REALIZATION!

admin on December 28th, 2009

My dog sleeps about 20 hours a day.  She has her food prepared for her.  She can eat whenever she wants, 24/7/365.

Her meals are provided at no cost to her.  She visits the Dr. once a year for her checkup, and again during the year if any medical needs arise.  For this she pays nothing, and nothing is required of her.  She lives in a nice neighborhood in a house that is much larger than she needs, but she is not required to do any upkeep.  If she makes a mess, someone else cleans it up.

She has her choice of luxurious places to sleep.  She receives these accommodations absolutely free.  She is living like a queen, and has absolutely no expenses whatsoever.  All of her costs are picked up by others who go out and earn a living every day.

I was just thinking about all this, and suddenly it hit me like a brick in the head,  Holy &#!* my dog is a democrat!

 

 

 

 

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

“WE NOTICED”

admin on December 23rd, 2009

This was written by Sherry Hackett, Buddy Hackett’s widow……..

 

“WE NOTICED”

President Obama:

Today I read of your administration ‘ s plan to re-define September 11 th as a National Service Day.

Sir, it’s time we had a talk………

During your campaign, Americans watched as you made mockery of our tradition of standing and crossing your heart when the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken.   You, out of four people on the stage, were the only one not honoring our tradition.

YES, “We noticed.”

During one of your many speeches, Americans heard you say you intended to visit all 57 states.

We all know that Islam, not America , has 57 states.

YES, “We noticed.”

When President Bush leaned over at Ground Zero and gently placed a flower on the memorial, while you nonchalantly tossed your flower onto the pile without leaning over.

YES, “We noticed.”

Every time you apologized to other countries for America ’s position on an issue we have wondered why you don’t share our pride in this great country.   When you have heard foreign leaders berate our country and our beliefs, you have not defended us .   In fact, you insulted the British Crown beyond belief.

YES, “We noticed.”

When your pastor of 20 years, “God-damned America , ” and said that 9/11 was ” America ’s chickens coming home to roost , “ and you denied having heard recriminations of that nature, we wondered how that could be.   You later disassociated yourself  from that church and Pastor Wright because it was politically expedient to do so.  (Since the inauguration, Jeremiah Wright has been your guest at the White House at least six times.)

YES, “We noticed.”

When you announced that you would transform America , we wondered why.  With all her faults, America is the greatest country on earth.   Sir, KEEP THIS IN MIND, “if not for America and the people who built her, you wouldn’t be sitting in the White House now.”   Prior to your election to the highest office in this Country, you were a senator from Illinois and from what we can glean from the records available, not a very remarkable one.

YES, “We noticed.”

All through your campaign and even now, you have surrounded yourself with individuals who are basically unqualified for the positions for which you appointed them.   Worse than that, the majority of them are people who, like you, bear no special allegiance, respect, or affection for this country and her traditions

YES, “We noticed.”

You are 9 months into your term and every morning millions of Americans wake up to a new horror heaped on us by you.  You seek to saddle working Americans with a health care / insurance ”reform” package that, along with cap and trade, will bankrupt this nation.

YES, “We noticed.”

We seek, by protesting, to let our representatives know that we are not in favor of these crippling expenditures and we are labeled “un-American”, “racist”, “mob . ”   We wonder how we are supposed to let you know how frustrated we are.   You have attempted to make our protests seem isolated and insignificant.   Until your inauguration, Americans always had the right to speak out.

YES, “We noticed.”

On September 11, 2001 there were no Republicans or Democrats, only Americans.   And we all grieved together and helped each other in whatever way we could.   The attack on 9/11 was carried out because we are Americans.

And YES, “We noticed.”

There were many of us who prayed that as a black president you could help unite this nation.  In six months you have done more to destroy this nation than the attack on 9/11.   You have failed us.

YES, “We noticed.”

September 11 th is a day of remembrance for all Americans.   You propose to make 9/11 a “National Service Day . ”  While we know that you don’t share our reverence for 9/11, we pray that history will report your proposal as what it is … a disgrace.

YES, “We noticed.”

You have made a mockery of our Constitution and the office that you hold.   You have embarrassed and slighted us in foreign visits and policy.

YES, “We noticed.”

We have noticed all these things.   We will deal with you.   When Americans come together again, it will be to remove you from office.

Take notice.

Senior Health Care Solution

admin on December 18th, 2009

So you’re a senior citizen and the OBAMA government health plan says there will be no health care for you,

What do you do?

Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets.

Your are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives.

Of Course, this means you will be sent to prison

where you will get 3 meals a day,

a roof over your head,

and all the health care you need!

New teeth, no problem.

Need glasses, great.

New hip, knees, kidney, lungs, heart?

All covered.

And who will be paying for all of this?  The same government that just told
you that you are too old for health care.  Plus, because you are a
prisoner, you don’t have to pay any income taxes anymore.

IS THIS A GREAT COUNTRY OR WHAT?!

THE ULTIMATE DETERMINANT

admin on December 6th, 2009

THE ULTIMATE DETERMINANT IN THE STRUGGLE GOING ON FOR THE WORLD
WILL NOT BE BOMBS AND ROCKETS BUT A TEST OF WILLS AND IDEAS — A TRIAL OF SPIRITUAL RESOLVE:

THE VALUES WE HOLD,
THE BELIEFS WE CHERISH,
AND THE IDEALS TO WHICH WE ARE DEDICATED.

RONALD REAGAN
(1911 – 2004)

Conservatives & Liberals – some differences

admin on November 9th, 2009

If conservatives don’t like guns, they don’t own one.

If liberals don’t like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don’t eat meat.

If a liberal is a vegetarian, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, they think about how to defeat the enemy.

If a liberal sees a foreign threat, they wonder how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, they quietly live their life.

If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.

If a Black or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.

If a Black or Hispanic is liberal, they see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, they think about how to better their situation.

If a liberal is down-and-out, they wonder who is going to take care of them.

If conservatives don’t like a talk show host, they switch channels.

If liberals don’t like a talk show host, they demand they be shut silenced.

If a conservative is a non-believer, they don’t go to church.

If a liberal is a non-believer, they want all churches to be silenced.

If a conservative decides they need health care, they go about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.

If a liberal decides they need health care, they demand that their neighbors pay for it.

Let me see if I understand all this….

admin on November 9th, 2009

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR……

IF YOU GO INTO CHINA ILLEGALLY, YOUR CONSIDERED A SPY AND GET HARD PRISON TIME…..

IF YOU GO INTO GERMANY ILLEGALLY, YOU GET A HEFTY FINE, WORK IT OFF OR PAY IT OFF, THEN DEPORTED………

IF YOU GO INTO ENGLAND ILLEGALLY, YOU ARE IMMEDIATELY JAILED AND DEPORTED……..

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY…..

BUT,  IF YOU CROSS THE U.S… BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET:

1.   A DRIVERS LICENSE
2.   A SOCIAL SECURITY CARD
3.   WELFARE
4.   FOOD STAMPS AND
5.   FREE HEALTH CARE?

I  guess I still don’t understand…maybe we need to VOTE OUR LAWMAKERS OUT.

Kanye West interrupts Taylor Swift’s speech.
kayne

Kanye West stirred quite a controversy when he interrupted Taylor Swift at the MTV Video Music Awards.



twit quote

Now, an ABC spokesperson explains to POLITICO what happened:

“In the process of reporting on remarks by President Obama that were made during a CNBC interview, ABC News employees prematurely tweeted a portion of those remarks that turned out to be from an off-the-record portion of the interview. This was done before our editorial process had been completed. That was wrong. We apologize to the White House and CNBC and are taking steps to ensure that it will not happen again.”

The White House had no immediate comment.

— Josh Gerstein contributed to this report

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller’s revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a “cybersecurity workforce plan” from every federal agency, a “dashboard” pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a “comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy” in six months–even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. “As soon as you’re saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it’s going to be a really big issue,” he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (“Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”

Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance’s Clinton adds that his group is “supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective.”

Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president’s authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a “government shutdown or takeover of the Internet” and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government’s response.

Unfortunately, I’m still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I’ll let you know if and when I get a response.

Written by: Declan McCullagh is a contributor to CNET News and a correspondent for CBSNews.com who has covered the intersection of politics and technology for over a decade. Declan writes a regular feature called Taking Liberties, focused on individual and economic rights

Obama, Gates, and Race

admin on July 25th, 2009

I wanted to comment on the story of Professor Gates even before President Obama stepped in, but after the President’s recent comments I simply could not hold back any longer.

July 16th, 2009: Professor Gates Arrested

Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr is a Harvard professor at the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Studies where he teaches African-American history. He is black.

Police Sgt James Crowley is an Cambridge, MA police officer who was handpicked 5 years ago to teach the department’s diversity training class. He has taught the class – called “Racial Profiling” – ever since. He is white.

These two men met when Mr. Gates returned to his home after a trip to Africa. He found that the door to his Cambridge house had become stuck. Calling on his chauffeur for assistance, he proceeded to force entry.

A concerned neighbor did not realize this was Mr. Gates breaking into his own home and called the police. Crowley and his partner were the officers who responded. By the time they arrived Gates was already inside the house.

According to Gates’s lawyer – fellow Harvard professor Charles Ogletree – Crowley asked Gates to step outside the home without allowing Gates to explain what was going on. Gates tried to explain that he lived in the house, but Crowly insisted he step outside. When Gates asked Crowley who he was, the officer responded by asking for Gates’s ID and subsequently arrested him for disorderly conduct even though the ID proved he lived in the house – a clear case of racism. (NPR)

Of course Sgt. Crowley’s account is considerably different. According to him Gates was verbally abusive, insulted his mother, called him a racist, and refused to cooperate with his simple requests. If only there had been a third witness!

As it turns out, there were several additional witnesses. When Gates followed Crowley outside there were at least two other officers there already – Figueroa and Lashley (who is black). Both Figueroa’s official report (linked from NPR) and Lashley’s statements (Courant.com) back Crowley up completely.

According to all three of them the reason that Crowley asked Gates to step outside was that he was yelling at Crowley so loudly it was hard for Crowley to communicate with dispatch on his radio. In addition to calling Crowley racist, he also shouted things like “You don’t know who you’re dealing with!” and “You haven’t heard the last of me!” and even brought up Crowley’s “mama”. (Bloomberg)

Racial Profiling

Gates claims this is an example of racial profiling. Clearly it is not. If you see someone attempting to break down the door of your neighbor’s house you are probably going to assume it’s a break-in. Especially if your neighbor has been away for an extended period of time. How is race a factor? If you are a police officer responding to a reported break-in and you find a man inside the home with the door obviously damaged you are going to ask for identification. How is race a factor? If the man yells at you so loudly that you need to go outside to talk on your radio you are going to ask him to come outside with you. How is race a factor?

Race has been a factor in only one way in this story. By playing the race card and relying on his fame Gates got the charges against him dropped without a fight. If a middle-class white man had behaved the way Gates had behaved he would be headed for trial.

I am tired of the complaints about how black men are treated by police in relation to this case. This may be a real problem, but that is not what is going on here. Someone should explain to Professor Gates that even white men are taught that its your responsibility to be respectful of police officers and to obey immediately all of their lawful requests. Nothing Crowley requested was unusual, unlawful, or in any way racially motivated.

July 22nd, 2009: President Obama Weighs In

According to a HuffPo piece, Obama and Gates know each other. Maybe that explains why President Obama apparently forgot he was president when responding to a question about the Gates incident at a press conference. He stated that the Cambridge Police had “acted stupidly”. Not only is this an ignorant and unpresidential statement, but it was also politically stupid. Police are like nurses, teachers, and firefighters: when you go after them politically they have the means to put up a serious fight. Even against a president.

And the Cambridge Police Department – from the top down – has decided not to roll over and play dead for President Obama. Instead of hanging Crowley out to dry, they are backing him 100%.

Dennis O’Connor is the president of the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association. He responded to Obama’s comments by alling them “misdirected” and further stated that Cambridge police “deeply resent the implication” that Gate’s arrest was based on his race. He went on to call for an apology from the President. (Courant.com)

Alan McDonald is a police union attorney. He called the president “dead wrong” and stated that “Had professor Gates simply cooperated… [Crowley] could have cleared the matter” (NPR)

Lessons Learned

The two quotes above are just a sampling of the pushback that Obama received. As the news story continued to gain momentum he realized that he needed to do something, but for a man of Obama’s ego apology is never an option. And so he called Crowley and then called him “an outstanding police officer and a good man”. (Chicago Tribune) So far so good. But then he went on:

And because this has been ratcheting up — and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up… I want to make clear that, in my choice of words, I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt. Crowley specifically — and I could have calibrated those words differently. And I told this to Sgt. Crowley.

In what Orwellian universe does it make sense to try and argue that saying an entire organization “acted stupidly” isn’t maligning them? That’s what it means to malign: “speak unfavorably about”. (Princeton.edu)

Then Obama called the entire incident a “teachable moment” in his trademark patronizing tone. The one who has a lesson to learn here more than anyone else is President Obama. And the lesson is this: you’re not everyone’s idea of a divine Messiah. There are still plenty of Americans out there who believe in doing their job, and who will not fall on their swords because you put your foot in your mouth. Even the unions are against Obama on this one!

Next up is Gates. Professor Gates needs to learn that all Americans (not just the black ones) are expected to treat police officers with respect while those officers are doing their duty. Responding to things like break-ins in progress is not as safe as lecturing from within Harvard’s ivory tower. Gates can spew on and on about the injustice as long as he likes, but it doesn’t change the fact that he’s not sacrificing anything. This is cheap, shallow outrage. Meanwhile officers like Crowley, Figueroa, and Lashley continue to risk their lives in the line of duty while putting up with childish nonsense like Gates’s. If anyone has a right to be outraged, it is them.

And finally comes Crowley who, I hope, has learned the best lesson of all. Sometimes the race card doesn’t work, and sometimes your fellow officers and even superiors will stand tall to protect you from vicious and untruthful allegations. Even against the Messiah himself.

And that’s not such a bad lesson to learn after all.

Written by Nathaniel Givens; on America’s Right

So the president ordered the termination of the inspector general who provides oversight for AmeriCorps, and he apparently did it in a hasty manner and without providing any sort of reason. Even stranger yet is that in doing so quickly and without stated cause, Obama runs afoul of the Inspectors General Reform Act, a bill introduced last year which requires the president to provide 30 days prior notice and stated reason before firing an inspector general, needed protection for an official charged with independently investigating corruption, waste and fraud.

Obama himself, then the junior senator from Illinois, co-sponsored the legislation.

According to a report from Fox News, the inspector general in question was likely looking into a controversy surrounding AmeriCorps and Sacramento, CA mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA All-Star turned politician. Johnson had apparently arranged for AmeriCorps volunteers to run personal errands, wash his car, and more — all essentially on the federal dime.

I don’t know nearly enough about the underlying facts, but from where I’m sitting this looks like one of two possible scenarios: Either Barack Obama has ignored the legislation he co-sponsored in order to assist a troubled African-American mayor with a decent jump shot, or he used the controversy surrounding this inspector general and Kevin Johnson to remove the George W. Bush-appointed oversight official and replace a possibly adverse watchdog with one of his own.

Either way, it’s more than shady. The way I look at it, the only possible way that the Obama administration can come out of this smelling like roses is if the inspector general in question, Gerald Walpin, was somehow involved in something about which we have not yet learned.

On its face, this situation looks like an inspector general was fired for simply doing his job. Or, he was rightly terminated for being involved in something he shouldn’t. With this administration’s propensity for looking to grab power where it can, combined with its plans for AmeriCorps and the talked-about “civil defense force,” I cannot help but raise an eyebrow and wait for the other shoe to drop.