Day by Day
Saturday, February 28, 2009
A couple of years ago, I would have laughed this thing out of the water. But actions of the
And damn near every record in Obama's past is sealed. Selective Service records? Sealed. College records? Sealed. Go down the list and you'll see that Obama never opened up anything that might shed more light on his past.
He's hiding SOMETHING. Or multiple somethings.
The combat withdrawal will take three months longer than he promised. It is now be to completed by the end of August 2010, 19 months after Obama's inauguration. Though what Obama emphasized most as a candidate was his determination to bring about a quick end to the war, in the fine print of almost all his statements was a twin commitment to flexibility. One administration official said Obama was never wedded to the timeline encased in his overall public pledge.
_The withdrawal will not happen at an even pace of one combat brigade per month, as he had repeatedly said. Instead, it will be backloaded, so that the force posture for this year and into the first few months of 2010 likely will be essentially the same as it would have been under Bush. Under Obama's plan, troops will start leaving in large numbers probably only next spring or summer, though the president intends to leave the pacing decisions up to field commanders.
_Even after the combat drawdown, a very large force of as many as 50,000 troops will remain — an element of the withdrawal strategy that has caused heartache among anti-war Democrats who wanted a fuller pullout.
This residual force will have a new mission, of training Iraqis, protecting U.S. assets and personnel, and conducting anti-terror operations. While those are technically noncombat tasks, the soldiers and Marines will remain in harm's way and engage at times in some form of fighting.
I read this and was immediately excited. It means that we are actually *supporting* Iraq instead of *abandoning* them. That this is being done despite the uproar from the Leftists makes it all the sweeter.
But first... bacon. You need a good breakfast before you head out!
I guess there's quite a few Sheena Easton fans out there.
Friday, February 27, 2009
A man from President Obama's hometown of Chicago has been arrested for allegedly sending Obama and his staff envelopes containing HIV-infected blood, in the hopes of killing or harming them.
It's only the second time ever that HIV-infected blood has been sent with malicious intent through the U.S. mail system, a spokesman for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service said.
In the weeks leading up to Obama's inauguration, Saad Hussein, an Ethiopian refugee in his late 20s, sent an envelope addressed to "Barack Obama" to offices of the Illinois government in Springfield, Ill., according to court documents.
The envelope contained a series of curious items, including a letter with reddish stains and an admission ticket for Obama's election-night celebration in Chicago's Grant Park. Court documents said Hussein, who takes drugs to treat a mental illness, later told FBI agents he is "very sick with HIV" and cut his fingers with a razor so he could bleed on the letter.
Hussein, with his brother acting as an interpreter, told FBI agents he was actually "an admirer" of Obama and was "seeking help from the government," according to court documents. He also told them he was hoping to obtain tickets to the Inaugural ceremonies in Washington, the documents said.
Days after sending the letter to Obama, Hussein allegedly placed two more letters in the mail, one addressed to "Emanuel," an apparent reference to Obama's current Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. The two letters contained what appeared to be dried blood, the court documents said.
The United States has decided not to participate in a U.N. conference on racism in April unless the final document is changed to drop all references to Israel and its criticism of religion, a senior U.S. official said Friday.
The conference is a follow-up to the contentious 2001 conference in the South African city of Durban which was dominated by clashes over the Middle East and the legacy of slavery. The U.S. and Israel walked out midway through that eight-day meeting over a draft resolution that singled out Israel for criticism and likened Zionism — the movement to establish and maintain a Jewish state — to racism.
Israel and Canada have already announced that they will boycott the upcoming World Conference Against Racism in Geneva from April 20-25, known as Durban II, but President Barack Obama's administration decided to assess the negotiations before making a decision on U.S. participation.
Last week, the State Department sent two U.S. representatives to Geneva, where the final document to be issued by conference participants at the end of the conference is being negotiated, the U.S. officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because an official announcement has not yet been made.
The Obama administration would reconsider its position if the document improves in a number of areas including dropping references to any specific country, references to defamation of religion which the U.S. views as a free speech issue, and language on reparations for slavery. It also wants a shorter text and does not want the final document for Durban II to reaffirm the final document from the 2001 Durban conference, the U.S. official said.
WASHINGTON, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Top Republicans charged President Barack Obama with driving the United States toward socialism on Friday, opening an ideological attack on his big spending plans.
While the tough rhetoric was certain to rev up hard-line Republicans -- many of whom regard "socialism" as anathema to American life -- it was unclear how much it would change the debate in the Democratic-led Congress, which begins hearings next week on Obama's $3.55 trillion budget proposal.
John Boehner, Republican leader in the House of Representatives, on Friday called Obama's new budget proposal and recently passed economic stimulus plan "one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment."
Obama's budget proposal increases taxes on the wealthiest Americans to pay for more government attention to healthcare, education, climate change and social programs along with efforts to jolt the economy out of a deepening recession.
The budget also forecasts the biggest U.S. deficit ever at $1.75 trillion, adding to widespread sticker shock in Congress where Democrats already pushed through Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package with just three Republicans votes in the in the 100-seat Senate.
"The problem for Obama is more a question of whether the increased government intervention actually works -- gets the economy moving, creates the sense, within the next year-plus, that we are turning the corner," said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
"The second question is whether he can keep his own Democrats together behind his tax plan and his budget hopes," Ornstein said.
MODERATE REPUBLICANS WORRY
This is a powerful article and I would have posted it all if it wasn't bad form. I encourage you to read the full article.
A rare 1776 copy of the Virginia Supreme Court ruled Friday. Richard Adams Jr. of Fairfax County purchased the document from a London book dealer in 2001 for $475,000. But the state of Maine claimed it belongs to the town of Wiscasset, where it was kept by the town clerk in 1776.belongs to a Virginia technology entrepreneur, not the state of Maine, the
Virginia's high court said that a lower court did not err in its ruling in Adams' favor because Maine didn't prove the document was ever an official town record and that Adams had superior title to the print.
Adams' attorney, Robert K. Richardson, has argued that Wiscasset's town clerk copied theinto the town's record books on Nov. 10, 1776. It's that transcription, not the document upon which it was based, that is the official town record, Richardson said.
"The fact that the print was not made by an authorized public officer and was not intended to be the official memorial of the Declaration precluded the print from qualifying as a ' ' under common law," the court said in its ruling.
UPDATE: Busted by Snopes. Oh well. I've taken it down.
So if anyone has any tips or anything they'd like to see posted, contact the Ragin' Mrs. (Raging.MrsATgmail.com) and let her know.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
No wonder Mr. Murtha called Mrs. Pelosi’s new ethics reforms “total crap.”The Ass-Pass for a partisan serial criminal who smears our military.
Is there any excuse for the (D)emocrats?
Cross Posted at DANEgerus
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
Yep. All you "gun toting Democrats"? Yeah. Fuck you, you worthless, brainless, gullible pieces of shit. You voted the most anti-gun president into office. Congratulations. You know what? For that kind of stupidity, you deserve to have your guns taken away. Hell, you deserve to have anything with sharp or pointy edges to be taken away, because you're obviously too fucking dumb to take care of yourself around them.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.Right, because all those RPG's, grenades, and automatic rifles are just selling like hotcakes in the USA, despite it being illegal for the average citizen to buy or sell them. But dem Mexicans are snapping them up, right?
"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."
The sheer amount of bullshit and lies is staggering. YOU CANNOT BUY GRENADES AT A GUN STORE! And unless you have a Class III License, YOU CANNOT BUY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS! And trust me on this - if someone with a Class III was buying automatic weapons and selling them to anyone in Mexico, the Feds would be on them like white on rice.
So yeah, all you "gun toting Democrats". Kiss my ass, you worthless douchenozzles. I hope you're happy with your Hope and Change.
I'm with Dick on this: "I'd like to cockpunch every motherfucking asshole that said that "Obama wouldn't push for an AWB". Or "Obama would be too busy with the economy to bother with an AWB".
UPDATE: Huh. San Fran Nan says "NO!" But since we all know that the
UPDATED UPDATE: Is Eric Holder to Ignorant to be Attorney General?
I don't think he or Obama is ignorant of what the Constitution says. It's that they disagree with it, and seek to either remove it, change it, or destroy it. They are the domestic enemies to the Constitution, along with most of Congress.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The White House wants a $1.4 billion stimulus/national security package…for Mexico
The plan is called “The Merida Initiative.” Seems that the White House has had this plan in the works for nearly a year with little congressional input on either side of the border.
This is a very interesting article explaining why Senator Wayne Allard will now be voting against his own bill. I quite honestly find this almost humorous is a very dark way since just this week Obama had his "fiscal responsibility" summit.
Late Wednesday afternoon, Sen.Wayne Allard (R-Co.) introduced Amendment 4246 into the Senate budget debate. The amendment, which Allard calls “The Obama Spend-o-Rama” proposes funding 111 of the 188 spending proposals put out so far during Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) presidential campaign. (These were the proposals which Allard’s staff had time to analyze before the GOP leadership asked him to offer the amendment on the floor.) According to Allard, “There are another 77 proposals with unknown cost estimates that will add billions to this number.” (Click here to read Senator Allard’s Fiscal Responsibility Floor Statement.)
Allard freely admits that he will oppose his own amendment and urges other Senators to do the same. But, as a senior Senate staffer pointed out to HUMAN EVENTS, “Let’s see how many Senators who have endorsed Obama will actually vote for his budget.”
“So if Congress decides to widen the pool of taxpayers footing the bill, it would have to raise taxes on the top 5% by 38%; or the top 10% by 32%; or the top 25% by 26%; or the top 50% of taxpayers by 23%. The top 50% of American taxpayers, who already pay 96.9% of all federal income taxes, are those who earn $31,000 (AGI) or more.
When Obama was forced to the floor to vote against the amendment he gave a hard glare to the Republican side of the aisle and said, “Hey Allard, You working this hard?” Allard only wanted to raise the issue of run away taxing and spending, and joined Obama in voting against the measure which lost 97-0.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Here is the 17 page lawsuit.
Many of the aliens are residents of Michoacan, Mexico. Four live in Illinois, one resides in Georgia and another in Michigan. All of the plaintiffs currently living in the U.S. listed pseudonyms in the lawsuit due to "fear of adverse action based on immigration status."
Ten of the illegal alien plaintiffs didn't show up to the trial, but the remaining six said they were given permission to re-enter the United States and testify against Barnett.
"That was a shocker to me. All the ones who testified said that they were here legally and that their attorneys had done the paperwork," Hardy said. "There's nothing like your government backing you."
MALDEF claimed the family attacked, harassed, threatened and held the illegals against their will, because they were motivated by racial and class-based discrimination. The complaint said the Barnetts allegedly caused the group "severe emotional and mental distress," including fear, anxiety, humiliation, stress, frustration and sadness. Each illegal alien sued for $1 million in actual damages and $1 million for punitive or exemplary damages.
The rancher was held liable for limited damages involving assault and emotional distress. Two illegal aliens were given $1,000 plus $10,000 in punitive damages each. Two more received $7,500, plus $20,000 in punitive damages each.
"It's interesting since most of them don't speak English, but they claim that Roger, who has almost no command of Spanish, was able to use full sentences like, 'If you go, my dog is hungry, and he's hungry for your butt,'" Hardy said. "Roger couldn't put that sentence together."
He said the judge left out one part of instruction to the jury that should have been included, and it will be the basis of their appeal.
"The law is skeptical of infliction of emotional distress because everybody gets their feelings hurt at times," he said. "So one of the requirements was that whatever is done must be so severe that the average person would be physically disabled by the distress – suffer a complete mental breakdown. The judge wouldn't put that in the instruction. That's straight Arizona law."
Also, two of the plaintiffs received $1,400, and two were awarded $1 each for assault. The term "assault" is legally applied when a person has simply put someone in fear of a harmful contact. According to the attorney, Barnett did carry a gun, but the judge did not include their self-defense argument in the instructions to the jury – another basis for appeal.
All together, the illegals received only $77,804 of the $32 million they requested – and Hardy believes that award will be thrown out in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
"It was 95 percent victory for us," he said. "What they really wanted were the first two civil rights claims because if they got those, they got attorney's fees. With nine attorneys working on the case, I'm sure their fees were $500,000 to $1 million."
A little addition from another column.
“A federal jury on Tuesday afternoon ruled that an Arizona rancher did not violate the civil rights of 16 Mexican nationals he detained at gunpoint after they had snuck illegally into the United States in 2004, but the jury awarded $78,000 in actual and punitive damages to six of the illegal immigrants on claims of assault and infliction of emotional distress.” [Jerry Seper/Washington Times, earlier]
Here is Roger Barnett's attorneys, David Hardy, blog.
Most Americans infected with the AIDS virus live in cities, with 10 states accounting for 71 percent of cases, according to new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC breakdown shows that 85 percent of all reported cases of HIV infection were in large U.S. metropolitan areas, up from 82 percent in 2007.
The article goes on to breathlessly talk about how there is no cure, and only a cocktail of drugs can keep a person alive, and how it's transmitted (blood, semen, breast milk) yada yada yada yada yada.
Let's cut to the chase here, shall we? Because I'm absolutely tired of the canard that "AIDS is an 'equal opportunity' killer". I'm tired of having leftists spout off about how anyone can get AIDS, and how we need to spend X amount of dollars to find a cure.
That's right, I said bullshit. And if you have a loved one dying of AIDS and you're upset with me right now, I'm sorry, but still BULLSHIT. How do you get AIDS? It's either blood to blood contact, or promiscuous sexual behavior. The rates of transmittal through blood transfusions right now is so low as to be damn near impossible. The transmittal from mother to child is also so low as to be negligible. So who are our AIDS "victims"? People who engage in that high risk behavior which is already known to transmit not only AIDS but a host of other diseases as well.
Intravenous drug use such as heroin or morphine. Promiscuous and unsafe sexual behavior. Can anyone else tell me how else AIDS gets spread? No? I didn't think so. So the current crop of AIDS victims are either people who like to shoot up drugs, (or used to do so), or people who sleep around, don't use condoms, can't keep it in their pants, etc. etc etc. Both of these behaviors are the fault of the people committing them. AIDS cannot be transmitted via air. It's not airborne. AIDS can rarely be transmitted by being left on a surface somewhere. It can be killed by a simple mixture of five parts water to one part bleach. In fact, outside of the human body, the AIDS virus or HIV virus is quite easy to kill.
So why does it keep spreading? It is entirely due to the actions people take to subsequently infect themselves with it. Yes, I said infect themselves with it. Don't have unprotected sex with strangers? You won't get AIDS. Don't shoot up with illegal drugs? You won't get AIDS.
I say fuck finding a cure for AIDS. Let's take all that money we're wasting on AIDS drugs and find a cure for cancer. You want to know why? Because there are KIDS out there dying of cancer right now. Children who didn't engage in risky sexual behavior or IV drug use, who are nonetheless dying of cancer that they did nothing to bring on. There are people who don't smoke, don't drink, and live a good life who get struck down with cancer. Why? I don't know. Hell, the doctors don't know. Nobody knows. So lets spend money to find a cure for that, and stop wasting money on a disease that would go away if people would stop shooting up and keep their pants on.
Anyone else think like that, or am I off my rocker here?
Whoops, just thought of another way AIDS can be transmitted (or a different variation, as it were): Getting stuck by a needle that an AIDS carrier used or had used on him. This was a huge fear at the hospital in Seattle. We had kevlar gloves we used if we had to search someone or their clothing. The ER crew did everything they could to prevent accidental stickings. But you know what? If that happens, then why don't we prosecute the AIDS carrier for murder or attempted murder and lock their ass in jail? If someone at a hospital contracts AIDS because some raving drug-addicted lunatic fucks themselves up and needs to get patched, and can't bother to take his heroin needles out of his pocket before he comes in, let's place the blame where it belongs - on the drug user!
Monday, February 23, 2009
Anyways, Larry Correia gives a much better response than I could think up.
For example, if I talk about how when I lived in inner-city Birmingham, and it was an utter and complete cesspool of crime, poverty, ignorance, illiteracy, teenage pregnancy, and other problems, that’s cool, but then I say that the area was 99% black and seeped in a culture of welfare and institutionalized laziness, then I’m a racist.
You've got to read the whole thing, because he's dead on. G-d forbid you tell someone that calling women "ho's", celebrating domestic violence (Slap my bitch up!), promoting drug use, advocating gang violence, or cheerleading law-breaking felons isn't quite the way you should go about life! But criticize rap music for doing those things, and you're RACIST!
At least, you are if you're white. Trust me on this. Personal experience. I've been called racist for telling people that they should stop being AFRICAN(HYPHEN)American, and should just be American. I guess I can't say that. I don't have the correct skin color to talk about race.
Eric Holder can kiss my hairy white ass, that retarded, asshatted fuckwit. We're talking about race in this country. I guess it's just not following the politically correct, Affirmative Action mandated, liberal safe criteria that douchenozzles like Eric Holder require.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Lets see here... written by a person from my home state, and in particular my old (and future) stomping grounds.
Written by someone who's political philosophy mirrors mine to a large degree.
Raising kids right? Yep.
Onto the blogroll with ye!