Archive for January, 2008
By Bob Parks
Every year, people come out with their "New Year’s Resolutions"; their wish lists of things they hope to either accomplish or see accomplished during the coming year.
As we all know, many of these wishes, or "pledges", are broken within days, so I don’t hold much optimism that these will hold, but there’s nothing wrong with hoping….
The End Of Campaign 2008
Because of the "early" start, many of us are already sick of this campaign season. There are political ads flooding our markets with presidential candidates making promises they know they can’t keep, as they don’t know what the political make up of the Congress will be.
Yet, they’re all over our television sets making promises (and threats), and in the coming months, we’ll "meet" their wives, husbands, and homely kids. They’ll tell us how great we are as Americans, and how much better everything will be if we just trust them with our vote.
Let’s not forget, as we go down this road every four years.
Presidents, outside of during a time of war, have very little to do with our day-to-day lives. The president doesn’t hire all of us. The president doesn’t feed us or pay our rents or mortgages. The president doesn’t heat our homes.
Usually, it’s the Congress that forces us to do things we don’t want to do, and thanks us by taking money directly from our paychecks before we even see them.
But here’s something to watch for.
In the coming months, your local congressional candidates will attempt to show us all their softer sides. However, have you noticed how down right arrogant and mean they can get when while on committees to testifying citizens? These candidates are acting for us now. Too bad they think so little of us they have to "act" in order to get elected.
Hire More Male News Directors
While there’s nothing wrong with having what could be a glut of females at the helm of many news broadcasts, there are many "takes" on news items that are getting real old, especially when "the children" are constantly interjected into the stories.
When a bridge collapses, how will it affect the children? When an assassination occurs overseas, how will it affect the children? When a new bill is introduced on Capitol Hill, how will it affect the children? When Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, she surrounded herself with children, and it became apparent that all legislation would have them in mind.
Now while there’s nothing wrong with children (that is, until you have some of your own), some of us are getting tired of hearing about the effect some news item will have on "the children". Some of us just want to get the news. Whether or not it will affect the children or not will be up to people who have them.
Maybe if we place less public emphasis on them, they won’t act as if it’s all about them. If a news director or anchor is pregnant, that doesn’t mean we’ll all see a story through the prism of "How will it affect my child."
Just a suggestion.
Less Public Advertisements of ED
Ever notice how you can find more commercials, during primetime, about male member enhancement? Besides the fact that Elvis is probably rolling over in his grave due to the misuse of the song "Viva Las Vegas, I’m growing tired of all the ads during sporting events and early evening viewing for things that make you get bigger.
Seeing imagery of horny old people is kind of gross.
By Christopher Adamo
As the 2008 Campaign Season shifts from jockeying and publicity stunts to actual voting, it is all important to consider what America is likely to actually reap by electing any particular candidate. Honesty being a commodity of ever dwindling supply, it is dangerous to rely solely on the words of many candidates. All is not as it seems once the cameras and spotlights are turned off, or once the primary season is concluded.A couple of glaring recent examples, when considered in comparison to each other, tell the grim story. Washington is not about the business of the American people or, as the Declaration so eloquently puts it, securing the God-given rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Rather, it seeks to put a public face of mock concern and "compassion" on its increasingly self-serving endeavors.
Cynical and depressing as such an assessment may sound, the facts nonetheless speak for themselves. Beltway reactions to the ongoing hemorrhage at America’s southern border, when contrasted against the ostensibly monumental subprime mortgage "crisis," provide the necessary evidence for such a claim.
Despite a vast array of excuses and obfuscations intended to convince the American public that the ongoing flood of illegal immigrants is either no real problem, or is simply unfixable, common citizens see their country, its traditions, and its heritage disappearing from before their very eyes. By margins of more than seventy percent, Americans demand action to secure their nation’s border in an effort to curb this invasion.
But what have they gotten in response from Washington? In 2006, after a hard-fought battle in the Congress, a measure was grudgingly passed that assured the construction of 700 miles of border fence. The event was promoted with great fanfare as proof of decisive leadership within a Congress intent on dealing effectively with border security. From the start, the situation lacked credibility, since its principals had been so reluctant to truly confront the border issue. Not surprisingly, things only deteriorated from there.
To begin with, a little elementary math is all it takes to recognize that even if the entire fence were built as promised, more than sixty-five percent of the border would remain open. Does anyone really believe this token effort constitutes border "security"? Moreover, those doubters whose reflexive reaction was to cynically insist that the fence would never be built are being validated daily.
Somehow, according to the way business is conducted inside D.C., the "actual" fence requirement magically diminished from 700 miles down to 370, which would leave 81% of the border unchecked. Yet even that length of fence is an empty promise, with deadlines for construction completely ignored. To date, the government claims that 70 miles of fence has been installed, hardly a "Manhattan Project" to restore our national integrity and sovereignty. But it still gets worse. The actual length may be less than ten miles.
The American people should never forget that, in the beginning, Congress only conceded to the notion of a border fence as a means of throwing a few crumbs to those citizens who otherwise rejected any immigration "reform" measures (read: amnesty) without first securing the border. Apparently, the illegal immigration problem is simply too overwhelming for the U.S. Government to honestly and effectively address it.
So, one might ask, just what are all of those bureaucrats and officials back in Washington paid to accomplish for the American people? The abominable answer can be found in their response to the "subprime mortgage" debacle, a real (we are told) crisis that requires their immediate attention.
By Jim Kouri
(Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton made headlines on Monday with a display of being close to tears while she campaigned in New Hampshire. Her friends in the media especially those on CNN attempted to put a positive spin on her demeanor. Perhaps Americans should refresh their memories of Bill and Hillary Clinton as more state primaries and caucuses occur.)
Presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton once again displayed how she can talk out of both sides of her mouth depending on whom she’s addressing. For example, in New York City, Senator Clinton in a blatant her attempt to re-invent herself, told a cheering crowd that the United States had to protect our borders and deal with illegal immigration.
But, according to the Washington Times, Clinton and her fellow New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer turned thumbs down on two amendments to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which would have funded 2,000 new Border Patrol agents and more than 5,000 new detention beds to house illegal aliens.
According to NewsMax, the former first lady blasted President Bush on border security in a statement posted on her official Senate Web site. NewMax quoted Madam Hillary as saying, "This administration has failed to provide the resources to protect our borders, or a better system to keep track of entrants to this country," she complained, adding, "I welcome the addition of more border security." In the past she has repeatedly claimed to be "adamantly against illegal immigrants."
Yet Senator Clinton and her liberal-left comrades voted against border security enhancements, once again displaying her propensity for double-speak. Meanwhile, Senator Schumer’s explanation — once you cut through all the bull — is that there’s just not enough pork in such a bill for New York, since states such as California, Texas and Arizona stand to gain increased funding to control the borders.
Senator Clinton, on the other hand, does what she does best: refuses to comment on her actions. She’s probably once again studying the situation to see how she feels about it, a familiar Democrat Party trick to avoid telling the American people what she really believes.
Clinton, like so many in her party, attempts to appear as if she’s a national-security hawk. The reality is these Democrats are trying once again to pull the wool over American’s eyes. It’s a strategy the Democrats tried when they ran John Kerry for president. They spent a lot of capital to build up Kerry as a war hero who would fight a better terrorism war, when in fact Kerry was nothing more than a recycled war protester and propaganda master.
The mainstream news media tried as best they could to explain the Massachusetts Senator’s inconsistancies by saying his replies were "nuanced." If so, then Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton is the Queen of Nuance.
By Jim Kouri
Republicans in Name Only, or RINOs, are a great asset to the Democrat Party and the news media. The liberals know they have little if any credibility, therefore when they wish to make a point they mention that Republicans also want what they want.
But by Republicans they mean RINOs. Democrats believe Iraq is another Vietnam? Well, so does Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Democrats are fearful that a Justice Alito may overturn Roe v. Wade? Well, so does Republican Senators Arlen Specter, Olympia Snow and Lincoln Chaffee. The Democrats fear we might be "abusing" terrorists? Well so does Senator John McCain
Another example of RINOism is the breaking news by Matt Drudge and the New York Sun that after 10 years and over $23 million dollars the Independent Counsel investigation into Clinton Administration officials who may have used the IRS to intimidate or investigate threats to the Bill Clinton.
According to the Drudge Report, in Monday’s edition of the New York Sun, reporter Brian McGuire and contributor R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., gave readers a first look at the long-anticipated report from Independent Counsel David Barrett.
The Sun outlines the reports details surrounding the alleged illicit activity and cover up that involved former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros before and during his time in the Clinton Administration.
The Sun revealed that the Barrett report connects the dots that allege that senior officials of the Clinton Administration initiated investigations by the IRS in both Texas and Washington. Also, there were investigations of a grand jury examining the independent counsel’s evidence.
The full report, more than 400 pages, with more than 100 pages of redacted material, hits the street on Thursday morning at 9 am. However, what’s in those 100 pages that we won’t see?
Democrats in the House and Senate have been fighting for months to block the release of the report and keep the 100 pages of highly damaging redacted material from ever seeing the light of day. That’s understandable since they are hypocrites of the first order. However, where are the Republican outcries over this continued cover-up?
WASHINGTON, D.C.— American Life League slammed the latest ad campaign of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, describing their new “safe sex” ad as a promotion tool for new abortions, and took strong exception to the fact that the campaign was paid for with taxpayer dollars.
“Planned Parenthood says it promotes sexual health, but in reality, it’s just promoting recreational sex,” said American Life League vice president Jim Sedlak. Planned Parenthood Golden Gate recently released an ad campaign to be aired on MTV, VH-1, and Comedy Central that associates Planned Parenthood with the so-called Mile High Club.
Sedlak explained, “Planned Parenthood makes one third of its income by providing contraceptives and abortions. It promotes recreational sex to keep demand for their business high.”
The Mile High Club is a slang term used to describe people who have engaged in sexual activity aboard an airplane at least one mile above the earth’s surface.
“By linking itself to the Mile High Club, Planned Parenthood’s message is loud and clear,” said Sedlak. “It is telling kids in the 18-24 age bracket to ‘Have sex! It’s fun.’ In reality, Planned Parenthood is just farming for more business.”
“What most people probably do not know is that ads such as these are paid for with taxpayer money,” said Sedlak. “The Federal Government gives at least $305 million annually to Planned Parenthood. This must end! American Life League is continuing its call to American taxpayers to sign the online petition at www.StopPlannedParenthoodTaxFunding.com and contact state and federal elected officials to cut Planned Parenthood off from our wallets!”
For more information on how to stop Planned Parenthood, go to www.all.org/stopp/planopen.htm
This does not get any weirder, humans having sex and marrying robots. What kind of family will result of this? But in our post-modern liberal society anything goes as far as the imagination allows, without reference to the negative repercussions to these insane ideas.
Artificial intelligence expert, David Levy, is making these predictions of a Brave New Carnal World with his book "Love and Sex With Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships".
Designing computers that talk like humans naturally led to the larger question of how humans interact with robots, which are nothing more than computers with arms and legs and a head. The Japanese have taken the lead in developing "partner robots,'' machines that, for example, might do household tasks for elderly people. But if you could invent a robot that serves cocktails, could you not invent a robot that would make a superior bedmate?
"I think it's a reasonable assumption,'' Levy said in a telephone interview from his home in London. He lays out his case in a voice that's calm, rational, almost flat, more geeky than goatish.
"If one looks at the advances in technology in the last, say, 40 or 50 years, they've been immense, and the more we learn about the science and the technology, the quicker it will be to discover even more within that science." (Source: Houston Chronicle)
By Alan Caruba
It’s an issue that will dominate the elections in 2008. It is illegal immigration, but there was scarce attention paid during the debates leading up to the Iowa caucuses. The candidate that promises to put a stop to it will be the candidate that wins. The party that temporizes will be the party that fails.
The conflict in Iraq has siphoned the energy to pay attention to Mexico, but as that battlefront recedes, the eyes of voters will be on our southern border. A war is being fought there. Some may argue that no such war has been authorized or declared, but a full-scale invasion has been taking place for years, resulting in an estimated one tenth of all Mexicans presently living in the United States.
They are not pilgrims. They are parasites.
The drain on our economy is something that, while well documented, has not received sufficient attention from the mainstream media. After all, we are “neighbors” with Mexico, so how could they hardly be considered an invading horde costing Americans billions of dollars every year?
Good neighbors don’t do that kind of thing, but Mexico is not a good neighbor.
Mexico is working very hard to provide the seaports for goods shipped more cheaply there than to American ports. They would then be transported via a super highway from the Texas-Mexico border to a Mexico owned and operated customs port in Kansas. Presently, some 40% of all imported goods arrive in the U.S. via the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Putting American dockworkers in the unemployment lines and harming our trucking industry is of little concern to our “neighbor” to the south.
Perhaps, however, the real war receiving scant attention is the one being conducted by Mexican drug lords and their cartels. At present most of the war is being fought in Mexico and, as Terence Jeffrey, the editor-in-chief of CNSnews, recently pointed out, one episode was fought in Cananea. Where’s that? “It is almost in Arizona.” Cananea is about 20 miles south of the U.S. border in Mexico. “The nearest town of any size is Nogales, Arizona and the nearest big city is Tucson. Cananea is a war zone.
How long before that shooting war takes place in the streets of American cities? Not long at all. In June 2007, World Net Daily reported that, “The ultra-violent, U.S.-trained elite, Mexican paramilitary commandos known as the ‘Zetas’, responsible for hundreds of murders along the border this year, have expanded their enforcement efforts on behalf of a drug cartel by setting up trafficking routes in six U.S. states.” Texas law enforcement officials report that the Zetas “have been active in the Dallas area since 2003.”
The war is all about the provision of huge amounts of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and methamphetamine into the U.S. market. Read the rest of this entry »
Rep. Heath Shuler’s (D-N.C.) introduced last November, H.R. 4088 Bi-Partisan, SAVE Act (Secure America with Verification Enforcement. Presently, this bill has 136 co-sponsors representing 26 states. Shortly thereafter, two versions of H.R. 4088 Bi-Partisan, SAVE Act were introduced in the US Senate. The Pryor/Landrieu bill is S. 2368 and Sen. Vitter's bill is S. 2366.
The following is the November 6, 2007 press release from Rep. Heath Shuler’s office.
_______________________________________________________
SAVE Act Secures America’s Borders, Provides Employers with Tools to Verify Work Eligibility, and Enforces Current Laws
Washington, D.C. – Representative Heath Shuler was joined by over eighty other members of Congress today to introduce the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act. The bipartisan group of lawmakers came together to support what they called “commonsense” immigration legislation.
“Today Democrats and Republicans are joining together, putting politics aside and supporting a commonsense bill that is for the good of America,” Rep. Shuler said.
Rep. Shuler’s SAVE Act is 3-part plan to drastically reduce illegal immigration — a strict emphasis on border security, employer verification, and interior enforcement.
“Illegal immigration is one of the most pressing issues facing America today. It is estimated that over 12 million people are currently here illegally, and thousands more are coming in every week,” said Rep. Shuler. “Americans are very upset at their government for not taking action, and they have a right to be. ”
The SAVE Act addresses border security by increasing manpower and making needed technological and infrastructure improvements on America’s northern and southern borders, including 8,000 new Border Patrol Agents and provides the infrastructure they need to be effective.
It expands the E-Verify program to provide all employers with the tools they need to ensure that their employees are here legally. The E-Verify program is a simple, effective, and free program that allows employers to efficiently and quickly ensure that the people they hire are legally allowed to work in the U.S. The program will be phased-in over four years, beginning with the federal government, federal contractors, and employers with over 250 employees. Smaller businesses would begin using the system in a graduated manner.
The SAVE Act also provides the tools, resources and infrastructure necessary to enforce existing federal laws and penalize offenders. It increases the investigative abilities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement with more agents and more training. Additionally, it provides assistance for state and local law enforcement.
“I am introducing this legislation because I have the ability to reach across the aisle and bring both sides together to reach a commonsense solution. This is what the people of Western North Carolina want and what the American people want,” Rep. Shuler concluded.
The SAVE Act has original cosponsors from 26 states.
Source: Numbers USA. Visit their website to get more info on the illegal immigration troubling our country.
Compact Florescence Light (CFL) bulbs, also known as the green bulbs, are being touted as the best for the health of our planet earth. Each CFL bulb contains 6 to 8 milligrams of toxic mercury. But, the health of man is being totally disregarded in order to reduce the energy output that produces the so-called greenhouse gases.
The UK will be the first European country to completely outlaw the incandescent bulbs by 2011. But heath concerns are being raised by the Migraine Action Association (MAA).
The MAA is calling on the Government to avoid a complete ban on old-style bulbs, by providing an opt-out for people with health problems.
Last year it was claimed that the "green" bulbs can cause people with epilepsy to experience symptoms similar to the early stages of a fit.
There have also been complaints from people with lupus, a chronic immune disease that causes pain and extreme tiredness. (Source: telegraph.co.uk)
The US Congress has also passed legislation outlawing the the incandescent bulbs by 2014. But again the UK Environmental Agency has issue a serious health warning that everyone should vacate the room if one of the CFL bulbs are broken. According to the warning by the UK Environmental Agency:
Users who break a bulb should vacate the room for at least 15 minutes, the new guidelines say. The debris should not be removed with a vacuum cleaner, which could put toxic dust into the air, but with rubber gloves. The broken glass and all residue is to be placed into a sealed plastic bag and taken to a local official recycling site for proper disposal. (Source: WND.com)
But there is a underlying issue on the disposal of the CFL bulbs-increased taxes!
The most-immediate hazard from the CFL bulbs may be to Brits' pocketbooks. It costs about $1,300 to properly dispose of one municipal recycling bin full of bulbs – a figure that is sure to increase residents' tax bills. (Source: WND.com)
By Alan Caruba
In lieu of the assassination of Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto, it is necessary once again for those in the West to gain some insight into the culture of Islam and, in particular, of the Middle East. What can be easily observed is the abject refusal to take any responsibility for anything done in the name of Islam.
While the memory of September 11, 2001 recedes for Americans, our British cousins have been subjected to a number of Islamic terrorist acts since then. On July 7, 2005, there were four separate suicide bombings in London that killed 56 people and injured 700. More recently, on June 30, 2007, there was the attack on the Glasgow International Airport in Scotland.
On December 27th I received an email from the London School of Islamics with a text by Iftkhar Ahmad titled “Terrorist V Terrorism.” It is a window into the mind of Muslims living in the United Kingdom.
“The recent events have strengthened the prejudiced belief that ‘Islam is the religion of the sword”, said Ahmad who asserted that, “Islamophobia is not only a cause of discrimination against Muslims, but also an open threat to world peace.” The peace of the Middle East has once again been put in jeopardy by the instability of Pakistan. One might conclude that American and British troops are in Afghanistan because of an open threat to world peace posed by al Qaeda and the spread of Islamism, but not Ahmad.