So, Tammy Gay got re-elected - probably because of all the union workers in her district that would vote Demonrat even if the Demonrats just emasculated them.
So, another email to her:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Congratulations on your re-election.
Now, down to business. I hope you realize that you are employed "at will" by the people you represent, and that you are there to do our bidding.
Our bidding is that you vote NO on any new legislation involving any new federal bureaucracy, and new federal taxes, or any new federal regulations that in any way impact American business or the economy.
No more bailouts. No more "stimulus".
We want a balance budget, and reduced federal spending. Getting rid of earmarks and the like is all well and good, but what we want is for you to start dismantling all the alphabet-soup agencies that have no basis in Constitutional law, that are currently sucking the lifeblood out of our society.
I will be contacting you periodically to remind you of these facts. Remember - you work for US - you don't tell US how to live.
Thanks.
Chuck Kuecker
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FWIW, the 'capcha' on her email site: "murder, Adaymer"...
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
A wall for me but not for thee?
Mexico is building a border wall to keep out illegals:
Joe Guzzardi: Look Who’s Building a Wall to Control Illegal Immigration
Mexico's hypocrisy knows no boundaries — unless it's on its border with Guatemala
Last week, Raul Diaz, Mexico’s superintendent of tax administration, confirmed that Mexico will build a wall along the Mexican-Guatemalan border. Diaz’s announcement exposed to the world Mexico’s unending hypocrisy.
Joe Guzzardi
For decades, Mexico has decried the United States’ immigration policy as inhumane and called for the open flow of “migrants,” as its leaders refer to illegal aliens. In 2005, then-President Vicente Fox called a U.S. proposal to build a high-tech wall along the shared border as “disgraceful and shameful.” Another prominent Mexican official, Foreign Secretary Luis Derbez, insisted that, “ Mexico is not going to bear, it is not going to permit, and it will not allow a stupid thing like this wall.”
How times change! Apparently, if Mexico builds a wall, it’s appropriate. When the United States builds one, it’s racist.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Some people don't know a good thing when they see it
If someone did this across from my grandkid's school, I would personally thank the owner.
++++++++++++++++++++++
It's amazing how stupid some people are. This woman is "all for guns", just not in her neighborhood.
Got to wonder if she would feel the same way about a mosque or a strip club there...
++++++++++++++++++++++
Gun shop across from school stirs concerns in West Allis
State laws may have officials' hands tied
Click to enlarge
West Allis - City and school officials here are scrambling to react after it came to light that a property owner wants to set up a gun shop kitty-corner to an elementary school.
But they're not likely to prevent the shop from opening, and they may even be limited in what they can do to keep other such businesses away from schools.
Michael G. Govas, who owns a commercial and apartment building at 2192 S. 60th St., applied for a business occupancy permit in August to operate Shorty's Shooting Sports in a 1,500-square-foot storefront in the building.
The application says the store would sell "hunting supplies, handguns, shotguns, ammo, basically all hunting and shooting supplies, long guns."
The store is at S. 60th and W. Grant streets, the same intersection where Longfellow Elementary School in the West Allis-West Milwaukee School District is located.
"I'm all for people having guns," said Diane Dorow, a neighborhood resident with a son in third grade at Longfellow. "I'm just real concerned that there's going to be problems.
"There's plenty of places they could open a gun shop, but across from an elementary school? It's just not right."
City officials say the gun shop is a permitted zoning use, and the occupancy permit was issued, though the shop hasn't yet received a required federal license. There's a state law that prohibits guns within 1,000 feet of a school, but Jim Fendry, director of the Wisconsin Pro-Gun Movement, said that exceptions in the law would allow the shop in.
++++++++++++++++++++++
It's amazing how stupid some people are. This woman is "all for guns", just not in her neighborhood.
Got to wonder if she would feel the same way about a mosque or a strip club there...
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Wisconsin concealed carry?
Maybe soon!
It's just a county judge, but who knows where this might lead...
A Clark County judge has ruled that Wisconsin's ban onPDF brief
conceal carry of a weapon is overly broad and
unconstitutional in light of the recent Heller and
McDonald landmark US Supreme Court cases.
It's just a county judge, but who knows where this might lead...
Dead domain?
I used to get a lot of VW parts from BFY , out in California - was Bugs For You until VW's lawyers got hold of them - and it looks like their domain is gone. Damn shame - they had a bunch of rare OEM stuff from South America and Mexico.
It's interesting the links that got generated...
++++++++++++++++++
This domain may be for sale. Buy this Domain
+++++++++++++
No idea who the chick is...
It's interesting the links that got generated...
++++++++++++++++++
Welcome to bfyobsoleteparts.com
+++++++++++++
No idea who the chick is...
Another email for the Demonrats
Just got this:
++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++
They make it sound like it's a bad thing to get rid of all the un-Constitutional and wasteful aspects of the federal government!
Then again, I guess it would be bad - for a party so addicted to waste and corruption!
++++++++++++++++++++
 |
| Chuck -- Republicans have said a lot of crazy things this year. They've threatened to repeal health insurance reform and privatize Social Security. They've threatened to eliminate the Department of Education and dismantle the EPA. They've called for boycotting the Census and shutting down the government. Now GOP candidates across the country are embracing yet another extreme idea. They're talking about rolling back -- or eliminating -- the minimum wage. It's the newest proposal from GOP Senate nominees in states across the country: Linda McMahon in Connecticut, Joe Miller in Alaska, Rand Paul in Kentucky, John Raese in West Virginia, and Dino Rossi in Washington. And it's just the latest item on a worn-out agenda that has been repudiated time and time again. But if we let the Republicans win this fall, these candidates are going to see their victories as mandates for extremism. We can nip this in the bud, right now. We've got the team in place to communicate to voters exactly what Republicans are proposing. But we need you to help amplify the message. Chip in $3 or more to help make the case for Democrats in the final weeks. This is a war of ideas that we can win. The voters we're trying to reach reject all of these ideas when they hear about them. But Republicans know that we're still climbing out of this recession, and they're ready to prey on people's frustrations. So the minimum wage becomes a barrier for job creation that "hasn't solved any problems in 50 years" in the words of West Virginia Republican John Raese. Unemployment insurance becomes "unconstitutional" in the words of Alaska Republican Joe Miller. Social Security becomes a "broken" program that "can't be fixed" in the words of Nevada Republican Sharron Angle. We've got a team in place to highlight these extreme ideas -- press staff making the case to reporters and organizers working with millions of volunteers to tell the story on the ground. But if you don't step up, we won't be able to keep it spreading. Pitch in to help amplify the message: http://my.democrats.org/TheMinimumWage Thanks, Jen Jen O'Malley Dillon Executive Director Democratic National Committee |
Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Democratic National Committee, 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington DC 20003 |
Contributions or gifts to the Democratic National Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
++++++++++++++++++++
They make it sound like it's a bad thing to get rid of all the un-Constitutional and wasteful aspects of the federal government!
Then again, I guess it would be bad - for a party so addicted to waste and corruption!
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Millions of Winners!
OK, maybe one or two. Just got this addressed to "Chuck":
+++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++
I love the smell of desperation in the morning...
+++++++++++++++++++++
| Friend -- Two years ago, I met 10 of you. Just before I accepted our party's nomination in front of 80,000 people in Denver, I spoke with 10 grassroots supporters who had won a trip to meet me backstage. I still remember the time we spent together -- because these are the people, like you, who stood with me in 2008, and got me through the tough fights since. But we face another test on November 2nd that will say a lot about our future -- and I need you by my side again. A Supreme Court decision I strongly disagree with has shifted the balance of power in our elections from folks like you to giant corporations. Their massive spending on attack ads could have a real impact on who represents you at all levels of government. Only supporters like you -- and all the work you are doing -- are standing in their way. This may be our toughest fight yet. So next week, just 11 days before the elections, I want to meet three supporters like you backstage at a rally in Las Vegas -- one of the last big rallies of this campaign. Please make a $3 donation now to be automatically entered to win a trip to be at my side at the rally in Vegas. This movement has always been about more than me. It's about change, and the kind of future we envision for this country. The folks I met backstage in Denver told me they wanted health reform, a clean-energy economy, and a resolution to the war in Iraq. They wanted a new kind of politics, and a new kind of leader. It was their hope and expectation that together we would move beyond the status quo, that we would counter the special interests and corporate influence in Washington -- that we would do what was right and necessary for all Americans. With your help, we have made historic progress, but there is much left to do -- and it will not happen without your involvement. I need strong allies in Congress who will stand with us in the tough fights ahead, and I need you to give it all you've got through November 2nd to make sure they can. Your donation today will provide critical support to our Vote 2010 campaign as we reach out to millions of voters who will decide the closest races across the country. It will determine if we pass this test, and win our toughest fight yet. Please donate $3 or more to be automatically entered to win a trip to Las Vegas to meet me backstage: http://my.democrats.org/Backstage I hope to see you out there, President Barack Obama P.S. -- Making a donation automatically registers you for the sweepstakes. You may also enter the sweepstakes without making a contribution either online or via text message -- click here to enter online or here for instructions on how to enter via text message. No minimum contribution is necessary to be registered. No purchase or contribution necessary to enter. Void where prohibited. You can enter the contest without making a contribution by clicking here. Only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents over the age of 18 who are residents of the 50 states or D.C. are eligible to enter. Entries must be received by 11:59 p.m. on 10/15/10. Three winners will receive one round-trip ticket within the continental U.S. to Las Vegas, NV; hotel accommodations for one; and a meeting with President Obama at a rally event on 10/22/10 (approximate combined retail value $1,200.00). Odds of winning depend on number of entries received. Promotion is subject to Official Rules, available here, including restrictions on eligibility. | |
Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. |
++++++++++++++++++
I love the smell of desperation in the morning...
Got an IRA?
Maybe not for long...
Democrats in the Senate on Thursday held a recess hearing covering a taxpayer bailout of union pensions and a plan to seize private 401(k) plans to more "fairly" distribute taxpayer-funded pensions to everyone.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
USPS blues
The US Postal Service is in a bit of trouble.
Post Office Shows Where U.S. Is Headed: Kevin Hassett
By - Oct 11, 2010 3:07 PM CT Mon Oct 11 20:07:50 GMT 2010
Bloomberg Opinion
(Corrects fourth paragraph to indicate billion.)
To understand where the advocates of big government will take this country, look at the U.S. Postal Service.
Start with the fact the Postal Service is a great jobs machine, employing 712,000 people at an average annual compensation, including wages and benefits, of $83,000. And those hefty pay checks are a great source of political contributions for Democrats. In 2010, almost 90 percent of the approximately $4 million contributed to campaigns by postal unions went to Democrats. Take a guess where much of the opposition to reform comes from.
H/t Ace of Spades
Monday, October 11, 2010
Drop the "I word"? I don' thin' so...
We are supposed to stop calling a spade a spade yet again, 'cuz it might ruffle some thin-skinned liberal's feathers.
Drop the I word
If illegals want to stay here, they should make a really strong effort to become Americans rather than lurk in their ghettos and refuse to integrate. My grandparents did. So did millions of ethnic Hispanic Americans.
Refusing to call an illegal act an illegal act just tries to bury the root problem.
Yes, it would be a tragedy to send babies born here to illegal immigrant parents back with them, but who made the decision to violate our laws and come here to have those babies? Not me! Take responsibility for your own actions!
I have to agree with a fine point here - none of the people pictured are "illegal", as a human being cannot be "illegal" or we would all be in big trouble.
However, any individual human being can certainly be an ILLEGAL ALIEN, as that is the definition of someone who enters our country by stealth without benefit of legal permission.
Complain all you want, but a spade is still a spade - and an illegal immigrant is still in violation of the law, and should be happy to just be deported and not jailed.
Drop the I word
If illegals want to stay here, they should make a really strong effort to become Americans rather than lurk in their ghettos and refuse to integrate. My grandparents did. So did millions of ethnic Hispanic Americans.
Refusing to call an illegal act an illegal act just tries to bury the root problem.
Yes, it would be a tragedy to send babies born here to illegal immigrant parents back with them, but who made the decision to violate our laws and come here to have those babies? Not me! Take responsibility for your own actions!
I have to agree with a fine point here - none of the people pictured are "illegal", as a human being cannot be "illegal" or we would all be in big trouble.
However, any individual human being can certainly be an ILLEGAL ALIEN, as that is the definition of someone who enters our country by stealth without benefit of legal permission.
Complain all you want, but a spade is still a spade - and an illegal immigrant is still in violation of the law, and should be happy to just be deported and not jailed.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
All set to retire on your IRA?
Naaso fast, bucko. Teh One has other ideas:
Lame Duck Threat to Bailout Union Pensions
Democrats in the Senate on Thursday held a recess hearing covering a taxpayer bailout of union pensions and a plan to seize private 401(k) plans to more "fairly" distribute taxpayer-funded pensions to everyone.
Lame Duck Threat to Bailout Union Pensions
10/08/2010
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee heard from hand-picked witnesses advocating the infamous "Guaranteed Retirement Account" (GRA) authored by Theresa Guilarducci.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You didn't actually think that was YOUR money, now did you?Good reading
Borepatch has a couple worth checking out.
Go read.
SplaterGate: the backlash
"It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."
Go read.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Snipers for Vipers!
Radio ad for Max Motors
http://www.maxmotors.com/
H/t Alphecca
I don't go for the Chrysler division of Government Motors myself, but if I had the $$$ for a Viper, I might take this deal just to get this evil shooty thing. :)
http://www.maxmotors.com/
H/t Alphecca
I don't go for the Chrysler division of Government Motors myself, but if I had the $$$ for a Viper, I might take this deal just to get this evil shooty thing. :)
Friday, October 8, 2010
10/10/10 - Carbon Belch Day!
This Sunday is yet another Carbon Belch Day - when we all turn on every light and appliance, run all the smoky non-pollution-control equipped antique cars, and light off a big bonfire - not to mention the Smoky Joe out back.
We just have to do this - our betters are counting on us!
(These are the same sweet folks that brought us this gem of a public service announcement.)
Unfortunately, the "Carbon Belch Day" website is no more - look here for what it was all about.
We just have to do this - our betters are counting on us!
(These are the same sweet folks that brought us this gem of a public service announcement.)
Unfortunately, the "Carbon Belch Day" website is no more - look here for what it was all about.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Getting desperate?
Just got this email from my good buddy Barry:
Getting a bit desperate there, ol' buddy?
| Chuck -- I come into this election with clear eyes. I am proud of all we have achieved together, but I am mindful of all that remains to be done. I know some out there are frustrated by the pace of our progress. I want you to know I'm frustrated, too. But with so much riding on the outcome of this election, I need everyone to get in this game. Neither one of us is here because we thought it would be easy. Making change is hard. It's what we've said from the beginning. And we've got the lumps to show for it. The fight this fall is as critical as any this movement has taken on together. And if we are serious about change, we need to fight as hard as we ever have. The very special interests who have stood in the way of change at every turn want to put their conservative allies in control of Congress. And they're doing it with the help of billionaires and corporate special interests underwriting shadowy campaign ads. If they succeed, they will not stop at making our work more difficult -- they will do their best to undo what you and I fought so hard to achieve. There is no better time for you to start fighting back -- a fellow grassroots supporter has promised to match, dollar for dollar, whatever you can chip in today. I know that sometimes it feels like we've come a long way from the hope and excitement of the inauguration, with its "Hope" posters and historic crowds on the National Mall. I will never forget it. But it was never why we picked up this fight. I didn't run for president because I wanted to do what would make me popular. And you didn't help elect me so I could read the polls and calculate how to keep myself in office. You and I are in this because we believe in a simple idea -- that each and every one of us, working together, has the power to move this country forward. We believed that this was the moment to solve the challenges that the country had ignored for far too long. That change happens only from the bottom up. That change happens only because of you. So I need you to fight for it over the next 26 days. I need your time. I need your commitment. And I need your help to get your friends and neighbors involved. If you bring in a new donor today, your $3 donation will become $6. And our Vote 2010 campaign will have twice the resources to make important investments like putting staff on the ground, providing materials for volunteers, and turning out millions of voters come Election Day. Please donate $3 or more today -- and renew your commitment: If we meet this test -- if you, like me, believe that change is not a spectator sport -- we will not just win this election. In the years that come, we can realize the change we are seeking -- and reclaim the American dream for this generation. Thank you for being a part of it, President Barack Obama | |
Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Democratic National Committee, 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington, DC 20003 Contributions or gifts to the Democratic National Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Click here to unsubscribe from this mailing list. ++++++++++++++++++++++ |
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Islam - religion of peace and tolerance
Hidden camera of Muslims violating French law - with the police standing by:
Scary.
H/t BMEWS
http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnplayer.swf?aid=17933
Scary.
H/t BMEWS
Monday, October 4, 2010
More letters to the editor
Rick Brunton of Beloit replies to my earlier reply:
'Steady decline of middle class'
This is in response to Mr. Kuecker’s letter of Sept. 22, “Taxing the rich never works.”
If he had followed history over the last three decades, it would be obvious that not taxing the rich does not work. While America has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, less than one in four corporations pay a dime in taxes. This is self-destructive for the vast majority of American businesses.
Taxes pay for roads and highways used by businesses to deliver their products to the marketplace. Taxes pay for public education that supplies an educated workforce to provide labor for businesses to develop, manufacture, improve, market and sell their products. Taxes provide police and fire protection to protect the factories, vehicles and sales distribution points necessary to business success. Obviously, no business wants government until their building catches fire and they start looking for the fire truck!
Since 1980, when Reagan began the process of reducing taxes on the superrich, we have seen a steady rise of unemployment, ballooning of the national debt, loss of family wage jobs, rise in health care costs, rising national poverty rates and bankruptcies and a decline in public education effectiveness. Oh, let’s not forget that Reagan, with the help of a little-known economist named Alan Greenspan, was the first to begin robbing the Social Security trust fund to help hide his out-of-control deficits.
During this time we have seen the steady decline of the middle class and its buying power. Since we are a consumer economy, where 2/3 of our economy is driven by consumer spending, it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out what is going wrong in today’s economy.
Rick Brunton
Beloit
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My reply - let's see if I get published:
Wow - this is getting interesting. I recently replied to George Ferriter about raising federal taxes, and now Rick Brunton has joined in.
I think if Mr. Brunton does a little research, he will find that President Reagan and Alan Greenspan were not the guys who changed the accounting for the Social Security trust fund. This was done by an earlier administration - Lyndon Johnson in 1968 - cited by the federal Social Security Administration. http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
What began in 1984 under Reagan was taxation of Social Security benefits.
I agree - some taxation is necessary to run the Constitutionally-authorized functions of the federal government. However, when the federal government continually votes to increase spending on programs that they have no Constitutional authority to create, these taxes start to degrade, rather than enhance, our country's financial health.
If some large firms escape paying taxes, would not the proper response be to modify the tax code to close the loopholes they are using, rather than increase taxes on everyone?
Furthermore, it is shown that the top 10% of US taxpayers pay over 70% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 90% pay 30%. The bottom 50% of US taxpayers pay just under 3%. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
The steady decline of the middle class and loss of jobs graphed with the increase of federal rules and spending makes an interesting inverse relationship. Government spending never created one job that did not cost the "rich" a lot more than that job created in a healthy economy would have.
We need to rein in big government.
'Steady decline of middle class'
If he had followed history over the last three decades, it would be obvious that not taxing the rich does not work. While America has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, less than one in four corporations pay a dime in taxes. This is self-destructive for the vast majority of American businesses.
Taxes pay for roads and highways used by businesses to deliver their products to the marketplace. Taxes pay for public education that supplies an educated workforce to provide labor for businesses to develop, manufacture, improve, market and sell their products. Taxes provide police and fire protection to protect the factories, vehicles and sales distribution points necessary to business success. Obviously, no business wants government until their building catches fire and they start looking for the fire truck!
Since 1980, when Reagan began the process of reducing taxes on the superrich, we have seen a steady rise of unemployment, ballooning of the national debt, loss of family wage jobs, rise in health care costs, rising national poverty rates and bankruptcies and a decline in public education effectiveness. Oh, let’s not forget that Reagan, with the help of a little-known economist named Alan Greenspan, was the first to begin robbing the Social Security trust fund to help hide his out-of-control deficits.
During this time we have seen the steady decline of the middle class and its buying power. Since we are a consumer economy, where 2/3 of our economy is driven by consumer spending, it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out what is going wrong in today’s economy.
Rick Brunton
Beloit
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My reply - let's see if I get published:
Wow - this is getting interesting. I recently replied to George Ferriter about raising federal taxes, and now Rick Brunton has joined in.
I think if Mr. Brunton does a little research, he will find that President Reagan and Alan Greenspan were not the guys who changed the accounting for the Social Security trust fund. This was done by an earlier administration - Lyndon Johnson in 1968 - cited by the federal Social Security Administration. http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html
What began in 1984 under Reagan was taxation of Social Security benefits.
I agree - some taxation is necessary to run the Constitutionally-authorized functions of the federal government. However, when the federal government continually votes to increase spending on programs that they have no Constitutional authority to create, these taxes start to degrade, rather than enhance, our country's financial health.
If some large firms escape paying taxes, would not the proper response be to modify the tax code to close the loopholes they are using, rather than increase taxes on everyone?
Furthermore, it is shown that the top 10% of US taxpayers pay over 70% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 90% pay 30%. The bottom 50% of US taxpayers pay just under 3%. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
The steady decline of the middle class and loss of jobs graphed with the increase of federal rules and spending makes an interesting inverse relationship. Government spending never created one job that did not cost the "rich" a lot more than that job created in a healthy economy would have.
We need to rein in big government.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Saturday, October 2, 2010
The Church of Climate Disruption has a message
Disagree with us, and die!
YouTube originally had this labeled "private", but it's back up for the time being.
The radical environmentalists are more dangerous than any "climate change" could ever be.
YouTube originally had this labeled "private", but it's back up for the time being.
The radical environmentalists are more dangerous than any "climate change" could ever be.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Want to help the Demonrats?
You can!
[63] Comments 
Shamelessly stolen from Hillbuzz
September 17, 2010
How YOU can help make the Democrats’ new toilet logo into as big of a disaster for them as possible
Posted by hillbuzz under Uncategorized | Tags: How to cost the DNC money, New Democrat toilet logo sucks, What to do with solicitations from the DNC |[63] Comments
Click to embiggen
First off, you should check out this thread over at Democrats.org. We got a comment in there very early, and it seems to have set off a lot of the whackadoodles. It’s always a good thing to get these loons revved up. Raising their blood pressure is beneficial to everyone. Good thing they all have free Obamacare now, right?
+++++++++++++++
Shamelessly stolen from Hillbuzz
Remember the open-carry arrests in Madison?
Five guys arrested at a Madison Culver's for eating dinner in the presence of lefty-liberal pants-sh***ers...
Things have escalated - a federal lawsuit has been filed.
Interesting times.
Things have escalated - a federal lawsuit has been filed.
Interesting times.
"Climate Disruption", explained
Borepatch does a great job here:
Yes, I know that "Global Warming" is the old label, replaced by "Climate Change", which was in turn replaced with "Climate Disruption". By the time you read this, it may have been replaced with something else.
Oooooh kaaaaay. Nice Marketing Spin.
I wasn't trained as a scientist, but I was trained as an engineer (Electrical, thanks for asking!), and while that's not exactly the same thing, it left me very well versed in the Scientific Method. More importantly (from aGlobal Warming Climate Change Climate Disruption point of view), I was also trained in history, and minored in ancient and medieval history. This in fact was my insertion point into this whole brouhaha - reading about how the Medieval Warm Period supposedly wasn't warm triggered that doesn't sound right thoughts in my head. Then digging into the current state of Climate Science tripped all sorts of science alarms.
So yeah, you can count me as one of those "skeptics".
Go read the whole thing
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Borepatch 101: Global Warming
Oooooh kaaaaay. Nice Marketing Spin.
I wasn't trained as a scientist, but I was trained as an engineer (Electrical, thanks for asking!), and while that's not exactly the same thing, it left me very well versed in the Scientific Method. More importantly (from a
So yeah, you can count me as one of those "skeptics".
Go read the whole thing
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Gun bans STILL don't work
H/t Alphecca
Why Gun Bans Still Don't Work
Published September 29, 2010
| FoxNews.com
- Comments (45)
- Text Size
Yesterday's wild shooting spree at the University of Texas fortunately ended without anyone being hurt before the gunman shot himself. Naturally, the incident has yet again raised the question over gun bans, such as the ban currently in effect at the University of Texas.
Do they actually do more harm than good?
Gun bans as the solution to gun violence has popped up again, covering different areas. It would have been nice if such bans had stopped criminals from using guns. But, alas, the results are invariably the same, whether the ban is put in place for college campuses, cities, or entire nations: gun bans disarm the law-abiding, not criminals. Instead of making victims safer, they make criminals safer.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
More Internet censorship?
If Demonrat Sen. Pat Leahy gets his way:
The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) introduced by the Vermont Democrat, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, requires Internet Service Providers, Domain Name System providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites.
The legislation, which seeks to curb online piracy and the sale of counterfeit goods, would create two “blacklists.” The first is a list of all websites hit with a censorship court order from the Attorney General. The second is a list of domain names that the Department of Justice determines are “dedicated to infringing activities” that violate copyright laws.
COICA requires blocking for domains on the first list and “strongly suggests” that domains on the second list should be blocked as well by providing legal immunity for those who do block access to websites, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit civil liberties organization.
“This is a censorship bill that runs roughshod over freedom of speech on the Internet” and could have a “dangerous impact on freedom of speech,” the EFF observes.
H/t Alphecca
Monday, 27 Sep 2010 11:11 AM
Article Font Size 
By: Jim Meyers
Sen. Patrick Leahy has introduced a bill affecting the Internet that could have a “dangerous impact on freedom of speech,” according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) introduced by the Vermont Democrat, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, requires Internet Service Providers, Domain Name System providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites.The legislation, which seeks to curb online piracy and the sale of counterfeit goods, would create two “blacklists.” The first is a list of all websites hit with a censorship court order from the Attorney General. The second is a list of domain names that the Department of Justice determines are “dedicated to infringing activities” that violate copyright laws.
COICA requires blocking for domains on the first list and “strongly suggests” that domains on the second list should be blocked as well by providing legal immunity for those who do block access to websites, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit civil liberties organization.
“This is a censorship bill that runs roughshod over freedom of speech on the Internet” and could have a “dangerous impact on freedom of speech,” the EFF observes.
H/t Alphecca
Well, since everyone else has done it...
I'll take a shot, too.
This babe (?) asks 20 questions about "gun control".
1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?
Well, in a word, yes. You see, there's this little piece of paper - the US Constitution - that states, in no uncertain terms, that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". What part of that don't you understand?
Criminals and domestic abusers do not magically lose their Constitutional rights until convicted in a court of law and sentenced to prison. When they are released, they are assumed to have "paid their debt to society" and are allowed to rejoin the rest of America as free citizens again.
You may not like this, but that's just too bad.
2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?
Simple - we don't try. The bad guys will always find a way to get what they want. Every attempt at governmental banning of substances or objects or writings has failed miserably - our latest effort - the "war on drugs" only costs us billions of dollars every year and keeps no one from getting high. Why should we waste money on bans that don't work?
Better we allow everyone who wishes to own and carry a weapon the freedom to do so - see answer #1 - and trust the good will overwhelm the bad. Every private firearm held by a good person out there is a potential to stop the actions of a criminal or terrorist.
3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"?
Definitely.
4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?
Definitely. Some of your people have baldy stated this a number of times.
5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?
1934 National Firearms Act
1968 Gun Control Act
1986 Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Clinton assault weapons ban
Katrina gun confiscation
And so on..
6. What do you think are the "second amendment remedies" that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?
If the government does not respond to the legitimate grievances of the People, they may become necessary. Remember the American Revolution? The Declaration of Independence?
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don't like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?
If their actions directly offer harm to me and mine, certainly. Their speech is protected under that same pesky Constitution, unless they offer slander or libel, and that's why we have courts of law.
8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?
Liars, yes, if that's what they are. Names, no. This just makes things worse, and makes thinking people imagine the person so responding is of lesser intelligence or maturity.
9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person's face?
If it came to that, I certainly would. I'm not a coward, as many who hold opinions counter to mine have demonstrated.
10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?
No, I don't THINK so. The Constitution overrides all un-Constitutional laws.
11. Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.
Two part question. Trouble counting there?
First, what has belief got to do with whether there are laws currently on the books? If you mean do I believe they are useful or legal, no, I do not THINK they are either.
Second, yes, I know of several places where such illegal laws are being enforced against the wrong people.
12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?
Another double question.
First, "all law-abiding citizens" includes a subset of idiots, imbeciles, and plain stupid people, not to mention the accident-prone and clumsy. These people need to take responsibility for their actions or omissions.
Second, if you would never shoot anybody, what's the use of having a gun for self-defense? If you want to protect yourself from an attack, you have to be willing to apply suitable force to prevent the attacker from succeeding.
13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?
"Figures lie and liars figure". I do not see how suicides are anyone's business outside the family, if any, of the person committing same, until they involve innocent bystanders.
Statistics have been bandied about by both sides. I can cite several studies that show more guns equates to less crime - look up John Lott some time.
14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should "count" in the total numbers?
See #13.
15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?
In some extremely rare circumstances, usually coupled with a careless or foolhardy act or omission on the part of the owner or holder, yes. Does this have any bearing on MY right to self defense? No.
16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?
Another question of statistics and faith. If you lump all deaths involving even peripherally, a firearm, you get that number. If you look at true accidents, you get a much lower number.
Once you get a realistic number of accidental shootings, you need to compare them to other accidental causes of death. The numbers put "gun deaths" way down on the list.
Risk of death during life is unavoidable. Perfect safety is a mirage. People who believe in perfect safety also tend to believe in the Tooth Fairy and that we can spend our way out of national bankruptcy.
17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?
I won't try to prevent "more". Truly justifiable shootings - I have no interest in decreasing these - in fact, I would like to see this number rise. It would be an indicator that the general public is at last fed up with crime and is taking back their right to do something about it.
Accidental shootings - I advocate gun safety education be mandatory in grade school - something like the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" at first, moving up to marksmanship and practical shooting in higher grades, with Olympic-style shooting sports offered in schools for those who desire to participate.
18. Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?
I have no idea - I don't frequent your blog. As for the mainstream media, I firmly believe that they tend to cherry-pick stories that support their agenda - and that stories of successful self-defense do not do so.
Do I know that some of your compatriots lie and misquote? Yes.
19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined).
No. The small interactions I have had with the ATF have been good.
Do I think the ATF needs more oversight and should be investigated? Definitely yes.
20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?
I will continue to work towards the repeal of all un-Constitutional laws, whatever their subject. Will I compromise with your people? Never.
This babe (?) asks 20 questions about "gun control".
1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?
Well, in a word, yes. You see, there's this little piece of paper - the US Constitution - that states, in no uncertain terms, that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". What part of that don't you understand?
Criminals and domestic abusers do not magically lose their Constitutional rights until convicted in a court of law and sentenced to prison. When they are released, they are assumed to have "paid their debt to society" and are allowed to rejoin the rest of America as free citizens again.
You may not like this, but that's just too bad.
2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?
Simple - we don't try. The bad guys will always find a way to get what they want. Every attempt at governmental banning of substances or objects or writings has failed miserably - our latest effort - the "war on drugs" only costs us billions of dollars every year and keeps no one from getting high. Why should we waste money on bans that don't work?
Better we allow everyone who wishes to own and carry a weapon the freedom to do so - see answer #1 - and trust the good will overwhelm the bad. Every private firearm held by a good person out there is a potential to stop the actions of a criminal or terrorist.
3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"?
Definitely.
4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?
Definitely. Some of your people have baldy stated this a number of times.
5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?
1934 National Firearms Act
1968 Gun Control Act
1986 Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Clinton assault weapons ban
Katrina gun confiscation
And so on..
6. What do you think are the "second amendment remedies" that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?
If the government does not respond to the legitimate grievances of the People, they may become necessary. Remember the American Revolution? The Declaration of Independence?
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don't like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?
If their actions directly offer harm to me and mine, certainly. Their speech is protected under that same pesky Constitution, unless they offer slander or libel, and that's why we have courts of law.
8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?
Liars, yes, if that's what they are. Names, no. This just makes things worse, and makes thinking people imagine the person so responding is of lesser intelligence or maturity.
9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person's face?
If it came to that, I certainly would. I'm not a coward, as many who hold opinions counter to mine have demonstrated.
10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?
No, I don't THINK so. The Constitution overrides all un-Constitutional laws.
11. Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.
Two part question. Trouble counting there?
First, what has belief got to do with whether there are laws currently on the books? If you mean do I believe they are useful or legal, no, I do not THINK they are either.
Second, yes, I know of several places where such illegal laws are being enforced against the wrong people.
12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?
Another double question.
First, "all law-abiding citizens" includes a subset of idiots, imbeciles, and plain stupid people, not to mention the accident-prone and clumsy. These people need to take responsibility for their actions or omissions.
Second, if you would never shoot anybody, what's the use of having a gun for self-defense? If you want to protect yourself from an attack, you have to be willing to apply suitable force to prevent the attacker from succeeding.
13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?
"Figures lie and liars figure". I do not see how suicides are anyone's business outside the family, if any, of the person committing same, until they involve innocent bystanders.
Statistics have been bandied about by both sides. I can cite several studies that show more guns equates to less crime - look up John Lott some time.
14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should "count" in the total numbers?
See #13.
15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?
In some extremely rare circumstances, usually coupled with a careless or foolhardy act or omission on the part of the owner or holder, yes. Does this have any bearing on MY right to self defense? No.
16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?
Another question of statistics and faith. If you lump all deaths involving even peripherally, a firearm, you get that number. If you look at true accidents, you get a much lower number.
Once you get a realistic number of accidental shootings, you need to compare them to other accidental causes of death. The numbers put "gun deaths" way down on the list.
Risk of death during life is unavoidable. Perfect safety is a mirage. People who believe in perfect safety also tend to believe in the Tooth Fairy and that we can spend our way out of national bankruptcy.
17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?
I won't try to prevent "more". Truly justifiable shootings - I have no interest in decreasing these - in fact, I would like to see this number rise. It would be an indicator that the general public is at last fed up with crime and is taking back their right to do something about it.
Accidental shootings - I advocate gun safety education be mandatory in grade school - something like the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" at first, moving up to marksmanship and practical shooting in higher grades, with Olympic-style shooting sports offered in schools for those who desire to participate.
18. Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?
I have no idea - I don't frequent your blog. As for the mainstream media, I firmly believe that they tend to cherry-pick stories that support their agenda - and that stories of successful self-defense do not do so.
Do I know that some of your compatriots lie and misquote? Yes.
19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined).
No. The small interactions I have had with the ATF have been good.
Do I think the ATF needs more oversight and should be investigated? Definitely yes.
20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?
I will continue to work towards the repeal of all un-Constitutional laws, whatever their subject. Will I compromise with your people? Never.
Economics 101
From The Silicon Greybeard:
The fact is, this is a spending problem. If you confiscated every single penny from every billionaire in America, you couldn't fix the deficit. According to this link, if you confiscated every single penny of income from the top 1% of taxpayers, you couldn't pay off this year's deficit. In fact, the top brackets pay a higher percentage of the tax burden than ever before:
Never forget that while it's not a fundamental characteristic of the universe and is not a physical law, Hauser's Law always seems to be true. If that bothers you, the laws of thermodynamics aren't fundamental physical laws, either. Hauser's Law and the First Law of Thermodynamics enjoy essentially the same status.
Go read the whole thing.
The fact is, this is a spending problem. If you confiscated every single penny from every billionaire in America, you couldn't fix the deficit. According to this link, if you confiscated every single penny of income from the top 1% of taxpayers, you couldn't pay off this year's deficit. In fact, the top brackets pay a higher percentage of the tax burden than ever before:
Go read the whole thing.
Obama looking to apply some whoop-ass?
From The Nose On Your Face:
Obama Looking For A** To Kick Over Exploding Deficit, Out Of Control Spending
Only days after President Obama sought out “ass to kick” in the wake of the British Petroleum oil spill, he continued to unleash his fury, this time at those responsible for America’s spiraling debt and out of control spending.
“I have a message for the people who have been spending your tax dollars like drunken sailors: there’s a 50-gallon drum of whoop-ass waiting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” said Obama, “and I’m gonna be doling out force-fed tap hits from here on out. The Chairman of BP, Rush Limbaugh, hell, Chuck Norris too. Anybody wants a piece of this, I’m right here, baby.”"
+++++++++++
He may need one of these: Ass-kicking machine - and someone to operate it while he "bows" in front of it...
Friday, September 24, 2010
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Another test case?
Five arrested in Madison for disorderly conduct, for sitting in a Culver's with holstered guns. From Cap Times:
Police cite 'open carry' gunholders with disorderly conduct, chief clarifies policy
H/t AlpheccaDISCLOSE raises its' head yet again
Word has it Hairy Reid is going to call fro a vote on this shit yet again today. Tried phoning Feingold, lines all busy. Left a message and emailed him this:
Vote NO on DISCLOSE. If you want even a PRAYER or re-election next month, vote NO.
In fact, vote NO if for no other reason that you will leave office retaining some of your honor as a citizen, rather than being branded a traitor to the nation if you vote YES.
McCain-Feingold was bad enough - here you have a small way to reclaim respect in the eyes of the people you have supposedly been representing.
Emailed Kohl this:
Vote NO on DISCLOSE. You owe it to the people you supposedly represent to prevent this blatant infringement of free speech from becoming yet another un-Constitutional law.
For whatever good it may do. Will call again - and again.
Vote NO on DISCLOSE. If you want even a PRAYER or re-election next month, vote NO.
In fact, vote NO if for no other reason that you will leave office retaining some of your honor as a citizen, rather than being branded a traitor to the nation if you vote YES.
McCain-Feingold was bad enough - here you have a small way to reclaim respect in the eyes of the people you have supposedly been representing.
Emailed Kohl this:
Vote NO on DISCLOSE. You owe it to the people you supposedly represent to prevent this blatant infringement of free speech from becoming yet another un-Constitutional law.
For whatever good it may do. Will call again - and again.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
It's official
The Commies know their own.
Obama Russian Caps
How the Red Chinese see Teh One
Seen at Roberta X's place
Obama Russian Caps
How the Red Chinese see Teh One
Seen at Roberta X's place
Saturday, September 18, 2010
From back in Illinois
Nothing like a bit of Astroturf to liven things up
Read the rest...
Dem Congresswoman’s Supporters Participate in ‘Palin-As-Hitler’ Rally
by Larry O'ConnorA video showing protesters outside an Americans For Prosperity event has surfaced on the internet. It shows the protestors with signs depicting Sarah Palin and Glenn beck with Hitler mustaches and the label “Naz-Tea Party” over their pictures. Also depicted as Hitler is GOP candidate Adam Kinzinger running against Rep. Debbie Halvorson (IL-D) in the 11th District in Illinois.
As protests go, it’s a bit limp and poorly attended, but the offensive and inflammatory signs certainly grab your attention. Especially considering the Democratic Party and the NAACP’s very high-profile condemnation of inflammatory signs that have appeared at Tea Party events.
What makes this video so compelling is what it shows after the protest.Read the rest...
Why I won't be burning Korans
They cost money, and I'm still unemployed.
Even if I could afford to buy some, I would not - simply to prevent any of my money going to support Islam in any way i could avoid.
Even if I could afford to buy some, I would not - simply to prevent any of my money going to support Islam in any way i could avoid.
A potent picture
This is well worth examining closely
Scan through the picture slowly and read the captions - and the detail on the right side.
Chilling.
Scan through the picture slowly and read the captions - and the detail on the right side.
Chilling.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Another letter to the editor
People just don't get it. From today's Beloit Daily News, a letter to the editor:
Tax wealthy, reduce deficit
As the nation staggers toward the promises of the upcoming election, we must keep a number of issues forefront in our minds.
The nation bears a burden of gigantic problems, affecting every aspect of our society and political system. Irrespective of where one might stand on any aspect of this crisis, we should all agree that the ill-considered temporary tax cuts for the wealthy - put together as an economic stimulus early in the Bush Administration - be allowed to expire. The reduced taxes for the already strapped and financially damaged middle class should be extended.
Other parts of the Bush Tax cuts must be allowed to expire. When one is deeply in debt, increasing one’s income is sensible. Debts are due. The small numbers of citizens who have benefited in far greater magnitude than the vast majority by the temporary tax reductions should step up and pay their dues. The wealthy benefited in greater proportion from the temporary cuts, and now should bear a proportional increase via the restoration of the previously established tax rates.
That this will have grave negative impact on the greater economy is nonsense - with the cuts in place, the economy still imploded. Taxing the wealthy quite possibly will do the economy some good, if used to reduce the deficit.
George Ferriter
Beloit
My response - we'll see if it gets printed.
In response to Mr. Ferriter's letter of September 17th:
It should be obvious to anyone who follows recent history and understands what has been happening in our federal and state governments for the last few decades, that "taxing the rich" never works, and ends up taxing everyone.
Look at the recent government bailouts of banks and other firms "too big to fail". The American people were saddled with trillions in debt, debt that will be paid, if ever, by our grandkid's grandkids. This money ended up being paid by the millions to the people in charge of those banks and firms.
The recent "health care reform" bill, crammed through Congress in the wee hours without being read by anyone, will pay billions to select organizations and to government bureaucrats, while again saddling the common folk with immense debt.
The "wealthy" that will end up paying these taxes will be the family owned small business with 25 employees or the family farm which will have to be sold rather than passed on to the next generation because of the evil "death tax", and again, the common folk. If you tax a corporation, they just raise the price of the commodity they sell to us - so if you want to pay more, let's end those tax reductions. I'm sure the government can find a way to waste the extra money.
Or - we could insist that our public servants work for US, rather than foisting ever more grandiose schemes on a long-suffering America.
Chuck
Tax wealthy, reduce deficit
The nation bears a burden of gigantic problems, affecting every aspect of our society and political system. Irrespective of where one might stand on any aspect of this crisis, we should all agree that the ill-considered temporary tax cuts for the wealthy - put together as an economic stimulus early in the Bush Administration - be allowed to expire. The reduced taxes for the already strapped and financially damaged middle class should be extended.
Other parts of the Bush Tax cuts must be allowed to expire. When one is deeply in debt, increasing one’s income is sensible. Debts are due. The small numbers of citizens who have benefited in far greater magnitude than the vast majority by the temporary tax reductions should step up and pay their dues. The wealthy benefited in greater proportion from the temporary cuts, and now should bear a proportional increase via the restoration of the previously established tax rates.
That this will have grave negative impact on the greater economy is nonsense - with the cuts in place, the economy still imploded. Taxing the wealthy quite possibly will do the economy some good, if used to reduce the deficit.
George Ferriter
Beloit
My response - we'll see if it gets printed.
In response to Mr. Ferriter's letter of September 17th:
It should be obvious to anyone who follows recent history and understands what has been happening in our federal and state governments for the last few decades, that "taxing the rich" never works, and ends up taxing everyone.
Look at the recent government bailouts of banks and other firms "too big to fail". The American people were saddled with trillions in debt, debt that will be paid, if ever, by our grandkid's grandkids. This money ended up being paid by the millions to the people in charge of those banks and firms.
The recent "health care reform" bill, crammed through Congress in the wee hours without being read by anyone, will pay billions to select organizations and to government bureaucrats, while again saddling the common folk with immense debt.
The "wealthy" that will end up paying these taxes will be the family owned small business with 25 employees or the family farm which will have to be sold rather than passed on to the next generation because of the evil "death tax", and again, the common folk. If you tax a corporation, they just raise the price of the commodity they sell to us - so if you want to pay more, let's end those tax reductions. I'm sure the government can find a way to waste the extra money.
Or - we could insist that our public servants work for US, rather than foisting ever more grandiose schemes on a long-suffering America.
Chuck
Thursday, September 16, 2010
We are screwed!
The Demonrats have a new LOGO! We are SO screwed now!
IMAO has the right idea:
IMAO has the right idea:
They Make it Too Easy
The Democrats unveiled their fancy new logo today:
Didn’t take long for me to figure out what it looked like:
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Climate change? We dunno...
Pachauri admits the IPCC just guesses the numbers
Such is the pressure finally beginning to bear on the IPCC that Pachauri has been forced into the ridiculous position of trying to rescue credibility by contradicting most of their past PR campaign. He’s taken the extraordinary step of admitting they don’t have hard numbers, hey, but it’s all OK because the IPCC is really a government agency to make policy, not to write scientific reports “that don’t see the light of day”.
So he’s admitting that the IPCC was all about policy prescriptions all along? And the science was just fudged-up window dressing to provide an excuse? Well, who would have guessed.
Hidden beside Pachauri’s declaration that he’s happy about the IAC report, he let slip a corker of a line:
Times of India asks: Anything in the UN probe report you completely or partly disagree with?
So if you can’t quantify uncertainties (like is climate sensitivity say 0.5 degrees or 6.5 degrees, and with what probabilities) just go with your best guess, call it expert opinion (especially if you only pick and pay the “right” experts) and say that there is a 90% certainty, even if there are no numbers you can add up to get that.They have talked about quantifying uncertainties. To some extent, we are doing that, though not perfectly. But the issue is that in some cases, you really don’t have a quantitative base by which you can attach a probability or a level of uncertainty that defines things in quantitative terms. And there, let’s not take away the importance of expert judgment. And that is something the report has missed or at least not pointed out.
At JoNova. Go read the whole thing.
War on salt?
Shades of HillaryCare!
Damn, she take a good picture!
Next, Michelle Obama's health reform plan for the nation's restaurant menus and families dining out
September 14, 2010 | 5:18 am
First Lady Michelle Obama, who has been unable to convince the Smoker-in-Chief to give up that dreadful habit, now has some health suggestions for other American families and for restaurant menus across the country. The goal is to eat healthier, although that might hurt restaurant sales and cause disappointed children.
Damn, she take a good picture!
Monday, September 13, 2010
Call a spade a spade?
America. The land of freedom of speech - if you speak what Der Fuhrer wants to hear.
British Teenager Banned From US For Life: Called Barack a “Prick”
If we can't call him what we think he is, what's left for us?
UPDATE: A trainwreck in Maxwell says what I was thinking, but neglected to state.
British Teenager Banned From US For Life: Called Barack a “Prick”
If we can't call him what we think he is, what's left for us?
UPDATE: A trainwreck in Maxwell says what I was thinking, but neglected to state.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Thoughts on "radical Islam"
Why do we call the people who do things like the 9/11 attack "Muslim radicals", when the Koran clearly tells its' followers to wage war against everyone who is not a good Muslim?
We ought to call these people "fundamentalist Muslims" - after all, we call those who interpret the Bible literally "fundamentalist Christians".
When the mainstream of Islam publicly disavows the passages in the Koran that direct Muslims to wage jihad on everyone not one of them, and demonstrate by their action that they do not support such actions, I will consider Islam to be a religion of peace, as peace is defined by the majority of non-Muslims.
We ought to call these people "fundamentalist Muslims" - after all, we call those who interpret the Bible literally "fundamentalist Christians".
When the mainstream of Islam publicly disavows the passages in the Koran that direct Muslims to wage jihad on everyone not one of them, and demonstrate by their action that they do not support such actions, I will consider Islam to be a religion of peace, as peace is defined by the majority of non-Muslims.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
UN == One world government
In case you doubted it.
United Nations
EXCLUSIVE: After a Year of Setbacks, U.N. Looks to Take Charge of World's Agenda
By George Russell
Published September 08, 2010
FoxNews.com
After a year of humiliating setbacks, United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and about 60 of his top lieutenants — the top brass of the entire U.N. system — spent their Labor Day weekend at a remote Austrian Alpine retreat, discussing ways to put their sprawling organization in charge of the world’s agenda.
Go read the whole thing.
United Nations
EXCLUSIVE: After a Year of Setbacks, U.N. Looks to Take Charge of World's Agenda
By George Russell
Published September 08, 2010
FoxNews.com
After a year of humiliating setbacks, United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and about 60 of his top lieutenants — the top brass of the entire U.N. system — spent their Labor Day weekend at a remote Austrian Alpine retreat, discussing ways to put their sprawling organization in charge of the world’s agenda.
Go read the whole thing.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
I lived to see the day!
Little Dick Daley's not going for re-election!
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley pauses as he speaks during a news conference, Thursday, July 1, 2010 in Chicago. (AP)
From Fox News:
Chicago Mayor Daley Opts Against Re-Election, Opens Door for Rahm Campaign
Published September 07, 2010
Longtime Chicago Mayor Richard Daley announced Tuesday that he will not seek re-election, a stunning decision that apparently ends a political dynasty that dominated the city for more than a half century and paves the way for Rahm Emanuel to chase his dream job.
Whoo-hoo!
Chuck
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley pauses as he speaks during a news conference, Thursday, July 1, 2010 in Chicago. (AP)
From Fox News:
Chicago Mayor Daley Opts Against Re-Election, Opens Door for Rahm Campaign
Published September 07, 2010
Longtime Chicago Mayor Richard Daley announced Tuesday that he will not seek re-election, a stunning decision that apparently ends a political dynasty that dominated the city for more than a half century and paves the way for Rahm Emanuel to chase his dream job.
Whoo-hoo!
Chuck
Monday, September 6, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Too good to pass up
Seen at Alphecca
I've been a fan of "reverend" Jesse Jackson for years. He's been pretty quiet for a while now, but on seeing this, I couldn't resist...the "reverend's" Escalade gets stolen and stripped...while he's touting "green" crap.
Disrespecting Jesse
I've been a fan of "reverend" Jesse Jackson for years. He's been pretty quiet for a while now, but on seeing this, I couldn't resist...the "reverend's" Escalade gets stolen and stripped...while he's touting "green" crap.
Disrespecting Jesse
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
H/t Domestic Divapalooza.
Dr. Alveda King – the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., – explains why she’s speaking at the Glenn Beck 8/28 rally in Washington this Saturday.
Dr. Alveda King – the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., – explains why she’s speaking at the Glenn Beck 8/28 rally in Washington this Saturday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)