By semjaza, 2008-07-12
<p><span style="font-size: large; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">THE DEATH OF FREE SPEECH</span><br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: small; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-style: italic;">"<span style="font-size: medium;">Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth. Or by misleading the innocent."</span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"> First officer Spock, USS Enterprise, star-date 5029.5 <br /> <br /> ...And so it begins. The effort to dismantle the basic freedoms guaranteed in Western Civilization are accelerating in earnest. The European Union is under direct attack from Muslims demanding...yes, DEMANDING, that the West adopt a policy of silencing critics of Islam. Yet, in what can only be described as a shocking turn of events, one of the first successful acts of suppressing free speech has occurred in...Colorado? Ye who mock God should be very careful who you </span> </span></span><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-family: Pegasus;">cra</span></span><span style="font-size: large; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-size: medium;">wl into bed with...</span><br /> </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-family: Pegasus;"> ISLAMABAD: <span style="font-style: italic;">Pakistan will ask the European Union countries to amend laws regarding freedom of expression in order to prevent offensive incidents such as the printing of blasphemous caricatures of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) and the production of an anti-Islam film by a Dutch legislator, sources in the Interior Ministry told Daily Times on Saturday. </span><br /> <br /> What! No mention of the Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD "Axis Of Evil?" I tell you its just not fair the way they go about choosing who constitutes the leading offenders of Islamo-blasphemy! It's not really about who says the most "Inconvenient truths" about Islam. It's all about who you know. I'm feeling so rejected. <br /> <br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">They said that a six-member high-level delegation comprising officials from the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Law would leave Islamabad on Sunday (today) for the EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium and explain to the EU leadership the backlash against the blasphemous campaign in the name of freedom of expression. The delegation, headed by an additional secretary of the Interior Ministry, will meet the leaders of the EU countries in a bid to convince them that the recent attack on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan could be a reaction against the blasphemous campaign, sources said. </span><br /> <br /> Ahh yes. The "I wouldn't blow up your embassy if your country didn't allow the publication of blasphemous Muhammad cartoons" excuse. Kind of reminds you if that line in the movie "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" where Paul Newman exclaims: "If he'd just pay me what he's spending to make me stop robbing him, I'd stop robbing him." But alas, it gets better. Our Muslim friends go on to threaten more violence in the event that their demands go unfulfilled. <br /> <br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">They said that the delegation would also tell the EU that if such acts against Islam are not controlled, more attacks on the EU diplomatic missions abroad could not be ruled out. </span><br /> <br /> Strong words to be sure. So when are we going to start believing these people mean what they say? In this case it was the Danish Embassy that they blew up, killing six people. Yet they have the audacity to claim that it is they, the Muslim population, that are the victims.<br /> <br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">'It isn't just the people of Pakistan that feel they have been harassed by what your newspaper has begun, I'd like to know if your newspaper is satisfied with what it has done and what it has unleashed?' </span>Fauzia Mufti Abbas, Pakistan's ambassador to Denmark<br /> <br /> The ambassador's perspective on Muslim violence is not unique. It follows the same trajectory established by Muhammad himself, to justify removing criticism of his, and thereby Islam's, policies. His influence remains alive and well. Will the European Union fall prey to this foolish logic that sees Islam as a perpetual victim? Will Europe surrender one of the most precious freedoms in Western Civilization in hopes of thwarting future Muslim violence? Is there any "fight" left in our European friends or would they prefer to surrender and become dhimmi servants to their new Muslim overlords. Overlords such as Pakistani ambassador to Norway Rab Nawaz Khan. What? You haven't heard about the new Norwegian cartoon controversy? Lets remedy that. <br /> A caricature of Muhammad was published in the Norwegian publication Adressearisen. Nothing new or original about that. What is new is that a high ranking official like ambassador Rab Nawaz Khan would go off the deep end and say this about it: <br /> <br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">"Muslim societies all over the world will be insulted. Therefore it's a terrorist act,"</span> <br /> <br /> Wow! The very basic right of the freedom to express oneself is itself a terrorist act because someone will be insulted. In this case it is Muslims claiming to be offended, but it could have been anybody. Is not this the very reason we have the right of free speech? To guarantee that one cannot have his views restricted by those who would oppose them? But wait, it gets better. Like his Pakistani compatriots in the EU delegation, he too adds a threat to his statement. Fearing that news of the publication will cause "strong reactions" and cause people to "lose control." He then adds:<br /> <br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">"People shouldn't forget that there's many Norwegian businesses in Pakistan"</span> <br /> <br /> It might remind you of another classic Hollywood scene from the movie "The Untouchables." When one of Capone's men notices that his victim has a little girl he tells him: <br /> <br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">"Its Nice to have a family. A man should take care, see that nothin' happens to them."</span> <br /> <br /> Now that's good theatre! It would appear that Ambassador Rab Nawaz Khan is familiar with the scene as well. All people in the West should take note of the ambassadors use of the threat of violence as a tactic for it reveals much about not only Islam's intentions but also its character...and you would do well to know that they and Capone"s gangsters do operate exactly alike. But the thuggish and brutish street tactics of Capone and his like are only pale imitations of the tried and true method of extortion and violence that has been perfected by Islamic Jihadists for 1400 years! They have cleverly placed the blame for their future violence squarely on their victims failure to acquiesce to their demands. The only remaining question is how will we respond? <br /> Well, I'm glad you asked, for now you can know the answer to one of the burning questions in the current American presidential campaign. As I am sure you are well aware, democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has indicated that he has a strong desire to talk with America's enemies without preconditions. He has particularly mentioned talking with infamous Israel hater Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran. What everyone has wanted to know, of course, is what they would talk about. Now we know... <br /> They will talk about the way Islam has been "misrepresented" and "misunderstood" and how these "blasphemous" expressions of "hatred" against Islam are terrorizing their citizens and causing them to react violently. Certainly Ahmadinejad will ask if President Obama would be willing to do something to control all of this. After all, as we have been shown, its all our fault. The fact that the EU is already being pressured to pass anti-blasphemy laws, and Barack Obama has made it plainly clear he values the opinions of people outside of the United States at least as much, if not more, than those of our own citizens, does not bode well for his acting in defense of our most important liberty. How long do you think it will take for him to call for some sort of hate speech legislation within this country to restrict criticism of Islam. <br /> Unfortunately he doesn't have to look far for advice for dealing with this situation. Across the border in Canada they have something called the "Canada Human Rights Commission" which is a parallel legal system to the Canadian courts that is unrestrained by such arcane and outmoded concepts as due process, presumption of innocence and free speech. They have just recently dismissed a case presented before them involving conservative writer Mark Steyn and the respected Maclean's Magazine. In an article titled "The Future Belongs to Islam," Steyn claimed that Muslims are on the verge of dominating Europe and the West because of a demographic shift. The article claims that their greater numbers will eventually allow Muslims to dominate Western countries. The article goes so far as to quote a European Imam who allegedly said Muslims are reproducing like "mosquitoes." The Canadian Islamic Congress had argued that by publishing the article the magazine exposed Muslims to hatred and contempt. <br /> Though the the Tribunal dismissed this particular case one has to ask why such a Commission exists at all? They bear too much resemblance to such entities as the "culture ministries" that exist in Islamic countries, such as Iran, to monitor and CONTROL the media. Perhaps when they meet, President Ahmadinejad will share some tips with President Obama on how to get such a thing implemented here on the United States. I know some of you may think this is extreme but to a certain extent, it is already starting. <br /> The Speaker of the House of Representatives made it clear that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the "Fairness Doctrine" (which a liberal administration could use to silence Rush Limbaugh, other radio talk show hosts and much of the new alternative media) would not see the light of day in Congress during '08. In ruling out a vote on Pence's proposed Broadcaster's Freedom Act, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA.) also signaled her strong support for revival of the "Fairness Doctrine," which would require radio station owners to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested. Experts say that the "Fairness Doctrine," which was ended under the Reagan Administration, would put a major burden on small radio stations in providing equal time to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative broadcasters, who are a potent political force. Rather than engage in the costly practice of providing that time, the experts conclude, many stations would simply not carry Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts who are likely to generate demands for equal time. <br /> The "Fairness Doctrine" is really a misnamed policy. The fact is that radio stations are commercial enterprises that must generate income to survive. Conservative talk radio has been very successful at generating the audiences necessary for the stations survival. There hasn't been a lack of alternative voices for liberals and progressives out there. Far from it. The left has poured millions into getting the best talent on the air all over the country. But you can't force people to listen to it. Liberal talk radio has as much, or less, commercial appeal as Death and Black Metal music. They can get a lot of headlines for their antics but no audience. If the "Fairness Doctrine" were reinstated it would be the death of AM radio as broadcasters would be forced to broadcast shows that they knew would fail alongside the ones that they need to survive. Effectively killing half of their potential income. How fair is that? When directly asked if she supported reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" Speaker Pelosi answered "yes" without hesitation. (Human Events.com) <br /> Incidentally it is interesting how the reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine" is always described as an attempt to control "hate radio." Once again we see speech that offends someone being called offensive. In this case, it is purely political, yet all too often conservative talk radio is accused of being "hate speech." The founding fathers knew this when they insisted on instilling this basic right into the constitution. All speech that you don't agree with could be called hate speech. By describing your opponents rhetoric as "hate speech" you are just attempting to discredit them through name calling rather than dealing with the merits, or lack thereof, of their arguments. We must not tolerate the censoring or silencing of any of it! But I'm afraid we already have... <br /> Signed into law last week by the Governor of Colorado, SB08-200 which has this damnable clause in it: <br /> <br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">Section 8. 24-34-701. Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden. No person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation... shall publish, issue, circulate, send, distribute, give away, or display in any way, manner, or shape or by any means or method, except as provided in this section, any communication, paper, poster, folder, manuscript, book, pamphlet, writing, print, letter, notice, or advertisement of any kind, nature, or description THAT is intended or calculated to discriminate or actually discriminates against... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... in the matter of furnishing or neglecting or refusing to furnish to them or any one of them any lodging, housing, schooling, or tuition or any accommodation, right [marriage], privilege [adoption], advantage, or convenience... on account of... SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status... [which] is unwelcome or objectionable or not acceptable, desired, or solicited."</span><br /> <br /> After 400 years of religious freedom for those who wanted to own and distribute Bibles on their own property in America, the Governor of Colorado has put an end to it. While churches are exempted for now, Christian schools, Christian book stores, private business, etc. are not. Once again we see freedom of speech disallowed because someone finds it offensive. In this case it is being sold as anti-discrimination legislation. But all laws discriminate against someone. Do not laws prohibiting rape and thievery discriminate against rapist and thieves? Every gain for someone is a loss for someone else. In this case, the loss is a right of free expression of Christian beliefs pertaining to homosexuality. <br /> The Muslims seeking anti-blasphemy laws must be rejoicing. Certainly people who criticize Islam are just as guilty of discrimination by these standards as those who condemn homosexual behavior on religious moral grounds. The path to enacting restrictions on the criticism of Islam and its' adherent's behavior is now wide and clear. Homosexuals may think they have scored some sort of victory here but they have signed not only their own death warrant, but one for the rest of us as well. Homosexuals, like Christians, Jews, dogs, and free speech are offensive to Muslims. Muslims don't just condemn homosexual behavior...they kill homosexuals! Remember when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said "there are no gays in Iran." Where do you reckon they went? Unfortunately for the homosexual lobby in this country, they are not nearly as vicious and threatening as the Jihadists. Soon homosexuals will be able to trade their "perceived" discrimination at the hands of a forgiving Christianity who sought to redeem them, for a real discrimination at the hands of Muhammad's feral adherents. They do not offer repentance and redemption. They will simply kill them. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is even under the impression that in Iran, he has killed them all. One of the major enablers of that, or any genocide, is the suppression of the ability to criticize the actions, policies, or simply the belief system that would lead to such behavior. That is the result of stifling free speech...death! And there will be plenty of death to go around.<br /> Consider it a fine example of how no one truly gains when someone else is unjustly deprived of their freedom. When you refuse to stand up to bullies and false grievances you only postpone the damage that will be done to you, not prevent it. It just goes to show that cowards always get what they fear most. And you know what? They deserve it too!</span></span></p>
By semjaza, 2008-07-11
<p><span style="font-size: large; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION</span> <br /> <span style="font-size: small; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-size: medium;">It is a lie. It is probably the lie most often told by politicians of a particular persuasion, and repeated even more by their parasitic adherents in the press. "The rich do not pay their fair share." Class warfare has been the modus operandi for socialist movements all over the world, and it is a practice that is alive and well right here in the United States.</span></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: large; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Pegasus;"> <span style="font-size: medium;">All of the candidates currently running for President will make various claims as to whose taxes they will raise and whose they will lower. The truth is, they all are lying. By themselves, they haven't the authority to do it. Or as article 1, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution says: <br /> <br /> </span> <span style="font-style: italic; font-size: medium;">"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /> <br /> So the next time a Democrat claims she or he is going to repeal the "Bush Tax Cuts" it would be fair to remind them that President Bush only "suggested" them. It was the Congress that made them the law of the land. Congress had all the power in the U.S. law to resist them. And they can repeal them any time they want...if they really want to do it. We currently have a Democrat controlled House and Senate now. So what are they waiting for? Congressmen tend have a short career when they start raising taxes. Its an election year.<br /> It is true, however, that we do have a lot of Presidential candidates eager to "redistribute" the wealth of the proverbial "rich" to the "less fortunate" in our society. Robin Hood is alive and well. This is nothing more than a flagrant attempt to buy the votes of those people who will be on the receiving end of that money. That is a primary motivating factor in the Democratic party's embracement of government controlled "Universal Health Care." The more people they can get on the "receiving" end of a government programs the more people will be inclined to vote for those people who supply those programs. Naturally, the money has to come from some place. Raising taxes is the common method of acquiring the financing. This is prototypical Socialism. Class warfare being used as a wedge to force in these expensive big government programs into existence. It's all about getting influence and control over the lives of the nation's population. The less money you have, the less control you have over your own life and the more dependent you are on government. It is typical socialist propaganda to claim the rich ought to pay more. Tax cuts, it is argued, only benefit the rich. <br /> Well, it is a fact that you have to be paying taxes to benefit from a tax cut. It is also true that cutting taxes has the effect of increasing revenue. Why? Tax policy is the one way the government can truly effect the economy. When you cut taxes, you leave money (capital) in the economy that can then be used for investment. This leads to an expanding community that adds jobs and therefore adds more taxpayers and new businesses to the tax base. Raising taxes has absolutely the opposite effect by reducing capital in the economy and shrinking investment you therefore reduce the tax base. You would think this would be simple. Yet the Democrats feel emboldened to not only repeal the so called "Bush Tax Cuts," but also to increase taxes still more in order to finance their socialist government programs. <br /> The argument against tax cuts is always the same. Tax cuts are for the rich and therefore if we are reducing their taxes then the burden of financing the government must be "unfairly" shifting onto the poor. But is that the truth? According to the most recent statistics from the Internal Revenue Service, it isn't even a distant relative of the truth. <br /> In 2005 the top 1% of all income earners, which means all those whose annual income exceeds $365,000, paid a whopping 39% of all federal income taxes! In 1999 they were paying 35%. So not only are the richest 1% paying well over third of all federal income taxes, they are carrying an even greater share of the tax burden than they were under President Clinton. This AFTER the "Bush Tax Cuts!" Imagine that. <br /> If we look at the top 5% of income earners, those with annual incomes over $145,000, we see they are paying 60% of all federal income taxes! In 1999 their share of the tax burden was 55%. Once again we see the tax burden of the wealthiest 5% of income earners increasing AFTER the tax cuts. Impressive. <br /> It continues no matter how you look at the numbers. The top 10% of income earners, $103,000 and above, pay 70% of all federal taxes. The top 25%, $62,000 and above, pay 86% of federal taxes. And get this...the top 50% of income earners, those earning $31,000 and above, pay 97% of all federal income taxes!! <br /> That leaves the 3% of income earners who earn less than $30,000 annually. They are currently paying 3% of all federal taxes but in 1999 they were responsible for 4%. So who is bearing the tax burden of the federal government? Have the tax cuts really shifted the tax burden in the direction of the poor? It would appear that tax cuts have brought nothing but desirable results all around. They have provided an expanding economy, more jobs and fair dispensation of the tax burden. Now the Democrats propose to improve this by raising taxes? Lunacy. <br /> When it comes to unfairness in the tax system, the problem isn't the taxpayer. Any taxpayer. The problem arises from those who do not pay any taxes at all. If you have no financial stake in the government, your voting practices are going to reflect that fact. Tax cuts mean nothing to the non-taxpayer. However you might be led to believe that tax cuts could effect you negatively if you are dependent on government programs and government income. That is where the Democrats come in, providing misleading information to those dependent on the government for their wellbeing. Truthfully, tax cuts will benefit those dependent on this redistribution of income as well, but politicians practicing class warfare find these "less fortunate" people to be vulnerable to this misinformation. After all, if they have any education at all it was government provided public education. Remember, the idea is to mislead and gain control. <br /> Consider these figures. 41%of whites, 56% of blacks, 59% of American Indians and 40% of Asians and pacific Islanders paid absolutely NO federal income taxes. They have ZERO tax liability. Yet each and every one of them has an equal voice at the ballot box as those who do fund the federal government. How "fair" is that? <br /> The socialists, who continually present the argument that the rich do not pay their fair share, know all of this. They intentionally misrepresent this information in their attempt to gain power and influence over us. It is their desire to destroy the U.S. economy so as to eliminate the independence of the American people. It's all about control. It is a deception that has worked before when people who have a stake in government allow those who do not to participate as equals in the selection process of government officials. Once a population realizes it can vote itself money from the treasury it can hold the government hostage to its demands. We have arrived at that point in this country. <br /> This country was founded by people who were sick and tired of paying taxes to England and not having a voice in its government. They were paying money to a government that was not responsive to their concerns. "No Taxation Without Representation" was the battle-cry of the revolutionaries. Well the pendulum has shifted too far the other direction now. People who are NOT paying taxes should NOT have as equal a say in the government as those who do! We as taxpayers are once again being governed by a government that is not responsive to our concerns. Our politicians are too busy doling out the treasury to non-producers in exchange for votes. <br /> If more taxpayers were aware of how truly unfair and biased the tax system is against them, I believe they would insist on a "new revolution" to correct this "injustice." That is a word the socialists love. Injustice. They use it to validate all of their programs. "Social justice" is how they validate their demands for more money from the treasury to placate a variety of social ills. But "justice" for some is ultimately a crime against someone else. <br /> Those receiving the "redistributed" benefits of the work of others should not be allowed to dictate the terms of that redistribution! When they are allowed to do so we are no longer "promoting the general welfare" of the population. Nor is this any form of charity. It's robbery! Why should the weakest, non productive element of our society be allowed to destroy our entire society with their demands? Perhaps a new battle cry is necessary to fix this "social injustice:"<br /> </span> <br /> </span></span> <span style="font-size: large; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-size: large; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">"NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!!"</span></span></span></p>
By semjaza, 2008-07-11
<p><span style="font-size: large; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">I AM THE WALRUS</span> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: small; font-family: Pegasus;"> <span style="font-size: medium;">The assault on the American economy by socialism is increasing in its voracity with each passing day. The sovereignty of the United States, as well as our own individual liberty, has never been in greater danger than it is now. The appetite for economically stifling environmental litigation only grows with each meal it consumes. Global warming hysteria is dragging the socialist indoctrinated lemmings of our society over the edge of a doomsday precipice that will destroy our economy and our way of life, whilst having ZERO effect in changing the course of the earth's climate. With their foolishly surprising success at deceiving the Bush administration into listing the Polar Bear as</span></span></span><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-family: Pegasus;"> a threatened species, despite the use of dubious data, the Church of the Global Apocalypse has moved on to a new "victim" of man made global warming...the Pacific walrus. </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-family: Pegasus;"> Well, you really didn't expect them to stop did you? Their bamboozle job with the Polar Bear was impressive. No, not for the quality of their argument, but for the fact that ANYONE would fall for it. The decision to list the Polar bear as "threatened" was based entirely on politics and not on science. Unproven computer models suggested that, as the polar ice continues to decline, the Polar Bear would likewise lose substantial portions of its habitat thus leading to a reduction in its population. This fantasy from the environmentalist insane asylum is ridiculously contrasted with the reality of what has happened to the Polar Bear over the last forty years. In spite of the fact that we have been told that Global warming has been reducing polar ice for years, the Polar Bear has apparently had a more amorous reaction to the supposed decline of its habitat, resulting in a population that has more than doubled, from 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s, to the current population which numbers some 20,000 to 25,000 bears! <br /> In a world where success only furthers greater ambition, it should come as no surprise that the environmentalist lawyers are now filing suit to get the Pacific Walrus listed as threatened too. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition in February to force federal action to list the walrus as threatened because of "threats from global warming and offshore petroleum development." Shaye Wolf, a biologist and lead author of the petition, said Arctic sea ice is disappearing faster than the best predictions of climate models. <span style="font-style: italic;">"As the sea ice recedes, so does the future of the Pacific walrus,"</span> she said. And so the same organization that deceived the Bush administration in its misrepresentation of the Polar Bear's "dire" circumstances now moves forward on the walrus. <br /> But how can they make the claim that the walrus population is threatened at all? The size of the Pacific walrus population is both unknown and very difficult to survey. Estimates place the population between 200,000 and 250,000 animals. The population estimates have stayed consistent for the last thirty years. Although Bruce Woods, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman in Anchorage, said the agency is close to finishing a new walrus survey. <span style="font-style: italic;">"We do have a population count from the 2006 survey that should be finalized soon," he said. "That will give us a better basis for evaluating the petition."</span> Why does that statement make me skeptical? <br /> Walruses are prone to gathering in large numbers on land and when startled, they stampede. This often results in a large number of deaths. One AP news article described how <span style="font-style: italic;">"scientists received reports of hundreds and hundreds of walruses dead of internal injuries suffered in stampedes"</span> and quoted biologist Anatoly Kochnev of Russia's Pacific Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography as estimating that <span style="font-style: italic;">"3,000 to 4,000 walruses out of population of perhaps 200,000 died, or two or three times the usual number on shoreline haul-outs."</span><br /> According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, Arctic sea ice last summer dwindled to 1.65 million square miles, the lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979. The recession of the ice is being blamed for causing more and more walruses to congregate on shore and thereby creating a greater risk of stampeding. Over the last ten years, every fall, walruses have congregated on the Vankarem Cape, forming a "haul-out" just a half-mile from the village. Last fall some 20,000 to 30,000 walruses were piled up there. No one has actually counted them all, but the Vankarem residents are certain the number is growing. Walruses are more vulnerable to stampedes when they gather in such large numbers. Stampedes can, however, be caused by a variety of factors. Like cats in a group, they can be startled quite easy. Once out of control, the stampede is on. Also the presence of natural predators or low flying aircraft can initiate a stampede. The kind of low flying aircraft like the ones used by environmentalists to survey them per chance? <br /> But is receding ice really a problem for the Pacific walrus...or could there be other considerations? Considerations like, say, hunters? Consider this excerpt from a Sea World link: <br /> <br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">As the Pacific walrus population grew, annual subsistence catches by indigenous Arctic peoples ranged from about 3,000 to 16,000 walruses per year until about 1990, and then decreased to an average of 5,789 animals per year from 1996 to 2000.</span> <br /> <br /> Thats 3,000 to 16,000 killed by human hunters as compared to the 3,000 to 4,000 they claim (dubiously of course) are killed by stampeding...and yet they wish to claim that the walrus is threatened because of receding ice due to global warming. Of course there is another hunter of the Pacific walrus that has a taste for their calves, and the mere sight of one will often send a herd into a stampeding frenzy. Care to guess who the hunter is? C'mon, you can't make this stuff up, its too good to be true but, alas, it is. You guessed it...The Polar Bear. Yep, increased numbers of Polar Bears over the last 40 years have led to an increase in their harvest of both walrus calves and the remains of walruses that don't survive the stampedes they cause. Isn't that a precious "inconvenient" truth? <br /> So lets be sure we understand this. The Pacific walrus should be listed as threatened, even though there is no evidence to suggest that its population is any smaller, or larger, than it has been over the last half century. But let us not be concerned with evidence that hunters, both human and beast, regularly get upwards of 20,000 animals per year WITHOUT altering the balance of the population. No, its global warming reducing the ice that is the culprit of this phantom crime that we are sure is either happening or is going to happen. Lack of proof notwithstanding. For some strange reason, this comes to mind:<br /> <br /> Psalm 14:1 <span style="font-style: italic;">The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. </span><br /> <br /> Perhaps as the United States drifts ever more into the realms of godlessness there are going to be more fools selling bunk like this to us. Unfortunately, these fools expect that a larger and larger portion of us are going to buy into this type of thing. Hey, it worked once already for the Polar Bear! Who would dare to bet against this now? Remember when Obi Wan Kenobi asked: <span style="font-style: italic;">"Who's more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"</span> My money is on the second fool. The fool who follows him. I can't stop the first fool but I can refuse to become the second one! <br /> The cold hard truth about this is simple. Socialism is alive and well in the United States, as well as the rest of the world. This is how they intend to gain control over our societies once and for all, so that they can get along with the social engineering they have lusted over since the time of Bismarck. It is part of their "we're all in this together campaign" to save the planet from, well, ourselves. You, me, the walrus and the Polar bear all have equal worth in their eyes, and we all have to share and sacrifice for each other. Gives you a warm feeling all over doesn't it? The key word, however, is sacrifice. The bear and the walrus can't do that. That responsibility will fall to us...and there is the linchpin of the entire hoax. <br /> Its very important to them to link these fraudulent species endangerments to the use of petroleum products and fossil fuels. Therefore they can use the legal system in an attempt to force draconian measures against us to combat global warming. The recently defeated Lieberman-Warner bill was the first such example of this sort of legislation. This bill would redistribute over $5.6 trillion from American consumers to pet congressional projects. Despite paying for the trillions of dollars mandated by this cap-and-trade scheme, American families and workers will only receive back $800 billion in consumer tax relief. That's $7 paid for every $1 returned. "The Lieberman-Warner bill was the largest pork bill ever considered by Congress. It was nothing more than a massive tax increase hidden behind the facade of "taking action to combat global warming." This bill was defeated. However, you can bet it will return again in some form. Both Obama and McCain claim to support action against the supposed effects of man-made global warming. Perhaps McCain will be more reasonable, but that remains unproven. When it comes to change, draconian measures are exactly what a President Obama has in mind:<br /> <br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."</span> B.H. Obama <br /> <br /> Mr. Appeasement appears to have a deep seeded desire to be liked by everyone. This is not a particularly desirable trait for a president to have. Self-perceived good intentions combined with their arrogance and hatred for industry, will bring forth a disaster to our economy. The draconian measures Obama and our socialist politicians want to implement will not have any effect on the planet's climate, but by enforcing such measures, as added taxes on fuel and businesses that consume energy, they will destroy our economy. This is an objective they have had all along. There is nothing a socialist hates so much as a free market capitalist economy. Increasing taxes is their method for confiscating our economic independence. Make no mistake about it, these policies will affect EVERYONE that uses gasoline and electricity in this country. Remember that the next time someone tries to tell you they are going to raise taxes on the rich. The rich can pay these extra costs, can you? And how about those geniuses who desire for us to pursue biofuels? This converts that which we use for food into fuel for vehicles. There is an idea that will raise food prices, as you have already seen, as farmers convert from food to the more profitable fuel crops. Do you think this idea is better for the rich, who can afford both the fuel and the higher priced food, or the poor who won't be able to afford either? Maybe the kool-aid drinking enviro-wackos actually believe in man-made global warming and get a warm (ironic isn't it) fuzzy feeling about saving polar bears and walruses, but the dyed-in-the-wool socialist couldn't care less about these creatures. They just want control. We must not give it to them!<br /> This environmentalist litigation is nothing less than pre-emptive action to prevent any increase in domestic oil production. Because of the rising price of fuel and the fact that American wealth is being sent to foreign governments hostile to our interests, the American people are clamoring for more domestic drilling. The socialists, on the other hand, desire the higher fuel prices because they think the American people are too wealthy and they wish to punish us by destroying our economy. They are using these tactics to short circuit the public's demand for an increase in domestic oil production and exploration. <br /> Congress has banned energy exploration in 85% of our country. China and Cuba are drilling for oil closer to our coastline than U.S. oil companies are allowed. How insane is that? It has been estimated that beneath the American coasts lies enough oil to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years! There is enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years! The Republican controlled congress of the 90's put a bill to allow drilling in Anwar Alaska on Bill Clinton's desk. He vetoed it. During the administration of G.W. Bush the democrats in congress have continued to block all legislation to allow drilling for oil in Anwar as well as continue to uphold restrictions on domestic oil production. This May, democrats in congress blocked the American Energy Production Act of 2008. The bill would have allowed for more domestic oil and natural gas exploration, more use of coal and liquefied coal and it would have tapped into America's vast oil shale fields. The result of such a plan, if enacted, would have been more oil and natural gas on the market, easing supply constraints and lowering prices. It also would have created tens of thousands of new jobs in America and go a long way toward reducing our dependence on energy from unstable and hostile foreign regimes, many of which are actively seeking our destruction. <br /> Just this week, the House Appropriations Subcommittee On Interior and Environment voted not to bring forth a bill to lift domestic offshore drilling restrictions. The vote was on straight party lines with ALL the democrats voting against it and all the republicans voting for it. <span style="font-style: italic;">"We are kidding ourselves, as we routinely do in this town, if we think we can drill our way out of this problem,"</span> said Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wisconsin. <br /> And what, praytell, did the democrats have to offer as an alternative to the American Energy Production Act of 2008? Their own proposal in Senate bill S3044 which called for a windfall profits tax against the five largest U.S. oil companies! They also wished to rescind $17 billion in tax breaks the companies expect to enjoy over the next decade. This has been tried before by the disastrous administration of Jimmy Carter. The result was higher gas prices as the oil companies will just pass the extra tax down to the consumer at the pump. Worse, it also resulted in LESS domestic oil production as there was no incentive for oil companies to increase production. Way to go democrats! The Middle East may very well be holding us hostage to their oil prices but the democratic party has given them the gun to do it with! <br /> Contrary to the claims of environmentalists, wildlife has expanded and flourished in and around Alaska's Prudhoe Bay. It has had no negative effect whatsoever. And do you want to hear another "inconvenient" truth? Of course you do. Two leading environmental groups, the Audubon Society and the Nature Conservancy, actually allow oil and natural gas production on several of their own nature preserves. Why? For the money! Don't you know how much that stuff is going for these days? <br /> If organizations such as these can see their way to allowing gas and oil production on their land, why can't we, the taxpayers, get the government off the backs of the oil companies and let them get at the oil we know exists in our own country? Increase the supply, decrease the price. Any fool knows that...well maybe not. Or maybe the socialists that we (well, obviously not me and probably not most of you reading this) have elected to congress are getting just what they want. Choking the life out of the U.S. economy and relieving us of the burden of our freedoms. If you don't believe there are socialists actively working for the destruction of our country you haven't been paying attention. Consider this statement from California Democratic Representative Maxine Waters to the president of a U.S. oil company at a recent hearing on oil prices:<br /> <br /> <span style="font-style: italic;">"guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be all about socializing -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies." </span><br /> <br /> I guess she gets all her ideas from Hugo Chavez who has done exactly that to the Venezuelan oil industry. You can't fault her for her honesty about her socialist desires, but we can and must stop her and others like her. These nonsensical declarations of species endangerment are just an excuse to deprive the U.S. economy of the fuel it needs to survive. The socialists don't want it, or us, to survive. The world will be a better place without us and they have told us so. What are we going to do about it...or them? <br /> As the Psalmist said: <span style="font-style: italic;">"They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."</span> Ask yourself, what good can come of these blatant attempts at deceiving us? What will become of us? Man-made global warming may very well destroy us all...but not in the way its being sold to us. Somewhere up north there are Pacific walruses holding their little thumb/fins up to their nose, laughing and leering at us...and don't you know what they are saying?...<br /> <br /> </span></span></p>
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large; font-family: Pegasus;"><span style="font-family: Pegasus;">COO COO KACHOO </span></span></div>
By semjaza, 2008-07-10
ALL THE NEWS THATS PRINTED TO FIT
You people are going to have to step up to the plate and do your fair share. You need to go find yourself a homosexual or a Muslim (or, perchance, a Homosexual Muslim) and give him, or her, a proper beatdown. If you don't particularly dislike Homosexuals or Muslims you can go beat up on some of the old standby downtrodden and discriminated factions of our society, but the media would prefer you stick to the current agenda. You see, there just isn't enough genuine racism and bigotry in America anymore. As a result you are making the poor media have to go out and create some "artificial" bigotry. But hey, that will do when you have a great idea for a story and are just lacking a few minor things like facts, truth and well, news. Sometimes bad news is hard to find. Shocked that I would say such a thing? Do read on... From WBRC TV in Birmingham Alabama comes this wonderful story:
ABC is doing a social experiment in Birmingham that includes having same-sex couples show affection for each other in public, according to Birmingham police department sources. FOX6 first learned about this story from a Southside merchant who pointed out an RV parked at the corner of 20th Street and 11th Avenue South. The merchant said ABC was working on a week-long project to see how people would react to things like public displays of affection by **** and lesbian couples. A FOX6 news reporter approached the RV and talked with an "actor" who said, "Yes, we are working for ABC News."
A South Precinct officer who spoke anonymously said he had received at least three or four reports from people who said they were disgusted over two men kissing in public. That officer says the ABC project is not a violation of the law and that ABC has a permit to park the RV. An attempt to reach ABC News for comment has been unsuccessful.
What's this? Is ABC News attempting to create a news story out of thin air? Do you think they were looking for passersby to celebrate the "cultural diversity" of American social life as they witness these unsolicited public displays of homosexual affection? Or were they hoping for some rednecks to come by and take a swat at them? All of it, of course, to be captured on camera as an example of intolerance against the current "discriminated minority" they have championed as needing special protection, and therefore special rights, to save them from ignorant hatemongers. So what if the news media had to use "actors" as bait to lure the hatemongers out into the open. The subsequent reactions of hatred would still be real...wouldn't they?
Naturally Birmingham Alabama is the perfect place to set up their little sting operation because everyone knows the South persecutes **** people. And wasn't Birmingham the sight of some of the finest examples of discriminatory violence ever caught on tape? Yeah, FOURTY years ago. But who am I to critique investigative journalism? I am sure I should be offended.
If you can't find the news to tell the story you want, why not just go out and hire some actors and fake it? I find it interesting that they saw fit to use actors and not real **** people. I guess when you are staging phoney news your pride must insist on total fabrication. I can understand that in an Alabama sort of way. I know I prefer to catch a fish on a plastic worm rather than a real one. It makes me feel superior to the stupid fish to know he never was chasing anything real. So by hiring actors instead of real **** people, ABC News is showing their total superiority over the stupid citizens of Birmingham Alabama. Well, except for one little problem...they got caught.
As we all know, competition between the network news organizations is fierce and ABC must have felt the need to prove they were superior to their rivals at NBC News. I am sure you all remember how last year NBC attempted this same sort of thing, only they were not as elaborately deceptive as ABC. They attempted the equivalent of fishing with real bait when last year the program "Dateline NBC" sent what they described as "Muslim-looking men" to a NASCAR race in Virginia. Of course they were accompanied by a camera crew to film the expected fan reactions. Reactions they felt confident they could easily get at this hotbed of Red State "elitist" culture. Apparently they intended to air a segment on anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States. The uncooperativeness of the American population at engaging in these acts of hostility during the transactions of their day to day lives in the post 911 world forced them to try to instigate it themselves. What better place than a NASCAR race to "incubate" such a worthy social experiment? It was a work of genius. Well, except for one little problem...they got caught.
A NASCAR spokesman had this to say about it:
"It is outrageous that a news organization of NBC's stature would stoop to the level of going out to create news instead of reporting news. "Any legitimate journalist in America should be embarrassed by this stunt. The obvious intent by NBC was to evoke reaction, and we are confident our fans won't take the bait," he said.
Unfortunately for NBC the NASCAR fans didn't take the bait. Instead of manufacturing a news story, they became one. Some days the fish just aren't biting and then some days you fall out of the boat. Did I say boat? Who could forget NBC reporter Michelle Kosinski giving a live report, while floating in a boat, from the flooded streets of Wayne, New Jersey when two men walked between her and the camera, revealing that the water where she was floating was barely ankle-deep. Later, an NBC News spokeswoman explained that Kosinski had been riding in deeper water near an overflowing river down the street, but there were concerns that the current was too strong for her. "It's not like we were trying to pass it off as something it wasn't," said spokeswoman Lauren Kapp. Of course not.
Such shenanigans are not just limited to the major TV networks. The fabricating of news stories is a thriving and driving force in the print media as well. The New Republic magazine managed to get itself busted recently when Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp, author of the heavily disputed "Shock Troops" article in their July 23 issue as well as two previous "Baghdad Diarist" columns, signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations, falsehoods and fabrications containing only "a smidgen of truth." It was a clever idea to pay a real soldier to write a story about the treacherous behavior of soldiers fighting in Iraq. It added a wonderful aura of authenticity to an otherwise solid piece of bulls***. Certainly Senator John Kerry must be proud, as he set the standard for this sort of thing. And really, what does the truth matter if by telling a lie you can effect a change for the greater good of mankind? Well, except for one little problem...they got caught.
These unfortunately are not isolated or rare incidents. This is now the modus operandi for a media determined to "change the world." Reporting the news is so last century. Journalists now see themselves as "social engineers" and our society is just a mechanism for them to tweak...for our own good of course. But you can rest easy for the future is in good hands as this recent news item can attest:
A student journalist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., admitted that she had drawn swastikas on her own dorm room door. Sarah Marshak signed a confession after security cameras caught her in the act. The campus publication, The Hatchet, said she told the staff that she "only drew the final three of six swastikas on her door in an attempt to highlight what she characterized as the University's inaction."
No, say it ain't so. Like I said, the future of journalism is in good hands. I know it warms your heart to know that there is another young journalist who is well on her way to an outstanding career engineering our society for the better. Well, except for one little problem...she got caught.