Anyone checked out the Oathkeepers site?
While I do feel they are in the right, I wouldn't at all put it past the present "leadership" to declare them terrorists.
You know, kinda like the rest of us, who are veterans, believe in the Constitution, the right to bear arms, etc, etc...
While I agree with their stance, I don't think I'd say it would be wise to go sign up on their forum-- seems a real handy damned way to get put on a watch list.
Yes, I am WELL aware of how paranoid that sounds, thank you. But lest we forget, the White House DID stand up a "snitch" line for just this sort of thing, publically, not too long ago.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
03 November 2009
02 November 2009
On my absence...
Folks--
The good news is, I am fine. I had a minor upper respiratory thing going on last time I made that post, and it returned two weeks ago-- so I missed like a week's worth of work. :(
I'm fine folks-- just pretty fed up with the direction I see things going.
10 months ago I would not have given a second thought to speaking my mind. Now, with this... cabal... in power, I'm not so sure.
Every day I wake up and am just astounded at the absolute idiocy of our present "leadership". It's like they're TRYING to bring the whole system down. I wish that I could honestly say that is crazy talk, but looking at the track record of advisers, etc, I can't honestly say it's not possible that's exactly what they're after.
So, I bite my tongue, for the most part...
Some may say this is cowardice. I prefer to think it's being prudent. Because the more I see going on, the more it seems like the fight's ours, and the Cavalry ain't comin'...
The good news is, I am fine. I had a minor upper respiratory thing going on last time I made that post, and it returned two weeks ago-- so I missed like a week's worth of work. :(
I'm fine folks-- just pretty fed up with the direction I see things going.
10 months ago I would not have given a second thought to speaking my mind. Now, with this... cabal... in power, I'm not so sure.
Every day I wake up and am just astounded at the absolute idiocy of our present "leadership". It's like they're TRYING to bring the whole system down. I wish that I could honestly say that is crazy talk, but looking at the track record of advisers, etc, I can't honestly say it's not possible that's exactly what they're after.
So, I bite my tongue, for the most part...
Some may say this is cowardice. I prefer to think it's being prudent. Because the more I see going on, the more it seems like the fight's ours, and the Cavalry ain't comin'...
25 August 2009
Welcome to the Blogroll...
Welcome to the blogroll, Lawdog
Blogging's been a bit light lately since the software guys at work put out a new release, and I've been *busy*.
Even more so, in my off time, it's looking like. I just got railroaded into being my son's Den Leader.
Also, there's been mention of me becoming a Range Safety for the troop, as well. I've done it before, with older "kids" (in some ways, trainees are just big kids). Anyone know what's involved? I wonder if they'll accept the Eddie Eagle program for training material.
Come to think, I wonder if it's too soon to start 'em on Small Unit Tactics? Bounding Overwatch, Travelling Overwatch, just the simple stuff. ;)
I've had tons of stuff I wanted to blog about of late- a lot of it political in nature. But admittedly, there's a bit of me that is concerned about anything I post coming back to haunt me. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not setting up an email box at the White House for people to snitch on each other...
Seriously, though- I've had a bellyfull of politics. I gave The One a chance when he got iinto the office-- after all, surely his stance couldn't be as bad as the opposition represented? Turns out, it's even worse...
Blogging's been a bit light lately since the software guys at work put out a new release, and I've been *busy*.
Even more so, in my off time, it's looking like. I just got railroaded into being my son's Den Leader.
Also, there's been mention of me becoming a Range Safety for the troop, as well. I've done it before, with older "kids" (in some ways, trainees are just big kids). Anyone know what's involved? I wonder if they'll accept the Eddie Eagle program for training material.
Come to think, I wonder if it's too soon to start 'em on Small Unit Tactics? Bounding Overwatch, Travelling Overwatch, just the simple stuff. ;)
I've had tons of stuff I wanted to blog about of late- a lot of it political in nature. But admittedly, there's a bit of me that is concerned about anything I post coming back to haunt me. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not setting up an email box at the White House for people to snitch on each other...
Seriously, though- I've had a bellyfull of politics. I gave The One a chance when he got iinto the office-- after all, surely his stance couldn't be as bad as the opposition represented? Turns out, it's even worse...
01 August 2009
31 July 2009
"Cash for clunkers broke"... the math does not add up...
OK, so this Cash for clunkers program has a billion dollars in it...
That's 1,000,000,000. 1, with 9 zeros behind it.
For comparison, a million is 1,000,000. 6 zeros.
A million is a thousand thousand. At least here in the US. The Brits have a different idea, but we ain't talking about their math...
1,000 X 1,000 = 1,000,000. This is 5th grade math.
Likewise, a billion is a Thousand Million:
1,000 X 1,000 X 1,000= 1,000,000,000.
So then- I just saw where there's been 27,282 cars sold under this program.
Let's assume each car sold took the max benefit under the program (they didn't- it's a tiered approach. But let's keep the math simple, and be generous. It's only money!)
22,782 X 4,500 = 102,519,000.
Or, said in word: One hundred and two million, five hundred nineteen thousand dollars.
Which means there's roughly 898 million dollars left.
But they say the program is brooke already. WTF?
That's 1,000,000,000. 1, with 9 zeros behind it.
For comparison, a million is 1,000,000. 6 zeros.
A million is a thousand thousand. At least here in the US. The Brits have a different idea, but we ain't talking about their math...
1,000 X 1,000 = 1,000,000. This is 5th grade math.
Likewise, a billion is a Thousand Million:
1,000 X 1,000 X 1,000= 1,000,000,000.
So then- I just saw where there's been 27,282 cars sold under this program.
Let's assume each car sold took the max benefit under the program (they didn't- it's a tiered approach. But let's keep the math simple, and be generous. It's only money!)
22,782 X 4,500 = 102,519,000.
Or, said in word: One hundred and two million, five hundred nineteen thousand dollars.
Which means there's roughly 898 million dollars left.
But they say the program is brooke already. WTF?
21 July 2009
National Right-To-Carry recognition bill to be voted on
Courtesy of the NRA/ILA
(I realize most of my readers are probably NRA members, but in case not:)
U.S. Senate To Vote On National Right-To-Carry
Reciprocity Amendment Early This Week
Contact Your U.S. Senators TODAY And Urge Them To Support Your Right To Self-Defense by voting YES on the Thune-Vitter Amendment!
July 21, 2009
The U.S. Senate is now considering the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390). As a part of the consideration of that legislation, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) will offer an amendment this week to provide for interstate recognition of Right-to-Carry permits. There is a very high likelihood of a Senate floor vote on this important and timely pro-gun reform between now and Wednesday.
Now is the time for Congress to recognize that the right to self-defense does not end at state lines. Under the Thune-Vitter amendment, an individual who has met the requirements for a carry permit, or who is otherwise allowed by his home state's state law to carry a firearm, would be authorized to carry a firearm for protection in any other state that issues such permits, subject to the laws of the state in which the firearm is carried.
Contrary to "states' rights" claims from opponents who usually favor sweeping federal gun control, the amendment is a legitimate exercise of Congress's constitutional power to protect the fundamental rights of citizens (including the right to keep and bear arms and the right of personal mobility). States would still have the authority to regulate the time, place and manner in which handguns are carried.
Expanding Right-to-Carry will enhance public safety, and certainly poses no threat to the public. Criminals are deterred from attempting crimes when they know or suspect that their prospective victims are armed. A study for the Department of Justice found that 40 percent of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victims were armed. The Thune-Vitter amendment recognizes that competent, responsible, law-abiding Americans still deserve our trust and confidence when they cross state lines. Passing interstate Right-to-Carry legislation will help further reduce crime by deterring criminals, and -- most important of all -- will protect the right of honest Americans to protect themselves if deterrence fails.
The Thune-Vitter Amendment represents a giant step forward in the protection of the basic right to self-defense. Its passage will recognize that the rights of law-abiding Right-to-Carry permit holders should be respected, even when they travel outside their home state.
Gun control groups, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" are running ads trying to scare your lawmakers and the American people into opposing this crucial Right-to-Carry reform. It is critical that your U.S. Senators hear from you immediately.
Please be sure to contact both of your U.S. Senators today, and urge them to cosponsor and support the Thune-Vitter interstate right to carry recipocity amendment. E-mail and call them immediately!
To find contact information for your U.S. Senators, please click here, or call (202) 224-3121.
(I realize most of my readers are probably NRA members, but in case not:)
U.S. Senate To Vote On National Right-To-Carry
Reciprocity Amendment Early This Week
Contact Your U.S. Senators TODAY And Urge Them To Support Your Right To Self-Defense by voting YES on the Thune-Vitter Amendment!
July 21, 2009
The U.S. Senate is now considering the National Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390). As a part of the consideration of that legislation, Senators John Thune (R-SD) and David Vitter (R-LA) will offer an amendment this week to provide for interstate recognition of Right-to-Carry permits. There is a very high likelihood of a Senate floor vote on this important and timely pro-gun reform between now and Wednesday.
Now is the time for Congress to recognize that the right to self-defense does not end at state lines. Under the Thune-Vitter amendment, an individual who has met the requirements for a carry permit, or who is otherwise allowed by his home state's state law to carry a firearm, would be authorized to carry a firearm for protection in any other state that issues such permits, subject to the laws of the state in which the firearm is carried.
Contrary to "states' rights" claims from opponents who usually favor sweeping federal gun control, the amendment is a legitimate exercise of Congress's constitutional power to protect the fundamental rights of citizens (including the right to keep and bear arms and the right of personal mobility). States would still have the authority to regulate the time, place and manner in which handguns are carried.
Expanding Right-to-Carry will enhance public safety, and certainly poses no threat to the public. Criminals are deterred from attempting crimes when they know or suspect that their prospective victims are armed. A study for the Department of Justice found that 40 percent of felons had not committed crimes because they feared the prospective victims were armed. The Thune-Vitter amendment recognizes that competent, responsible, law-abiding Americans still deserve our trust and confidence when they cross state lines. Passing interstate Right-to-Carry legislation will help further reduce crime by deterring criminals, and -- most important of all -- will protect the right of honest Americans to protect themselves if deterrence fails.
The Thune-Vitter Amendment represents a giant step forward in the protection of the basic right to self-defense. Its passage will recognize that the rights of law-abiding Right-to-Carry permit holders should be respected, even when they travel outside their home state.
Gun control groups, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" are running ads trying to scare your lawmakers and the American people into opposing this crucial Right-to-Carry reform. It is critical that your U.S. Senators hear from you immediately.
Please be sure to contact both of your U.S. Senators today, and urge them to cosponsor and support the Thune-Vitter interstate right to carry recipocity amendment. E-mail and call them immediately!
To find contact information for your U.S. Senators, please click here, or call (202) 224-3121.
12 July 2009
The Lock-Up-Your-Opponents Bill of 2009
We're living in FAR too interesting times lately, folks:
Hattip to HotAir.com
Text of the article:
The lock-up-your-opponents bills of 2009?posted at 11:08 am on July 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly Would Congress ever pass legislation that would allow the executive to determine at its own discretion whether political opponents had crossed the line into domestic terrorists and build camps in which to keep them? Sounds like something out of 20th-century totalitarian systems or dystopian fiction. Mark Tapscott says it’s not fiction, and he warns readers about an effort by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) to do just that:
Rep. Alcee Hastings - the impeached Florida judge Nancy Pelosi tried to install as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee until her own party members rebelled - introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that gives Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to label groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states’ rights, or a host of other issues. In a June 25 speech on the House floor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, blasted the idea: “This sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as ‘extremists.’”
Another Hastings bill (HR 645) authorizes $360 million in 2009 and 2010 to set up “not fewer than six national emergency centers on military installations” capable of housing “a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster.” But Section 2 (b) 4 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to use the camps “to meet other appropriate needs” - none of which are specified. This is the kind of blank check that Congress should never, ever sign.
It’s not paranoid to be extremely wary of legislation that would give two unelected government officials power to legally declare someone a “domestic terrorist” and send them to a government-run camp.
To be fair on the second point, most legislation includes phrases similar to the “meet other appropriate needs” as a means of allowing flexibility in using facilities commissioned by Congress. Under unforeseen circumstances even apart from creating concentration camps for abortion opponents, the six national emergency centers might need to get some use other than housing military personnel or civilians evacuated from a disaster area. That language allows the Pentagon and Homeland Security leeway to adapt for other issues without having to worry that lawyers will descend upon them like locusts for not strictly limiting use to the statutes.
However, the designation of domestic terrorist groups — a necessary and critical process for keeping the peace — should not fall into the hands of just one person. That process needs oversight and consensus to be credible and fair. Congress should have some involvement, especially in oversight. Holder could be the greatest AG in the history of the US but still should not have the absolute authority to make that designation, especially after the track record of the DHS in using vague parameters and broad-based smears of legitimate political protest earlier this year.
Mark may also want to look at HR 1966, introduced by Rep. Linda Sanchez last April in reaction to the suburban mother who drove one of her daughter’s acquaintances — a 13-year-old girl — to suicide. Bas cases make bad law, and that’s doubly true here. Look at this language and imagine how this could be used:
Sec. 881. Cyberbullying
‘(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Who decides what constitutes “substantial emotional distress”? What is the definition of “severe” and “hostile”? What kinds of persons can claim victimhood under this bill? This purports to be a bill to prevent cyberbullying — which is hardly a crime wave in America anyway — but could easily be perverted to shut down “mean” bloggers.
This Congress has taken a strange and dangerous turn away from the principles of free speech and towards … something else entirely.
Update: Apparently, the Irish are also having trouble with this concept.
Update II: I think I was a little too subtle in my post. I don’t think Hastings is passing a “concentration camp” bill, but just a badly worded piece of pork. Irishspy in the comments sums it up better than I did above:
I read the original text of these bills a few days ago and, while I have strong concerns about the lack of due process in allowing the AG to simply designate someone a dangerous person just because of his beliefs or (IIRC) tattoos, Hastings’ amendment about the regional command centers looks more like a bunch of pork for areas affected by base closures than anything else.
That was my point. The language that Mark points out is pretty much legislative boilerplate, probably meaningless in the sense Mark takes it. I’m much more concerned about the cyberbullying bill and the authority Hastings wants to grant to the AG.
Update II: Radio Vice Online has been looking at the cyberbullying bill, too.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you, folks...
There's paranoid, and then there's reasonable reticence to get on board with such actions. This administration is giving us EVERY reason to be VERY reticent to get on board with any of their programs.
Think "re-education camps" can't happen here, folks? I'm sure the Jews in Poland and elsewhere thought so around the late '30s. I'm pretty sure the Japanese thought it couldn't happen -HERE- in the early '40s, too.
It HAS happened here, folks. If we're not damned careful, it WILL happen here again, too- do you want to give the Government Carte Blanche to do it?
I find it VERY interesting that the majority of groups that were bitching and moaning at every turn with the Bush administration, are damned quiet now.
What was the line they used all during their Bush Delusion years? "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism", while calling Bush a fascist, etc...
Now we have an administration that is rapidly moving towards Socialism and possibly even outright REAL Fascism, and they're quiet. Worse yet-- if you raise your voice against the actions of the administration you're called a racist, terrorist, et al.
I'm sorry-- I am no racist-- did not Martin Luther King himself say that he looked for a time when his children ".. would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".
I'm not judging Obama on the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. I find he has none, or at least none that shares anything in common with the American spirit.
Hattip to HotAir.com
Text of the article:
The lock-up-your-opponents bills of 2009?posted at 11:08 am on July 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly Would Congress ever pass legislation that would allow the executive to determine at its own discretion whether political opponents had crossed the line into domestic terrorists and build camps in which to keep them? Sounds like something out of 20th-century totalitarian systems or dystopian fiction. Mark Tapscott says it’s not fiction, and he warns readers about an effort by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) to do just that:
Rep. Alcee Hastings - the impeached Florida judge Nancy Pelosi tried to install as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee until her own party members rebelled - introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that gives Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to label groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states’ rights, or a host of other issues. In a June 25 speech on the House floor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-AZ, blasted the idea: “This sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as ‘extremists.’”
Another Hastings bill (HR 645) authorizes $360 million in 2009 and 2010 to set up “not fewer than six national emergency centers on military installations” capable of housing “a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster.” But Section 2 (b) 4 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to use the camps “to meet other appropriate needs” - none of which are specified. This is the kind of blank check that Congress should never, ever sign.
It’s not paranoid to be extremely wary of legislation that would give two unelected government officials power to legally declare someone a “domestic terrorist” and send them to a government-run camp.
To be fair on the second point, most legislation includes phrases similar to the “meet other appropriate needs” as a means of allowing flexibility in using facilities commissioned by Congress. Under unforeseen circumstances even apart from creating concentration camps for abortion opponents, the six national emergency centers might need to get some use other than housing military personnel or civilians evacuated from a disaster area. That language allows the Pentagon and Homeland Security leeway to adapt for other issues without having to worry that lawyers will descend upon them like locusts for not strictly limiting use to the statutes.
However, the designation of domestic terrorist groups — a necessary and critical process for keeping the peace — should not fall into the hands of just one person. That process needs oversight and consensus to be credible and fair. Congress should have some involvement, especially in oversight. Holder could be the greatest AG in the history of the US but still should not have the absolute authority to make that designation, especially after the track record of the DHS in using vague parameters and broad-based smears of legitimate political protest earlier this year.
Mark may also want to look at HR 1966, introduced by Rep. Linda Sanchez last April in reaction to the suburban mother who drove one of her daughter’s acquaintances — a 13-year-old girl — to suicide. Bas cases make bad law, and that’s doubly true here. Look at this language and imagine how this could be used:
Sec. 881. Cyberbullying
‘(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Who decides what constitutes “substantial emotional distress”? What is the definition of “severe” and “hostile”? What kinds of persons can claim victimhood under this bill? This purports to be a bill to prevent cyberbullying — which is hardly a crime wave in America anyway — but could easily be perverted to shut down “mean” bloggers.
This Congress has taken a strange and dangerous turn away from the principles of free speech and towards … something else entirely.
Update: Apparently, the Irish are also having trouble with this concept.
Update II: I think I was a little too subtle in my post. I don’t think Hastings is passing a “concentration camp” bill, but just a badly worded piece of pork. Irishspy in the comments sums it up better than I did above:
I read the original text of these bills a few days ago and, while I have strong concerns about the lack of due process in allowing the AG to simply designate someone a dangerous person just because of his beliefs or (IIRC) tattoos, Hastings’ amendment about the regional command centers looks more like a bunch of pork for areas affected by base closures than anything else.
That was my point. The language that Mark points out is pretty much legislative boilerplate, probably meaningless in the sense Mark takes it. I’m much more concerned about the cyberbullying bill and the authority Hastings wants to grant to the AG.
Update II: Radio Vice Online has been looking at the cyberbullying bill, too.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you, folks...
There's paranoid, and then there's reasonable reticence to get on board with such actions. This administration is giving us EVERY reason to be VERY reticent to get on board with any of their programs.
Think "re-education camps" can't happen here, folks? I'm sure the Jews in Poland and elsewhere thought so around the late '30s. I'm pretty sure the Japanese thought it couldn't happen -HERE- in the early '40s, too.
It HAS happened here, folks. If we're not damned careful, it WILL happen here again, too- do you want to give the Government Carte Blanche to do it?
I find it VERY interesting that the majority of groups that were bitching and moaning at every turn with the Bush administration, are damned quiet now.
What was the line they used all during their Bush Delusion years? "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism", while calling Bush a fascist, etc...
Now we have an administration that is rapidly moving towards Socialism and possibly even outright REAL Fascism, and they're quiet. Worse yet-- if you raise your voice against the actions of the administration you're called a racist, terrorist, et al.
I'm sorry-- I am no racist-- did not Martin Luther King himself say that he looked for a time when his children ".. would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".
I'm not judging Obama on the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. I find he has none, or at least none that shares anything in common with the American spirit.
06 July 2009
Someone explain this to me?
Link to Infantry patrolling what looks to be a US Town
Now I don't want to be alarmist-- but this smells funny.
If it is the US Residential neighborhood it seems to be (for a moment I thought it might be on post, but post doesn't have satellite TV antennas too often), will someone PLEASE shine some light on what is going on here?
I can see taking the troops out for a roadmarch in town- we did it in my old NG unit several times. We were even in full combat loadout, too-- except we didn't have weapons on us.
Really trying not to go all kneejerk here-- but this smells funny...
Now I don't want to be alarmist-- but this smells funny.
If it is the US Residential neighborhood it seems to be (for a moment I thought it might be on post, but post doesn't have satellite TV antennas too often), will someone PLEASE shine some light on what is going on here?
I can see taking the troops out for a roadmarch in town- we did it in my old NG unit several times. We were even in full combat loadout, too-- except we didn't have weapons on us.
Really trying not to go all kneejerk here-- but this smells funny...
24 June 2009
Spammed. By the White House. WTF?
from:President Barack Obama
reply-to: President Barack Obama
to: (REDACTED)
date: Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:51 PM
subject: Time to roll up your sleeves
mailed-by: service.govdelivery.com
Dear Friend,
Last week, I announced United We Serve – a nationwide call to service challenging you and all Americans to volunteer this summer and be part of building a new foundation for America.
And when I say “all,” I mean everyone – young and old, from every background, all across the country. We need individuals, community organizations, corporations, foundations, and our government to be part of this effort.
Today, for the official kick off of United We Serve, members of my administration have fanned out across America to participate in service events and encourage all Americans to join them.
The First Lady is rolling up her sleeves and getting to work too. But before she headed out today, she asked me to share this message with you.
Our nation faces some of the greatest challenges it has in generations and we know it’s going to take a lot of hard work to get us back on track.
While Michelle and I are calling on every American to participate in United We Serve, the call to service doesn’t end this fall. We need to stay involved in our towns and communities for a long time to come. After all, America’s new foundation will be built one neighborhood at a time – and that starts with you.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
Got that in my email inbox the other day.
On Gmail, no less- interesting, that- they by and large supported Obama in the election- makes one wonder how they got my email address, since I have NEVER emailed the Whte House, and especially not from that address.
Don't know about you, comrade, but it makes me want to go grab a shovel and get to work. (Note my SEVERELY dubious smirk)
Guaran-dam-tee if the Bush White House had done this, the Leftards would have been all over it. But we won't hear a peep from them-- it's their rock star, Barack Hussein.
EDIT to add: if I were to use my government email account to send an email supporting a candidate or his policies, I'd be in SEVERE trouble. How is it different when it's the POTUS? IT's not HIS network, and I goddamn sure as hell didn't ASK to receive his propaganda...
reply-to: President Barack Obama
to: (REDACTED)
date: Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:51 PM
subject: Time to roll up your sleeves
mailed-by: service.govdelivery.com
Dear Friend,
Last week, I announced United We Serve – a nationwide call to service challenging you and all Americans to volunteer this summer and be part of building a new foundation for America.
And when I say “all,” I mean everyone – young and old, from every background, all across the country. We need individuals, community organizations, corporations, foundations, and our government to be part of this effort.
Today, for the official kick off of United We Serve, members of my administration have fanned out across America to participate in service events and encourage all Americans to join them.
The First Lady is rolling up her sleeves and getting to work too. But before she headed out today, she asked me to share this message with you.
Our nation faces some of the greatest challenges it has in generations and we know it’s going to take a lot of hard work to get us back on track.
While Michelle and I are calling on every American to participate in United We Serve, the call to service doesn’t end this fall. We need to stay involved in our towns and communities for a long time to come. After all, America’s new foundation will be built one neighborhood at a time – and that starts with you.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
Got that in my email inbox the other day.
On Gmail, no less- interesting, that- they by and large supported Obama in the election- makes one wonder how they got my email address, since I have NEVER emailed the Whte House, and especially not from that address.
Don't know about you, comrade, but it makes me want to go grab a shovel and get to work. (Note my SEVERELY dubious smirk)
Guaran-dam-tee if the Bush White House had done this, the Leftards would have been all over it. But we won't hear a peep from them-- it's their rock star, Barack Hussein.
EDIT to add: if I were to use my government email account to send an email supporting a candidate or his policies, I'd be in SEVERE trouble. How is it different when it's the POTUS? IT's not HIS network, and I goddamn sure as hell didn't ASK to receive his propaganda...
23 October 2008
19 October 2008
Just lost all respect for Colin Powell
So Powell's done what there's been rumor of for months, and come out supporting Obama.
While I don't think it's "just because he's black", I do believe that it indicates that Powell's not showing the best judgement.
I hereby retract any and all indicators of support for Powell in my previous posts or comments (both personally and in the blogosphere), and am strongly considering retracting my opinion of him as "a good man".
REMARKABLY ill-advised, General. I'm glad you didn't this lack of judgement when I served under you. Sir.
While I don't think it's "just because he's black", I do believe that it indicates that Powell's not showing the best judgement.
I hereby retract any and all indicators of support for Powell in my previous posts or comments (both personally and in the blogosphere), and am strongly considering retracting my opinion of him as "a good man".
REMARKABLY ill-advised, General. I'm glad you didn't this lack of judgement when I served under you. Sir.
13 October 2008
12 October 2008
Thomas Paine talks Common Sense
Most important part of the video is at the end.
"Choose to be part of the Second American Revolution- not of bullets and of violence, but of Pressure! Pressure!Pressure! Call the Congressional Switchboard every day at 1-866-340-9281"
EDIT: perhaps the video is a bit dated. The 866 number didn't work for me. The verified number is 202-224-3121.
I'm not condoning a violent revolution by ANY means. I'd love to see a Voting Revolution- clear all the dead wood out of office and let them know if they don't respect the Constitution and the will of the people they WILL be replaced.
The stuff that's happening now is the sort of stuff that leads to violent revolution. It is my sincere wish that we can avoid that.
EDIT: not sure what that "Download video" crap is about.
25 September 2008
Once again, Harpo has knocked it out of the park.....
I don't want to sound like I'm doubting the man's abilities, but if he's writing this, he has missed his calling. He should be a writer or at the very least be regularly submitting Op-Eds to the papers, instead of working in what he's working in.
Well done, sir.
I don't want to sound like I'm doubting the man's abilities, but if he's writing this, he has missed his calling. He should be a writer or at the very least be regularly submitting Op-Eds to the papers, instead of working in what he's working in.
Well done, sir.
Came across this on a discussion thread I scanned through- interesting...
It's a plan to address the economic and fuel woes we're presently experiencing.
"Here the plan-
1)The government passes legislation to lift the bans on offshore drilling.
2)Pass legislation making ANWR immediately accessible for drilling.
3)Incorporate the ANWR drilling sites and Offshore drilling sites under one corporation. Make the corporation public. The government can buy a couple hundred billion dollars worth of shares. The value of the shares will increase rapidly as American oil will be replacing foreign oil.
4) The government can sell their shares gradually. This will result in the government making a substantial profit which can be pumped into the economy."
I'm sure no financial expert, but this is very intriguing to me. Why wouldn't it work? Of course the immediate reason is, #2 stands a snowball's chance in hell. But if it came to pass, why wouldn't the rest work?
"Here the plan-
1)The government passes legislation to lift the bans on offshore drilling.
2)Pass legislation making ANWR immediately accessible for drilling.
3)Incorporate the ANWR drilling sites and Offshore drilling sites under one corporation. Make the corporation public. The government can buy a couple hundred billion dollars worth of shares. The value of the shares will increase rapidly as American oil will be replacing foreign oil.
4) The government can sell their shares gradually. This will result in the government making a substantial profit which can be pumped into the economy."
I'm sure no financial expert, but this is very intriguing to me. Why wouldn't it work? Of course the immediate reason is, #2 stands a snowball's chance in hell. But if it came to pass, why wouldn't the rest work?
06 September 2008
Obama given access to state secrets...
What.The fuck.OVER?
First of all, I am amazed that someone who's admitted to cocaine use can even GET a security clearance, as I know someone who recently was pulled from a project after admitting recreational marijuana use, resulting in his inabilty to get a MUCH lower security clearance rating. Nevermind Obama's association with Anti-American persons and admitted terrorists.
The federal government provides a “Questionnaire for National Security Positions” to people eligible for a security clearance. There are several requests for information that Obama might find difficult to answer. They include “Other names used” by applicant, “Citizenship of your relatives and associates,” “Your foreign activities,” and “Your use of illegal drugs and drug activity.” I'd dearly love to see those answers.
Article that's prompted this post: http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2008/09/05/bush-gives-state-secrets-to-obama/
First of all, I am amazed that someone who's admitted to cocaine use can even GET a security clearance, as I know someone who recently was pulled from a project after admitting recreational marijuana use, resulting in his inabilty to get a MUCH lower security clearance rating. Nevermind Obama's association with Anti-American persons and admitted terrorists.
The federal government provides a “Questionnaire for National Security Positions” to people eligible for a security clearance. There are several requests for information that Obama might find difficult to answer. They include “Other names used” by applicant, “Citizenship of your relatives and associates,” “Your foreign activities,” and “Your use of illegal drugs and drug activity.” I'd dearly love to see those answers.
Article that's prompted this post: http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/2008/09/05/bush-gives-state-secrets-to-obama/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
