "natural selection" ... "survival of the fittest". 
As we have infringed upon the wildreness, building expensive homes deep in the forest, we have enacted laws and created agencies to protect our homes from this natural menace.  Men die, money is spent, and crews are flown across the nation to fight these fires ...
In stopping the fires, we are preventing nature from 'cleaning house'.  We're creating more disease in the forests, with more dead underbrush.  We're preventing certain trees from reproducing. 
Our well-intentioned laws, designed to protect a few wealthy individuals who want to live in luxury in "rough" surroundings, are actually increasing the danger by preventing the natural balance from happening.  Every now and then, a small fire erupts, exploding into a gigantic monster of devastation. 

Businesses are like those trees, and failure is like the fire.  When government steps in to "help" the sick and failed businesses, the stronger businesses have little room to grow.  When enough of these dried and withered businesses are propped up by the government, all it takes is a small spark to send the whole "forest" into flames, and the few strong who had managed to survive on their own are not enough to hold the structure on their own.  With each new wildfire, fewer and fewer of the strong "trees" will be left standing.

Government aiding broken businesses is a bad deal for the country.  But that is not in the least bit the worst of it.

When the government owns a business ... say ... a power company ... competition quickly vanishes.  I don't for a moment suspect secret agents sneaking around making threats and having the competitors "disappear" ... the competition disappears on its own.  This harms capitalism, which might seem like a great thing (if you're poor and jealous), but is actually quite bad.  Without capitalism, we wouldn't have as many choices in the goods and products that we can currently choose from.  Organic foods would not be available unless the government decided they actually made a difference (and likely would not). You also probably wouldn't have a job. Without capitalism, liberals wouldn't have access to pornography and 'adult items', their favorite brand of cigarettes, bars, nightclubs, Che shirts, Save Tibet bumper stickers, Beastie Boys and Bob Marley albums, cable television (including non-profit channels), and our cars would all be pretty much the same and likely be gas-guzzling black-smokers, at least until someone in the government was pressed to change the laws. 
Capitalism creates jobs, and even more, creates choices. Choices create competition. Capitalism is a merit-based system ... as much as you want to complain about "the rich getting richer" ... in a capitalist system you have the opportunity to quit working for 'the man' and go into business for yourself.

When governments own companies, they run business like they run politics.  The products become worse ... being mass-produced, not "environmentally sound" (until enough people in government push for changes that EVERYONE can agree on), and the workers making them become more miserable.  

When governments run companies, scientific progress is hindered.  Political choices determine what science to funnel money into or not.  This usually means billions of dollars spent on ways to kill people, not on cures for cancer, alzheimers, or new energy sources with a better 'carbon footprint'.  Remember how angry you were that Bush stopped stem-cell research? It is incredibly foolish to build a government that gives this kind of power to the president (or to congress, etc) ... because there will never be a president or ruling party that will satisfy everyone's needs ... and that naturally means that no single political dogma will remain in power forever.  You saw Obama's "first hundred days" ... he spent them exclusively un-doing things his predecessor had implemented, pointing fingers as he went. It's not much of a stretch to imagine some post-Obama president could undo what Obama has done.

You cannot give government too much power without risking your future. When you enact laws giving the government more power, you do not in any way prevent the power from being abused at some point in the future ... but you do make it incredibly difficult to remove that power when 'the bad guy' is abusing it. 

We may not know the exact outcome ... the consequences of government control of the banks, the mortgage companies, the auto companies, the energy companies, the farming companies, the broadcast companies, and so forth ... but we can be certain that, eventually, those consequences will be evident, and at that point it will be too late. 

Tags:

Darn That Sarah Palin! Wait - Texas?

  • May. 8th, 2009 at 8:27 AM
bull, rodeo, cowboy

Oh wait - she isn't the Gov. of Texas? Oops ...

------------------------------------------------

Rape Victims Forced To Pay For Evidence
By Stephen Dean

POSTED: Thursday, May 7, 2009
UPDATED: 8:25 am CDT May 8, 2009
HOUSTON -- Victims of sexual assault are getting bills, rejection letters and pushy calls from bill collectors while a state crime victims' fund sits full of cash, Local 2 Investigates reported Thursday.

"I'm the victim, and yet here I am. I'm asked to pay this bill and my credit's going to get hurt," said a single mom from Houston.

She received bills marked, "delinquent," after she visited a hospital where police told her to have evidence gathered. Officers assured her she would not pay a dime for that rape kit to be handled.

"That was unreal," she said. "I never thought I'd be out anything for what I went through."

She was 44 years old when she was attacked in her own bed. She said she awoke to find a burly 15-year-old friend of her son assaulting her. He was found delinquent, meaning he was convicted, in juvenile court, thanks in part to the evidence gathered with the rape kit.

"It is set up legislatively so that the criminal justice system pays for whatever evidence collection occurs," said Kelly Young, with the Houston Area Women's Center, a rape crisis facility.

Police departments are reimbursed for up to $700 by the Texas Crime Victims' Compensation Fund, but many departments cover the bills if they exceed that.

( Read More )

Source: http://www.click2houston.com/news/19400415/detail.html#-

-------------------

To this, I am forced to quote from a post I made in September of last year:

"the REAL story behind victims being charged for rape kits is this:  Senator Biden (Dem) drafted a bill taking funding responsibility for sexual assault issues away from the federal government, and placing the burden on individual states. The law was signed into law by President Bill Clinton (Dem). "

"Previously, if a person was a victim of a sexual assault, the rape kits, prosecution, etc were paid for by the United States federal government (i.e., the cost paid for by a small amount of taxes collected from the citizens of the United States as a whole).  Through a plan launched by a democratic senator (one running for VP now!), the United states said "hey, we're not going to pay for victims of sexual assault anymore, someone else has to do it, and that should be the state."  A democratic president, one famed for his own sexual assaults, signed the bill into law.  At that point, it was the individual state's responsibility to cover the costs." (LINK: http://inforodeo.livejournal.com/11308.html )

"Pay for Your Own Rape Kit" is just one of several strange things floating around out there that can be shown to be a direct cause of one of Biden's many ill-planned laws. 

You elected him Vice-President. </p>
  • Weather: cold

Tags:

First Hand Witness of the State of the Economy

  • Apr. 1st, 2009 at 11:34 AM
bull, rodeo, cowboy
I went to the bank today to deposit my most recent paycheck. 

While standing in line, i overheard the bank manager working with a couple who were trying to get their social security checks.  Nothing that much out of the ordinary - i'd seen other people collecting welfare before.

As i was filling out my deposit slip, a guy came in and cheerfully addressed the teller by name.  As he passed me by and walked up to the counter, he told her he had just got his unemployment check.
He looked like he probably worked at the local lumber mill, and i know they'd laid off quite a few people recently.

As i walked to the counter to deposit my check, an elderly woman pulled up to the drive-thru window, and i heard the teller say "well, it's overdrawn."
The elderly woman asked, "by how much?"
The teller, beginning to speak in a concerned, hushed voice said, "by over eight-hundred dollars."
The elderly woman slumped in the seat of her blue pickup. 

It's april fools day, and across the Atlantic there are riots in England during an "economic summit".  Obama is supposed to be speaking with Chinese leaders to figure out what to do about our debt to China.  China owns a lot of U.S. Treasury bonds.  Like a commenter said the other day, "We're in a trillion-dollar 'national debt'. Who are we indebted to? China."

I hoped this was all a joke, but it is not.

Tags:

Washington State Wants To Let Felons Vote

  • Mar. 23rd, 2009 at 10:57 AM
bull, rodeo, cowboy

Ok. Now that i have youyr attention, it's not "that" dramatic, but it's still just as liberally-foolish.

----

Bill Would Help Voting Restoration For Felons

Posted: 2:09 pm PDT March 21, 2009Updated: 8:25 am PDT March 22, 2009
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- For tens of thousands of convicted felons in Washington state, only one thing stands between them and the ballot box: debt.
The Associated Press reported that under current law, felons can't vote until they have served their sentences, including the completion of any parole or probation, and paid all restitution and other court fees.
A measure to remove that payment requirement -- opponents say it's akin to a modern-day "poll tax" -- has passed the House and awaits action in the Senate.
If it becomes law, felons could simply re-register to vote once they're no longer in state custody, including any parole or probation.
"The basic unfairness is that our system is currently based on someone paying off their legal obligations," said Rep. Jeannie Darneille, a Tacoma Democrat who sponsored the measure. "If you have money, you can get your rights restored, and if you don't have money, you won't."
Washington's neighbor, Oregon, automatically restores voting rights to felons once they're released from prison. Nearly 40 other states and the District of Columbia also have less onerous restrictions on restoring voting rights to felons.
But others argue Washington state is obligated to make sure felons complete all of their sentence, including all monetary obligations.

----

After you've served your sentence, it makes sense that you should be allowed to vote.  I would imagine it makes the same sense that all your other rights should be restored, too, since you're no longer a "bad guy".  Like your right to own guns. Right?  Telling an ex-felon they can vote but not have all their rights back is kind of saying two things, right?  Like: "We can trust you to choose our next President, but not to own a firearm." 

I don't want former felons who'd been covicted of a violent crime to have guns.  I don't want any "white-collar" felon choosing our president and other elected officials.  Politicians - particularly democrats, from whom much support is gleaned from the formerly guilty - want more votes.  Crooked politicians want crooked peers to vote them into office.

Now for the part that doesn't make any sense:

Saying the financial obligation that was part of their sentence isn't fair is ... stupid. It's part of their sentence! When they committed their crime, the financial consequence was one of the consequences of their stupidity, selfishness or evil. If you kill a person, you expect to be put to death or put in prison for life.  If you break into someone's house, rape a jogger in a park, hold up a convenience store or drive drunk, you know society is going to expect you to pay. You know you're going to be indebtecd with your time and your money and your reputation to pay restitution for your crime.

If a previously convicted felon can't afford his or her financial portion of the sentence, then they should get a job.  If that doesn't work, they can go back to jail, which is what happens when the financial portion of their prior sentencing is not met.

A person who intentionally committed a crime needs to fulfill their complete sentencing before they are granted the privileges given to good citizens.



sources:
http://www.kirotv.com/news/18983625/detail.html

Tags:

Thank The Democrats For the Current Economic Crisis

  • Oct. 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 AM
bull, rodeo, cowboy
Remember, though, a small number of Republicans were probably involved, too, and there may have been a couple Democrats not involved ...

The following video, though, shows us the cute little laws Jimmy carter passed to save the 1970's ...
and then Bill Clinton added to it ...
and then, because of rising gas prices and smaller paychecks, the 'little guys' quit paying the speculating banks who were taking in the benefits of the two D-presidents' packages ...

Now Obama is profiting from the bust

BUT YOU'RE STILL GOING TO VOTE FOR HIM AND HIS PARTY.

SICKO!



i'm pretty angry that the bill passed.  i don't agree with the government bailing out bad business, especially when the executives are still walking away with more money than most Americans make in a lifetime. It is a shame that McCain also voted for the bill ... had he voted 'no', it would have left Obama as the only retard running for president, and that may have changed things. 

i imagine, though, if both candidates voted for the bailout, maybe they know something we don't ...

Tags:

Obama Threatens NRA - See Censorship In Action!

  • Sep. 28th, 2008 at 1:28 PM
bull, rodeo, cowboy

The NRA, being the largest "pro-second amendment" organization in America has understandably been concerned about anti-gun Obama being elected for president.

For those who don't know, Obama's 'gun ban' record is as follows:

- Obama supported local handgun bans in the Chicago area by opposing ANY allowance for self-defense. Obama opposed an Illinois bill (SB 2165, 2004) that would have created an "affirmative defense" for a person who used a prohibited firearm in self-defense in his own home.  The bill contained simple language, yet Obama stillvoted against it.
(FactCheck.org misleadingly claims that "Obama is proposing no ban on use of firearms for self-defense in the home". True, he has not 'proposed' that in the arena of running for president, but Obama HAS been consistent in the past in his anti-gun stance.  This is a bit more solid 'liklihood' than the weird attempts to link McCain to Bush or other Republicans by virtue of their party, when McCain has a strong record of NOT going along with the crowd on important issues).

- Obama voted to ban nearly all hunting ammunition. 
Obama voted for an amendment by longtime ammunition ban advocate Sen. Edward Kennedy (S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, Vote No. 217, July 29, 2005), which would have fundamentally changed the federal "armor piercing ammunition" law (18 U.S.C. ' 922(a)(7)), by banning any bullet that "may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines... to be capable of penetrating body armor" that "meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers."
Federal law currently bans bullets as "armor piercing" based upon the metals used in their construction, such as those made of steel and those that have heavy jackets. (18 U.S.C. ' 921(a)(17)). The Kennedy amendment would have fundamentally changed the law to add a ban on bullets on the basis of whether they penetrate the "minimum" level of body armor, regardless of the bullets' construction or the purposes for which they were designed (e.g., hunting).
Many bullets designed and intended for use in rifles (including hunting rifles) have, over the years, been used in special-purpose hunting and target handguns, thus they "may be used in a handgun."
The "minimum" level of body armor, Type I, only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges. Any center-fire rifle used for hunting, target shooting, or any other purpose, and many handguns used for the same purposes, are capable of penetrating Type I armor, regardless of the design of the bullet.
Obama also said, on his 2003 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, that he would "support banning the sale of ammunition for assault weapons." (source) The rifles banned as "assault weapons" under the 1994 Clinton gun ban fire cartridges such as the .223 Remington and .308 Winchester - the same ammunition used in common hunting rifles.
It's true that in 2005, Sen. Kennedy denied his amendment would ban hunting ammunition. But in a floor debate on an identical amendment the previous year, Kennedy specifically denounced the .30-30 Winchester rifle cartridge, used by millions of deer hunters since 1895. "It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America," said Sen. Kennedy. (Congressional Record, 2/26/04, p. S1634.)

- Obama has repeatedly lied when he's said "I do not support any kind of handgun ban, and never have." 
In addition to the support for banning self-defense and hunting guns, Obama has never disavowed his support for a handgun ban. On Obama's 1996 questionnaire for the Independent Voters of Illinois-Independent Precinct Organization, he clearly stated his support for "state legislation to ...ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Although Obama first claimed he had not seen the survey, a later version appeared with his handwritten notes modifying some of the answers. But he didn't change any of his answers on gun issues, including the handgun ban.
FactCheck itself cites Obama's 2003 questionnaire to the same group. When asked again if he supported a handgun ban, he could simply have said, "No." Instead, as FactCheck notes, he "avoid[ed] a yes-or-no answer" by saying a ban on handguns "is not politically practicable," then stated his support for other restrictions.
The 1996 and 2003 positions are not at all contradictory. Many anti-gun groups, such as the Violence Policy Center and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, support total bans on handguns but also support lesser regulations that are more "politically practicable."

- Obama supporters claim that Obama never said he would appoint judges who would agree with him. 
Don't most Americans expect that the President will appoint people who agree with him to all levels of the government? And putting all Obama's campaign rhetoric about "empathy" aside, why would judges be any different? Isn't it weird to think he would appoint people who *disagree* with him? While the concept is appealing, national history and Obama's personal history don't really leave much precedent to pave the way to that belief. 
And on the larger issue of Obama's view of the Second Amendment, FactCheck once again takes Obama's spin at face value. While Obama now claims to embrace the Supreme Court's decision striking down the D.C. gun ban, he refused to sign an amicus brief stating that position to the Court. And when Washington, D.C. television reporter Leon Harris said to Obama, "You support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," Obama nodded - and again didn't disavow his support. (WJLA TV interview, 2/11/2008.)

anyway, so the NRA, which, like MoveOn, is a PAC, started playing these ads on television and radio, reminding people of Obama's stance on gun ownership (doesn't really support the second ammendment, has a record of trying to ban guns for self-defense AND hunting, using sneaky means like ammunition bans).  Seems fair, right? i mean, after all, MoveOn has numerous ads that spin the truth in their favor, so what's the problem with some simple little fact-based ads?

Well, several stations who were airing the NRA ads received a threatening letter recently from Obama for America's legal counsel, Robert F. Bauer.  In it, Baur/Obama threaten (or enlighten us as to why they don't feel creepy distorting the truth in their own ads):

"Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a "right to command the use of broadcast facilities" See CBS v. DNC, 412 U.S. 94, 113 (1973). 
Because you need not air this advertisement, your station bears responsibility for its content when you do grant access.  See Felix v. Westinghouse Radio Stations, 186 F.2d 1, 6 (3rd Cir.), cert denied, 314 U.S. 909 (1950)"

The letter goes on to accuse the ads of being "false, misleading, and deceptive", and throws in a few other 'legalese' threats ("you have a duty to protect the public") ... basically trying to scare any timid or unlawyered broadcasters into worrying that they could get into 'big trouble' if these ads really are false. 
What this does, aside from promoting censorship, and the right to freedom of speech, is needlessly puts the NRA ads into question (anyone who bothers to check the facts will know they're on the 'Up & Up' - they're accurate), so if the station doesn't have time to check their facts, what choice do they have but to cease airing the ads until they 'have time', and by then it could be too late!  This legal attack by the Obama campaign is snakey ... what stations are likely to worry the most about these threats?  Stations who can't fact-check everything that comes through, or who don't have the money to spend on lawyers, right? and who are those?  SMALL TOWNS and RURAL AREAS. Where do most legal gun owners/hunters live?  SMALL TOWNS and RURAL AREAS. 

I'm still in awe of that law they quoted ... the one that says that people campaigning for federal office are not under any obligation to use the truth, while independent political organizations *are* required to.  They're giving away their loophole! 

anyway, some of the other important lines out of this threat are as follow:

LINE: "Note that the NRA is claiming that Obama, in the midst of his presidential campaign, supports such a tax".
The NRA never specified that Obama was supporting that 'in the midst of his presidential campaign', they said "Obama supports", and that has been and IS the truth!

LINE: "...Falsely claims that Obama voted to ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition." 
We know (see the above rant) that similifying Kennedy's bill to apply only to "Deer wearing bullet-proof vests" is incredibly misleading!  The bill would have banned any bullet that may also be used in a handgun (a rifle ban to ban handguns!), any bullet that can pierce *the lowest level of* bullet-proof armor (ANY ammunition can penetrate 'bullet-proof' armor given certain ranges and angles, and, for that matter, so can knives!), would have banned the .30-30, the .223 Remington, and the .308 Winchester - all three of the most common kinds of hunting ammunition! So yeah, banning the 3 most common types of hunting ammunition IS 'banning virtually all", and YES, Obama voted in favor of this bill. 

I need to stop for a second here and remind you that MOST gun crimes are committed with HANDGUNS, few of those even FIRE the gun (robberies, rapes), and virtually NO intentional 'gun violence' is created with a rifle ("assault" or otherwise), accidental gun wounds and deaths caused by rifles are less common than lighting-related deaths, and the ONE example the media has to demonize rifles is the 'D.C. Sniper(s)', who used guns DURING THE CLINTON GUN BAN OF 1994-2004. I don't know how dense a person has to be to not see it, but for those of you who are, here it is again:  ONLY CRIMINALS USE GUNS TO KILL, AND CRIMINALS ARE NOT STOPPED BY GUN BANS.  As i've shown in prior data (and feel free to do your own research!), in areas where 'gun bans' exist, CRIME GOES UP DRAMATICALLY.  what more do you need?!

anyway, the last lie is similar to the first, only regarding an interview wth Obama in which he underscored his stance on guns. 

if you want to read the document yourself, a link to the PDF is here:  http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/ObamaLetterNRAAd.pdf

Tags:

So I'm Looking into this Palin Rape-Kit thing ...

  • Sep. 20th, 2008 at 1:34 PM
bull, rodeo, cowboy
First, a clip from another blog, and how i was first made aware of this:

a friend remarked, in response to my Gun ban post:

"Alaska has the highest rape levels?! Wow!
Speaking of Alaska and rape, Palin made women in her town pay for their own rape kits when she was mayor. Woohoo!
OK I'm done with my impromptu Palin-bashing for the moment... haha."

I responded:

well, Alaska has the highest *reported* rape. I'd imagine in a state with as high a male-to-female ratio, i'm not surprised, though.

hadn't heard about Palin making women in her town pay for their own rape kits. wow.
i did just find this on US News & World Reoert's site:

"According to reports, this changed in 2000 when then Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles signed a bill protecting rape victims from being charged. As I wrote recently, however, the situation described in Wasilla is not unique. In all too many instances, women are still being stuck with the bill for rape kits. This despite the fact that in order to qualify for federal grants under the Violence Against Women Act, states are supposed to pick up the entire tab."
[LINK: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-health-and-money/2008/9/10/sarah-palin-and-the-rape-kit-question.html ]

Shockingly, The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) Was signed into public law (103-322) by President Bill Clinton on September 13th, 1994.
The VAWA was drafted by Senator Joseph Biden's office with support from a bunch of advocacy organizations, including the Legal Momentum and The National Organization for Women, which called the bill "the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades".

---
i wrote a little more after that, but then decided to 'hit the books' to see if i could learn more.  After all, MoveOn.org and DemocracyNow!, along with their little wannabe bloggers and 'grassroots' groups are notorious for liberally editing out the context and important points in reporting these things, so i suspected something may be up.  Sweeping through numerous fiery rants about "Palin making rape victims pay for their own rape kits", and stories depicting what it 'must have been like' to sit there on a cold bench, mascara streaming down your face, and then suddenly handed a bill ...

i began to notice some patterns:
- no one could agree on the cost of these rape kits. some sources said $300, some said $1200, some said $2000.
- there were a lot of references to ONE news story
- every MoveOn article had to include the dates Palin was mayor.  Why? i mean, if she was down there swabbing the victims and handing out bills, wouldn't the news article be enough?

well, it turns out there are a few things no one wanted to bring up. 
first, in the actual article from the Frontiersman [source: http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt],  we learn a few things:
- Palin is never mentioned.  I find this a little weird, considering at the time there were under 6,000 people in the town of Wasilla (alaska's 5th largest city!), there were only 53 employees of the city - 54, if you count Palin - and at this point, according to strategically abused Wikipedia Entry "The Mayorality of Sarah Palin" [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin ], Palin was "already being groomed by republicans for Governer"
Why is someone so charismatic, so out-there-and in-your-face not even mentioned in a shocking article about her city - the city where she is the boss of the chief of police - not even mentioned?
- Through the article we learn hear the new police chief, Charlie Fannon say that "In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer" [i should point out, however, that the article does not make use of quotation marks around this particular statement, so it's possible he didn't say that].

the last little interesting tidbit, is that the City of Wasilla has no record of any Rape Kits ever being billed to a victim.  [source: Mayor Dianne M. Keller, RE: Billing Of sexual Assualt Victims Fo Forensic Exams, in which she details the city's finance records for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 - the financial computer and backup documentation don't go back any further, unfortunately, but a link to the city's statistics for sexual assaults is also provided in her memo]. 

From the data we see on the city's website, we know that sex assaults happened during those years (however they group ALL sexually-related assults into the numbers, which would include indecent exposure, 'peeping toms' and other non penetrative sexual acts that would not require the use of a 'rape kit' to prosecute.).   Keller's memo notes that the financial records (bills mailed out) prior to the beginning of 2000 are not available, but when comparing the City of Wasilla's billing of 2000-2002 to the sexual assault numbers (10, 10, 15 respectively), even if we were to assume the worst - that all 35 incidents were rapes, we can see that NONE OF THE VICTIMS WERE EVER BILLED FOR A RAPE KIT, and likewise, none of the victim's insurance companies were billed. 

If it were city policy to bill victims for rape kits, and there were no crimes involving rapes in Wasilla during palin's two terms, do you think a mayor who only has 53 city employees under her, and who is in charge of the police department, the department of public works, parks and recreation, and even the museum would have time to uncover this obscure law?  Most mayors do not have as much to personally oversee, though most also have ten times the employees.  If it's a mayor's most important duty to ensure they personally are familiar with every single law, i wonder if my own mayor knows how many goats, chickens and cattle i may keep in my yard withon city limits ... or if the mayor of Pahrump, NV knows it is illegal to fly a foreign flag? or if most mayors know it's illegal to spit in their small towns? 

so here's my stance, based on what i've found:

1) i'm pretty certain Palin was not aware that her city of 6,000 people, like many other cities in the COUNTRY had a plan to charge the INSURANCE companies of sexual assault victims for their rape kits, in order to comply with the LAW [The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA)] drafted by JOE BIDEN and signed into effect by BILL CLINTON that required states - no matter their economic status - to PAY FOR THEIR OWN RAPE KITS rather than receive federal aid (because the feds don't care about sexual assault victims!). 
2) Fortunately, THE CITY OF WASILLA NEVER BILLED ANY RAPE VICTIMS (or their insurance companies!) FOR THEIR RAPE KITS, though there seems to be evidence that reported rapes likely took place.
3) Either way, anyone who tells you that "Palin was charging sexual assualt victims for their own rape kits" is a LIAR, and NOT TO BE TRUSTED. 

Tags:

Why is it "Senator John McCain" but only "Barack Obama"?

  • Sep. 5th, 2008 at 8:44 PM
bull, rodeo, cowboy
i was kind of grouchy to hear parts of the latest McCain speech where he *does* talk a little smack (still not as much as Obama, but that doesn't make it "ok") ...
but in listening to the panelists debate the speech on Anderson Cooper, i realised something incredibly clever/misleading/sneaky/brilliant on the part of the Obama campaign:
those reporters with an 'in' to the campaign seem to have taken some oath to always refer to Obama without his political title "Senator". 

while technically this is probably more accurate (and, technically, he is "Junior Senator"), it is quite clever to have dropped the title of his current (still neglected) office, because to say "Senator McCain" and "Senator Obama" puts them on an equal playing field, which is dangerous for Obama, because then too much attention is drawn to his work as Senator, and in all unbiased and unanimous honesty, McCain is soooooo far beyond Obama in having a solid record in that area.  (you can't argue that without looking like an ignorant idiot, though you could probably argue that "it's not fair to compare a 4-term Senator's record to that of a Junior Senator who has been campaigning since he took office.)

Dropping the title also streamlines Obama's name, much like "Madonna" or "Tiffany" or "Hitler", turning him into a pop culture icon.  If you think about it, "Singer Michael Jackson" sounds tiny, like "singer/songwriter Hazel Johnston", where "Michael Jackson" promotes an image of strength, a stand-alone sturdiness that doesn't need the crutches of a title or description.  read the following, and determine for yourself (without thinking about issues or your political indoctrination) which name in each example feels more "powerful", "respected", "easy to say", or "likely to win":

1) Obama vs McCain
2) Senator Barack Obama vs John McCain
3) Jr. Senator Obama vs Senator John McCain
4) Barack vs John
5) Obama vs Senator John McCain

see what i mean?  the way the name is presented in each example above is truthful and accurate, yet there is a bias one way or the other in each.  this technique is used in all sorts of propaganda.  I don't know what it's called, but they use it in presenting statistics, too:

"6 out of 10 dentists prefer toothpaste"
or
"60% of dentists prefer toothpaste"
or
"40% of dentists don't prefer toothpaste"
or
"just under 50% of dentists don't prefer toothpaste"

it's all the same thing, but some versions carry more weight. 

anyway, i will never cease to be fascinated by propaganda artists, corrupt subcultures and big production, so it's likely that regardless of my political views, i will always have an uneasy fascination with the Democrat party.
 

Tags:

and another 396 arrested for breaking the law ...

  • Sep. 5th, 2008 at 11:01 AM
bull, rodeo, cowboy
Yet another day of protesters ...

the media is really eating this line of garbage up ... read on:

PROTESTERS, POLICE CLASH OUTSIDE CONVENTION

* Arrests at bridge near meeting hall bring total for week to 818
* Most of 396 arrested are cited, then released
* No serious injuries are reported from the confrontations

ST. PAUL, Minnesota (CNN) -- Police faced off with crowds of protesters outside the Republican National Convention, arresting 396 people after using tear gas and percussion grenades to turn them back.
Demonstrators are handcuffed Thursday evening in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota.
As a line of police clad in riot gear and walking with bicycles approached a woman who refused to get out of their way, several sprayed her with a chemical agent.
She covered her eyes with one hand and gave the two-finger peace sign with the other.
A man standing nearby yelled, "I love you! Why are you doing this?" as the woman was shoved to the pavement. Video Watch police spray and shove the woman ยป
Police who were shown video of the encounter declined to comment.
Thursday's arrests brought the total for the week to 818, authorities said.
"Most of them were cited and released," police Lt. Tracey Martin said Friday morning. Most of the citations were for the misdemeanor charge of unlawful assembly, she added.
Martin said she didn't know how many protesters were jailed. A deputy at the Ramsey County Jail said "not many," but couldn't provide a number.
There were no reports of serious injuries, police said.
Protesters who had gathered near the state capitol, about a mile from the site of the convention, were repeatedly cut off as they tried to march to the convention center.
Police used tear gas when dozens of marchers -- most in their 20s, some chanting "F**k the police! F**k the police! F**k 'em!" -- tried to cross a bridge leading to the Xcel Center convention site after being warned not to.
Minnesota State Public Safety Commissioner Michael Campion said the arrests were made at an interstate overpass that separated the marchers from the Xcel Center, where Sen. John McCain was preparing to address the GOP faithful.
He said the objective was to contain the protesters and keep them from reaching the convention hall.
Campion said the first night and the last night of the convention were expected to be big trouble, and they were.
Each time the protesters attempted to cross the interstate highway separating them from the convention center, police tried to stop them.
Police on horses, motorcycles and bicycles followed marchers on a street-to-street chase that led through a shopping mall parking lot.
A number of people wound up on the ground with their hands behind their heads.
iReport.com: Cop attacked during protest <-- please watch to see how peaceful demonstraters attack an officer of the peace. they're lucky they weren't shot!
On Wednesday, the RNC Welcoming Committee, a self-described anarchist/anti-authoritarian organizing body that has been behind many of the protests, said authorities in the Twin Cities had created "a climate of intense police intimidation."
Holli Drinkwine, spokeswoman for the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department, denied Thursday that police used excessive force.
"The police showed great restraint in what they were doing," she said. "They were dealing with 300 criminals on the street while trying to protect the 10,000 peaceful protesters that were in St. Paul."
The American Civil Liberties Union said it was providing limited representation to many of those arrested.

source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/05/rnc.protests/index.html#cnnSTCText
-----------

definitely check out the iReport ... if you want to see a police officer exercising inhuman restraint (he was arresting someone and was attacked by others, and only pepper-sprayed them to get away. any 'normal' person would have blasted their nazi heads off!)

i'm not surpised at all about the "i love you" and "as she was gassed, she raised two fingers in a peace sign" garbage. they do stuff like this *after* breaking the law, because they want to become a 'martyr' or 'icon' of the "injustice" and "police brutality". it's all staged ... in this age of youtube, facebook and second life, it's all staged ...

the thing this "unbiased" (snicker) news report failed to bring to light is that IN ORDER TO MARCH or PROTEST in an area where someone else (in this case, the RNC) has already obtained a permit to use, you have to also have a permit. 99% of the time, the second permit will NOT be issued, because the reason a permit to assemble was issued to group 1 is to secure or reserve the area. it's a pretty simple concept ... it would be like you calling ahead to a fancy restaurant to make reservations, and securing those reservations, but then someone who doesn't like you marches in and pushes past the doorman and waiters and starts banging on your table or helping themselves to your dinner. When the establishment tosses them out, they start screaming "right to free speech" and 'right to assemble" and "unprovoked attack" and "ACLU" ...

wow, yeah ... incredibly simple concept, yet these goons ... the same ones who know how to stop global warming, save the earth, run cars on water, eliminate all the social woes and create babies from two members of the same sex ... these goons can't seem to wrap their heads around the concept.

fortunately, there is one amazingly telling sentence in this entire report that really unhinges the otherwise crafty propaganda: they mention in the final sentence that the ACLU is providing limited representation to many of those arrested.
this reveals a lot about what really went on at this 'peace march' ... because the ACLU is the first to jump on anyone possibly infringing on the 'rights' of others (like the "right to have all traces of others' religion erased from your view", the "right to public lewdness as long as it's only homosexual in nature", and the "right to kill a baby when it is inconvenient") ...
so if the ACLU has restricted their service to "limited representation" of some of those claiming to have suffered injustice at the hands of the defending officers during their attacks ...

i'm watching a separate report right now of a meeting with an attorney that is talking to the arrested protesters. he's basically letting them know that most of them are out of luck because the police had told them several times that they were to turn back, but when they didn't, many of them had been issued citations for unlawful assembly. some people were charged with felony conspiracy to riot, and there was no evidence to the contrary ... and the allegations that "journalists were charged with conspiracy to riot" have been unsubstantiated so far.

Tags:

The Great Seal of Obama

  • Aug. 27th, 2008 at 5:44 PM
bull, rodeo, cowboy

The news today is about his costly theatrical (with pyrotechnics and everything!) 'greek temple' stage set for his coming acceptance speech.  Most of the major news outlets are gasping and giggling, because of the whole 'personality cult' allegations the humorous McCain ads made ... Obama fought them, denying the ego trip and fanatical followers and his lack of substance ...

but the greek temple is a little creepy to me.  it reminds me of all the pagentry of the Nazis, orchestrated by their great personality, Adolf Hitler. 

I did a little research (and yeah, don't laugh at me for not knowing about this already, because i don't follow the popular biased-media too often), but i guess Obama has - or at one point had - his own presidential seal made!  seriously! 
There's a well-researched article with accompanying image and video put out by the LA Times that i am copying (in the interest of preserving it for humanity) below:
---------------------
Barack Obama gets his own nifty Great Seal; all he needs now is votes

Just before the president of the United States makes an appearance at a speech, a usually tall, muscular person with a machine gun hanging under his suit coat quietly walks on stage and hangs the presidential seal on the podium front.

It's an impressive looking thing that conveys a sense of the power of the top elected office in the land and, indeed, the free world.

But Barack Obama's crowd has decided not to wait for any of the formalities like a presidential election, an inauguration or even a nomination, which he still hasn't actually officially won yet. Wasn't it Hillary Clinton who was so sidely accused of thinking her nomination was inevitable?

Photo credit: Alex Brandon/Associated Press

Obama now has his own Great Seal already. And it is really, really big. It's big like the tires on those elevated pickups in the parking lot at NASCAR races where you look out the car window and see nothing but fist-sized lug nuts.

Obama's new seal looks really presidential, which is probably a coincidence, don't you think? Obama's seal has an eagle just like the president's seal and he or she is holding arrows to signify war, which Obama was against before it even started.

And it's got olive branches, which stand for peace, which we haven't really had since 9/11 but DailyKos promises will come as soon as we shoo out Bush and Cheney.

The seal's also got a terrifically impressive motto in Latin -- "Vero Possumus" -- which means "The possum speaks truthily."

No, just kidding. It actually means "Truly we're able," which translates as "Si se puede," which translates as "Yes, we can." Obama is clearly copying George W. Bush's Texas gubernatorial reelection motto from 1998.

Plus it's got Obama's website right up there too. Lord knows, he needs more donations because the poor White Sox fan from Chicago's impoverished South Side has only raised a little under $290 million so far.

As chronicled by our colleagues over at the Swamp, some folks figure he'll top a half-billion dollars before election day, now that he's scrapped his promise to take public funds, this year a measly $84 million to spend between Labor Day and Nov. 4. Public money was good enough for every other presidential candidate for the last three decades. But how could any serious candidate possibly get along on only $1.3 million a day?

During the Democratic primary voting, a lot of folks were fooled into thinking Obama agreed with public funds when he signed a pledge last fall to use them and told constitutents before that, "If we're still getting financed primarily from individual contributions, those with the most money are still going to have the most influence."

As Jill Zuckman notes in the Swamp, the John McCain camp is using Obama's own phrase -- "Don't tell me words don't matter" -- to skewer the Illinois senator on his finance reversal. But McCain doesn't have his own giant seal.

The Obama campaign is clearly counting on any stink over the broken pledge to blow over in the 136 days left before the election. And, of course, once Obama backers see the kind of first-class seal they're getting for $290-plus million, they may go along.

If Obama does raise $500 million, that'll mean he spent around two gallons of gas per vote. He raked in another $22 million in May, according to the Tribune's Mike Dorning, roughly the same as McCain.

Some people might be inclined to make fun of a grown candidate who's against an imperial presidency but needs a really Great Seal before he even gets the official nomination. Maybe they'd suggest that as good as things look now from the city of big winds, maybe he's counting his eagles before they hatch.

But even if he loses in November, for $500 million Obama and Michelle could build their own White House. And paint it any darned color they want.

For a video of Obama explaining his public funding reversal, along with subversive subtitles from the funny folks over at 23/6, click on the Read more line below.

--Andrew Malcolm

SOURCE: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/obama-seal.html
------------

all i can say is WOW!  awesome article, and where i used to just chuckle a bit when right-wingers accused him of being a 'personality' or called him the "Obamessiah", i am now seriously freaked out that EVERYONE in the country isn't freaking out over his Hitler-esque pomp, well delivered but unsubstantial speeches (like Kerry's "I've got a plan, it's a good plan, and i've planned this plan, so don't vote for a republican, because they just want to raise taxes, make college girls wear chastity belts and give your kids' college fund to Big Oil!") ...

Obama wants to take our guns, he wants to back out of the war, he wants to quit drilling for oil, he wants to ignore pleas for help by foreign nations under attack, he wants to throw a lot of money into technologies that are already proven failures, he wants to kill more babies and most of all, HE DOESN'T WANT McCAIN TO WIN. 
If you listen to all the speeches from this week's DNC ... you'll notice that no one addressed any of the 'important issues' ... there is still no democrat plan to fix the economy, save the polar bears, lower gas prices, create a viable alternate energy source for our cars, trucks and planes, etc.  the only thing they've focused on is bad-mouthing real politicians, or, in the case of Hillary, backtracking through months of material and lying to say she 'supports obama and always has'. 
There have been a lot of pretty speeches, and their stormtroopers have already carted away truckloads of undesireables (the democrat-nazi metaphor completes itself with homeless as the jews) ...

WHY AREN'T ALL THE 'INTELLECTUALS' CATCHING ON TO THIS CLEAR AND OBVIOUS REPEAT OF ONE OF THE DARKEST MOMENTS IN HISTORY?!

Tags:

Democrats To Economically Cleanse Denver of Filthy Homeless during the DNC!

  • Aug. 14th, 2008 at 1:46 PM
bull, rodeo, cowboy

17th July 2008 [lifted from another blog, which lifted from the news story, posted in full, below]:

I found this interesting primarily because the D's are supposed to be more "for" social reform, saving the homeless, providing more welfare money, etc ... while the R's are always seen as not caring about the homeless, being too busy with 'big business' to bother with social reform, and being stingy with welfare money. 
I guess it shouldn't be that weird ... after all, the D's have somehow managed to shift their image to "more Black-friendly than the R's", despite that whole Civil War thing (where the Northern R's wanted to grant slaves freedom, but Southern D's wanted to keep slaves) and it's lingering effects ...

anyway, here's a cute little local news story from Denver, illustrating how the DNC will be dealing with the unattractive homeless while it has its convention:

 Free Movie Tickets A Plan To Hide Homeless During DNC?
Organizers Deny They're Trying To Sweep Away Homeless Population
DENVER -- When thousands of delegates converge in the Mile City in August, downtown Denver won't look exactly like it does now.

Free movie tickets and passes to Denver's cultural attractions will be given out to homeless people just in time for the Democratic National Convention.

Several groups that help the homeless announced Wednesday that they are making changes during the DNC. But the plan is seen, by some, as a plan to hide the city's homeless, estimated to be roughly 3,800 the summertime.

A DNC advisory committee devoted just to handling the homeless issue has been working on a plan for the past four months with the help of Denver police, the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, the Denver Rescue Mission and other shelters.

The homeless will be offered free movie passes, tickets to the Denver Zoo, museums, and other cultural facilities. The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless will also hand out free bus tickets so the homeless can attend events that aren't nearby.

Some shelters will open their doors during the daytime and have more cots available at night. A spokeswoman for the Denver Rescue Mission said the shelter will almost double its overnight capacity. Some shelters will also have big-screen TVs so the homeless can watch convention activities without being out on the busy streets, caught up in the chaos.

Organizers say it's not an attempt to sweep away the homeless but it's more of an effort to educate them.

"There are no plans to relocate the homeless, to keep them out of the downtown area. If anything, we're trying to educate the homeless population on what is available, what entertainment they can go to, you know, how they can be involved as well," said Denver Rescue Mission's Greta Walker.

The committee thinks this is a way to make sure the homeless aren't harassed by police or Secret Service and aren't unknowingly caught up in the activities and protests in the area. Extremely tight security is expected around the Pepsi Center, Invesco Field at Mile High and Civic Center Park, where thousands of protesters are expected.

"It's better than them doing a police sweep. What good is that going to do? It's going to clog the jails that are already clogged," said Cecil Miller, a homeless man. "I'd love to go to a movie. I'd take my wife if we could get somebody to watch our stuff."

The homeless have already been told that aggressive panhandling and asking for money near an ATM are illegal. During the week, a voter registration drive will target homeless shelters and low-cost or free health clinics.

The Democratic National Convention will be held in downtown Denver from Aug. 25 to Aug. 28.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/16900475/detail.html

I guess we ought to commend the D's for their clever plan:

- they have discovered a way to use non-profit welfare groups to assist them in removing the homeless from the areas where the DNC will be held so they won't get in the way
- they've fooled non-profits into supporting the DNC's big party, filled with wealthy 'prominent' people, news media, etc.  it's strange how closely this resembles the old D's parties, where the wealthy white Southern D's met and partied, while a few select black folk served the refreshments, cooked the meals, and did other menial tasks, and armed men kept the undesirables away.  I am amazed that they're still continuing on their way in the same old fashion ... the only differences now is the change in the 'lower class'. 
- they are using these same Charities to create the image that the D's are providing "free entertainment" to the homeless, which is sure to look good to those homeless who are getting a free trip to the zoo, the movies, or an art museum "from the DNC" ...
- they are hijacking the shelters' televisions and forcing those homeless who remain to watch the DNC on TV. 
- if the homeless are not being forced to watch the DNC on television, it sure looks like some strategic advertising! (aren't the D's freaked out about that pepsi-sponsored school TV thing ... "channel one" or whatever its called ... where big business broadcasts educational shows into schools during the first part of the day?  or the coke machines in the halls?)
- in itself, the DNC being force-fed to the poor is quite clever ... the R's would have never thought of this, so now, in addition to those who are 'well off' getting one-sided information through the news media (and entertainment!), those who couldn't afford to be brainwashed by movies, television, biased newspapers and magazines will now have equal-opportunity to be brainwashed by giant televisions in the shelters! yay! and if they bother to listen, they'll hear a lot of hitler-esque powerful (and hollow) speeches about poverty and welfare and the economy ... the very things that put a fierce fire under those most smitten!  (who won't realise they were invited everywhere BUT the happy magical convention filled with people who love them and want to fight for their social equality).
- and it's weird that few will realise that the televisions are not a treat ... the TVs are there so they can be exposed to the message, without exposing them to the wealthy D's who are attending the convention. it's like being turned away at the gates of a football or baseball game because you're ugly/smell funny/aren't wearing abercrombie, and having to watch the game on a tv at the bar or listen to it on the radio instead...
- if this were any other religious group (and, mind you, the D's ARE like a religion to most of their "brainwashed", "indoctrinated" followers [to borrow some common phrases hurled regularly at churchgoers by - hey! D's biggest fans!] ), i think people would be freaking out!

i guess i'd like to donate all my MySpace kudos to the following people that are making this happen:
- The Denver Police (who really don't have the option to not be involved).  this (listen up angry protestors who are convinced the R's hire police to break up demonstrations!) is one of the functions of the police at ANY large gathering: to maintain order, including protecting those exercising their right to assemble as well as those whose right to property may be affected by the gathering of large herds of people.
- The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless: your name is a little misleading (i'd change the "for" to "at" or something that doesn't mislead people into thinking you're actually on the side of the people you're trying to brush under the rug in preparation for this mighty parade) ... but good job on giving the gift of entertainment to the homeless!  it reminds me a little of those showers the nazis were giving their internees ... though this time the effect won't be so readily apparent.
- the Denver Rescue Mission, and "other shelters":  great job on getting those big-screen televisions!  maybe when this is all over, you can use them to play educational films, or old "civic" films, to instill a sense of community and worth to your patrons.  (yeah, yeah, i know ... instead they're going to be used to watch NFL, old reruns of Law & Order, and lots of advertisements that remind people why they need money to be 'happy'). 
and last, but certainly not least, the DNC advisory committee who is "devoted to handling the 'Homeless Issue'".  If there were more people like you, our nations Zoos and Art Museums would be filled every day (and not just first thursdays!!), and public transportation would actually get used enough to make it worth the money spent!  you can have all the remaining Kudos because i am so shocked and amazed at how efficient this plan is ... getting rid of the homeless while at the same time indoctrinating them into your cause! here again, i must make a direct comparison to hitler and the nazis of the 1930's ... because NO ORGANIZATION SINCE has been so clever as your party in hurting people while making them think you're on their side.  "Big Tobacco" isn't even as skilled at this as you!

-----------------

AMAZING!  not only can they (the clintons and ted kennedy, at least) get away with murder, but they can actually make holocaust-like relocation of the poor and needy look like a good thing! 

Tags:

Profile

bull, rodeo, cowboy
[info]inforodeo
inforodeo
www.inforodeo.com

Latest Month

August 2009
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Old Cave

Links

Tags

Branding Iron

Page Summary

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow