-Via Carl Paladino
Of course Ben Stein denies ever saying such a thing (which doesn't make it any less true), but he did say; this.
Posts
I am 60 today
3 weeks ago
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Failure to launch (whoops)... Deliver
So after the debate with himself, President Obama successfully gave the World and the American Citizens, absolutely nothing.
"Obama claims the “debate” — in which no debate opponent was given a minute at the microphone — is valuable. But the whistleblowers who create such debates “endanger” us, Obama says. This he claims without evidence.Senator Rand Paul responds to this with:
If the debate was so useful, why not give the man who made you hold it with yourself his passport back?
Obama began Friday’s speech with a Sarah Palinesque bit of Paul Revere history. Revere is now an honorary NSA spy. In reality, the British would have hit Revere with a hellfire missile if Obama had been their king. It all depends on which side of a war you imagine someone to be on, and on whether you imagine war itself is an acceptable form of human behavior at this late date. Without the endless war on the world, the need for secrecy would go away, and with it the powers that secrecy bestows, and with them the arrogant speeches by rulers who clearly hold us all in contempt.
Obama’s promises not to abuse unchecked secret powers (and implied promise that none of his successors or subordinates will abuse them either) is not credible, or acceptable, while it just might be impeachable. We’re talking here about the same government that listens in on soldiers’ phone sex, Congress members’ daily lives, and everything it can get its hands on related to the actual, rather than rhetorical, promotion of liberty, justice, or peace. A report today quotes various members of the government with security clearance who want to murder Edward Snowden. We’re supposed to just trust them with the right to or persons, houses, papers, and effects without probably cause or warrant? Are we also to trust the corporations they ask to do their dirty work, should the theoretical future reform of this outrage involve paying corporations to own our info?" -washingtonblog
“The American people should not expect the fox to guard the hen house,” Paul said about Obama’s promise to appoint a special White House oversight director to keep a watchful eye over the security programs." -washingtonblogIt goes without saying, if you're not getting what your paying for, either get your money back or get a new thing.
DEMs support GOP to condemn the State Department for Benghazi
"Congressional Democrats for the first time joined the GOP to condemn the State Department for refusing security measures they say could have prevented the deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi." -USAToday
So what... the President and Hillary lied? OMG!
Oh? Not enough proof? Let's roll over to the New Yorker:
"Some of the decisions to turn down or not request more security were made in Benghazi, and some were made in Washington; this was more than a single misjudgment...Who would protect the mission, then? The locals, who were on our side—or whose side we had been on in the war to remove Muammar Qaddafi from power.
David Kirkpatrick, in a long story for the Times, describes how various members of those militias might have been found in amiable conversations with diplomats before the attacks and then complicit in it the night it happened." -the New Yorker
However, while other mainstream Liberal media were for once reporting the real news;
the L.A.Times was missing the mark completely again... seemingly on purpose.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
No wealth to redistribute!
OH!? You want something for Free but don't want to do anything to get it?
Oh Tax the Rich to feed the poor? Yeah what happens when the Rich flee, how will you 'Redistribute' wealth when there is none!?
Failure of Collectivism staring you in the face yet many still support it under the guise of helping others and healthcare.
Don't say I and others didn't warn you. When people start considering the current Commonwealth of Russia a better place than what's looking more and more like 'Soviet Amerika'. It shows there is an actually real issue here, a White Elephant in the room that the vast majority are not talking about and considering.
Oh Tax the Rich to feed the poor? Yeah what happens when the Rich flee, how will you 'Redistribute' wealth when there is none!?
Failure of Collectivism staring you in the face yet many still support it under the guise of helping others and healthcare.
Don't say I and others didn't warn you. When people start considering the current Commonwealth of Russia a better place than what's looking more and more like 'Soviet Amerika'. It shows there is an actually real issue here, a White Elephant in the room that the vast majority are not talking about and considering.
Amazon workers reject Union
This is an interesting topic that will defiantly draw lines with people.
I'm in the middle on this and I'll tell you why.
In current form Unions in America are all based on the same models set forth in the 1800's. They were presented as a way to protect Workers Rights against the Wealthy who were taking advantage of them.
In this i have no issue.
What is rarely talked about is that Those Unions were set up on purpose by those same Wealthy people to maintain control over the said workers. Granted they made some concessions, but in the overall they gained even more control over the workers, in so doing coming out even more on top than before.
A Union worker In some Unions, is threatened with loss of their Union membership and possibly their job if they don't vote along the lines the Union wants. If you are ousted from Membership, since the majority of jobs a person required a union to get hired for in the first place, one is either forced to learn a skill set that does not require union membership or remain unemployed.
There is a lot of coercion and harassment involved, that some former Union members fight to change.
A lot of these Unions are still funded by 'Big' money Rich Entrepreneurs who benefit by keeping the Workers in line and punishing dissent within the ranks.
But with out Unions the Workers have no job protection, can be forced to work unreasonable hours (regardless of labor laws), and forget about getting sick and keeping your job. What? It's called the Family and Medical Leave Act you say?
How many of you were fired because you were actually sick, you called in and even got a Doctors note. Well I know a lot of people and I have experienced this myself. The fact is all a company has to do is find another reason to fire you and it doesn't even have to make sense. Some companies even have you sign paperwork (that most don't read), that states they can for you for 'no reason' (read the fine print), and these are companies without Unions>
Do we need a workers protection system, Yes. Are the Current Union Systems good? No, most aren't.
Amazon Employees are probably being offered good incentives to prevent Union activities. Meaning the vote against Union is in favor of Amazon and this Union 'not to be' would have at least (initially), been in control of the workers and unfavorable to Amazon.
Life really blows hard sometimes doesn't it!?
I'm in the middle on this and I'll tell you why.
In current form Unions in America are all based on the same models set forth in the 1800's. They were presented as a way to protect Workers Rights against the Wealthy who were taking advantage of them.
In this i have no issue.
What is rarely talked about is that Those Unions were set up on purpose by those same Wealthy people to maintain control over the said workers. Granted they made some concessions, but in the overall they gained even more control over the workers, in so doing coming out even more on top than before.
A Union worker In some Unions, is threatened with loss of their Union membership and possibly their job if they don't vote along the lines the Union wants. If you are ousted from Membership, since the majority of jobs a person required a union to get hired for in the first place, one is either forced to learn a skill set that does not require union membership or remain unemployed.
There is a lot of coercion and harassment involved, that some former Union members fight to change.
A lot of these Unions are still funded by 'Big' money Rich Entrepreneurs who benefit by keeping the Workers in line and punishing dissent within the ranks.
But with out Unions the Workers have no job protection, can be forced to work unreasonable hours (regardless of labor laws), and forget about getting sick and keeping your job. What? It's called the Family and Medical Leave Act you say?
How many of you were fired because you were actually sick, you called in and even got a Doctors note. Well I know a lot of people and I have experienced this myself. The fact is all a company has to do is find another reason to fire you and it doesn't even have to make sense. Some companies even have you sign paperwork (that most don't read), that states they can for you for 'no reason' (read the fine print), and these are companies without Unions>
Do we need a workers protection system, Yes. Are the Current Union Systems good? No, most aren't.
Amazon Employees are probably being offered good incentives to prevent Union activities. Meaning the vote against Union is in favor of Amazon and this Union 'not to be' would have at least (initially), been in control of the workers and unfavorable to Amazon.
Life really blows hard sometimes doesn't it!?
No Fan of LDS but Marriage is a separate issue all together
I am no fan of the LDS (for very clear reasons), however people seem to forget that Religious institutions in America are 'PRIVATE' organizations. They can offer whatever they want and refuse whatever they want, within the limits of Constitutional law.
Marriage beyond that of a Man and Woman, is a State issue, not a Religious or Federal issue. The State if compelled by the People by voting will or will not allow Civil Unions of Non-Man & Woman unions. However forcing a Private Organization, just like Forcing a Private Individual to do something against themselves is yet Unconstitutional, since Individual Rights are originally protected and Religious Right also under the 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment.
A Gay person wouldn't want to be forced to marry a straight person of the opposite sex?
Stop violating the Rights of Religious organizations and focus your efforts on the States. And realize that there are Religious institutions in America and Canada that offer Religious Marriage regardless of what their respective peers decree.
there are over 100 churches in America and Canada (even throughout the World), that offer this, ranging from Lutheran, Pentecostal to whatever (like the Anglican Church of Canada, The Lutheran Church of Sweden, the Church of Denmark, the Mennonite Church in the Netherlands, the Affirming Pentecostal Church International and the Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals, the Unitarian Universalists, and the Swedenborgian Church of North America, as well as British and Canadian Quakers.). Some may not be under the direct authority of those said institutions (some are), but they still preach from their same respective Holy books, only with a more Christlike attitude.
A moral approach to getting Religion to want what you want is by being selfless, and showing who you are and that you have something to offer the community by how you act. Acting like spoiled brats with Fascist intent is not going to have Religious institutions falling over themselves to come over to your side.
Next time you want something that is a violation of Right, remember what it'd be like if someone tried to violate your Right to do or not do something. Remember that the issue is in the hands of the people and therefore a State issue,; Religious Organizations are not apart of the state and therefor our of this scope of influence.
To express otherwise, shows a severe lack of understanding of Religious and Individual freedoms, as well as What Separation of Church and State really means.
Options are available right now and other options are available with a little leg work within your states.
Marriage beyond that of a Man and Woman, is a State issue, not a Religious or Federal issue. The State if compelled by the People by voting will or will not allow Civil Unions of Non-Man & Woman unions. However forcing a Private Organization, just like Forcing a Private Individual to do something against themselves is yet Unconstitutional, since Individual Rights are originally protected and Religious Right also under the 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment.
A Gay person wouldn't want to be forced to marry a straight person of the opposite sex?
Stop violating the Rights of Religious organizations and focus your efforts on the States. And realize that there are Religious institutions in America and Canada that offer Religious Marriage regardless of what their respective peers decree.
there are over 100 churches in America and Canada (even throughout the World), that offer this, ranging from Lutheran, Pentecostal to whatever (like the Anglican Church of Canada, The Lutheran Church of Sweden, the Church of Denmark, the Mennonite Church in the Netherlands, the Affirming Pentecostal Church International and the Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals, the Unitarian Universalists, and the Swedenborgian Church of North America, as well as British and Canadian Quakers.). Some may not be under the direct authority of those said institutions (some are), but they still preach from their same respective Holy books, only with a more Christlike attitude.
A moral approach to getting Religion to want what you want is by being selfless, and showing who you are and that you have something to offer the community by how you act. Acting like spoiled brats with Fascist intent is not going to have Religious institutions falling over themselves to come over to your side.
Next time you want something that is a violation of Right, remember what it'd be like if someone tried to violate your Right to do or not do something. Remember that the issue is in the hands of the people and therefore a State issue,; Religious Organizations are not apart of the state and therefor our of this scope of influence.
To express otherwise, shows a severe lack of understanding of Religious and Individual freedoms, as well as What Separation of Church and State really means.
Options are available right now and other options are available with a little leg work within your states.
Mexicans are cleaning up our mess!
Mexicans are cleaning up our mess!
Small groups of local vigilantes took up arms and joined forces to storm Paracuaro, headquarters of the Knights Templar gang, where they arrested police officers and seized control of the town in a blaze of gunfire.
They drove into the town in black armoured vehicles shouting 'Don't be frightened, we are vigilantes', before expelling drugs traffickers, whom they accuse of kidnapping people and bribing them to make money. Several gun battles were reported, leaving at least one dead.
Police officers, were rounded up and arrrested. They are considered to be in league with the Drug Cartels and Corrupt Government Officials. A checkpoint was set up at the entrance to Paracuaro to maintain the order restored by vigilante group known as Public Safety System against the Templar Drug Cartel.
Policing for profit
Without a warrant, the New York Police Department (NYPD) burst into the home of Gerald Bryan in a nighttime raid in March of 2012. Police punched through walls, tore out light fixtures and seized $4,800 in cash. Gerald was suspected of distributing drugs and taken into custody. One year later, the case against him was dropped. But when Gerald tried to get his money back, he found that it had been deposited into the pension fund for the NYPD.
Max Rivlin-Nadler elaborates at Gothamist:
Tuesday, January 07, 2014
Damn the Torpedoes, Let us tilt at windmills and bask in the afterglow
Damn the Torpedoes, Let us tilt at windmills and bask in the afterglow.
"The Grand Alliance with Islam? Damn the failures, blunders and self-stultifications, full speed ahead." -Richard Butrick
President Bush Jr. had his own prevalent doctrine of interference and intervening, which has led to some of todays current state of affairs, President Obama has continued such ludicrous meanderings, of which will only serve to hurt America in the end. If one thing history should have taught us is that when learning to work with others in the World, especially those of diametrically opposed mentalities; one does not compromise themselves in the process, for fear of losing oneself entirely.
"The Grand Alliance with Islam? Damn the failures, blunders and self-stultifications, full speed ahead." -Richard Butrick
In the process of exonerating Clinton, the 8,000-word account by David Kirkpatrick uncovers the two pivotal points of the Obama Doctrine:
(1) Radical Islam in general is not inherently hostile to the US and once they are shown due respect they can become US allies. This may mean weakening ties with our traditional allies.
(2) The only Islamic group that is a bona fide terrorist organization is the faction of al-Qaida directly subordinate to Osama bin Laden's successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Only this group cannot be appeased and must be destroyed through force.
This explains:
(1) the attempts to accommodate the Taliban in Afghanistan,
(2) the backing of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt,
(3) the initial backing of the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Syrian opposition,
(4) siding with the PLO against Israel,
(5) the kid glove treatment given Iran's nuclear policy. In general, any group not in obeisance to Zawahiri is a potential US ally.-http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/the_obama_doctrine_revealed.html
President Bush Jr. had his own prevalent doctrine of interference and intervening, which has led to some of todays current state of affairs, President Obama has continued such ludicrous meanderings, of which will only serve to hurt America in the end. If one thing history should have taught us is that when learning to work with others in the World, especially those of diametrically opposed mentalities; one does not compromise themselves in the process, for fear of losing oneself entirely.
Monday, January 06, 2014
Friday, January 03, 2014
37 People Killed in Colorado Marijuana Legalization
""When was the last time you heard of someone overdosing on beer? All these pro-marijuana groups should be ashamed of themselves. The victims' blood is on their hands."" -http://dailycurrant.com/2014/01/02/marijuana-overdoses-kill-37-in-colorado-on-first-day-of-legalization/
Uhmm Dumbass!It's called Alcohol Poisoning and there are "...approximately 88,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States."
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
Two:
"Marijuana, on the other hand, does not cause overdose deaths and comes with far fewer long-term health consequences. A 2009 Canadian study determined the annual health-related costs associated with alcohol are more than eight times greater per user than with marijuana."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/22/opinion/riffle-marijuana-safety/
If people are dieing it is because they are mixing, doing something else along with the marijuana. You wouldn't say, take pain medication and drink heavily would you? Oh people do die because of that? Wait a sec!
Uhmm Dumbass!It's called Alcohol Poisoning and there are "...approximately 88,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States."
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
Two:
"Marijuana, on the other hand, does not cause overdose deaths and comes with far fewer long-term health consequences. A 2009 Canadian study determined the annual health-related costs associated with alcohol are more than eight times greater per user than with marijuana."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/22/opinion/riffle-marijuana-safety/
If people are dieing it is because they are mixing, doing something else along with the marijuana. You wouldn't say, take pain medication and drink heavily would you? Oh people do die because of that? Wait a sec!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
