JSINGOOD

2009-08-27T15:35:00.000-07:00

Despite multiple "tax hike" referendums failing at the voting booth, the leftist tyrants that lord over the state of California are fully prepared to completely ignore all common sense and the will of the electorate, and screw its citizens:

Even higher taxes coming for Californians

Lower brackets and reduced deductions mean yet higher payments to Sacramento for 2009.

By Shane Goldmacher

August 27, 2009

Reporting from Sacramento - While Californians are still feeling the sting of income and sales tax hikes signed into law earlier this year, now comes news that state tax authorities plan to take a little more from their pockets.

For only the second time in 30 years, the tax board is lowering the point where each tax bracket begins, bumping many people into a higher category. At the same time, officials are cutting back some deductions. Everyone will pay more, even people whose bracket or income doesn't change.

Highest taxes in the nation already, and these morons still feel it isn't enough already. Jesus.

But wait, you racists, you haven't funded this diamond rings for crackwhores program fully. The $200K a year bureaucrats in charge of this necessary government safety net are specialer than you or your children or your mortgage, so we'd like to rape your personal income budget just a wee bit more.

And these are the sort of politicians and administrators that Obamacare supporters think could effectively and responsibly run a national socialized health care system?

Riiiiiiiight.

Ted's dead, baby. Ted's dead.

2009-08-26T13:29:00.001-07:00

Ted Kennedy bites the big one:

HYANNIS PORT, Mass. – Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, last surviving brother in an American political dynasty and one of the most influential senators in history, died at his home on Cape Cod after a yearlong struggle with brain cancer. He was 77.

Oddly, I think I hated this moron more for his tyrannical, anti-liberty politics than the for fact that he murdered Mary Jo Kopechne, but, in my defense, that crash was ancient history to someone my age. It still certainly colors my emotions towards him as a public figure. I can't sympathize with or get behind the outpouring of grief for this dirtbag, any more than I could for Michael Jackson or other celebrities that get away with major crimes. I might be a little more gracious of someone of his cloth without an incident like this coloring my views. But who knows. I was so disgusted by the mean-spirited comments from leftists that I read about Robert Novak after his passing, I feel absolutely no obligation to be the least bit diplomatic when it comes to liberal-fascist political figures any longer.

Still, though, as tragic, unforgivable and vile his actions were that night in 1969 on Martha’s Vineyard, it was really his leftist politics that have damaged this nation much more than his drunken escapades and lack of morality turned deadly. So many of his stances on various issues eschewed the notions of individual freedom and responsibility, and promoted the growing in loco parentis Meta-State which threatens all logic and personal choice. He has favored creating a bloated and restrictive socialist health care system over tort reform or the minimizing of federal interstate commerce interference. He supported bitterly inane school busing programs which made political pawns of peoples' children and only furthered racial divides and ill will. His attitudes on illegal immigration were almost frightening in their irrationality and unmerited arrogance. He was constantly behind the state theft of personal income via taxation, and redistributing wealth to ineffective government programs and labyrinthine bureaucracy, all the while feigning altruism.

I cannot, in any fashion, say I'm the least bit moved by Kennedy's death. I do however, as in any instance like this, feel for the family, and wish them my condolences.

Obama-nazis going after Glenn Beck

2009-08-13T15:33:00.000-07:00

Glenn Beck calls dickhead Obama a "racist," which is exactly what he is, and Obama's leftist media cronies go after him with a threat of a boycott.

Let's ignore the fact that anyone disagreeing with the left on anything has been labeled a racist for decades... everyday... it's perfectly fine when they race-bait. Bush was constantly called a nazi and a racist. Same with Palin. Heck, anyone even remotely criticizing Obama on anything has been called that at least once or twice.

Heck, here's a perfect example of leftist "I don't get the irony." "Don't support those who hate." Man, I wish I could make this stuff up. Beck accusing someone else, Obama, of hate is hate. But the reverse? Naaaaaaaah.

While I'm fairly certain Fox News will stand up for Glenn Beck to some degree, more so than the shits at CNN would have, and find new advertisers, it's time to stand up against companies who support the left in their witch-hunts.

Sure, they're free to advertise where they want, and should be, but you're free to boycott them, just like the left would.

So far make sure to boycott: Travelocity, ConAgra, Roche, Radio Shack, Sanofi-Aventis, SC Johnson, Progressive Insurance & Geico.

Hey, Geico, fuck you and your little lizard. And Radio Shack, you only sell crap anyway.

Update:

The race-baiting entitlement-whores at the NAACP got in on the Beck-bashing.

Mr. Beck’s statement was irresponsible and inflammatory at a time when as a nation we are attempting to engage in a constructive dialogue on race.

Really? Here's an idea, fuckwits - if this is in anyway true, how about getting folks on the left to apologize for calling anyone that doesn't agree with their policies and positions on race "racist" like every second of every day, and ending the practice in the future?

Beck’s statements are an attempt to divide when we need to be united, an attempt to inflame with rhetoric when we need to discuss with thoughtfulness the serious question of race.

Is that what calling someone a "racist" does? Gee, geese, look at them ganders.

It is a futile effort to distract from the serious issues of health care, the economy and the environment – issues that President Obama is tackling with foresight and fortitude.

Riiiiiiight. Because bringing up some minor comment made by a talk-show host in one little segment, calling people to arms to boycott his show, is really, really, really focusing on the above-mentioned "serious issues." I mean, that wouldn't be distracting at all, to make a big deal over a word tossed about by the left on a daily basis, would it?

How could the President be a racist?

By behaving in a racist fashion, dipshits.

Only a matter of time until protesters get called "terrorist"

2009-08-07T10:05:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, when I mentioned how dipshit Harry Reid had accused American citizens exercising their right to free speech and assembly of sabotaging the democratic process, I almost said "it'll only be a matter of time before some dickwad calls us 'terrorists'." And the only reason I didn't was because I actually decided it was TOO obvious to mention.

But who is the massive asswipe, whose mother must have been a syphilis ridden whore to have produced an offspring with such a warped mind (ha ha, I'm better at name-calling than you are!), who actually did call those criticizing the Democratic attempt to socialize health care "political terrorists"?

Steven Pearlstein at the Washington Post.

I'm not even going to bother to counter his inane editorial. At least not until he and his paper apologizes to me and everyone else who does not support this proposed continued rape of taxpayer income and personal freedom masquerading as "reform." Even if he were absolutely correct in his reasoning for supporting the current plan, which he is not, it is beyond offensive to be labeling anyone exercising their right to free speech as "terrorists," whatever their motives. Unless they're blowing up buildings, or shooting up daycare centers, or whatever, they're not terrorists, they're just folks actively engaged at speaking out against and stopping legislation - even if we assume their motives are selfish or corrupt - which you are free to do. But selfishness or protesting or preventing legislation from passing within legal means wouldn't be terrorism. It's called liberty.

Steven, your mother is a fucking assmuncher. How's that feel? How's it feel to see someone you probably love and respect insulted? My grandparents are completely against this plan too. And they're like 80. They're not terrorists. Fuck you.

Of course, these are just words. He'll defend his while decrying mine, I'm sure. He can obviously dish it out, so he'd better get used to taking it. Well, I'm guessing from his stupidity, he probably takes donkey cocks up the ass on weekends, but I have no real way of verifying that.

In any case, it's great these idiots keep mentioning how we'll get to keep private insurance. Wow. We'll get to pay our own insurance costs, AND pay extra taxes to cover fuckers who refuse to insure themselves. Wheeee.

Get it yet?

Speaking of Health Care...

2009-08-06T15:24:00.000-07:00

Jumping on the Democratic Party's new "Protesters are the New Child Molester" strategic talking point bandwagon, Senate Majority Leader & world-class champion ass-clown Harry Reid declares dissent to health care "reform" as a threat to the nebulous "democratic process," by which of course he means, to the Federal government stealing your income by way of taxes, taking control of your personal lives, and shoving another bloated government program down your throats despite the fact that a major chunk of the population is completely uninterested in giving up their individual liberty and personal freedom - or in giving up on the free market and replacing it with a tyrannical socialist system.

WASHINGTON – The Senate's most powerful Democrat on Thursday scolded health care protesters dogging his party's lawmakers at local meetings, arguing that some critics on the political right have run out of ideas — and ditched their civic manners. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada accused the protesters of trying to "sabotage" the democratic process.

In case you're wondering, yes, Harry Reid really is that much of a dick. Amazed yet by the arrogance and short-term memory loss displayed by these idiotic douchebags? I've already addressed the irrationality of this line of argument, but still, "sabotage"? How on Earth does expressing opinions or protesting "sabotage" democracy?

Make sure flag@whitehouse.gov hears about this fishy post!!!

Chilling: All of a Sudden, the Democratic Party thinks Protests are BAD

2009-08-06T10:10:00.000-07:00

Health Debate Produces Angry Protests, Angry Retorts
The Earth-scorching August firefight over health care has given rise to questions about the point at which stifling civil discussion damages the democratic process.

The Democratic Party supports free speech and free assembly, but only when such activities are in support of the Party. Dissenters of course should not be allowed to speak freely or rally against opinions and policies which have been approved by our glorious leaders. Freedom only works when it is completely controlled by a One Party State.

"Organized mobs across the country are intimidating lawmakers, disrupting events, and silencing discussions about the change our country needs," one Obama campaign aide wrote in an e-mail to supporters in Michigan.

Be careful to note the inclusion of phraseology regarding content of the message of the protesters, "change our country needs." The sin, it is implied, is not in organizing mobs, intimidating tyrants, disrupting bullshit staged propaganda clambakes, or silencing one-sided speeches masquerading as "discussions," the sin is that these activities are aimed at the not-to-be-questioned "change our country needs."

But really? "Disrupting events" is now a major crime to these people?

Because, gee whiz, Democrat supporters have never, ever, ever, ever protested, or rallied, or shouted down lawmakers, or disrupted an assemblage supporting some agenda with which they disagreed, or attempted to silence discussion in any forum (well, except right here, right now on that last one). Right? I mean, I couldn't perform an internet search right now and find a single example of that ever happening, correct?

I'm not even going to get into the irony embedded in the phrase "organized mob." Hint, though, remember that mobs are by definition "disorderly." But it's the sort of colorful, somewhat sarcastic turn of phrase I might use at my most smart-assed, so I'll give them a pass.

In typical leftist fashion, though, the Democratic Party plays the victimization card for the umpteenth time here, whining about "intimidation," while at the very same time, calling their supporters to arms to show up at meetings, and to turn in information about dissenters to the White House thought-police. It's altogether amusing that the Democratic Party has attempted to portray these "mobs" as puppets of special interests and corporations, ignoring their grassroots formation, thus the in this context insulting "organized" modifier, while at the same attempting to organize their own mobs to counter these allegedly (although unproven to be) "organized" mobs.

The hypocrisy astounds.

If the Democratic Party was at all interested in legitimate discussion and brainstorming about reforming health care, why don't they invite people who oppose the plan onto the podium as well, and make it an honest debate? Hmmmmm? Why are they in such a hurry to push through the plan as currently composed while decrying any analysis of any of the specifics or details (such as the "diversity" clauses, the funding for illegal immigrant health care, etc.)?

Now, let it be known, I really have no problem with politicians of any ilk calling supporters together to promote agendas. I mean, great, involve the voters actively in the political process. Bring it to the people, and let the people respond. Get those who care strongly about an issue out of their chairs and onto the floor. But why whine about some other guy's body order when you yourself forgot to shower?

It just kind of sort of makes you look incredibly fucking stupid.

"What's legitimate dissent is something that provides for constructive dialogue in advancing the discussion on health insurance reform," [Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee] said.

Hey, motherfucker, who the motherfuck are you to tell the public what is and is not legitimate dissent? Who the motherfuck are you, you arrogant shitbrained ass, to define "legitimate" as only that which advances your agenda? FUCK YOU. Guess what? Maybe some people are not at all interested in advancing the discussion on your view of change. Guess what? Maybe some people don't trust you enough to believe you would even remotely take "constructive dialogue" into consideration. I don't think you will, honestly.

Has the Democratic Party offered anything remotely resembling "constructive dialogue" on health care?

And in case you're wondering, yes, non-constructive dialogue is as protected a liberty as constructive dialogue. And The Man don't get to pick which is which.

It's like all of a sudden, Democrats grew a flippin' conscience about how to respectfully treat lawmakers. You mean, in the new Obama-led nationalist socialist world order, I'm not allowed to draw little Hilter mustaches on Obama, or burn him in effigy, or portray his sasquatch of a wife as a demented vampiric whore, they way say liberals have done to Bush and Palin?

Maybe a quote from some ivory tower elitist bullshitter professor will help me put it all in perspective:

But the nature of the protests suggest the GOP has run out of options for fighting on substance, said David S. Meyer, a sociology professor at the University of California-Irvine who wrote The Politics of Protest: Social Movements in America.

"In historical context, it's a tool of the weak," Meyer said. He said it is noteworthy "that conservatives have to throw this kind of Hail Mary pass to stop health care reform" in a political system that favors that status quo.

Oh, thank the mystic beaver spirits of the River Hoobastank for the infallible unbiased enlightenment of higher educators. Weakness, in this context, Mr. PhD in dumbfuckery, is measured by who is in power, not by "substance." Does this mean that during the civil rights era, blacks were not "fighting on substance" when their only option was non-violent protest?

C'mon!

And let's just ignore the fact that rather than addressing the criticisms of the Democratic health care "reform" plans, all the attacks dogs are going after the dissenters with insults. Get it? They're going after the DISSENTERS, not the DISSENT - not the content.

I mean, I'm fine with that. I'll insult the FUCK out of you if you disagree with me. But when I do, I don't run around with a diploma in no-one-gives-a-fuck pretending I'm not doing anything other than insulting. In fact, that's why I make my insults so heavy-handed and outright mean-spirited - dipshits - so that there is absolutely no illusion when I do insult; it's instantly recognized as the low-side - the humorous, emotional, more entertaining aspect of my discussion. I don't dress it up in pseudo-intellectual, University of California leftist window-dressing. I make it fun and colorful. I mean, calling someone "weak" is pretty fucking "weak." Grow a fucking state-funded pair and come up with some real manly jabs. And get a real football team at your university before using a lame, cliche football metaphor.

People are angry and are expressing their dissatisfaction with the Democrat plan for "change." They are protesting what they see as tyranny, just like millions of liberals have done for decades.

..."irony is abundant" in the role-reversal for the community-organizer in chief. "It's going to be interesting to see how the community organizer president is going to respond to communities organized by his political opponents."

That's right, motherfucker. Ha!

And like before:

If possible, please forward the URL for this blog entry to the totalitarian thought police at flag@whitehouse.gov, who want to know "[i]f you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy." I want to make sure I'm on all the right dissenter lists.

Bad Idea: Financial Times editor says most news websites will charge within a year

2009-08-06T08:06:00.000-07:00

Here's a stupid idea:

In a speech in London, Financial Times Editor Lionel Barber said that within the next 12 months, news agencies will be charging access to their websites. The only matter that will be discussed, according to the editor, is whether they should charge per month or per article or possibly even both. "I confidently predict that within the next 12 months, almost all news organisations will be charging for content."

I already ignore news sites that currently charge. Heck, I often ignore sites that force you to register and log-in to read, even if it's free. Big media is trying to control information - but it's only going to drive people to more blogs (which are by nature, more one-sided and editorial in nature - regardless of the political slant). The model news agencies employ for television should work on the internet. Allow free access and sell advertising space. And you know what, any major news agency that doesn't charge when others start to will see a huge increase in traffic, and thus a huge increase in revenues.

This is what the political machines want. They want information limited, so that they can control public knowledge and dissent. Television and newspaper hope that by reigning in the internet, they'll drive people back to their dying media (paper, broadcast, cable...).

Less scrupulous interneters are just going to cut-and-paste relevant sections of stories into blogs and forums anyway.

"News" as a commodity is increasingly becoming a thing of the past - especially unbiased even-handed, straight-facts reporting. The supply online is limitless. But the demand for perspective and consolidated forums will be there, and that's what they need to focus on - getting hits so that people see those little money producing ads.

All this will do is put the final nail in the coffin of big news media.

Health Care "Insurance Reform"

2009-08-04T13:47:00.000-07:00

Good news on the Big Brother front, Chairman MAObama wants you to turn in your neighbor if he doesn't agree with the socialization of health care: http://bit.ly/3exiaD

According to the White House "blog":

For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them.

Keeping our current plans, for the record, morons, is hardly the only complaint about this massive turd of a plan. Nor is the president "consistently" saying something to counter complaints about what the bill itself actually says.

This bill will burden the tax-payer with massively inefficient governmental bureaucracy and costs. Change is not necessarily "reform." We need to move in the right direction to reduce the costs of medical care - reducing federal regulations which drive up health care and insurance costs, and tort reform to reduce frivolous lawsuits, which run in the billions. Reduce taxes, so that individuals and families can afford to make their own health care choices, rather than have their wallets raided to pay for unnecessary programs, bureaucratic middle-men and government waste.

Sure, perhaps you will be able to keep your current insurance/provider for awhile, but in the long run, this government program will bankrupt them and all private health providers, and eventually over time there will be nothing left but government-run health care.

Don't be fooled. This is a blatant seizing of power by the Feds, an attempt to further control every aspect of your private lives and your pocketbooks. And this from the supposedly "pro-choice" side of the aisle. Ha!

If possible, please forward the URL for this blog entry to the totalitarian thought police at flag@whitehouse.gov, who want to know "[i]f you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy." I want to make sure I'm on all the right dissenter lists.

The Beginning of the End

2009-03-24T15:45:00.000-07:00

You have been warned.

An Open Letter to California State Senator Christine Kehoe

2009-02-19T15:42:00.000-08:00

Dishonorable Christine Kehoe,

I see that you've raised my taxes rather than eliminating government waste - despite the fact that you morons have increased this waste by 40% in the past five years. Go fuck yourself, you evil cunt. You're a vile thief, stealing money from hard-working Californians, and pissing it away on moronic programs, the lazy, illegals who don't pay taxes, and bloated bureaucracy. And, most stupidly, all you're doing is stifling the already poor economy even more, sending more business out of state. Great job, dipshit!

A Go-Green Guide for the Hollywood Community

2009-01-28T15:45:00.001-08:00

Hilarious.

Benicio del Toro = another Hollywood douchebag

2009-01-28T09:25:00.000-08:00

While it is hardly surprising to find another leftist Hollywood actor elitist hypocrite moron spouting off sanctimonious liberal idiocy, it is amusing to see one storm off in a bitchy hissy fit when called out on his or her disassociation with reality and distorted historical revisionism.

Yeah, Benicio. Somehow in a four and a half hour film, you couldn't find time to point out that the guy you're portraying was a homicidal maniac? That's kind of like doing a five-hour miniseries about Jeffrey Dahmer, never mentioning murder and only saying that he liked to have friends over for snacks.

More Reasons to Oppose Obama and the Democrat's "Stimulus" Plan

2009-01-28T09:19:00.000-08:00

Because, deep down, did anyone really expect anything except waste, liberal fascist regulation, unfair handouts and more bloated bureaucracy from these wastes of sperm and egg?

10 Reasons to Oppose the So-Called "Stimulus" Plan

2009-01-27T15:46:00.001-08:00

The 10 Reasons

Prop 8 in a nutshell

2008-12-03T13:35:00.000-08:00

Somehow the constant bigotry against Christians by the left shows that liberals are more tolerant than those prejudiced against homosexuals?

As an agnostic and a libertarian, I've come to realize that the simple fact is that very few Californians of any political persuasion operate with even the slightest degree of rationality, compassion, tolerance or respect for liberty. There should be equal outrage over the passage of Prop 2 and the failure of Prop 4 to pass. But the fundamental rights of farmers and parents are deemed unimportant and open to fascist oppression by the left. But look at how they sing and whine when the rights of their special interest groups are curtailed by the same democratic election process.

A Must Read

2008-09-24T11:31:00.000-07:00

The Diversity Recession, or How Affirmative Action Helped Cause the Housing Crisis

Rather than make the fundamental reforms needed to help the bottom half actually become economically productive and domestically stable enough to afford to buy a home, the government tried to juice the home-ownership rate directly.

In a nutshell, rather than making any attempt to address the problem of poverty itself (and what the government should be responsible in that regard, of course, is up to much debate), any system of "objective measurements" was considered racist and discriminatory, and the Feds encouraged riskier business practices to make the system more inclusive. In other words, common sense and thoughtful, objective business practices were to blame, not actual individuals personal responsibility and incomes.

This is completely analogous to how affirmative action thinking has warped the education system. Objective measures like GPA and test scores are increasingly considered racist, and the responsibility for achievement has shifted from individual students to the institutions themselves. Rather than address any problems with academic preparation prior to college, whether with the students or the K-12 schools, universities are expected to create a level playing field, shifting the blame to an objective system, vilifying real success, diluting the quality of education for all, and creating unfairness all around.

Something to keep in mind as the Federal government, both Democrats and Republicans alike, contemplate a $700 Billion dollar bailout, at least.

Also, Michelle Malkin notes that:

"Student loans, car loans, and credit card debt have been snuck into the bailout proposal."

Obama's email hacked!!!

2008-09-19T09:49:00.000-07:00

Anonymous moves on....

Here

Biden confuses raping the taxpayer with patriotism

2008-09-18T16:09:00.000-07:00

Joe Biden, VP candidate, suggests that paying higher taxes would be patriotic for wealthier Americans. According to the braindead Senator:

It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.

Right, because all that money they've been paying all along doesn't count as being "part of the deal." Only by paying even freaking MORE can they then be considered "patriotic." Sorry, rich folk, your previous outrageously high tax payments didn't reach the threshold of patriotism. Not even a thank you do you deserve.

How much does Biden, or Obama, make? And with this statement, is he not suggesting that neither he nor Obama have been patriotic yet?

Biden also noted:

We want to take money...

Yeah, that just about sums it the fuck up.

...and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.

Back? Playing Robin Hood is hardly "back."

I'm all for lowering taxes on the middle class - and in general - though. But if you want to use the word "back," you should say something more like "we Senators are sorry for taxing the crap out of you America, and squandering it on worthlessness. Instead, we're going to lower your taxes, reduce government waste, and give you some of your money back in the form of rebates."

Biden acts like rich people somehow stole from the middle-class, when it's really the government that's been stealing from everybody.

Another good argument against the public funding of education

2008-09-18T11:34:00.000-07:00

Somehow, higher education has distorted the term "academic freedom" to mean "should have taxes and student fees fund professors with absolutely no expectation that they educate or have any job performance requirements what-so-ever" as well as "they can attempt to politically indoctrinate and belittle your children all they want, with extreme bias and a complete lack of ethical behavior - GIVE ME MONEY." Taxed citizens and tuition payers of Colorado, meet the shitheadfuck you bought and paid for.

Students in an English class at Metropolitan State College in Denver have been told to assemble criticisms of GOP vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin that "undermine" her, and students say they are concerned about the apparent bias.

"This so-called 'assignment' represents indoctrination in its purist form," said Matt Barber, director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel, whose sister, Janna, is taking the class from Andrew Hallam, a new instructor at the school.

The instructor also, according to students, is harshly critical of President Bush during his classroom English presentations. He reportedly has allowed students who identify themselves as "liberal" to deride and ridicule those who identify themselves as "conservative" or Republican.

If you were a high school teacher in San Francisco, and told students to write a paper undermining Barack Obama, (or say a radio host on a PRIVATELY owned radio station) you'd be labeled a fascist who abuses his position for the unethical purposes of brainwashing. But, hey, if you're being paid by state funds, and your students are a year older, then, hey, there should be no accountability at all.

Schwarzenegger finds his testicles

2008-09-17T15:24:00.000-07:00

Extending the state's longest budget fight, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Tuesday that he will veto a proposed state budget that "takes our problems and makes them even worse."

Story here.

While I was in no way happy with Schwarzenegger's plan to "temporarily" raise taxes, I am pleased to see him take a stand on this boondoggle of a compromise. Kudos to Republican legislatures for at least preventing any substantial tax increases. Somehow, and this is probably pure fantasy on my part, these morons, especially the Democrats, in Sacramento need to learn that taxation, especially outrageously high taxes, are an affront to personal liberty and responsibility, and that high taxes along with reckless spending and waste only further slow the economy. It is disgraceful that our elected officials have been nothing but irresponsible with their spending - throwing away money disgracefully and irresponsibly on ineffective program after ineffective program, special interest handout after special interest handout.

At a news conference, Schwarzenegger initially said that he would kill all the bills on his desk if legislators override his budget veto.
Pressed on the issue, Schwarzenegger seemed to soften his stance. More than 800 bills await his approval or veto this month.

Initially, Arnie found both his balls, then lost one as it rolled back under his dress. Girly man.

Probably the scariest reminder in this article is that while these dipshits in Sacramento cannot balance the budget (hint, dumbfucks: CUT, CUT, CUT - SPEND ONLY WHAT YOU HAVE - THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH BLOOD LEFT IN THE TAXPAYERS YOU FUCKING VAMPIRES), the idiots managed to pass 800 NEW bills that they'd like to see passed into law. It's like watching a retarded child continuously running into a sliding glass door, unable to learn from his own mistakes and pain. 800 fucking times. A year! For fucking decades!!!

Dear Sacramento,

Thanks for the highest taxes in nation!!!! And thanks even more for pissing it all away. Hell, pissing away more than is even in the bladder!!!! YAY! I'm thrilled to be living under your iron fist and your vast stupidity. I mean, if you actually spent the money on something USEFUL, like roads, or law enforcement, or fire protection, I might even not complain as much. But, shit, even as you rape our increasingly starved asses, you can't even provide us with the basics. No, no, no.

Oh yeah, quit banning everything under the sun, like foie gras, lightbulbs and trash bags, you ignorant, totalitarian nazi fucks.

Love,

Me!

PS: As long as I'm ranting, Rage Against The Machine is totally the suckiest band in the universe.

Janeane Garofalo = Stupid Bitch

2008-09-17T13:54:00.000-07:00

Yes, yes, little Ms. Funny-As-A-Car-Accident proves to be the world's biggest fucking hypocrite, and a completely deranged shithead, by suggesting that Republicans are less "decent" than Democrats and that the Republican party has become "a party of small minded, very petty, mean... unrestrained id." Right, because mean-spirited, sweeping generalizations are just the epitome of decency, open-mindedness and logical thought.

David Foster Wallace commits suicide

2008-09-16T15:49:00.000-07:00

John Ziegler, who was the subject of a long-winded, inane hit-piece by the douchebag David Foster Wallace, has his reaction here.

Political Correctness in, Education out

2008-09-10T14:21:00.000-07:00

Far too few people are paying attention to the liberal fascism that is going on in higher education nowadays. Thankfully, there are a still a few out there who value personal liberty over political correctness.

As it stands, and I've seen this in action at the state university where I work, affirmative action/social justice political litmus tests have been put in place in the hiring practices of faculty and staff.

As Daphne Patai puts it:
"It's hard to say just when universities ceased to believe that education was a worthwhile mission. But that they have done so is beyond question. Among many signs of this reality is the anxiety to redefine the university's task. After all, educators who no longer expect or demand serious intellectual effort from their students are bound to look elsewhere for ways to justify their existence and that of their institutions. Enter the language of "community engagement," "outreach," "social justice," and "equity" (to name just a few of the terms now used as rallying cries on many campuses)."

Read this now!

More University of California Diversinsanity

2008-09-04T13:58:00.000-07:00

UCLA violates state law and all semblance of ethical, fair behavior in order to grant special hiring and admission privileges to African-Americans. Who would have guessed such behavior from bigoted, reverse discriminating, immoral, mindless left-wing, ivory tower douchebags? Equality, ha! Special entitlements, check.

I'll tell you what, similar bullshit is going on at the other University of California campuses as well. Especially San Diego, where you are even beginning to see political litmus tests in hiring practices.

Barack Obama Tries to Save His Own Butt

2008-03-18T13:32:00.001-07:00

Bubbleheaded propagandist Barack Obama did his best to distance himself from his despicable, radical, twisted pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, in a 40-minute speech in Philadelphia today.

Obama proved himself again to be very good at dodging the issue, piling on the fluff and avoiding talking about specifics of his own views and plans. So much of the speech was about how other people, even his grandmother, think and have behaved, and why - but hardly really touched upon HOW voting for him, as opposed to Clinton or McCain, would in any way bring more positive CHANGE on race relations in America. Well, he did evoke the specter of educational funding at some point. Obama is well-versed in double-speak - all the while decrying divisiveness (which I suppose to him means people not completely agreeing with him), there were plenty of implications of societal or structural blame tossed around, at conservative pundits, at “segregated schools,” etc.

Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. ..... He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.

Sure you can, Obama, you liar. Despite painting Wright as some super-metaphor representing heterogeneous Black America, and all its varied views - Wright is nothing of the sort. He is NOT the entirety of the "black community," he is merely one black man with a following - a man and a congregation with ugly, vile, malicious ideas. This is all part of Obama's eloquent subterfuge - he danced around the issues without really saying anything of substance or committing to a stance.

And, he implies that somehow disowning this psychopath is equivalent to disowning the entire black community? This is the same piss-poor logic applied so often by minority apologists who claim that holding a minority up to any standard (like, say, OJ Simpson) is somehow the same as condemning the entire race. Any criticism of one, for holding someone accountable for his views, opinions and/or actions, is to be viewed as an attack on the entire race. And, somehow, it's everyone BUT Obama that is racist or "divisive."

Sadly, a lot of people with their eyes closed will be fooled by his smooth, empty rhetoric, and will believe just that.

Myths and Facts About Affirmative Action, Deconstructed

2008-03-11T11:27:00.000-07:00

Recently, race-baiting, irrational co-workers and the Affirmative Action Office at the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) condemned a janitor for reading a history book during his break about the KKK. This book, mind you, was nothing promoting the Klan in any fashion, but simply a book about one struggle against the Klan. Yet, African American employees and their kindred knee-jerkists at the AAO found the very subject of the book, regardless of content, and the very act of innocently reading the book (despite the fact that keeping aware of the unsavory aspects of American history is often encouraged by supporters of events like Black History Month), to be an incident of racial harassment. This insanity was compounded by the fact that this janitor was never given the benefit of the doubt (they even ignored his attempts to explain what the book was really about), and assumed guilty without any sort of fair hearing and in complete disregard of his own civil rights.

Now anyone familiar with the activities of affirmative action advocates and the Orwellian left-wing indoctrination techniques common today in higher education will hardly be surprised - outraged, for sure - but not shocked. The Big Brother of the diversity movement has become increasingly totalitarian and outright fascist in its desire to control and punish Caucasians for being white, and to expand power over individual thought and opinion.

What sort of justification do these bigot-nazis give for their behavior and strong-arm tactics? Take a look, for instance, at this wretched document on the website of the AAO of IUPUI, entitled The Myths and Facts about Affirmative Action, to gain some insight in their irrational thinking.

For example, they claim:

MYTH: Affirmative action is reverse discrimination, it gives preferential treatment to people of color and women.

FACT: Racism is power plus discrimination.

Using the "to be" verb does not make it so. Racism is defined as "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others." Discrimination, or more specifically racial discrimination, is the practice of applying that attitude by the use of power via policy and/or oppression. Racism is the attitude that, with power, can lead to discrimination. But the attitude can exist regardless of discriminating behavior or application of power.

The parameters of discrimination based on race are distinguished by the power dynamics. Reverse racism is not, therefore a reality if people of color are not in positions of power and perpetrating the discrimination. An Urban Institute study shows that less that 100 of 3000 cases could be considered reverse discrimination. Less that six of those cases were deemed by the court to be substantiated.

The last two sentences here completely annihilate the assertion made in the sentences preceding them. Regardless of how accurate or up-to-date the findings of this vaguely referred to study may or may not be - showing that "reverse racism" is not as prevalent as "forward racism" (for lack of a better term) is in no way equivalent to showing that it does not exist at all. The implication that "people of color are not in positions of power" is of course a bogus point, as there are people of color (to use their phrase) in power over others not of the same ethnicity as themselves, even whites. And, the study only seems to address non-institutionalized, direct discrimination, rather than affirmative action as institutionalized discrimination. So, the AAO is using a study that already assumes that affirmative action is not reverse discrimination to prove that there is no reverse discrimination. Convenient.

Affirmative action has been mislabeled "preferential treatment" for certain members of society. ... Affirmative action is an attempt to facilitate a more level playing field.

The level playing field metaphor is an old chestnut amongst affirmative action advocates - but the problem here is that it is just that - metaphor. These people's conceptions of what constitutes a level playing field can only be described as nothing but "preferential treatment" for certain groups. It is not enough to provide equal opportunity, in their eyes, which is all a level playing field really is. Affirmative action supporters wish to rearrange the rules of the game played on the field so that one team is favored, and to do so in a manner in which individual talent, training and hard work are disregarded in favor of team preference and membership. A "level playing field" would not assume all players must play at the same level - only that the rules do not favor one team or another. They don't want a level playing field - they merely want to switch which team is favored.

Affirmative action recognizes the interconnectedness of race, class, gender. Many of the symbolic gates are beyond reach due to economic disparity which in turn is one of the effects of racism. We cannot divorce these interconnected issues from one another.

But one must, if one is truly to be equal and fair. The fact of the matter is that economic disparity is not solely caused by racial discrimination, past or present, and affirmative action only assigns group blame and preferential treatment on this one potential cause out of many for poverty. In such a systematically racist approach, all people of one race are given extra credit for their ethnic or gender status, regardless of whether or not they are of a low income. And, people of another race are assigned blame, and are punished for their status, regardless of whether or not they had any hand personally in ever engaging in any sort of racial discrimination, and, even worse, regardless of their own economic status. Poor whites - who may or may not be in that boat for racial reasons - are not given the special consideration rich blacks are. If economic disparity is truly unfair, it should only be judged on the level of the individual. Assumptions cannot be made as to who benefits and who does not based on race.

How do you divorce all these issues from one another? By treating people as individuals rather than as members of groups. Asserting connectedness based on race only furthers a racist, or group-membership, mentality.

In the UC system, race and ethnicity are not solely considered for admissions.

For the past decade, thanks to a change in California law, race and ethnicity are not considered at all for admissions - although the quota mentality is still prevalent amongst UC administrators who look for back-door alterations in the admissions process in order to achieve ethnic quota goals - using now alternative, "holistic" (i.e., bullshit) criteria to put academic success and individual achievement on the back-burner in favor of squishy "background characteristics."

Other criteria such as socio-economic level, state residency, special abilities, disabilities, familial ties and athletic ability are used in determining admissions. These supplemental criteria benefit everyone, not only people of color.

Such criteria hardly benefits everyone - but of course, equating every group with every individual is the bigotted, racist failing of most supporters of affirmative action. These criteria benefit those who fall into all those specific categories. Just because they're not race-based does not mean they benefit everyone - they merely benefit a few from all ethnic groups. That's a very big difference. They're confusing subsets for the whole.

MYTH: I have a friend/brother/sister/____(fill in the blank) who was qualified for the job/college but didn't get it because the position went to a person of color or a woman.

FACT: Many of us have heard this statement or made it ourselves. It's a logical error to apply what happens to a few individuals to the entire society.

Of course, statements such as these are made to highlight the effects of societal policies upon real-world individuals - to reveal the injustice faced by real people as a result of what the entire society does.

Oddly, though, the AAO does not apply this same logical standard that they present to their own justifications for affirmative action programs. It would be a logical error, by their own claim, to assign the blame for discrimination, when it does occur, to the entire society - in other words, it is illogical to create policies that assign blame to everyone rather than anyone who directly discriminates.

When it comes right down to it, affirmative action supporters cannot see the individual, and have no regard for a person's rights - they are as racist as the Klan, seeing people only as segments of a "group," where all groups members are to be accountable for the actions of the others, and oppressed accordingly.

How Affirmative Action, Beyond Being Intrinsically Racist, Breeds Disrespect and Doubt

2008-03-07T10:56:00.001-08:00

From an article in the Harvard Crimson:

Whatever the benefits of affirmative action, one undeniable downside is the element of disrespect it introduces onto our campus.

This week’s appointment of Professor of the History of Science and of African and African American Studies Evelynn M. Hammonds as Dean of Harvard College was greeted mostly with disinterest; students tend to ignore the vicissitudes of administrative hiring.

But on one Harvard mailing list to which I subscribe, an impassioned 28-message e-brawl broke out. The subject was the relevance of the most visible attributes of our new dean—her race and gender—to her appointment.

“Who…is Evelyn Hammonds?” the provocative e-mail began, “I’ve never seen her even mentioned in connection with undergraduate affairs, and it seems…crazy that they passed over people like [Harvard College Professor] Jay [M.] Harris to choose her.”

This was followed by a coda intended to provoke: “Wait, hold the phone, she’s black? And a woman? Oh, nevermind then.”

A reply arrived within six minutes. “Right, you know nothing about her, ergo it’s affirmative action. Why don’t you try engaging on substance instead of crass identity politics?”

It is interesting to see how those that advocate affirmative action in hiring and university admissions hypocritically turn around and consider any mention of these often institutionalized and legislated practices "crass" and taboo when discussing specific hires. If one sees affirmative action as a necessity of some sort, then why decry mention of such standards when they may benefit a particular candidate? They want elements such as race, gender and orientation to be considered, yet fail to see how logic dictates that if group status is not only a legitimate but in many cases a required factor in the selection process, then it is hardly unreasonable to conclude that such may well have played a role in the final decision.

Of course, despite institutionalized affirmative action, or even just non-regulated external pressures to make decisions that "promote diversity," one should not assume, without concrete evidence, that in any particular case group status is ever the sole reason for a decision, or even the deciding factor. But what affirmative action and "diversity" advocacy do, since the process is never entirely transparent, is generate suspicion about the validity and fairness of the process. This in turn leads to a disrespect of the system and misgivings about the decision-makers. It is misguided to simply assume Hammonds was hired because she was a black female - but it is no way misguided to question whether or not her race and gender played a role when advocates and often regulations suggest they should.

More Shenanigans from University Residence Life Indoctrinators

2008-03-04T09:51:00.000-08:00

The National Association of Scholars has issued an excellent inside look at the Second Annual Residential Curriculum Institute, co-sponsored by co-sponsored by the American College Personnel Association (ACPA). During one session, FIRE! (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) was accused of "hate, fear, ignorance, and stupidity" as well as having "ties to white supremacy groups." FIRE!, one may recall, did an excellent job exposing the strong-arm leftist indoctrination programs run by the militant nitwits at the University of Delaware Residence Life, as well as keeping tabs on similar attempts at brain-washing on campuses across the nation.

[One] speaker said that directors in res life should simply declare what the "learning outcomes" are for first year students. She offered a six-point model: self-awareness, inter-personal skills, diversity, citizenship, social appreciation, sustainability. Lesson plans could be created to realize each of these. Yet another participant suggested that a good learning outcome would be, "Students must acknowledge power and privilege." Still another participant pointed out that res life need not focus all its energy on proving what it accomplishes with freshmen. After all, "We keep them on campus their freshman and sophomore years, so we have a captive audience for two years."

Modern University Resident Life administrators are increasingly seeing themselves not as administrators or landlords, but as educators equal to faculty who have the right to turn living areas and student's personal time into classroom-like indoctrination centers:

Said one speaker, "We are educators, and we do not need permission [from faculty] to educate, and we certainly do not need to apologize for it."

The NAS assesses it thusly, and I agree wholeheartedly:

The mischief that ACPA invites and encourages is its prescription for a regimented combination of intrusive techniques, single-minded focus on the race-class-gender-sexual preference, and ecological friendliness of students, and a highly ideological stance to what kinds of identities and social attitudes it would like to flourish. The result is an asphyxiating microcosm of the nanny state moved into the campus dormitory.

It is an ironic outcome for many res-life officials who pride themselves on their political progressivism, but who in their workaday lives have become ardent apostles of social control. They condone without a second thought many kinds of social license that would have been anathema to an earlier generation of college officials, but at the same time they deny freedom of conscience and freedom of speech to many in their charge. Res life officials at the Frazer meeting complained about helicopter parents who remain an intrusive presence in the lives of their college-age children. But it appears to be a kind of professional jealousy, since the res lifers themselves are a constant, hovering presence in the lives of the students.

The time has come to demand "academic freedom" and individual rights for students at the university level. The purpose of higher education is to educate, not indoctrinate or even attempt to shape the personal and political beliefs of individual students. A tolerant, open environment should be encouraged for each to find and follow their own path. Counselors should be available for those seeking assistance - it should not be assumed that those that may think differently or have different agendas are necessarily in need of help, especially if they don't think the way administrators believe they should.

It simply amazes me how many times liberals in this country scream "fascist" whenever discussing right-wing, conservative or libertarian ideals, but when given a position of even the slightest power, these same liberals engage in the most totalitarian, anti-freedom activities they are able to get away with (and often many they cannot for very long).

Defining Diversity Down

2008-01-16T09:52:00.000-08:00

There was a terrific op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal last week regarding the "dumbing down" of University of California admissions standards, putting skin color above academic preparedness and achievement, in order to achieve the vague goal of "greater diversity."

The world gets more competitive every day, so why would California's education elites want to dumb down their public university admissions standards? The answer is to serve the modern liberal piety known as "diversity" while potentially thwarting the will of the voters.

The University of California Board of Admissions is proposing to lower to 2.8 from 3.0 the minimum grade point average for admission to a UC school. That 3.0 GPA standard has been in place for 40 years. Students would also no longer be required to take the SAT exams that test for knowledge of specific subjects, such as history and science.
....
Instead, the UC Board of Admissions proposal sounds like a declaration of academic surrender. It's one more depressing signal that liberal elites have all but given up on poor black and Hispanic kids. Because they don't think closing the achievement gap is possible, their alternative is to reduce standards for everyone. Diversity so trumps merit in the hierarchy of modern liberal values that they're willing to dumb down the entire university system to guarantee what they consider a proper mix of skin tones on campus.

A decade ago, California voters spoke clearly that they prefer admissions standards rooted in the American tradition of achievement. In the months ahead, the UC Board of Regents will have to decide which principle to endorse, and their choice will tell us a great deal about the future path of American society.

I didn't quote the entire article in full, but it is really worth a quick read. The scariest thing about this is that these are unelected state bureaucrats who are circumventing state law, common sense and the will of the voters with their bigoted, dumb-shit plan to put pigmentation before talent, intelligence, academic achievement and hard work. Beyond how just plain stupid, unfair and destructive this plan is, what is even more troublesome is that these morons really believe they have a right to put their weirdo political bias above the will of the people whose taxes and student fees pay their for their salaries and ivory tower fantasy-world isolation..

University of California admissions process discriminates against whites and asians

2007-11-08T09:35:00.000-08:00

The UC's current "holistic" approach to admissions is discriminating
against whites and asians, and is in clear violation of prop 209. Look no further than the new freshman enrollment numbers for UC San Diego for 2007. After remaining steady for a number of years, the number of African Americans magically jumped to 72 this year, from 44
in 2006. Mexican American numbers increased from 388 to 431. However, Asians dropped from 2,080 to 1,945; Filipinos decreased from 221 to 183; Undeclared (probably mostly white and asian) from 429 to 386. Caucasians dramatically went from 1,283 to 989. 989 is a mere 24% of
this population - it was 42% 10 years ago. Caucasians are grossly underrepresented compared to the state population proportions, high school enrollment and eligible California high school
graduates. Somehow, we are expected to believe that the system is fair and people are assessed on an objective, unbiased manner - yet, somehow, admissions evaluators managed to enroll nearly 300 less white students this year than last.

Lest we forget, 209 reads: 'The state shall not discriminate against,
or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the
basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the
operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.'

There is no clause that distinguishes between overt preferential
treatment and 'qualitative' actions specifically designed to grant
preferential treatment to certain groups. Yet, admissions officers
are intentionally reshaping admissions criteria with the declared,
expressed goal of increasing "diversity," despite that fact that to
alter the criteria for this reason violates state law. How is
reshaping the admissions process to target certain groups not
discriminatory to some and preferential to others? Academic
excellence, and verifiable evidence of academic success (test scores
and GPA) are taking a backseat to ill-defined, and mostly
unverifiable, non-academic factors. This process is given the name
"comprehensive review." In other words, biased essay readers
haphazardly assign points as they see fit, for non-academic reasons
which they cannot or are unwilling to verify. There are no real
checks and balances to ensure this process is fair or objective
across the ethnic spectrum or, as importantly, the ideological
one. There is absolutely no accountability in this current system,
and university administrators are violating the rights of California
applicants, deciding based on skin-color who deserves and does not
deserve to attend the University of California.

The UC system is clearly in danger of a lawsuit brought by white and
asian students. It will cost the state millions if this trend is not stopped.

University of Delaware Thought Police Crumble

2007-11-01T15:17:00.000-07:00

Breaking. Looks like FIRE! has achieved something of a victory in the University of Delaware mind control scandal:

A Message to the University of Delaware Community

Nov. 1, 2007

The University of Delaware strives for an environment in which all people feel welcome to learn, and which supports intellectual curiosity, critical thinking, free inquiry and respect for the views and values of an increasingly diverse population. The University is committed to the education of students as citizens, scholars and professionals and their preparation to contribute creatively and with integrity to a global society. The purpose of the residence life educational program is to support these commitments.

While I believe that recent press accounts misrepresent the purpose of the residential life program at the University of Delaware, there are questions about its practices that must be addressed and there are reasons for concern that the actual purpose is not being fulfilled. It is not feasible to evaluate these issues without a full and broad-based review.

Upon the recommendation of Vice President for Student Life Michael Gilbert and Director of Residence Life Kathleen Kerr, I have directed that the program be stopped immediately. No further activities under the current framework will be conducted.

Vice President Gilbert will work with the University Faculty Senate and others to determine the proper means by which residence life programs may support the intellectual, cultural and ethical development of our students.

Patrick Harker
President

Be wary of that last paragraph, though (emphasis mine). Sounds like those cunt-sacks Michael Gilbert and Kathleen Kerr are looking for less intrusive, less obvious ways to indoctrinate. At least maybe it will be voluntary, and even less effective, the next time around. Here's a radical idea - how about leaving students alone for five fucking minutes, and not hammering them over the head with biased, left-wing, radical ideology, and worry instead about providing necessary services? With all the money blown on idiotic programs and fuckwitted administrators to come up with them, maybe you could build a little more housing for students. Or bring a band on campus or something. Stop trying to turn every fucking kid in America into zombified liberal drone-bots, and actually provide them with bit of entertainment or an environment in which to unwind. It's bad enough they have this moronic one-sided crap (masquerading as "development") shoved up their asses in just about every class they take.

Believe it or not, it is not the job of any Student Affairs organization (trust me, I work for one) to get its brainless pawns involved in the "development" of students intellect, "culture" (whatever the fuck you think that means) or ethics. In fact, Student Affairs departments in this country have proven to be so unethical in situations like this and less extreme ones, that it's insane to think they have the ability to assess and alter their own corrupt behavior much less be able to help shape the minds of university students. These are young adults, not clay to be molded into what you want them to be.

God, the hubris of my fellow university administrators. I see it all day long. Assholes.

American College Personnel Association (ACPA): How College Administrators are Learning to Brainwash Your Children

2007-11-01T11:28:00.000-07:00

University administrators from across the country are associated with, and attend conferences put on by, the American College Personnel Association (ACPA). This vile organization, made up of like-minded individuals who feel they have the right to indoctrinate college students and shape the opinions of young people and public policy, promote conferences such as the Residential Curriculum Institute, which has been tied to the recent University of Delaware dormitory indoctrination controversy. Take a gander at some of the dreadfully Orwellian language used to describe this institute (emphasis mine):

You will have the opportunity to ... practice developing assessable learning outcomes; and examine the impact this shift in thinking and practice has on you, your department, and students. Ultimately, you will learn to uncover the opportunities to deliver educational messages in every student interaction.
---

Finally, we will provide you will a number of "take-away" resources to guide you and your department through the uncovering of your "essential education" for students and the process of an inevitable culture shift.

Take a gander at the goals and mission of this organization, and keep in mind that tax-payer funds and student fees are what are providing the membership and attendance fees - and that college administrators are using their positions, often state funded, to promote, endorse and advocate certain leftist positions and policies:

The mission of ACPA is founded upon and implements the following core values:
Core Values:

Education and development of the total student.
Diversity, multicultural competence and human dignity.
Inclusiveness in and access to association-wide involvement and decision-making.
Free and open exchange of ideas in a context of mutual respect.
Advancement and dissemination of knowledge relevant to college students and their learning, and to the effectiveness of student affairs professionals and their institutions.
Continuous professional development and personal growth of student affairs professionals.
Outreach and advocacy on issues of concern to students, student affairs professionals and the higher education community, including affirmative action and other policy issues.

The liberal bias here is incredible. This corrupt organization also puts on events such as a Conference on Multiracial and Multiple Identities as well as a Tools for Social Justice Conference.

Fear for the minds of our youth. And pay close attention at the subversive manner in which public policy is being shaped, and fairness and open-mindedness are being slowly dismantled by the fascist left.

Scumbag Michael A. Gilbert at the University of Delaware Responds

2007-10-31T15:57:00.000-07:00

It did not take long for an idiot at the University of Delaware to respond to the recent controversy regarding the university's attempts to indoctrinate students. Here is an article suggesting that their programs actually ENCOURAGE free speech:

Residence life program encourages free speech

3:27 p.m., Oct. 31, 2007--The University of Delaware residential life educational program has been misrepresented and its goals distorted in a report generated this week by an advocacy group, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
----
"The central mission of the University, and of the program, is to cultivate both learning and the free exchange of ideas," said Michael A. Gilbert, vice president for student life at the University. "Far from stifling free speech, the residential life educational program seeks to encourage free speech."

Anyone who has even glanced at the "program" can see what an outrageous claim this is. The very documents used are written not to "encourage learning" nor a "free exchange of ideas," but instead encourage reprogramming of thought and a stifling of any sort of unbiased, "free" exchange of ideas. There are specific "ideas" being promoted, and a belittling of contrary, "unacceptable" ideas. This would be fine for an editorial or an essay, but it is hardly the providence of taxpayer funded administrators to endorse or promote specific modes of thought - and to viciously and systematically attack others.

And as was determined, free speech was not encouraged - were the RAs ever given the opportunity to decide upon topics, even? No, they were expected to promote a specific, and idiotic, ideology, and were expected to try to sway students to this particular point of view. There was no opportunity for free debate - students were lectured at by those in positions of power, not even educators, and told what to think.

Students who choose to participate in the residence life educational program are not required to adopt any particular points of view but are presented with a range of ideas to challenge them and stimulate conversation and debate so that students can reflect on various topics, including diversity.

Anyone suggesting that these students were presented with "a range of ideas" is a motherfucking lying sack of shit. They were presented with an extremely biased, radical, narrow set of ideas and questions - just look at the materials and first person student accounts. Was there even the slightest attempt to "challenge" students that didn't already hold the "correct ideas"? No.

"Our goal as educators is to expose students to ideas and to engage them in self-examination of the roles they hope to take in society once they leave our campus," Gilbert said.

Another lie is provided here from a braindead leftist administrator. The goal here was to expose certain students to certain ideas, not all students to different ideas. "Self-examination" was never encouraged for students that already felt the way Gilbert and his social engineering ilk feel. The phrase "they hope" here is laughable. No, it's much more about what Orwellian campus thought police - student individual hopes and conscience never entered into the equation.

Students in residence halls are not forced to participate, and certainly are not forced to agree with any particular point of view. Students are faced with questions, but the answers to these questions are their own. There are no "correct" answers.

Another lie. Students were told that meetings were "mandatory", over and over again, by university figures (the RAs). University officials promoted the program as different from "voluntary" ones. People not providing "'correct' answers" were considered troublemakers. Certain idealogical "outcomes" were expected.

"The notion that students at the University of Delaware can be coerced into any one point of view does a great disservice not only to the institution but also to the student body, which is bright, creative and represents a wide array of thought," Gilbert said.

No one claimed the students were not intelligent - enough of them saw right through this pathetic scheme to notify media outlets and FIRE! But they WERE coerced into attending these indoctrination seminars, and their rights were maliciously violated by an aggressive administration that sought to brainwash them. What's pathetic about this Gilbert fuckwit is that his very own policies and programs treat students as anything but "bright" or "creative." They were treated like sheep by a corrupt institution who felt it had the right to attack them FOR representing "a wide array of thought," and viciously attempted to reprogram this thought into a narrow, radical, leftist, homogeneous blob.

The residential life educational program, which has been developed with the express intent of helping students think critically and analytically, has had the input of student leaders, faculty and administrators and is continually assessed through feedback from individuals and through focus groups.

More lies. How are students served by being provided with a very narrow set of engagements with specific expected "outcomes" in opinion? Obviously, the people running this program are themselves INCAPABLE of critical or analytical thought. Here's an idea - leave the "educating" to the educators (faculty), which is biased enough already. Administrators and student leaders should focus on running the university and providing support services - not mind-control.

Michael A. Gilbert is deplorable scum of the worst sort, and all too typical of the mind-set of college administrators nowadays. Free thought is being replaced by "correct thought." Usually it is not so blatant, but this sort of stupidity is occurring across the nation.

Other Examples of the Orwellian Shift in Higher Education

2007-10-31T09:44:00.001-07:00

I've been following the excellent work FIRE! has been doing for some time now. Their exceptional campaigns to protect the freedom, liberty and individual rights of students and tax-payers in higher education through increasing public awareness and direct communication with the various fascist left-wing nutwits of academia has been nothing short of impressive and admirable. Yesterday, I posted a blog entry about the chilling reeducation camps that are the dormitories on the poorly run University of Delaware campus, another case of a clear violation of individual rights by unprincipled liberal university administrators brought to national attention via FIRE!

While keeping up-to-date on this latest vileness to be spewed forth from the darkening ivory tower, I ran across another thought-provoking editorial on the FIRE! site. One thing it provides is a disquieting summary of a few of the other horrifying attempts at brainwashing by freedom hating, mind-control freakjobs infecting US university administrations and faculty which FIRE! has come across:

At Michigan State University, for instance, students were subjected to the Student Accountability in Community (SAC) seminar, a pseudo-psychological “early intervention” for students who used “power-and-control tactics,” such as “male/white privilege” and “obfuscation,” which in the eyes of the university constituted “any action of obscuring, concealing, or changing people’s perceptions that result in your advantage and/or another’s disadvantage.” Amazingly, students could be required to attend SAC merely for, among other things, playing a practical joke or engaging in constitutionally protected speech. Not only were students required to participate in SAC sessions, at their own expense, or else risk being unable to register for classes, they also were forced to answer a series of questionnaires to describe how they were taking “full responsibility” for their actions, until they used language the session director deemed acceptable. Under pressure from FIRE, the university finally put an end to its controversial program in May 2007.

In another memorable recent case, FIRE exposed the fact that Columbia University’s Teachers College utilizes an ideological litmus test for its students, requiring them to demonstrate a “commitment to social justice” and to recognize that “social inequalities are often produced and perpetuated through systematic discrimination and justified by societal ideology of merit, social mobility, and individual responsibility.” Teachers College has to this point failed to heed FIRE’s suggestion that those “dispositions” be dropped altogether as a requirement for students. Columbia’s attempt at thought reform has been covered everywhere from The New York Times to, in an article written by Greg Lukianoff, The Chronicle of Higher Education, and its ultimate resolution will certainly be tracked closely by FIRE.

Other cases abound. At Washington State University, a student was threatened with dismissal from the College of Education in 2005 for espousing “incorrect” political beliefs, such as the idea that white privilege and male privilege do not exist. The university, by contrast, required its education students to demonstrate “an understanding of the complexities of race, power, gender, class, sexual orientation and privilege in American society.” The student was therefore subjected to diversity training and ordered to sign an agreement to follow all program “dispositions” to his professors’ approval. Only when FIRE intervened did this chilling episode of compelled speech reach a satisfactory conclusion, as the university agreed to rescind the contract and subsequently agreed to refrain from forcing students in the future to abide by the same program “dispositions.”

Likewise, in 2005, Rhode Island College’s School of Social Work attempted to force a conservative student to publicly advocate for “progressive” social changes if he wished to continue his pursuit of a master’s degree in social work policy. In response to the student’s inquiry about a possible liberal ideological bias in a particular class, his professor admitted to holding certain biases, suggested that anyone who held views antithetical to his own might not be fit for a career in social work, and even told the student that if he found himself disagreeing with the school’s political philosophy, he should consider leaving or finding another line of work. Not only did the student receive a failing grade for a paper in which he advocated the “wrong” viewpoint, he was told that he could no longer pursue a master’s degree after he chose an internship of his liking rather than one that met the school’s ideal of advancing “progressive” policies. It is almost inconceivable that a school would intrude to such a great extent into one’s personal beliefs and ability to pursue the career of one’s choosing.

Finally, in 2003, a professor at Citrus College in California gave her students an assignment to write letters to President Bush, but only gave credit if they expressed opposition to the war in Iraq (no credit would be given for letters expressing any other views, including support for the war). As if one instance of compelled speech were not enough, the same professor required her students to again write letters with a specific viewpoint, this time to a state senator. To their credit, the college’s administration recognized the problem after being contacted by FIRE, moving quickly to remedy the situation. Specifically, they sanctioned the professor, apologized to the students, assured them that their grades would not be affected by the assignments, and vowed that such a scenario would never arise again on their campus. If only every college administration were that responsive and prudent!

Lest you think these are only a few isolated cases, check out this page, on which is compiled a much longer, more comprehensive list of links to similar cases FIRE! has dealt with. Obviously, these Orwellian policies and programs are a growing concern on our nation's college campuses - and likely in K-12 systems as well. It also makes you wonder, how many other similar attempts, perhaps smaller and more isolated, have not yet come to the attention of nation's public?

The University of Delaware VS. Freedom and Liberty

2007-10-30T15:05:00.000-07:00

From FIRE!

For those that doubt that higher education in the United States has been shifting from being left-leaning and liberally biased to full-fledged socialist indoctrination and iniquitous brainwashing, read on:

University of Delaware Requires Students to Undergo Ideological Reeducation
October 30, 2007
FIRE Press Release
NEWARK, Del., October 30, 2007—The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.

Before accusing me or FIRE! of hyperbole, I encourage you to read the entire press release. For example:

Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

I can only imagine what sort of moronic twat-faced ass-licker came up with this definition of "racist." In fact, I can think of few statements more morally reprehensible and downright bigoted than the suggestion that "the term [racist] applies to all white people." Some of those "other things" RAs were taught:

“REVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies, which allegedly give 'preferential treatment' to people of color over whites. In the U.S., there is no such thing as 'reverse racism.'"

Amazing. The definition ITSELF is an example of "reverse racism," while at the same time claiming that reverse racism does not exist. It would be genius in its sheer hubris and effectiveness as double-speak, were it not so frightening and malicious.

“A NON-RACIST: A non-term. The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called "blaming the victim"). Responsibility for perpetuating and legitimizing a racist system rests both on those who actively maintain it, and on those who refuse to challenge it. Silence is consent." - Page 3

Even more stupid than the rest. By claiming that "non-racist" is a "non-term" (and doubleplusungood!) , they're suggesting that non-whites cannot be non-racist either, because non-racism is non-existent. That's a lot of non. Non's not just a retarded Kryptonian bent on world domination.

Since we white people are used to being called "racist" every six minutes by some leftwing fruitcup, many of us are desensitized to such outwardly prejudicial language - and this sort of crap has been promoted for so long, maybe a lot of us just ignore it. But the university's attempts at reprogramming the minds of the young do not stop with their heavy handed "advocacy" of their misguided views on race relations. The University further attacks personal liberty and intrudes upon the rights of students as free-thinking individuals in the following fashion:

The university suggests that at one-on-one sessions with students, RAs should ask intrusive personal questions such as “When did you discover your sexual identity?”
---
According to the program’s materials, the goal of the residence life education program is for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university has decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These competencies include: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”
---
At various points in the program, students are also pressured or even required to take actions that outwardly indicate their agreement with the university’s ideology, regardless of their personal beliefs.
---
In documents relating to the assessment of student learning, for example, the residence hall lesson plans are referred to as “treatments.”

Terrifying. From this, I can only infer that The University of Delaware is run by insane zombies whose goal it is to turn the brains of their students to complete mush for easier undead digestion.

The University of Delaware is "a state-assisted, privately controlled institution." Oddly, they also claim that "the central mission of the University of Delaware is to cultivate both learning and the free exchange of ideas." Not a single public dollar should be going to this corrupt institution. In fact, maybe its administrators should be convicted of fraud and misuse of public funds. It's fraud to call this "education," and utterly unethical to be using tax-payer funds to enforce racist ideas about whites.

Another interesting assessment can be found here (at FIRE!).

Yet Another Reason to Privatize Education (Birth Control for Babies)

2007-10-18T13:38:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I wrote in a post that "Public education and the arrogance of government-employed officials reached what may be an all time low... I'm utterly surprised every time it sinks lower, but amazingly, our left-wing nanny-overlords, who seem hell-bent on controlling every aspect of our lives while at the same time both destroying liberty and public security, find new ways to climb down to the bottom."

I'm happy to announce that it took less than 24 hours from writing those words for me to realize that public education could toilet-spin EVEN LOWER:

School officials have given the green light to a Portland middle school to offer birth control prescriptions through its student health center.
The plan, offered by city health officials and approved on a 7-2 vote by the Portland School Committee, makes King Middle School the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available to students in grades 6 through 8... where most students range in age from 11 to 13.

Wonderful, just wonderful. Up next, nap time will be replaced with orgy hour in kindergarten. Even worse:

Under state law such treatment is confidential, and students decide for themselves whether to tell their parents about the services they receive.

Parental responsibility and rights are quickly being removed from the equation, as we see children becoming closer and closer to becoming the "property" of a socialistic state.

Socialist State School System Attacks Homeschooling Mother

2007-10-17T10:40:00.000-07:00

On a tip from Crush Liberalism:

Check this out. Public education and the arrogance of government-employed officials reached what may be an all time low in Missouri. I'm utterly surprised every time it sinks lower, but amazingly, our left-wing nanny-overlords, who seem hell-bent on controlling every aspect of our lives while at the same time both destroying liberty and public security, find new ways to climb down to the bottom.

A Missouri public school is pursuing a complaint against a mother for withdrawing her son and daughter from the school and teaching them at home, after an apparent threat to the daughter's life at the school.

As concepts such as discipline and personal accountability are no longer politically correct, safety in public schools has gone down the tubes.

The case involves Moberly, Mo., mother Anita Nicoli, who withdrew her daughter and a son from Moberly Middle School recently after what she has described as a two-year campaign of intimidation by other students.

The breaking point came when another student, who allegedly had harassed and assaulted her daughter, drew a picture of herself holding a gun and pointing it directly at Nicoli's daughter. The picture was passed around among students, she said.
....
[Nicoli] said her children had been subjected to harassment and badgering at the school for several years. She cited incidents of being slapped, bullied, kicked and butted, as well as threatened. Her son was shoved into a metal bar. Another time a student used a seat belt buckle on the school bus to hit him.

Not surprisingly, given the violence her children had been subjected to, Nicoli "notified the school of her homeschool plans and went forward."

How did the public education system respond? Anita "now has been cited in a complaint filed by the school after she withdrew two of her children."

That's absolutely correct, boys and girls. Nicoli, fearing not just as many homeschoolers do about the quality of education in pubic schools or politico-social indoctrination, but for the very physical safety of her kids, pulls her children out of a dangerous situation, and how is she rewarded by an intrusive state?

....she is accused of "educational neglect" by social services, based on a complaint from the school.

This, in microcosmic form, is a perfect example of much of what is wrong with the liberal philosophy of big government and the insanity of the leftist concept that "the government knows better than individuals, and has the right to interfere in personal lives and choices, for their own good." From taxation and redistribution of income, to grossly ineffective and intrusive state-run programs and solutions, the left is causing much of that country to abandon common sense and respect for individuals, and is turning America into a massively totalitarian incompetent socialist bureaucracy.

I might be more sympathetic to big government interference if big government were in any way GOOD at running our lives. But this is more like a sinking ship with a retarded poodle for a captain. Over the years, after losing so much respect for the public education system in the US, I've slowly come to the conclusion that privatization would be the best answer for reform - of course, this would mean privatization WITHOUT unwieldy and useless government restrictions. The bloated beast must abandoned.

Those looking to socialized medicine as a solution for rising health care costs and the proportion of uninsured citizens need look no further than this idiocy in Missouri to see exactly what to expect in terms of adequacy, accountability and pragmatism is a government run system.

Schwarzenegger and Gun Control

2007-10-16T11:49:00.000-07:00

"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation [on Saturday] requiring that new models of semiautomatic handguns sold in California be able to stamp identifying serial numbers on shell casings."

At first glance, this might not strike one as an assault on the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of California (what few we have left). The requirement that guns stamp serial numbers on casings, in and of itself, does not really restrict a person's ability to either "keep" or "bear" arms.

However, consider this:

Retooling the manufacturing process could add up to $200 to the price of each gun, warned Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association of the firearms industry. Supporters said the identifying parts could be added for as little as $1 to $2 per gun.
“Manufacturers are not going to comply with this no matter how much they improve the technology,” said Paredes of the Gun Owners of California. “They are simply going to stop selling any new semiautomatics in the state.”

In the long run, causing the cost of new types of semiautomatics to sky-rocket is only going to keep such weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens in the lower income brackets - this could be seen an unreasonable state-imposed expense that clearly violates the rights of the poor and lower class to defend themselves as they choose.

But really, his law will have almost no effect on the sale of semiautomatics for decades, if ever. With 1,300 models already on the roster in California, people will still be able to buy non-stamping semiautomatics. This legislation only effects new models that will be introduced. Of course, this simply screws over gun aficionados who might want to obtain some new type of innovative handgun. In fact, it likely makes California less safe - who knows what sort of gun features might be introduced in the future that could improve handgun safety - and we here in California will be stuck with older models only, or overpriced newer models which most people will be unwilling to pay for. Manufacturers will continue to make models already on the California roster, if just for the large California market. Basically, this law does little other than stifle progress by limiting options and fair competition. A new manufacturer with an excellent product that jams/misfires less than any gun already on the market may simply turn its back on California - a loss to the California population as well as the maker.

This legislation is simply not fair to honest, law-abiding citizens who will now be forced to pay more for new types of guns because of state interference. Sure, a few collectors will be willing to pay more to obtain the new model semiautomatics they desire or feel they need. I don't see all manufacturers completely giving up on the most populous state in the nation as a potential market for their new products. But those that stay in may even have less competition if some companies do decide the new technology is not worth it. Any production costs will be placed upon the honest consumer anyway.

Semiautomatic makers currently located in the state of California will move to another state where their business practices are less controlled by big liberal government interference. Another loss of business in California from a governor who promised to woo business back to California - so much has already left thanks to over-regulation and high taxes.

Criminals will still be able to obtain non-stamping semiautomatics illegally. They will still be able to get their hands on automatic machine guns (currently they are all over the streets), which we honest citizens cannot even get. Revolvers are not covered. Nor shotguns or rifles. Given all the illegal guns out there, given all the non-stamping models which have sold and will continue to be sold, and given the ease which with this stamping can be countered (a nail file), this legislation will have absolutely no effect on either crime or clearance rates in the state. Stamping guns will eventually be stolen, and become untraceable to actual shooters. Criminals will start stealing spent shell casings from gun ranges, and sprinkling them at crime scenes. Even if you support gun control, you have to admit this law will do close to nothing. It's government interference for the sake of interfering. It's an attack on legitimate gun owners.

Despite the high crime and violence rates in California, this state has some of the harshest restrictions of our second amendment rights - Californians can "keep" (ie, own) arms easily enough, but it is nearly impossible to "bear" (ie, carry) arms outside one's home in order to defend oneself where it is most necessary. In order to seriously reduce crime, California should repeal its overly restrictive conceal and carry laws, and make it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry and defend themselves in dangerous areas outside their homes. The judicial system is failing to keep criminals off the streets, and liberal legislation and juries have seriously hindered law enforcement efforts. We need to be able to legally protect ourselves. Our right to self-defense has been restricted enough by a left-wing, totalitarian state.

NOTE:
I apologize for all the Ahnold posts recently, but he signed a tankload of bills this past weekend.

Green Americans Protest Frankenstein Decoration as Offensive

2007-10-15T15:45:00.001-07:00

OK, not really, but close enough. The hypersensitive, irrational nitwits at the NAACP don't like halloween much either. I think people really have to go out of their way to feign being offended nowadays. Or has our victimization culture mutated so much that people are completely incapable of distinguishing between overt bigotry and just about anything else? I'd like to err on the side of people not being completely moronic, but it's hard not to.

Schwarzenegger Vetoes DREAM Act

2007-10-15T13:12:00.000-07:00

In a burst of rational thought, Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed the dreaded DREAM act (endorsed by disphits as dipshitted as Barack Obama), which would have offered illegal immigrants an opportunity for tax-payer funded financial aid for higher education. How long before the race-baiters start race-baiting? I can hear the choruses of "OH MY GAWD, THAT'S RACIST" ringing in my ears already.

California Redefines "Sex"

2007-10-15T11:42:00.000-07:00

Thanks to some new legislation signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, State Senate Bill SB777, the definition of "sex" used by the California Education system is no longer biologically/scientifically based - it's now all about your feeeeeelings. Repealed from the Educational Code is the following definition:

"Sex" means the biological condition or quality of being male or female human being.

And we are left with:

"Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

I don't recall having a gender "assigned" to me at birth - for all, it is a simple, physical, undeniable characteristic - the rare physical hermaphrodite abnormality aside. But, according the politically correct totalitarians, actual genitalia and physical reality should be ignored in favor of what people WANT to be, not what they are. "Gender identity... and behavior" is of course to be seen as more relevant than real-world biology.

Some are claiming as a result of this legislation words like '"Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools' and that 'every California school [has become] a homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination center.' I'm not convinced that the former will actually come to pass, although it is not necessarily outside the realm of possibility the way things have been progressing and the thought-police further attempt to legislate opinion. I do agree the former statement to be an accurate description, true even before these recent bills were signed. The California education public system has long abandoned common sense, rational thought and a commitment to actual education and fact-based learning. It instead has become a tool for brainwashing and conditioning children, forcing upon them ideals and modes of behavior far different than what their parents might try to instill.

Schwarzenegger Sells Out California (Again)

2007-10-12T14:57:00.001-07:00

It's probably no surprise that to hear that pseudo-conservative California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a law which "prohibit(s) local governments from forcing landlords to check the immigration status of tenants." I don't really buy the argument put forth by the Apartment Association of Southern California Cities that "landlords cannot be compelled by local government to compile dossiers and become de facto immigration police." No one was asking them to become "police," they were merely asked to perform the same function as employers - insuring the legal status of those they rent to. Hardly an enormous burden, considering the background checks most landlords run perspective tenants through.

Schwarzenegger spokesman Francisco Castillo said the governor understands the emotions but still “believes that local and state governments should not be forced to assume the responsibility of the federal government.”

An actually somewhat valid sounding argument. However, the federal government is not living up to this responsibility. The costs incurred by the lack of border security are falling upon state and local governments. Communities are being damaged and bankrupt by illegal immigration, all because of the federal government's failure to act decisively. If the federal government does not step up to the plate by dealing with illegal immigration, or at least financially compensating these communities, then local and state governments have little choice but to act.

In any case, Escondido's ordinance did not punish illegals for being here illegally, it would have punished landlords in that town for renting to illegals. The city would not be entering into the realm of immigration enforcement at all. It was merely setting a standard for property renting within that community. Something perfectly reasonable and well within its rights. Well, until now. Thanks Arnie.

Butthole Obama Wants You to Pay for Educating Illegal Immigrants

2007-10-12T11:29:00.000-07:00

America's favorite bubble-headed liberal cutout, Barack Obama, wants the California taxpayer to foot the bill for higher education for illegal immigrants. Isn't it bad enough that we're already funding K-12 education for people with a complete disrespect for our laws, culture and sovereignty? One of my major problems with shithead Democrats (and a lot of OTHER politicians) like Obama is that they seem to think money just grows on trees, and that all this "aid" and "free education" isn't paid for by some of the highest state income taxes in the nation. Thanks a motherfucking lot you stupid fuck-faced thieves. Everytime I get my paycheck raped by you bastards, I think, "oh swell, my hard-earned money is going to some piece of crap MS-13 gangsta that shouldn't even be in this country, and is here only as a result of someone breaking the law." Glad I could pay to help him learn home ec.

Dumbshit Obama had the huevos to say the following:

"We teach our children that in America you will thrive if you work hard and dream big. Governor Schwarzenegger now has the chance to demonstrate that instead of blaming one group for the challenges America faces, he can unite Californians and give children who play by the rules the opportunity to succeed."

No, fucker, what you're teaching OUR children is that if you work hard and dream big, your money is going to get stolen and redistributed by a fascist state, or if you don't work hard or dream big, then you'll be entitled to get a big, fat chunk of someone else's cash. Illegal immigrants have not "play[ed] by the rules." Taxpayers are in no way responsible for funding anyone else's "opportunity to succeed." Illegal immigrants are not "our children," they're the children of a foreign nation. And I'm sick, sick, sick, sick, sick and tired of idiots like Obama mischaracterizing the positions of people that are opposed to illegal immigration, that take issue with the idea we should reward illegal behavior, and that are against the government providing incentives which ENCOURAGE illegal immigration. No one is "blaming one group for the challenges America faces," people are "blaming" one group for the problems they cause through illegal activity - the very activity which places them in that "group" category in the first place.

Hey Obama, since you're not even a Californian, how about (1) not telling us what to do with our taxes, or (2) going to see if the people of Illinois would be willing to pay for higher education for illegals here in California. Sure, they're going to school here in California, but they're not OUR responsibility any more than they are that of people in Chicago. So why not ask Illinois to pay for this?

Latest Corrupt Scumbag Democrat

2007-10-08T15:05:00.000-07:00

Fabian Nunez (or Nuñez, if you like squiggly, foreign lines), California Assembly Speaker, who has been romantically tied to the same TV anchor-slut, Telemundo's arch-whore Mirthala Salinas, as Los Angeles Mayor Antonio "Fidelity is For Suckers and People with Integrity" Villaraigosa, spends tens of thousands of dollars of campaign funds on shady, unjustifiable expenditures.

The spending, listed in mandatory filings with the state, includes $47,412 on United, Lufthansa and Air France airlines this year; $8,745 at the exclusive Hotel Arts in Barcelona, Spain; $5,149 for a "meeting" at Cave L'Avant Garde, a wine seller in the Bordeaux region of France; a total of $2,562 for two "office expenses" at Vuitton, two years apart; and $1,795 for a "meeting" at Le Grand Colbert, a venerable Parisian restaurant.

Nuñez also spent $2,934 at Colosseum Travel in Rome, and paid $505 to the European airline Spanair.

Other expenses are closer to home: a $1,715 meeting at Asia de Cuba restaurant in West Hollywood; a $317 purchase at upscale Pavilion Salon Shoes in Sacramento; a $2,428 meeting at 58 Degrees and Holding, a Sacramento wine bar and bistro; and $800 spent at Dollar Rent a Car in Kihei, Hawaii.

How does this slimy sack of shit explain this? To quote: "For me, it's a question of: Is my perspective on issues broad enough? Do I have enough context when I make decisions?" Riiiiiight. Obviously, this state politician's perspective is not broad enough to include something called ethical behavior, nor does his decision-making "context" seem to cover a category known as virtue. For me, it's a question of whether or not we should elect fuckwitted, unscrupulous thieves, or should we vote into office someone actually respectable. Clearly, how can we trust an elected representative to do the right thing, if they show they cannot make principled decisions in their own personal and political life? Do you really trust someone willing to defraud his own contributors to enact honorable legislation?

If you're a California voter, make sure to vote a huge NO on Proposition 93 in February, which would allow this dill-hole to stay in the Assembly another 6 years.

Conservatives VS Republicans

2007-10-05T15:55:00.000-07:00

Rudolph Guiliani takes a necessary shot at the wolves in sheep clothing that have infiltrated the Republican Party, which, overall, has been far, far, far too fiscally irresponsible in recent times:

Giuliani criticizes GOP on spending
By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Republican presidential contenders on Friday scolded Congress for extravagant spending of taxpayer dollars, and Rudy Giuliani blamed the issue for losses in last year's elections.
"We lost control of Congress because we were just like the Democrats as far as spending is concerned — shame on us," Giuliani told the anti-tax group Americans for Prosperity.

Good. Another a fiscal conservative who'll stand up to the more dishonest elements of the GOP.

The Only Real Path to Health Care Reform

2007-10-04T13:24:00.000-07:00

Democrats would have you believe that there is something horribly wrong with health care in this country, and that the only real solution is higher taxes and a massively ineffective government bureaucracy taking over the medical system of this nation. Theirs is a socialist agenda - theft via taxation from the bank accounts of hard-working American citizens, redistribution of other people's money, and totalitarian control over the medical profession. They believe it is the responsibility of each citizen to fund the health care of other people's children, and they think they have a right to force you to do this, as you do their education. As in so many other arenas, in their eyes parents should no longer be responsible for their own children, a fascist-socialist state should be. Government paid teachers, administrators, after-school program directors, counselors, and even doctors and nurses, are the ideal proxies for the actual parent, all under the control of a leftist state - a state appropriating untold amounts of citizens' incomes to pay for its expanded power. In the view of the left, individual citizens cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, and thus the state should control choice, including how each person's income is spent (and on whom).

Democrats like uber-idiot Harry Reid would have you believe that anyone that dares questions, or in George W. Bush's case vetoes, seriously flawed socialist legislation like an unnecessary expansion of SCHIP is "heartless." Heartless we are seen for expecting individuals to take responsibility for themselves and their own children. Heartless for favoring liberty. Heartless for expecting legislation which is fair and effective. But Reid and his ilk are truly the heartless, for they advocate federal thievery, they wish to diminish personal liberty, and they support an uncaring government which would steal the money of its citizens - money which individuals could use on their own health care in a free market as they see fit. How can Reid call anyone "heartless" for expecting the government not to be wasteful, or for expecting it not to fund the undeserving?

As always, rather than have any sort of rational discussion on "reform," the liberals in this country turn to their favorite method of debate: name-calling. Bush and anyone who agrees with his rare act of fiscal conservatism is a big meanie-weanie that hates little kiddies and wants them all to get sick and die. There was never a discussion of whether or not an expansion of SCHIP was good or improved policy, and no exploration of the real causes of the high cost for medical care. It is far easier to paint opponents to their plan - not opponents of treating sick children, but opponents of one particular plan - as baby-slaying ogres. But for some reason they ignore the fact that perhaps empowering parents and doctors, rather than tying their hands with taxes and governmental red-tape, might be less cruel than their bloated "tax and spend more" plan of action. Bush did not outlaw health care for children, he merely vetoed a plan to make some of us pay for someone else's.

So, what then, is the solution the Democrats in Congress have missed? The single most useful, albeit complex, thing the government could do to improve the affordability and quality of health care in the United States would not be more governmental interference in or control of the health care system, it would be to instead improve the "state" itself, on the federal and state levels. In other words, here is my two word solution to the health care crisis in this country:

Tort Reform

Or, to put it another way:

Massive Motherfucking Tort Reform

Before you start wondering if I've accidentally combined two different blog entries, let me explain. The cost of civil litigation in America is astronomical, both directly to those caught in lawsuits and indirectly to the nation overall. And, even worse, there is absolutely no attempt to ensure that the outcome of any particular case is in any way fair or reasonable, leading to a colossal amount of unchecked abuse. The government, through its ineffective legislation allowing civil litigation exploitation, and through the seemingly out-of-touch-with-reality judicial branch, has, through its own poor law-making choices and inaction, been a major cause FOR the health care crisis. Of course, the corrupt, unethical lawyers and litigants that seek to profit unfairly from the broken system have been a major contributor to the crisis as well. But, the government itself - its laws and its representatives - has allowed this incredibly out-of-control crookedness to occur. In fact, it has even encouraged it by passing laws which make it easier to victimize businesses and individuals and by appointing worthless judges too squeamish or dishonest to put a foot down and block the rampant injustice within our system of "justice."

Not surprisingly, the deep pockets of well-paid doctors and health care providers have been a particularly easy target for the legal parasites. And, to oversimplify a bit, since those in need of health care can be, well, really "sick" (obviously) when they go to a doctor, failure to cure or diagnose, failure to be impossibly perfect and superhuman, will result in "sick" or dead patients. Thus, there is often a major envisioned "harm" to claim. Whether or not the responsibility should rationally fall in the hands of a doctor or nature itself, the medical professional will be blamed.

Sharks go for blood, and there are a lot of wounded, floating sources of meat out there. Outrageous lawsuits against medical professionals directly drive up medical and insurance costs. And this of course applies to most other businesses as well, and even agencies of our own government which we fund through tax revenues - all targets of civil litigators. It is not just medical costs which are effected. Civil litigation inflates the price of just about everything. But why on Earth have we allowed -heck, placed - sharks into our swimming pool, to feed on us while we do the breast stroke? We have let our legislators, many who have been greased by trial lawyer lobbies, make laws that have left reason, freedom and common sense at the door.

Sweeping reforms are necessary. We must make it safe to swim in the pool again.

Unfortunately, because of the way the legal system, the way our government, has evolved, it has become more cost effective to settle lawsuits rather than to go through a reasoned process of determining actual liability. It is now more costly to defend oneself from bogus or malicious claims than to just give in to legalized extortion. Rational assessment of the facts through a trial has become far too expensive, but big out-of-court settlement victories merely encourage other unscrupulous individuals to attempt similar suits. The system must be restructured so that it is not cost prohibitive to go to trial and show that no wrong-doing occurred. Or, at the very least, legislation must be revised so that the burden of proof falls back upon the claimant and it is not so easy to "win" a big settlement with so very little justification or real proof.

More must be done to prevent and dismiss frivolous lawsuits - those bringing them to the courts must be punished, claimants and lawyers alike, and should be held responsible for all the unnecessary costs of the fraudulent lawsuit, both to whomever is being sued and to the taxpayer for court expenses. The judicial system must evaluate claims on some deeper level than it currently does - simply hiring a lawyer should not be enough for a suit to go forward.

Our government has legislated into existence insanely unjust burdens of liability. Individuals are no longer personally responsible for their own well-being or common sense - instead this responsibility falls on the shoulders of other individuals and businesses. In today's legal world, if you're too stupid to realize that hot coffee is hot, and if you cannot personally prevent yourself from spilling your order on yourself, then the person making the coffee, not you, is obviously responsible because they didn't adequately warn you that (a) the hot coffee is hot, and (b) that you're a fucking moron. Businesses are also now responsible for catering to other people's disabilities (oh, sorry, differently special ABILITIES, like NOT being able to walk) and must spend inconceivable amounts of money on making businesses they own accessible and even comfortable for people that they should logically in no way be responsible for. Just as the liberals see the community (all of us) as responsible for other people's children, the liberally-corrupted government sees all of us as responsible for other people's actions AND for acts of nature. For example, according to sexual harassment decisions of the past, employers can even be held liable for the actions of third parties their employees come across. What the holy fuck? Of course, these inane, impossible-to-fulfill burdens of "liability" leave plenty of opportunities open for the legal snakes to commit ample amounts of civil litigation abuse.

Liability must be legally redefined. The doors must be shut on the serpent lawyers and their cold-blooded clients. Personal responsibility must be emphasized in reformed legislation. No one should be punished or financially burdened for other people's actions, failings and decisions. Nor for the results of nature. For example, it should not be the burden of businesses or government agencies or other people to provide "access," in other words, spend THEIR funds, on accommodating the disabled. Why should they provide funds for expensive software, translators, elevators, and such? If they WANT the business, sure, they have every right to make their institutions more disabled friendly. But the burden of responsibility should really fall not on taxpayers or businesses who are in no way responsible for these people's disabilities - it should fall on the disabled themselves. People must be responsible for themselves. Compliance with ADA-type legislation has become an incredible financial hardship upon businesses and taxpayers. But this is just one example of how we've allowed near-fascist leftist control over individuals and privately owned companies. The "workplace" and the realm of financial interaction (be it buying something, or paying for a medical service, or whatever) has become a totalitarian state. Doctors are being held liable for not being to heal the healable, or not knowing the unknowable, or not guessing correctly. Perfection is expected in impossibly imperfect situations.

This is not to say that civil litigation is always unnecessary or unjustified. Malpractice and other forms of intentional abuse or unintentional neglect do occur, and people should be held accountable for their actions. But we need to end the idea that all claims of negligence or abuse hold equal weight. We need to RATIONALLY EVALUATE; that was how the system was intended to work.

Another extremely important path to reform would be to limit financial awards in cases where people are reasonably found to be liable for some injustice or harm. Outrageously high awards are allowed by law and are far too commonplace. Given how easy it is to "win," it's no surprise to see more and more folks jumping on the cash-cow bandwagon. The health care system, and just about everyone else, is being crushed by unreasonable, excessive awards. And these costs are obviously passed along to the consumer. And yet somehow the industry itself is blamed for growing costs when they have no other choice but to raise prices to keep up with growing insurance rates and big civil litigation payouts.

On a side note, it is odd how "assumption of innocence" has become utterly ignored in civil cases, yet on the criminal side, the idea of "reasonable doubt" is beyond the grasp of too many moronic, modern juries. No substantial proof is needed in a civil case to prove "guilt" and then "fine" millions. But juries ignore facts and hard evidence in criminal cases far too often, finding murderers and thieves not guilty for the silliest of reasons.

Some might argue that lawyers are simply businessmen, hired for a service. This is certainly true - assuming they do not work for the state. They're taking advantage of business opportunities in an environment many of them had no hand in creating. But the law itself could never be considered a private, free enterprise realm. Legislation itself is the will of our state, or theoretically the will of the majority imposed by its representatives. The law, unlike say the acts of healing or teaching, is by definition an aspect of the government. Tort reform would be a form of self-improvement for the state. In fact, it is the government's responsibility to ensure laws are followable without the need of lawyer interpretation, and that defending oneself and deriving a rational conclusion about a situation does not represent a financial hardship. The legal system should be there to protect us when necessary, and not be a vampire feeding off our population.

Rather than allow liberalism to attempt to consume another aspect of the free market, like health care services, the government would be better off fixing itself. Doing so will improve the environment of the marketplace and of personal interaction. If doctors no longer fear unjustified and unreasonable civil suits, and insurance companies no longer need pay disproportionate settlements, the health care market will eventually adjust, as would numerous other markets. Society and human interaction overall would be improved, and personal liberty would again be more important than state nanny-ism.

Catch the Left Wing Media Bias in this Story

2007-10-03T16:21:00.000-07:00

Hint, it's EVERYWHERE:

Dallas indictment raises race issues

By PAUL J. WEBER, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 38 minutes ago

DALLAS - A sweeping City Hall corruption probe that has produced federal charges against a dozen black civic and political leaders is renewing suspicions of racism in a city with a long history of combative minority relations.

"It makes Dallas looks bad," said Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins, who is black, "because people just have the general sense of the city being unfair to people of color."

Sixteen people — 12 of them black — were named in corruption indictments unsealed this week. Most of them were charged in what the FBI said was a kickback and bribery scheme involving the awarding of contracts to white developers to build affordable housing, mostly in black neighborhoods.

The two-year investigation — and the spectacle of some of Dallas' most influential black leaders arriving at the federal courthouse to face charges — dealt a blow to a minority community still struggling to find its political footing.

Some blacks said they suspect the case is an attempt to dismantle Dallas' black political leadership.

Among the blacks indicted are a former City Council member, a former city planner, businessmen, state Rep. Terri Hodge of Dallas, and former Mayor Pro Tem Don Hill, who was considered a front-runner for mayor in June but was hurt by the investigation. He was defeated in the first round of elections. Four white developers were also charged.

The ethnic makeup of those indicted has not gone unnoticed in Dallas, a city of 1.2 million that is nearly 25 percent black and has been beset by racial tensions over the years.

"I refuse to subscribe that this was racially motivated," said Michael Sorrell, president of the city's historically black Paul Quinn College. "But given all the factors, what is the statistical likelihood of producing that ratio?"

U.S. Attorney Richard Roper and the FBI strongly denied that the probe was racially motivated. Federal investigators made their case not by setting up a sting operation but by raiding City Hall, removing boxes of documents and following the paper trail.

"I always in my career base my decisions not on race but what the facts and the law show," said Roper, who has not ruled out the possibility of more indictments.
...
Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, said the fact that three-fourths of those indicted are black doesn't give him reason for pause. "Unfortunately, all the actors who were in a position to make a decision ... were black," he said.

Although Dallas more recently has broken the political color barrier with its first black mayor, police chief and district attorney, some say that is deceptive.

"Our progress here is cosmetic," said Rufus Shaw, a black political analyst.

Of course, of course, if 12 black people are caught committing crimes, it must be RACISM on the part of the law enforcement enforcing the laws. Let's condemn the fact that they're out there protecting society and ignore that fact that the REASON these people were investigated in the first place was not skin-color, but, gee, the fact that they were engaged in suspicious behavior and very likely took bribes and kick-backs. But no, holding African Americans to any sort of standard akin to everyone else, and expecting them not to break the law - gee, that's prejudice.

Blame Dallas, not the criminals.

How on Earth is this any sort of indication of racism in Dallas?

WOLF! WOLF! WOLF! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Corruption & Lies: Typical at the University of California & Amongst Champions of "Diversity"

2007-09-14T11:39:00.000-07:00

Anyone familiar with the University of California is probably quite aware that the system has been plagued by examples of dishonesty, corruption and anti-white/anti-American bias in recent years. Fairness, responsibility and integrity have taken a backseat to personal gain, political correctness and special privilege by the UC administration through various scandals and policies.

Top administrators have been basically stealing tax-payer money and lining their own pockets. Professors are allowed to insult patriots by burning American flags in classrooms and are protected by administrators under the guise of "academic freedom," but student newspapers printing satires and criticisms of Islamic jihadism are labeled "hate speech" and "bias incidents." Caucasians are currently under-represented in the student population in comparison to California population proportions, so the admissions and outreach officers stopped using "under-representation" as a justification for racial bias and special privilege based on ethnicity and began using the phrase "traditionally under-represented" (ie, historically rather than currently) so that they could continue their programs aimed at non-whites and completely ignore both the new statistics and the fact that the system was anything BUT biased against "minorities." Admissions policies have shifted away from quantifiable and verifiable criteria like SAT scores and High School GPA and moved into the realm of the "holistic," where students are awarded points for "community service" and "personal disadvantage," all of which goes utterly unchecked, so that application fraud cannot be caught and combated. California voters passed a law ending racial bias in the state admissions policies, yet UC administrators circumvent this by aiming special outreach programs at targeted ethnic groups, completely ignoring the letter of the law.

In light of all the unethical behavior and hypocrisy, is it any surprise that a charter school on the University of California, San Diego campus, the Preuss School, has been accused of handing out false grades to students in order to falsely inflate their own statistics and reputation? It should not be. When voters in California passed Proposition 209, the University of California, frustrated and angered that the California citizens who pay for the campus's existence and their salaries, dared to choose fairness and colorblindness over race-based affirmative action programs and special privileges for minorities, altered their admissions policies, but at the same time sank more energy into reaching pre-college minorities. This was at first done with "outreach" programs targeting specific races, completely ignoring the fact that voters called for the UC and the state to "not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race." But somehow the preferential treatment in outreach policies was OK to college administrators, because the will of the voter was suspect. Then, an institution charged with providing HIGHER EDUCATION decided to get into the business of 6th-12th grade education, working with the San Diego Unified School District to establish a charter school focusing on low-income children in the hopes that this would lead to greater "diversity" at the college level.

On the surface, Preuss seemed a model of educational excellence, proving that when you do away with many of the rules, statues and regulations forced upon other forms of public schools by a liberal and intrusive government, you can more successfully provide a top-notch education. In a nutshell, rather than the socialistic idea that you provide the same education to all students, you provide a high-end education only to those willing and capable of doing the work. As noted in the linked article, though, "a 2005 study by UCSD showed that Preuss students earned state test scores and grade-point averages that were no higher than their peers who applied to the charter school but weren't chosen in the admissions lottery. " Here's the simple secret of this charter school - it selects, by lottery, those students who are already college-bound in their outlook. Those students in low-income neighborhoods that don't already have an intention to go to college don't bother applying. Isn't it amazing how great your school looks if you don't have to play by the same rules as other public institutions and basically get a top-notch batch of students hand picked for you?

In any case, Newsweek named Preuss one of the top 10 high schools in the United States. But now, with these allegations of grade tampering, which if true puts their entire grading system in doubt, we are now left to wonder if Newsweek was being hasty in its evaluation. If administrators were willing to give out grades for classes not even attended, then grade inflation could be a serious problem as well - especially for a school whose administration is more concerned with promoting the image of the school rather than the business of actual education.

In principle, the charter model is a decent one - one more closely aligned to the ideal model, a privatized system, where tax-payers are no longer held responsible for funding the education of other people's children, and where merit and individual achievement is rewarded rather than thwarted. If we are to have private education funded by our taxes, we should expect a less socialist system, and one based more on rewarding success and hard work. The idea of education being a "right" should be dismissed, and we should remind ourselves that education is a privilege. Those that abuse that privilege, or fail themselves to take full advantage of it, should be removed from the system - or at least provided with an education that suits their particular skills and talents (trade schools for instance), and those that succeed should be rewarded and it should be recognized that they have earned access to the next step. A tiered education system, where 6-12 students who have proven themselves successful move on to college-preparatory schools, and those who are not move on to others sorts of training, would be highly preferable to the unmanageable mish-mash system we have now, where kids on the track to universities are paired with losers and gang-bangers.

The important thing in any system is accountability. The flaw with the charter system it seems is that is still open to the same piss-poor management and underhandedness we see in other public institutions and bureaucracies. But, hopefully, the trend of holding students responsible for their own successes and failures will eventually work its way to educators and administrators as well.

Just How Stupid Are You?

2007-09-12T14:01:00.000-07:00

According to this article, a full

31 percent of Americans do not accept the official explanation for Sept. 11 -- that "19 Arab fundamentalists executed a surprise attack which caught U.S. intelligence and military forces off guard."

Yes. That's right. Almost a third of all Americans lack the basic reasoning skills, intelligence, empathy, and capacity for logic to be able to differentiate between verifiable evidence and the shitload of toadshit that makes up the "9/11 Truth" conspiracy theories.

So I wonder - do you still think that the jury system is still a workable or useful one? At the very least, one-third of our "peers" have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of even discerning what "proof" or "reason" IS! How on Earth can we trust them to figure out if a person has or has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I'm amazed they can tie their own motherfucking shoes. Or even know what shoes are for. Maybe they sometimes manage to get their shoes on their feet, but I'm sure the footwear is covered in drool by the end of the process.

Not only are these people morons (42.6% of Democrats - that number is surprisingly low), they are despicable to the very core of their beings - only vile human beings would think that their fellow Americans could or would stoop to such a level. Or, more importantly, think this based upon the wild speculation and complete misinformation of the 9/11 Truth campaign.

One can disagree with Bush on a number of issues, but it's outrageous to even suggest he would commit such atrocities based on such flimsy "reasoning." Goodbye fact, hello imaginary fantasyland. A man is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And guess what? All the reasonable facts point to full doubt. Bush was not responsible for 9/11 - your friendly crazy Islamo-fascists were.

I could put a suit and tie on a tree, and it'd still be ten times smarter than anyone who thinks that "9/11 was an inside job." Jesus, these 9/11 Truther idiots make Muslim extremist-terrorists look positively sane.

Gay: Choice or Biological?

2007-08-10T14:11:00.001-07:00

In the latest bit of pandering to special interest groups, most of the Democratic Presidential candidates decided to appear in a "debate" on gay issues on LOGO last night. To call it a debate is almost facetious, it was more like consecutive interviews. Being a cable network, they had to put some sort of minor celebrity on the panel, dipshit Melissa Etheridge, to dissolve any pretense that this interaction was to be thoughtful or informative rather than "entertaining." The most interesting exchange of the night, or at least insightful in that it revealed the empty-headedness of political correctness, was between the Moron Etheridge and Bill Richardson.

MS. ETHERIDGE: Thank you.

Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?

GOV. RICHARDSON: It's a choice. It's –

MS. ETHERIDGE: I don't know if you understand the question. (Soft laughter.) Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?

GOV. RICHARDSON: Well, I -- I'm not a scientist. It's -- you know, I don't see this as an issue of science or definition.

I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.

MS. ETHERIDGE: Well, it's hard when you are a citizen of a country that tells you that you are making a choice when you were born that way, and your Creator made you that way. And there's a document that was written 200 years ago that says you are entitled to certain rights that you are not given.
How can there be anything other than absolute equal rights for homosexuals?

Richardson of course failed to initially answer the question politically correctly, because he took a sensible, rational, fact-based approach rather than an idiotic "this is the way we feel it should be, so this is the way it is" left-wing approach. He missed the perfect opportunity to answer this question the only way it should ever be answered:

WHO REALLY GIVES A FLYING FUCK?

There are just so many insanely thoughtless assumptions in Etheridge's false dichotomy and in the perceived ramifications of taking one position or another. For one, why would or should choice or biology have any impact whatsoever on "absolute equal rights for homosexuals" in a free society? The assertion here is that personal choice would be some sort of secondary, inferior justification for equal rights compared to biochemical causes. But I'm going out on a limb and say that choice would be the superior justification, for choice shows conscious reasoning, sophisticated emotional responses and intelligent thought. Liberty means freedom to do as we choose, not simply be as we biologically "are." There is absolutely no reason why a man's choice to eat and enjoy foie gras should be any less important than his right to breathe oxygen. It is not the role of a government in a free society to value judge personal preferences.

Secondly, I'm utterly unconvinced one can completely divorce choice from biology - or that any action or behavior we take on can not be attributed to personal choice to some degree. I may have a biological impulse to screw every girl I see - and trust me I've seen quite a few that I've had the impulse to have sex with - but that does not mean I choose to act on those impulses every time I get them. Maybe I uncontrollably get an erection sometimes, but I choose when and where to use it. Assuming what we call "homosexuality" has any sort unique biological cause, every single gay person still makes the choice to act on that impulse and live as they do. And no, Melissa, that's not in any way insulting or demeaning to say. You're thinking human beings, and you choose your lifestyle choices as much as I choose to be monogamous. And there is absolutely no reason to assume that because any behavior could be classified as a "choice" that is somehow less deserving of being made.

Also, the idea that the only options to explain your sexual preferences are that you have to be born gay or you just pick being gay is simply silly. Why on Earth is so important that homosexuality be simply a biological characteristic, like skin color, rather than say a learned behavior or cultural characteristic or belief system, like say religion? Is it really so outrageous to suggest that there MIGHT be developmental factors that come in play that may, at least sometimes, lead to homosexual behavior?

Heck, I'm not even convinced entirely that "gay" is anything more than a social construct, derived simply from physical pleasures that could be fulfilled by other means. I've known way too many gay men that seemed far too obsessed with female "biology" to suggest to me that anyone is 100% gay. But, whatever. I probably wouldn't say that to any gay friend, because who am I to tell them how to behave or what sub-cultural decisions to make. What's important is, it doesn't matter one iota if my stupid theory is right, or Melissa's stupid theory is right, or someone else's much better reasoned and factually supported theory is right. The state has absolutely no place interfering or restricting these behaviors or feelings, regardless of their origin or consistency.

The important thing is that Richardson was right, he is no scientist. And neither are you, Melissa. Scientists are willing to admit when there is not enough evidence to draw any really realy conclusion. And they do not assume a conclusion because it justifies a political goal, or makes them feel warm and fuzzy. The real conclusions could well be interesting, but will the answers really make you feel any different, any more or less lesbian? They may seem a stupid question, but it stems from your stupid question. Why on Earth is it even important when we're talking about liberty and your own pursuit of happiness? You've set it up so that if you're wrong about biochemistry, then you're wrong about your life. And that's just inane, and shows a lack of understanding of what personal liberty and individual freedom means, and why it is important.

Did I develop a taste for foie gras at some point, did I learn to love it, or is enjoyment of the flavor hardwired into me? Who cares? I mean, it'd be interesting to know - but it should have no effect on my freedom to do and live as I choose fit.

Who is Linda Seger?

2007-08-10T09:45:00.000-07:00

Who is Linda Seger? A liberal blogger, it seems. She wrote this blog, titled "How Do Liberals and Progress [sic] Think... about Discrimination?" And the most important element of her thesis?

Liberals and Progressives are more often apt to deal in complexity.

Well, allow me to retort. FUCK YOU, TOO. Or, to put it less blunty, are you so apt to deal in complexity that you resort to simplistic, sweeping, unsupported generalizations like this? Show some complex thought before making an assertion such as this. And if you want to insult somebody, have the courage to just come out and be direct. Don't masquerade your taunts in some masturbatory, self-aggrandizing bullshit.

In many cases, conservatives don't see the social structures that keep problems in place, but see problems as individual problems.

But, golly gee, Seger, what could be more complex than assessing this multifaceted society at its most fundamental level, that of individuals? Isn't that pointing to how complex a society really is? Isn't that dealing with a society at its most complex?

It seems to me that the less complex approach would be to lump individuals together into superficial groupings based on ethnic/cultural characteristics rather than look at each person for his or her unique talents and offerings. And what could be less complex than to blame any assumed inequities on "discrimination" without actually providing any sort of evidence of anyone actually DISCRIMINATING? And what could be less complex than also blaming these presumed inequities on nebulous "social structures," which I assume are inanimate and incapable of the act of actual discrimination? And what could be less complex than never really even theorizing what these "social structures" might be, or on what level they might exist? There is no complexity of thought in just dreaming them into existence without exploring or even hypothesizing about what policies or intergroup interactions they might be. And there is no complexity of thought in just assuming that if they exist, they exist on the overall, shared societal level, rather than solely within the subcultural level of those groups that seem to be discriminated against. For example, perhaps look at how different subcultures tend to value education rather than suggest that somehow society is keeping individuals from educating themselves. The white man's omnipotent social structures seem to have failed to keep Asians down, overall. Could it be because these discriminatory "social structures" are simply an easy myth to avoid any personal responsibility?

And is your complex thought proven by bigoted stereotypes about Conservative Christians?

Conservative Christians often say that these have to be solved through repentance and through becoming more "Christian". This is often their answer to every problem and it's easy to see that this Christian administration is no proof of this approach.

Talk about hypocrisy. Everyone is categorized into simplistic groups that behave in a single-minded, homogeneous fashion to her. Nothing really to support this assertion - it's just her biased assessment of how Christians think and act. Oh, they're religious, so they must be unable to formulate any sort of opinion based on contemplative analysis of fact and reason. If they incorporate religious morality into their analysis, then fuck, they must not have been analyzing in the first place.

This of course only applies to Christians (and maybe Jews). I'm sure she thinks Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Wiccans are more capable of logical assessment and complex evaluation, because, holy shit, they're usually less whiter - or in the case of witches, maybe more womyny.

But it's the Conservatives who are the dumb racists. I'm convinced.

America, Burying Its Head in the Sand a Second Time

2007-08-10T09:04:00.000-07:00

Remember when 9/11 came as a big shock, despite all the previous Islamofascist jihadi-whackjob attacks on American targets before it? Remember when everyone, the public, the government, the media, ignored all the warning signs? Remember when Congress passed legislation to build a wall between the US and Mexico and Bush signed it? Remember how much of that security barrier has been built so far? Remember when those of us who pointed out the insanity of allowing millions of illegal aliens to sneak across the border, or to overstay their tourist visas, without any method of tracking them or evaluating their merit or decency or trustworthiness? Remember how we were labeled 'bigots' by the race-baiting left and turn-coat pseudo-conservative Republicans like Bush, McCain and Graham, for expecting the federal government to be concerned about national security as well as suggesting that the US actually screen and be selective about who we allow into this country, temporarily or permanently? Remember how they called us 'extremists' for daring to expect immigrants to follow the rules and for wanting them held accountable for breaking the rules? Remember Rio? That was a great album. Remember that big open space where the US and Mexico meet - a space easily crossed not just by Mexicans, but maybe some crazy Muslim extremists pretending to be Mexicans, nutty middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalists that want nothing better than to blow us all the hell up? Remember that sinking feeling in your gut when you watched those subhuman scumbags topple those tall buildings in Manhattan?

Yeah, you remember, when you're not too busy pointing fingers, dreaming up whacko conspiracy theories, or pandering to dipshit radical leftists that can't tell the difference between Mexicans, Hispanic Americans, legal immigrants, and illegal aliens - liberal fuckheads who will only use the vague word 'immigrant' in order to lump all those different categories together so that you look like a racist for your concern about the ILLEGAL segment of their moronically disingenuous blanket grouping. Yeah, you remember watching those planes hit the towers, thinking, "a lot of innocent people were just murdered by evil psychopaths." Yeah, you'll remember, when something bad happens again, and then you'll all run around screaming "Why didn't someone do something to protect us? How could you let it happen again?"

Why and how indeed? Well, your government, your mainstream media, and most of you, are completely ignoring the fact that an untold number of Middle Eastern Islamic terrorists, disguised as Mexican illegals, have crossed our border, settled down in sleeper cells, and are now planning to attack us again. The story is here. Why it isn't everywhere, all the time - why it isn't top priority for every single American - is beyond me.

Hi, everybody. Wake the fucking hell up.

Political Litmus Test in University of California Hiring

2007-08-08T11:34:00.001-07:00

Yesterday, a friend of mine went for a job interview at one of the University of California campuses and was asked the following question:

"What is your definition of diversity and social justice? How would you incorporate those into your job?"

Yesterday, coincidentally, I was also talking to a friend about the disappearance of ethical behavior and integrity in American society.

This was quite obviously some sort of political litmus test. Employment at the taxpayer funded University of California is now contingent upon agreement with ill-defined, radical leftist concepts such as these. Support for anti-Caucasian bigotry and discriminatory socialist policies like affirmative action is now a requirement for holding a position in a state-funded university. To screen for individuals that support reverse discrimination and racist ethnic quotas shows an utter lack of fairness, and to use a state university position to further an extremist political agenda shows complete corruptness and a total lack of ethical behavior. Which, as a Californian, I have sadly come to expect from the administration and faculty at the University of California. As fair-minded freedom-lovers devoted to equal treatment and liberty, we must stop this sort of idealogical discrimination by governmental institutions and remind university officials that they serve the State and its people, and are employed to teach and support students, not to indoctrinate nor to exploit tax funds and student fees for their own political goals.

Shoving "Pride" Down Your Throat

2007-08-07T09:25:00.000-07:00

In the increasingly influential realm of politically correct fascism, it is no longer enough to "tolerate" those with different views or personal practices - it is no longer enough to treat everyone equally or fairly as individuals. In the intolerant madness disguised under the euphemism "promote diversity," one must "celebrate" the culture or sub-culture of supposedly underrepresented or underprivileged groups. One must place all focus not on individual achievement or merit, but on superficial elements like group affiliation or ethnic background.

In a huge disappointment, in order to be perceived as gay-friendly and tolerant, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders appointed openly lesbian Tracy Jarman as San Diego Fire Chief in June 2006. The disappointment was not that Jarman is a lesbian and honest about that fact, but that a huge issue was made of her personal sexual practices in the first place in relation to her hiring. Rather than focus on any experience she may or may not have, or her qualifications to be chief or run an incredibly large fire department effectively and efficiently, the focus was instead on whether she preferred box lunches to sausage. When Sanders was elected mayor, I don't recall anyone bringing up the fact that he likes the tang, not the shaft. But somehow Jarman's sexual orientation was paramount to the city's assessment of her appointment. And of course, being a politically correct figurehead, her concern was not about the individual rights or qualifications of fire-fighters, or about fighting fires or anything that concerns the average citizen who pays his or her taxes for such a department in the first place. Instead, this corrupt, non-neutral activist began harping about making the department "more diverse," rather than more accountable to the taxpayer or more able to protect and service the community. According to Jarman:

It’s not just the Gay community. I think we need to do a better job of recruiting across the board so that we reflect the community.”

It is completely impossible to "reflect" the community through affirmative action and/or outreach. What a narrow-minded promoter of diversity is actually trying to reflect is an arbitrary, limited view of selective groupings based on their own stereotypes and biases. And somehow, in the view of the irrational diversity police, a quota system is going to put out forest fires a lot quicker. Oh, no wait, that's not a concern at all.

But Jarman's corruption ends not with her failure to denounce special privilege based on race and sexual preference and such, but recently her department went so far as to force straight fire fighters to ride in the Gay Pride Parade in San Diego.

These fire fighters were threatened with "disciplinary action" if they did not participate, and suffered through taunts and comments that any reasonable person would refer to as "sexual harassment" as a result of their forced participation in this event as city employees.

While on parade, the firefighters “were subjected to vile sexual taunts from homosexuals lining the parade route,” said the press release. “Show me your hose,” “you can put out my fire,” “you’re making me hot,” “give me mouth-to-mouth,”“blow my hose,” were some of the comments those along the parade route hurled at the firefighters. When the firefighters did not respond, “some in the crowd turned hostile and started shouting, ‘F—k you firemen’ and others began ‘flipping them off,’” said the press release.

Some bystanders committed lewd acts, directed at the firefighters, such as exposing their genitals, grabbing the crotch, and blowing kisses. The firefighters, however, were not physically assaulted.

Somehow, in Jarman's department, preventing discrimination against gays has transformed into special privileges for homosexuals and a clear violation of the rights of non-gay employees. In other words, reverse discrimination rather than neutrality. Under no circumstance should the taxpayers be forced to send representatives to what is essentially a large, somewhat risque gay-themed street party. Nor should individuals have their jobs threatened and thus be forced into a situation where they are subjected to unwelcome sexual advances.

I am in no way suggesting that events like gay pride parades be banned. They may well be important to the homosexual community, and as free individuals in a land of liberty, they have every right to assemble and associate as they see fit. Of course, the double-standard that a Straight Parade would be labeled "bigoted" does trouble me to no end. In any case, such events should not be sponsored with tax funds, and the event organizers should reimburse any costs to the city government. Gay fire fighters should not be punished for attending such an event, on their own time. But the city should not pay individuals to attend during work hours (except of course to handle emergencies) as representatives, and cannot expect employees to attend or worse award their attendance. This would be equivalent to forcing gay atheist fire fighters to attend a large religious rally as representatives, exposing them to taunts like "sinner" and "repent." Would THAT be acceptable? Would paying a Christian fire-fighter to go to church be acceptable?

Unfortunately, the politically correct would never apply such logic to their own actions and policies. What is important to them is only that their personal beliefs and practices get shoved down your throat, at your expense, and that you accept them or face the iron fist of punishment.

Jarman should be sacked, or should resign.

UPDATE: The firefighters' complaint can be viewed here.

UPDATE: There's a story on this at signonsandiego. Don't forget to check out some of the crazy comments at the bottom from idiots that equate the concept of fair treatment for straight fire fighters and their discomfort with being verbally molested by homosexuals with homophobia and bigotry. Nice. There are also a few "well, two wrongs make a right" moronic attempts at arguments as well.

Different standards, of course, apply to gays and straights. And this is called 'equity' amongst the left.

Proper Bathroom Etiquette, OR Don't Flush the Koran

2007-08-03T14:40:00.000-07:00

As you know, flushing the Koran in free-speech America will get you charged with a hate crime. Here's some simple rules to follow while using the restroom:

On a side note, when I first put in the title, I accidentally typed "Don't Flush the Korean."

The Scumbags That Run CalTrans, OR How Your State Government Works For Tribalism and Against Equal Protection

2007-08-02T14:03:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time, someone somewhere had the bright idea that people and their government institutions should treat people fairly, equally, without bias. Then some twisted fuckers came along and distorted this admirable ideal into the concept that the only way to fight discrimination and to stimulate and promote equality and fairness is with inequality and unfairness. This disgustingly warped practice of reverse discrimination became known as "affirmative action." "Action" because they were doing something. "Affirmative" because the alliteration sounded good - and because they wanted people to think that since their ends could be seen as positive to some, it justified their evil means. To assess this bluntly, they saw affirmative action not just as two wrongs making a right - but they saw it as an increasing of the same wrong eventually making everything right. But, two wrongs in this case just make more wrong. They advocated, many still advocate, fighting fire with fire until the whole motherfucking house burns down into a pile of useless ash.

It is utterly impossible to morally or logically defend the practice of affirmative action, for to do so undermines all justification for affirmative action in the first place. By saying some forms of discrimination are acceptable in some cases, even for supposedly beneficial goals, one also allows for those practicing other forms of discrimination to justify their own biased practices. In other words, if you apply the fuzzy reasoning that purple people can discriminate against all blue people because of the past discriminatory practices of some blue people, then the ethical loophole has been opened for blues, for example, to turn around and justify their own discrimination of all purples based on the negative, harmful behaviors of some purples (say high crime rates, or annoying musical trends, long finger nails, whatever). There is no way around this. Bigotry is bad cannot be used as an argument for bigotry is good.

In that vein, the California Department of Transportation continues to ignore common sense and honor, and continues to flip their collective middle finger at the California voters who were brave, sane, and well-meaning enough to pass proposition 209, by attempting to reward individuals contracts simply on the basis of their skin-color.

Caltrans on Wednesday petitioned the federal government to begin using race as a consideration in awarding transportation contracts.

When will this unprincipled desire to tribalize our nation end? Rewarding contracts based on race, besides being insanely unfair, simply costs the tax-payers more money, time and resources, and endangers the well-being of the state and its population. Rationality is tossed out the window, and businesses are judged on secondary, unimportant elements like the pigmentation of their owners (not even the racial make-up of their employees!) rather than on logical factors like cost and quality of service and product. Intelligent thought takes a back-seat to ethnic quotas.

One need look no further than deathtrap Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital in the Los Angeles area to see how poor services can be when they stem from empty-headed decision making based on racial preference. I heard a commercial the other day stating that the state of California needs more nurses, especially those equipped to deal with the diversity of the state population. What the FUCK DOES THAT MEAN? No, the state and its hospitals do NOT fucking need to be using "racial sensitivity" as the criteria for nursing qualification. For fuck's sake, we're talking about peoples' health and lives here. We need people actually capable of doing the job. The racially sensitive, diverse state at King-Harbor, chosen for non-medical, non-job performance reasons, are completely inept, leaving people to die, mistreating them. That racial sensitivity was the ONLY qualification even mentioned in the goddamn commercial shows just how fucked up the priorities of this state have become. You'll be misdiagnosed and murdered by medical incompetence, but at least the racial makeup of the hospital staff is equivalent to the ethnic proportions of the state population. FUCK YEAH! That's worth dying over.

Along the lines of that point,

Civil rights groups have blamed Proposition 209, which voters passed in 1996 to outlaw affirmative action, and a 2005 federal court decision for a long decline in transportation contracts to minority and woman-owned businesses.

One cannot with any moral authority blame Proposition 209 for this decline, one can only blame the minority and woman-owned businesses themselves for failing when forced to compete on a level playing field.

Here's the supposedly awful change that Proposition 209 made:
The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
Oh my god! Treating people FAIRLY is being blamed for a decline? That's simply inane.

According to some stupid, downright evil, twat named Monique Morris:

"This is significant, because it demonstrates that in this diverse state, there is not equal opportunity" that was promised by the promoters of Prop. 209. "There is a need to address whether Prop. 209 was a mistake or a failure in providing equal opportunity."

No, you vile scumfuck, it's complete bullshit to claim there is not equal opportunity. The opportunity is there, and finally equal. It's time for minority and women-owned businesses to step up to the plate. Don't blame the state, or that white dude over there surfing. In no way should "equal opportunity" mean "proportionately awarded based on skin-color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or how many eyeballs you have." It means there should be no bias in the process of awarding contracts based on these factors. There is absolutely no way in hell "Prop. 209 was a mistake or a failure in providing equal opportunity," because by its very wording and application, except where it is superseded by other racially biased laws that take precedent, it ends the legalization of unequal opportunity.

What people seem to mean when they say "equal opportunity," is not "opportunity" at all, but equal or proportionate RESULTS. And in no way should the state, or anyone else, be held accountable if people fail to take advantage of opportunity. And that's not the same thing at all.

The Malicious Morons at MoveOn.Org, OR Boycotting What You Don't Like, OR Feigning Outrage for Political Gain, OR The War Against Fox News

2007-07-31T11:07:00.001-07:00

Perhaps you've heard of MoveOn.Org. Perhaps you've wondered from what the organization advocates that we, the United States of America, should "move on." Originally, it was formed to petition Congress to censure Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinksy lie and "move on" to other, bigger issues and the business of governing the country. Of course, the country has, for the most part, moved on from the perjury and impeachment of Bill Clinton, at least as an issue facing Congress. And MoveOn has moved on to more sinister, more totalitarian goals. Today, it seems, the organization is promoting that we Americans move on from common sense, from fairness, from personal liberty, from honor and respectability, from free expression, from open-mindedness, from the unhindered marketplace of ideas, from democracy.

Now MoveOn.Org wants to limit the free exchange of ideas. Now MoveOn.Org wants to silence any non-conformists to its irrational, unsubstantiated leftist agenda. Now MoveOn.Org wants to ensure a complete liberal bias and leftist monopoly of all media outlets. Now MoveOn.Org wants to start a boycott of any company that advertises on FoxNews.

For the most part, I have absolutely no problem with people voting with their dollars. I myself have ended relationships with companies whose actions I find morally reprehensible, most recently Bank of America for their decision to encourage a disregard for the laws of this country by providing illegal aliens with banking services. And I had zero problem telling Bank of America that I was outraged and I no longer wanted to do business with them.

But how effective are organized boycotts, really? Has this nation reached a critical mass when it comes to boycotts and "public outrage"? Every day there is another news story of some group expressing their blown-out-of-proportion "outrage" over minor issues, tiny jokes, slips of the tongue, or the free expression of ideas not completely in sync with their own. Outrage is a constant, perpetual. Everyone's pissed about something, and anything you do is going to piss somebody off.

Part of the growing problem of this unending blame assignment stems from a deeper logical fallacy that has infected the minds of not only of Americans, but of people across the world - it is an irrational belief that groups of people, organizations, are indirectly or directly liable or responsible for the actions and deeds of individuals. Secondly, there is a growing intolerance toward differences of opinion. Thirdly, there is an increasing disregard for logic and rationality, and a shrinking willingness to look at issues and facts with any sort of discerning, unbiased eye - which in turns translates to people opining solely emotionally, with no real concrete thought behind it. This of course leads to gross misrepresentations of opposing hypotheses and conclusions. For examples, the promoters of the theory that global warming is caused primarily by the activities of mankind have fallen into a blind, religious fervor - accepting no discussion or debate, and seeing anything less than a full "commitment," as that insane fascist RFK Jr worded it in a discussion with Glenn Beck, to their hypothesis as blasphemy. The first rule of blind faith - eliminate the doubt in others, or at least the ability of others to express doubt, for fear that their skepticism will awaken hesitancy in oneself.

When it comes to large companies, or large media outlets, some confuse individual trees with the forest. The opinions of one may not reflect the views of the whole. In fact, the whole may even just have some "free expression" policy within itself, allowing for internal inconsistency and freedom. A media outlet may only being interested in providing forums for a variety of ideas and opinions, to appeal to a variety of consumers at different points. Also, news providers often segment out, or compartmentalize, information based on interest, topic, or execution. For example, newspapers have local sections, national sections, sports sections, lifestyle sections, arts sections, and so on. And straightforward news reporting is most often splintered off from editorializing. The scumbags at the LA Times editorialize about freeing the traitor John Walker Lindh. Cable news networks, like Fox News, can in turn provide "opinion sections" in the form of pundit programs, like those of Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. A perfectly acceptable and long-standing tradition. But because these editorialists express opinions during their editorial segments, or guests or anchors even QUESTION the opinions held by MoveOn, the morons at MoveOn.Org irrationally conclude that the Fox News Network completely fails to provide "fair and balanced" news programming.

What bothers me is not the right of MoveOn.Org and like-minded individuals to organize a boycott and participate in one, it is the twisted reasoning for their proposed boycott. The great offense Fox News committed? They fail to completely agree with MoveOn. They provide forums for dissenting or alternate opinions. I don't expect the members of MoveOn to want to watch O'Reilly any more than I should be expected to subscribe to that shit-rag the LA Times. I have no problem with MoveOn expressing disagreement with any of O'Reilly's opinions. What I find disturbing in the idea that, in the eyes of MoveOn, Fox News is committing a sort of mindcrime by even freely existing or exploring an issue or allowing free speech on their programs. To make the distinction clear, imagine a group of Christians boycotting a television show because they find a character to be an offensive representation of a Christian. Now imagine a group of Christians boycotting every advertiser to an entire network because that network is not completely devoted to Christianity and is not evangelically promoting the Christian faith every second of the day.

Now imagine what leftist groups like MoveOn would say about that Christian group if the latter were true. Or even the former.

MoveOn has even convinced Democratic Presidential candidates not to appear during Fox News sponsored debates. Which of course just makes these Democrats look petty and cowardly.

Some boycotts are effective because many businesses cowardly cave to the demands of extremists, for fear of losing customers and thus profits. But any intelligent business owner will tell you that you cannot appeal to everyone. The trouble is, businesses can make rash decisions, especially when not hearing the other side of an argument - they only listener to the boycotters, mistakenly thinking they're the only ones concerned about an issue. It becomes a win-lose situation in their minds - we can lose some customers by continuing to do what we are doing, or we can keep them all by not offending these few.

So how best to counter the waves of perpetual outrage? How best to make businesses realize they should not, or at least need not, kowtow to radicals? With a counter-boycott - either by supporting businesses that are being boycotted (and letting them know you are), or by in turn boycotting businesses that succumb to the extortion of extremists. When businesses are put in a lose-lose situation, they'll take the losing route they think will make them the most money. If put in a situation of losing customers either way, they will make choices based on their own agendas, or their own best interests. The trouble now is that businesses often fail to realize the amount of ill-will that can be generated by succumbing to boycotts. If the effects are equalized, then organized boycotting will eventually fall to the wayside. Businesses will then continue to advertise in places where they will reach more customers without having to worry about whether or not their advertising dollars will indirectly connected to some great offense in some radical's mind.

More psychotic political correctness and the "religion of peace"

2007-07-30T15:34:00.000-07:00

Michele Malkin asks "Which of these is a Crime in America?"

A) Submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine.
B) Burning the American flag.
C) Putting a Koran in a toilet.

Anyone cynical and savvy enough to discern the double-standards, and the growing attacks on freedom and liberty, that have been sweeping the country as of late will accurately guess C.

What amazes me most about this whole thing is the lack of consistency. A lot of people who in the past have defended the rights of people to do A and B, and have even argued for publicly funding A and B, now turn around and completely ignore their own arguments for free expression, attacking a person's individual right to do C for fear it is 'hurtful' or 'hateful' to Muslims. Granted, C may be so, but to the same degree, A and B are equally hurtful and hateful to Christians and many Americans, respectfully. However, the concept that everyone should be treated the same is completely ignored by the leftist thought police, and the feelings of one group count, the feelings of others do not. In the unequal-protection-under-the-law, politically correct view, the right to free speech and expression of some people should be violated to keep another group of people from feeling slighted. But only if it is the correct group of people!!! The 'right' of Muslims to not be offended outweighs the personal liberties of everyone else - but in turn the Muslim/liberal/atheist right to free expression outweighs the 'right' of Christians and/or American patriots not to be offended. Muslims and leftists are thusly treated as a super-class, with rights far and above everyone else in this nation. And, even worse, if you're a tax-payer, you get to fund their right to offend you with public art grants and in the public education system (especially at the university level). But if you offend them, you face arrest.

In this bizarro situation, the people calling for special consideration of only Muslims' feelings are not the racists in their own eyes, it's everyone else who is, for daring to suggest that all groups be treated equally, and holding everyone to the same standard. Good Allah, if some folks aren't 'more than equal', then you're a bigot!

The world is going mad. Round is square, up is down, right is wrong, black is white, Islam is peaceful. What next?

Support Stanislav Shmulevich!

Obama Hates Black People

2007-07-25T11:24:00.000-07:00

Here is another observation from the CNN/YouTube debate. Two African American girls asked, via video, the following question:

QUESTION: Hi. I'm Cecilla Smith.
QUESTION: And I'm Asanti Wilkins.
QUESTION: And we're from Pennsylvania, and my question is to all the candidates, and it's regarding the national minimum wage. Congress seems to never have a problem when it comes time to give themselves a raise. But when it came time to increase the minimum wage, they had a problem.
My question to the candidates: If you're elected to serve, would you be willing to do this service for the next four years and be paid the national minimum wage?

What was most interesting was Obama's response:

OBAMA: Well, we can afford to work for the minimum wage because most folks on this stage have a lot of money. It's the folks on that screen who deserve -- you're doing all right, Chris, compared to, I promise you, the folks who are on that screen.

Now, why exactly did our holier-than-thou socialist messiah Obama assume that the people on screen were not doing well, or not as well as Chris Dodd? Because they were black? I mean, maybe, just maybe, they asked the question because they make minimum wage. But at the same time, I've heard a number of people, from the wealthy to the not-so-well-off, discussing this issue. So it isn't a given. It could have just been something that concerned them, as it concerns the demonic Ted Kennedy.

It's this gross assumption of inferiority, especially an assumption based on group membership, which clouds a great deal of thinking on the left. The anti-individualism which colors liberalism often blinds many from seeing people as singular and unique. All solutions and problems, from the well-intentioned to the mean-spirited, are seen through the filter of tribalism - only the collective can be assigned attributes, and only the collective is capable of valid and viable action. Individual concerns are secondary.

Racism is a negative aspect of tribalism. It can only be overcome by ending, or at least downplaying, tribalist thought; it cannot be overcome by reversing, re-balancing or transforming the tribalism itself into another form like political correctness. All political correctness or affirmative action programs do is continue the practice of judging persons by their perceived group affiliations. And what is positive or negative in one context could be viewed as ugly or wonderful in another. A celebration of culture via food could be twisted into an ugly stereotype, for example. I would not go out on a limb and say people should not be proud of their personal cultural or sub-cultural heritages, but the problem with tribalism is that it puts heritage far above individual personality, achievement, and faults. Once individualism is placed in the fore-front, and heritage is placed on the back-burner, then heritage becomes unimportant in assessment of other individuals, a neutral, and can be appreciated for what it is, and not be used as a negative.

Sadly, Democrats like Obama get far too much mileage out of the promotion of tribalist thinking, and will use it for political leverage rather than trying to make the world a better place. And, as we see here, such fuzzy thought can even make a racist out of a race-baiter.

Hillary vs. Obama

2007-07-24T15:55:00.001-07:00

I love a good debate.

YouTube/CNN Jerkfest

2007-07-24T14:08:00.001-07:00

So, like many Americans, I watched the CNN/YouTube Democratic Presidential Candidate debate last night. Here are some of my initials reactions:

1. Joe Biden is a fucking asshole, and proved to be the biggest dickhead of the evening. If you didn't know this already, gentle readers, check out Biden's overly insulting response to a YouTube presented question about gun control (in which the questioner referred to his gun as his "baby"):

I'll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help... I don't know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I'm being serious.

I'm being serious here myself - Biden is an asshole with a capital "hole." Not only does he spit in the face of the Constitution by completely disregarding the Second Amendment, and suggesting one would have to be mentally unstable to own a gun, but he goes out on a limb to insult a reasonable questioner ("tell me your position on gun control"). Now, a lot of men refer to their toys as "babies," so there was absolutely no reason to take a disgusting, holier-than-thou attitude and tear apart a guy who believes in freedom and liberty on national television. Even worse, Biden added:

... I hope he doesn't come looking for me.

Great. The questioner did not make a single threat toward anyone. Not only does Biden see our Constitutionally protected right of gun ownership and thus self-defense as insane, he implies that just because someone OWNS a gun, then they're automatically assumed to be guilty of potential assassination and dangerous enough to actually go after a politician. What a typical mixed-up liberal lame-brain. In the justice system, criminals have been given all the loopholes possible by the left, making convicting real threats to our lives and property nearly impossible, but private, up-standing, law-abiding citizens are assumed guilty by liberals, simply because these gun-owners believe in the right to keep arms, bear weapons, and defend oneself from the evil slime in the world that the government does such a bang-up job of keeping out of prison and on the streets. Thanks, Senator, for trusting us to make our own decisions and not preventing us from obtaining the tools we need to keep ourselves safe. And thanks so much, Biden, for those wonderful characterizations of gun-owners as nut-cases and assassins. I don't take that personally at all. Way to win over the moderates, the libertarian minded, and those that actually believe we citizens can and should take responsibility and make decisions for our own lives without unnecessary, cumbersome government interference. You're an asshole. Biden, you should apologize to gun owners and most especially to the guy that asked that question.

2. Kucinich is a complete goofball. I'm surprised anyone but hippy pacifist vegan nimrods give him any respect whatsoever. Oh right, they're the only ones that take him seriously in the first place.

3. Bill Richardson won both the race-baiter and the conspiracy-whacko awards of the evening with a single sentence:

We need to have an effort to get the Republican Party to stop suppressing minority voters.

Riiiiight. Richardson resorts to ugly, baseless accusations and urban myths here to further slander the Republican Party for his own personal gain and for the Democratic Party's. What we really need to have an effort to do is to get Bill Richardson to stop molesting little children. Oh, what Bill? You don't like it when someone lies about you to make you look bad? Too bad, you started it. Stop suggesting that Republicans are racist. I'm sick to death of the gross mischaracterization.

The question asked was actually an interesting one, regarding "standardizing" our nation's elections. Although, I doubt that low voter turnout is much of a result of distrust in the voting process as the questioner implied. Still, a nationally standardized, more trustworthy system would be a welcome change. For one, a national ID card along with voter ID verification at the polls would improve the validity of the process and prevent a lot of fraud. There is very little now, really, to stop illegal aliens, ineligible criminals and duplicate voters from casting votes.

4. Is that John Edwards real hair or some sort of hair textured helmet?

Obama and Clinton try to out race-bait one another

2007-07-23T11:48:00.000-07:00

Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton, those two god-awful, mindless, divisive top contenders for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, yesterday showed their true colors, whipping out their race-cards in a World Series of Race-Baiting Poker frenzy during an annual convention for the Hispanic KKK (aka, La Raza).

At one point,

Mrs. Clinton said she has been trying "to understand where all of the venom and the incredible anxiety came from" in the immigration debate.

Well, Hillary, if you cannot understand (i.e., comprehend, not necessarily agree with) the reasons for the anger and frustration many Americans feel over this issue and your handling of it, then you're more than likely too motherfucking stupid (and by 'stupid' I mean 'extremely fucking idiotic') to be President of the United States. Or, you're just being disingenuous here, and you're just too dishonest to be trusted. Knowing who your husband is, either option is a very real possibility.

Rather than really explore or even bother debating the positions held by those who disagree with you, you'd rather feign incredulity, and thus dismiss their opinions rather than address the substance and logic behind them. Instead of facing an honest discussion or owning up to the massive failure of the Federal Government on illegal immigration and border security, you just pretend (or honestly are too moronic to believe otherwise) that any disagreement or disgust with your stance on illegal immigration is nothing but emotional, irrational meanness.

Passion is not venom. You must learn to distinguish between the two. That people express opinions with emotion is not necessarily some form of evil. Even if, HUGH GASP, those opinions are the opposite of your own. Look at your own passion, if you truly have any. Is righteous fury venom? No, it is not. To be honest, many who disagreed with you find your constant accusations and assertions that they are 'racist' particularly atrocious and venomous. Do not act admirable and gracious while at the same time underhandedly tossing out defamations.

Not that Hillary would be brave enough to read this, or really honestly curious enough to discover what a reasonable view opposing her own might be, but let me break it down a bit for her to "understand", since she at least claimed to have a desire to learn the source of the passionate reaction to the amnesty movement and legislation she supported.

Many Americans are fed up to the core of their beings with the unwillingness of the federal government, that both of the legislative and executive branches, to protect this nation, its citizens and communities, from waves of unwelcome and undocumented foreigners invading our soil, unchecked. Concern over a wide open gate through which anyone can enter, harmful or not, is not venomous or prejudiced. It is merely rational, motivated self-defense.
A great number of American citizens are sick to death of the tendency of Democrats and some Republicans (like Bush) to favor and reward criminality and simultaneously completely ignore and work against justice, ethical behavior, security, and law enforcement. Border patrol agents are jailed for doing their job, and local police have their hands tied by destructive politically correct policies preventing them from even determining who is or is not a legal citizen. The Senate wanted to grant amnesty (citizenship) to people that broke the law coming here, giving them a jump in line in front of loads of people that have been patiently attempting to gain American citizenship via legal means. Of course actions like this make a number of law-abiding people who respect justice and fairness angry. The villains are rewarded, and the heroes are attacked or castrated.
People were especially upset that the views of American citizens were being ignored so that members of both political parties could basically buy votes by giving undeserving criminals citizenship, thus creating a new pool of grateful underprivileged voters. It smacked of pandering rather than action in the best interest of the nation.
The American people were tired of being lied to by politicians who voted for one element of border enforcement, a fence, but then failed to see that it was built - or even worse actively worked against its construction and completion.
The debate was not about Mexican-Americans, nor even legal immigrants. People grew quite annoyed, and rightly so, by the intentional and obvious attempt to blur the distinctions between hispanics, legal immigrants, and illegal aliens. The venom from the race-baiters bred increasingly passionate responses from those opposed to illegal immigration.
Many people have seen their neighborhoods and towns overrun by illegal non-citizens who have no interest in this country or its culture beyond seeing it as a cash-cow and a source of free services - people unwilling even to learn the language. And now businesses and government services are forced by liberal ilk to provide special consideration and Spanish language texts to these people with no real commitment to this country. Politicians hide in their elite towers, failing to even take a look at areas destroyed by the onslaught of impoverished illegals.

To further spread the lie of 'ugliness' about those concerned about illegal immigration and to further vilify the grassroots activism and patriotism that defeated the Senate's inane amnesty proposals, Hillary offered up the following mock indignation:

"I am very disappointed, and I was really quite offended by the tone of the debate and some of what was said by outside parties who were trying to influence the debate."

If you are so offended by the tone, why, Hillary, are you being such a hypocrite; why do you constantly name-call and try to portray the opposition is such an extremely negative, hurtful light? If Ms. Clinton should be disappointed in anyone, it's her own two-faced, transparent behavior here, bemoaning the supposedly "racist" views of the other side from her own delusional position of arrogance and unfounded superiority. In short, she decries what she views as one group of people seeing some other group as inferior, all the while acting as if that initial group suffers from some form of inferiority itself.

I can think of almost nothing more offensive than the load of crap Hillary is trying to sell to the American public (and to non-American migrants). If she wants to fix the tone of the debate, well then, she should start off by stopping her own intentional button-pushing and baseless attacks. Address facts, and agree or disagree as the case may be. But stop disparaging the other side.

Exposing her diseased mind to the general public, Hillary Clinton, whose policies alone show her putting the interests of law-breaking foreigner invaders over those of her own nation's populace, shows her disdain for democracy by referring to the outraged American citizenship, those to whom she SUPPOSEDLY should answer to, as "outside parties." In what sort of twisted universe are the voters of the United States who put you in power the "outside parties," and illegal aliens the ones whom the government should service and represent? How on Earth can we keep trusting an elected representative who displays this sort of antipathy to the free expression of views by American citizens to the governmental officials that should serve them? It is not Hillary's disagreement with those opposed to illegal immigration that is troubling, it is her opinion that she does not answer to the public, or that those portions of the public that do not follow her lead are somehow "outsiders."

To punctuate her insanity, she informed La Raza that even racists, like any other individual committing an act of evil, are not responsible for their actions. True blame rests only in the hands of the anti-Christ:

She blamed the tone on what she called a poor economy under President Bush.

Insulting as her implications of racism are, it is even more insulting to hear her claim that we supposed haters are not even capable or responsible for our own ill-will toward Latinos, it is, like everything else, Bush's fault. For being completely inept, that guy sure has some crazy magic powers of persuasion and control.

Barack Obama one upped Hillary in the insulting shithead department:

The Illinois Democrat said the recent Senate immigration debate "was both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights."

And yet again, another worthless piece of monkey dung politician claiming to be a uniter, claiming to be above partisanship, claiming to be a moderate voice, proves to be nothing more than a twisted, corrupt, unethical, lying, mean-spirited, abusive extremist and divider. The only thing ugly about the debate was the amount of illogical hatred displayed by characters like Barck Hussein.

Does anyone besides the race-baiting diversity pushers and the smarmy socialist elite truly want this assfuck as President of the United States? Can you imagine having this hateful, hurtful malefactor as leader of the free world?

Perhaps you think I'm being a tad harsh. But, to be truthful, I'm probably not being harsh enough. Should I sit idly back as dipshits like Clinton and Obama refer to me as "racist," ignoring my true opinions and painting me with negative scarecrows for their own personal gain, to the detriment of justice and the good of the country? No. Fuck them. They've insulted me, so I'm insulting them back. Clinton and Obama are, without a doubt, a couple of major fucking assholes.

Anti-Freedom, Anti-Liberty Democrats Strike Again

2007-07-20T10:08:00.000-07:00

Last night, Senate Democrats beat back an attempt to prevent the dreadfully fascist Fairness Doctrine from being reinstated. While not necessarily a vote for creating government censorship over talk radio, it was a step toward allowing left-wing discrimination against the free expression of conservatives. For all the lip-service our leftist (and a handful of right-wing) politicians pay toward "civil liberties", the Democrat-controlled Senate has utterly failed to protect the First Amendment (speech, press) rights of American citizens. Oddly, the Democrats are only worried about the "extremist" (read "they don't agree with us, boohoo") views of conservatives on the radio, but care not one iota about "ensuring" (ie, oppressively forcing others to present) a balance of ideas in other media, from internet blogs, to cable/satellite TV/radio, to television news and shows, to movies, to books, to songs on the radio, to whatever else. And of course, extremist liberal indoctrination in classrooms of state-sponsored K-12 and college institutions is perfectly acceptable, because freedom is not important, only their attempt to control your thoughts and opinions is.

Here's how your vile representatives in the Senate voted (60s yeas were needed):

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---49
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID)	DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Kyl (R-AZ) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL)	McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---48
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Conrad (D-ND) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL)	Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ)	Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3
Brownback (R-KS)	Johnson (D-SD)	Obama (D-IL)

I'd like to send out a big FUCK YOU

to my own totalitarian Senators, Boxer and Feinstein, for their own utter failure to protect freedom and liberty and individual choice (except in cases of anal sex and fetus-cide). Next time you run a commercial on the public airwaves, I fully expect you to give me half the time you pay for so that I can present my own opposing opinions on you and your actions in the government. They haven't banned the word "twat" from the radio yet, have they?

Rochambeau!

2007-07-05T14:16:00.000-07:00

HERO CABBIE: I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON

YES!!!!! Rochambeau!!!

I cannot give enough kudos to the heroic cab driver who took it upon himself to boot a barbaric Islamofascist homicide bomber who had set himself on fire right in the nuts. Especially since it has led to one of the greatest headlines I have ever read. Nothing stops a burning jihadist dipstick like a testicle punt. They were right when they said muslim extremism would be beaten by footballers.

Double Standards and the Religion of "Peace"

2007-07-03T11:10:00.001-07:00

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
--US Constitution, First Amendment (of the Bill of Rights)

The separation of church and state has always been a complex issue. Federal, state and local governments are often forced into a delicate balancing act between official endorsement or support of a particular religion (or religiousness) and laws or policies which may restrict an individual's participation in their personal religious beliefs and practices. In general, the principle that the state should act, overall, as apathetic toward religion is a sound one, one based in the ideals of liberty and freedom. The state should not dictate or require specific religious beliefs or practices, nor should they restrict religion except where practices or beliefs run counter to community standards of morality and behavior (e.g., high crimes like murder or drug use, or for safety reasons). And in those cases where the government does seemingly interfere with religious practice or belief, it is not the "religion" itself that should be illegal, but actions that would be illegal for all. In other words, laws should be applied equally, regardless of religious belief, and no one should be targeted specifically because of their faith, nor be given special privileges to break the laws which everyone else must follow because of their affiliation.

The state cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, either positively or negatively. But necessary laws and regulations trump religion. Human sacrifice is still murder, and still a punishable offense, even if one believes Pele demands virgins be tossed into a volcano against their will.

While a few extremists believe that the United States should be a "Christian nation," some fail to see how important this first amendment protection really is. Some small group may well have no problem with the government endorsing Christianity, but these people should really consider just how different the government's version of Christianity might be from their own. They need to look at how varied, and often radical, other sects of Christianity might be compared to their own vision - Christian groups cover the spectrum, from the far "right" to the far "left." Some Christians can go on and on about their personal definition of a "true Christian," and who or what fits it, but there is no guarantee that the state would see it the same way. One need look no further than government established versions of history and morality, such as those taught in the public school systems, to see just how far away from ones own conceptions of these "subjects" those of our multifaceted government might just be. For example, one might be Christian and think that homosexuality is a sin, but does one really think a state established church would discriminate against gay ministers, given today's political climate?

The first amendment protects everyone. It's important to remember that.

Here in San Diego, in the public school system, however, it seems as if the state does not treat everyone equally. Here there is a double-standard. Here the first amendment is ignored. According to this article:

A substitute teacher claimed that Carver Elementary School in San Diego was indoctrinating students into Islam, and that a teacher's aide led Muslim children in prayer.

Carver is currently "providing a 15-minute break in the classroom each afternoon to accommodate Muslim students who wish to pray." Is this a case of special privilege, or merely a case of a government institution doing its best not to restrict religious practice, akin to giving a specific day off for a Jewish holiday? Is that even fair, when atheists cannot get any special days or periods of time off? As the article reminds us:

Islam requires its adherents to pray at prescribed times, one of which falls during the school day.

At first glance, giving people time-off from school for religious reasons seems perfectly reasonable. And, according to school officials, it might even be required, at least by the current interpretations of the law:

Supporters of Carver say such an accommodation is legal, if not mandatory, under the law. They note the district and others have been sued for not accommodating religious needs on the same level as non-religious needs, such as a medical appointment.

One cannot completely fault a school district for acting in its best financial interests, and in turn the financial interests of the tax-payer, especially given the lack of leadership, consistency and clarity on the church and state issue from the local, state and federal government. However, making a decision based on the fact that someone has "been sued for" something in this highly litigious society is not an excuse for a government entity, for this is not the same as determining from these the judgments what is or is not actually legal, allowed or mandatory. Or right. Especially if this accommodation is somehow far and above accommodations given to students of other religions, or no religions at all. Basing policy on suits (and WHO is suing) rather than final court decisions is action out of fear. It is not a thoughtful assessment of legal responsibility. Importantly:

The U.S. Department of Education's guidelines say students can pray at public schools during school hours by themselves or with fellow students. However, teachers and other public school officials may not lead their classes in prayer, devotional readings from the Bible or other religious activities.

What is most disturbing here in San Diego is the accusation that a school aide was "indoctrinating" and leading children in a "Muslim prayer." And that "those who don't pray [could] read or write during that non-instructional time." While this may seem akin to a "moment of silence," for which some on the religious right have fought, it is not certain at all that the muslim prayer break is anything close to that. A moment of silence would allow each student to practice or not practice, to pray or not pray, to reflect or nod off, in complete quiet, on equal footing, with no particular practice or belief favored. No school official endorses or requires or supports any particular course of action during the silence. It is not clear in the Carver situation whether or not this prayer break occurred in the presence of non-muslim students. If it did, especially if it were vocally led by either an official or a student, to a captive audience, then this could be seen as a clear violation of the establishment clause. And, as only muslims are given this privilege, of equal protection too. Would a Christian group be given class-time and resources for prayer, say for a daily Catholic rosary? I think not. And here we have a huge double standard. Think of the valedictorians who could not read their individually written and personal speeches mentioning "God," for fear that allowing individual editorializing during the graduation ceremony, a school activity for all, constitutes endorsement not just by the private citizen, but by the school, and that such mention would be seen as a tiny bit of establishment. Schools have gone so far as to ban free speech for students during ceremonies, rather than say broadcasting a disclaimer that a student's views do not reflect those of the education system or are not necessarily endorsed by the school. Yet here in San Diego Islam is given special consideration that Christianity does not. Christianity is banned during expressions of individual opinion, yet Islam is celebrated in the classroom.

Another question raised here is to what extent is a state facility responsible for providing resources, such as classroom space, for the free exercise of religion. Some might contend that even providing facilities for religious practice is a violation of the rights of the non-spiritual tax-payer, and a clear case of the state establishing a preference toward spirituality. Or is the state forced to do this if it forces students to attend a public institution in the first place?

The federal Equal Access Act requires that extracurricular school clubs, religious and non-religious, be treated equally.

If school facilities are used for various non-instructional, school club reasons, then it does seem acceptable that officials not discriminate against (or for) these clubs on the basis of religion. But in this case, we are talking about a classroom, during class-time, cutting into other students' instructional time. The muslim prayers happened not during the non-instructional free time (recess, lunch, free period) which are part of school hours, but in class. So, here, the facilities and resources are being grossly misused. These facilities and the time of the state-employed teachers are to be used for educational purposes during instructional time. During breaks, they should be open to all, or at least be made available for all to reserve, for religious or non-religious. Even setting aside a free space for muslims during a specific time shows a preference and violates the rights of all other non-muslim students.

Oddly, the left has fought for years to keep religion, or at least Christianity, out of the public schools, to the point of not allowing students to speak freely during class or school time about their religious convictions, yet now the left seems to be all for bending over backwards and providing special treatment and facilities to non-Christian religions. A double-standard indeed. And, by any stretch of the imagination, an unfair, unequal treatment.

In the end, this shows one of the many challenges and problems of a public, rather than private, education system that all, even those without children utilizing these services, are expected to pay into. A public education system is part of the state, and must be unbiased in its treatment of students.

Another Reason to Despise Obama

2007-07-02T13:07:00.000-07:00

If you're looking for yet another reason (or maybe it's just another example of one of the same old reasons) to dislike Barack Obama, then you need look no further than his comments on the debate over the recent amnesty bill to the annual conference of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials on June 30, 2007. To quote this article:

Barack Obama, for example, said there was "an ugly overtone" in the debate, which he said was absent from the debate over the same bill last year, and accused opponents of using "the politics of fear."

Barack is nothing but a pathetic race-baiter and hyperbolist. It was not fear, nor hate, that motivated the public against this awful piece of legislation; it was outrage and frustration. What could be more ugly than implying that people are racist, or "ugly," for attempting to defend this nation and the rule of law? Unlike Obama, who seems only able to view people as homogeneous groups rather than as individuals, opponents of this bill were quite able to distinguish between Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, as well as between American-born Hispanics, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. Over and over, idiots like Obama play the race card, for personal gain, and then wonder why people are so fed up with their policies and accusations. Who is playing on the "politics of fear," if not you, Obama, trying to motivate people to vote for you by painting a distorted picture of the "other guy" as hate-mongering bigots?

Joe Biden, who doesn't have a snowball's chance in Death Valley of gaining his party's nomination, was even worse - or at least more desperate:

Joe Biden told conference attendees the debate over immigration "has become a race to the bottom - who can be the most anti-Hispanic."

Moron. Being anti-illegal alien is not in any way, shape or form the same as being "anti-Hispanic." The former is a stance toward criminal behavior and foreign invasion, while the latter is racist.

House Kills Any Attempt to Resurrect 'Fairness Doctrine'

2007-06-29T09:40:00.000-07:00

Score one for free speech and free press. The House voted 309-115 yesterday to adopt a spending bill (which includes funding for the FCC) amendment by Rep. Mike Pence barring the FCC from reviving the oxymoronically titled 'Fairness Doctrine.' That some politicians would even consider resurrecting such vile, oppressive legislation just shows how completely out of touch, corrupt, power-hungry and anti-liberty so many of our "representatives" have become. But this is hardly surprising from our anti-freedom "leaders" who have brought us racist "affirmative" action processes, vastly totalitarian limitations on our right to keep and bear arms, and a seemingly infinite number of bans on personal choice, from light bulbs, to foie gras, to pet breeding, to smoking here, there, and everywhere, to end of life choices. And many of these same idiots flap about claiming to be "pro-choice" because they claim to support a woman's choice to end a pregnancy - all the while doing nothing to prevent men from being harmed by fraudulent paternity claims. Right, I really believe you guys deserve to use the label pro-choice. There are about a billion other choices we should be FREE (imagine using the word 'free' to describe our rights as Americans) to make besides fetus termination. Talk radio is no more biased than religious radio or even a great deal of politically charged songs played over the airwaves. There is absolutely nothing "fair" about forcing someone else to say, to print or to broadcast what they do not want to. Hey, how about some of you dipshit politicians calling for the Fairness Doctrine to be re-enacted give me a blog on your political webpage, in which I'll just publish article after article about how small your brain is, and how little respect you have for the rights of your fellow citizens. That would be providing an opposing viewpoint. Oh, but of course, any forum you own or run should not be subject to the necessity of government imposed "balance." It's OTHER people that need to be CONTROLLED by YOU.

If a Fairness Doctrine ever does pass, I'm going to demand equal time on every local news station to provide "opposing views" to all of the weathermen's opinion, so I can just sit there and scream "NO IT'S NOT!" every time one of them says "It's going to rain today."

Can You Find a Better Candidate For the Death Penalty?

2007-06-28T14:58:00.000-07:00

Today, Texas teenager Dexter Johnson had to be restrained in court. After hearing he was sentenced to death for brutally carjacking and murdering two people during a month long crime spree, he lunged at victims' family members, and had to be tackled by court deputies. Good riddance, scumbag. Execution can not come soon enough for this 19-year old thug.

Supreme Court Limits Affirmative Action in Schools

2007-06-28T10:45:00.000-07:00

Today the Supreme Court "rejected diversity plans in two major school districts that take race into account in assigning students but left the door open for using race in limited circumstances." (AP) The case involved two school districts which utilized programs to assign students from black and white neighbors to schools which were often far from their homes in order to artificially attain some sort of nebulous "diversity" within individual facilities.

In the majority opinion, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the following:

"Simply because the school districts may seek a worthy goal doesn't mean that they are free to discriminate on the basis of race to achieve it."

An eloquent point, and a highly intelligent one, made in this debate over means and ends. For quite awhile, those blinded by their focus on the ends have ignored the gross hypocrisy in their support of means so similar to the very evil they were fighting against: discrimination. Can one, in good conscience, use discrimination to reverse discrimination? Especially discrimination against individuals whose only "fault" is to share an ethnicity with people who may have discriminated against people who share your own ethnicity? This game of racial guilt, blame and perceived privilege is in itself simply another form of bigotry, another form of prejudice, another form of ugly racism, as individuals would be rewarded or punished based on skin-color rather than personal belief, action, guilt or achievement. All affirmative action has done is to institutionalize discrimination and promote tribalism over individuality. Affirmative action has been a ill-conceived assault on personal liberty and responsibility.

In a moment evoking Yogi Berra, Roberts also put forth these words of wisdom:
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
While somewhat obvious, this is a point often lost or intentionally ignored in the discussion. You cannot battle the practice of racial discrimination and privilege with a different form of racial discrimination and special privilege. If it is wrong to judge and discriminate against blacks based on their race, then it is equally wrong to do the same to whites. The anti-affirmative action argument is not suggesting the wrongness of discrimination against blacks, as many times as proponents would like to race-bait and toss the word 'racist' around; it argues that discrimination of any sort, for whatever "lofty goal," is wrong. The affirmative actionists have merely attempted to argue that one form of discrimination is worse than another, depending on who are the victims, again attempting to create some sort of race-based (ie, bigoted) hierarchy of worthiness of victimhood.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the only black person on the Supreme Court, wrote this in a separate opinion endorsing the majority ruling:

“What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today. The plans before us base school assignment decisions on students’ race. Because ‘our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens,’ such race-based decisionmaking is unconstitutional.”

I would go even further to say that plans which incorporate any consideration of ethnicity, any attempt to artificially "promote diversity", or alter ethnic proportions within a group, are equally discriminatory, whether or not they do so directly. Thomas also wrote:

"Every time the government uses racial criteria to 'bring the races together,' someone gets excluded, and the person excluded suffers an injury solely because of his or her race."

Amnesty Defeated

2007-06-28T09:22:00.000-07:00

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.1639 ):

YEAs ---46 (Villains)
Akaka (D-HI) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Conrad (D-ND) Craig (R-ID) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (R-SC)	Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL)	McCain (R-AZ) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Salazar (D-CO) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---53 (Heroes)
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Brown (D-OH) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Byrd (D-WV) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN)	Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Grassley (R-IA) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Landrieu (D-LA) McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK)	Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Stabenow (D-MI) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Webb (D-VA)

Not Voting - 1
Johnson (D-SD)

The bill has fallen 14 votes short of the 60 necessary to limit debate and clear the way for final vote (and possibly passage) of the dreaded legislation.

Despite this victory, now is hardly the time to rest. The people has spoken quite loudly on the issue of illegal immigration, and it is time to demand real action. After this fight, the amnesty crowd will avoid this issue like the plague, but there is still real work to be done, real reform to be made.

The first is to demand border and national security. For the most part, all that needs to be done is for our government to enforce and follow existing laws. The building of a border fence which was signed into law last year must be completed. The border patrol must be given the tools and the support necessary to protect this nation and stop the swarm of illegal aliens across the border. The judicial and executive witch hunt of border patrol agents must be stopped - agents should no longer be punished for doing their job. Illegal aliens must be held completely accountable for their disregard of the law of the land, both for entering this country without permission, and for any other laws broken during their stay. Local police must be given the tools and authority necessary to assist in the battle.

Secondly, the incentives for illegals to come here must be eliminated. Businesses which hire illegals must be held accountable for breaking the law. Landlords who knowingly provide housing to illegal aliens must face punishment. Government services and handouts, including free health care and education, for illegal aliens must be eliminated.

The federal government, overall, has proven unwilling to do what is necessary to stop the flow of invaders and secure the borders. Despite more empty promises made by the supporters of the awful amnesty bill, promises which cannot be trusted one iota given the past record of this government, the citizenship of this country does not trust our representatives and judicial system to do what is right and necessary. The lies of the past cannot be forgotten, and awareness of these untruths played a major role in the public's reaction to this latest legislative attempt.

The proponents of the amnesty bill often told the people that "something must be done," but the people saw through this empty reasoning. Something RIGHT must be done. Something EFFECTIVE must be done. If a man is drowning in a river, something must be done. But that something should not be shooting him in the head. It should be rescue. To just do something is not enough. That something needs to work. And no one believes you if you say you're going to do something, but you sat around doing nothing - or worse than nothing - while three people drowned before him. Or if you actively prevented others from rescuing those people as well - stopped others from throwing out ropes. And, even worse, you pushed more people that couldn't swim into the rapids; your actions encouraged them to take a devastating dip.

This nation is threatening to be drowned by waves of illegal aliens. Presidents, Senators and Congressmen will visit disaster zones after fires, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes, but fail to visit the disaster zones that are the American neighborhoods that have been devastated by the storm of criminals brought to this land as a result of inaction and turning a blind eye to policies and procedures that have created an open border atmosphere.

Am I optimistic that the current administration and Congress will awaken to these troubles and toughen up their stances and actions against illegal aliens? Not much. To some degree the fight must be taken to the local level as well. Communities are already beginning to rebel against a federal system that has abandoned them and ignored their needs. Local ordinances and a support of local law enforcement against illegals are the beginning of the way to both fight the battle at a community level, and to increasingly make the power brokers and special interest panderers in Washington aware of just how critical this issue has become.

We, the people, have slapped the government across the face for not only their failure, but their willingness to sell out the interests of this country to special interests, be they race-baiters and America-haters, or conscienceless shady business opportunists. And that slap has stung.

Those opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants were branded "extremists," but they were truly the only moderates, the only rationalists, in the debate. The architects of amnesty legislation called themselves compromisers, but let their own extreme lack of integrity motivate them to ignore the best interests of this country and the will of the people. The only thing they truly compromised was their own honor and their own commitment to serve this nation and its citizens.

Illegal Aliens and Terrorist Protesters Have More Rights Than Law Abiding Citizens

2007-06-27T15:37:00.000-07:00

You may remember hearing about the May Day melee in MacArthur park in Los Angeles, during which the LAPD was drawn into a situation where they found it necessary to use force against a crowd of thugs and rambunctious illegal aliens holding a so-called "peaceful protest" calling for special privileges and amnesty for illegal aliens. The LAPD has undergone a lot of criticism for their handling of the situation, especially as a lot of bystanders and press members who failed to comply with police orders were caught in the crossfire.

Of course, what the liberally biased media often fails to report is that the police were provoked by a group of slime-ball agitators and anarchist terrorists, who hurled insults, frozen bottles of water turned into rock-hard missiles of ice, bottles filled with urine, and other peaceful protests at the heroic officers, all the while hiding behind a wall of "peacefully assembling" accomplices (with children!) who acted as a shield during the seditious attacks on police officers. Buying into the politically correct but factually erroneous version of events, LA's mayor, city council and police chief also refuse to lay any blame on, or make much mention of, the rioters who were directly responsible for causing and escalating events. TV camera-persons claiming that they were attacked by the LAPD can be seen on tape being pushed over by their reporter colleagues. Everyone refuses to acknowledge the fact that TV reporters on the sidelines hit with rubber bullets were most likely hit by accident, and never take into consideration that guns and rubber ammunition are hardly 100% accurate, nor that sticking around during a melee in order to grab some footage when they've been ordered to leave puts oneself at risk of getting hit by stray bullets. And that this is a risk the media chose to take by ignoring police warnings.

To add further insult to injury, as the public, the media and city officials take the side of the criminal rioters and foreign invaders over our own brave and much maligned protectors, another incident occurred this past weekend further proving that the media and the LA city government is in league with criminals, pandering to the interests of illegals over their own citizens.

An anti-illegal immigration rally was planned in Leimert Park on June 24. However, another group of violent agitators were allowed to take over this park, and the groups with the legal permit to hold their rally had their right to peaceful assembly violated. The LAPD, stinging from a lack of community or official support, were justifiably unwilling to clear out the terrorists a second time. And the police blocked access to the park so that the anti-illegal immigration could not enter, fearing a "mini riot." Read a slightly slanted story on the events here. Of course, a group of people not in line with the leftist view on illegal immigration being violently intimidated by radicals and morons like ANSWER Los Angeles will not generate as much news as perceived infringements against the rights of the press or antagonistic leftist organizations.

Totalitarian, bullying and violent leftism wins again.

Obama's wife calls him The Answer

2007-06-27T15:10:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, addressing a crowd at a Harlem community center, Barack Hussein Obama's wife Michelle had this to say:

"I am married to The Answer. And I'm not just saying that because I'm his wife."

The Answer to what question? "Who is the biggest fraud in politics"? Obama has about as much integrity and authenticity as a designer purse you purchase from a hidden room in a souvenir shop in Chinatown. The Emperor's New Clothes of the current political arena is nothing more than a puff of hot air, an empty shell of a politician, who feels more like he was created by a PR firm or a kinda liberal television script writer than an actual person with real ideals and principles. Here are some other questions to which B.O. might be "The Answer":

Whom am I never voting for?

Who can read a pretty, vague speech once at a convention and thusly convince a lot of brain-dead zombies he's the second coming of Kennedy?

What's uglier than Hillary Clinton, slicker than Bill Clinton, less tolerable than Al Gore on stage, and more of a hypocrite than John Edwards?

Who thinks that by tossing around nebulous terms like "hope" rather than addressing real issues or actually thinking during a debate, he can win over the hearts rather than minds of the American people, who are all too willing to vote image over substance?

Who is a big enough arrogant prick to have his wife refer to him by a hyperbole like The Answer?

John Kerry on the Fairness Doctrine

2007-06-27T09:40:00.000-07:00

Nobody is likely surprised at fascist-leftist John Kerry's views on the Orwellian titled 'Fairness Doctrine' which has been rearing its monstrous head again, due to the fact that citizens are exercising their right to free expression and daring to disagree with the Washington unrepresentatives.

“I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back. I mean these are the people who wiped out one of the most profound changes in the balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements. And the result is that, you know, they’ve been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think it’s been an important transition in the imbalance of our public…”

Frightening. As I read the first amendment, there is some reference to a "freedom" of the press, which as I understand it means the government should not really have control over media output, whether it be liberally biased, or conservatively so, or just plain lame and uninformative. I suppose Kerry has never picked up a copy of tiny papers like the LA Times or the New York Times to see just how well a few AM radio discussion shows have completely controlled public opinion and squashed the expression of differing opinion. Amazingly, Kerry focuses on a single forum, and idiotically suggests that since this particular form of editorial expression is not in sync with his vision of tyranny, then they must be controlled. Does he address the one-sidedness of the satirical news programs on cable TV networks? Of course not. The editorial pages of major newspapers or magazines? Nah.

The most insulting implication of his quote is the idea that if someone holds a view differing from his own, then they must be brainwashed. Talk radio must be warping the opinions of the American public, rather than the public forming their own opinion and tuning in to programs that represent their views. What utter arrogance to think those that disagree with Kerry are too stupid to formulate their own opinions. They must just be parrots, unable to think for themselves. Beyond wet-dreams of dictatorship, there is no excuse for Kerry's threats on free expression in this nation. If a leftist types up a blog, calling for activism, then he or she is probably a hero and a leader in Kerry's eyes; but if a conservative does the same vocally over a different medium, that broadcaster is a mesmerist and disrupter.

Everyone across the political spectrum who cherishes liberty and personal freedom should be sickened to the core at Kerry's (and other Senators') calls for totalitarianism. Except for governmentally sponsored networks, the government has no right to be ramrodding some insane concept of "equal time requirements" down the throats of privately owned forums. And most especially not some doctrine aimed at a tiny segment of the media overall, and at particular opinions and stances of one group of people. What about rock music stations playing a song bashing George Bush? Will they then be required to play a pro-Bush song right after? Or at least provide equal time for a right-wing pundit to debate the lyrical content of the song? How about Christian stations? Will they be required to provide equal time to atheists and muslims?

Whether or not you agree with anything said on talk radio at all, you should respect and defend the rights of these individuals and stations to say whatever the fuck they want. Challenge their ideas all you want, wherever you want. The sphere of public debate encompasses more than any single medium. But for God's sake, don't take the socialist route and attempt to control speech and thought and challenge their RIGHT to speak and express their views. And don't be a big fucking cowardly loser baby, and stamp your feet like a worthless shithead over the idea that huge segments of the population just simply disagrees with you. Calling Kerry a "pussy" would be an insult to female body parts. Enough of your political tantrums. I've heard liberals and Democrats bitch and moan about the dangers Republicans pose to "civil liberties," (and sure a lot of them call for similarly detestable legislation), but they're no better. Honestly, fuck the whole lot of you, those of you, especially our "leaders," who wrap yourselves in the Constitution and pay lip-service to it while at the same shit all over it.

John Kerry, as horrible of a President as Bush has turned out to be (fiscally un-conservative, inept as a commander in chief, a downright traitor on the issue of illegal aliens), you would have been 1,000 times worse. Or maybe just 999 worse. But we might as well have had Hugo Chavez as our top executive as you. He likes to punish members of the media for disagreeing with him too.

I'm a little pissed that Obama didn't give me a chapter to express my views about him in his book. What are you going to do about that?

Amnesty Bill Vote Count

2007-06-26T11:11:00.000-07:00

Here's how your Senators voted on reviving the dreaded amnesty bill:

YEAs ---64
Akaka (D-HI) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Brownback (R-KS) Burr (R-NC) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Craig (R-ID) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Durbin (D-IL) Ensign (R-NV)	Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY)	Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Salazar (D-CO) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---35
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bunning (R-KY) Byrd (D-WV) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX)	Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Dorgan (D-ND) Enzi (R-WY) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Landrieu (D-LA) McCaskill (D-MO)	Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Stabenow (D-MI) Sununu (R-NH) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA)

Not Voting - 1
Johnson (D-SD)

Amnesty Bill Advances

2007-06-26T10:11:00.000-07:00

The US Senate just voted 64-35 to revive the god-awful, down right treasonous amnesty bill. Of course, this horrible piece of legislation, in any form, will not pass - at least not in the House. But here again, our out-of-touch, arrogant political leaders have once again ignored common sense, integrity and the will of the people to instead push a bill that would reward criminality, weaken American sovereignty, encourage more waves of illegal immigration and over-population, disenfranchise the American lower class by bringing a lower foreign class to undercut job opportunities, and all the way around fail to protect American security. Murderer-moron Edward Kennedy had this to say:

"This may not be perfect, but it is the best opportunity we have to do something significant and substantial, and I believe that the bill is good."

This bill is the complete opposite of "good." Doing "something" is in no way preferable if that "something" actually makes things worse. Last year you, our Senators, House representatives and President did do something "significant and substantial," by voting to fund a border fence. Of course that was just a lie for election purposes. The government has completely failed to follow through on actually supplying us with this layer of protection; much in the same way our government has failed to protect us and our Border Patrol agents from the violence of border crossing. In fact, those sworn to protect us, our patriotic officers, are vilified, attacked and imprisoned for doing that which is in the best interest of our country by these very slimeballs that now want to grant amnesty to intruders, trespassers, drug smugglers and dealers, gang bangers, murderers, assaulters, identity thieves and all around disrepecters of our nation, laws, culture and persons.

In the end, the US Senate serves special interests - those that profit from the hiring of illegal aliens, and the bigoted ethnic entitlementists, socialists and anarchists that wish to destroy liberty by slowly dismantling our republic.

More on Obama

2007-06-26T09:25:00.000-07:00

Let's look a little more at what Obama had to say at a church convention on June 23, 2007.

At every opportunity, [the Christian Right have] told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," he said.

I've already discussed the hypocrisy in Obama's attacks on Christians who have right-leaning views, while at the same time trying to portray himself as some sort of "hope peddler." But what exactly is Obama trying to imply with this sentence? Rather than actually addressing his own stances on any of these issues, he cowardly dances away from them, pushing them aside, asserting they are not important. While it is true that the left often portrays the religious right as being single-minded in their concerns, simply because these issues may or may not be high priorities to some in no way suggests that these are their only concerns, nor that they lack opinions on other issues. But it would be a mistake to imply that they might agree with Obama on other issues. Plus, it is hardly true that the these issues are not high priorities for certain groups on the left, be they the pro-choice crowd, gay lobbies or the atheists. The left has gained plenty of mileage by scare-mongering about Supreme Court nominations and the possibility of a loss of "abortion rights." What Obama is really saying here is that making these particular issues a priority, emphasizing single issues, is some sort of a distraction. I'm sure NARAL and gay rights activists would be pleased to hear that.

So rather than actually telling us what he thinks, or would do, about these issues, he avoids substance completely. Much in the same way his attacks on the religious right are easy - he peddles "hope," but offers no solution. Why bother even addressing the perceived problem with the religious right if he offers no plan about it? It's a non-issue, as I seriously doubt he would propose legislation to "fix" it (or if he did, it would be wildly unconstitutional and fascist). He plays around with nothings rather than giving us answers to the somethings that concern a number of people on the left, on the rightm and in the middle. In fact he is really implying we should not really even care about these somethings. And as dismissive as he is to these issues, they are really important to a lot of folks. Some see abortion as murder, mass murder; some see it as a fundamental reproductive right. The key point of debate being the fundamental question: when does human life, and human rights and liberty, actually begin? Whatever your conclusion, not something to be brushed aside. The same with gay marriage - it's really very important to a lot of gay couples who view themselves as being discriminated against, and equally important to those religious individuals that believe society should not endorse or condone such behaviors.

Here's my advice to Obama. Don't even bring up issues if you are too cowardly to reveal your stance on each. Or, if you're legitimately unsure or undecided, tell us that. But do not attempt to sweep these issues under the rug in a pathetically transparent move to avoid giving the voting public the facts it deserves about you to make an informed opinion. If you want anyone's vote, they deserve to know where you really stand. Enough of your formless, wishy-washy image-making. Tell us what you really think; give us details. All we're getting now is worthless fluff.

Obama the Hypocrite

2007-06-25T15:56:00.000-07:00

Lot's of people fell for Barack Obama's (Barack Oh-BORING!) flash at first, but even Democrats are beginning to see through his lack of substance in growing numbers. I may not be a fan of Hillary Clinton, but at least there are substantive issues behind her for disliking her. Obama is just an empty shell, devoid of substance.

This weekend, Barack Hussein Obama said the following at a church convention on June 23, 2007:

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart... Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us."

So, Barack-ster, you're complaining about divisiveness by singling out and attacking a particular group, blaming them for what is wrong with America? Right, you're so much different and better than they are.

Now I'm not a big fan of the Christian Right, nor am I a big fan of Obama-man, but I'm not off trying to pretend to be some middle-of-the-road uniter, somehow above the fray of partisan politics (as B.O. tried to suggest he was at the Democratic Convention a little while back). The Christian Right is perfectly entitled to have opinions about others, just as you are to have opinions about them. I don't fault Obama for disagreeing with the Christian Right. I have no problem disagreeing with them myself over a variety of issues. But for him to act somehow superior to them, while at the same time engaging in the behavior he's decrying, is just pathetic.

I am so sick of slick politicians with their lies and propaganda. Cut the crap! I cannot count the times I've seen these jackasses contradict themselves, or spin themselves into illogical spirals of unreason, in an attempt to sound as if they're actually saying something worthwhile or vaguely in tune with some unclear concept. Oh, he's for unity. I'm voting for that fucker. Debate the damn issues, and stop vilifying the other guy - and most ESPECIALLY stop vilifying the other guy by saying all he does is vilify you. Discuss something important. If people want to believe abortion is evil, fuck it, let them. We don't have freedom of religion in this country just so some dipshit, empty-headed Presidential candidate can complain about it. Religion has not been hijacked - there are just *gasp* differences of opinion that are theologically based, just as there are differences of opinion that are based on all kinds of other reasoning.

Probably the most vile aspect of the Obama quote is his use of the word "hijack," a word associated with terrorism, which is in turn is associated with the religious fundamentalism and violence of extremist Islam.

Denice Denton, Still Dead

2007-06-25T15:14:00.000-07:00

Those of us that work for the UC System received this annoying little message via email today from UC President Bobby Dynes:

TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY
Dear Colleagues:

As some of you may recall, June 24 marked the passing of one full year

since the death of Denice Denton, who served as Chancellor of the

University of California, Santa Cruz. I would like to take a moment to

pause and reflect on this great talent who was with us for far too short

a time, but who had a tremendous influence on so many throughout the

University and across the nation. As I recalled at her memorial

service, Denice moved us forward into new territories of excellence and

inclusiveness. Along the way, she inspired us, by her own example, to

strive always to be better people, and she challenged us to see our

differences as strengths to build upon and as opportunities to grow.

The University of California is the better for her having come our way

and, in remembering Denice, I hope we will continue to build upon the

rich legacy she left us.

The Santa Cruz campus has posted a special tribute to Chancellor Denton,

and it can be found at

http://www.ucsc.edu/administration/denice_denton/anniversary.asp. I

encourage you to take a moment to visit it and to be inspired by this

extraordinary and gifted individual.

Sincerely,

Robert C. Dynes
President

Now, of course, a corrupt piece of crap like Dynes would be the first to be unable to distinguish between "new territories of excellence" and innovative ways to rip off the taxpayer or bypass ethical behavior. When she was hired, the UC system also hired her lesbian lover to a newly created position in the UC Office of the President, which is in Oakland, which paid $192,000 annually. Denton received benefits that weren’t disclosed when she was hired - part of a UC executive scandal which also implicated our lovely President. She also managed to get $30,000 spent for a freaking "dog run" as part of $600,000 in renovations to the chancellor’s campus house.

Behavior such as this is the exact opposite of "[inspiring] us, by her own example, to strive always to be better people." Unless you of course you consider her an example of how not to behave.

But of course, since she was a lesbian, her incompetence and thievery are to be ignored by the lunatic left that has infested UC campuses with their insane agenda of diversity-bigotry over rational thought and fairness. In some great quest for "inclusiveness" people are to be judged on labels rather than morality and ability. I'm sure she was a fine engineer, but she was a piss-poor administrator and an even worse example of a principled person. She was a militant entitlementist, who thought anyone that dared disagree with her was a bigot, but it was she who showed true prejudice by suggesting she deserved special privilege and consideration due to her sexual orientation.

That said, that she chose to take her own life is a tragedy.

Feinstein Equals Fascist, But Does Not Equal Fairness

2007-06-25T10:03:00.000-07:00

Check out what the so-called "liberal", anti-liberty, pro-fascism, pure-evil twat Senator Dianne Feinstein had to say about free speech on FNS yesterday:

WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator Feinstein.
Oklahoma Senator Inhofe says that he overheard Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton three years ago complaining about talk radio and saying that there should be a legislative fix. Both of them deny it ever happened. But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the fairness doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It’s explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information. This is a very complicated bill. It’s seven titles. Most people don’t know what’s in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty — we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system.

This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day.

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

Color me shocked. First off, let's look at her insane assertions about the immigration bill. If anyone is dwelling in extremism and hyperbole, it is Feinstein. She is being "explosive," and downright insulting, suggesting that those that hold different views, be they listeners or hosts, regarding this bill someone are ignorant of what is in it. Believe it or not, Dumb-anne, those opposing the bill are fully aware of what the legislation entails. People are aware it is "complicated," but complexity does not necessarily translate to actual reform or effectiveness, especially considering that we have the laws we need already on the books, and they have not been enforced. Disagreeing with whether or not this bill works, or is fair, is not the same as not comprehending what it does.

She also puts forth the moronic "silent amnesty" argument in favor of this bill, but fails to address the fact that those opposed to it want neither silent, nor government endorsed, amnesty. People on and listening to talk radio are quite aware that the current administration and Congress does NOTHING to enforce the laws of the land now, in fact granting "silent amnesty," but fails to fix it. This bill only makes things worse, will encourage more illegal immigration, rewards illegal behavior, and offers no real solution. If she actually LISTENED to some talk radio, she would hear that hosts go into the flaws in the current system all the time. It's bullshit to assert that because people are opposed to this current attempt to "fix" the system, that they are opposed to fixing the system at all. There was an attempt to start fixing the system last year - by building hundreds of miles of new border fence (not a comprehensive fix by any means, but a start) - which was passed by Congress and signed into law, yet that has not yet been built.

Equally insulting is the assertion that talk radio "pushes" people into certain opinions, views or actions. People listen to talk radio hosts because they agree with them (or enjoy disagreeing with them). It's not like they've suddenly become brainwashed by the radio waves. Heck, what would motivate them to tune-in in the first place? What is most chilling about Feinstein's pathetic attempt at reasoning here is that somehow this disagreement justifies censorship or governmental control of media content. And even worse, it targets only a tiny sliver of the media and biased opinion. What you will not hear Feinstein calling for is a Fairness Doctrine effecting the editorial sections of liberal newspapers, liberal bias in college classrooms, leftist slant on TV News or comedy shows, left-wing bias in movies or music, or any of a million other forums. And what amazes me is that liberals and Democrats will foam at the mouth in these forums, online, etc., about how Bush and the Republicans are attempting to erode civil liberties with the Patriot Act or calling for an end to bias in college education, but have no problem pissing all over the 1st Amendment when it comes to opinions that don't fall in sync with their own.

Guess what, Dumb-anne, you or anyone else has no right to "present the other side" on someone else's editorial forum. And attempting to silence dissenting opinion is about as fascist as you can get. But it's about the sort of utter hypocrisy I've come to expect from the Democratic Party. No wonder Congress has an approval rating as low as Bush's.

Most racist joke ever

2006-02-17T15:38:00.000-08:00

And I invented it:

What's the difference between a Crusade and a Jihad?

Answer:

In a Crusade you hunt goat-fuckers, and in a Jihad, the goat-fuckers hunt you!

Thank you, Yakov Smirnoff.

Boycott the LA Times

2006-01-26T14:55:00.000-08:00

Dear LA Times,

I was opposed to the war in Iraq for a number of reasons, first and foremost because President Bush failed to convince me that it was necessary or in our best interests in regards to achieving our goal of defeating terrorist threats to our nation and around the world. But there is no denying that the removal of the Hussein dictatorship and the promotion of democracy around the world is a noble cause, even if I did find this particular war a distraction from the real battle. For this reason, I was shocked to read Joel Stein's recent piece, Warriors and Wusses, in the pages of your paper, and disgusted by this extremist leftist lunatic who equates his own nation defending itself and ending tyranny with "imperialism." And even worse, this pathetic coward blaming our brave and heroic soldiers for risking their lives in the name of the freedom that allows Stein to write such drivel made me sick to my stomach. Trust me, only a small minority of those that vote "Democrat" associate themselves with such despicable ideas, much as the religious right is a loud but vocal minority drowning out the saner voices in the Republican camp. I think it is important to note that this man in no way speaks for the majority of centrists that make up the Democratic Party, or even the majority of people who disagreed with the administration on their policies regarding Iraq. And it's not just conservatives or Republicans or gung-ho war supporters that were outraged by this trash.

The LA Times should fire Joel Stein immediately, and the newspaper should apologize at once to our military, their families, our President and just about every sane American who was outraged by this tirade of treason masquerading as an op-ed piece. There is simply no reason to cater to the radical fringe elements simply to shock, create controversy and sell papers. You should be ashamed of yourselves.