November 19, 2006
I was perusing the comment section at another blog yesterday and read a liberal's comment that made me thankful he and I were not in the same room -- had we been, I probably would have strangled the son of a bitch out of sheer frustration. My own comment, in reply to his, was as restrained as possible, I believe it remained within, though pushing the envelope, the boundaries of respect due the owners of that most excellent site.
I mean, these people (not the owners of said most excellent site, but liberals) are such -- such varmints!
They claim to be champions of human rights, for example. Here in America, human rights are honored more than they are anyplace else on earth. Freedom of speech? C'mon. Here, you can shout obscene jokes about the President from the rooftops if you feel like it.
In the Soviet Union, you'd have been hauled off to the Lubyanka, or perhaps Lefortovo Prison, in a heart beat, and not seen again for quite some time, if at all.
If they needed information they thought you might possess, there was none of this patty cakes BS like water boarding or playing loud music at you, they were somewhat more practical -- maybe running some electricity through your genitals, or shooting you up with interesting chemicals like lysergic acid mixed with amatol that might get you to babbling, but might also scramble your brains permanently. Then again, permanently might have only meant a couple of hours, anyway.
So what did American liberals do? They extolled the virtues of communism in all its grand superiority over capitalism, even as they enjoyed instant gratification at the local mall while Soviet citizens were standing in bitter cold, in four and five hour lines, to buy a potato.
North Vietnam, an oppressive communist regime, invades the south, and our country defends the South Vietnamese against the north and its VietCong terrorist apparat. Liberals at home fight tooth and nail against the conflict. They influence politicians, who influence the war effort itself, prolonging it by several years. They eventually succeed in getting our troops pulled out. They rejoice. Ho Chi Minh's communists sweep into South Vietnam and butcher hundreds of thousands of innocent people, then they enslave the country under said oppressive government.
Meanwhile, here in America, the liberals are celebrating their "victory". They could care less about the fates of those poor souls thousands of miles away, human beings they've helped murder as surely as if they'd been there, splattering brains across the ground.
In the 1990s, there was brutal conflict in the Balkans. Muslims were slaughtering Christian Serbs, and Milosevic's people were killing Muslims.
The EU, led by Germany, exploited the violence in order to get a foot in the door for influence in the Balkans. They altered intelligence reports and manipulated the media to paint a gruesome picture of Muslims being victimized via
"ethnic cleansing" by Milosevic's people. Peaceful, nonviolent Muslims, victimized!
Then-boss liberal Bill Clinton bought into it and got us into it, and we helped eliminate a lot of obstacles al-Qaeda and fellow travellers faced in the day-to-day ethnic cleansing operations they were engaged in over there.
Milosevic was arrested and tried for his "crimes" -- and died in custody five years later without ever being convicted of anything.
Muslims in the Balkans continue murdering Christian Serbs to this day.
Onward to Iraq, and to the global war we are waging to defend ourselves against the abolition of liberty under Islamic rule.
There we are again -- which side are liberals on?
The other side, of course, as usual!
America's enemies, any enemies, have never had a better friend than a liberal.
You want some liberal friends? Just declare war on the United States and they'll be coming out in droves to shake your hand or, if requested, stick their noses wherever you wish.
Certainly not on our side, ever, yet when you state this obvious truth, they will actually argue the opposite, as often as not with that smug smirk that brings out the strangler in many of us....
November 16, 2006
Not too long ago, I posted about the coming of the North American Union, an agenda which, much to my chagrin, is being engineered by the man I voted for twice for President and his counterparts in Mexico and Canada.
Some commenters took this either with a grain of salt, some with a degree of alarm, some, I thought, may have humored me with their comments.
As they say, it's all good. The very concept sounds both farfetched and absurd, like the plot of a Robert Ludlum novel or the fantasies of a serious paranoid.
After all, conspiracy theories abound, right?
I had thought my research on the subject was pretty extensive, in fact, somewhere along the line I was reminded of my ex-wife's own "ravings", back in the days of the Carter Administration, when she talked about then National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's ambitions toward what was called the Trilateral Commission.
In those days I was still kinda' sorta' liberal and pretty laid back, and to tell the truth, couldn't give the proverbial "flying fuck" about such things. Please excuse mah French (spit!)....
In the comments section of my post on the North American Union ambitions of those involved, the forever awesome Always On Watch suggested that I contact a great blog called Sixth Column, who had been following the NAU proceedings for some time. I did.
We resolved to share information on anything our respective research unearthed on the subject. In that quarter, they have thus far kicked my ass, LOL.
An emailed article I recently received provides the entire history, names, methods, intentions, chronology and all, of events leading up to what is now the plan for the North American Union. It is lengthy and will require some time, but I urge you to read it in its entirety.
It should convince you, in alarming detail, of what is to come in the next four years, no matter what else occurs in the political spectrum of the United States of America.
As I said last time out, we are indeed in grave trouble, because our very sovereignty is about to be sacrificed on the altar of corporate expediency. While our future Congresses and POTUSes will govern our country, they will be like state legislatures, while extranational congresses determine the details of our economy (a collective with Mexico and Canada), eventually becoming part of a global collective consisting of the EU, the NAU, the SAU, the AU, etc....
We are in big trouble here, a world government awaits just around the corner, and most unfortunately, the politicians who might be able to prevent it are being kept outside the loop.
As I said in my previous post about this, the involved congresses/parliaments, etc involved herein have been kept in the dark about it, as has the media.
I am wondering whether we are going to wake up and deal with this, or whether we're simply going to drift into it in blissful ignorance, becoming an entirely different country....
ULTRA-MAJOR and MEGA-GRATEFUL hat tip to CUBED!
October 20, 2006
Shame On The Bush Administration!
Most of us, I assume, are at least conversant with the affair involving (former) Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, two brave and dedicated U.S. Government sentinels of both Law Enforcement and Homeland Security who were screwed over, big time, by our government for doing their job.
A spot-on article about the incident appeared in The New American on 18 September.
The piece opens thus:
While the Bush administration seeks amnesty for illegal aliens and grants immunity to a Mexican drug smuggler, it has thrown the book at two courageous Border Patrol agents.
These two men pursued a drug dealer who was also illegally on our side of the border and attempted to apprehend him. Shots were fired. According to the agents, they did not believe the criminal had been hit, as he was able to run back into Mexico and hop into a waiting van.
A vehicle the foreign criminal had abandoned in the course of the pursuit yielded 800 pounds of freshly smuggled-in marijuana. This evidence is ironclad proof that they were not pursuing an innocent man -- of course, even had he not been smuggling drugs, he was still in this country illegally.
The result of the incident was that the Bush Administration turned on its own officers like a rabid Doberman, arresting them as criminals and prosecuting them as such, so that now each may face as many as 20 years in prison.
The drug trafficker, on the other hand, was brought back to the United States, an honored guest of Homeland Security and DOJ, for free medical treatment for a gunshot wound he allegedly sustained in the hind quarters while fleeing the federal agents. He was granted immunity for testifying against them and is in the process of suing you, me and every other U.S. taxpayer over the incident. This same scumbag has since been busted for the same offense, in the same area, and was still not prosecuted because the Bush Administration is so grateful to him for condemning its own courageous and loyal agents.
I voted for George Bush both times, and have said in the past that I would vote for him again if he could run a third time, but this filthy, disgraceful incident changes my mind completely -- it has significantly lowered my respect for both the President and his administration.
What does this say to Ramos and Compeans' fellow Border Patrol agents, or for that matter to Law Enforcement and National Security operatives throughout the United States? That they don't have the support of their President nor of his appointees?
These men should never have been prosecuted, nor should the trafficante have been pardoned.
For their 15-minute pursuit of Aldrete-Davila on February 17, 2005, and for a couple of split-second decisions they made during that suspenseful chase, agents Ramos and Compean have lost a combined 15-year record of sterling service in the Border Patrol (10 years for Ramos, five for Compean). Even more, that 15-minute pursuit in the line of duty may cost each of them 20 years in prison, possibly alongside dangerous criminals they have apprehended.
Adding terror on top of calamity, both agents and their families have been subjected to death threats. In fact, according to the smuggler Aldrete-Davila, some of his drug-cartel associates from Mexico planned a "hunting party" to track down and execute Ramos and Compean. Both of these law enforcement officers have young school-age and preschool-age children. Agent Compean's wife, Claudia, is pregnant with their third child.
Incredibly, while agents Ramos and Compean and their families face economic ruin, emotional devastation, and real physical danger, as a result of that 15-minute chase, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila — an admitted felon and drug smuggler — has not only gotten off scot-free, he stands to become a rich man, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers. In a seemingly unbelievable turn of events, agents for the U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security contacted the smuggler in Mexico and offered him complete immunity if he would testify that Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean had violated his civil rights.
The two Border Patrol officers were arrested in SWAT-style raids on their homes and taken away in handcuffs in front of their families. By way of contrast, Aldrete-Davila, in exchange for agreeing to testify against the agents, was given free medical treatment in the United States, then escorted back to Mexico and released. He was also coached in his testimony by U.S. government officials, then brought back to the United States and trotted out as the star witness against Ramos and Compean.
In the meantime, during his release, Aldrete-Davila was arrested again with another drug load in the same El Paso sector where Ramos and Compean had previously intercepted him. Nevertheless, he was allowed to testify against the two agents and then was released again! He may have made many more successful drug runs into the United States since then. But he may be able to retire soon in the style of his drug-lord bosses. With encouragement and help from U.S. officials, he is suing the Border Patrol for $5 million
All emphasis mine.
I won't even comment on the crud-sucking bitch of a judge who is doing everything in her power to railroad these two good men into prison -- the fact that she was put on the bench by GWB while he was governor of Texas only reinforces my ire at the Administration.
My misgivings about George Bush's loyalty to his people might be alleviated if he gets up on his hind legs like a true leader and pardons these two men, restoring them to their former jobs with all retroactives. From the aspect of politics -- which are never far from the surface these days -- a pardon and reinstatement of Compean and Ramos would almost certainly have a powerful positive effect for Republicans in the fast approaching elections.
December 30, 2005
Tell Me About It
Back in September I stayed at two hotels in Manhattan, The Benjamin and Doubletree Suites. Both were notably expensive.
The Doubletree flat out sucked, and the Internet access I paid $10.00 a day for was beyond useless. I lost several posts I'd put a lot of time into. I did the angry guest routine, which isn't me at all unless I become really peeved, and they credited me the money I'd spent on web access. Whooptie Doo! That's enough, I needn't go into the prices of items, even snack foods that cost a buck or two, in the minibar.
The suite I had at the Benjamin was beautiful, but again, the web access was iffy and a room service breakfast of sausages, eggs, potatoes, toast, orange juice, milk and a pot of coffee cost me $52.00 or thereabouts, a steak dinner with dessert and milk and a glass of brandy some $20.00 over a C-note.
Room service waiters in Manhattan must be required to take a course on how to look someone straight in the eye when presenting the check, exchange pleasantries and depart without gleefully shouting, "Sucker!"
But it is New York, after all, and according to AP writer David B. Caruso, A Night In New York Costs More Than Ever.
Hotel prices set wallet-busting records in New York City in 2005 after a long, slow recovery from the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The average daily price of a room in the city hit $292 in November, according to the hospitality industry analysis firm PKF Consulting. Figures for December weren't yet available, but the city is a lock to break its previous record yearlong average of $237 per night, set in 2000.
Prices were high in every corner of town, from the noisy motels jammed into industrial neighborhoods near Kennedy Airport to the palaces near Central Park.
They'll leave the light on for you...
June 25, 2005
Yesterday I didn't post at all because I was in and out all day and when I was on line I spent most of my time trying to find some sane explanation for this unbelievable SCOTUS ruling. It was all over the Blogosphere yesterday and I read more than twenty different posts and probably twenty five media reports and Op Eds on the ruling, and couldn't find a single approving comment. Correct me if I'm in error, but I was brought up on the premise that in America we are ruled by the people. How many Americans do you suppose would have voted for this?
I have to admit utter failure, there was no way I could find one, because there was none to find.
The Supreme Court has given license to cities to take away your home, your property, and sell it to any private business concern they think will use the land to generate more tax revenue and/ or create new jobs. The individual municipality now has the authority, from the highest court in the land, to make the last word judgement that the site of your home could be used for something else "for the good of the community" or whatever, and offer you market price for your home, usually a lot less than what you could sell it for to an individual. It's an offer you can't refuse, because if you do, they have only to condemn the place and then you lose even more, if not all.
These berobed fungi seem to have forgotten what we went to war with Britain over back in the 1770s. It was to escape just that kind of government control, to live in a free country where one can live as one wishes, achieve according to ones ambitions and abilities without being taxed to death and be the master of all one possesses. Now, thanks mainly to the liberals in the Court, the government is as much the owner of your home as you are.
So much for another American freedom. Stalin would have been soooo proud!
You'll remember a recent SCOTUS ruling confirming federal authority to prosecute(for possession and use) persons permitted by states to use marijuana for medicinal purposes, the dissenters were the conservatives in the Court. Maybe the liberals will learn that "neocons" and "neoconettes" in the Supreme Court protect their rights much more tenaciously than the portsiders do. Dream on, Seth.
I was reading the Euphoric Reality blog and a post about the <treasonous, in my book, when perpetrated, defended or endorsed by American citizens> flag burning issue, and ended up going to the Stop The ACLU Coalition's site and spending considerable time there. I ran across the Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005.
Representative John Hostettler, R-Ind., has teamed up with the American Legion to prevent the American Civil Liberties Union and others like them, from strong arming defendants.
The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 would prohibit attorneys fees from being collected in cases of religion abuse.
The ACLU boasts more than 400,000 members and supporters who handle more than 6000 cases each year. Its 2003 revenue topped $44 million while it claims to have been awarded more than $2 million in settlements.
Wow! They make 44 mill while the people and causes they purport to represent make an aggregated 5% of that amount. Shameless, morally bankrupt parasites need only graduate from Law school and pass the bar someplace, and the ACLU has a good home for them.
See, this is what the ACLU is all about. They identify themselves as an advocate of civil rights and use that noble self description as a license to sue moneyed institutions, the federal and municipal governments for preference, over bagatelles like this:
You have, say, a small city, population 50,000 whose religious community is 75% Christian. Incorporated over 150 years ago they have, for the last 125 of those years, had a Nativity scene erected in front of City Hall each Holiday season. Nobody in town has a problem with it, in fact most of the town enjoys the tradition.
Enter the ACLU, with a suit against the city for forcing its religious beliefs on non- Christians as official policy in that the Nativity scene is erected on city property by city employees. The ACLU wins the suit and they are paid their fees, by law, by the city they've successfully sued. This means the taxpayers of that municipality, who wanted the Christmas display, have to pay the ACLU for winning a suit against having the display.
So all those citizens who believe the ACLU is championing a cause be advised, they are just a business. Unfortunately, they are an evil business whose greatest contribution to the American people has been to erode the moral fabric and many of the traditions in our society that have made America great-- in order to line their own pockets.
The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005, if passed, would prohibit the collection of legal fees by the ACLU and other parasite scumbag legal groups when they sue government over gratuitous church & state issues. Once we take the profits out of these lawsuits, watch how quickly these "guardians of civil rights" curtail their Legal War On God.
The Bill Summary & Status is here.
Posted by Seth at 03:05 AM |
June 21, 2005
It Just Keeps Getting Stupider!
On 12 June, I did a post on the moronic Gitmo rhetoric coming from moonwipes like Newsweek and Amnesty International. You know, about flushing Korans(retracted) and the gulag we purportedly run in Cuba, according to Travesty International, who admitted not knowing what was happening at Guantanamo Bay but reported it anyway at their website.
Now there's more.
CONGRESS LIKELY TO DEFINE WAR DETAINEES
Congress is likely to step into the operation of the Guantanamo Bay detention center with legislation on how the U.S. should legally categorize an unorthodox enemy.
Fitting the enemy in the war on terror into the proper niche is challenging. Al Qaeda terrorists do not wear a uniform. They target civilians and never signed the Geneva Convention governing the treatment of wartime detainees.
U.S. officials say al Qaeda members make up the majority of the 520 inmates at Camp Delta in Cuba and include terrorist leader Osama bin Laden's bodyguards and one man who authorities suspect was supposed to be the 20th hijacker on the September 11 flights. The other inmates are suspected of being Taliban members.
....Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Hemingway, who is chief legal advisor to the appointing authority for the military commissions, added,(" I?) think that we can hold them as long as the conflict endures. But we have... a very detailed process for eliminating them if they no longer present a threat."
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and a strong advocate for detainee rights, asked, "Well, we now have a government in Afghanistan, yet the conflict continues. Is that what you're saying?"
What an idiotic question! And this coming from a guy who belongs to the body of our government that makes laws!
Gen. Hemingway replied, "The conflict is not with the government of Afghanistan. The conflict is with a nonstate organization."
...So far, the Pentagon has released more than 200 detainees. About 10 have resurfaced on the battlefield in Afghanistan and been killed or captured, administration officials said.
Ten that we know of because they've been recaptured or waxed, how many more are out there, using their freedom from custody to get back to business as usual?
I mean it, I am soooo flabbergasted at all this. This entire affair is based upon nothing concrete, in fact nothing whatsoever, it's like a vile cartoon and the upswing, if the administration and the right thinking folks on the Hill allow the Democrats to have their way, will be hundreds of terrorists back in circulation while a message is sent to Muslim terrorists everywhere that most Americans are on their side. There is a Republican majority in this country, which is why they'd be wrong in this assumption: It's that other party, the minority, that seems to be on their side.
Posted by Seth at 03:12 AM |