Kenders' Musings

I will be audioblogging this event. Call the office of David Drier and tell him NO AMNESTY!!!!

Extreme Sacrifice... NO Amnesty!
24 hours Congressman Chain Protest




Wednesday, February 1st at



9:00 AM through



Thursday, February

2nd at 9:00 AM for 24 hours NON STOP


Congressman David Dreier’s Glendora, CA office:


DAVID DRIER'S OFFICE
2220 East Route 66
Suite 225
Glendora, CA 91740
Office (626) 852-2626
Toll Free (866) 373-6321
Fax (626) 963-9842



Watch the video here!!!

It's up and running.

Twenty Eight Outstanding Articles That Highlight Cluelessness from All Sides.

Go read all about it RIGHT NOW at Rick Morans RighWingNutHouse!!!! (as seen on Michelle Malkin)

The headline sez:
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) Al-Qaida's Ayman al-Zawahri says in a videotape that President Bush is a "butcher" because of a deadly U.S. airstrike in Pakistan that targeted the bin Laden deputy.

Kender translates:
People that saw the heads off of hostages are humanitarians, comparitively speaking, I suppose.

The headline sez:
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) Kidnapped U.S. journalist Jill Carroll has appeared in a new video on Al-Jazeera, weeping and appealing for the release of women Iraqi prisoners.

Kender translates:
CAIR sent a delegation to the Baghdad airport to ask for this woman’s release……and I am now wondering how effective they really wish to be….if CAIR shows they have influence with terrorists factions it will only “spread anti-muslim paranoia” when people wake up and realize that to have influence with these extremist groups one must BE allied with an extremist group, and that influence equals ally equals threat.

The headline sez:
CHICAGO (AP) Kraft Foods Inc. announces it will eliminate 8,000 jobs and close up to 20 production plants through 2008 as it broadens an ongoing restructuring plan.

Kender translates:
“Healthy lifestyle choices” (notice the entire “granola factions” on the left) are destroying American companies……go get some Cheez Whiz and Ritz crackers for the Super Bowl party, folks, and support America!!!!

The headline sez:
WASHINGTON (AP) The Alito filibuster has failed in the Senate with a vote to cut off debate, all but assuring his confirmation.

Kender translates:
HA HA

From an email I received:

At New York's Kennedy airport today, an individual later discovered to be a public school teacher was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a setsquare, a slide rule, and a calculator. At a morning press conference, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he believes the man is a member of the notorious al-gebra movement. He is being charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.

Al-gebra is a fearsome cult," Gonzales said. "They desire average solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute value. They use secret code names like 'x' and 'y' and refer to themselves as 'unknowns', but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country. As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, 'there are 3 sides to every triangle'."

When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, "If God had wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes".

*"breaking News" is news that is broken.

Pretty much ever since we tore into Afghanistan, and the first squeaks of the anti-war left were heard, there has been a lying greaseball sitting smugly in the local coffee shop or independent bookstore, stinking of patchouli, "herb" and bad hygiene stating the patently obvious bucket of bullshit of "I support the troops but not the war."

This one little voice, the voice of the coward, the voice of the appeasing slave, the voice of many groups down through the centuries that said, plainly, "subjugate me, rape my women, steal my riches, but just don't kill me", gained volume with the invasion of Iraq. (as a side note I have noticed this voice has a distinctly french accent)

This one little voice that now echoes with the refrain "I Support the Troops but Not the War!!!!, is raised up by millions of people in the U.S., led by their chosen spokesbeast, St. Sheehan the Clueless, and controlled, cajoled and courted by the treacherous cretins of Code Pink and MoveOn dot org and cheered on by the unrealists at the DU.

This one little voice, that grew so loud, and so smug, screaming from the street corners that;

WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS BUT NOT THE WAR!!!!!!

will now have to

SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!!!!

Why?

Because one of your own, one of your inspid, whiny, cowardly little appeas-niks, one of the members of your LYING SPINELESS BULLSHIT MOVEMENT has outed every one of you lying crapbags for the lying liars that you are.

Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times finally came out and admitted what those one the right have been saying for a couple of years now......namely, that you cannot "support the troops but not the war".

Those of us on, in and of The Right have said all along that it is the height of illogical thought to hold that one can support the troops but not the war, and that those that say it are either insane, lying, or even worse, insane liars.

So for those of you on the left, that have said for so long those infamous lying words that will echo through history on the same scale as other infamous and bald-faced lies such as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", let me ask you this one question:

are you insane, or are you lying?

This article jokes about the project, but I think it has interesting connotations:

Navy Wants Insurgent-Predicting Program

Recent work has applied and extended discrete choice models originally developed for use in econometrics to predicting the spatial probability of criminal activity. These point-pattern based density models have also been applied to the military domain for prediction of terrorist strikes and IEDs. The result is that the geographical patterns established by past events can be used to build threat maps showing where future strikes are most likely to take place, with accuracies notably better than hot-spotting techniques. The same basic strategy seems likely to be applicable to prediction of the timing of such activities as well as their location.

The person that noted the article went on to say:

I'd like to be able to pick the terrorist out. I'd like a detector 'tricorder' for intent or evil. I'd like to know ahead of time that this person is planning to hurt other people with the use of IEDs," Office of Naval Research chief scientist Starnes Walker told the magazine.

This project won't do that, of course. But getting it right "will not only contribute to defensive operations, saving lives of civilians and U.S. servicemen, but will also contribute to quick and effective counterstrikes to weaken and eliminate enemy forces," the Navy notes. "The same techniques can be applied to civilian law enforcement to counter gangs, organized crime, and other groups with the capacity to adapt their patterns of behavior through experience."

Maybe it could even predict politicians' behavior, too.

Okay, he laughed, but now I will tell you something very serious. Old fashioned detective work used to put pins in a map to locate similar crimes and come up with "hotspots" in the civilian world and the military picked up on it. Several years ago, a group of people including officers of the law and profilers, actually came up with a program similar to what the Navy is looking for in which specific parameters of similar crimes were in put. In particular, serial rape. By noting common characteristics of rapists behavior based on the crime such as, did the rapist take his time, did he enter and leave the home easily, did he seem to disappear easily from the immediate vicinity, etc, etc, etc, all of these things indicated a familiarity with the area, the streets, the homes, etc. The rapists was comfortable and that usually means that he lives within the community.

They were able to solve several high profile serial rape cases with this program. Using this technique and behavioral patterns gleaned from thousands of interviews with other criminals, the program has been rather successful in the civilian world.

For sometime I have been thinking that the military needed a similar program that was easily accessible, portable and could be used from any FOB or at Centcom. We already know somethings like how close a person would have to be to detonate an IED with a remote control, even the phone variety (particularly since phone service in Iraq is not 100% guaranteed in every area plus those detonations require some sort of line of sight ability to know when to set it off); we know that a guy putting IEDs in a water drain running underneath the road indicates a familiarity with the area beyond simply driving by and dropping a package.

Of course, the FBI is already giving us a hand with investigative techniques identifying bombers by their bomb blue prints.

This is not an unusual tool to have and may help speed up the process in the same way that other programs have allowed the military to triangulate on groups of terrorists, leaders, financiers, etc by building on intelligence, interviews, etc that relate these people to one another.

This is not a joke and may be extremely handy in the future.

Thus, this gentleman may laugh, but in the future of fourth generation continuous warfare, it might be the best idea they've had yet.

COOL TECH THIS WEEK: Armor, Predictions, and Hyperspace

Move over NCIS...the real guys are on the job:

Forensic biologist Debbie Glidewell insists the work at the new U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory at Fort Gillem lacks the high emotion, suspense and pathos that people expect from television shows like "CSI."

But sometimes reality tops television.[snip]

The lab has a special department to examine documents, such as a threatening letter a rape victim received from her unknown attacker.

Must-Have Gear



WINGNUT WATERPROOF WALLET
Keep your credentials, credit cards and cash dry and safe in the Wingnut Gear Wallet. The quick-drying ripstop closes with heavy-duty Velcro.







Angry that the woman had reported the crime to police, the man created a letter by cutting letters of the alphabet from newspapers, said documents expert Marvin Reid. The letters were pasted onto a lined sheet of paper to form a crudely worded threat: "Don't tell or you'll die."

Document examiners tested the paper and recovered the impression of an earlier letter written on the same note pad. That impression included a major clue: the rapist's signed name.[snip]

The lab's firearms expert, Don Mikko, told a story that proved nobody can predict how a case will end.

A recent investigation started with an AK-47 assault rifle shell pulled from the abdomen of an American soldier serving in Baghdad, Iraq.

The lab's firearms experts examined the shell and found no rifling marks, which meant the shell had not been fired from any weapon. How was the solider wounded?

"Turns out the soldier went into the field, made an incision in his abdomen and inserted the shell to make it look as though he'd been wounded," Mikko said.

"He wanted a Purple Heart."

Not very flattering on the soldier, but damn good detective work. Of course, I think some soldiers I know would be happy to have this schmuck join them on their patrols where the chances of purple hear winning will go up considerably.

Any how, an interesting article on the future of military forensic capabilities. Frankly, I said last year that the military was going to have to start acting like a police outfit in some countries with detective work and smashing small time criminals if they want to dry up terrorist facilitators, money and transport of people.

I think this would be a good start. They need to get those little tin cans put together for forensic teams in the field if they don't have any yet.

Read on, Mcduff.
CSI: Army

Move over NCIS...the real guys are on the job:

Forensic biologist Debbie Glidewell insists the work at the new U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory at Fort Gillem lacks the high emotion, suspense and pathos that people expect from television shows like "CSI."

But sometimes reality tops television.[snip]

The lab has a special department to examine documents, such as a threatening letter a rape victim received from her unknown attacker.

Must-Have Gear



WINGNUT WATERPROOF WALLET
Keep your credentials, credit cards and cash dry and safe in the Wingnut Gear Wallet. The quick-drying ripstop closes with heavy-duty Velcro.







Angry that the woman had reported the crime to police, the man created a letter by cutting letters of the alphabet from newspapers, said documents expert Marvin Reid. The letters were pasted onto a lined sheet of paper to form a crudely worded threat: "Don't tell or you'll die."

Document examiners tested the paper and recovered the impression of an earlier letter written on the same note pad. That impression included a major clue: the rapist's signed name.[snip]

The lab's firearms expert, Don Mikko, told a story that proved nobody can predict how a case will end.

A recent investigation started with an AK-47 assault rifle shell pulled from the abdomen of an American soldier serving in Baghdad, Iraq.

The lab's firearms experts examined the shell and found no rifling marks, which meant the shell had not been fired from any weapon. How was the solider wounded?

"Turns out the soldier went into the field, made an incision in his abdomen and inserted the shell to make it look as though he'd been wounded," Mikko said.

"He wanted a Purple Heart."

Not very flattering on the soldier, but damn good detective work. Of course, I think some soldiers I know would be happy to have this schmuck join them on their patrols where the chances of purple hear winning will go up considerably.

Any how, an interesting article on the future of military forensic capabilities. Frankly, I said last year that the military was going to have to start acting like a police outfit in some countries with detective work and smashing small time criminals if they want to dry up terrorist facilitators, money and transport of people.

I think this would be a good start. They need to get those little tin cans put together for forensic teams in the field if they don't have any yet.

Read on, Mcduff.
CSI: Army

Release The Hounds!: Hamas Wins Big

A big tip o' me tam goes to Ric at Release the Hounds, who was faster on the draw than I was covering these first two bits, and does a better job at it anyway.

---------------------------------------------------------

As I pointed out here the other day, when I asked if Google were an un-American company, Google has some funny ideas of what it means to be an "American company". A few days ago, they appeared to be fighting for the privacy rights of citizens by denying the Bush administration access to a list of search terms, but I believe they were simply acting in such a way as to anger the Bush administration, since google has a well earned reputation as a left leaning company.

Today, as if to reinforce my belief that google is a company that is only concerned with a buck and is run by people that seem to be, at the core of things, against freedom in a broad sense and America in a more narrow sense, going right down to laser like intensity against republicans, I learn that Google has censored the internet so they could do business in China.

Aren't they a bunch of good little commies at heart? How sweet.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Now that Hamas, that terrorist group that isn't corrupt, at least according to Jimmy Carter, has garnered a significant portion of the seats in the palestinian parliament, can a full on honest terrorist state be far behind? When you have terrorists running a country are they still terrorists? Or are they simply hardline extremists? Where is the line?

Given that the "palestinians" have had 50 years to make peace, and haven't, and that arabs have pretty much, for the last several centuries, been making war against the Jews, or each other when their isn't a Jew handy, and keeping in mind the fact that Hamas has already said they won't recognize Israels right to exist, I don't give Hamas a snowmans chance is islamic paradise for being recognized as a legitimate government entity.

I do give them high odds for finally goading the west into an all out war with arabs in general, islam in particular and Hamas specifically. Good luck to them. With just over six billion people and close to a quarter of them muslim, that leaves it 3-1 against at the start of things.....how many people do you really think will flock to the side of an ideology that hearkens back to the 8th century, takes away womens rights and brings with it hardcore, oppressive, religious fundamentalism?

So go ahead Hamas.....keep poking the bear...or, in this case, the Eagle.....don't be surprised when his talons rip your face off though....and don't say you weren't warned.

---------------------------------------------------------------

So Kerry is calling for a filibuster of Alito, huh? OK......like I wrote earlier today:

So much for the agreement to not filibuster judicial nominees….or was that agreement only good for so long?

I say use the nuclear option….this will, like everything else the dems have tried lately, (remember Murtha’s bag’o'crud he flung around?), backfire on them, with after effects that are, to those on the right, entertaining, and those one the left, devastating.

Every single day the dems do yet one more thing to aid in their decline from power…..it is getting to the point that resuscitation may be an impossibility, which in the grand scheme of things would actually be bad, as we need two parties, but better to have one party that will defend us, than two parties and have one of them actually be an enemy to our safety and freedom…buh-bye-dhimmicrats!!!!

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

Convincing liberals that the ACLU is leading us down a dangerous path is about as productive as talking to a rock. Perhaps this is because I mostly deal with far left liberals who share the same insane views and have the same radical agenda as the ACLU. Anyone who believes that the ACLU is there to purely defend the Constitution is naive at best. Surely there are some moderate liberals out there that can concede that the organization is in need of reform.

A balanced society can not survive resting in the fringe. A Nation only concerned with security will drift toward a police state, and one that follows the absolutist views of liberty like the ACLU will drift toward anarchy.

The ACLU proudly display a banner that states, Keep America Safe and Free, but any honest person will admit that the ACLU have done nothing for the safety of America. As a matter of fact, all evidence leads to quite the opposite. The ACLU are always ready to put the security of America at risk in the pursuit of its absolutist views of liberty.

Many of the ACLU's former leaders have noticed the irresponsible shifting of the ACLU away from true civil liberty protection into a much more dangerous agenda. For example take the words of this former Executive Director of the ACLU

The right to express unpopular opinions, advocate despised ideas and display graphic images is something the ACLU has steadfastly defended for all of its nearly 80-year history.

But the ACLU, a group for which I proudly worked as executive director of the Florida and Utah affiliates for more than 10 years, has developed a blind spot when it comes to defending anti-abortion protesters. The organization that once defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to demonstrate in heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., now cheers a Portland, Ore., jury that charged a group of anti-abortion activists with $107 million in damages for expressing their views. Gushed the ACLU's press release: "We view the jury's verdict as a clarion call to remove violence and the threat of violence from the political debate over abortion."

Were the anti-abortion activists on trial accused of violence? No. Did they threaten violence? Not as the ACLU or Supreme Court usually defines it, when in the context of a call for social change.

The activists posted a Web site dripping with animated blood and titled "The Nuremberg Files," after the German city where the Nazis were tried for their crimes. Comparing abortion to Nazi atrocities, the site collected dossiers on abortion doctors, whom they called "baby butchers." ...

This is ugly, scary stuff. But it is no worse than neo-Nazi calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, or a college student posting his rape fantasies about a fellow coed on the Web, both of which the ACLU has defended in the past.

None of the anti-abortion group's intimidating writings explicitly threatened violence. Still, the ACLU of Oregon refused to support the defendants' First Amendment claims. Instead, it submitted a friend-of-the-court brief taking no one's side but arguing that speech constitutes a physical threat only when the speaker intends his statement to be taken as one.

...Before anti-abortion zealots started getting sued, the ACLU had much more tolerance for menacing speech. Few of the 20th century's great social movements were entirely peaceable. The labor, civil-rights, antiwar, environmental and black-power movements were an amalgam of violence, civil disobedience and highly charged rhetoric. But to gag fiery speakers who call for harm to the establishment because others in the movement pursue their political goals with fists, guns or bombs would do terrible damage to strong, emotive pleas tot social change. It is something neither the ACLU nor, thankfully, the courts have countenanced in the past.

That's why in 1969 the ACLU helped defend a Ku Klux Klan member who had called for violence against the president, Congress and the Supreme Court. At the ACLU's urging, the Supreme Court ruled that speech advocating violence was constitutionally protected unless it incited imminent lawless action and was likely to produce such action. This case was later used to defend the speech of black militants.

The ACLU also applauded a 1982 Supreme Court decision that found that speeches promising violent reprisals were protected by the First Amendment. During the civil-rights movement, a leader of the NAACP called for "breaking the necks" of blacks who violated a boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi, and published a list of those who did. Some of the boycott violators were beaten. The court ruled that despite the atmosphere of fear, all the speeches and lists were part of a debate on a public issue that needed to be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

I would argue that the Constitution doesn't protect all of these extreme positions of the ACLU, but that isn't the point he is trying to make. The issue is the ACLU's curious commitment to "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" free speech when it involves things such as virtual child pornography, but not when it involves a something like a boss making racially offensive statements.

Unfortunately, there are some people who are so hypnotized by the ACLU's absolutist views and of the ACLU's campaign for pedophilia and child pornography that they are prepared to defend an organization that has become a shadow of its former self--a group that lets its idealistic and skewed understanding of the establishment clause trump freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Stop the ACLU had the opportunity last year of interviewing a former ACLU lawyer. He was concerned with much of the same things.

The ACLU played a helpful role in the civil rights movement defending these people, and I can’t turn my back on that. I have to give credit where credit is due.” “But….that being said, what they have done in the past is completely eviscerated by what they do in the present. The ACLU has become a fanatical anti-faith Taliban of American religious secularism.”

“The ACLU is involved in the secular cleansing of our history. This is not just a fight about free exercise, but about the protection of our American history. The ACLU want to deny America the knowledge of their Christian heritage.”

It seems that the many of the ACLU's greatest critics came from their very ranks. The division within the ACLU will continue as long as the ACLU continues on the irresponsible, hypocritical path it is on. America needs a civil liberties union, sadly the ACLU isn't doing that job. If the ACLU succeeds in the dangerous direction it is steering America, they will ironically be putting in jeapordy the very liberty they claim to protect.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already on-board.

Now that Ford has announced the cutting of over 25,ooo jobs I have a question:
Where are the UNIONS?? What do they have to say about this? Are they willing to admit they are the biggest part of the problem here? Probably not. But it's the way I see it. Unions come in, demand the companies pay out a lot more in wages and benefits than they can really support; companies have to pass this costs onto we the consumer (who says BULLSHIT, gonna buy a Jap car cause it's cheaper, runs better, works better)...the company loses profit and the end result: Layoffs. The unions kill more jobs than they ever created or protected. In my little town for instance, we have a factory that makes parts for Ford vehicles...now many of these people stand a pretty good chance of being laid off. How many other small towns are home to these factories? The domino effect.

HAZELWOOD, Mo., Jan. 23 -- The morning announcement from headquarters did not come from out of the blue, but that did not stop the tears or stem the frustration. The Ford plant in this St. Louis suburb had dodged bullets before. Just maybe, thought the 1,400 workers, they could do it again.

"We were hoping to hang on or that something would come along," said Jay Parker, an 18-year plant veteran.

Instead, Ford Motor Co. turned off the sport-utility vehicle assembly line that makes Explorers to declare that Hazelwood would go idle in March and go out of business when the current union contract expires next year. The auto market had passed them by, the workers heard, and there was nothing they could do about it.

"Some were sad. Some were crying," said Cassandra Williams, 26, standing in the factory parking lot. "I knew it would come, but I didn't think it would be this soon."

Hazelwood yielded to clear-eyed calculations. Explorer sales were down 30 percent last year, and sales of the Mercury Mountaineer, a sister sport-utility vehicle produced here, are going nowhere. Retooling the plant would cost too much. Ford concluded that Hazelwood could manufacture nothing that made business sense.

Yet just last month, with workers still motivated to save their jobs, the factory was named the highest-quality Ford plant in North America and the one with the best cost controls, according to union and management officials. The push to raise standards came after Ford warned Hazelwood in 2002 that the plant would be eliminated by the middle of the decade.

Union and local management reckoned that their only chance in a ferociously competitive work universe was to prove to Ford that they could earn their keep, which with overtime averaged $65,000 annually per worker -- twice the statewide norm. The goal was to persuade Ford to assign another car or truck to the plant after the Explorer faded away.

That was the goal eh? Did these poor saps who are getting paid way higher wages then their skills ever deserved consider that they could drop a few bucks and hour, pay out a little more in their own benefits and "rights"- they might save their jobs? Ford Explorers are outragiously expensive. Who the hell wants to pay THAT kind of money for a vehicle? Not the average working Joe. He can't afford it. Demand dwindled purely because of the price.

"We told them we controlled our own destiny, that our livelihoods were in our hands," said Ken Dearing, president of United Auto Workers Local 325. "Everybody responded. We were doing everything correctly."

State and local government leaders wooed Ford with $17 million in incentives. A year ago, the plant axed its second shift, sacrificing 800 jobs. The line went idle for several weeks when supply outstripped withering demand, but Hazelwood met its quality goals and earned its performance awards -- only to get the ax.

This thinking is off base. No one cares about quality when they cannot afford it. It's that simple. And no employee controls his own destiny when he works for someone else. AND no union controls anything. This should be a lesson for many people.

I have a hard time having any sympathy for people who are members of these auto unions. I consider them not very well informed about anything economic (as with me...). I consider them greedy and selfish. They get this way thanks to the unions, who tell them it's their right to take away the earnings of the hand who feeds them in the first place.
Unions had their day...way back when employees were really and truly treated poorly. We don't need that now. We need competive prices and healthy businesses. People need to educate themselves about the true costs of union membership.

Blogging friend Woody, at GM's Corner, has a post up about this:

Unions have forced wages and benefits from U.S. manufacturers that far exceed the productivity of workers, and the unions have forced the closings of major industries and companies in our country. The labor dilemma is described in this article and discusses problems such as having to pay 12,000 workers to do nothing and grass cutters getting $65 an hour--not to mention that the Democrats want to use this problem in which they are culpable to call for commissions and more government "entitlements." (I can't stand that term.) Such waste doesn't help workers...it kills companies and results in unemployment.

It's time that the American worker realized that those who claim to care about him and who claim to help him are only making matters worse. Unions, with the help of the Democratic Party, are destroying companies and are costing them jobs. Workers and families are important and deserve better.

I couldn't have said it better.

OK....a big tip o' me tam to me blogbud Ogre for pointing me at this absolute treasure trove of Things to Make You Go "Well no FUCKIN'DUH!!!"

It's a report titled "Day laborers have it tough, survey finds", and is a report about the *gasp* horrid treatment that criminal aliens receive at the hands of their equally criminal employers.

For those that wish to read the article for themselves you can find it right here. But I will be pretty much tearing the article apart section by section.

The first nationwide study on day laborers has found that they are a nationwide phenomenon, with 117,600 people gathering at more than 500 hiring sites to look for work on a typical day.


The survey found that three-fourths of day laborers were illegal immigrants and about half said employers had cheated them on wages in the previous two months.

Remember that bit about three fourths....it comes into play later in a big, fat, "show someone lied" way. Now, given the estimated number of criminal aliens in the U.S. has been given as being between 6 and 20 million, we will give a small benefit of the doubt and take the Center for Immigration Studies Census Bureau number of 8-9 million criminal aliens in the country. With just under one hundred and twenty thousand gathering at day labor sites a day, that leaves an awful lot of those criminals unaccounted for.....but we must remember that many of them are standing on corners and gathering in lots that aren't, technically, a "day labor center, and many others are already at work in the fields, the kitchens and the yards of other criminals, namely those that hire them. (I wonder what the unemployment rate for criminal aliens is?)

By the way, having grown tired of signs at protests that say "No Human is Illegal" I have decided to call these criminal interlopers for what they are.....CRIMINALS. I await a sign that says "No Human is Criminal". Anyway.

The study found that 49 percent of day laborers were employed by homeowners and 43 percent by construction contractors. They were found to be employed most frequently as construction laborers, landscapers, painters, roofers and drywall installers.

I know construction laborers that have lost their jobs to criminal aliens that are paid less. I used to pay a landscaper 15 an hour because I am not a hypocrite, and he was a hard working American citizen trying to make a living. I have a good friend that is a painter, and scrapes by because it is cheaper to hire criminal aliens than pay a man running a legal business a decent wage.

The study, based on interviews with 2,660 workers at 264 hiring sites in 20 states and the District of Columbia, found that day laborers earned a median of $10 an hour and $700 a month. The study said only a small number earned more than $15,000 a year.

Ok...first, lets look at that sample....interviewing 2,660 workers at 264 hiring sites equals about 10 workers at each site. How they came up with the magic figure of 117,600 people a day at these sites is beyond me, unless they took what they counted and multiplied it by 500, but that equals just over 130,000 so I am wondering on where they pulled this number from.

Now, leaving aside the fact that the criminal aliens they were talking to were the ones that, obviously, didn't get hired, I believe it is safe to say that these guys weren't a good representation of day laborers, as most of the hardcore workers were probably already hired for the day, so we can surmise these are the "newbies" or the slackers....but I digress...so back on topic we see that these guys are making ten dollars an hour? For their MEDIAN INCOME??????? Minimum wage is WAY less than that!!!! And at ten an hour, making an average income of 700 a month means that, (since taxes aren't taken out) you are working about 70 hours a month.....that is a PART TIME JOB. And as for "only a small number earned more than $15,000 a year"....am I supposed to feel bad that criminals are having a hard time making a living? Most of them are sending that 15K back to MX anyway.....and what if that 15K is what they make AFTER they send their pesos home to Guadalupe Maria? I bet most criminal aliens make a better living than many American Citizens.

We soldier on;

The professors who conducted the study said the most surprising finding was the pervasiveness of wage violations and dangerous conditions that day laborers faced.

Boofuckinghoo......criminals hire criminals and then won't pay....go tell a cop, pancho....call ICE and tell 'em your "employee rights" have been violated, then get a lawyer and sue.

Forty-nine percent of those interviewed said that in the previous two months, an employer had not paid them for one or more days' work. Forty-four percent said some employers did not give them any breaks during the workday, while 28 percent said employers had insulted them.

Oh how absolutely fucking tragic. Twenty eight percent were insulted...notice that the number of criminals that didn't get a break was higher than the number of criminals that were insulted.....these people have a lot to learn.....most Americans would be very insulted if they didn't get a break.

Nine percent of day laborers reported having been arrested while waiting for work, while 11 percent reported receiving police citations and 37 percent reported being chased away. Nineteen percent said merchants had insulted them, and 15 percent said merchants had not let them use their restrooms or make purchases.

OK.....back to the opening paragraph of the story; three-fourths of day laborers were illegal immigrants, and that would equate to 75%, but only nine percent report having been arrested while waiting for work.....by my math that is (multiply and carry that one...decimal there...) WAY TOO DAMNED FEW CRIMINALS BEING ARRESTED!!!!!! As for the rest of that paragraph, I will use a line Ogre used here and say "Imagine that? People NOT wanting to deal with criminals."

Now...remember that part at the front of the story where I told you to remember that bit about "three fourths" because it would come into play in a big way? Here is that bit.

The survey found that 59 percent of day laborers were from Mexico and 28 percent from Central America, while 7 percent were born in the United States. Sixty percent of the immigrant workers said day labor was their first occupation in the United States.

Work with me here people....59+28+7=94....as in 94% of people polled are represented by this demographic breakdown, so leaving the missing 6% I wish to know this;

How is there such a disparity betweeen the "7 percent were born in the united states" and the quarter that are supposed to be legal immigrants? Seven percent vs twenty five percent.....that is a serious disparity. Are we to believe that legal immigrants, people that have shown they have a skill to support themselves and been allowed to enter the country, (regardless of what one may think America's legal immigration policy isn't "first come, first served") are sitting at day labor centers with the criminals that flouted the very laws and ideals that legal immigrants adhered to for a chance to come to the greatest country on the planet?

Jesus in a Uhaul van, man.....that is UTTER BULLSHIT!!!! Every legal immigrant I know, (and that list starts with Luca Zanna), despises the criminals even more than those of us born here. Every one of them.

The study said the number of day laborers had soared because of the surge of immigrants, the boom in homebuilding and renovation, the construction industry's growing use of temporary workers, and the volatility of the job market

No...the number of day labor centers have soared because cities don't have the balls to enforce the laws they should, and are trying to keep a growing menace confined to a smaller area and stave off legal citizen complaints about litter, crime and criminals.

So there you have it folks. A whole sub-culture of criminal aliens and the criminals that hire them. I refuse to feel sorry for criminals that don't get paid, get no breaks or get insulted by their employers.....I only wish the government would crack down on the employers too.....as for them getting hurt on the job? I don't want to see that happen, because we just end up paying for it in the emergency room......and ERs should report suspected illegals....in fact, I may be in favor of socialized medicine IF we round up EVERY SINGLE CRIMINAL ALIEN, SECURE THE BORDER, clamp down on immgration, (legal and not) and PASS and ENFORCE LAWS about having to be a CITIZEN to get that medical care....but that's a post for another day.

Why not? They are already getting familiar with the terrain on our side of the border anyway. But you can read about that in a bit.

First I wish to point out a little known front in the battle against illegal immigration. It is linked in the title, and tells the story of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or CNMI.

Go read that for the history of the CNMI, and to understand the ramifications of my next statement.

Anyone that is under the impression that an "amnesty", or a "work visa program" or any program under any name that gives the criminal aliens a pass for the crimes they have already committed by breaking into the US and working illegally should consider carefully the current status of life in the CNMI.

Never mind the fact that the original inhabitants of the CNMI, or "the natives" seem to have taken to heart the socialist ideals of the democratic party, to the point of creating a system that actually caused this to happen;

The corrosive effect on the work ethic and morals of the American citizens is so bad that, in 1995, the government actually had to issue a directive prohibiting welfare recipients from hiring foreign maids.

As the article said "Free-market success," indeed.

With that said, here is today's officially sanctioned, posted all over the web Guard The Borders BlogBurst:

Last week, those of us who keep an eye on border issues noticed that several mainstream media sources had featured articles about the regular Mexican military incursions over our borders and into our country. This is nothing new, as the Border Patrol has documented hundreds of such illegal incursions by an armed Mexican military over the past decade, and our government has done nothing to curb these incursions. In fact, it seems our government has looked the other way. While I'm relieved that this information is getting out into the mainstream, I have little confidence that our governement will actually do its job and secure our borders.

Some confrontations between the Mexican military troops and our own Border Patrol agents have become violent as Mexican soldiers have fired their weapons at the Border Patrol. It's a mystery why our government refuses to acknowledge these hostile invasions. They surely know about it, and the Mexican Embassy in Washington D.C. has gone so far as to publicly deny that the Mexican soldiers are hostile, but rather there to "patrol for illegal border jumpers". Contrary to that public statement, however, most of the Mexican military troops on the border are moonlighting as security escorts for drug smuggling gangs the coyotes who are running large groups of illegals across the border.

T.J. Bonner, a 27-year Border Patrol veteran who heads the National Border Patrol Council [said], "Intrusions by the Mexican military to protect drug loads happen all the time and represent a significant threat to the agents. "Why else would they be in the area, firing at federal agents in the United States? There is no other explanation," said Mr. Bonner, whose organization represents all 10,000 of the nonsupervisory Border Patrol agents.

He also challenged reports that Mexican military units had crossed mistakenly into the United States, saying, "Every country's military has a [global positioning system] nowadays, including the Mexicans. "If the border is so poorly marked, why don't the thousands of Border Patrol agents working 24/7 along it ever seem to get lost, and none of us have been issued a GPS," he said.
[...]
Attacks on Border Patrol agents in the past few years have been attributed to current or former Mexican military personnel. U.S. law-enforcement officials have long thought that current and former Mexican soldiers are being paid to protect drug shipments bound for the United States.

Several agents said the attacks have escalated in the past two years as U.S. security efforts on the border have increased -- including the July shooting of two agents in an ambush near Nogales, Ariz., by assailants in black commando-type clothing, who fired more than 50 rounds. Authorities said the gunmen used military-style cover-and-concealment tactics to escape back into Mexico. No one has been arrested.

Without any federal commitment to secure our borders, the Minutemen, a volunteer citizen's group, has performed an invaluable civic service in patrolling our borders to document and verify the location of illegal border crossers. They, too, have encountered Mexican soldiers on the WRONG side of the border. The video clip below comes directly from the Arizona Minutemen who told the Mexican soldiers, when confronted, they were there as "media" to document the border situation. It is incredibly important to note that there is no reason why American citizens should EVER be required to justify their lawful activities on American soil to a FOREIGN military presence. That is anathema to our rights as American citizens!

(SCOTTSDALE, AZ) January 20, 2006 – The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps ("MCDC") announced the release today of video footage of an incursion by a unit of the Mexican army across the U.S. border in Arizona.

Chris Simcox and a group of Civil Defense Corps volunteers encountered a squad of approximately eight armed Mexican soldiers about 500 yards inside American territory. The Mexican soldiers started running back through the brush to Mexico when they realized they had been spotted.

The video shows a uniformed Mexican soldier climbing through a barbed wire fence on American soil to return to the Mexican side of the border as he races to catch up with the other Mexican soldiers who had also climbed back through the fence as they retreated back into their country.

A group of armed Mexican soldiers then returned to the barbed wire fence (on American soil) and confronted Simcox and the volunteers. A discussion in Spanish ensued, with the agitated soldier 'in charge' saying the Americans had no business being there.

Simcox and the volunteers did not budge. The Mexican soldiers left and drove off. Judging from earlier activity observed at the ranch that morning, Simcox is of the belief that a trafficking operation had been disrupted by the volunteers.

The footage, filmed in 2004, was sent to then Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge. His office did not respond. The video has remained in the Minuteman video archive and is being released in response to recent news reports that over 200 cross-border incursions by the Mexican army have been documented since 1996.

__________________________

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we're going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.

Blogs already on board:

Euphoric Reality
A Lady's Ruminations
TMH's Bacon Bits
Part-Time Pundit
The Right Track
Cao's Blog
Ogre's Politics and Views
In The Bullpen
Stuck on Stupid
NIF
Kender's Musings
Watchman's Words
Third World County
Gribbit's Word
Right on the Right
Team Swap
Gina's Rantings
The Irate Nation
Publius Rendezvous
Freedom Folks
Bear Creek Ledger
Something and Half of Something
Mover Mike
The Neo-Con Blogger
Ravings of a Mad Tech
Parrot Check
Curley's Corner

The highscool exit exam in California is too hard, so restrictions are being eased for students with disabilities, including physical disabilities, so that students that haven't mastered the exam yet wont have to take it to get their diploma if they are graduating in the 2006 class.

I can understand the exam being changed, put off or even cancelled for students with learning disabilities, (a worrisome side note is that these good people will still be expected to get and hold jobs, even though they may not be capable of anything more than busing tables), but to change the exam for students that have purely physical disabilities shortchanges those students, telling them in effect, "your body is different, so we don't expect you to think either", and that is a sad state of affairs.

I won't even touch on the idiocy of stopping the exams or making it easier because soem students have english as their second language. If you are going to live here, you should be expected to understand the language well enough to at least compete with highschool graduates. We are the only modern nation that doesn't demand immgrants speak, read and write in our common language well enough to make a living, and that must change.

It is time for English to be recognized nationally as the standard language of The United States of America. The California Constitution states that english shallbe teh official language of the state, and even outlines teh right of citizens to sue the California government to enforce this provision, and that very item is in the works, but this movement needs to be national.

The ability to drive on roads that have signs in english should be governed, in part, by the ability to read and understand thsoe signs correctly.

The same goes for voting. Our candidates campaign in english, all of our mainstream news sources are in english, and official government business in conducted in english.

It only makes sense to make english the official language of the U.S.

In fact, since I am calling for a new movement, let's boil it down to its' bare essence;

Assimilate Or Leave

We can call it the AOL rule.

I like it....it's catchy, memorable and the acromyn is already in teh public conscienceness.

Who's with me?

This post, a reposting of older articles with new links that I previously used for research added in, has proven to be a timeless piece that needs to be put out there again, lest the liberals in this country are allowed to give even better legs to their baldfaced lies and incessant ignorance of the facts.

This is a special post for all those out there that keep screaming about the WMDs that weren't found in Iraq and we shouldn't have gone there in the first place.

These people don't understand STRATEGY. If you can read this story and still tell me that you don't understand, once and for all, the reasons behind the war then do us all a favor and actually get that lobotomy. After all you are simply some paper work and a short operation from being LEGALLY stupid, as opposed to CONSIDERED stupid.

The Australian
Edition 1 - All-round CountryFRI 26 NOV 2004, Page 013
WMDs camouflage real reasons behind Iraq invasion
By Frank Devine

WHY are we in Iraq? It is not, as some ranters claim, because George Bush is stupid and bloodthirsty and John Howard a spineless crawler. Nor is it because the US has regressed to Wilsonian imperialism.

For those seriously interested in the question I recommend a seriously interesting new book, America's Secret War by George Friedman. Friedman is founder of Stratfor, a private, subscription-financed global intelligence service, which I find consistently well-informed. Friedman writes of the struggle in Iraq in relentlessly Realpolitik terms.

Although the US believed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, the WMDs were ultimately ``a cover for a much deeper game''. The big game began with the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and the US enlisting the assistance of Saudi Arabia in backing the Afghan resistance. The Saudis provided financing and guerilla fighters. They influenced other Islamic countries to send guerillas.

This international brigade included members of Islam's moneyed and educated elite (including Osama bin Laden) -- the core of al-Qa'ida.

When the Soviet Union retreated from Afghanistan, this elite had become knowledgeable veterans of guerilla warfare, full of swagger about defeating the world's second superpower.

The oil billionaires back home, impressed with themselves for ``bailing the Americans out'', financed the warrior elite and the fundamentalist Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

From this fortress headquarters, Friedman writes, al-Qa'ida (``the Base'' in English) pressed its grand design for an Islamist world federation, a new Caliphate, which would ultimately match, if not dominate, other superpowers. Global terrorism would be the means. Al-Qa'ida's opening moves -- attacks on American embassies and other establishments abroad -- were aimed, in Friedman's opinion, less at damaging the US than provoking it to a reckless assault on Islam.

This, al-Qa'ida believed, would stir the ``Islamic street'' to a confrontational mood with the West and rebellion against non-fundamentalist Islamic regimes, establishing the foundations of the great federation. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the US, confident of its hegemony, had concluded that ``war was now optional'', that no power existed that could force it into war.

The passive US response to its early pinprick attacks emboldened and frustrated al-Qa'ida. The jihadists, Friedman writes, ``needed to strike a blow that would be devastating, [breaching] the threshold between what was tolerable and intolerable for the US''. Their initiative was the September11, 2001, attack on New York and Washington, which shocked and disoriented the Americans. Their first reaction was to speculate almost in panic about a September 11 with nuclear weapons.
This began an obsession with WMDs. US actions were practical and reasonably prompt, however. The US persuaded Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union to make inventory of their nuclear weapons and strengthen security on them.

Rather astonishingly, as Friedman reports it, the US pressured Pakistan -- the Muslim country most advanced in nuclear weaponry and the one in closest contact with Islamic fundamentalism -- into permitting US soldiers dressed as civilians to place a guard on its nuclear stockpile. To disabuse Islam of the illusion that the US was weak of will and, on the evidence of Vietnam, unable to sustain a prolonged war, the Bush administration decided to strike its own devastating blow in response to September 11.

The invasion and speedy subjugation of Afghanistan staggered the jihadists. But the US, having succeeded only in dispersing al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, rather than eliminating them, believed it needed to strike another heavy blow.

By then it had identified the jihadist campaign as ``a Saudi problem''. Most of the September 11 suicide attackers had been Saudis. Bin Laden was a Saudi. Saudi money trails were everywhere. An invasion of Saudi Arabia presented the tactical problem of waging war against a country of vast area and the strategic one of disrupting the world's oil supplies.

The Americans had established and then strengthened a military presence in countries surrounding Saudi Arabia -- Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Invasion of Iraq would complete the encirclement.

``From a purely military view,'' Friedman adds, ``Iraq is the most strategic single country in the Middle East, [bordering] six other countries: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran.''

So the US struck, with consequences unfolding nightly on our TV screens. Friedman believes the US-jihadist war hangs in the balance. However, the measured actions of the US during the past three years, including its strong military presence in the Middle East, have caused significant moderation of the position on global jihad of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim regimes.

The strategy of the jihadists has stalled: ``Not a single regime has fallen to
al-Qa'ida ... There is no rising in the Islamic street. [There has been] complete failure of al-Qa'ida to generate the political response they were seeking ... At this point the US is winning ... The
war goes on.''

For more in depth stories on the existence of those WMDs go read these:

Proof that WMDs were found in Iraq.

Enriched Uranium; 1.77 metric tons


Chemical Weapons Agents


Chemical Warheads


Powdered Radioactive Material


Transcripts from CNN about roadside bomb materials with Sarin Gas


More on the Sarin Gas from Fox News


Clinton attacks saddams nuclear sites

Interview with a WMD inspector


Now, thank Kender for setting you straight, pray to ST.FU and get some sleep.

That title caught your attention, no doubt, and while I raised a question that is certainly framed in an inflammatory way, the real question here is did I ask a question that should be dissected and placed up for an inspection of what it means to be "anti-American".

Google is certainly not against the American way, which is find a great business model and make scads of money from it. They excel in doing just that. As a search engine they are the hallmark of efficient and far reaching, and if one knows how to search correctly, Google is capable of finding the most obscure document, quote or smattering of information one may need. Google is the bloggers best friend.

That being said, Google has garnered a well earned reputation for leaning rather leftward, refusing certain advertisments, (as is their right) that don't mesh with their business leaders wishes. Now, they have decided to fight the governments attempt at procuring a weeks worth of search engine queries. (story linked in title)

Why?

Good question. The governments request is, according to the requesting agency, in this case the Justice Department, to aid in bringing back a law regarding child porn which was struck down as unconstitutional, but opponents fear the data could be used to justify further requests for more detailed information at a later date.

So far, companies that have complied hae done so with only the broadest information, such as search engine queries and the number of times they were used, and left out identifying information, such as IP addresses.

Yahoo! Inc., Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc. have all complied, and in fact, several times every year all of these companies, even Google, release private information at the request of authorities for legal purposes, and their privacy statements state that they may do that....even without telling affected users that they have done so.

Only Google is fighting this current attempt by the government to access information.

Given Googles well earned liberal bias, and the current administrations NSA programs that monitor certain communications with those that may not hold our countries best interests at heart, coupled with the fact that Google is refusing to release this information, one has to wonder if my title is fitting after all.

Well then why I am giving a big tip o' me tam to my bud Ric at Release the Hounds for a story out of Italy about terrorists that were not only caught planning attacks in the U.S., but caught with WIRETAPS????

Because WIRETAPS WORK!!!

And as Ric points out, we are in a WAR, stupid, one that our enemies are treating as a war....so why can't we? Have we become so soft?

I was talking to a friend of mine over lunch yesterday, this fellow named The Sandmonkey, about this very thing, wiretaps I mean, not the whole Italians actually catching someone.....honestly I am almost as shocked that the Italians actually caught terrorists as I would be if the french did it......then again, the french are good at catching terrorists.....they like to catch them and pass them off to us like a radioactive potato, that way they can't infect their country, and we have the balls to deal with them.......

Anyway, the Sandmonkey and I were talking about this stuff over lunch, and he made a great point;

Out of 180,000 troops in three years we have lost just over two thousand.....on D-day alone we lost like, 5000 soldiers....he said something very profound yesterday.....he said "America used to be the country that lost 10 million people in a war because it was the right thing to do." Yep....now we're the country that doesn't want to protect ourselves from our enemies because "someone might be offended" or "someones 'rights' might get dirtied up".


So let me put this in plain english.

Those "RIGHTS" don't mean SHIT when you are DEAD or LIVING UNDER SHARIA LAW!!!!!!

Get that through your pointy little liberal heads.

California is looking to replicate Oregon's assisted suicide laws. The culture of death is slowly going to spread across the country; before we know it, assisted suicide will be the norm.

Jan. 18 - KGO - Doctors can help terminally ill people die without fear of punishment from the federal government. The Supreme Court's ruling Tuesday on an Oregon law is giving a lot of traction to a similar bill in California. The bill in California provides more safeguards than the Oregon law, but the idea is the same. It would allow doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medication to people with incurable diseases and only months to live.

Safeguards? That's a crock. Safeguards should include time to reflect and time for all pain management interventions to take place. There isn't really any true safeguards written into the Oregon law. It's really a matter of request a death and you get it.

Assembly Member Patty Berg of Santa Rosa is behind a bill that's similar to the Oregon law. It failed in the legislature last year, but since then Berg says she's garnered more support from doctors to members of the clergy.

Assm. Patty Berg, (D) Santa Rosa: "Seventy-percent of Californians want this, and so this just provides us additional momentum. So I'm just thrilled."

70%??? I don't know if this is true or not. If it is the state is doing something terribly wrong.
To want to die vs. live, things must be pretty damn bad.

The vote in the U.S. Supreme Court was 6-3. Yet despite the decision, groups opposing right to die laws say they will continue fighting them.

Dr. Robert Saxer, Catholic Medical Association: "It is incompatible with the role as a physician, and pain can be controlled, and people don't have to die in pain."

This doctor is correct. But I suspect this has a lot more to do with other motivations besides pain...

A recent study from the Netherlands shows us that more than half the people who chose death, or euthanasia, were clinically depressed. This is a treatable condition. People who are depressed should not be allowed to make such decisions.

LEIDEN, January 16, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A study published by Dutch researchers in the September 20, 2005 edition of the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) has shown that at least 50% of patients killed under the Dutch euthanasia programme were suffering from depression. In addition, 44% of those suffering from cancer showed clinical signs of depression when they asked for euthanasia.

We don't hear about these things in the MSM...they don't want the general public to know that people with depressions, due to terminal illness are not being treated. It's easier to say they want to die...let's face it...for the most part people who commit suicide are depressed....

It's not just the polititians who are working hard to divide this country by race. It's also college professors who continue to live in the 1950's and 60's...who constantly rip up old healed wounds and make them fresh and gaping for today. Racism effects all of us. I don't believe it's nearly the issue that it once was. I do think many people have nothing else to talk about, no other way to gain support and they use this issue to their own selfish advantage. Ward Churchill is one classic example:

More than 100 students, faculty and community members - about 20 of them protesters - attended controversial academic and activist Ward Churchill’s lecture in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. last night, both to listen and, for some, to attempt debate.
---SNIP---
Churchill went on to analyze the unique situation Native Americans are confronted with in their search for civil rights, as compared to that of African Americans involved in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.

African Americans, being citizens, were able to fight for their rights through their government - although they endured legal hurdles, public ridicule and the constant fear of violence while doing so, he said. However, because the U.S. government has recognized - according to international law - Native Americans as a sovereign nation with roughly 400 treaties, Churchill said Native Americans do not have “civil rights,” but instead are entitled to the rights of an individual state.

All oppressed groups, including African Americans, Native Americans, queers, women and other ethnic minorities must continue, like their predecessors, to seek avenues in which to reestablish their inalienable rights, Churchill said.

This is just a bunch of bulloney. Churchill is a lot like the New Orleans Mayor, who capitilized on the tragic situations of his own city, used the race of many as a conspiracy-theoried as a platform for attention. These educators and leaders keep the race card alive and well. They have nothing else to think about, so they create drama and stir the pots of hatred. This divides otherwise perfectly excepting peoples. It's a shame that everyone allows this to continue. MLK could see his dream if only those who pretend to honor him would allow people to work things out among themselves. The hell with the leaders.

The Carnival is up over at Rick Moran's RightWingNutHouse. Enjoy it. It highlights the stupidity of the world from the last week or so.

Go.


Read it.

G'wan......GIT!!!

Folks, this is gonna be short. If you wanna read todays full blogburst about Jack Idema, go see one of our other blogbursters, a full list of which is at the bottom of this post.

I would suggest going and reading about it at Cao's or at Jack's Personal Website.

Now, some of the people involved in this debacle have intimated that none other than the NSA is monitoring those in the blogburst. Meh. Of course, that begs the question of how long these people have been working for No Such Agency, as the only way to know who gets monitored is to be one of those doing the monitoring.

What these people using third grade scare tactics forgot to realize is that those of us on, in and of the right haven't said a thing about this alleged monitoring, as we aren't doing anything illegal, so we DON'T CARE IF TEH NSA WATCHES OVER OUR SHOULDERS!!!
The other thing they may not have realized is that if the NSA is watching US, they are, by natural extension, watching those we deal with, so those that aren't in the blogburst, but are writing about this subject, are also being watched. And that makes me laugh.

I am still waiting for the forces allied against Jack and his "Jack" booted thuggery (that term is trademarked and will be used for the soon to be released Idema Action Figure, so hands off), to show their mastery at inetrnet sleuthing and "out" me. I can't wait to hear who I work for, and how much trouble I am gonna be in when I am not blackmailed or extorted into silence either.

So come on stoopidpats....bring it on ya little bitches....report lies to isp's and commit more fraud in yout quest to...quest to what? Just why the hell are you so hateful of Jack? What info does he have on ya', huh?

Anyway stoopidpats, you have already commited fraud once, and the tables have been turned. The paypal account you're claiming is Jacks has nothing to do with him, and filing false reports is a crime.

Ooops.

Gotcha' beeyatch!!!

jack idema
afghanistan
Technorati Search for Jack Idema

The Free Jack Idema Blogroll:

The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill
The Lone Voice
Red Hot Cuppa Politics
Kender's Musings
Irate Nate
The Devil's Kitchen
Cao's Blog
Big Dog's Weblog
Theodore's World
NIF
Rottweiler Puppy
Making Headlines
My Newz n' Ideas
Right For Scotland
Freedom Folks
The City Troll

I have a dream that one day, my flavors will be judged on the richness of their character and the depths of their subtle blends of harmonious flavors, and not on the hue of their rich creamy deliciousness.
Anonymous Ice Cream Maker from Duluth Minnesota whose ice cream always looked like baby shit but tasted like heaven

Apparently New Orleans mayor Ray Nagins idea of people is to put them into food catagories. I am probably a very nutty vanilla.

What flavor are you?

Recently, and by "recently" I mean within the last two years, the discourse in this country has dropped in quality. It has been taking a nosedive for many years, but the last two years has really highlighted the differences in the way people think, how they frame an argument or belief, and how they view such critical things as "Sovereignty", "National Security" and the definition of "Lawful".

It also serves to highlight the emptiness, hypocrisy and hollowness of the lies the left continue to spread in their doomed quest to regain power rightfully lost when they became too corrupt and hateful to continue to represent the noble and courageous citizens of this great experiment in self governance.

You see, it is within the last two years that the Minutemen have become active, working to help keep our borders monitored, reporting to government agencies when those borders are breached, in short, doing some of the work that our government is unable, or unwilling, to do.

The actions of these Patriots have earned them scorn in much of the mainstream media, and has led to lies being spread about them and their mission. People take at face value the label that the Minutemen are racist vigilantes, (a term first used by President Bush, the same man that the left ignores or derides for his words 90% of the time), but the Minutemen are NOT racists, and you wouldn't call a cop a racist simply because he patrolled a neighborhood that was peopled by a majority of people that shared the same skin color.....unless you are a leftist, and then that line of reasoning is perfectly acceptable.

So I have been called a racist. That is patently untrue, as it is in almost every case of the left labeling someone a racist simply because they wish the laws regarding our borders were being enforced.

Let's look at the word "racist" shall we?

NOUN racist - a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

By that simple definition I am not a racist, as I don't believe that my RACE is superior to any other race.

I do believe, however, that my CULTURE is superior to that of other cultures, and this may give some a reason to pause and call me a bigot, and this may be true, but I am, at least, a thoughful bigot, unlike the screeching automatons that scream I am a racist.

Let's look at the word "bigot" and we will see just why being a bigot is NOT actually a bad thing, but, in this case, a position that is well thought out, well defended and ultimately the RIGHT thing to be..

NOUN 1. bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

Pay special attention to the word up there in italics....the word is "intolerant".

Let's look at that word shall we?

intolerant adj.
Not tolerant, especially:
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
c. Unable or unwilling to endure or support

See that bottom definition? "Unable or UNWILLING to support".....see? I am UNWILLING to support those views that are contrary to views I hold, and that is because I have thought about these views, have seen the results of the policies wrought from the views that are different than my own and have decided that MY VIEWS, IDEAS and WISHES are SUPERIOR to those I stand against.

Why do people come here? Because they have no "socioeconomic mobility" in their own country. They have "no job prospects" or they "can make twice the wage here", or "they have more opportunity" in the U.S.

Trace back every damned excuse save the very few that come here seeking "political asylum" and you will find economic concerns at the base of their reasons. Even the political refugees are, at heart, here because of economic considerations. If they have a robust economy at home they aren't going to be politically active to the point of fearing for their lives. Unless they are a complete raving idiot. Then they simply sign up as a democrat once they hit the border and they're good to go. (rumor has it that howard dean ended up in charge of the party in just this manner)

So, back to why I can be a bigot, and why that is a good thing.

I am going to keep the reason here short and sweet. I will outline the thought process for you.

I am a bigot because I will tolerate no discussion of another system being superior to the one in which I believe, because I have seen the results of the systems that stand against the system I believe in, and have come to the conclusion that the system I believe in is superior for the simple fact that the system I believe in continues to get stronger, while all of the systems that stand against my system have either failed or continue down a road of failure, dragging their adherents down with them.

My system is the Rule of Law and Capitalism, Freedom and Natural Equality.

Multiculturalism, socialism, open borders.....these things are the enemies of my country, the enemies of my system and the enemies of Freedom.

I am NOT a racist, but I am an American Patriot, and the time is quickly approaching where the people will have to decide "whither goest the land", and when that time comes, those people of conviction that believe in hard work, self-reliance and Freedom, and understand the meaning of Sacrifice, Duty and Honor will have to stand up and defend our land from the enemies both without, and from within.

Who Are You With?

Ladies and Gentlemen Boys and Girls
Children of AAALLLLLLL AAGGESSSSS......

Presenting for your amusement and education, an ally of this blog from waaaaaayyy back....

Now joining us by popular misconception...

The one...
The only..


Kit From Euphoric Reality!!!!

The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and free laborer. The freedmen are advised to remain at their present homes and work for wages. They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts, and they will not be supported in idleness, either there or elsewhere.

This post started out to be one about Kwanzaa, "Juneteenth" and other days of celebration that make me shake my head, and then during research I ran across the opening paragraph.

I wish to point out a special part of that paragraph:

They are informed that they will not be allowed to collect at military posts, and they will not be supported in idleness, either there or elsewhere.

Remember that bit. It is important. The astute reader that is familiar with my writings may see what is coming, and if you do please keep it to yourself so as not to ruin it for the dullards, retards and democrats in the audience.

Let us start by perusing Kwanzaa, in passing, since it is so short a time after the CHRISTMAS Season, and I expect it was covered in great detail during that time. In short, Kwanzaa is a created holiday, started by Dr. Ron Maulana Karenga, a "black nationalist", according to wikipedia, and was founded to "help African Americans reconnect with what Karenga characterized as their African cultural and historical heritage". He also wanted to "give Blacks an opportunity to celebrate themselves and history rather than simply imitate the practice of the dominant society".

This is part of the problem. They are already a part of dominant society here in America. "Celebrations" such as Kwanzaa only serve to seperate society, ESPECIALLY when they are driven along lines of color. I daresay that Dr. Ron Maulana Karenga is as big a racist by his actions as any Grandmaster of the KKK, and his creation of a holiday for people of one color is a racist action. FOR THE TRUTH OF KWANZAA GO HERE.

Juneteenth; Now I don't have much of a problem with Juneteenth, as it is simply a contraction of when slaves in Texas finally heard about President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, which was June Nineteenth, 1865, a full two years, five months and change AFTER Lincoln issued it. But really, it seems to me if people really want to celebrate the day the slaves were freed then why not do it on the day that it was signed? January first.

Or how about a little compromise? January the 3rd. Why the third? Because. When January the first falls on a Sunday, as it did this year, Monday, or the Second, becomes that day that people have parades and a day off, which is funny, since this is supposedly NOT a Christian nation, so a "holiday" on a Sunday shouldn't be a problem right? You see? This way, even the blac...excuse me....African Americans that don't live in Texas can feel good about celebrating the day that slavery became illegal in the U.S.

In fact, that is a day that should be celebrated by all right thinking people everywhere. By now the conspiracy theorists in the audience are saying "Yeah, it should be a holiday....why DID Lincoln sign it on a Holiday? Maybe so that blacks couldn't have their own holiday, and Lincoln was a Republican, and Bush is a Republican, so it must all be Bush's FAULT!!!!" Lincoln was a racist too. (remember, that is what the conspiracy theorists are thinking...and yes, even the conspiracy theorists on the left call black people black when they talk to themselves in their heads....What? Did you think they call you black folks "African Americans"? No, they call you black. Just like most of you call yourselves.)

Why is that? If I may run with a short tangent. Why can you have a "Black History Month" and have "Black Pride" but if a White man calls you "Black" it is almost an insult? And why isn't "white" an insult?

Anyway, those few astute readers that have been waiting for the goody are about to get their cookie.

Remember the title? You looked again didn't you?

Now remember that part of the first paragraph I told you to remember? Yeah.

The part about "not be supported in idleness".......WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THAT??????

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU

It is happening all across the nation. The ACLU sue city counsel after city counsel over praying in Jesus name. They don't sue to stop all prayer, but in every case the target has been Christian prayer. They even fought for the right of a Wiccan to pray at a counsel meeting. Many times it doesn't even take a lawsuit. They just type up a threatening letter and that does the trick. This was the case in Fredericksburg. But one man isn't taking things lying down.

Fredericksburg City Councilman Hashmel Turner has filed suit against his fellow council members, saying the council’s newly adopted prayer policy violates his constitutional rights.

Turner is being represented by the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit group that advocates for free expression issues.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, asks the court to rule that the city’s prayer policy is unconstitutional, and to order that Turner be allowed back into the council’s prayer rotation.

The council voted 5-1 in November to adopt a policy of offering non-denominational prayers devoid of any Christian or other specific religious references.

Turner abstained from that vote, and Councilman Matt Kelly voted against the policy.

The vote came after Turner had been excluded from the council prayer rotation for more than a year. The council got a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union in July 2004 saying that the civil liberties group would file suit if Turner continued to invoke the name of Jesus Christ in his prayers.

Turner, who is pastor at First Baptist Church of Love in Fredericksburg, had always closed his prayers before council meetings by invoking the name of Jesus Christ before the ACLU complaint.

On the same night of the November vote for the nondenominational prayer policy, Turner asked to be put back into the prayer rotation, and to give the opening prayer before the Nov. 22 council meeting.

Mayor Tom Tomzak said today he asked Councilwoman Debby Girvan to give the prayer at that meeting instead of Turner, because, “I did not want to unleash a 1,000-pound gorilla-the ACLU-on the City Council.”

However, Tomzak said he does believe Turner’s rights are being violated, and the suit filed today is “a lawsuit that I probably agree with.”

“He’s a very passionate man, a man of faith and a man of principle, and he believes his rights have been violated,” Tomzak said of Turner.

Neither City Council members nor City Attorney Kathleen Dooley had seen copies of the lawsuit earlier today.

The suit calls the new prayer policy “an unlawful attempt by the City Council to prescribe the content of prayers given at City Council meetings by Turner and other members of City Council.”

John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said Turner approached his organization last fall, saying he believed his rights were being violated. “All he wants is to say Jesus Christ at the end of the prayer,” Whitehead said. “He’s not asking for any money. ... It’s a very simple suit.”

One would think that it would be simple, yet the ACLU don't seem to get that. Religious expression in America is under attack. It is a shame that an organization that claims to protect our rights are the number one censor of Christian religious expression. If they were trying to get rid of all prayer at counsel meetings, we would have a different argument, but they are targeting Christian prayers and individual expression. It is good to see this man is standing up for his rights. More people should do so.

Currently there is legislation, introduced by Representative Hostettler that could put a stop to these ridiculous lawsuits. Hostettler’s proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney’s fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets.

SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already on-board.

Don't know how I missed this, but I am definitely a fan of Hitchens and agree with him 100% on this issue:

Q: What's your assessment of Iraq?

A: Well, it's a race between the idea of federalism and democracy and the ideas of partition and theocracy, and the United States is on the right side of the argument. There are only three things that can happen in Iraq: One, that it's ruled by one of its three constituent parts (Kurdish, Sunni and Shia), which in practice means absolute rule by a minority of that minority, of a kind that was Baathism. The other is partition, where they just separate and you get in effect three states, one of which would probably be invaded by Turkey -- the Kurdish one; one of which might well become dominated by Iran and the other, I don't know, it would probably be dominated by Saudi Arabia. The third alternative is where all agree that no one group, let alone any minority of one group, can govern the country, which means that they agree to some form of federalism and democracy. [snip]

Q: What's the biggest misconception or myth or fallacy Americans have about what is going on in Iraq?

A: To think our engagement with Iraq began in 2003 and that we had the option of not doing anything there and presumably should have exercised that option. The beginning of wisdom is the realization of responsibility. We've inherited responsibility for Iraq starting at least from the moment when Jimmy Carter encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack Iran, but perhaps earlier than that in the '60s when the CIA most certainly did help Saddam's wing of the Baath Party to come to power. ... We have to accept that a busted up and screwed up Iraq was in our future no matter what. [snip]

Q: When should U.S. forces start coming out?

A: When the insurgency has been convincingly, militarily defeated. The stakes here are fantastically high. If we can prove that in a really major country, in the heart of the Arab and Muslim world, that al-Qaida can be met on the battlefield openly and isolated and discredited and defeated and destroyed, that's a prize really well-worth having. These people are our enemies. I don't believe the president is right in saying we fight them there rather than here, because that is a false antithesis. But I think we should fight them everywhere -- and we have no choice in the matter.

Read the entire piece Hitchens: 'Fight them everywhere' - PittsburghLIVE.com

And, for the record, I didn't think fighting them would stop them from trying to hit us over here and I've said it a couple of times. What I did and do think is that by fighting them there, we draw them in, we force them to use up their clout with the people that they were trying to convince about the goodness of their ways and we forced them to put a lot of time, effort, manpower and money into the project.

Arguably, we had to do the same, but the important part for us is whether this cost was cheaper in the end then 30 more years of little actions where our economy continued to take nose dives and our people continued to die.

As I also once noted, and Clausewitz agreed (along with a number of other military strategists), sometimes you commit war to speed up the operational tempo, not just for yourself, but for your enemy, make him do stupid things (as we have done), make mistakes, force him to change his plans and, in this case, bringing the war to the backyard of his supporters and making them confront the very thing they created and supported, has had the best effect of probably speeding up the demise of these idiots, their plans, their ideology and their followers.

I think, we people talk about "mistakes" this is one area that, militarily, cannot be called a mistake. This is how you conduct war on a larger strategic scale.

Also, you may remember that I said, ideologically, striking down the heart and once capitol of the caliphate, making it the thing they despise most, a democratic, free, fairly secular state (or at least one governed by their arch nemesis the Shia) has got to be one of the most brilliant (whether accidental or planned) strikes in the history of war. Like taking Berlin or, had the Nazis succeeded, taking Stalingrad.

However, out of all this, the real story is that we left Saddam in power for 12 long years and, while many people insist on pointing to Bush I's policies as the correct policy we should have adhered to all these years and then some, I highly disagree because looking at history and the current situation, OBL might have been able to gather up some mujihadeen to fight on behalf of Saddam, but he would have been doing it with a lot less support considering what Iraq had done to the Kuwaitis and the fear of the other regimes at the time. Not to mention, OBL's network was not so great and his ideology so firmly entrenched at the time that he would have been able to get thousands of volunteers from around the world to come and die in suicide attacks (recall that Bosnia and Kosovo and Somalia had not yet happened).

So, if we're looking for a mistake by Bush, not taking Saddam out in '91 is the biggest mistake a Bush ever made.