September 3, 2010 § Leave a Comment
Watch this guy, then get out there and work to reclaim our state and our country.
August 30, 2010 § Leave a Comment
I got the following article and comments via an extremely liberal website/newsletter that branched off from another one called “Truthout.” That name was at least honest, since there was absolutely no truth in it whatsoever. This one is following suit, but just when I think they couldn’t get any dumber, they just up and prove me wrong.
The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party
By Frank Rich, The New York Times
29 August 10
Another weekend, another grass-roots demonstration starring Real Americans who are mad as hell and want to take back their country from you-know-who. Last Sunday the site was Lower Manhattan, where they jeered the “ground zero mosque.” This weekend, the scene shifted to Washington, where the avatars of oppressed white Tea Party America, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, were slated to “reclaim the civil rights movement” (Beck’s words) on the same spot where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had his dream exactly 47 years earlier.
Vive la révolution!
There’s just one element missing from these snapshots of America’s ostensibly spontaneous and leaderless populist uprising: the sugar daddies who are bankrolling it, and have been doing so since well before the “death panel” warm-up acts of last summer. Three heavy hitters rule. You’ve heard of one of them, Rupert Murdoch. The other two, the brothers David and Charles Koch, are even richer, with a combined wealth exceeded only by that of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett among Americans. But even those carrying the Kochs’ banner may not know who these brothers are.
Their self-interested and at times radical agendas, like Murdoch’s, go well beyond, and sometimes counter to, the interests of those who serve as spear carriers in the political pageants hawked on Fox News. The country will be in for quite a ride should these potentates gain power, and given the recession-battered electorate’s unchecked anger and the Obama White House’s unfocused political strategy, they might …
Now, to read the rest of the article I have to go to the NY Times site and register, and I just don’t think I can do it. However, while the article itself, as far as it goes above, is awful, the “Comments” after it are even worse (as in, more ludicrous). To wit:
-1 # maddy 2010-08-29 10:43 As was said before, the KOCH family helped Stalin and the Bolshevicks overthrow the USSR, and gave Russia Communism, and Bush helped implement the policies of the german leader of 1930. The wealthy seems to let their money warp their minds. Palin/Beck out to combine the two isms along with McCathyism? An interesting future we have to look forward to.
0 # nehark 2010-08-29 11:21 [quote name="maddy"]As was said before, the KOCH family helped Stalin and the Bolshevicks overthrow the USSR, and gave Russia Communism…” Read up on the Russian Revolution. Stalin was never about Communism. He was a 2-bit opportunist dictator who killed anyone who got in his way…anyone who really believed in the Revolution and Communism. The US supported the old murderer because they needed him to defeat Hitler. Nothing has been right here since.
0 # e urdanoff 2010-08-29 11:43 it’ll be fun to watch the gladiators (Murdoch+the Koch boys vs. George Soros) duke it out.
0 # Eric B. Lipps 2010-08-29 12:08 Ahem. “Helped Stalin and the Bolsheviks *overthrow* the USSR”? How about “establish”? And by “the german leader of 1930″ I assume you mean the German Fuehrer Adolf Hitler, who didn’t come to power until January 1933.
End comments (there are more, but they’re basically all the same).
These people referring to “the Koch Family” are so stunningly ridiculous that it boggles the mind. And yet, they’re everywhere.
Fred Koch was one of the earliest members of the John Birch Society, who wrote a book in which he stated that he found the Soviet Union to be “a land of hunger, misery, and terror.
That’s the same Fred Koch who was in college in Texas at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, then went on to MIT until 1922. He was, by the way, 17 years old at the time.
His Dad was a Dutch immigrant in the tiny town of Quanah, TX, who ran a little bitty local newspaper.
His firm, Winkler-Koch, did build some oil refineries in Russia – among many other places – between 1929 – 1932, which is when Fred Koch learned to loathe Communism.
And we let these people win elections? How dumb are we?
August 30, 2010 § Leave a Comment
Here’s to the crazy ones.
The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers.
The round pegs in the square holes.
The ones who see things differently.
They’re not fond of rules.
And they have no respect for the status quo.
You can praise them, disagree with them, quote them,
disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them.
About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them.
Because they change things.
They invent. They imagine.
They heal. They explore. They create. They inspire.
They push the human race forward.
Maybe they have to be crazy.
How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art?
Or sit in silence and hear a song thatâ€™s never been written?
Or gaze at a red planet and see a laboratory on wheels?
While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.
Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world,
are the ones who do.
Note: I’m not sure who wrote this, but I like it very much and wanted to share it.
September 15, 2009 § Leave a Comment
There’s an important right that many people don’t know about, and an organization called the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) that works hard to protect it and to inform the public about it.
It’s the right of every person sitting on a jury to vote against conviction if they believe that the law itself is wrong, and it’s called Jury Nullification.
The reason for juries is not to carry out the wishes of the government; it’s a jury of one’s peers precisely so that your fellow citizens – ordinary Joes and Janes – can protect you FROM the government.
Does that mean letting murderers and rapists go? Of course not (if proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).
This is about The People standing up to unconstitutional laws, steamroller prosecutions, and activist judges. At least, that’s what it means to me — you decide for yourself what it means to you.
Go to their website and learn all you need to know about it. Spread the word.
And, if you are called to serve on a jury (and lucky you, because it’s one of the last ways we can keep the government in check), know what you and do and should do.
July 30, 2009 § Leave a Comment
As you no doubt know, the Thune Amendment to allow national concealed carry reciprocity was defeated recently.
Want to know how your Senator feels about you? Do they trust you all the time or only when they need your vote (if then)?
See the list below to find out. If they don’t trust you, why the hell would you trust them? And if you don’t trust them, why would you vote for them … or NOT vote AGAINST them?
Let the Senators who voted against your freedom and right to self-defense know how you feel, and don’t forget to thank the ones who voted *for* your freedom, too. ~el
Question: On the Amendment (Thune Amdt. No. 1618 )
July 22, 2009, 12:01 PM
Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1618 to S. 1390 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010)
Statement of Purpose: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.
Not Voting 3
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State.
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Burris (D-IL), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Franken (D-MN), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kaufman (D-DE), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Not Voting
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (D-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
June 24, 2009 § Leave a Comment
I was at yet another political meeting last night, when someone began pontificating about “gay marriage.”
I just don’t get it.
When the folks who object to marriage equity are challenged, their first argument is that marriage is to produce children.
I ask that if that is so, then should my daughter, who can’t have children, and my sister, whose husband can’t have children, not be allowed to be married?
Well, no, they say, that’s different.
Actually, it’s not.
Then someone said, “Why do you think sex was invented?” and someone else answered, “To conceive children.”
Well, if that were so, then human females would go into heat a couple of times a year and we wouldn’t have sex for any reason other than procreation. Plus, when a woman is past child-bearing age, shouldn’t she be traded in for a younger, fecund model?
And, btw, who exactly “invented” sex? Personally, I thank ‘em for that.
I actually feel a little sad for these people whose marriages are nothing but pairings for the production of children.
No? You think not? You think maybe their marriages occurred because they fell in love with someone and wanted to spend their lives with that person? That they wanted to build a life together may or may not include children? That their marriages are NOT actually loveless offspring-producing partnerships?
I dunno … all they can see when they look at “gay” marriage is sex, sex, sex and no production of children. That’s not only very short-sighted, it’s just sad.
One gentleman raised the objection that he is a Justice of the Peace and doesn’t want to be forced to perform a marriage he objects to. I agree.
However, I am also a Justice of the Peace and have been legally prevented for years from performing marriages of which I approve for people I know and who are deeply in love and have healthier relationships than many heterosexuals I know. In fact, I have refused to perform marriages at all until all consenting adults endowed with their rights as Americans were allowed to marry.
Another person raised the ludicrous argument that same-sex parents are more likely to raise homosexual children. Say what?
There is, of course, no scientific evidence of this, and of course “straight” parents clearly do produce “gay” children.
Actually, I know a whole bunch of homosexuals of both genders, and they were all raised by “straight” parents … often hypocritical, bible-thumping ones, in fact.
Still another person in the room stated that homosexuality is a choice.
Really? Then is heterosexuality a choice? Because I know very well that no one could demand that I suddenly be homosexual because they 1) decided that being heterosexual is a choice I made, and 2) they don’t approve.
First, it’s not a choice in 99.44% of the homosexual population. No one has ever produced one shred of actual evidence that it’s a choice; they made that up to suit their own belief system.
Second, as long as it’s consenting adults, it’s nobody’s damned business anyway.
At least no one hauled out the bizarre argument that allowing homosexual marriage will destroy marriage. That one just stuns me.
How on earth is that possible? Will thousands and thousands of married men and women leave their spouses and families because they can suddenly marry someone of the same sex?
Of course, someone raised the religious objection (it’s in the Bible). Actually, it’s in the Old Testament and nowhere in the new one. If it was that important, you would think that Jesus would have mentioned it.
And, by the way, Leviticus lists the laws for keeping kosher in order of importance and a man lying with another man is way down the line after eating pork or shellfish.
Oh yes … there’s nothing about women lying with women in there; it only says that a woman shall not stand before a beast. (I figure I broke that one when I married my first husband.)
Note: The bible also forbids women to “dress like a man,” which has been interpreted to mean that women commit a terrible sin if they wear pants. I’m doomed.
A friend of mine also in the room pointed out – and I have confirmed this – that the Catholic Church performed same-sex marriages for centuries (up until and through the Rennaissance). Often, one man (or both) was married to a women also, so that he could produce heirs. Which, of course, is why formal marriage was invented: right of inheritance of the royals and very rich, to keep property in the family.
Then, those same people who tried to bludgeon us with their religion claimed that the next step would … horrors! … be polygamy. Which, of course, is quite legal in the Bible they were thumping just a minute before.
If marriage is all about the children, then why would these “compassionate” people want only one spouse and a few children to be blessed by the social (and legal) privileges of marriae, but for most of the children in a multiple-partner relationship to be illegitimate?
If they’re going to cohabit and procreate anyway, what IS the problem with allowing them all to be married (as long as we’re talking about consenting adults)?
My friend said that he has Lesbian friends in a committed relationship, raising children, who ask him how he can be a Republican and belong to a Party that hates them. He asked the room when the Republican Party became the party of exclusion and hate.
Of course, those folks who were ridiculing, objecting, and vilifying homosexuals and homosexual marriage were very taken aback and all said, “Oh no, we don’t HATE gays!”
Hm. Would “despise” be better? How about “feel superior to?”
First, denying basic civil rights to someone because you don’t like who they love is hatred in action.
Second, and most importantly, this government is supposed to follow the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and nothing else.
The willingness of so-called Conservatives to make the Constitution less important than their religions and personal objections just helps the so-called Liberals (and others) do the same thing.
Basically, the government has no business having anything to do with marriage, or it would be mentioned in the Constitution. Frankly, the best solution would be to require the “civil union” legality for every couple (or family group) that wants the privileges, legal, and civil protections now afforded automatically to married couples.
I consider myself to be a Goldwater (and Jeffersonian) Republican; otherwise, I couldn’t be a Republican at all … and I sure couldn’t be a Democrat.
To quote Senator Goldwater on homosexuality: “There has always been homosexuality, ever since man and woman were invented. I guess there were gay apes. So that’s not an issue. The Republican Party should stand for freedom and only freedom. Don’t raise hell about the gays, the Blacks and the Mexicans. Free people have a right to do as they damn well please.” *
Yep. What he said.
* “The Advocate,” 1993.
May 21, 2009 § Leave a Comment
“It’s most likely a mix-up with the bar codes,” offered the manager of an Asda chain store in Halifax, West Yorkshire, England. A shopper had purchased a set of teaspoons and, when rung up, the register ordered the clerk to check the buyer’s identification to ensure she was at least 18 years old. Why, asked the shopper. The clerk informed the woman that someone had once been murdered with a teaspoon, and therefore identification was now required. “I’m not aware of an age restriction for spoons,” the manager said. (London Telegraph)
When teaspoons are outlawed, only outlaws will have teaspoons.
For more like this, go to “This is True” at http://www.thisistrue.com