First, here in the US, Murkowski lost the primary, then went sucking up to the Alaska Libertarian Party to try to run on their ticket, was told no, and now says
“…After meeting with the Libertarian candidate last week and considering that option, I cannot in good conscience seek the Libertarian nomination,” she said. “As disappointed as I am in the outcome of the Primary and my belief that the Alaska Republican Party was hijacked by the Tea Party Express, an outside extremist group, I am not going to quit my party. I will not wrap myself in the flag of another political party for the sake of election at any cost.”
If you had any doubts what a untrustworthy bitch she is, this should set them at rest.
The second is this from Iran:
TEHRAN (M&G) President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran and Africa wanted a new world order to replace the existing one which has been created by “slave masters”, as he opened an Iran-Africa conference on Tuesday.
“The mutual feeling is that the world needs a new management system,” the Mehr news agency quoted him as saying in his speech at the start of the two-day forum in Tehran attended by dignitaries from several African countries.
Let's see, there's still open slavery going on in Sudan, the biggest slave-traders as I recall were Arabs, and you can find the most corrupt and bloody-handed regimes on earth at the moment in Africa... and they want a 'new order'.
I don't think we'd like their idea of a 'proper world order'.
Ok, one more, back in the US again:
Several residents of the small central Ohio town formed The Andover Tea Party in May 2010, and in that same month, they asked to use the square for a rally to commemorate Constitution Day, which celebrates the anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787.
But on July 19, a trustee informed one of the tea party organizers, Margaret Slingluff, that they would not be allowed to hold the event, which would have included singers performing patriotic songs and public policy-related speakers, in the square. In an official letter dated Aug. 25, the trustee said the reason was “due to your group’s political affiliation.”
Isn't that just wonderful? Here's the explanation:
Elaborating to CNSNews.com, Thompson explained that the trustees were citing a local resolution, Andover Township Resolution 06-104, that simply “prohibit[ed] any for-profit advertising or political signs on the Andover Square” and stated that “permission to use the square is made by the trustees on a case-by-case basis.
Based on that, Thompson said the problem was not so much that the group was conservative, but that the trustees believed celebrating the signing of the Constitution was a political event.
Just ENTIRELY unsuitable for the town square, y'know.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Prudential Financial Inc., it appears, needs a talking to
And the VA people who allowed this to get through should be fired. At least.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs failed to inform 6 million soldiers and their families of an agreement enabling Prudential Financial Inc. to withhold lump-sum payments of life insurance benefits for survivors of fallen service members, according to records made public through a Freedom of Information request.
Since 1999, Prudential has used so-called retained-asset accounts, which allow the company to withhold lump-sum payments due to survivors and earn investment income on the money for itself.
Hey, Prudential, I hope we manage to make EVERYBODY aware of what you're doing.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs failed to inform 6 million soldiers and their families of an agreement enabling Prudential Financial Inc. to withhold lump-sum payments of life insurance benefits for survivors of fallen service members, according to records made public through a Freedom of Information request.
Since 1999, Prudential has used so-called retained-asset accounts, which allow the company to withhold lump-sum payments due to survivors and earn investment income on the money for itself.
Hey, Prudential, I hope we manage to make EVERYBODY aware of what you're doing.
So the SPLyingC admits
there’s no data to support his contention that violence against Islamic adherents is on the rise, but claims it anyway...
And Sen. Reid, apparently still after the illegal alien vote, screws with a defense bill:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday he will add the DREAM Act, a controversial immigration measure, to a defense policy bill the Senate will take up next week.
The decision means the defense bill, which often passes with bipartisan support, will be home to two major, thorny political issues – the other being the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Well, it's possible the bastard doesn't want the bill to pass and so he decided to add this to it, but most likely he's sucking up to the IA lobby. You know, the lobby that helps people like this:
The man now suspected of killing a woman in Valley Village in North Hollywood has been deported twice and is in the US illegally.
Omar Loera, 34, was in federal immigration custody last March and -could- have been deported, according to local and federal law enforcement sources, but instead was released on to the streets.
Loera’s criminal record includes federal convictions for drug smuggling, according to court records reviewed by KFI NEWS.
And Sen. Reid, apparently still after the illegal alien vote, screws with a defense bill:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday he will add the DREAM Act, a controversial immigration measure, to a defense policy bill the Senate will take up next week.
The decision means the defense bill, which often passes with bipartisan support, will be home to two major, thorny political issues – the other being the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Well, it's possible the bastard doesn't want the bill to pass and so he decided to add this to it, but most likely he's sucking up to the IA lobby. You know, the lobby that helps people like this:
The man now suspected of killing a woman in Valley Village in North Hollywood has been deported twice and is in the US illegally.
Omar Loera, 34, was in federal immigration custody last March and -could- have been deported, according to local and federal law enforcement sources, but instead was released on to the streets.
Loera’s criminal record includes federal convictions for drug smuggling, according to court records reviewed by KFI NEWS.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
I should be noted that Jennifer has a poster to illustrate
her attitude toward celebritutes and general Hollywood weenies:
And has a post to further the point:
Say it, lady.
And has a post to further the point:
“The nation mourned,” Sarandon said. “I did feel a sense of responsibility, because I knew that people had a certain idea of how I was and who we were.”Mourned? Really? Because an entertainment service monkey* who is past her prime split with another entertainment service monkey? To be perfectly honest, I didn’t even realize the chick from Rocky Horror Picture Show and the guy from Shawshank Redemption were even together. And I don’t care.
For the record, Sarandon adds, “But on your deathbed, it’s not really going to matter how those people felt.”
Say it, lady.
The weather weenies keep changing the forecast to include
rain or a higher chance of such. Usually about the time it starts. And it sprinkled again this morning, so can't do some of the outside stuff until it dries a bit, if it does. So here I am, you lucky people. Considering, among other things, that daughter's houseguest was probably thinking "Dammit, it was DRY in there!" while it rained again.
Part of the upsetting about this is the statement “I should be honest. As president of the United States, there are times where I wish information didn’t flow so freely, because then I wouldn’t have to listen to people criticizing me all the time.”; but read the whole thing, seems to turn into another 'this is good for ME' bit from Obama.
Keith pointed to this a couple of days ago, just got around to it:
The Castro Regime announced it will fire at least half a million workers by the middle of next year. The murderous regime will also allow private enterprise.
This has got to be causing lots of leftists to cry in their Post Toasties.
The First Lady is trying to bully restaurants into serving what she and the bureaucrats want them to, instead of what customers want.
But it's OK, because St. Paddy's day is a nasty European-type event, right?
Plus, let's not forget today's big parade for Mexican Independence Day, featuring Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, in the same city that called off the St. Patrick's Day parade, supposedly due to a lack of funds. Right. We can afford to pay thousands to City Councilman Cardenas's sister and brother-in-law to take low rider cars to Mexico for an exhibition, but we can't afford a parade to justify a day of drinking here where we need it. That is totally blarney, man.
Catch you later, son just arrived.
Part of the upsetting about this is the statement “I should be honest. As president of the United States, there are times where I wish information didn’t flow so freely, because then I wouldn’t have to listen to people criticizing me all the time.”; but read the whole thing, seems to turn into another 'this is good for ME' bit from Obama.
Keith pointed to this a couple of days ago, just got around to it:
The Castro Regime announced it will fire at least half a million workers by the middle of next year. The murderous regime will also allow private enterprise.
Cuba says it will fire at least half a million state workers by mid-2011 and will free up private enterprise to help them find new work – radically remaking employment on the communist island.
The layoffs will start immediately and run through the first half of next year, according to an announcement Monday by the nearly 3 million-strong Cuban Workers Confederation – the only labor union the government tolerates.
This has got to be causing lots of leftists to cry in their Post Toasties.
The First Lady is trying to bully restaurants into serving what she and the bureaucrats want them to, instead of what customers want.
But it's OK, because St. Paddy's day is a nasty European-type event, right?
Plus, let's not forget today's big parade for Mexican Independence Day, featuring Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, in the same city that called off the St. Patrick's Day parade, supposedly due to a lack of funds. Right. We can afford to pay thousands to City Councilman Cardenas's sister and brother-in-law to take low rider cars to Mexico for an exhibition, but we can't afford a parade to justify a day of drinking here where we need it. That is totally blarney, man.
Catch you later, son just arrived.
Couple of things to start the day: first, the man investigating the CRU e-mails & mess
brings up a big problem:
Summary: This is a long post, but the bottom line is worth the time to read it. Under oath, in front of the House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology, Lord Oxburgh testified that it is impossible to reconstruct an accurate global temperature record over the past 1,000 years. Especially one that could claim modern climate is significantly different from that seen over the last 1000 years.
It's long, and it drives the stake further through the heart of AGW.
Second, well, it's hard to summarize this bit of history.
...For several thousand years the Jewish people have been celebrating the Rosh Hashanah Holiday, which starts tonight at sundown, by blowing the Shofar. At the conclusion of Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, the Shofar is blown one last time to signal the end of the fast. Several years ago Elder of Ziyon discovered that during the British mandate Jews were forbidden to blow the Shofar. The British reasoning should be familiar to anyone paying attention to our conflict with Islam today; Elder uses contemporary newspaper accounts to document a dynamic that continues:
Ah, now it becomes clear.
A Jew does something that is a religious requirement, that takes a couple of seconds, that disturbs nobody - and Arabs rioted in 1929.
Not just rioted, but they murdered 135 Jews, expelling Jews from communities (like Hebron) that they had lived in for centuries.
And the British blamed the Jews. Because one of the riots started in 1929 after a Jew blowed a Shofar at the Kotel.
In the bizarre logic of genteel anti-semitism, Jews must be punished for the murderous actions of Arabs. And the ironic flip-side of such an attitude is that Arabs are treated like savages who cannot be expected to control themselves.
(Christians have (re)learned that such a dynamic is not exclusive to Jewish-Muslim relations; Hindus have known this for a long time as well.)
...
This is a role that we have seen time and time again the Arabs take advantage of - they themselves have now brought up generations that believe that the Arab world has no responsibility for their actions. The gullible West, wracked with guilt over crimes of colonialism and liberal angst that favors the underdog no matter how deadly they are, do not hold them accountable for their actions.
So we have riots in 1929 that were the fault of a Jewish shofar blower, we have an intifada in 2001 that is the fault of a politician taking a walk on a Jewish holy site nearby, we have deadly demonstrations for the supposed desecration of a printed book.
And who can blame Arabs for acting this way? It has been shown to be a successful strategy! The Western fear of the mythical Arab street has fueled brain-dead decisions like the British made in the 1930s. Arabs daily threaten the West with the "power" of their people who can be whipped up into a frenzy with a single word from a sheikh. And the West slavishly decides, whoa, we cannot risk the wrath of a billion Arabs, we'd better force the Jews do make more concessions instead, because Jews are intelligent and can see reason, unlike the Arab savages whom we are scared of.
It is a winning formula. The 1921 riots, the 1929 riots, the 1936 strike and violence, the 1989 intifada, the 2001 intifada - all are cases where violence by Arabs are rewarded by the West rather than punished. And as long as terror and violence is rewarded and the victims perversely blamed, it is a formula that is guaranteed to be repeated far into the future.
And now we have everyone from the President to the general commanding in Afghanistan telling a guy in the US that he can't do something because it'll be so upsetting to muslims. Who, before he'd actually DONE anything, started rioting and burning US and Israeli flags(the Jewish state having not a damn thing to do with this, but they are Jews, after all) and the usual crap. Which does bring up another point:
One thing to say "Sir, the action you propose is crude and we don't think it's right"; another to say "You can't exercise your right to do something disturbing because the muslims will riot; we can't expect them to act like civilized human beings and respect free speech, so YOU have to not do or say what you wish."
And we have the Hamasque imam telling us "If I don't build the mosque/religious center THERE, muslims the world over will see it as an attack and(you knew it was coming) riot and attack the US and commit terrorist acts." Translation: Give us what we want or else, you foul unbelievers.
Someone put it nicely: the proper response to all those people in other countries would have beeen "This is not an act of the US government, it's an act by a private citizen which he has the right to do; stop threatening us for not bowing to your wishes, because we consider that 'freedom of speech' thing to be very important, and we're not giving it up, even when something said or done is offensive."
Summary: This is a long post, but the bottom line is worth the time to read it. Under oath, in front of the House of Commons Committee on Science and Technology, Lord Oxburgh testified that it is impossible to reconstruct an accurate global temperature record over the past 1,000 years. Especially one that could claim modern climate is significantly different from that seen over the last 1000 years.
It's long, and it drives the stake further through the heart of AGW.
Second, well, it's hard to summarize this bit of history.
...For several thousand years the Jewish people have been celebrating the Rosh Hashanah Holiday, which starts tonight at sundown, by blowing the Shofar. At the conclusion of Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, the Shofar is blown one last time to signal the end of the fast. Several years ago Elder of Ziyon discovered that during the British mandate Jews were forbidden to blow the Shofar. The British reasoning should be familiar to anyone paying attention to our conflict with Islam today; Elder uses contemporary newspaper accounts to document a dynamic that continues:
Ah, now it becomes clear.
A Jew does something that is a religious requirement, that takes a couple of seconds, that disturbs nobody - and Arabs rioted in 1929.
Not just rioted, but they murdered 135 Jews, expelling Jews from communities (like Hebron) that they had lived in for centuries.
And the British blamed the Jews. Because one of the riots started in 1929 after a Jew blowed a Shofar at the Kotel.
In the bizarre logic of genteel anti-semitism, Jews must be punished for the murderous actions of Arabs. And the ironic flip-side of such an attitude is that Arabs are treated like savages who cannot be expected to control themselves.
(Christians have (re)learned that such a dynamic is not exclusive to Jewish-Muslim relations; Hindus have known this for a long time as well.)
...
This is a role that we have seen time and time again the Arabs take advantage of - they themselves have now brought up generations that believe that the Arab world has no responsibility for their actions. The gullible West, wracked with guilt over crimes of colonialism and liberal angst that favors the underdog no matter how deadly they are, do not hold them accountable for their actions.
So we have riots in 1929 that were the fault of a Jewish shofar blower, we have an intifada in 2001 that is the fault of a politician taking a walk on a Jewish holy site nearby, we have deadly demonstrations for the supposed desecration of a printed book.
And who can blame Arabs for acting this way? It has been shown to be a successful strategy! The Western fear of the mythical Arab street has fueled brain-dead decisions like the British made in the 1930s. Arabs daily threaten the West with the "power" of their people who can be whipped up into a frenzy with a single word from a sheikh. And the West slavishly decides, whoa, we cannot risk the wrath of a billion Arabs, we'd better force the Jews do make more concessions instead, because Jews are intelligent and can see reason, unlike the Arab savages whom we are scared of.
It is a winning formula. The 1921 riots, the 1929 riots, the 1936 strike and violence, the 1989 intifada, the 2001 intifada - all are cases where violence by Arabs are rewarded by the West rather than punished. And as long as terror and violence is rewarded and the victims perversely blamed, it is a formula that is guaranteed to be repeated far into the future.
And now we have everyone from the President to the general commanding in Afghanistan telling a guy in the US that he can't do something because it'll be so upsetting to muslims. Who, before he'd actually DONE anything, started rioting and burning US and Israeli flags(the Jewish state having not a damn thing to do with this, but they are Jews, after all) and the usual crap. Which does bring up another point:
One thing to say "Sir, the action you propose is crude and we don't think it's right"; another to say "You can't exercise your right to do something disturbing because the muslims will riot; we can't expect them to act like civilized human beings and respect free speech, so YOU have to not do or say what you wish."And we have the Hamasque imam telling us "If I don't build the mosque/religious center THERE, muslims the world over will see it as an attack and(you knew it was coming) riot and attack the US and commit terrorist acts." Translation: Give us what we want or else, you foul unbelievers.
Someone put it nicely: the proper response to all those people in other countries would have beeen "This is not an act of the US government, it's an act by a private citizen which he has the right to do; stop threatening us for not bowing to your wishes, because we consider that 'freedom of speech' thing to be very important, and we're not giving it up, even when something said or done is offensive."
Monday, September 13, 2010
Why I despise what unions have become
Peggy Mashke tends to 12 children for 12 hours a day at her home, so she was surprised to get a letter welcoming her to the United Auto Workers union.
“I thought it was a joke,” said Mashke, 50, of northern Michigan’s Ogemaw County. “I work out of my home. I’m not an auto worker. How can I become a member of the UAW? I didn’t get it.”
Willing or not, Mashke and 40,000 other at-home providers are members of a labor partnership that represents people across Michigan who watch children from low-income families. Two unions receive 1.15 percent of the state subsidies granted to those providers, or more than $1 million a year.
...
A fear that the “stealth unionization” of home-based day care workers could just be the start of a bigger effort was acknowledged in court on Tuesday by a union lawyer.
Patrick Wright, senior legal counsel for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, had said months ago that doctors that accept Medicaid, grocers that take food stamps and landlords that take housing assistance could be the next groups targeted in state efforts to unionize anyone who gets state subsidies.
"We don't care if you want to be in the union, we want your money and we'll take it."
“I thought it was a joke,” said Mashke, 50, of northern Michigan’s Ogemaw County. “I work out of my home. I’m not an auto worker. How can I become a member of the UAW? I didn’t get it.”
Willing or not, Mashke and 40,000 other at-home providers are members of a labor partnership that represents people across Michigan who watch children from low-income families. Two unions receive 1.15 percent of the state subsidies granted to those providers, or more than $1 million a year.
...
A fear that the “stealth unionization” of home-based day care workers could just be the start of a bigger effort was acknowledged in court on Tuesday by a union lawyer.
Patrick Wright, senior legal counsel for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, had said months ago that doctors that accept Medicaid, grocers that take food stamps and landlords that take housing assistance could be the next groups targeted in state efforts to unionize anyone who gets state subsidies.
"We don't care if you want to be in the union, we want your money and we'll take it."
Now THIS is interesting:
Just obtained this letter from Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine to members of Congress informing them that he will open up a review of the Obama administration’s selective enforcement of civil rights laws by the Voting Section office of DOJ.
Big news. Good news. Fine is a veteran IG whose meticulous work I cited in-depth in Invasion. You know how the Obama bully boys have treated IGs. Prayers for Fine would be most appropriate.
Yeah, they probably would; you know a bunch of people in DC and connected to Holder & Co. just about crapped kittens when they heard this.
Big news. Good news. Fine is a veteran IG whose meticulous work I cited in-depth in Invasion. You know how the Obama bully boys have treated IGs. Prayers for Fine would be most appropriate.
Yeah, they probably would; you know a bunch of people in DC and connected to Holder & Co. just about crapped kittens when they heard this.
What? A reporter gets it wrong on militias?
Whoda thunk it?
I'm going to quote a chunk of the post on the difference between a State Guard and a militia:
These are not — as you might think from reading the article — renegade “militias” organized by anyone who might want to. They are Congressionally authorized military forces, supposed to be there for use within a state if the National Guard is overwhelmed or unavailable because of foreign deployment, etc. Unfortunately, this discussion gets all mangled in the article and the distinction isn’t clear at all. So, here’s a nutshell summary:
We have the armed forces of the United States. Those include the National Guard, which — though occasionally called “the militia” — is really troops under federal control, as made clear in Perpich v. DoD, which held that National Guard units may be sent abroad over the objection of their governor. (Technically, National Guard members are enrolled in both their State’s National Guard, and the National Guard of the United States, but the latter trumps in the event of a dispute).
The State Defense Forces are troops raised by states with the consent of Congress. They’re not militias, either, but they have no dual Federal role, and can’t be “federalized” as the National Guard can.
We also have, again as recognized by both federal and state statutes, an “unorganized militia” of the states, and of the United States. This includes most male adults and — in some states — females, too.
Some folks in what remains of the “militia movement” favor the establishment or expansion of State Defense Forces in their home states. They may want to join them, too. Nonetheless, those Forces aren’t militias, any more than the membership of “militia movement” folks in police forces makes the police a militia.
He also notes that the Southern PovertyLyingLaw Center is at it again, stirring up crap about militias. Back during the weekend Insty pointed to an article I'd forgotten, from 1996, on the subject of SPLC hysteria-stirring on the subject.
I'm going to quote a chunk of the post on the difference between a State Guard and a militia:
These are not — as you might think from reading the article — renegade “militias” organized by anyone who might want to. They are Congressionally authorized military forces, supposed to be there for use within a state if the National Guard is overwhelmed or unavailable because of foreign deployment, etc. Unfortunately, this discussion gets all mangled in the article and the distinction isn’t clear at all. So, here’s a nutshell summary:
We have the armed forces of the United States. Those include the National Guard, which — though occasionally called “the militia” — is really troops under federal control, as made clear in Perpich v. DoD, which held that National Guard units may be sent abroad over the objection of their governor. (Technically, National Guard members are enrolled in both their State’s National Guard, and the National Guard of the United States, but the latter trumps in the event of a dispute).
The State Defense Forces are troops raised by states with the consent of Congress. They’re not militias, either, but they have no dual Federal role, and can’t be “federalized” as the National Guard can.
We also have, again as recognized by both federal and state statutes, an “unorganized militia” of the states, and of the United States. This includes most male adults and — in some states — females, too.
Some folks in what remains of the “militia movement” favor the establishment or expansion of State Defense Forces in their home states. They may want to join them, too. Nonetheless, those Forces aren’t militias, any more than the membership of “militia movement” folks in police forces makes the police a militia.
He also notes that the Southern Poverty
Sunday, September 12, 2010
I know people who'd crap bricks at the sight of daughter's house guest
Self-invited, I might add; "I opened the door to take some things out and it walked in as if I'd been expecting it"
It's spaced a ways down; if you're bothered by eight-legged critters, do NOT click to embiggen:
All those little bumps on it's back? Full-size picture shows those are the younguns, being carried around until ready to strike out on their own.
The visitor has been returned to the outdoors where she- they- belong.
It's spaced a ways down; if you're bothered by eight-legged critters, do NOT click to embiggen:
All those little bumps on it's back? Full-size picture shows those are the younguns, being carried around until ready to strike out on their own.The visitor has been returned to the outdoors where she- they- belong.
A different style of language, but just as good at it as Tam
That is exceptional fuckwittery. That’s making an exhibition arsehole of yourself. And there is a reasonable chance the only thing found would be an arsehole that would have to be DNA tested because holding a fucking hand grenade to your head to hear if it was ticking (after fucking with it) would mean dental records would be of limited use because that bastard would scatter your teeth over three counties.
Dear mother of all the sweetest fuck!
And that is why he is twat of the month. Because that is the most twatulent thing I have heard of in donks.
Dear mother of all the sweetest fuck!
And that is why he is twat of the month. Because that is the most twatulent thing I have heard of in donks.
Have I ever mentioned how I despise RWPP dirtbags like David Dinkins?
Mayor David Dinkins encouraged voters to embrace a state Senate candidate because he looks "more like us."
"It's important, it is so very important, particularly for the people of this district who vote on Tuesday to recognize how important it is to understand that the city is changing," Dinkins said in his endorsement of state Senate candidate Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat on Thursday.
"Most people in the city are going to look more like us than others and that's just a fact," Dinkins said.
A: Standard Note: If a Republican or tea party member said something like this people like Dinkins would be screaming "RACISM!!!", etc.
B: That's FORMER mayor, you idiots.
"It's important, it is so very important, particularly for the people of this district who vote on Tuesday to recognize how important it is to understand that the city is changing," Dinkins said in his endorsement of state Senate candidate Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat on Thursday.
"Most people in the city are going to look more like us than others and that's just a fact," Dinkins said.
A: Standard Note: If a Republican or tea party member said something like this people like Dinkins would be screaming "RACISM!!!", etc.
B: That's FORMER mayor, you idiots.
You trust the Holder DOJ to fairly uphold the law?
Why?
It is 2008 all over again. Today the Department of Justice effectively rewrote the 2009 MOVE Act designed to protect military voters. In a settlement reached with the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, the Holder Justice Department allowed Wisconsin to mail ballots to overseas military voters only 32 days before the election, instead of the statutorily mandated 45 days. Once again, it is no accident this embarrassing settlement is being released on a Friday, so fewer might notice.
The Pentagon had denied Wisconsin’s application for a waiver from the 45-day requirement: “The states granted waivers presented thorough and comprehensive plans to protect the voting opportunities for military and overseas voters,” Bob Carey, director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program, said in a statement. Wisconsin’s waiver application didn’t even come close to compliance with the MOVE Act. They wanted to send ballots only 29 days before the election. The folks at the Pentagon rightfully denied the waiver request. The victory for military voters was short-lived.
Holder needs to knock off his 'race coward' bullshit and worry about enforcing the law- ALL of it- fairly and correctly, instead of using his position for political games.
It is 2008 all over again. Today the Department of Justice effectively rewrote the 2009 MOVE Act designed to protect military voters. In a settlement reached with the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, the Holder Justice Department allowed Wisconsin to mail ballots to overseas military voters only 32 days before the election, instead of the statutorily mandated 45 days. Once again, it is no accident this embarrassing settlement is being released on a Friday, so fewer might notice.
The Pentagon had denied Wisconsin’s application for a waiver from the 45-day requirement: “The states granted waivers presented thorough and comprehensive plans to protect the voting opportunities for military and overseas voters,” Bob Carey, director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program, said in a statement. Wisconsin’s waiver application didn’t even come close to compliance with the MOVE Act. They wanted to send ballots only 29 days before the election. The folks at the Pentagon rightfully denied the waiver request. The victory for military voters was short-lived.
Holder needs to knock off his 'race coward' bullshit and worry about enforcing the law- ALL of it- fairly and correctly, instead of using his position for political games.
Hehehehe
President Obama and Nancy Pelosi must be Republican Secret Agents, no one in the history of the United States have destroyed the Democratic Party fast then these action Heros. Even Jefferson Davis lasted longer!!!
I wondered when it started why the freakin' insanity
of the left against Sarah Palin; this might indeed explain some of it.
No, the best explanation for the left’s bizarre Palin obsession is status-anxiety. Status-anxiety occurs when a person believes that their position in a real or imagined social hierarchy is threatened. Leftists react emotionally to Palin because of the threat she poses to their own individual sense of status. All their other arguments are just put forth to rationalize that emotional reaction.
In short, it is not the ideas she puts forth, its that someone like her is significant at all.
I'll add what's been said before: she energized a LOT of people, a lot of the left considered that a big threat and tried to destroy her and her family for it. People who demanded THEIR politicians families be off-limits went after hers with a truly disgusting venom, and then defended their doing it, which is probably connected to Love's idea.
The President got started on his serious word games over Obamacare the other day, and that feeds into the suppression of speech and threats of his minion Sebelius(which really ought to be investigated; a Presidential bigshot threatens people for saying something she doesn't like? Bullshit).
By the way, Obama should take not that even Friends of Hugo are getting sick of his crap.
Well, this is fun; about an hour ago I checked the weather, it being all overcast, and it showed 'becoming sunny', etc. I looked out a few minutes ago and saw some really dark clouds to the west and checked again; it's now become 80% chance of thunderstorms and it's raining. Just can't slip anything past the weatherman, can you?
The dirtbag Moore has weighed in on the Hamasque, about the way you'd expect. As to his 'the haters have stolen your religion' crap...
I need to close some windows. And might as well start thinking about lunch.
No, the best explanation for the left’s bizarre Palin obsession is status-anxiety. Status-anxiety occurs when a person believes that their position in a real or imagined social hierarchy is threatened. Leftists react emotionally to Palin because of the threat she poses to their own individual sense of status. All their other arguments are just put forth to rationalize that emotional reaction.
In short, it is not the ideas she puts forth, its that someone like her is significant at all.
I'll add what's been said before: she energized a LOT of people, a lot of the left considered that a big threat and tried to destroy her and her family for it. People who demanded THEIR politicians families be off-limits went after hers with a truly disgusting venom, and then defended their doing it, which is probably connected to Love's idea.
The President got started on his serious word games over Obamacare the other day, and that feeds into the suppression of speech and threats of his minion Sebelius(which really ought to be investigated; a Presidential bigshot threatens people for saying something she doesn't like? Bullshit).
By the way, Obama should take not that even Friends of Hugo are getting sick of his crap.
Well, this is fun; about an hour ago I checked the weather, it being all overcast, and it showed 'becoming sunny', etc. I looked out a few minutes ago and saw some really dark clouds to the west and checked again; it's now become 80% chance of thunderstorms and it's raining. Just can't slip anything past the weatherman, can you?
The dirtbag Moore has weighed in on the Hamasque, about the way you'd expect. As to his 'the haters have stolen your religion' crap...
I need to close some windows. And might as well start thinking about lunch.
A bit of history on the Vulcan
since it's with a new owner. Back then I'd had a Honda Rebel 250 for several years*, and decided I wanted a bigger bike. Both for general size reasons and because I wanted a bike I could take trips on. So looked around and found the Vulcan at a local dealer. It was a '93 with 3,000 miles; it was '96. I tried it out, did some arguing on price and bought it.
Never regretted it. It took me around town, to work, to the store and library and the occasional trips out of town with no problems. Up until this recent trouble, I'd had exactly one mechanical problem(I don't count things like fork seals and battery and such, those fall under maintenance) with it: Kawasaki decided to stick a switch on their bikes that, if you're riding and the low beam burns out automatically switches to high; problem was that after I replaced the lamp the damn thing wouldn't let you to back to low, so had to fix that. PITA set-up because it's apparently asking too much that people throw the switch themselves.
Besides reliability, the thing had size going for it: it was big and stable enough for highway but not so big it was hard to use in town, easy to park and so forth. If Kawasaki still made it, I'd have been sorely tempted to get another and switch the seat and such over, it was that good a bike. Unfortunately, they now go from the 500 to the 900; the 500 not quite what I want, the 900 definitely not(I don't like the handlebars, uncomfortable angle for the hands).
A digression: who the hell designs bikes the last couple of years? Seems like their idea of 'cruiser' tends to be "Let's make it big and bulky-looking and heavy, and people will LOVE them!"
Second digression: who the hell designs the seats? They're asking you to pay thousands for their product, and all too often the seat is an afterthought you have to replace. That was the one thing on the Vulcan I HAD to replace, as whoever designed it didn't like the customers; it sucked around town and was flat awful on trips. The Mustang I put on was worth every penny.
Overall, it was a fine bike that did the job of getting me around, you could ease it through traffic and it would lope down the highway at 75 or 80 without strain.
*I'd wanted/desired a bike again back in the 'married with little kids and no money' days, and wife talked me into buying it; found it used at a local dealer. It worked wonderfully; do the maintenance and it ran and ran and ran; to work, to the store, all around town. If you know someone who wants to start riding, especially if they're physically smaller, tell them to try one.
Never regretted it. It took me around town, to work, to the store and library and the occasional trips out of town with no problems. Up until this recent trouble, I'd had exactly one mechanical problem(I don't count things like fork seals and battery and such, those fall under maintenance) with it: Kawasaki decided to stick a switch on their bikes that, if you're riding and the low beam burns out automatically switches to high; problem was that after I replaced the lamp the damn thing wouldn't let you to back to low, so had to fix that. PITA set-up because it's apparently asking too much that people throw the switch themselves.
Besides reliability, the thing had size going for it: it was big and stable enough for highway but not so big it was hard to use in town, easy to park and so forth. If Kawasaki still made it, I'd have been sorely tempted to get another and switch the seat and such over, it was that good a bike. Unfortunately, they now go from the 500 to the 900; the 500 not quite what I want, the 900 definitely not(I don't like the handlebars, uncomfortable angle for the hands).
A digression: who the hell designs bikes the last couple of years? Seems like their idea of 'cruiser' tends to be "Let's make it big and bulky-looking and heavy, and people will LOVE them!"
Second digression: who the hell designs the seats? They're asking you to pay thousands for their product, and all too often the seat is an afterthought you have to replace. That was the one thing on the Vulcan I HAD to replace, as whoever designed it didn't like the customers; it sucked around town and was flat awful on trips. The Mustang I put on was worth every penny.
Overall, it was a fine bike that did the job of getting me around, you could ease it through traffic and it would lope down the highway at 75 or 80 without strain.
*I'd wanted/desired a bike again back in the 'married with little kids and no money' days, and wife talked me into buying it; found it used at a local dealer. It worked wonderfully; do the maintenance and it ran and ran and ran; to work, to the store, all around town. If you know someone who wants to start riding, especially if they're physically smaller, tell them to try one.
A Muslim- who builds mosques, yet- has some questions
for the Hamasque imam:
I must ask Imam Rauf: For what do you stand--what's best for Americans overall, or for what you think is best for Islam? What have you said and argued to Muslim-majority nations to address their need for reform? You have said that Islam does not need reform, despite the stoning of women in Muslim countries, death sentences for apostates, and oppression of reformist Muslims and non-Muslims.
...
You now lecture Americans that WTC mosque protests are "politically motivated" and "go against the American principle of church and state." Yet you ignore the wide global prevalence of far more dangerous theo-political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and all of its violent and nonviolent offshoots.
In your book, "What's Right With Islam," you cite the Brotherhood's radical longtime spiritual leader Imam Yusuf Qaradawi as a "moderate." Reformist American Muslims are not afraid to name Mr. Qaradawi and his ilk as radical. We Muslims should first separate mosque and state before lecturing Americans about church and state.
I must ask Imam Rauf: For what do you stand--what's best for Americans overall, or for what you think is best for Islam? What have you said and argued to Muslim-majority nations to address their need for reform? You have said that Islam does not need reform, despite the stoning of women in Muslim countries, death sentences for apostates, and oppression of reformist Muslims and non-Muslims.
...
You now lecture Americans that WTC mosque protests are "politically motivated" and "go against the American principle of church and state." Yet you ignore the wide global prevalence of far more dangerous theo-political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and all of its violent and nonviolent offshoots.
In your book, "What's Right With Islam," you cite the Brotherhood's radical longtime spiritual leader Imam Yusuf Qaradawi as a "moderate." Reformist American Muslims are not afraid to name Mr. Qaradawi and his ilk as radical. We Muslims should first separate mosque and state before lecturing Americans about church and state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)