Saturday, May 30, 2009
Me is mine you is yours
Wow if this doesn't sum up our situation today I don't know what does. And it's a catchy ditty too.
What happened to neighborhoods?
DALLAS - Frank Larison is a disabled veteran with more than 14 years of service, including more than a year of combat duty in Vietnam.
The 58-year-old former Marine now finds himself under attack by his Dallas homeowners association for displaying seven decals on his vehicle supporting the Marine Corps.
"To me, it's being patriotic, and it shows that I served," the veteran told FOX 4.
The board says the decals are advertisements that violate HOA rules, and must be covered or removed.
Otherwise, the homeowners association for The Woodlands II on The Creek --- where Larimore has lived for eight years --- says in a letter it will tow the car at Larimore's expense. The board also threatens to fine him $50 for any future incident.
Larimore says the decals, ranging from the Marine emblem to Semper Fi slogans, aren't advertisements for anything. "You can't buy freedom," he reasoned.
Some neighbors are outraged.
"That is his identity," said neighbor Mary Castagna. "He goes to a lot of the veteran meetings, and it means a lot to him. Everyone else agrees with it; it doesn't bother anybody."
"He's in the Marines, and he's proud of it, and I don't blame him," said neighbor Paul Hardy. "If I'd gone through what he's gone through, I'd be kind of proud of it myself."
The letter from the board states you can't have any form of advertisement anywhere on your car on your property. FOX 4 cameras spotted bumper stickers for political parties, health causes, and other non-commercial interests on the property as well.
One board member said he was unaware the HOA presidents sent the letter and did not know of any issue with Larimore's vehicle.
"I will be looking into it," said board member Art Bradford. "I didn't know anything about this. I haven't seen this."
The board president was out of town and unavailable. The condo management company did not want to comment.
The 58-year-old former Marine now finds himself under attack by his Dallas homeowners association for displaying seven decals on his vehicle supporting the Marine Corps.
"To me, it's being patriotic, and it shows that I served," the veteran told FOX 4.
The board says the decals are advertisements that violate HOA rules, and must be covered or removed.
Otherwise, the homeowners association for The Woodlands II on The Creek --- where Larimore has lived for eight years --- says in a letter it will tow the car at Larimore's expense. The board also threatens to fine him $50 for any future incident.
Larimore says the decals, ranging from the Marine emblem to Semper Fi slogans, aren't advertisements for anything. "You can't buy freedom," he reasoned.
Some neighbors are outraged.
"That is his identity," said neighbor Mary Castagna. "He goes to a lot of the veteran meetings, and it means a lot to him. Everyone else agrees with it; it doesn't bother anybody."
"He's in the Marines, and he's proud of it, and I don't blame him," said neighbor Paul Hardy. "If I'd gone through what he's gone through, I'd be kind of proud of it myself."
The letter from the board states you can't have any form of advertisement anywhere on your car on your property. FOX 4 cameras spotted bumper stickers for political parties, health causes, and other non-commercial interests on the property as well.
One board member said he was unaware the HOA presidents sent the letter and did not know of any issue with Larimore's vehicle.
"I will be looking into it," said board member Art Bradford. "I didn't know anything about this. I haven't seen this."
The board president was out of town and unavailable. The condo management company did not want to comment.
This goes to the heart of what I continually say about personal responsibility. Homeowners associations are just another gradual step towards socialism. Where I grew up people took care of their own property. Neighbors pitched in (voluntarily) to take care of the things that fell outside of their property boundaries. I can remember my dad and his buddies clearing the sewers so the streets wouldn't flood. Snowblowing the alleys and the streets to make them passable. Nobody told them to do it, it was called being neighborly. If you had a problem with something your neighbor was doing you talked to them about it. With these HOA's neighbors no longer communicate except through memo's and official letters, all the while resenting each other for the imposition. This is exactly what the liberal socialists want. The less we communicate the more we are divided. The easier it is for them to gather in small groups and push their agendas. Take this case for example this probably originated with one maybe two complaining neighbors but look at how much they were able to accomplish quietly. We don't need HOA's we need neighborhoods.
Friday, May 29, 2009
More sanctioned racism from the Obama administration
Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department, FOX News has learned.
The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 when three members of the party were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.
The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he "supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews."
The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15.
Click here to see FOX News video from the scene on election day.
Click to watch the incident on YouTube.
The complaint says the men hurled racial slurs at both blacks and whites.
A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960's and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen.
In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters."
He also said they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
A spokesman for the Department of Justice told FOX News, "The Justice Department was successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again. Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."
FOX News' Eric Shawn contributed to this report.
The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 when three members of the party were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.
The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he "supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews."
The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15.
Click here to see FOX News video from the scene on election day.
Click to watch the incident on YouTube.
The complaint says the men hurled racial slurs at both blacks and whites.
A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960's and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen.
In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters."
He also said they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."
A spokesman for the Department of Justice told FOX News, "The Justice Department was successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again. Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."
FOX News' Eric Shawn contributed to this report.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Pelosi vs. CIA: Why it matters
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the CIA "misled" her about waterboarding.
What difference does it make, in the grand scheme of things, whether Pelosi is telling the truth? Maybe the CIA did; maybe the CIA did not. So what? Well, it makes a great deal of difference -- and not only because if true, the CIA didn't just "mislead" Pelosi but also committed a crime.
People like Pelosi, who once supported waterboarding -- just like the folks who once supported the war -- now attempt to rewrite history.
The country turned against former President George W. Bush and Republicans because of the war in Iraq. Yes, many Americans reversed their previous support of the war because of its unexpectedly high human and monetary costs. Yes, many turned against the war because, in its early stages, Iraq seemed on the verge of civil war. To many, the toppling of dictator Saddam Hussein backfired -- and made America less, not more, safe.
But what turned growing unease over the war into outright disdain for Bush? As to the case for war -- the assumption that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction -- many Americans feel flat-out lied to.
This brings us to waterboarding.
Like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, waterboarding serves as a metaphor for the former president's alleged deceitfulness and villainy. Pelosi denounces waterboarding as torture, yet another outrage by the lying, scheming, manipulative Bush administration.
Pelosi, at first, said she knew absolutely nothing about the administration's use of this "enhanced interrogation technique." The CIA disputes this. But by her own admission, the agency told her that it was considering using waterboarding. Wasn't that enough for the speaker to have thundered her disapproval? What about a letter of protest to the Bush White House? What about moving to cut off funds to prevent the agency from employing a technique that she purportedly finds so offensive?
The CIA pushed back. The agency said that it informed Pelosi, who received briefings, that it not only intended to use waterboarding but, in fact, had used waterboarding. Former CIA Director Porter Goss said that the CIA provided accurate information to Pelosi. Goss further said that the only objection during the briefing was the concern as to whether the CIA was going far enough.
Current CIA Director Leon Panetta agreed with Goss. In a memo to CIA employees, Panetta said, "CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed.'" Panetta also wrote: "Our task is to tell it like it is -- even if that's not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it."
Now, the retreat.
Before declaring in a news conference that she no longer wants to stress the matter, Pelosi praised the CIA. Pelosi said, "My criticism of the manner in which the Bush administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe." Does her respect extend to former CIA head George Tenet? Tenet served under former Presidents Clinton and Bush. As for believing Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, Tenet described the case as a "slam-dunk." Does she now "respect" that he made that assertion in good faith?
So, what does all of this tell us?
It tells us that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, most Americans -- including the Democratic leadership in Congress -- wanted to prevent another attack. Despite their newfound "outrage" over torture, people like Speaker Nancy Pelosi understood, accepted, and even encouraged harsh interrogation techniques to prevent another attack.
As to the case for war, all 16 intelligence agencies concluded -- at the highest level of probability -- that Saddam Hussein possessed those stockpiles. Yet people like Sen. Ted Kennedy said things like "week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie." And many Americans -- especially those predisposed to believe the worst of the Bush administration -- completely bought it. "Bush lied, people died" became a refrain uttered endlessly by Bush haters.
But Bush didn't lie -- and the Democrats know it. Indeed, to extricate herself from Torture-gate, Pelosi now compliments the CIA, the very agency Bush relied on in making the case for war.
But public opinion turned against the war. Then waterboarding became "torture." And Bush became not simply a commander in chief who, in good faith, relied on near unanimous but faulty intelligence. He became, as then-Minority Leader Harry Reid said, "a loser" and "a liar."
Disgusting.
What difference does it make, in the grand scheme of things, whether Pelosi is telling the truth? Maybe the CIA did; maybe the CIA did not. So what? Well, it makes a great deal of difference -- and not only because if true, the CIA didn't just "mislead" Pelosi but also committed a crime.
People like Pelosi, who once supported waterboarding -- just like the folks who once supported the war -- now attempt to rewrite history.
The country turned against former President George W. Bush and Republicans because of the war in Iraq. Yes, many Americans reversed their previous support of the war because of its unexpectedly high human and monetary costs. Yes, many turned against the war because, in its early stages, Iraq seemed on the verge of civil war. To many, the toppling of dictator Saddam Hussein backfired -- and made America less, not more, safe.
But what turned growing unease over the war into outright disdain for Bush? As to the case for war -- the assumption that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction -- many Americans feel flat-out lied to.
This brings us to waterboarding.
Like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, waterboarding serves as a metaphor for the former president's alleged deceitfulness and villainy. Pelosi denounces waterboarding as torture, yet another outrage by the lying, scheming, manipulative Bush administration.
Pelosi, at first, said she knew absolutely nothing about the administration's use of this "enhanced interrogation technique." The CIA disputes this. But by her own admission, the agency told her that it was considering using waterboarding. Wasn't that enough for the speaker to have thundered her disapproval? What about a letter of protest to the Bush White House? What about moving to cut off funds to prevent the agency from employing a technique that she purportedly finds so offensive?
The CIA pushed back. The agency said that it informed Pelosi, who received briefings, that it not only intended to use waterboarding but, in fact, had used waterboarding. Former CIA Director Porter Goss said that the CIA provided accurate information to Pelosi. Goss further said that the only objection during the briefing was the concern as to whether the CIA was going far enough.
Current CIA Director Leon Panetta agreed with Goss. In a memo to CIA employees, Panetta said, "CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed.'" Panetta also wrote: "Our task is to tell it like it is -- even if that's not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it."
Now, the retreat.
Before declaring in a news conference that she no longer wants to stress the matter, Pelosi praised the CIA. Pelosi said, "My criticism of the manner in which the Bush administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe." Does her respect extend to former CIA head George Tenet? Tenet served under former Presidents Clinton and Bush. As for believing Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, Tenet described the case as a "slam-dunk." Does she now "respect" that he made that assertion in good faith?
So, what does all of this tell us?
It tells us that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, most Americans -- including the Democratic leadership in Congress -- wanted to prevent another attack. Despite their newfound "outrage" over torture, people like Speaker Nancy Pelosi understood, accepted, and even encouraged harsh interrogation techniques to prevent another attack.
As to the case for war, all 16 intelligence agencies concluded -- at the highest level of probability -- that Saddam Hussein possessed those stockpiles. Yet people like Sen. Ted Kennedy said things like "week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie." And many Americans -- especially those predisposed to believe the worst of the Bush administration -- completely bought it. "Bush lied, people died" became a refrain uttered endlessly by Bush haters.
But Bush didn't lie -- and the Democrats know it. Indeed, to extricate herself from Torture-gate, Pelosi now compliments the CIA, the very agency Bush relied on in making the case for war.
But public opinion turned against the war. Then waterboarding became "torture." And Bush became not simply a commander in chief who, in good faith, relied on near unanimous but faulty intelligence. He became, as then-Minority Leader Harry Reid said, "a loser" and "a liar."
Disgusting.
Courtesy of Larry Elder
American Taliban Targets War Memorial
No wonder Plugs Bidens thinks that only 5% of the Taliban is too "incorrigible" to get along with. After all, he gets along fine with the ACLU, which as Teh Resistance Blog points out is the Taliban's American equivalent.
Here's one of the 6th-century Buddhas of Bamyan, which no longer exist because the Taliban doesn't like competition with Islam:
Here's one of the 6th-century Buddhas of Bamyan, which no longer exist because the Taliban doesn't like competition with Islam:
Here's a WWI memorial that has stood in the Mojave Desert since 1934, but that may not exist for long because the ACLU doesn't like competition with militant moonbattery:
Quacks an ACLU thug named Peter Eliasberg:
For us to choose the principal symbol of one religion that says Jesus is the Son of God and He is divine and say that is an appropriate way to reflect the sacrifice of people who don't believe that … is excluding by its very nature.
It would be exclusive not to exclude the Christianity, even if it is the basis of our civilization going back 2,000 years. So bring on the dynamite. Currently the cross is still standing, but is hidden in a box so that it can't offend anyone while the case is considered by the Supremes. Any guesses on where Sonia Sotomayor would stand?
Next to be dynamited: all those offensively exclusive crosses at Arlington. That should get a hearty thumbs-up from Mullah Omar.
For us to choose the principal symbol of one religion that says Jesus is the Son of God and He is divine and say that is an appropriate way to reflect the sacrifice of people who don't believe that … is excluding by its very nature.
It would be exclusive not to exclude the Christianity, even if it is the basis of our civilization going back 2,000 years. So bring on the dynamite. Currently the cross is still standing, but is hidden in a box so that it can't offend anyone while the case is considered by the Supremes. Any guesses on where Sonia Sotomayor would stand?
Next to be dynamited: all those offensively exclusive crosses at Arlington. That should get a hearty thumbs-up from Mullah Omar.
Courtesy of Moonbattery
N. Korea v. Iran
I've noticed that the media is all over the N. Korean nuclear tests. Please don't misunderstand I don't in any way welcome the notion of Kim Jong Il having a nuclear arsenal, but lets be honest he's probably not going to be around much longer. There is at least the possibility that after the passing of KJI N. Korea may get a more stable and open minded leader. There is also N. Koreas history of warfare which is pretty standard and straight forward. I don't see N. Korea as a nation prepared to sacrifice itself to destroy it's enemies. What everyone seems to be glossing over are the Iranian missle tests. Iran has a less clean cut history of warfare, as is illustrated in this excerpt of an article by writer Matthias Kuntzel:
During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. The trinkets were meant to be inspirational. After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran's forces were no match for Saddam Hussein's professional, well-armed military. To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child's neck. It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them.At one point, however, the earthly gore became a matter of concern. "In the past," wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettelaat as the war raged on, "we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the minefields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone." Such scenes would henceforth be avoided, Ettelaat assured its readers. "Before entering the minefields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves."These children who rolled to their deaths were part of the Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini in 1979 and militarized after the war started in order to supplement his beleaguered army.The Basij Mostazafan - or "mobilization of the oppressed" - was essentially a volunteer militia, most of whose members were not yet 18. They went enthusiastically, and by the thousands, to their own destruction. "The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies," one veteran of the Iran-Iraq War recalled in 2002 to the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. "It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander's orders, everyone wanted to be first."
This is a nation which believes paradise can come only through chaos and destruction. Do we really want them to have a nuclear arsenal? I don't know about you, but I would rather live through another cold war than a nuclear winter.
The Stranger
During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. The trinkets were meant to be inspirational. After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran's forces were no match for Saddam Hussein's professional, well-armed military. To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child's neck. It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them.At one point, however, the earthly gore became a matter of concern. "In the past," wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettelaat as the war raged on, "we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the minefields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone." Such scenes would henceforth be avoided, Ettelaat assured its readers. "Before entering the minefields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves."These children who rolled to their deaths were part of the Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini in 1979 and militarized after the war started in order to supplement his beleaguered army.The Basij Mostazafan - or "mobilization of the oppressed" - was essentially a volunteer militia, most of whose members were not yet 18. They went enthusiastically, and by the thousands, to their own destruction. "The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies," one veteran of the Iran-Iraq War recalled in 2002 to the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. "It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander's orders, everyone wanted to be first."
This is a nation which believes paradise can come only through chaos and destruction. Do we really want them to have a nuclear arsenal? I don't know about you, but I would rather live through another cold war than a nuclear winter.
The Stranger
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The media loved him too............
I urge everyone to read the latest post from Pamela Geller. Here is an excerpt from her post.
I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully them into submission. And then he was duly elected to office, with a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name , where they were taught what to think.
Posted At Atlas Shrugs.
I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully them into submission. And then he was duly elected to office, with a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name , where they were taught what to think.
Posted At Atlas Shrugs.
Negative Action
Today I want to talk about one of my favorite topics affirmative action. When are the extra rights going to end. Minorities have achieved just about every milestone you can think of. I know this because the media has to make a public declaration every time it happens. Take for example the nominee for the job of Administrator of NASA, Gen. Charles Bolden. All I heard for a week was Gen. Bolden will be the first African American to hold the position........and. Do you really think Gen. Bolden is sitting around thinking wow I can't believe I'm African American and I'm gonna be the Administrator of NASA.......I think not, he's probably thinking man I've worked my ass off for years and now it's paying dividends. If I were a minority I would find this insulting it's almost as if they're saying, can you believe "one of them" made it so far. I think the affirmative action order has run it's course, it's obsolete. affirmative action is a redundant piece of legislation. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act guarantees you the right to non-discrimanotory employment.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
The following is the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) (Title VII), as amended, as it appears in volume 42 of the United States Code, beginning at section 2000e. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-166) (CRA) and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-2) amend several sections of Title VII. In addition, section 102 of the CRA amends the Revised Statutes by adding a new section following section 1977 (42 U.S.C. 1981), to provide for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional violations of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
The only thing affirmative action does is set quotas for the hiring of minorities. Get serious people this isn't 1960 there are no segregated water fountains, bathrooms, or schools. We all have access to the same educational opportunities, and don't give me the financial disparity crap, I grew up poor and I'm as white as fresh snow. I'm just now getting to go to college now that my children are grown. My parents couldn't afford to send me to college so I joined the military. When I got out I took a low paying industrial job and worked my way up to a management position, it took about ten years and nobody gave me anything. I don't blame anyone for this that's just how the world works. Affirmative action creates situations like the one we have in New Haven Conn. where firefighters are being promoted to positions that they are not the most qualified for, because they couldn't be bothered with studying for a test. This twisted mentality starts early on with people now teaching their children that there are no winners and losers you just have to participate. They have "competitions" where everyone gets an award just for showing up. What does this teach? That you only have to do the bare minimum, there's no motivation to excel. What ever happened to personal responsibility? You are responsible for your successes and failures, not the world. I say it's time to repeal the affirmative action order. To show favortism to any group be it minority or majority is to diminish the rights of the other.
The Stranger
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
The following is the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) (Title VII), as amended, as it appears in volume 42 of the United States Code, beginning at section 2000e. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-166) (CRA) and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-2) amend several sections of Title VII. In addition, section 102 of the CRA amends the Revised Statutes by adding a new section following section 1977 (42 U.S.C. 1981), to provide for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional violations of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
The only thing affirmative action does is set quotas for the hiring of minorities. Get serious people this isn't 1960 there are no segregated water fountains, bathrooms, or schools. We all have access to the same educational opportunities, and don't give me the financial disparity crap, I grew up poor and I'm as white as fresh snow. I'm just now getting to go to college now that my children are grown. My parents couldn't afford to send me to college so I joined the military. When I got out I took a low paying industrial job and worked my way up to a management position, it took about ten years and nobody gave me anything. I don't blame anyone for this that's just how the world works. Affirmative action creates situations like the one we have in New Haven Conn. where firefighters are being promoted to positions that they are not the most qualified for, because they couldn't be bothered with studying for a test. This twisted mentality starts early on with people now teaching their children that there are no winners and losers you just have to participate. They have "competitions" where everyone gets an award just for showing up. What does this teach? That you only have to do the bare minimum, there's no motivation to excel. What ever happened to personal responsibility? You are responsible for your successes and failures, not the world. I say it's time to repeal the affirmative action order. To show favortism to any group be it minority or majority is to diminish the rights of the other.
The Stranger
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sotomayor Nomination
Please join me in doing everything we can to block the nomination of this racist nominee for Supreme Court. Now I try not to throw the "R" word around too loosely (like the democrats did in 08' if you didn't vote for Obama), But this is what Ms. Sotomayor said at UCLA berkeley in 2001. "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." How many white judges do you think could have gotten away with a comment like that? This isn't her only shortcoming by far, even though she managed to make it to a federal court appointment without the help of lawmakers, still she rabidly supports affirmative action. Sotomayor was on the panel that not only quashed but then tried to bury the claims of the Conn. firefighters who filed a claim of reverse discrimination over the promotion practices in New Haven. For those who aren't familiar with the story New Have decided to use a standardized test to decide promotions but when the results of the test were in, and all the promotable passing scores belonged to white firefighters and one hispanic N.H threw the results out. We do not need more affirmative action I believe we as a country have fulfilled our obligation to minorities. I think the responsibility rests upon individuals to better their situation, just like all the other Americans. Write your congressman, sign any petitions you find, we must block this nomination.
The Stranger
The Stranger
Shhh the muslims will hear you.
I guess we're not the only country covering for radical islamists.
Death in an Islamic "homemade concentration camp".
The abduction and murder in Paris of a young Jewish man by a gang of Muslim immigrants calling themselves the Barbarians shocked the whole of France in 2006. But now that the accused are on trial - silence.
Read the entire story here
Death in an Islamic "homemade concentration camp".
The abduction and murder in Paris of a young Jewish man by a gang of Muslim immigrants calling themselves the Barbarians shocked the whole of France in 2006. But now that the accused are on trial - silence.
Read the entire story here
Monday, May 25, 2009
Fat Tax
Okay, I was watching Neil Cavuto on Foxnews, and he was interviewing some liberal broad who was speaking in support of the new "fat tax". She claimed that 40 billion dollars were spent last year on medical care for obese people. She said that 9 out of 10 obese people were that way by choice, and that essentially they should be punished for that. What I would like to know is how much money was spent on medical costs for illegal immigrants, and who is being punished for that. The liberals tell us that gays are born that way. They tell us that pedophiles are born that way, and need treatment. Obese people however are like that by choice and should be punuished. WTF! Where do these people come from, do they all live in the same underground bunker sealed off from the normal world. When are we as a people going to finally say enough is enough.
The Stranger
The Stranger
Happy Memorial Day
I would like to begin by saying thank you to all the men and women who have served, and are still serving in our armed forces.
On the subject of the military I would like to offer my opinion on the Gitmo situation. Once again the liberal smoke and mirrors have created a fantastic illusion. A dark and filthy prison where inmates live in deplorable conditions between bouts of torture. The fact is the inmates at Gitmo receive better care than many American inmates.
The President says Gitmo is a recruiting tool for terrorists.....really? Do you honestly believe closing Gitmo will reduce the terrorist threat? The President wants to bring the Gitmo prisoners here, and place them in American super-max prisons. They tell us that no one has ever escaped from a super-max facility, and the Gitmo detainees will be held in isolation so they can't recruit more terrorists (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain).
The thing they're neglecting to tell us is that if some of our liberal supreme court judges decide we don't have cause to hold any of these people they will be released on american soil. I say keep the prison open until we can determine the guilt or innocence of everyone there. Anyone who is found innocent should be returned to wherever they were picked up. I think anyone found guilty of terrorist activities should be executed, you can't rehabilitate radical extremists. Prisoners found guilty of lesser offenses should be jailed in the countries they were originally detained in. There problem solved, and at no extra cost to the taxpayers.
One last thing I need to comment on. Our government will not even try to find the tens of millions of illegal immigrants in this country, but they will spend God knows how much money, and mobilize the forces of the FBI, Immigration, and Interpol to find poor Daniel Hauser. What did this fugitive do? He refused to take chemtherapy treatments for cancer after the supreme court insisted he should. This is the same supreme court who believes our children should have access to abortion, sexual education, and birth control without a parents consent. This young man along with both of his parents made an informed decision about his medical care. Stop using my tax dollars to harass this family. Well that's all folks have a good holiday.
The Stranger
On the subject of the military I would like to offer my opinion on the Gitmo situation. Once again the liberal smoke and mirrors have created a fantastic illusion. A dark and filthy prison where inmates live in deplorable conditions between bouts of torture. The fact is the inmates at Gitmo receive better care than many American inmates.
The President says Gitmo is a recruiting tool for terrorists.....really? Do you honestly believe closing Gitmo will reduce the terrorist threat? The President wants to bring the Gitmo prisoners here, and place them in American super-max prisons. They tell us that no one has ever escaped from a super-max facility, and the Gitmo detainees will be held in isolation so they can't recruit more terrorists (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain).
The thing they're neglecting to tell us is that if some of our liberal supreme court judges decide we don't have cause to hold any of these people they will be released on american soil. I say keep the prison open until we can determine the guilt or innocence of everyone there. Anyone who is found innocent should be returned to wherever they were picked up. I think anyone found guilty of terrorist activities should be executed, you can't rehabilitate radical extremists. Prisoners found guilty of lesser offenses should be jailed in the countries they were originally detained in. There problem solved, and at no extra cost to the taxpayers.
One last thing I need to comment on. Our government will not even try to find the tens of millions of illegal immigrants in this country, but they will spend God knows how much money, and mobilize the forces of the FBI, Immigration, and Interpol to find poor Daniel Hauser. What did this fugitive do? He refused to take chemtherapy treatments for cancer after the supreme court insisted he should. This is the same supreme court who believes our children should have access to abortion, sexual education, and birth control without a parents consent. This young man along with both of his parents made an informed decision about his medical care. Stop using my tax dollars to harass this family. Well that's all folks have a good holiday.
The Stranger
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Wake up America!
All right folks, let's get right to the point. What the hell is wrong with this country? I'm supposed to be proud. Why? Because we have our first affirmative action president? Do any real Americans believe Obama was the best person for the job? Do any real Americans believe Obama has our best interests at heart? Obama is a typical radical liberal and as such, he is only good at one thing, pointing out faults. I understand there were plenty of problems with the previous administrations, but where are the solutions?
Obama spent his entire campaign, and so far his entire presidency, slamming the Bush administration for its shortcomings, but still he has offered no viable solution for our economic troubles. Let's take a look at what he has done. Obama has given our hard earned money to financial institutions that, in essence, are failing and hemorrhaging money everywhere. I thought free market capitalism meant sink or swim, either you succeed or you don't, and if you fail, another company replaces yours. The government now wants to have a say in how these institutions run their business. Can anyone say socialism?
The current administration has also given huge sums to the automakers. Now, I support the big three, but you might as well send that money to Mexico, Canada, or China, because that's where a good percentage of their jobs and suppliers are. Bail out the automakers by all means, but first repeal NAFTA and bring our jobs home. How will the automakers ever succed if the American people can't afford the vehicles they're producing?
Okay, one more thing before I close for the day. Who the hell does Nancy Pelosi think she is? Does she really believe she can accuse one of our largest intelligence agencies of lying to her and Congress, and then just say, "That's it. I'm not talking about it anymore." The way I see it, Ms. Pelosi has three choices produce evidence to prove her claim: publicly apologize for her defamation, or step down and shut up.
Well that's my opinion for now, but don't worry there will be more.
The Stranger
Obama spent his entire campaign, and so far his entire presidency, slamming the Bush administration for its shortcomings, but still he has offered no viable solution for our economic troubles. Let's take a look at what he has done. Obama has given our hard earned money to financial institutions that, in essence, are failing and hemorrhaging money everywhere. I thought free market capitalism meant sink or swim, either you succeed or you don't, and if you fail, another company replaces yours. The government now wants to have a say in how these institutions run their business. Can anyone say socialism?
The current administration has also given huge sums to the automakers. Now, I support the big three, but you might as well send that money to Mexico, Canada, or China, because that's where a good percentage of their jobs and suppliers are. Bail out the automakers by all means, but first repeal NAFTA and bring our jobs home. How will the automakers ever succed if the American people can't afford the vehicles they're producing?
Okay, one more thing before I close for the day. Who the hell does Nancy Pelosi think she is? Does she really believe she can accuse one of our largest intelligence agencies of lying to her and Congress, and then just say, "That's it. I'm not talking about it anymore." The way I see it, Ms. Pelosi has three choices produce evidence to prove her claim: publicly apologize for her defamation, or step down and shut up.
Well that's my opinion for now, but don't worry there will be more.
The Stranger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
